Good point, but what about a company like Google? Maybe I'm overestimating their clout, but if they decide to fuck off, won't that provide something akin to legitimacy all on its own? Of course, you'll have backlash akin to the "freedom fries" post-9/11 thingy, but facing the alternative of vastly inferior web-services, would that many people boycott Google? Also, preventing large companies from moving/attracting companies has been the reasoning behind the international race to the bottom on corporate taxes and business friendly policies as well. (at least that's the arguments we're always presented with here in Switzerland)
The NDAA was a beautiful bit of political chicanery from the Republicans. Obama was fucked no matter which way he went. It was a must pass bill and failing to sign it would have meant funding for food for soldiers wouldn't be processed. That's not an exaggeration - without signing that bill at that moment, the funding to feed soldiers would not have cleared. Soldiers wouldn't have been paid. It would have been an immediate and horrific clusterfuck. Why not just Veto the bill? It was passed with enough votes to override the veto. Dude was boned. Refusing to sign would have just delayed it going into law anyway and would have fucked over every soldier in the country. Essential expenses like pay and fundamental requirements like food for the armed forces can be paid without congressional approval - but that's a nightmare all on it's own. The NDAA also includes some shit that failing to support it would just be a nightmare. Previously, a woman in the us armed services who was raped could be compelled to remain on base or station with her attacker. The NDAA provides provisions for a transfer and failing support it would give feminist republican agitators huge leverage against Obama. And the reality is, most of the really obnoxious shit in the act is clearly unconstitutional. That shit will be being challenged in court inside of a month.
In any event, the legislation states that nothing in it may be “construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” As much as I don't love the legislation, it's not nearly as scary as many make it out to be.
Don't forget that everyone would have said, "OMG OBAMA HATES THE TROOPS." It's Congress that put all that shit into the same bill that funds military food / pay / utilities, but it's Obama who gets stuck with the blame if he doesn't like what's in there.
I read that line too, and wondered if it was that simple. That seemed so clear, yet serious people I respect have been freaking the fuck out about this bill. Are we missing something?
Not true! Read this: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/ Specifically myth #3. The only reason Barack Obama ever opposed these insane government overreaches by the way is because he felt Congress was getting in on his action by even talking about it. See here: http://blog.independent.org/2011/12/15/obama-caves-agrees-he-is-all-powerful/
Wait... so NDAA is excused because they decided to combine the "will we feed the troops this month" provision with the shit on the Constitution section? I don't care what asshattery they used to try to cover their tracks; they're still all cheap whores. Also, the language of the bill DOES apply to U.S. citizens no matter what they tell you. There is a provision in the bill that says "military detention is not required for US Citizens, legal aliens, etc." It's not REQUIRED to imprison them if a U.S. citizen is suspected of terrorism (like it IS required to detain a foreigner suspected of the same). But PERMISSIBLE? Well, yes. Here's an opinion piece on the New York Times: <a class="postlink" href="http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/more-rubble-from-the-military-detention-cave-in/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.co ... n-cave-in/</a> If you look at the language of the bill, yes it probably can be used to screw you over.
'They' are certainly cheap whores, and nobody is excusing this act. The distinction is largely weather Obama sucks for signing it - or weather he was forced into a position of deciding what shaped dick he was fucked with, and he took the option where the troops don't suffer for pointless grandstanding to delay legislation that was going through no matter what he did. I don't think anyone is arguing that whoever drafted the act is a soulless, evil cocksucker who should rot in a secret jail without a lawyer or due process. But Obama isn't the asshole in this particular story.
Whatever he is - it is no longer "a man of principle". In 2008 I voted for a man who I believed had conviction and would do the The Right Thing (TM). I was wrong. There are many things in the past few years that I've been displeased with, but his signing the NDAA and authorizing this indefensible breach of civil liberties is the monumentally large reason why I won't be supporting him in the upcoming election.
Exactly. He expressed a passing concern and then not only signed it, but championed it. Let's not be apologists and pretend that he has no responsibility for it. If he didn't like it, he should have a spine and not put it into law. I don't really think the indefinite detention thing is going to be that big of a deal anyway though. Everyone thought that the PATRIOT ACT was going to be the end of civil rights and we would be living in an Orwellian society. Well that never happened and neither does any other doom-and-gloom scenario people like to conjur up for this kind of stuff. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the bill per se; its just an idle observation on how this stuff usually plays out.
Not to drag yet another thread out of the dustbin, but this is a pretty interesting website on SOPA and the Congresscritters who are for/against it that you can sort in a couple of interesting ways.
I know I'm in the minority here, but I actually support the core tenets of this bill. It shouldn't be passed now, as there are a lot of kinks to be worked out, and it's too detrimental to establishments outside it's scope. The bill will have a low approval rating whether it's revised, or not. Prohibiting the spread of piracy and free entertainment might not be what people want, that doesn't mean it's not what's right. What gives you the right to have free access to products that were so expensive to make? It's arguable that it's not even what's best for the customers in the long run. The market for game develops and film makers has shifted over the last decade as profits have not risen in line with costs relative to previous years. We've had entire threads on here about that. If the government ignores this problem, quality is eventually going to start suffering. I can live without a movie like Avatar, but I don't want to miss out on The Dark Knight and Inception. Ditto for several popular gaming titles. All that aside, I don't think this bill would solve the problem. You can't shut down off shore websites, and you can't block all of them. Especially when they're popping up daily. You can make it a pain in the ass to find content, which will help, but the only way to truly eliminate the problem is to have punishments strong enough to act as a deterrent. I'm not sure how I feel about that.
I'd be hard-pressed to find a reasonable individual who'd argue against SOPA on the grounds piracy. However, it's worth noting that piracy does have its merit, as it allows people to preview media before potentially wasting their money on a shitty product. The honest customers will usually subsequently pay for it on iTunes (or whatever the appropriate outlet happens to be), though not nearly as often as they should. The spirit of the bill is there, because it protects content creators from lost assets. However, the execution (as you've already noted) is simply awful. These lobbyists promoting the bill are not only covering their boundaries, they're overreaching them. They're trying to protect what's theirs, while taking what's someone else's in the process. No entity should ever have the jurisdiction to shut down another website outright due to copyright infringement. There are more appropriate courses of action. Revisions exist for a reason, and it's clear that this bill hasn't undergone any. It desperately needs to go back to the drawing board.
The White House Comes Out Against SOPA Given that key SOPA supporters are backpedaling as quickly as possible- Leahy calling for "more study," even Lamar Smith trying to strike a compromising tone- I would bet that nothing will pass this year. Since the 2010 elections, Congress has only passed legislation when it absolutely had to. The federal budget (of which the NDAA was a part) had be passed or the government would be shut down. Likewise, the debt ceiling had to be increased, or the Treasury would have defaulted on its debts. Acts of Congress that don't require the threat of global meltdown have been few and far between, aside from a few trade agreements and a mild patent reform bill. It took five fucking months to confirm the Secretary of Commerce. Full disclosure: I work in DC politics, and I'm invested in the President's re-election. I was pissed off by the NDAA, but the indefinite detention supporters had a lot more leverage than the SOPA forces.
So wikipedia is going to do a blackout in protest: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout
I just saw this, and I think it's awesome. I'm not sure how much of an effect it will have, but it looks like I'll have to find some other way to spend my afternoon tomorrow. I read WAY too much Wikipedia...