SOPA

Subject: SOPA Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:04 pm

Thoughts?

Subject: Re: SOPA Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:14 pm

Fuck you SOPA!

Subject: Re: SOPA Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:20 pm

Subject: Re: SOPA Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:53 pm

MX5 wrote:

Subject: Re: SOPA Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:38 pm

I'm fully supportive.

Just kidding. But seriously, this is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY overblown. It's already been promised a veto, and will never make it through both chambers. The only reason everyone is freaking out about it is because their Google overlords told them too. The ignorant masses just like to feel important, I guess... any excuse to say "fuck the government" even though a solid chunk of said government is opposed to it. Apparently people just don't know how government works.

Subject: Re: SOPA Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:20 pm

I think they do but we do fall under the whole "people fear the government" thing instead of the other way around. Fact is, It wasn't promised a veto, this current copy of the bill has but it will just keep coming back up and I think this shows that the internet is more than just some silly thing. Either way our government is entirely broken but unfortantly no one is willing to stand up and admit it, or they will just look at someone who does say it and call them crazy and question every last detail of how they "could possibly say such at hing" then google up stuff to form their own opinion instead of thinking for themselves.

Plus give people more credit, they arent doing this because Google told them to, in fact every single major website is against this and has some form of banner on their site today and has spoken out against it in the past. But that isnt the extent of it, I'm sure people truly are against it because unlike that other bill that was passed this hits home even closer. I think people feel that this bill directly effects them and It is WAY more plausible to see a website you may enjoy go under than to get ripped out of bed by the military just for the lawlz.

Dont forget media fails to educate the people. The internet was smart enough to band together to protect themselves and they did. TV didnt bother saying more than 2 words about it but Im sure if TV was under attack every channel would flag a banner in the corner of the screen as well. It was an important bill, just because TV doesnt talk about it doesnt mean its not, less we forget how the TV ignored kids being beaten by cops nationwide a few months ago?

Subject: Re: SOPA Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:10 pm

Oh bullshit. People only fear the government because they're told to. I've said this a thousand times and will say it a thousand more: "The government" is not an autonomous institution. A few douchebags brought up a bad bill that has no chance of passing. The only reason people care is because the internet told them to. It's just a political move by the online industry. That's not saying it's a good bill, but certainly not worth the collective "OH SHIT RUN FOR THE HILLS" that it got today.

Subject: Re: SOPA Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:13 pm

And while I'm at it, "the media" is not uniform either. Grow balls, learn to sort through the shit, and quit being fucking paranoid. Jesus Fucking Christ.

Subject: Re: SOPA Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:49 pm

I agree with Slingblade completely..they're already pretty much backing out, and I'm sure they did it simply to catch the amount of buzz, and see how big of an issue piracy actually is..probably just screwed ourselves..

Subject: Re: SOPA Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:53 pm

For once people were concerned about something.. However, I had a better chance of fucking Michael Jackson than this bill being passed.

Subject: Re: SOPA Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:04 pm

Umm, I'm sorry but you guys clearly have no idea what you're talking about. SOPA was pretty much unanimously supported at first and had tons of backing. The amount of reps who are reconsidering because of the massive response and outrage is pretty significant.

http://torrentfreak.com/pipa-sopa-co-sponsors-drop-like-flies-120118/

Subject: Re: SOPA Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:50 pm

SlingBlade wrote:

Oh bullshit. People only fear the government because they're told to. I've said this a thousand times and will say it a thousand more: "The government" is not an autonomous institution. A few douchebags brought up a bad bill that has no chance of passing. The only reason people care is because the internet told them to. It's just a political move by the online industry. That's not saying it's a good bill, but certainly not worth the collective "OH SHIT RUN FOR THE HILLS" that it got today.

Oh yeah. This thing had no support at all, had no chance to pass, had no coverage on TV because it was irrelevant, and people freaked out for no reason whatsoever. Just like the 2012 NDAA...oh wait.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alton-lu/the-national-defense-auth_b_1180869.html

Ever think maybe part of why people are up in arms about SOPA and PIPA are because we got screwed over with this bullshit and wouldn't let Congress and Obama, who swore to veto the NDAA just as he's promised to veto SOPA and PIPA, sneak this kind of liberty-stealing legislation into law again?

Subject: Re: SOPA Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:04 pm

HOLY SHIT THEY'RE OUT TO GET US. Oh wait no, it's still paranoia.

