National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2012 has a nice gem in it

This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only".

In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
2
3

National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2012 has a nice gem in it
Topic Started: Dec 4 2011, 06:09 PM (629 Views)
Union	Dec 7 2011, 04:52 PM Post #26
Pyrenees Republic Posts: 3,219 Group: Forum Mods Member #307 Joined: December 27, 2006	Ohnoez.



Comrade Queen	Dec 7 2011, 04:56 PM Post #27
Comrade Bitchqueen Posts: 4,159 Group: Forum Mods Member #83 Joined: October 4, 2004	Union Dec 7 2011, 10:50 AM I call it like I see it. But hey, I'll bite: Why am I a douche, Sed? Because you giggle in glee when you see freedom stamped out.



Union	Dec 7 2011, 04:59 PM Post #28
Pyrenees Republic Posts: 3,219 Group: Forum Mods Member #307 Joined: December 27, 2006	Yeah, you caught me Scy - I hatez your freedomz. Edited by Union, Dec 7 2011, 05:00 PM.



Comrade Queen	Dec 7 2011, 05:02 PM Post #29
Comrade Bitchqueen Posts: 4,159 Group: Forum Mods Member #83 Joined: October 4, 2004	Union Dec 7 2011, 04:59 PM Yeah, you caught me Scy - I hatez your freedomz. Indeed you do. You're predictable. Out of everyone on this forum, I knew you would be the one to defend this repugnant legislation.



Union	Dec 7 2011, 05:20 PM Post #30
Pyrenees Republic Posts: 3,219 Group: Forum Mods Member #307 Joined: December 27, 2006	Somebody call a whaaambulance. Can't all be antisocial fucks living in the woods with a gun at the door in case the gubment comes. I am /against/ this proposal, by the way, because the Udall Amendment failed to pass. I'd be against the law too, if it were one. It is not. Edited by Union, Dec 7 2011, 05:22 PM.



Comrade Queen	Dec 7 2011, 05:32 PM Post #31
Comrade Bitchqueen Posts: 4,159 Group: Forum Mods Member #83 Joined: October 4, 2004	Somehow I find it hard to believe you, considering all of your previous rhetoric in this thread and out.



Union	Dec 7 2011, 05:38 PM Post #32
Pyrenees Republic Posts: 3,219 Group: Forum Mods Member #307 Joined: December 27, 2006	If you learned to read you'd realize how silly that statement is, considering I've been consistent.



Comrade Queen	Dec 7 2011, 05:54 PM Post #33
Comrade Bitchqueen Posts: 4,159 Group: Forum Mods Member #83 Joined: October 4, 2004	Union Dec 7 2011, 05:38 PM If you learned to read you'd realize how silly that statement is, considering I've been consistent. No you haven't. You UC Davis spray videos being edited to not show the fifteen minutes of students encircling the officer and not allowing him to leave. Crying about SOPA or NDAA2012 as if it had any chance of not getting vetoed and then overturned. A lot of crying going on about the big bad evil guvment as if it were some oppressive alien boot robbing us all of the chance to be singing kumbaya in nice houses doing finger waves. It's seriously like the entire [Internet/Reddit using] country became some strange hybrid of LaRouche and Ron Paul, with plenty of bullshit hippy thrown in the mix. You again Let's assume it passes the House, and the President's veto gets overriden (much more difficult than it sounds, because House members will have to justify it to the public). So what? There ARE specific provisions which mandate when it can be used. They won't be arresting OWS kids at night in their beds and sending them to Guantanamo. The United States is not a tyranny. Fuck, consider the Patriot Act - it has been used a handful of times wrongly, and in each case the government apologized and paid compensation! This isn't North Korea, FFS. Laws do not prevent abuse. If Obama wanted to arrest OWS kids and send to labor camps in Alaska, he could do it. At that point, a piece of paper won't prevent it. Extrajudicial killings are illegal in every country in the world - doesn't stop Kim Jong Il. Doesn't stop Mugabe. Didn't stop Pinochet or Galtieri. It is irrelevant. These laws do not prevent evil - they hamper justice. Of course, you can disagree. That doesn't mean one is being any less sensationalist. It is a jump from "FEMA is constructing camps in the countryside to harbor refugee populations" to "These camps will harbor political dissidents in a massive dictorial crackdown by our elected leaders." If an American citizen is planning an attack on the United States, and has met the criteria for evidence within the goddamn law itself, then I'm perfectly OK with detaining them immediately. But this isn't a police state, and this law isn't going to make for a police state. They're not going to arrest you at night. You won't wake up one evening with a hood on your head being carted out the door and shunted into a van because you happened to reside at Zalcotti Park for a few weeks last month. :rolleyes: You yet again ... Don't vote for the wrong people, and if you have that little faith in your fellow citizen, then a constitutional republic ain't for you no matter how you slice it. How arrogant do you have to be to think this way...? In any case, if the wrong people get into office, whether a law exists or not won't matter. :rolleyes: There were laws against German rearmament and that didn't fucking matter, did it? What exactly is the reasoning here? "I want to arrest normal American citizens indiscriminately and put them into military detention camps while suspending their fundamental liberties, but gosh darn it, there is no law letting me do that. I guess I'll work on EPA regulations instead!" I believe the words you've used are "sensationalist" and "irrelevant" and "bullshit hippy." You also said "But this isn't a police state, and this law isn't going to make for a police state."; which is ludicrous because being able to detain someone indefinitely without trial is the very core of a police state. So... no. You are not consistent in your claims that you're opposed. You rehashed the same authoritarian apologist bullcrap you always do, and only when I called you on it did you claim that you were against this bill. Edited by Comrade Queen, Dec 7 2011, 05:55 PM.



