1) This is gonna be a long post, lots to reply to. EDIT: Think I'm done editing now.
2) Some of this might get repetitive, but rather than trying to group together similar quotes I'm just going to do everyone individually. Worth reading the whole thing and not just my reply to you, because I might address some of your concerns elsewhere. Again, its all choppy, I'm sorry but I'm being distracted by other things too.
3) I still don't read any condescending in my first post but I'll apologize to the OP anyways. Any tone or attitude in my post is actually meant to be directed at the article, not you. The article is what ground my gears, not your posting it.
4) I want to repost the definition of "covered persons," exactly who this bill affects. This seems to have been missed ?_? and I will be referencing it throughout my post:
- (1) planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for such attacks; or
- (2) was part of or substantially supported al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.
Forte.exe said:
Just because we've been living with something for years does not make it a good thing. If anything, it just means we're complacent enough to accept that it's not going away.
This is true, and I suppose the complacence is why I have no inherent problem with it. The problem I'm seeing and why I brought it up is that the Patriot Act passed 10 years ago, and was actually renewed
this year. Nobody cared then. But this bill comes along and suddenly people are set off. I don't get it.
az said:
if you do not believe in slippery slopes (? i mean what does that even mean? is that like not believing in sex before marriage, or not believing in santa claus?) honestly i don't even know how to take you seriously because i think you need to rethink what you even mean by that and why not if you still insist you "don't believe in slippery slopes". i will try to take the rest of your post seriously but jfc man
Slippery slope means that if something can happen, we have to assume it will happen; if something can be taken to the extreme, it will. I don't find that argument valid in the slightest because the reality is that you can stop. I really hate it when its brought up in Smogon policy, because god forbid we say "no" if somebody goes down that slope.
And again, checks and balances within the US Government means its especially not valid in this case. I mention checks and balances a lot because it works.
az said:
(1)apparently based on your blind advocacy of the Patriot Act you don't want to be a free man anyway so arguing why a bill that potentially lets the government lock up anyone they want to is a dreadful idea is probably akin to smashing my head against a brick wall, but i'll make this real simple for you
i honestly don't know if you are serious re: intention. (2)do you believe that all people that come to power have the exact same intentions as the people that came before them in the same positions? the bill isn't scary because it means the government want to lock us all way, the bill is scary because it establishes a framework that down the line could be very easily abused. hell, this one isn't even a slippery slope -- this could be abused without any further manipulation or spin
1.1) Echoing earlier in my post, I'm more complacent towards the Patriot Act than a supporter. I don't have any inherent problem, nor do I have a "fight the power" agenda so "whatever." I'm not blindly advocating it, but what it allows (pretty much unrestricted surveillance) works in tandem with this bill (see definition of "covered persons"). We aren't doing a lottery
1.2) TBH life is a trade-off between security and liberty. Always has been. You sacrifice certain liberties in exchange for security and structure. Having just one or the other is either Anarchy or Communism(?). I, along with 99.99% of the population, don't see any change in their life because of bills like this; and prove that the 0.01% that is affected is innocent before (shouldn't be the other way around imo). Maybe my viewing it as a trade-off makes it easier for me to cope with it, idk.
2) Already explained that I fully believe in the checks and balances system, as full on stops any kind of potential framework. If Congress miraculously does start functioning as a unit and they do try to abuse it, it wouldn't slide. There is no chance that every person in a federal seat will work together to make such abuses happen. If you need immediate security, Supreme Court Justices are seated for life; they don't see regular changes. They all see multiple sessions of Congress and Presidents. There is no chance that they will take up the collective view of power abuse (again assuming that miraculously every other seat of power does).
az said:
the real issue is nothing at all to do with citizenship and terrorism and how they can be combined and confused in your god-awful system, the issue is why on earth are you so content to sit back and let someone dictate to you without a trial what someone is or is not guilty of based on a label they have been given which you need a legitimate trial to determine
worry about every citizen's protections -- this is what this amounts to
What is this bill trying to accomplish if not the protection of every citizens? It's certainly not a personal vendetta or a "just because" instance. Sometimes trials are not necessary (such as Osama's case, mentioned below), and in cases like that I think there should be elevated procedures. The bill dictates that the Secretary of Defense(?) has to regularly report to Congress, and if anything is off or abused there will be consequences to those involved. It isn't an unchecked power. I talk more about this below (quoting aska), but I do not think law enforcement will immediately jump to this bill at the slightest hint of terrorist activity because of that. To me, this bill is for instances where there's no doubt whatsoever; if there is any doubt or not enough evidence, other routes should be used to prosecute them.
