Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

National Defense Authorization Act - Turning US into a Battlefield

destructionist.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 27 posts

Re: National Defense Authorization Act - Turning US into a Battlefield

#11

Post by loupgaroublond »

nextparadigms wrote: post #10
r00fus wrote: post #3

It's as if the US Constitution doesn't exist anymore.

That's why it's mandatory that Americans vote for someone that is strong on upholding the Constitution above anything else, in the next elections. The country is going downhill regarding stepping all over people's rights, and it's only going to get worse if we keep electing the same people, or the same type of people who could care less about people's rights - all in the name of "security" and against terrorism, whic…

Oddly enough, there are no major parties in the US that are built on a platform of strong constitutional protection.

Re: National Defense Authorization Act - Turning US into a Battlefield

#12

Post by rohern »

tesseract wrote: post #9
Andys wrote: post #2

Does anyone know of any countries which have no geographical, strategic, or mining resources of interest to the big world powers, which also accept immigration?

"Where could I theoretically move to if I want to stop living in the US" is something I sometimes think about. New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Brazil seem like interesting possibilities. Brazil doesn't really meet the criteria you mentioned; NL is part of the EU which I suspect means you would not be interested. NZ might fit though, and my understanding is that it is not hard to immigrate there.

They also love the free market, respect their natural resources, and have great sea food.

Re: National Defense Authorization Act - Turning US into a Battlefield

#13

Post by bsiemon »

From a supremely cynical view point this is a good thing. It is yet another step towards making living in the west impossible for the middle class.

Of such things are revolutions born.

It is terrible that we still need war/strife/etc to push ourselves out of complacency.

Re: National Defense Authorization Act - Turning US into a Battlefield

#17

Post by nextparadigms »

loupgaroublond wrote: post #11
nextparadigms wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why it's mandatory that Americans vote for someone that is strong on upholding the Constitution above anything else, in the next elections. The country is going downhill regarding stepping all over people's rights, and it's only going to get worse if we keep electing the same people, or the same type of people who could care less about people's rights - all in the name of "security" and against terrorism, whic…

Oddly enough, there are no major parties in the US that are built on a platform of strong constitutional protection.

They have become more or less one and the same party now. I'm hoping that by the next presidential election (2016) a true 3rd party will evolve. It's a good thing when 2 parties have to ally against the 3rd to have majority in Parliament/Congress. It also means that whenever those 2 parties, whichever they are, do something very stupid, there will most likely be strong opposition from the 3rd one, too.

Re: National Defense Authorization Act - Turning US into a Battlefield

#18

Post by Mediocrity »

Of course, I'm wary of anything that comes from "that" kind of site. (You know what I mean.) However, at the same time if this is true it's definitely something for me to ponder as I look out my window tonight, knowing that one day there may be a time where a comforting dark instills only a faint sense of paranoia.

Re: National Defense Authorization Act - Turning US into a Battlefield

#20

Post by garethsprice »

The minute I saw an Alex Jones/Prison Planet link I figured this wasn't quite legit:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c1120eg...:

"[SEC 1031] (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

1 A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

2 A person who was a 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, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."

So while it continues a disturbing precedent and there's plenty to be concerned about regarding US civil liberties, this one isn't nearly as broad-reaching as the article makes it sound.

Post reply on HN