Martial Law will soon be approved

[JustinW]

Yes, in the big picture it is what matters. But the reason the bill was presented in the first place was overlooked and misrepresented. Although I don't agree with the possibility of this law being missused by a wrongfull interpretation of the wording. I also don't agree with the misrepresentation of meaning and intent that was demonstrated in this thread. For those to say that this law will be used in such a way, to me, is definitely arguable. Denying free speach was never the intent of the law and was the main topic of concern in this thread in which I was arguing against.

[Phi for All]

Yes, in the big picture it is what matters. But the reason the bill was presented in the first place was overlooked and misrepresented. Although I don't agree with the possibility of this law being missused by a wrongfull interpretation of the wording. I also don't agree with the misrepresentation of meaning and intent that was demonstrated in this thread. For those to say that this law will be used in such a way, to me, is definitely arguable. Denying free speach was never the intent of the law and was the main topic of concern in this thread in which I was arguing against.

This is part of why you aren't attaching significance to the arguments iNow and I have been making. You're looking at this as repressing the free speech right of protestors, but those who would use this law's broad, vague, dangerous definitions would do so because these protestors want them held accountable for their misdeeds. These protestors represent a movement which may cost big businesses billions of dollars and change the way they're allowed to operate. These protestors represent the threat of prison time for some very powerful Wall Street operators. There is no free speech concern for them here.

 

Many of these people see their corporations as people to be defended under the Constitution, by politicians who've been promised nice jobs with these corporations when they leave office, and these protestors represent a threat to those corporations. The justification for using this law is evident, the motivation clear, the potential is present. If the law allows these powerful men to do something so shocking and WRONG that you consider its actual use "highly unlikely", shouldn't the law be changed?

[JustinW]

Maybe reworded so that it cannot hamper free speach or get in the way of providing justice for misdeeds. (if we are under the assumption that that is why it was passed in the first place)

 

The justification for using this law is evident, the motivation clear, the potential is present.

Okay, we've agreed the potential is present. Why isn't it right to assume that the motivation and justification for this law isn't as stated? It was clearly stated that this law was meant for those that have been found to be connected with Alquaeda, the Taliban, and the like. Why do you feel that this isn't the case? And that it has something to do directly with protesters against wall street? I know you said that congressmen are in bed with big business, but the fact remains that you would have to come across a direct connection with those businesses and the lawmakers that had dealings with presenting, promoting, and the passing of this law.

[kitkat]

Because after 9/11 laws were passed immediately to address the issue of terroist on U.S. soil so it does not make sense to pass the Defense Authorization Act 2012 when the first one cover it.

[iNow]

Because after 9/11 laws were passed immediately to address the issue of terroist on U.S. soil so it does not make sense to pass the Defense Authorization Act 2012 when the first one cover it.

The National Defense Authorization Act is about specifying the budget and expenditures of the military, has been passed for the past 49 years, and does need to be passed again. The challenge is the language which was inserted this year allowing any US citizen who is arbitrarily labeled a terrorist to be locked up without trial.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act

 

 

 

And here:

 

Section 1021 and 1022 have been called a violation of constitutional principles and of the Bill of Rights. Internationally, the UK-based newspaper The Guardian has described the legislation as allowing indefinite detention "without trial [of] American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay;" Al Jazeera has written that the Act "gives the US military the option to detain US citizens suspected of participating or aiding in terrorist activities without a trial, indefinitely." The official Russian international radio broadcasting service Voice of Russia has compared the Act to legislation passed by the Third Reich; the Act has been opposed by the ACLU and Human Rights Watch, and received criticism from The New York Times, and other news organizations.

 

On December 31 and after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 into law, President Obama issued a statement on it that addressed "certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of terrorism suspects." In the statement Obama maintains that "the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. [...] My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law. [...] As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa'ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention."

 

The American Civil Liberties Union has responded that despite claims by the Obama Administration to the contrary, "The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision... [without] temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield." The ACLU furthermore commented that "While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had 'serious reservations' about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use the authorities granted by the NDAA," and maintains that "the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.

 

Also, despite Obama's promise that his administration won't use it in this manner... He won't be president forever, yet these powers will still be available to future administrations.