JustinMarshall wrote:

Umm, I'm sorry but you guys clearly have no idea what you're talking about. SOPA was pretty much unanimously supported at first and had tons of backing. The amount of reps who are reconsidering because of the massive response and outrage is pretty significant.

http://torrentfreak.com/pipa-sopa-co-sponsors-drop-like-flies-120118

Nice article. Want to see mine?

Here's a list of the major bills introduced in 2011:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/major

That list is absolutely riddled with controversial bills that will directly affect nearly everyone, whether you realize it or not.

Here's an interesting one by Steve King: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h140/show

He's a fucking blowhard. Here's one introduced after the Tuscon shooting: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h308/show

And one introduced by the congresswoman shot in the head in Tuscon: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h204/show

Congressional paycut? Shit: it happens to those who least deserve it.

Go to prison for 5 years for streaming copyrighted material without permission: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s978/show

Interestingly enough that was introduced in June. NEVER fucking heard of it.

Eliminates the Green Card program, and turns it into an employment program: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h43/show

There go a few families I know.

A resolution declaring that greenhouse gases are not pollutants, and therefore cannot be regulated by any means: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h97/show

You breathe, right? Pretty sure this affects you.

And here's the entire list:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/all

Look through a few of those, look at the organizations supporting them, and then tell me SOPA and PIPA are worth this hype. Yes, the bill had a high percentage of support in committee. Emphasis on committee. There are so many bills with much more support than these two have, with much more realistic consequences. As with EVERY other bill that is opposed by an entire industry, the effects are exaggerated, twisted, distorted, and spun into a mangled heap of invisible red tape and polysyllabic words. You got your information online, and didn't even stop to think that some of it may be a wee bit biased? "Clearly" you have a much deeper knowledge of the political process, bias, and the media than I do, though, so you would know this all already, no?

And Murph, you're not a terrorist so you don't have to worry about the NDAA amendment. It doesn't affect you. Unless you are a terrorist, in which case it's black bag and go. It's like a kid's meal, only instead of a toy, it's a life behind bars on the bottom of a pile of naked abused men. If you honestly believe the NDAA made any sort of difference, than you are so naive it's beyond help. Here's why Obama did not veto the bill:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2011/12/defense-bill-revised-in-bid-to-avoid-veto-107179.html

Carl Levin wrote:

To be very precise, we are not changing existing law on who is or is not an enemy combatant. We’re not defining who is an enemy combatant, we’re leaving that to the courts or to the executive branch.

Also, you guys keep assuming I believe TV is a better source for news. Why the hell would I believe that? I never said that. Anything on television is online, and I don't have to sit through commercials and stories about cats. Sounds like a good deal to me.

Subject: Re: SOPA Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:35 pm

SlingBlade wrote:

Just kidding. But seriously, this is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY overblown. It's already been promised a veto, and will never make it through both chambers. The only reason everyone is freaking out about it is because their Google overlords told them too. The ignorant masses just like to feel important, I guess... any excuse to say "fuck the government" even though a solid chunk of said government is opposed to it. Apparently people just don't know how government works.

I'm just pointing out that that's almost exactly what you said about the NDAA, too... and it fuckin' passed. In fact, everytime something like this comes up, which seems to be a lot lately, you come back with this exact same argument. "It's all overblown hype," or "It gets introduced every single year, it'll never get passed anyways." I'm not intending to personally attack you by making this observation at all, but I feel like it's important to be said that you're kinda missing the point. It's not a matter of whether or not it will get passed, it's a matter of standing up and saying "We the people oppose this and think you should reconsider the horrible decision you're making!" If it gets passed, it'll be the same thing until they fix it. Then if it doesn't get passed... great. Success. Nothing to worry about anymore. No harm done.

See, a lot of these new movements and anti-this-or-that legislation campaigns aren't necessarily trying to say "The sky is falling, the world is ending, we need to completely change everything cause it's all bad and evil, etc." What they're trying to say is "Hey, if you don't know about this yet, this is what's going on. This is why we think that's bad, and we urge you to join in our collective 'knock that shit off'' to the people who are in charge of making and passing legislation," It's not that everyone's over-reacting at all. They just want to let their voices be heard, and they want people who are either uninformed or ill-informed to become informed and say/do something about it. What better way to do that than through the internet?