Union	Dec 7 2011, 06:06 PM Post #34
Pyrenees Republic Posts: 3,219 Group: Forum Mods Member #307 Joined: December 27, 2006	You sure know how to use that quote function, Scy. Too bad you missed the one that is relevant. Quote: And I was in favor of the Udall Amendment for that reason. It is not yet a law, however, and has not even made it halfway there. This is what I mean by sensationalizing. That I disagree with the law without the Udall Amendment, and that I think sensationalism is common today are not contradictory concepts. Without the Udall Amendment, this law is in contradiction with the constitution, and in that, undermines the sanctity of our legal and public institutions. No, I do not find it wrong because it violates our "unalienable human rights". But you know what Scy? I get a vote too. And you are not morally or intellecutally superior to me simply because I disagree with your views, however much you may like to scream otherwise. And because our views are different, and because we both get to vote, institutions are important. They help regulate the process, and I recognize it as legitimate, even when the outcome is something I personally disagree with. And because this law undermines those institutions, I oppose it. Because without this institutions, this is an anarchy. Which may very well be what you want, but you are not an island, and there is no point in human history where you would have been. Human beings are not solitary hunters. In any case, I apologize for my behavior in this thread. I did not mean to come across as angry, and if I did it was unintentional. I've been having a rough time. My engagement is over, after six years, and I found out yesterday she had been cheating on me the last month of it. So yeah, I'm pissed, and upset, and it may have spilt over in here, and that was not fair to you guys, because you guys have not wronged me. I am sorry. In fact, these communities, online, have helped me a lot with dealing with this, even if I sound unappreciative. I love you guys, and love reading the stories you all post - I am often in awe in how great some of your writings turn out. I am, if anything, grateful to you all, and I do consider you friends. I know I have faults, especially in how I express myself, and I need to work on them, but accept my apologies for now. Edited by Union, Dec 7 2011, 06:20 PM.



Comrade Queen	Dec 7 2011, 06:22 PM Post #35
Comrade Bitchqueen Posts: 4,159 Group: Forum Mods Member #83 Joined: October 4, 2004	Union Dec 7 2011, 06:06 PM You sure know how to use that quote function, Scy. Too bad you missed the one that is relevant. Quote: And I was in favor of the Udall Amendment for that reason. It is not yet a law, however, and has not even made it halfway there. This is what I mean by sensationalizing. That I disagree with the law without the Udall Amendment, and that I think sensationalism is common today are not contradictory concepts. Without the Udall Amendment, this law is in contradiction with the constitution, and in that, undermines the sanctity of our legal and public institutions. No, I do not find it wrong because it violates our "unalienable human rights". Oooh, goody... you trapped yourself. Meh Union Dec 6 2011, 07:10 PM And I was in favor of the Udall Amendment for that reason. It is not yet a law, however, and has not even made it halfway there. This is what I mean by sensationalizing. I can understand your problem with sensationalism, but the fact the simple fact that this could become law is disturbing. You reply Why? Because it conflicts with your ideology, or because its potentially unconstitutional clauses? Once again you seem to be defending the bill. In the past, you've regarded the Constitution as "just a piece of paper that should be trashed", so your claims of opposing this bill because it "contradicts the Constitution" don't really hold water. What do you care of the "sanctity" of our legal and public institutions when you've repeated your disdain for the Constitution? Either you're trying to save face here because you know that I've read you like a book, or you're a complete hypocrite. By the way, the protections of those unalienable rights was precisely the reason for the Bill of Rights: the first ten amendments.



