This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
The National Defense Authorization ACt for Fiscal Year 2012
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
gnomerdon
this bill has passed in the senate, by a vote of 93-7.
This bill gives the government the right to apply the same rules the military holds suspected terrorists under -- rules that sparked no small amount of controversy and protest in AMERICA.
What are ur thoughts on this bill? Is obama going to veto it? It's actually a really scary bill to me.
As stated by someone, if this bill passes, he thinks we will enter a shaky, scary world
Anyways, on a more serious standpoint, this bill was 593 pages long, and I'm only taking the information from another source who claims to know bits and pieces of this humongous bill . I don't know the true exact extent of the bill. So, don't take my word for what it is. Hear from other people, read it for urself, and share to me what you think.
here's the PDF if you do decide to dig into it.
if you do read the whole thing, i'll applaud you.
edit: well, here is
1 article
and viewpoint you should look at concerning this bill.
Post by
Azazel
And I thought the pizza-vegetable was bad...
See what you are doing America? Destroying yourself.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
If America had its priorities straight, the gay marriage thread would have about 5 posts and this thread would be 60 pages long.
Great, so far "The committee bill addresses vulnerabilities to information systems and proposes steps to secure sensitive information": more infringement on the right to privacy.
"The committee fully funds the Administration's requested funding increase for nuclear modernisation": continuing to ignore the only
sane compromise
worked out thus far, by increasing the budget apportioned to over the amount of the projected cost of eradicating hunger in the world (10* funding for biology, computer science, physics and maths put together) adding to the stockpile of 2000 active weapons of mass destruction.
They also plan operations in North Korea and China.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35TbGjt-weA
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I'm moving to Canada. I prefer not to live in a police state, and there have been a lot of tendencies towards heading down that road in the last few years.
Post by
OverZealous
I don't have words.
Really, this... Damn, this is stupid.
Post by
Azazel
What I'm most baffled by is the fact that 93 voted for..
Post by
MyTie
LOL. I have no idea what to think about this, because I haven't studied it. However, I'm going to be dismissive at the moment because of two parts of facesmasher's post:
1) The article he linked was written by the ACLU
2) This part of his post:As stated by someone
I'm not saying there is nothing to worry about. I don't trust the government at all. I'm just wondering if anyone can dig me up an unbiased article, or give me some referenced and unbiased information, not what the ACLU thinks, and not what 'someone' stated.
And I don't care enough to read the PDF.
Post by
pnkflffytutu
Isn't this the exact opposite of what the U.S.A stands for?
Post by
Azazel
Isn't this the exact opposite of what the U.S.A stands for?
USA also calls itself "The land of the free", while simoultaneously being very judging.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Isn't this the exact opposite of what the U.S.A stands for?
USA also calls itself "The land of the free", while simoultaneously being very judging.
The USA is intolerant? I traveled around quite a bit while in the military. You'd be surprised at the difference in the way we treat eachother here versus the rest of the world. I certainly don't excuse our defects, but I can't think of many other places that I would rather live. A few people mentioned Canada, which is a pretty good place. I spent a while there too. Anyway. Try to be a little less judgemental yourself.
Concerning this act: I don't approve of the one provision that allows detention of US citizens while not giving them their miranda rights and a lawyer. However, we are at war, so I don't think this could be extended to non citizens. I would say the correct course of action is to end the war, so it isn't an issue anymore, and do away with this sort of language altogether.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
1) The article he linked was written by the ACLU
Yeah, !@#$ liberty! Those guys standing up for it are such tools, amirite?
Heh. The ACLU does stand up for civil liberties, but sometimes the things they believe are civil liberties are a bit much. For instance, they stand up for Westboro Baptist Church's right to picket funerals. Nothing like your "civil liberty" to chant "God hates &*!s" at someone's funeral.
I'm not saying that the ACLU is all bad, but I feel pretty alienated by their support of NAMBLA, aggressive viewpoint of the separation of church and state, and their lobbying activities.
