[EyeBrock]

I ear it too!

[zapfrog]

@Psudo Ah yes a little Shakespeare in there Several new bills (haven't passed yet) are very troubling one dealing with basically giving the military/police unfettered power to lock up anyone they see fit without due cause, trial and locked up for ever. The other bill was going to make it illegal for small to mid size farms to sell locally (farm stands, farmers markets), trade food, give food to shelters and a myriad of other hurdles. Co-authored by both a dem. and a rep. with one having ties to Carghill and the other with ties to Monsanto.

I think if all Americans spent 20-30 minutes of their morning coffee looking over the bills and who authors them there just might be more of an agreement of what to do in this country. Yet we are as divided as ever.

[DanSC]

I really want to see a thread entitled "Question for our Australian members" asking why they're here.

[MacAilbert]

I'm here because Canada is boss, and I'd move there if I qualified for immigration (Which I don't. I lack an in demand job skill.).

[coaster_dot]

MacAilbert wrote:

I'm here because Canada is boss, and I'd move there if I qualified for immigration (Which I don't. I lack an in demand job skill.).

I would do as much traveling as you can up there. After I joined this site I have made it to every province (excluding the territories) and my perspective has changed so much on life and just everything in general.

While I still would love to move up there, I am thinking more realistically and working towards that job "in demand". And who knows, maybe in a few years it will actually become a reality.

[Psudo]

@zapfrog: I don't often get a chance to quote Shakespeare. The little I know is rarely applicable.

Most US bills are not passed (I think 2-3% become law), and many are intended as symbolic statements rather than serious attempts to produce law. There was a Democrat who authored a bill to reinstate a military draft, for example. That was an attempt to ignite outrage against the war in Iraq, not serious support for a draft. That said, I'd love to see Twitter feeds that give short layman summaries of House and Senate bills as they are proposed with links to full details; basically, your reading-over-coffee idea for the digital age.

Also, I'm more interested in the sponsors' rationale than their ties. The wrong thing to do is still wrong even if it's your own personal idea, and the right thing to do is still right even if a multinational corporation pays you to do it. Those two bills don't sound like those things from your description, but hearing their stammering, embarrassed concessions or bombastic, broken defenses would go a long way to convince me.

Does Canada have far more bills proposed than passed, too? Is that a statistic with a recognized name? The comparison would tell us something fundamental about parliamentary system vs. congressional systems.

[GreenTiger]

CanadianJeff wrote:

I think thankfully most of the people here really are good company. Even when you disagree with them.

Cheers to our American friends.

Exactly, exactly, exactly

That puts it well, we know we are in good company.

[zapfrog]

@Psudo the bill dealing with unlawful detention is actually embedded in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. This is usually the act that gets passed for military funding but this time around they have slipped in some very contraversial pieces. Obama at first said he would veto it but now it looks like he will pass it.

[Psudo]

Thanks, zapfrog! That was enough info for a decent Google search.

If they pass a law, how can it be called "unlawful"? Most of these articles say "indefinite detention."

Secondly, the law says "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" can be held "without trial until the end of the hostilities." (My source for these quotes is this extremely opposed article.) In light of US troops leaving Iraq this month, I don't think we can presuppose hostilities of unlimited duration. Thus, we can't presuppose detention of unlimited duration, either. The exact duration of the detention is unclear, I admit; It'll be a few more years, but exactly how many is unknown. But the wording of the law takes away the scary connotation of "eternal detention."

I hardly think a law with an expiration condition built right in can be taken as some great attack on enduring constitutional principles, especially since I know of no US policy limiting the duration of the detainment of regular prisoners of war, either (ie, those who constitute soldiers under Geneva because they are accountable to governments and wear uniforms in exactly the way al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists typically do not). Basically, this policy says, "Treat them like other prisoners of war." It's exactly the type of thing human rights advocates called for from the Bush Administration for years in the effort to end the "enemy combatant" distinction, but now that they're getting it they act like it's some new attack on human rights. I call BS on that.

It is an inroad against freedom in the pursuit of security, and there's a reasonable basis for criticism based on that principle. Yet there is a valid defense of the clause on the principle that security makes freedom possible, too. It's a philosophical controversy, not a clear mistake as it is portrayed.

[zapfrog]

The language in question is from sections 1031 and 1032 while I notice most who are in favor completely ignore these sections and quote sections 1021 and 1022.

[Psudo]

I was quoting 1021 and 1022 because it is what the critics in that article quoted, but just to ensure I've missed nothing:

2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA, pdf), Sections 1031 and 1032 wrote:

SEC. 1031. COUNTERTERRORISM OPERATIONAL BRIEFING REQUIREMENT.
(a) BRIEFINGS REQUIRED.—Beginning not later than March 1, 2012, the Secretary of Defense shall provide to the congressional defense committees quarterly briefings outlining Department of Defense counterterrorism operations and related activities involving special operations forces.
(b) ELEMENTS.—Each briefing under subsection (a) shall include each of the following:
(1) A global update on activity within each geographic combatant command.
(2) An overview of authorities and legal issues including limitations.
(3) An outline of interagency activities and initiatives.
(4) Any other matters the Secretary considers appropriate.
SEC. 1032. NATIONAL SECURITY PLANNING GUIDANCE TO DENY SAFE HAVENS TO AL-QAEDA AND ITS VIOLENT EXTREMIST AFFILIATES.
(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to improve interagency strategic planning and execution to more effectively integrate efforts to deny safe havens and strengthen at-risk states to further the goals of the National Security Strategy related to the disruption, dismantlement, and defeat of al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates.
(b) NATIONAL SECURITY PLANNING GUIDANCE.—
(1) GUIDANCE REQUIRED.—The President shall issue classified or unclassified national security planning guidance in support of objectives stated in the national security strategy report submitted to Congress by the President pursuant to section 108 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404a) to deny safe havens to al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates and to strengthen at-risk states. Such guidance shall serve as the strategic plan that governs United States and coordinated international efforts to enhance the capacity of governmental and nongovernmental entities to work toward the goal of eliminating the ability of al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates to establish or maintain safe havens.
(2) CONTENTS OF GUIDANCE.—The guidance required under paragraph (1) shall include each of the following:
(A) A prioritized list of specified geographic areas that the President determines are necessary to address and an explicit discussion and list of the criteria or rationale used to prioritize the areas on the list, including a discussion of the conditions that would hamper the ability of the United States to strengthen at-risk states or other entities in such areas.
(B) For each specified geographic area, a description, analysis, and discussion of the core problems and contributing issues that allow or could allow al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates to use the area as a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks, engage in propaganda, or raise funds and other support, including any ongoing or potential radicalization of the population, or to use the area as a key transit route for personnel, weapons, funding, or other support.
(C) A list of short-term, mid-term, and long-term goals for each specified geographic area, prioritized by importance.
(D) A description of the role and mission of each Federal department and agency involved in executing the guidance, including the Departments of Defense, Justice, Treasury, and State and the Agency for International Development.
(E) A description of gaps in United States capabilities to meet the goals listed pursuant to subparagraph (C), and the extent to which those gaps can be met through coordination with nongovernmental, international, or private sector organizations, entities, or companies.
(3) REVIEW AND UPDATE OF GUIDANCE.—The President shall review and update the guidance required under paragraph (1) as necessary. Any such review shall address each of the following:
(A) The overall progress made toward achieving the goals listed pursuant to paragraph (2)(C), including an overall assessment of the progress in denying a safe haven to al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates.
(B) The performance of each Federal department and agency involved in executing the guidance.
(C) The performance of the unified country team and appropriate combatant command, or in the case of a cross-border effort, country teams in the area and the appropriate combatant command.
(D) Any addition to, deletion from, or change in the order of the prioritized list maintained pursuant to paragraph (2)(A).
(4) SPECIFIED GEOGRAPHIC AREA DEFINED.—In this subsection, the term "specified geographic area" means any country, subnational territory, or region—
(A) that serves or may potentially serve as a safe haven for al-Qaeda or a violent extremist affiliate of al-Qaeda—
(i) from which to plan and launch attacks, engage in propaganda, or raise funds and other support; or
(ii) for use as a key transit route for personnel, weapons, funding, or other support; and
(B) over which one or more governments or entities exert insufficient governmental or security control to deny al-Qaeda and its violent extremist affiliates the ability to establish a large scale presence.

Oh noes, strategic antiterrorism intelligence disclosed to Congress! The horror!

Seriously, explain what part of this is controversial.