Union	Dec 7 2011, 06:32 PM Post #36
Pyrenees Republic Posts: 3,219 Group: Forum Mods Member #307 Joined: December 27, 2006	Quote: Once again you seem to be defending the bill. No, I was trying to determine from where the discussion was coming from. Quote: In the past, you've regarded the Constitution as "just a piece of paper that should be trashed", so your claims of opposing this bill because it "contradicts the Constitution" don't really hold water. And in my ideal society it would be. I don't live there. I live here. I will participate in the system to try and change it closer to what I like, but I harbor no illusions of grandiosity or revolution. More importantly, I recognize the system as a legitimate means to achieve change and am in favor of preserving it for that purpose. Would I vote for a constitutional amendment which struck out the contradictory components of this bill? Probably. However, this bill is not being presented in that way, and as such, its passage would undermine American public institutions, and with it, the legitimacy of the state. I do not want that. So I oppose the bill, without the Udall Amendment, and our current Constitution or I support the bill as is, with constitutional revision to remove contradictions. Do you understand?



Comrade Queen	Dec 7 2011, 06:39 PM Post #37
Comrade Bitchqueen Posts: 4,159 Group: Forum Mods Member #83 Joined: October 4, 2004	Union Dec 7 2011, 06:32 PM Quote: Once again you seem to be defending the bill. No, I was trying to determine from where the discussion was coming from. Quote: In the past, you've regarded the Constitution as "just a piece of paper that should be trashed", so your claims of opposing this bill because it "contradicts the Constitution" don't really hold water. And in my ideal society it would be. I don't live there. I live here. I will participate in the system to try and change it closer to what I like, but I harbor no illusions of grandiosity or revolution. More importantly, I recognize the system as a legitimate means to achieve change and am in favor of preserving it for that purpose. Would I vote for a constitutional amendment which struck out the contradictory components of this bill? Probably. However, this bill is not being presented in that way, and as such, its passage would undermine American public institutions, and with it, the legitimacy of the state. I do not want that. So I oppose the bill, without the Udall Amendment, and our current Constitution or I support the bill as is, with constitutional revision to remove contradictions. Do you understand? No, because as in your perception of the Constitution being meaningless paper, there is no actual "legitimacy of the state" to be undermined. The Constitution is the core document of our country, and if it's outdated and meaningless as you claim, then what do you care about undermining it? You're either for or against the Constitution, there is no "I like it when it suits my arguments on Wednesdays."



Rhadamanthus	Dec 7 2011, 06:45 PM Post #38
Legitimist Posts: 12,945 Group: Admin Member #19 Joined: January 13, 2004	My interpretation of Union's position is that he does not like the constitution as written, but nevertheless accepts that it is the constitution of our union and should be altered only through the legitimate processes. As I understand him, he is making a procedural distinction. Edited by Rhadamanthus, Dec 7 2011, 06:45 PM.



Comrade Queen	Dec 7 2011, 06:48 PM Post #39
Comrade Bitchqueen Posts: 4,159 Group: Forum Mods Member #83 Joined: October 4, 2004	And yet it's only a "legitimate process" because the Constitution says it is. That still doesn't solve the conundrum, RD.



Union	Dec 7 2011, 07:22 PM Post #40
Pyrenees Republic Posts: 3,219 Group: Forum Mods Member #307 Joined: December 27, 2006	It is the legitimate process because the body politic at large has collectively chosen it to be as an institution to govern their relations internally and abroad, not because the Constitution says so. The constitution itself is meaningless, except for the meaning attached to it by the people. It is not above their will. Edited by Union, Dec 7 2011, 07:22 PM.



Comrade Queen	Dec 7 2011, 10:46 PM Post #41
Comrade Bitchqueen Posts: 4,159 Group: Forum Mods Member #83 Joined: October 4, 2004	Union Dec 7 2011, 07:22 PM It is the legitimate process because the body politic at large has collectively chosen it to be as an institution to govern their relations internally and abroad, not because the Constitution says so. The constitution itself is meaningless, except for the meaning attached to it by the people. It is not above their will. Under that argument, the Constitution can be chucked right out the window right here and now and the government be whatever we say it is at any time of day. Who cares about consistency? You certainly don't seem to.



Tristan da Cunha	Dec 7 2011, 11:11 PM Post #42
Science and Industry Posts: 6,792 Group: Veterans Member #86 Joined: November 1, 2004	You chucked out the part of the Constitution that talks about how black slavery is excellent, didn't you? At your time of the day you certainly have a different constitution than the constitution back in the founding fathers time of the day. As long as the Constitution is 100% consistent with the sentiments of the people and the era (no matter how deranged such sentiments may seem thru the lens of another people in another era) then the document correctly serves its originally intended purpose. the crafters of the Constitution possessed many, many other ethical codes and modes of behavior that supersede the mere Constitution -- as do we.



