TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- NDAA
Pages (5): [1] 2 3 4 5 »

NDAA

Cmon TA Conspiracy Theorists. Why so frighteningly silent about this new Hyper-Patriotism Act?

Infinite detention of American Citizens is provided for under article something section something of code something or other. Obviously.

Haven't they basically been doing this for a decade anyways? I guess codifying it is pretty neat too.

Long Live Robama!

quote:

Originally posted by enydo Haven't they basically been doing this for a decade anyways? I guess codifying it is pretty neat too. Long Live Robama!

Yeah. Keep them at Guantanamo=Problem solved.

It's existed for quite some time, but amending it to include US citizens as well as allowing military jurisdiction due to declaring our own country a battleground? Yeah, don't inadvertently prove Alex Jones right or something. Fuckwits.

I can probably be arrested for this post since the language in the bill is so very fucking vague.

Only if you have more than 7 days worth of food at your home, hal.

No shit.

Well, as much as I am for civil liberties, I think the people who are up in arms about this bill don't necessarily have the strongest leg to stand on. The security of this country does come at a higher price than that of the individual person. If the security of an entire country conflicts with the perceived civil liberties of the individual, I'm not necessarily gung ho in opposition to it.

Obviously most Americans think of this as a violation of their "god given human rights" but in reality, you live in a society which has laws. These laws are meant to both protect the society to which you belong, and to protect the members of this society. If this means making sacrifices, being inconvenienced, etc. in the name of national security, I for one don't have much of a problem with it.

Before 9/11, would you have been up in arms over Arab Americans being stopped in airport security checkpoints? I know this is a sensitive subject, but if you look at the grand scheme of terrorism in the world over the past decade or so, there is absolutely a reason to suspect certain individuals.

If I were Arab, I don't think I would be so offended by being subject to "random searches" by airport security.

Not all KKK members enact physical violence upon African Americans in this country. But would you have a problem with somebody who wore a white cloak and hood to any kind of all-black gathering?

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 Well, as much as I am for civil liberties, I think the people who are up in arms about this bill don't necessarily have the strongest leg to stand on. The security of this country does come at a higher price than that of the individual person. If the security of an entire country conflicts with the perceived civil liberties of the individual, I'm not necessarily gung ho in opposition to it. Obviously most Americans think of this as a violation of their "god given human rights" but in reality, you live in a society which has laws. These laws are meant to both protect the society to which you belong, and to protect the members of this society. If this means making sacrifices, being inconvenienced, etc. in the name of national security, I for one don't have much of a problem with it. Before 9/11, would you have been up in arms over Arab Americans being stopped in airport security checkpoints? I know this is a sensitive subject, but if you look at the grand scheme of terrorism in the world over the past decade or so, there is absolutely a reason to suspect certain individuals. If I were Arab, I don't think I would be so offended by being subject to "random searches" by airport security. Not all KKK members enact physical violence upon African Americans in this country. But would you have a problem with somebody who wore a white cloak and hood to any kind of all-black gathering?

Translation = I have no fucking clue what it means to be anything other than caucasian and privileged.

Which would be fine, if you weren't such an overt retard about it.

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018

So your logic goes that we have laws, and people must abide by those laws to be safe. Is that about the extent of it?

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 Obviously most Americans think of this as a violation of their "god given human rights" but in reality, you live in a society which has laws. These laws are meant to both protect the society to which you belong, and to protect the members of this society. If this means making sacrifices, being inconvenienced, etc. in the name of national security, I for one don't have much of a problem with it.

>not realizing this power will be abused in the future to silence people with ideas/ideals other than what the government wants them to have.
@ thinking this has anything to do with terrorism/national security

I do hope I get proven wrong though

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On It's existed for quite some time, but amending it to include US citizens as well as allowing military jurisdiction due to declaring our own country a battleground? Yeah, don't inadvertently prove Alex Jones right or something. Fuckwits. I can probably be arrested for this post since the language in the bill is so very fucking vague.

I was being more facetious than anything else. But thanks. I wasn't trying to write this off as being necessary or called for in any way. It's not.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On So you're logic

Stopped reading there.

It's kind of funny the people who automatically think that this is some grand scheme to strip away the civil liberties of all Americans. I also find it equally funny that all of the people arguing against this are white males. Regardless, if these kinds of policies were upheld before 9/11, and these policies particularly were responsible from preventing 9/11 altogether, what would you say then?