Clearly SOPA and PIPA are awful pieces of legislation that ideally don't stand a chance of being passed anymore anyhow, but what it really comes down to is the fact that this type of thing keeps popping up. This isn't some anomalous bill that appeared out of nowhere. This kinda stuff has been showing up in Congress for years and years. If you made a list of all of the controversial/unconstitutional legislation that has appeared in the House and the Senate over the last 10 or so years, you'd have enough for an entire series of books.

So it's moreso that people are objecting to the ABUSE of power and the intent to abuse power in our political system, and as far as I can see it, the people are just using the internet as a networking tool to educate people and spread their message, not in panic or pretense, but in calm yet urgent opposition to what's hapenning.

Subject: Re: SOPA Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:51 pm

And.....people stood up to the bill, not because websites told them to but because, I truely feel, they believed it. Because the sites that it was going to affect were socail sitesl ike facebook, twitter, youtube. It was attacking individuals.

I for one didn't want youtube to be more censored than it is, I dont want facebook to go away, for google searches to be filtered, for wikipedia to not include information.

Oh and I sure as fuck didn't want my torrent sites gone

Millions of people agree with me and THAT is why the bill isn't passing...for now.

Subject: Re: SOPA Thu Jan 19, 2012 4:00 pm

Sir RegalBoogy wrote:

SlingBlade wrote:

Just kidding. But seriously, this is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY overblown. It's already been promised a veto, and will never make it through both chambers. The only reason everyone is freaking out about it is because their Google overlords told them too. The ignorant masses just like to feel important, I guess... any excuse to say "fuck the government" even though a solid chunk of said government is opposed to it. Apparently people just don't know how government works.

I'm just pointing out that that's almost exactly what you said about the NDAA, too... and it fuckin' passed. In fact, everytime something like this comes up, which seems to be a lot lately, you come back with this exact same argument. "It's all overblown hype," or "It gets introduced every single year, it'll never get passed anyways." I'm not intending to personally attack you by making this observation at all, but I feel like it's important to be said that you're kinda missing the point. It's not a matter of whether or not it will get passed, it's a matter of standing up and saying "We the people oppose this and think you should reconsider the horrible decision you're making!" If it gets passed, it'll be the same thing until they fix it. Then if it doesn't get passed... great. Success. Nothing to worry about anymore. No harm done.

No worries, it's a political argument. If we judged people by their political opinions we would all be bitter spiteful hermits. That being said though, I think your political views are totally wack =]

But this is not the same argument I used for the NDAA. Like I said to Murph, even though the NDAA passed, it changed nothing. These are the sections in question, verbatim:

NDAA Section 1021 wrote:

Subtitle D—Counterterrorism

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

and Section 1022:

NDAA Section 1022 wrote:

SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.

(a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who is determined—

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1028.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL
RESIDENT ALIENS.—

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

(c) IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS.—The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing interrogation.

(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other Government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

(d) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.

(e) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

This is what I mean by paranoia. Nobody reads the text. I don't know how it could possibly be more explicit. In fact, if anything, these amendments to the NDAA narrow the scope the military has over citizens.

If the government wanted to black bag you in November of last year, they could have done it with absolutely no legal consequences. Even if you escaped, trekked 147 miles through the Amazon rainforest while avoiding cannibals and CIA agents, bartered with Columbian drug lords for protection and a ride home, pulled ten kilos of coke out of your ass, then took the whole thing to court, there would have been no possible way for you to win the case.

A good example: Anwar al-Awlaki. American citizen, high-ranking member of al-Qaeda, so... a terrorist. Killed September 30th of last year in a drone strike specifically targeting him. His targeting was challenged in court before the operation that killed him. Here is the ruling: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1469-31

The political question doctrine (established in Marbury v. Madison-- the same case that established judicial review), in combination with the state secrets privilege, effectively dismissed the case. The political question doctrine basically states that if it is not a legal question, than the court has no authority to issue a ruling. In this case, that would have been true. There is no law on record that applies to the situation. The only thing we have to reference are the guidelines for terrorism.

Those are found here: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/terror.pdf

An executive order? Oh shi-

Executive Order 13224 wrote:

(d) the term “terrorism” means an activity that —
(i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and
(ii) appears to be intended —
(A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(C) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.

I'm sure there are more specific guidelines elsewhere, but you have to realize that terrorism as a legal term is a very recent development, and since defining it can be very partisan and divisive, the process to do so is humming along very slowly. It started out that terrorist groups were only subject to financial repercussions, however that changed after 9/11 when they were rebranded to "enemy combatants."