I can't predict the future obviously, but I don't like to assume "worst case scenario or bust" either. Nothing would ever be accomplished if the world only expected the worst out of everything.
And with all of that said to you specifically, these are just my opinions on each matter you brought up. We obviously disagree and that's fine. My replies are a little short and vague because otherwise I'd just be repeating stuff from my previous posts. Basically, I don't know what else I can say, even if you retort.
Granstafer said:
Read this. If this is "extreme paranoia," the the country has a damn right to be paranoid.
With this new National Defense Authorization Act, that kid could have been arrested on the spot, unquestioned.
1) The kid was never detained, just questioned.
2) The kid would
not get arrested on the spot because of this bill. Read the definition of "covered person" above, and correct me if he fits one of the two definitions. Claims like that are what I'm talking about with paranoia. Umbreon Dan tried to do it in the Internet Censorship bill thread by stating Smogon would get shut down because of its karaoke contests, whereas the bill only targeted "sites dedicated to piracy."
Joeyboy said:
And Veedrock no matter the intentions of this bill, the simple fact is that it implicitly states that the military can imprison anyone without due process. That is just not good, no matter how you look at it. Everyone deserves a trial, I believe even Osama should have been given one.
The bold is where this falls apart, because its NOT "anyone." For example, they certainly can't imprison me because of this bill (see: "covered person"). They have to regularly report their plans and actions, it isn't a program where somebody is detained and never heard of again. The system is checked, abusing will not be worthwhile to those in charge. The idea that they'll just pull people and that's the end of discussion is unrealistic.
As for the bit about everyone deserving a trial, that's your opinion and I can respect that, but I disagree. A trial for Osama for example would simply be a formality, the result wouldn't change in the face of a trial. Instances like that are where elevated circumstances are need imo.
Outlaw said:
Yes, cause the government/military/police etc have never abused the Patriot Act before, why would they abuse this?
Also, veedrock is such a troll.
Rah Rah Fight The Power!!
I'm not trolling, these are my opinions. I don't have an anti-government agenda like you do and I have faith that the system works. And as I said earlier there is a legitimate issue with this bill and it would be awesome if this topic was used to discuss it, but they don't spawn from out-of-control abuse.
aska said:
Veedrock, you say the military would never lock up anyone who wasn't a terrorist. Alright, then prove it. Prove in a court of law that each person you send to military prison is actually a terrorist. If they are citizens of this country, they have a right to a fair trial and it is the duty of the government to protect this right. That is why this part of this bill is so bad. There is no slippery slope. We are already at the end of the proverbial slope.
I agree, terrorists don't deserve any rights, so long as we are certain they are terrorists. If we can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that they have committed acts of terrorism or harbored terrorists, then we shouldn't be putting them in military prisons.
There's a bit of contradiction saying citizens have rights but terrorists shouldn't, as that's the controversy with the bill; what if they're both?
Anyhow, again going to fall back on the Patriot Act for assurance. The practically unrestricted surveillance allowed by law enforcement can determine beyond a shadow of a doubt if somebody is a "covered person." If there is any doubt, I'm going to happily assume that law enforcement will take other routes to prosecute those persons of interest,
NOT immediately fall back on this bill to have the military move in and detain.
(And for Outlaw's sake, let me again say I'm not trying to openly support the Patriot Act, but it
is in law and its purpose does allow for certainty in regards to finding legitimate terrorists. The legitimacy of the Patriot Act is another discussion entirely)
===
Sorry if any of this is jumbled, I'm a bit disoriented atm (roommate drama UGH). If you're not satisfied with my reply let me know specifically where and I can try to elaborate. Remember a lot of this is my personal opinion, you might not agree and that's fine. Won't be posting to defend any more echoed arguments about my stances.