Just because their name has "Civil Liberties" in it, doesn't mean that by being against them I hate civil liberties.
That's like saying that if you don't agree with "Focus on the Family" you must hate families, or if you don't agree with the "National Socialists German Worker's Party" you must hate German workers. Don't try that crap with me.
Whatever the case, for or against, the ACLU is one of the most biased organizations. To have them as your sole source of information is disingenuous. I looked up a few more articles and viewpoints, on both side of the aisle, and this particular bill has a provision in it that is opposed pretty widely, and I feel, at this point, that I probably oppose it as well.
While I don't like putting too many restraints on our military, I feel that some humanitarian things are necessary. I was trained, with my M-16, to give multiple warnings before I could shoot at the enemy. Further, I was trained that the gun must be leveled at me before I can shoot. I pretty much hated those rules. It sounds nice, but when you are laying in the mud with a gun in your hand, cold, hungry, and scared, surrounded by people that want to kill you, I can't imagine you want to have a dialogue, explaining to your enemy that they have the right to remain silent, etc... THAT said, we shouldn't be locking people up for life so carelessly. While I do want to give the military latitude, I see the danger in giving them too much. I want terrorists to be able to be interrogated quickly and effectively, to gain information on coming events, without having to give them a 5 year trial. However, I don't want some goon in power making large sweeping mistake judgments and locking political opponents or innocents up for life. Where is the balance point between effectiveness and humanitarianism? I'm not sure.
Post by
Monday
The ACLU is like Fox...
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
A few years ago it took me a long time to come to terms with it but I begrudgingly support the WBC's right to picket too, without speech we disagree with, there is no need for free speech, and so they must be defended lest a precedent be set.
Undoubtedly it is a debatable point. I think it is more along the lines of harassment than it is speech. I've known soldiers that die. I've known their families. It's personal to me, so I may not be unbiased, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't have an opinion in the matter. If someone picketed my funeral, I can think of a half dozen people in my family that would probably put the picketers in the hospital or worse.
Post by
Monday
Your point is astounding, Dr. Lore. I'm left speechless by your eloquence.
Post by
gamerunknown
Whatever the case, for or against, the ACLU is one of the most biased organizations. To have them as your sole source of information is disingenuous.
I think the ACLU understands the same thing as the Founding Fathers: that one’s appreciation of the right to free speech is tested at its limits, rather than in the middle. The freedom to say inoffensive things is precisely the freedom enjoyed by people under the mutaween in Saudi Arabia or under the Democratic Republic of North Korea. They’ve supported the right of children to wear shirts that say “Islam is of the devil” and for the right of corporations to sponsor candidates as corporations are legally people and to limit a person’s right to spend their money is a limitation of their speech (an interpretation I’d actually disagree with).
I don’t think the word “disingenuous” means what you think it means: if facesmasher knew of another source that contradicted the ACLU and chose to focus on the source from the ACLU I’d agree. By the way, I think that if one has Fox as a source (perhaps even a secondary source), one is inclined to have a skewed approach to the ACLU: Fox supports ACLJ, an organisation set up by Pat Robertson (the guy that thinks 9/11 is God’s punishment for homosexuality and abortion and that Alzheimer’s is a good reason to divorce one’s wife). Here is a partisan source exposing Fox’s distortions in relation to the ACLU:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBig928zYgY
. He also has other videos relating to how the founding fathers did not apportion themselves extra powers in times of war (4th amendment being a good example of their consistency) and how due process equally applies to enemy combatants.
Post by
gnomerdon
anyways
well, here is 1 article and viewpoint you should look at concerning this bill.
here is 1 article and
view point
you should look at concerning this bill.
since this one was really extreme on one end, i would have hoped you would look at other articles that are more reliable like the onion, or nbc to learn more about the bill. maybe there, you can make a opinion for yourself and share with us what you think, since almost every news article on the internet are usually biased all around. ..
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.