Right, I forgot, this has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. The US Government just likes holding people indefinitely with no just cause. THEY DO IT ALL THE TIME RIGHT?

quote:

Originally posted by enydo I was being more facetious than anything else. But thanks. I wasn't trying to write this off as being necessary or called for in any way. It's not.

I meant that the NDAA, itself, has existed for almost 50 years; I wasn't exactly responding to your point. Because I don't think it's an invalid point to think that the authorities can find a way to do just about anything they want these days. The importance of these recent amendments, which as of today, our President rescinded his threat to veto, is that nobody can contest them in the court of law. Ever. If you are accused of being a terrorist or of supporting terrorist, our government will now be able to send their military police after you to hold you until the "end of hostilities". That is, until America wins the war on terror.

Apparently, nobody deserves their day in court.

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 Regardless, if these kinds of policies were upheld before 9/11, and these policies particularly were responsible from preventing 9/11 altogether, what would you say then?

You're so full of hypotheticals, it's a wonder you even exist.

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 Stopped reading there.

Oh shit son. AMENDED!

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On I meant that the NDAA, itself, has existed for almost 50 years; I wasn't exactly responding to your point. Because I don't think it's an invalid point to think that the authorities can find a way to do just about anything they want these days. The importance of these recent amendments, which as of today, our President rescinded his threat to veto, is that nobody can contest them in the court of law. Ever. If you are accused of being a terrorist or of supporting terrorist, our government will now be able to send their military police after you to hold you until the "end of hostilities". That is, until America wins the war on terror. Apparently, nobody deserves their day in court.

This is a very grandiose misrepresentation of reality.

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 It's kind of funny the people who automatically think that this is some grand scheme to strip away the civil liberties of all Americans. I also find it equally funny that all of the people arguing against this are white males. Regardless, if these kinds of policies were upheld before 9/11, and these policies particularly were responsible from preventing 9/11 altogether, what would you say then? Right, I forgot, this has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. The US Government just likes holding people indefinitely with no just cause. THEY DO IT ALL THE TIME RIGHT?

No, it's not some grand scheme.

Government is force. This is what it was meant to do.

This is a failure on the behalf of the American people and its elected officials to inadequately safeguard our civil liberties to a fair trial. That's simplifying it quite a bit, but Congress' approval rating diving below 10% is gross failure of the republic.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On That is, until America wins the war on terror.

This is the war that never ends,
And it goes on and on my friend.
Some people started fighting it
Not knowing what it was
And others kept on fighting it
Forever just because
This is the war that never ends...

quote:

Originally posted by srussell0018 This is a very grandios misrepresentation of reality.

grandiose*

what should be changed about this to fit anyone's thoughts?

quote:

Originally posted by PivotTechno You're so full of hypotheticals, it's a wonder you even exist.

OH LOOK A CANADIAN WHO IS CRITICIZING THE LAWS OF AMERICA. THIS IS SO OUT OF CHARACTER I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO RESPOND.

You seem to know little of what you're talking about. Regardless of what Americans think their rights consist of, their rights consist of what is governed by the legislative branch of the government.


Yes, I realize it is fashionable to suppose that the legislative branch of government is "out to get" the average American citizen, but this is simply not true at all. Suppose the example that all people with shaved heads were people who made it a policy of killing or hurting black people. Would you not make it a priority to stop and question these individuals when boarding a means of public transportation (which flies through the air and has very little room for error)? If so, then how is this any different than the arabs who are stopped for security checks of people who are boarding airline flights in the US.

Think of the major airline disasters/terrorist activity in the past decade. Who has it been carried out by? You honestly think that just because 100% of the major air disasters that have been caused by terrorism were caused by Islamic perpetrators, has absolutely no justification on detaining certain individuals who might fit the general description of those types of individuals?

If there were a string of school shootings who were all perpetrated by Hasidic Jews in the US, do you think it is completely unconscionable to detain Hasidic jews when entering a school zone?

Hypotheticals or not, you're speaking in idealisms. The world today cannot be pigeonholed into idealisms like this. Policies are made to protect the society. If this interferes with the "rights" of a select few, I really don't think it's something worth criticizing an entire government over.

Oh, please keep going. This is definitely about the TSA. Uh-huh.

TSA or not, legislation that's passed in the US is for the good of the society as a whole. Individuals will always weep about their rights, but when you live in a society, you either abide by the rules of that society, or you find somewhere else to live. This is how it is. Regardless of what you may think is "fair" or "just" this is how it is. And despite how horrific you think this legislation is, there is no doubt that it will indubitably save lives and be of benefit to society as a whole.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.