 

... Unless we stand together to have it revoked/repealed.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012#Controversy_Over_Indefinite_Detention

[CaptainPanic]

So what I mean is that by the arguments heard here it's not just congress working towards this goal. It's every cop, government agency, big business, those throughout America that support it, along with congress, all working together to shut down the free speech of Americans? Sorry if this sounds like a conspriacy theory but it's got the earmarks for one.

Yep. You are right, except that it's not a conspiracy, it's how a country works.

 

Lawmakers make a law.

The police uphold the law.

Judges proscecute those who break the law.

Companies optimize profits within the law.

Lobbyists try to influence the law.

And you get to vote about who makes the law.

 

It's a big machine, and it continuously changes the laws. And there are millions of people working in it.

 

But why do you keep calling this a conspiracy, just because we think some lawmakers are screwing it up really badly?

 

If some people in Washington screw up, this happens:

 

Lawmakers make a bad law.

The police uphold the bad law.

Judges proscecute those who break the bad law.

Companies optimize profits within the bad law.

And lobbyists still try to influence the law.

And you still get to vote about who makes the law.

 

That's not a conspiracy. That's just how it works.

 

So do your democratic duty, and vote for someone who makes sense.

[JustinW]

But why do you keep calling this a conspiracy, just because we think some lawmakers are screwing it up really badly?

 

Because in the scenarios that were layed out, you had all of these people working together to stifle the assembly and free speach of those protesting wall street. I found that to be misleading and speculative at best. Like a conspiracy theory you hear about on one of those mystery shows.

 

The wording is bad and gives the potential to use this law in the wrong way. But the intent of the law was either misrepresented or purposely overlooked here. I know how a government works, but you would have to have all of these people in bed together with the common goal of smothering the people's right to free speach and assembly. I don't think that's the case and without some possitive connection to the contrary that is where I'm at on it so far. It will have to be more than made up scenarios that get me to assume the intent of the law is more than what was origionally stated.

Edited January 6, 2012 by JustinW

[CaptainPanic]

Because in the scenarios that were layed out, you had all of these people working together to stifle the assembly and free speach of those protesting wall street. I found that to be misleading and speculative at best. Like a conspiracy theory you hear about on one of those mystery shows.

But it is true. They ARE all working together to stifle the assembly and free speech of those protesting wall street. That's the whole problem, and the topic of this thread!

Except that it's not a conspiracy. It's how your government works.

 

All Americans together elected the people that made these laws.

[kitkat]

Would the outcome be different today if we had elected the other candidate?

[Phi for All]

Because in the scenarios that were layed out, you had all of these people working together to stifle the assembly and free speach of those protesting wall street. I found that to be misleading and speculative at best. Like a conspiracy theory you hear about on one of those mystery shows.

As CaptainPanic points out, the people who are working together to exploit this law (or others) don't necessarily have to have villainous intent. They may be carrying out directives that seem to have extremely justifiable motivation to them.

 

In the example I used a few posts ago, about the invention of a cheap, portable electrical generator, there will be people who genuinely think that such an invention should be stifled because of the impact it would have on current markets, while others feel it would be the greatest thing ever to happen to mankind, at a time when we need it most. Current laws allow the government to seize such an invention, force the inventor not to speak about it, and jail him for treason under John Doe proceedings if he even looks like he's going to. The law currently sides with stifling innovation at the cost of basic rights.

 

I know some policemen who think it's stupid to throw people in jail for smoking pot, but it's the law and it's their job to do so. If I think that law is stupid and speak out against it, are you going to tell me I'm a conspiracy nut just because I think that the law is still on the books because banning hemp and hemp products benefits certain business sectors and jailing so many people for it benefits private prisons who want docile, tractable inmates? Isn't it more of a case where lots of people are independently taking unfair advantage of existing loopholes in the law to further their businesses rather than some interwoven conspiracy?

 

And how do we correct such problems? Isn't the easiest, best way, the way to work within the system, to simply protest such laws to bring them to the public's attention so we might vote in representatives who will change those laws?

 

Would the outcome be different today if we had elected the other candidate?

There were more than two candidates. The problem is not with the Republican or Democrat parties, it lies with our winner-take-all voting system. We need a system where votes for candidates outside the major parties are not considered "wasted votes".

[JustinW]

As CaptainPanic points out, the people who are working together to exploit this law (or others) don't necessarily have to have villainous intent. They may be carrying out directives that seem to have extremely justifiable motivation to them.