The reason al-Awlaki is a good example is because he is literally the ONLY American listed as an SDGT (specially designated global terrorist). And he's dead. The full list of American SDT's (specially designated terrorists) can be found here: http://www.federalregister.gov/articles/1996/06/26/96-16284/blocked-persons-specially-designated-nationals-specially-designated-terrorists-specially-designated

Keep in mind that includes all specially designated nationals ([IRAQ], [CUBA], etc. tags), and also includes entities as opposed to just individuals. Also, not all listings with the [SDT] tag are American citizens. Look at the country of origin next to the social security number or passport number. So the list is fairly long. Look up some of those businesses and groups. You'll find some cool things. i.e. Bay Industries Inc. in Santa Monica was a front for a part of Saddam Hussein's weapons network... until 1991, that is.

Code:

SALAH, Mohammad Abd El-Hamid Khalil (a.k.a. AHMAD, Abu; a.k.a.
AHMED, Abu; a.k.a. SALAH, Mohammad Abdel Hamid Halil; a.k.a. SALAH,
Muhammad A.), 9229 South Thomas, Bridgeview, Illinois 60455, U.S.A.;
P.O. Box 2578, Bridgeview, Illinois 60455, U.S.A.; P.O. Box 2616,
Bridgeview, Illinois 60455-661, U.S.A.; Israel (DOB 5/30/53, SSN
342-52-7612, passport no. 024296248 (U.S.A.).) (individual) [SDT]

This guy is from Bridgeview, and has six listings. Anybody know him?

Anyway, the point is that because there are very few laws on the books regarding terrorism, it is virtually impossible to make any sort of case against those sort of actions. It would have been a political question, as long as you had been designated a terrorist. So, what is the best course of action? Continuing to define rules and regulations relating to terrorism. What did the NDAA do? Define rules and regulations relating to terrorism.

Sir RegalBoogy wrote:

See, a lot of these new movements and anti-this-or-that legislation campaigns aren't necessarily trying to say "The sky is falling, the world is ending, we need to completely change everything cause it's all bad and evil, etc." What they're trying to say is "Hey, if you don't know about this yet, this is what's going on. This is why we think that's bad, and we urge you to join in our collective 'knock that shit off'' to the people who are in charge of making and passing legislation," It's not that everyone's over-reacting at all. They just want to let their voices be heard, and they want people who are either uninformed or ill-informed to become informed and say/do something about it. What better way to do that than through the internet?

Clearly SOPA and PIPA are awful pieces of legislation that ideally don't stand a chance of being passed anymore anyhow, but what it really comes down to is the fact that this type of thing keeps popping up. This isn't some anomalous bill that appeared out of nowhere. This kinda stuff has been showing up in Congress for years and years. If you made a list of all of the controversial/unconstitutional legislation that has appeared in the House and the Senate over the last 10 or so years, you'd have enough for an entire series of books.

So it's moreso that people are objecting to the ABUSE of power and the intent to abuse power in our political system, and as far as I can see it, the people are just using the internet as a networking tool to educate people and spread their message, not in panic or pretense, but in calm yet urgent opposition to what's hapenning.

A lot of good points. I just wrote a novel, though, so I'll argue this tomorrow.

Subject: Re: SOPA Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:40 pm

Sir RegalBoogy wrote:

SlingBlade wrote:

Just kidding. But seriously, this is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY overblown. It's already been promised a veto, and will never make it through both chambers. The only reason everyone is freaking out about it is because their Google overlords told them too. The ignorant masses just like to feel important, I guess... any excuse to say "fuck the government" even though a solid chunk of said government is opposed to it. Apparently people just don't know how government works.

I'm just pointing out that that's almost exactly what you said about the NDAA, too... and it fuckin' passed. In fact, everytime something like this comes up, which seems to be a lot lately, you come back with this exact same argument. "It's all overblown hype," or "It gets introduced every single year, it'll never get passed anyways." I'm not intending to personally attack you by making this observation at all, but I feel like it's important to be said that you're kinda missing the point. It's not a matter of whether or not it will get passed, it's a matter of standing up and saying "We the people oppose this and think you should reconsider the horrible decision you're making!" If it gets passed, it'll be the same thing until they fix it. Then if it doesn't get passed... great. Success. Nothing to worry about anymore. No harm done.

