ilovefuzz.com

I think Deluge was just having a friendly little satirical jab there BC.

I still think there is a lot of sensationalism involved in this NDAA thing.

Everyone on the internetz is all like "ZOMG THEY ARE GONNA LOCK US ALL UP",....and what I'm gathering is that this administration isn't gonna do anything about Gitmo even though Obama said he would as he was campaigning. The fact that he said he was going to veto,...then didn't,...is kinda spineless,...but I'm sure there was some maneuvering in order to extend the payroll tax break.

Are there expanded military powers in terms of a judicial capacity included in that bill? I think so,...but I also don't see the suspension of Habeas Corpus for American citizens.

warwick.hoy wrote:I think Deluge was just having a friendly little satirical jab there BC.

I still think there is a lot of sensationalism involved in this NDAA thing.

Everyone on the internetz is all like "ZOMG THEY ARE GONNA LOCK US ALL UP",....and what I'm gathering is that this administration isn't gonna do anything about Gitmo even though Obama said he would as he was campaigning. The fact that he said he was going to veto,...then didn't,...is kinda spineless,...but I'm sure there was some maneuvering in order to extend the payroll tax break.

Are there expanded military powers in terms of a judicial capacity included in that bill? I think so,...but I also don't see the suspension of Habeas Corpus for American citizens.

Right, but one friendly little satirical jab will beget more, and then a response, and then a response to that, etc. etc. etc. Like I said, I'd just rather go on liking everyone here.

As for the NDAA, it's not that it actually expands the power of the president to detain people, but what it DOES do is put down in legislation something that the president has only CLAIMED the power to do in the past. So it just codifies that the legislative branch has no problem with it.

As for whether it means the executive branch will start detaining everyone, that's not really the point. They now have a legislatively passed statute saying that they CAN. And if the past has any bearing on the future, the state will take anything it CAN do and eventually WILL do it. And it certainly won't give it up. Once we say they CAN do something, we've already ceded the freedom. Because at this point, we're now just depending on the prudence and judgment of the president, on his discretion to not do this awful thing that no one thinks he would really do. And there's no way to challenge it in a court of law. We're expected to just trust him. And not just him, but every president after him.

The thing that scares me most is the convoluted definition of terrorist. I'm sure if the military or the establishment viewed anyone as a threat (IE peaceful protesters/Occupiers/99%ers/Anons/whatever) they would have no problem defining them as terrorists and making them disappear even if they are lawful citizens.

That seems to be worst case scenario and also seems to shit all over the constitution as it applies to American Citizens, but I will gladly admit that this is my perception as based on limited research and knowledge of the bill (as well as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights).

warwick.hoy wrote:The thing that scares me most is the convoluted definition of terrorist. I'm sure if the military or the establishment viewed anyone as a threat (IE peaceful protesters/Occupiers/99%ers/Anons/whatever) they would have no problem defining them as terrorists and making them disappear even if they are lawful citizens.

That seems to be worst case scenario and also seems to shit all over the constitution as it applies to American Citizens, but I will gladly admit that this is my perception as based on limited research and knowledge of the bill (as well as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights).

Seems like the founding in a nutshell to me and I'm a poli sci major.

That's why we have judicial branch, to keep laws in check. Of course, that whole thing kind of rests upon some sort of habeas corpus/process of appeals system, so .

The constitution is overrated.

I much prefer the Magna Carta. Vintage mojo toanz for centuries.

the nature of the state is to accrete power, whatever the ideology controlling the state; when a relatively rightist regime takes power in the US, they don't really roll back the leftist state's encroachment on individual or economic liberties, and leftist states are more than happy to take equal advantage of the right's self-manufactured loopholes. power is power, and power is the currency of the nation-state.

Yeah nobody wants to go after the last person in power because then they'll get the same treatment when they're out

D.o.S. wrote:The constitution is overrated.

I much prefer the Magna Carta. Vintage mojo toanz for centuries.

I lol'd

dubkitty wrote:the nature of the state is to accrete power, whatever the ideology controlling the state; when a relatively rightist regime takes power in the US, they don't really roll back the leftist state's encroachment on individual or economic liberties, and leftist states are more than happy to take equal advantage of the right's self-manufactured loopholes. power is power, and power is the currency of the nation-state.

I agree. we fucked, from all ends, from all sides, for evermore, in all times, in all places, we fucked, the end
So what we all really do is pick who we would rather have shove a large nail encrusted dildo up our ass to have it slowly turned this way and that...

Hail Rise of the machine...

well intill they see us a a problem...

Radical centrist positivity ftw!

[corny song]Workin' together to make things right-iiii-ite.[/corny song]

snipelfritz wrote:Radical centrist

I agree with this way of thought... but I also am 50/50 on the let the computers take over and see what happens.

well, that's why i'm generally anti-statist...i'm in favor of trying to get the State out of as much stuff that regular people can do for themselves as possible. tell them to keep that dildo to themselves.