Comrade Queen	Dec 7 2011, 11:29 PM Post #43
Comrade Bitchqueen Posts: 4,159 Group: Forum Mods Member #83 Joined: October 4, 2004	Tristan da Cunha Dec 7 2011, 11:11 PM You chucked out the part of the Constitution that talks about how black slavery is excellent, didn't you? At your time of the day you certainly have a different constitution than the constitution back in the founding fathers time of the day. As long as the Constitution is 100% consistent with the sentiments of the people and the era (no matter how deranged such sentiments may seem thru the lens of another people in another era) then the document correctly serves its originally intended purpose. the crafters of the Constitution possessed many, many other ethical codes and modes of behavior that supersede the mere Constitution -- as do we. You are misrepresenting the argument, TC. What Union has been saying ever since I've started debating him on this forum is that the Constitution is a meaningless piece of paper. This implies that the government should be allowed to run things however it wants, whenever it wants. The purpose of the Constitution is to prevent that. The Constitution CODIFIES what has been has been agreed upon and keeps it from changing on whimsey. That means, tomorrow, you can't just suddenly claim everyone is guilty until proven innocent. In order to amend the Constitution, you actually have to work at it; you have to get large majority to agree that something needs changing and get all of the states to ratify it. It shouldn't be so easy as "well, I don't like this anymore, let's just do it differently today" and have it as so. The Constitution is suppose to protect our form of government from it being whatever our elected leaders want it to be. That's why the three branches of government (legislative, judicial, and executive) are checks against each other and our rights are a check against them. This forum would do well by reading Orwell's Animal Farm. While they didn't exactly chuck the document out the window, the pigs were constantly "re-interpreting" the farm's constitution whenever they wanted something to be done differently on their whimsey; which is just as dangerous.



Union	Dec 8 2011, 12:08 AM Post #44
Pyrenees Republic Posts: 3,219 Group: Forum Mods Member #307 Joined: December 27, 2006	You deliberately misinterpret me, no matter how many times I state my position. Believe whatever you want, Scy. You're good at it.



Comrade Queen	Dec 8 2011, 12:15 AM Post #45
Comrade Bitchqueen Posts: 4,159 Group: Forum Mods Member #83 Joined: October 4, 2004	I've only been reading what you've typed.



meh	Dec 8 2011, 03:35 AM Post #46
1st Lieutenant Posts: 618 Group: Members Member #695 Joined: August 17, 2011	Union Dec 7 2011, 06:06 PM In any case, I apologize for my behavior in this thread. I did not mean to come across as angry, and if I did it was unintentional. I've been having a rough time. My engagement is over, after six years, and I found out yesterday she had been cheating on me the last month of it. So yeah, I'm pissed, and upset, and it may have spilt over in here, and that was not fair to you guys, because you guys have not wronged me. I am sorry. In fact, these communities, online, have helped me a lot with dealing with this, even if I sound unappreciative. I love you guys, and love reading the stories you all post - I am often in awe in how great some of your writings turn out. I am, if anything, grateful to you all, and I do consider you friends. I know I have faults, especially in how I express myself, and I need to work on them, but accept my apologies for now. I am terribly sorry. It must be hard.



Al Araam	Dec 8 2011, 04:36 AM Post #47
Demigod of Death & Inactivity Posts: 3,486 Group: Global Mods Member #102 Joined: February 19, 2005	Sorry to hear you've been having a hard time in your non-digital life, Union. I wish you the best and assure you nobody with a heart will hold anything you say for the next while against you.



Sedulius	Dec 9 2011, 05:15 AM Post #48
Field Marshal Posts: 4,727 Group: Members Member #427 Joined: March 29, 2008	Union Dec 7 2011, 10:50 AM I call it like I see it. But hey, I'll bite: Why am I a douche, Sed? Didn't see this until now. I know you apologized, but realize the reason I called you a douche is because you implied Aelius, one of my best friends, was arrogant. He is perhaps the least arrogant person I know, and that is why I took offense. It's not like anybody else here knows him personally, but his posts on the forum have been consistently reasonable, without emotion, and much of the time neutral. He's certainly far less volatile than I am on the forums. He doesn't deserve to be insulted.



East Anarx	Dec 9 2011, 11:12 AM Post #49
Anarchitect Posts: 4,788 Group: Multi Member #210 Joined: January 16, 2006	Just repeat: This is not a police state. The constitution is important. We live in a free country. If you don't vote you can't complain. The idea that people should refrain from aggressing against one another is stupid. Pay your taxes. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. War is peace. "May your chains rest lightly upon you..." Alternatively, if you desire truth, liberty, justice, and peace, then you'd better find some trustworthy allies, organize and build a sustainable community, and prepare to defend it. Nothing is certain. The future is unwritten. Take responsibility for your own happiness.



Sedulius	Dec 9 2011, 01:15 PM Post #50
Field Marshal Posts: 4,727 Group: Members Member #427 Joined: March 29, 2008	Eastanarx Dec 9 2011, 11:12 AM Nothing is certain. Everything is permitted.


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3