The VG Resource

Full Version: First SOPA, now NDAA
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
So I just stumbled on the new NDAA, which is getting a lot of negative buzz on these two sections that cover indefinite detention without trial and military custody.

Here are the sections, I bolded what I think are the controversial parts:

Full bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext...=h112-1540

Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_De..._Year_2012

Others:
http://digitaljournal.com/article/317209

http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-outr...ine-2012-1

Because 'other foreign entity' sounds like guantanamo bay to me, but later it says US citizens won't be required to be held in military custody.

I'm trying to make sense of this. What do you guys think?


Edit: “The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the“requirement” of military detention,” Greenwald writes. “For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.”

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_my...singleton/
So during all of this buzz about PIPA and SOPA (which DO need to be stopped), there's also this act sneaking in now:

The Enemy Expatriation Act:

This will give them the authority to strip you of american citizenship if it's passed.

Combined with the NDAA (which is already in effect), this means pretty much anybody that gets in the governments way can be indefinitely detained without trial and moved to any foreign entity until the end of the conflict.

http://digitaljournal.com/article/317977
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext...=h112-3166
at first I thought this had to do with the internet until I realized it had to do with 9/11 and terrorists.

It's hard for me to understand how this is controversial since I lack knowledge in how counter terrorism in the US works, aside from airports.
(01-21-2012, 10:17 PM)DioShiba Wrote: [ -> ]at first I thought this had to do with the internet until I realized it had to do with 9/11 and terrorists.

It's hard for me to understand how this is controversial since I lack knowledge in how counter terrorism in the US works, aside from airports.

From what I understand it's more bills that allow the government to execute/jail/whatever to whoever they want under the guise that they're a terrorist
Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to martial law.
Is SOPA really that big of a deal?
(01-24-2012, 10:46 AM)Alisbet Wrote: [ -> ]Is SOPA really that big of a deal?

Yes.
(01-24-2012, 10:46 AM)Alisbet Wrote: [ -> ]Is SOPA really that big of a deal?
hahahahahaha

(01-24-2012, 10:46 AM)Alisbet Wrote: [ -> ]Is SOPA really that big of a deal?

You'd have to say goodbye to any sort of freedom you have on the internet. Such as making that post.
(01-24-2012, 10:46 AM)Alisbet Wrote: [ -> ]Is SOPA really that big of a deal?

Simple yes or no answer yes.

Explained answer:

yes however please do not worry about
http://www.spriters-resource.com/
http://www.sounds-resource.com/
ever being shut down I will edit this post of mine and put in a simple as possible video to explain the legalness of spriters-resource and sounds-resource
Obama signed this into law? Sigh.
No....
(02-17-2012, 01:53 PM)Radular Bastard Wrote: [ -> ]No....
From the Wikipedia page...
Quote:]The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012[1] was signed into United States law on December 31, 2011 by President Barack Obama,[2][3]

Unless you misunderstood what I said.
Oh, you should specify, I assumed you were talking about SOPA.
Sorry about that!

by the way, your sig is awesome!
Pages: 1 2