Let's fight back against the NDAA

[Hatta]

BTW, anyone who doubts that this will be used to quash political speech should realize that our country has imprisoned political candidates before, and can be expected to do so again.

[o.pwuaioc]

BTW, anyone who doubts that this will be used to quash political speech should realize that our country has imprisoned political candidates before, and can be expected to do so again.

Are you seriously citing something from over 100 years ago?

[MrPopo]

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.

Except you're the one who's going in assuming every single piece of power is going to be abused. You keep stating that if the government gets any power clearly the reason is to abuse it.

Here's the thing, if the government really wants to they can completely fuck your shit up right now, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. That will not change with this new bill.

[DinnerX]

I still haven't stated any beliefs I have on this particular law.

OK.

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?

Yes, mistakes will be made. We should not let that prevent us from doing our best to treat citizens justly. Do you think it is just to hold someone indefinitely with no trial? Whether they really are innocent or guilty, I don't think it is. We shouldn't compromise our idea of justice out of fear of a mistake.

Here's the thing, if the government really wants to they can completely fuck your shit up right now, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. That will not change with this new bill.

Things are already bad so let them slide more? Or are you just saying the bill is redundant?

[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?

Yes, mistakes will be made. We should not let that prevent us from doing our best to treat citizens justly. Do you think it is just to hold someone indefinitely with no trial? Whether they really are innocent or guilty, I don't think it is. We shouldn't compromise our idea of justice out of fear of a mistake.

I think justice as many people like to see it is a meaningless concept. It is based around ideals of perfect information and the psychological need for retribution for being wronged. I don't thing striving for justice is a worthwhile activity. What I see as worthwhile is striving towards a functioning society and taking steps to ensure people don't try to destabilize that society.

Here's the thing, if the government really wants to they can completely fuck your shit up right now, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. That will not change with this new bill.

Things are already bad so let them slide more? Or are you just saying the bill is redundant?

Redundant.

[Hatta]

Except you're the one who's going in assuming every single piece of power is going to be abused.

History shows us that this is true. Any power that can be abuse will be abused. So give out the minimum amount of authority, and keep a keen eye on how it is used. What's so hard to understand about that?

You keep stating that if the government gets any power clearly the reason is to abuse it.

If the government doesn't intend to use legislation in a certain way, it has ways to stop the legislation from being used in that way. For instance, if they don't intend this legislation to apply to political speech, they can prevent it from being used against political speech by creating an exemption in the statute. They didn't do so, so I have to assume they intend this legislation to apply to political speech. Even if they didn't intend for it to be used so, it's only a matter of time until someone tries it anway. So even if their intent is pure, the law is dangerous.

[DinnerX]

I think justice as many people like to see it is a meaningless concept. It is based around ideals of perfect information and the psychological need for retribution for being wronged. I don't thing striving for justice is a worthwhile activity. What I see as worthwhile is striving towards a functioning society and taking steps to ensure people don't try to destabilize that society.

I wondered what you thought.

I realize we don't have perfect information, so consequently at times the guilty get away and the innocent are punished. Striving for our best is all we can do and is certainly better than nothing at all or less than our best.

I don't see how not trying our best to be just can result in a more stable society. Bad things usually happen when people don't believe they are being treated fairly.

[Hatta]

I think justice as many people like to see it is a meaningless concept. It is based around ideals of perfect information and the psychological need for retribution for being wronged. I don't thing striving for justice is a worthwhile activity. What I see as worthwhile is striving towards a functioning society and taking steps to ensure people don't try to destabilize that society.

Justice is not about retribution. Justice is about stabilitizing society by providing disincentives for destabilizing behavior. Incentives don't work if they're handed out randomly, so we need evidence to ensure that we're incentivizing people in the right way.

[k.vlaros]

I don't think I was stooping to ad hominem, although there is plenty of it in this thread already. This morning I read four or five op eds on this and one comment I saw a couple times in the feedbacks was "why aren't more people outraged over this?" Well, I'd say a better question is why is anyone? So I guessed it is people looking to give their lives meaning by aping some of the culture of their parents' heydays. And yes, sometimes people do just want attention and/or a hug.

I understand the global reach this has and it's even discussed to in the link I gave. Some believe that our present reality and the use of the Internet necessitates expanded boundaries (literally or figuratively) to deal with modern threats. Ultimately, who has been actually impacted by this? A number of locals taking up arms against US operations without bearing flag or allegiance, and more or less TWO American citizens that were captured with enemy forces fighting in Afghanistan. That is the source of my comment about not throwing fire bombs at APCs in the middle east.

[dsheinem]

So I guessed it is people looking to give their lives meaning by aping some of the culture of their parents' heydays. And yes, sometimes people do just want attention and/or a hug.

The problem is you are painting everyone with this brush, suggesting that those who are raising a concern are most likely just trying to relive hippiedom and/or are really just people who are have attention issues. Do you deny that there are some legitimate legal and/or ethical concerns with the legislation, and that intelligent and well adjusted people can be upset about them?