Everything you've said Phi makes sense to a degree of potentiallity. But the fact remains that this law hasn't been exploited yet and there is no reason that we need to see it as a law that will stifle assembly and free speach. I don't see it working in that manner. How could it. The scenario you layed out had one guy taken not a whole crowd. They would be crazy to use this law against a crowd. It would amount to political suicide of anyone who was involved. How can this law stop the voice of these protestors. If anything it would just make them louder and I think that is apparent to those in office. If that was ever their intent. Which we have no reason to belive it was.

 

And how do we correct such problems? Isn't the easiest, best way, the way to work within the system, to simply protest such laws to bring them to the public's attention so we might vote in representatives who will change those laws?

I believe this is correct. And yes the wording of the law, if not the law it self, needs to be done away with or rewritten in a way that protects the American people from potential abuse. It is just the assumption of intent and the likelyhood of its use for denying free speach and assembly that I'm arguing here.

[Phi for All]

Everything you've said Phi makes sense to a degree of potentiallity. But the fact remains that this law hasn't been exploited yet and there is no reason that we need to see it as a law that will stifle assembly and free speach. I don't see it working in that manner. How could it. The scenario you layed out had one guy taken not a whole crowd. They would be crazy to use this law against a crowd. It would amount to political suicide of anyone who was involved. How can this law stop the voice of these protestors. If anything it would just make them louder and I think that is apparent to those in office. If that was ever their intent. Which we have no reason to belive it was.

Well, I'm no expert. In the DHS vs OWS scenario I posted earlier, there may be nuances that could be more effective. You're right, you arrest the whole crowd and they feel more solidarity. But if you separate one or just a few, the rest feel more vulnerable because they're still free and someone else is not. It's classic police procedure to separate perpetrators for questioning, classic military strategy to divide and conquer, classic terror tactics to make people feel they need to separate themselves from the crowd and go hide somewhere.

 

Let me ask you this: In retrospect, doesn't the War on Terror seem a bit strange? There were only a few hundred Al Qaida members in 2000, maybe a few thousand Taliban fighters. Would you EVER have imagined it would take a trillion taxpayer dollars and the resources of a superpower nation over ten years to FAIL to wipe these guys out? Rhetorical, really, and off-topic probably. I point this out to show that there may be more reasons, more justifications, more opportunities stemming from the War on Terror than to remove a few thousand insurgents.

 

I believe this is correct. And yes the wording of the law, if not the law it self, needs to be done away with or rewritten in a way that protects the American people from potential abuse.

That's good enough for me. I didn't look forward to researching all the times US law has been re-written because we found out too late that special interests had written loopholes and exploited them. Not for the difficulty, but for the sheer volume.

[JustinW]

Let me ask you this: In retrospect, doesn't the War on Terror seem a bit strange? There were only a few hundred Al Qaida members in 2000, maybe a few thousand Taliban fighters. Would you EVER have imagined it would take a trillion taxpayer dollars and the resources of a superpower nation over ten years to FAIL to wipe these guys out? Rhetorical, really, and off-topic probably. I point this out to show that there may be more reasons, more justifications, more opportunities stemming from the War on Terror than to remove a few thousand insurgents.

Put that way it does. But didn't the Taliban hold a significant amount of political power? It is understandable that we went to war with these people, but does seem a little strange that it took so long and cost so much. The length and difficulty may be attributed to how well they were able to hide, and the cost can be somewhat attributed to the length. But you would think that someone could derive a certain tactic that would be more effective. I'm not necessarily sure of the numbers of these groups or the problems that the military have run into. So I might be misspeaking if I give too much of a possible explanation.

[CaptainPanic]

Put that way it does. But didn't the Taliban hold a significant amount of political power? It is understandable that we went to war with these people, but does seem a little strange that it took so long and cost so much. The length and difficulty may be attributed to how well they were able to hide, and the cost can be somewhat attributed to the length. But you would think that someone could derive a certain tactic that would be more effective. I'm not necessarily sure of the numbers of these groups or the problems that the military have run into. So I might be misspeaking if I give too much of a possible explanation.

The Taliban were in power of one of the world's poorest countries. So, in Afghanistan, yes, they had power. Anywhere else, they had nothing. Depends on how you look at it.