Let's fight back against the NDAA

[Hatta]

The principles of justice and fairness are required for personal safety. There is no conflict. If there is not justice, you are not safe. If there is not fairness, you are not safe.

So what you're saying is no one will ever be safe.

Of course not. Nothing is ever perfectly safe. But we can always be safer by promoting the principles of justice and fairness.

To bring this back to the original topic, we are all less safe than we were in 2011 because false allegations of terrorism (and if you've been paying attention you'll notice that most allegations of terrorism are false) can now have us locked up without trial. History shows us that every program in government undergoes scope creep, so we can be sure that this will not be limited to terrorist allegations for long. It is already settled law that anyone providing legal advice to accused terrorists amounts to "material support" for terrorism. We are quite rapidly chipping away at the foundations of our legal system and it's terrifying. Innocence is no protection any longer.

[dsheinem]

To bring this back to the original topic, we are all less safe than we were in 2011 because false allegations of terrorism (and if you've been paying attention you'll notice that most allegations of terrorism are false) can now have us locked up without trial.

I'm pretty sure the same thing has been happening pretty much since the passage of the PATRIOT Act, so while I don't like it, I don't see how we're less safe from the same thing happening now.

[MrPopo]

I agree with your statement, but I disagree with your definition. Personally I think it is more just to imprison an innocent man then it is to let a guilty man rape/kill again.

Then change the constitution.

I still haven't stated any beliefs I have on this particular law. I was arguing a previous point about a society's justice system; at the end of the day you're going to make mistakes, so which direction do you want the mistakes to be in?

To bring this back to the original topic, we are all less safe than we were in 2011 because false allegations of terrorism (and if you've been paying attention you'll notice that most allegations of terrorism are false) can now have us locked up without trial.

Are we empirically less safe? Or do you personally just feel less safe due to paranoia?

[Stark]

To bring this back to the original topic, we are all less safe than we were in 2011 because false allegations of terrorism (and if you've been paying attention you'll notice that most allegations of terrorism are false) can now have us locked up without trial.

I'm pretty sure the same thing has been happening pretty much since the passage of the PATRIOT Act, so while I don't like it, I don't see how we're less safe from the same thing happening now.

This was enacted with the Patriot ACt and is covered under the AUMF (Authorization of Use of Military Force) in 2001, this years section 1021 was an affirmation of this. In those 10 years the detaining of people indefinitely for terrorism has happened 4 times. EDIT: Looking for numbers...please hold.

[Hatta]

I was arguing a previous point about a society's justice system; at the end of the day you're going to make mistakes, so which direction do you want the mistakes to be in?

If you imprison too few people, we are less safe. But if you imprison too many people, we are also less safe. Either way that mistakes are made leads us to be less safe. This is why we need evidence as part of our legal system. Without evidence, we make more mistakes, which makes us less safe.

There is no "lets just throw lots of innocent people in jail to be really safe" option. If you're one of those innocent people, that doesn't make you safer at all.

Are we empirically less safe? Or do you personally just feel less safe due to paranoia?

I would ask the same thing to those who argue for this provision. The chiling thing is that nobody bothered to collect any data before passing this. It seems like if you're going to dispose of one of the core principles of our system of justice (innocent until proven guilty), that you'd want some actual facts telling you that you're actually safer.

But we can apply some common sense to the situation. We know that the government lies all the time about the threat of terrorism. We know that, for instance, Saddam Hussein had no WMD program when we invaded Iraq. We know that a lot of the Guantanamo detainees were innocent Afghan farmers. We know that there are thousands of innocent individuals on the No Fly List and Terroist Watch List. We know that when we gave the government more anti-terrorist authority after 9/11 they used it predominantly to investigate mosques and peace groups.

Given all those facts, what reason do we have to trust the government this time?

[MrPopo]

I was arguing a previous point about a society's justice system; at the end of the day you're going to make mistakes, so which direction do you want the mistakes to be in?

