78 replies to this topic

[Vulpesveritas]

As many of you may or may not know, the NDAA 2011 which was passed and signed at the end of the past year has stripped us of our freedoms. All whom are willing, I would ask as a fellow American, for you to stand up and fight for your rights which so many have died for.

February 3rd is when we stand up and demand our rights. I refuse to sit by and watch America become another China, where the people have no rights and must live in constant fear by a government of oppressive tyrants.

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 24 January 2012 - 05:00 PM.

[Damocles]

Honestly we probably live in fear of our gov't more than people in China do.

Also; thank you China for your Norinco SKS.

[Kenyon Burguess]

while im sure your intentions are purely patriotic, video game forums are not the best location for political postings.

[Vulpesveritas]

Geist Null, on 24 January 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

while im sure your intentions are purely patriotic, video game forums are not the best location for political postings.

The best thing to do is to let EVERYONE know. Tell everyone, and have that information spread. Each person tell the next.

[BL00D RAVEN]

I thought Anonymous was a british thing... before i remember something online with them in a Guy Fawks mask.

[Listless Nomad]

They had better not crash the internet - otherwise imma be pissed.

[Vulpesveritas]

They have no intention to crash the internet. Unless I have been heavily misinformed. Heavily.

[Catamount]

Damocles, on 24 January 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

Honestly we probably live in fear of our gov't more than people in China do.

Never been to China I take it?

Their government is frighteningly more pervasive than ours in all the ways they should be less, and frighteningly less in all the ways they should be more. Want to poison all your workers at a factory and their entire town? No problem! Want to blog against the government? At best that's imprisonment. Intent to sell drugs? That particular crime carries the death penalty (they execture ~10,000 people a year).

[Catamount]

As for the FY2012 NDAA, yes, it should be opposed, but a thought: it seems to me that these laws are much less signficant than interpretation of the law. Intelligence agencies and the military have been doing things enormously dubious since long before this act. That's not to say we should be passing such acts as laws, but simply not passing them, or opposing specific laws, hasn't proved enough.

We need specific protections in place, explicitly outlawing this kind of stuff, and not just for the sake of US citizens, at least, imo.

[Listless Nomad]

Vulpesveritas, on 24 January 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

They have no intention to crash the internet. Unless I have been heavily misinformed. Heavily.

Operation Blackout seems an interesting choice is all I'm saying.

[Kodiak Jorgensson]

BL00D RAVEN, on 24 January 2012 - 05:17 PM, said:

I thought Anonymous was a british thing... before i remember something online with them in a Guy Fawks mask.

the mask is from V for Vendetta it was a film set in britain, about a corrupt goverment and an anonymous person wearing a guy fawkes mask who insipired an rebllison to restore the freedoms for the british citicans.(iam not 100% on the film it was a long time ago)

the guy fawkes mask has become the the symbolic image for anonymous over the years

[Nerts]

How exactly does this law strip people of their rights? What's it intended for?

[Stone Profit]

Great, except anonymus is one of the entities doing things that cause the gov to need to crack down on the internet. Its like breaking legs to increase sales of crutches. Unfortunately, most americans are blind imbecels and dont realize whats really going on.

[Vulpesveritas]

Nerts, on 24 January 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

How exactly does this law strip people of their rights? What's it intended for?

The law states, in summary, that members of the military and police may act with impunity to detain for an indefinite amount of time, without cause, interrogate, or assassinate anyone who commits a [color=#333333]

belligerent act. there is no definition for such in the bill.

[/color]
[color=#333333]

Therefore basically the police and military can do whatever they want.

[/color]

[STi]

Damocles, on 24 January 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

Honestly we probably live in fear of our gov't more than people in China do.

lol

Anyway the NDAA is more of the same, Section 1021/1022 have been in effect for a long time. I agree with being against it.

[Stone Profit]

Vulpesveritas, on 24 January 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:

The law states, in summary, that members of the military and police may act with impunity to detain for an indefinite amount of time, without cause, interrogate, or assassinate anyone who commits a [color=#333333]

belligerent act. there is no definition for such in the bill.

[/color] [color=#333333]

Therefore basically the police and military can do whatever they want.

[/color]

no, theres just a definition of belligerent in the dictionary. Quit fearmongering dude youre no better than 1930s german propaganda

[Vulpesveritas]

Stone Profit, on 24 January 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

no, theres just a definition of belligerent in the dictionary. Quit fearmongering dude youre no better than 1930s german propaganda

Yes, but what truly qualifies as such?

bel·lig·er·ent/bəˈlijərənt/


Adjective: Hostile and aggressive. Noun:
A nation or person engaged in war or conflict, as recognized by international law.


So hostile or aggressive. By all accounts, a protester could be qualified by such if deemed so by the government. "hostile" can include someone who opposes the government in any form. Taken in loose context like this, the government can do as it likes.

Edited by Vulpesveritas, 24 January 2012 - 05:53 PM.

[Catamount]

Stone Profit, on 24 January 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

no, theres just a definition of belligerent in the dictionary. Quit fearmongering dude youre no better than 1930s german propaganda

Now, now, that just gets dangerously close to invoking Godwin's Law (you arguable already just crossed that line).


Besides, even if he was wrong (and I don't think he is), this wouldn't be even remotely close to 1930s German propaganda, because that was invariably pro-government in this exact area, and involved calling for more sweeping powers for intelligence and the military to act with impunity there, in response to claims of a growing threat of all sorts of things, from foreign invasion to terrorism (See the Reighstag Fire).

Here; here's some basic reading for you on what was going on at the time http://en.wikipedia....tag_Fire_Decree

Edited by Catamount, 24 January 2012 - 05:55 PM.

[pinsndneedles]

The military police cannot act with imputinty, especially against civillian targets. General Dempsey has more to fear from MPs than the average Joe on the street. What you fail to mention about the NDAA is that it has heavily slashed funding for the military, most of those cuts focused against the Marines and the Army. The Army alone is set to lose ~50,000 soldiers as it reduces size to fit the new budget constraints. Yes, most of those positions being lost are combat arms, but there will still be cuts across the board, and the only people in the military authorised to detain individuals outside of a combat zone are MPs.

This is all fearmongering as Stone said, although I wouldn't say it's quite as bad as it was in Germany

[Catamount]

As an aside, is it just me, or does the conversation here seem to be splitting across a line between the Davion and Marik players?

Just a lighthearted observation