“While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet…"
Just curious: Has anyone publically asked Ron Paul about gay marriage and if so what level of support did he give it?
He opposes it.
but he's not much worse towards gay rights than Obama from a legislative perspective
Are you fucking kidding me?
I just want to say how brave it is of white men to risk 40 years of civil rights gains of women and minorities to protect their right to torrent Stargate.
Just curious: Has anyone publically asked Ron Paul about gay marriage and if so what level of support did he give it?
[Can we dial it back some, please? Thanks. ]
Why is everyone convinced that SOPA/PIPA is going to become law?
Why is everyone convinced that SOPA/PIPA is going to become law? Everything I've read about it says passage in its current form isn't feasible.
He thinks that civil rights is a state issue. That is, if you want the right to eat at a restaurant with white people in Alabama, you're not going to be able to depend on the federal government enforcing the civil rights act. Hell, if you want the right to vote you better hope the state you're in decides to allow it.
And don't even think that the Ron Paul administration would end the war on drugs. He would make it a state issue, which means if Texas wants to execute crack dealers, it's just fine by him.
Go ahead and download any of it. It's perfectly legal, because under current law, you aren't obligated to determine the legality of the files you download online, and neither are the file sharing sites -- they're only obligated to respond to DMCA take down notices from copyright holders, and foreign sites aren't even obligated to do that.
SOPA is meant to remedy that by just taking those sites off the internet.
You can tone down the FUD there. Stories are already being published saying he has as strong an organization and as many (if not more) volunteers in every primary state than the entire GOP lineup combined. Are you going to try to convince those folks of their stupidity, too?
This will substantially raise transaction costs, and have huge impacts towards the internet, quite frankly, I've talked to many people at technology companies who say they will volunteer for Ron Paul, consequences be damned. You can call this immature and a "take your toys home" attitude. It doesn't matter, the moment he passes SOPA/PIPA/OPEN, it will be uncool to volunteer for Obama. You can make some kind of "LOLHIPSTERS" joke, but no one's going to volunteer for a candidate who acts like Obama. Obama won because of excellent GOTV and analytics, he's going to get ruined on that part because of this single issue.
No, I'm not confused, my point is that the Democrats didn't use the filibuster. Your mention of Hillary et al just serves to reinforce that point.
[Kucinich] is not only going to close guantanamo, he is going to tear it down with his bare hands.
I'm telling you Kucinich/Sharpton '12
I was just trying to explain why they're going to pass something. And if you you seriously want to stop the worst excesses of SOPA, you're going to have to come up with some other plan to take down filestube, etc.
Put another way, federalism is always attractive to the party out of power. The American progressive movement, as a "party" that is not in power, is inclined to find Ron Paul attractive, even though much of what he actually supports ought to be an anathema to any real progressive. What's important is not what he stands for, however, but what he stands against. A progressive's vote for Ron Paul is a vote against the drug war, against the Iraq and Afghanistan boondoggles, against SOPA, against NDAA, etc., and perhaps most of all, against compromise.
It doesn't matter much that Ron Paul actually harbors many thoroughly anti-progressive beliefs about race and culture and abortion, or that he's as much a hypocrite as anyone else, especially on gay marriage and on abortion. The point, for his progressive supporters, is that he has greater ideological purity and less of a corporate taint than almost any of his more "reasonable" peers.
(e) 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.
Right, you're just checking out of the debate, basically. I'd love to see nothing pass myself, but something is going to pass, and there's really nothing we can do to stop it. All we can do is shape it.
Nonetheless, Obama did something, so he must be amazingly evil. Even if he did the very thing we all wanted him to do. That bastard!
Part of that "existing law" includes due process, habeas corpus, and all the other stuff regarding the judicial treatment of American citizens. This also includes indefinite detention, as it was made illegal in 1971 by The Non-Detention Act, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
It doesn't matter what Gram's interpretation is. The Supreme Court upheld the The Non-Detention Act in 2004, and it's an existing law. The NDAA actually clarifies things on indefinite detention that were previously quite vague, and apparently needed to go to the Supreme Court in order to be nailed down. Either way, it's a far cry from the contention that Obama is A-OK with American citizens being detained indefinitely; far enough away to be false.
