Although this is a bit extreme, the wording is frightening. Discuss. I'm a bit too shocked for a response.
Ummm. Not sure what to make of this. IF the details of that bill are accurate it is VERY worrying with regard to US attitudes towards its own people. Also IF this is a 100% genuine Anonymous upload then their wording is also worrying since it's the first time I've seen them to openly make direct threats towards a major government. Without some concrete stuff to go on (and I've not long got back from a night shift so can't be arsed to google about right now) I can't really say either way but if this does pan out to be correct it is cause for concern indeed, on both counts really.
V for Vendetta anyone? That was rather amusing.. .. And if the opening subject has any truth in it, worrying.
The comments on the bill are accurate, Even the US ambasador in the UK stated it would apply to US citizens
Bits taken from American news site...so pinch of salt here. Seems to say American's are exempt...unless it's a case of national security, then it can be overturned...I'm assuming everybody will be held under national security threat as it's a defence bill....suitably vague. That's the most worrying bit for me. Seems the whitehouse is against it and that it may still be vetoed.
The legislation is real, and it's a wonderful example of one of the negative ways in which our legislative system works. If there is a particular piece of legislation that is likely to cause controversy, or may end up in lengthy debate due to its dubious nature, it's easier to tack it on as a rider to a larger piece of legislation. In this case it was added to a defense spending bill. Defense spending is typically considered "must pass," so the chances of it being voted down are minimal, hence why it is so attractive to add poor legislation to it. The flip-side is that if you vote down a defense spending bill due to a bad piece of minor legislation added at the end, your opponent will use that vote against you in the next election campaign - "My opponent voted against funding for our troops. He's unpatriotic!" As it stands, the defense spending bill as passed includes the language that allows the US government to hold US citizens indefinitely, without trial, based on even the smallest suspicion of evil-doing: As noted in a post above, the White House is threatening a veto. Whether or not that happens remains to be seen. On Wednesday John Stewart did a humorous take-down of the legislation, briefly noting that the law may circumvent the 4th Amendment.
I'm not overly educated with US governmental system at a high level so please enlighten me here supermonkey (as you seem up to speed on this and are American). When it's said that the White House is threatening to veto this legislation does that mean that the President himself is considering stopping the bill coming into force or does it mean that The White House as a political entity is doing so regardless of who might be President at any given time? Surely things like this have the input of the President and wouldn't even get to this level without his say so. I'm a little confused.
When speaking about the President, news agencies often use terms such as "The White House" or "The Administration" as a collective term representing the President himself. Grammatically speaking it is synecdoche, such as when international news states e.g. that "the US has gone to war." Obviously the entire country has not gone off to war, but the word "US" is used as a representative term. If the President vetoes the bill (basically, he sends it back to Congress unsigned within ten days), Congress can override the veto with a 2/3 majority vote, in which case the bill becomes law without the President's signature. It's part of the system of checks and balances to prevent any one branch of the government form running away with too much power. Whether or not the President provides input for potential legislation really depends on the individual bill. It's not uncommon for the President to use his "bully pulpit" in attempt to sway legislators one way or another. It's possible for a veto threat to cause legislators to rethink the exact language of a bill. Practically, given how fractured our political system is at the moment, I doubt Congress really cares what the President says. In fact, in the case of Republicans, it appeals to the base to simply disagree with anything the President says. Same is true for Democrats during a Republican administration.
Am important aspect to take note of is the majority by which the bill initially passed. 93-7. So assuming the President does veto it there seems to be a fairly decent chance that the override vote will be passed by a 2/3 majority again because as supermonkey says disagreeing with the President hasn't exactly been a big deal lately. However, as word gets out about the implications of this bill the public response has been more than a little displeased so perhaps that will change some lawmaker's minds. That said, I can't help but despair at the fatalist and scaremongering media that would have people believe the world has come to an end. Just look at the thread title (no offense Elton!), the Senate has approved the bill but nothing's official yet.
Amnesty had article about this which I picked up from my friends Facebook status-update: http://blog.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/welcome-to-the-war/ Sounds pretty weird that U.S.A. is going to be basicly a war-zone? Ofc, only against "terorrists" but c'mon. My crazy assumption is that this might be some kind of preparation for something lil' bit bigger?
Is such athing even constitutional and if it isn't what chance of the bill getting through the judicial branch? I assume it has to go through them?
One of the consequences of terrorist scare legislation such as this is that it doesn't get used in the narrow scope in which it was originally intended. Since the Patriot Act was passed, anti-terrorism money has trickled down to local levels as police departments used the new funding to beef up their arsenals. This explains the recent increasing militarization of local police forces. I'll have to dig up the exact statistic when I get home since I don't have ready access to it here at work, but the majority of terrorism-related police activity actually deals with drug crime, not Saudi fundamentalists in airplanes. Of course, you'd never know that listening to political commentary. EDIT: No, new laws do not go through the Judicial Branch. Basically, the Legislative Branch (Congress) creates law, the Executive Branch (e.g. the FBI, CIA) enforces the law, and the Judicial Branch (e.g. state courts, Supreme Court) interprets the law. I guess there's kind of a catch-22 there. If I get detained under the new law, and am never actually charged with a crime, how could my case ever get elevated to the Supreme Court for them to rule on the constitutionality of the law under which I was arrested? This is where the clever lawyers from both sides come in to exercise their legal creativity, because the whole process baffles me, to be honest. There's a saying here: "Sausages and laws are the two things you never want to see how they're made."
I watched that video and one over-whelming thought pervaded my head: the spelling mistake. 3:17 is where it's at.
Also a bit above my understanding, but I believe that after being detained you could get yourself a daring lawyer and try to sue the US Government for denying you your constitutional rights (how you go about this exactly is anyone's guess). How the court which you finally end up in rules then determines the future treatment of similar people. IE, you go all the way to the Supreme Court who rule your detention unconstitutional, this effectively prevents American citizens from being detained by the new law because anyone who is after the ruling will simply sue and cite your case. Of course, since you can be detained indefinitely without being charged or taken to trial this is all assuming you ever get your freedom back.
Thats provided they would even allow you access to council, which they don't when being held without charge. America is FAST become a totalitarian regime. There is plenty of worrisome legislation up currently that will have a huge impact worldwide as well. With regards to SOPA and Protect IP which could destabilize and cripple the entire internet and also has other far reaching implications which include being able to shut down sites operating outside the US, and censor at will similar to China and Iran. There are also many extensions to surveillance programs being approved that further allow monitoring and interception of private citizens communications, and huge deployments of additional cctv and other monitoring techniques. 2012 - the year 1984 is moved to the non-fiction section in the library you can no longer visit.
Don't forget the rampant fear of Socialism that helps cause lower budgets for things like libraries, causing them to be taken over by private, for profit companies. Will 1984 even be on the shelf anymore? The anti-public worker argument sounds very simiar to the arguments you all are currently hearing in the pension debates.
You would never be allowed to see a lawyer, which is kinda one of the problems with this. But am I the only one that find this video to be more of a cry for help than anything else? anonymous can do nothing for themselves to stop this (kracking can only get you so far) so they use their influence and publicity to rally the public to stop this bill. Some of the last few bills suggested in the US has been quite frightening and I really don't like where this is going.
the thing with these videos is.. why can't they use sams voice off the atari 8 bit or commodore 64- then they could stress whatever words they wanted to microsoft dictation = poor presentation
