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

21–27 of 27 posts

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

#21

Post by nextparadigms »

rohern wrote: post #12
tesseract wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Isn't NZ one of the countries with the 3-strike law? Or did they repel that?

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

#22

Post by rdtsc »

DamnYuppie wrote: post #7
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?

The U.S. is one of the few countries where you can not give up your citizenship. Combine that with the fact that the U.S. has extradition treaties with all but Brazil and China you really have nowhere to run...

I think you can renounce your citizenship. But(!) with IRS's approval only. You have to prove that you are not doing it in order to avoid paying taxes.

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

#23

Post by rdtsc »

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.

NZ has actually been an American guinea pig for trying all all kinds of draconian copyright laws. Other countries are used to test out economic policies. Argentina for example, with its last collapse, was a failed economic experiment.

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

#24

Post by Tangaroa »

garethsprice wrote: post #20

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…

It's worse than you think. If you're shooting up an Army post with an AK-47, this bill would let the Army hold you as a POW instead of requiring them to call 911 and wait for the police to come and handle it.

This bill would turn the US into a battlefield because the title of the link to some guy's blog says it does. That's something that trained soldiers coming over here and shooting people and bombing stuff in the name of a foreign power could not do.

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

#25

Post by muraiki »

garethsprice wrote: post #20

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…

Thanks for posting this. I know that Alex Jones can blow things out of proportion... but still, the ACLU writeup seems to be pretty strongly worded and argues essentially the same thing as this article. Is there something we're missing?

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

#26

Post by garethsprice »

muraiki wrote: post #25
garethsprice wrote: post #20

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…

Thanks for posting this. I know that Alex Jones can blow things out of proportion... but still, the ACLU writeup seems to be pretty strongly worded and argues essentially the same thing as this article. Is there something we're missing?

I don't know... I thought section 1032 might be the one with the more general provisions, but 1032.a.2 ("COVERED PERSONS") is dependent on 1031's provisions that restrict it to people involved in 9/11 or al-Qaeda.

While the whole idea of indefinitely detaining people without trial is contrary to the principles of the constitution and circumventing due process opens a loophole where it's easy to accuse anyone of al-Qaeda affiliation, the press around this one seems to be disingenuously omitting that aspect of the bill.

I trust the ACLU as a source though, so maybe we are missing something.

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

#27

Post by tesseract »

nextparadigms wrote: post #21
rohern wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Isn't NZ one of the countries with the 3-strike law? Or did they repel that?

It was passed, then repealed, and may now be passed again. I haven't checked lately. Obviously something I would investigate before going there.
Post reply on HN