One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past. Some claim that this provision would merely codify existing practice. Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States — and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise.
That New York Times op-ed isn't talking about the bill as it was passed. An amendment was added later to exempt american citizens and legal residents from those sections.
The National Defense Authorization Act greatly expands the power and scope of the federal government to fight the War on Terror, including codifying into law the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects without trial. Under the new law the US military has the power to carry out domestic anti-terrorism operations on US soil.
Worse, the NDAA authorizes the military to detain even US citizens under the broad new anti-terrorism provisions provided in the bill, once again without trial.
In his last official act of business in 2011, President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act from his vacation rental in Kailua, Hawaii. In a statement, the president said he did so with reservations about key provisions in the law — including a controversial component that would allow the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge.
Heaven help me but I'm actually regretting supporting Boxer over Fiorina in 2010 despite the later's deep problems, and while Feinstein's challengers are shaping up to be a typical rogue's gallery from the mental hospital the Republican party has turned into, I don't know that I can vote for her after this.
Dude, this isn't a dick-waving contest to me. I'm just quoting the legislation itself, word-for-word, citing what the Supreme Court has ruled in 2004 against Donald Rumsfeld -- MSTPT
It looks like we're at an impasse in this discussion, but I want to make really clear here what my motivations for even getting involved in this spittle fight were. Rather than showing you news stories reporting on the legislation, I'm trying to show you the legislation itself -- MSTPT
Myths about detention bill
This article discusses the clause you mentioned, Marisa Stole the Precious Thing, but some others as well. The author's conclusions are in agreement with the majority of the press. -- mdn
Greenwald's not a legitimate source.
And yes, the press gets stuff wrong all the time. The plain language of the bill says that US citizens are exempt from the sections in question. -- empath
shoot-first-ask-questions-later policies let police off the hook, and libel suits are regularly used to shut up citizens who get out of line. Grauniad, heal thyself.
You're cherry picking news sources that say what you want it to say. Listing articles that agree with your favored interpretation isn't the same thing as making an argument.
Last night on the show, Rachel looked at the import of the NDAA and President Obama's signing statement about how he intends to use the legislation. Under the new law, the U.S. government reserves for itself the right arrest and confine American citizens in military custody, without benefit of trial, indefinitely. President Obama says his administration won't do that, but the law remains a law.
In December, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act, which makes indefinite military detention without charge or trial, including that of American citizens, a permanent feature of the American legal system.
If your candidate wants to leave crucial civil rights questions like gay marriage to the states you can't vote for them.
"Al Qaeda is at war with us," said Sen. Levin. "They brought that war to our shores. This is not just a foreign war. They brought that war to our shores on 9/11. They are at war with us. The Supreme Court said, and I am going to read these words again, 'There is no bar to this nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant.'"
In support of this harmful bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) explained that the bill will “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.” Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”
In response to proponents of the indefinite detention legislation who contend that the bill “applies to American citizens and designates the world as the battlefield,” and that the “heart of the issue is whether or not the United States is part of the battlefield,” Sen. Udall disagrees, and says that we can win this fight without worldwide war and worldwide indefinite detention.
UPDATE I: Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial
There you have it — indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial. And the Senate is likely to vote on it Monday or Tuesday.
I don't think they're lying. I think they're wrong. There's a difference. And we're talking about op-eds here, not straight news reporting.
Good thing this was a post about the NDAA.
Andrew Sullivan: How Obama's Long Game Will Outsmart His Critics: The right calls him a socialist, the left says he sucks up to Wall Street, and independents think he's a wimp.
(Who am I kidding, MLK around today would look just like The Boondocks imagined it.)
« Older "The online world of Islamic extremists, like all ... | What's one thing the major GOP... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt