|
NDAA
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Halcyon+On+On |
| Cmon TA Conspiracy Theorists. Why so frighteningly silent about this new Hyper-Patriotism Act? |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| Infinite detention of American Citizens is provided for under article something section something of code something or other. Obviously. |
|
|
| enydo |
Haven't they basically been doing this for a decade anyways? I guess codifying it is pretty neat too.
Long Live Robama! |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| 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. |
|
|
| 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. wits.
I can probably be arrested for this post since the language in the bill is so very ing vague. |
|
|
| netroM |
| Only if you have more than 7 days worth of food at your home, hal. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| :stongue: No . |
|
|
| 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? |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
| 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 ing 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. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| 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? |
|
|
| netroM |
| 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.
:stongue: @ thinking this has anything to do with terrorism/national security
I do hope I get proven wrong though :) |
|
|
| enydo |
| 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. wits.
I can probably be arrested for this post since the language in the bill is so very ing 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. |
|
|
|
|