See, a lot of these new movements and anti-this-or-that legislation campaigns aren't necessarily trying to say "The sky is falling, the world is ending, we need to completely change everything cause it's all bad and evil, etc." What they're trying to say is "Hey, if you don't know about this yet, this is what's going on. This is why we think that's bad, and we urge you to join in our collective 'knock that shit off'' to the people who are in charge of making and passing legislation," It's not that everyone's over-reacting at all. They just want to let their voices be heard, and they want people who are either uninformed or ill-informed to become informed and say/do something about it. What better way to do that than through the internet?

Clearly SOPA and PIPA are awful pieces of legislation that ideally don't stand a chance of being passed anymore anyhow, but what it really comes down to is the fact that this type of thing keeps popping up. This isn't some anomalous bill that appeared out of nowhere. This kinda stuff has been showing up in Congress for years and years. If you made a list of all of the controversial/unconstitutional legislation that has appeared in the House and the Senate over the last 10 or so years, you'd have enough for an entire series of books.

So it's moreso that people are objecting to the ABUSE of power and the intent to abuse power in our political system, and as far as I can see it, the people are just using the internet as a networking tool to educate people and spread their message, not in panic or pretense, but in calm yet urgent opposition to what's hapenning.

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. It's not paranoia. The U.S. government over the past ten years, and especially this year, has been seriously screwing over the American people with these bogus, controversial legislations and ignorance/stubbornness towards the economy. And when I say "the U.S. government" I don't mean the government as a ruling body or democratic structure, but the politicians who run it. I think this system can work so long as responsible people are behind it, which lately they haven't. It's because of this that so many people are pissed and now protesting/demonstrating against laws like SOPA, PIPA, and the NDAA. It's why Congress has the lowest recorded approval rating in the nation's history and Obama's rating has stayed low. Citizens can't trust their politicians anymore, so they feel they have to stand up and start monitoring everything they do like parents would a child.

About the NDAA. While those provisions do perform what you say they do, better define rules and regulations with regards to terrorists, it still leaves the door open for loopholes. The wording can clearly be reinterpreted to still allow the incarceration of U.S. citizens without trial if enough of Congress and/or the President want it to. "Requirement" means they don't have to, but they still can if they want to and have enough "evidence" to make their accusations that don't have to be proved in court. It says "existing" law, they could draft a new law or future amendments to this law to change that. The current definition of terrorism and a terrorist is much more vague than you think as well.

If you really wanted to stretch it, you could say that the Occupy Movement is a means to intimidate and coerce the population towards how the government should or shouldn't manage the economy. Since the protests were done on the streets and caused traffic jams, you could argue that this caused a danger to human life as people could be killed by cars trying to get through or their life could be affected if they couldn't reach their place of work due to the protests. By these stretches, the Occupy Movement and those partaking in it can be filed as terrorists. They are all incredibly long reaches that wouldn't stand up in a court for a second, but the point is that it wouldn't need to be under this law.

Now you can say this is unlikely and I agree, but the fact of the matter is that it opens the door for it to happen in the future as it has in the past, and that's the big problem. There are people in our society who are paid by politicians, lobbyists, and special interest groups to find these kinds of loopholes so they can reach their own agenda. McCarthy did it in the 50's during the Red Scare and almost succeeded had Edward R. Murrow not stood up to him on national television (costing Murrow his career in the process). The government did it during World War II with their internment camps for Japanese-Americans. What's to keep it from happening again?

We're not at the stage of the Red Scare or internment camps, but this bill is another foot in the door, which is an incredibly dangerous thing. You let one little thing slip, then another, and then another, and the next thing you know we're screwed. That's why it's best to be not "paranoid" as you say, but cautious. Be willing to see all this crap that the politicians on both sides of the ideological divide have done to us over the years and say, "Alright, this is enough. Cut this shit out. We're not going to put up with it anymore. You guys work for us. Not the other way around."

Subject: Re: SOPA Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:20 pm

Mega upload went bye-bye today.

Subject: Re: SOPA Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:24 pm

and anonymous has shut down various website, including fbi.gov. FUCK WITH THEM.

Subject: Re: SOPA Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:20 pm

As glad as I am inside that Anonymous responded, even though they can be major dicks, I so see the government taking them down soon if they've started making moves on sites like MegaUpload.

SOPA

SOPA

Similar topics

Similar topics