If you imprison too few people, we are less safe. But if you imprison too many people, we are also less safe. Either way that mistakes are made leads us to be less safe. This is why we need evidence as part of our legal system. Without evidence, we make more mistakes, which makes us less safe.

There is no "lets just throw lots of innocent people in jail to be really safe" option. If you're one of those innocent people, that doesn't make you safer at all.

The thing is that there are several cases where you don't have 100% certainty with your evidence. So how do you handle those cases? That's the point I'm trying to make here. Every single justice system is going to make mistakes either by letting people go who shouldn't be or by imprisoning people who shouldn't be. To make a proper determination as to which side to err on is to decide whether one person being wrongfully imprisoned is more harmful then one person being wrongfully let off.

To make up some numbers, let's say statistically a criminal being erroneously let free will negatively impact the life of 1.1 people on average before finally being properly dealt with (whatever that might mean). That means we should err on the side of imprisonment, as wrongfully imprisoning someone affects 1 person (I'm ignoring family dynamics for simplicity's sake of this example). But if the number of people negatively impacted was 0.9 on average we should err on the side of letting people off.

Given all those facts, what reason do we have to trust the government this time?

Government by it's very nature shouldn't be trusted; we give government power over us (any power) and eventually they will abuse it. This is the human condition. So your options are either:

1. No government, and really, no other human contact if you want to be 100% sure
2. Accept that bad stuff will sometimes happen, but overall your life is probably better than if you were living on your own

[BoneSnapDeez]

Late to the party but...............

@mjmjr25

The concern over NDAA has nothing to do with pedophiles and murderers. The concern is over the federal government detaining peaceful protestors, anti-war and anti-capitalist activists, and others on trumped up "terrorism" charges. I've already been threatened multiple times by authorities for peacefully protesting state and corporate power, the passing of this bill makes me fear for my safety.

[k.vlaros]

I really wonder if anyone here has actually read the source text that's being "debated" here, or at least the Wikipedia article for it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_D ... _Year_2012)... Anyone but me, I mean.

If you should find yourself in the middle of a US liberation / invasion of your country / region, then don't point your machine gun at the guys with the US flags on their shirts.

Many people feel a desperate lack of purpose, value, and belonging. Clinging to 'outrages' and anti-establishment dogma fills this vacuum for them.

[dsheinem]

Many people feel a desperate lack of purpose, value, and belonging. Clinging to 'outrages' and anti-establishment dogma fills this vacuum for them.

Yes, everyone who has outrage or any ant-establishment beliefs really just needs a hug. That's a whip smart argument, Mr. Wikipedia.

[Hatta]

2. Accept that bad stuff will sometimes happen, but overall your life is probably better than if you were living on your own

Yes, bad stuff will happen. But we can minimize the bad stuff by requiring that the government show its work, instead of just trusting them. Trust, but verify, right?

You always create this false dichotomy that either we have to live in anarchy or we have to accept every abuse of power that happens. There is a middle way, where the people demand accountability on the part of their government. Mistakes will still be made, but fewer. It's not all or nothing.

I really wonder if anyone here has actually read the source text that's being "debated" here, or at least the Wikipedia article for it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_D ... _Year_2012)... Anyone but me, I mean.

Did you read it? Let's see.

If you should find yourself in the middle of a US liberation / invasion of your country / region, then don't point your machine gun at the guys with the US flags on their shirts.

Well, to start with Section 1022 applies to US soil. So it's not just limited to people in the middle of US invasions. It applies to everyone in the US.

Second, Section 1021 authorises the detention of "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda...or associated forces...without trial". It's already settled law that pure political speech is considered "material support for terrorism" under 18 U. S. C. §2339B. How does "material support" differ from "substantial support"? Well, since you don't get a trial you don't get to find out. The door is wide open for indefinite military detentions of US citizens for exercising their first amendment rights.

So yes, I've read it, and it appears terribly dangerous. Are you sure you've read it?

Many people feel a desperate lack of purpose, value, and belonging. Clinging to 'outrages' and anti-establishment dogma fills this vacuum for them.

Many people feel that they can't support their arguments with logic and turn to ad hominem.