Should Apolyton protest SOPA? [SERIOUS]

[giblets]

I signed Google's petition! I guess I did my part

[Uncle Sparky]

Al Franken is a comedian, writer and actor. Three good reasons to want to regulate internet content.

[Hauldren Collider]

Yeah, I don't know what the **** was up with Boxer though at least Pelosi was supposedly against the bill from the start not that she was very loud & public about not liking the bill. Personally, this is enough for me not to ever vote for Boxer's reelection.

Well, it's not as if there were enough reasons already.

[MrFun]

The cretins in Congress got the message - seems that websites' blackouts and the petitions had an effect.

[Dinner]

Boxer also voted for the NDAA bill which allows people to be imprisoned without trial if accused of being involved in terrorism. No evidence or review required. That's a huge WTF. Then again virtually everyone in both the house and the senate signed on to that one out of fear of being called weak on terrorism still they all need to go for this obvious breach of the sixth amendment.

[Wezil]

Democrats and Republicans supporting it. Same **** different labels.

Keep pretending you have a choice though.

[Jon Miller]

Boxer also voted for the NDAA bill which allows people to be imprisoned without trial if accused of being involved in terrorism. No evidence or review required. That's a huge WTF. Then again virtually everyone in both the house and the senate signed on to that one out of fear of being called weak on terrorism still they all need to go for this obvious breach of the sixth amendment.

I will not vote for anyone who allowed NDAA to pass.

JM

[Boris Godunov]

For ****'s sake, once again, the NDAA does not say that. I'm not defending it as a good bill, but in no way does it say that ANYONE can be imprisoned indefinitely w/o trial. U.S. Citizens still have habeas corpus with the bill. If you're going to (rightfully) bash it and its supporters, at least be correct on what it says.

[Dinner]

The detention provisions of the Act have received critical attention by, among others, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and some media sources which are concerned about the scope of the President's authority, including contentions that those whom they claim may be held indefinitely could include U.S. citizens arrested on American soil, including arrests by members of the Armed Forces.[

Indefinite detention without trial: Section 1021

Pursuant to the AUMF passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the NDAA text affirms the President's authority to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person "who was 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," and anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]." The text also authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin," or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity."^[18] An amendment to the Act that would have explicitly forbidden the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens was rejected by the Senate.^[19]
Addressing previous conflict with the Obama Administration regarding the wording of the Senate text, the Senate-House compromise text, in sub-section 1021(d), also affirms that nothing in the Act "is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." The final version of the bill also provides, in sub-section(e), that "Nothing in this section shall 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 reflected in Senate debate over the bill, there is a great deal of controversy over the status of existing law.^[20].


Requirement for military custody: Section 1022

All persons arrested and detained according to the provisions of section 1021, including those detained on U.S. soil, whether detained indefinitely or not, are required to be held by the United States Armed Forces. The law affords the option to have U.S. citizens detained by the armed forces but this requirement does not extend to them, as with foreign persons. Lawful resident aliens may or may not be required to be detained by the Armed Forces, "on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States."^[21][22]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012

[Dinner]

President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Into Law

President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) today, allowing indefinite detention to be codified into law. As you know, the White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use it and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations.

The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.

Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.

We are extremely disappointed that President Obama signed this bill even though his administration is already claiming overly-broad detention authority in court. Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back those claims dimmed today. Thankfully we have three branches of government, and the final word on the scope of detention authority belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA’s detention authority.

The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-law

[Dinner]

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or the NDAA, was inked by President Barack Obama on New Year’s Eve, despite immense opposition from Americans who were concerned by vague language that could allow the commander-in-chief to use military forces to domestically police the United States. Under Section 1021 of the NDAA, any person, US citizen or not, can be held without trial by American armed forces if they are suspected of being engaged in hostilities against the country by al-Qaeda or associated forces.

http://rt.com/usa/news/ron-paul-ndaa-detention-209/

[Jon Miller]

Once more, Oregon best state:
Oregon
Nay OR Merkley, Jeff [D]
Nay OR Wyden, Ron [D]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2011-218

JM

[Dinner]

Oregon was the only state to have both Senators vote no.

[Dinner]

Some internet sites have started a great campaign of exposing Congress people who support SOPA but routinely break SOPA. Stealing images off of the internet which they then use on their own websites, Congressmen who plagiarize other people's writing, Congressmen who use copyrighted video content without permission. This is kind of fun pointing out their hypocrisy.