CCCToad on 29/8/2009 at 17:49
Quote Posted by Kaleid
Not so sure about that, this is about Pax Americana, peace under US terms.
In order that no can challenge USA its even been reported that (
http://en.rian.ru/world/20070524/66025416.html) Pentagon reaffirms U.S. right to deny adversaries use of space (granted the source might not be the best, but thats all I have energy to look up now).
As if space isn't already somewhat weaponized to begin with.
The idea that space is "de-weaponized" is one of those pretty myths that world leaders like to agree on because its easier than dealing with the truth.
heretic on 29/8/2009 at 23:40
Quote Posted by Starrfall
This stuff goes at LEAST as far back as Lincoln so you're going to have to try a little harder here.
You're missing the point entirely.
I was commenting on the cavalier attitude regarding this and other would-be controversial issues around here as of late.
I highly doubt that anyone referenced
A Chronicle of the Embattled North during rants about say, the Patriot Act for example.
I'm not comparing the issues obviously. I'm only stating the obvious.
This is not even a stretch considering the possibility that these bills (if passed) may well exist long after President Obama's time, (which you well know) and should be under the same scrutiny now as they would have been if they had occurred during the admin of our last Disaster-In-Chief.
A time when I posit such bills would have created much buzz herabouts.
Muzman on 30/8/2009 at 01:09
Are you doing that thing where, instead of a debate or discussion you just try and pin some percieved bias on the other side?
Popular technique.
heretic on 30/8/2009 at 01:14
Nope.
Political debate is often like administering medicine to a dead man.
Muzman on 30/8/2009 at 01:21
So subtract the 'instead of...' bit?
heretic on 30/8/2009 at 01:37
Quote Posted by Muzman
So subtract the 'instead of...' bit?
Nope,
I don't have to try as it's rather obvious.
It should go without saying that this
observation was not aimed at Starrfall
specifically, but I will still express that given the obviousness of your prior queries.
Bias exists on
both sides, and I have no "other side" here.
Rug Burn Junky on 30/8/2009 at 02:05
Quote Posted by heretic
This is not even a stretch considering the possibility that these bills (if passed) may well exist long after President Obama's time, (which you well know) and should be under the same scrutiny now as they would have been if they had occurred during the admin of our last Disaster-In-Chief.
The thing is, there are a few separate issues, A) whether the bills as intended are overbroad, B) whether the bills as written effectuate that intent, and C) whether the current administration is going to abuse the law once enacted.
The first two issues are fine points and open to reasonable debate, not worth getting hysterical about, and about which the people who have the strongest opinions usually know the least.
The third point has swung so far from the direction of yes to no that it's become an abstract question rather than an imminent one. That is very important. I don't trust Obama, or any future president for that matter, implicitly, but that doesn't mean that we have reason to always assume the worst, and pander to the lowest common denominator of fear when considering legislation.
The stated intent, per the CNET article - "appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency."
The problem with this isn't it being used during an
actual cybersecurity emergency. I think it's pretty easy to imagine a scenario where that authority is a positive. The problem is a bad-faith declaration of an emergency. But that, in theory at least, is punishable. This is why there is a legitimate uproar over the prosecution of Bush officials such as John Yoo. There is clear bad-faith in their actions, and no accountability. That alone undermines faith in the government.
One of the lasting effects of the Bush administration is that has instilled an even greater awareness of the fragility of the government to be taken over by actors in bad faith. Whether this is a good or bad thing I'm still not sure. Until proven otherwise, any President is entitled to the benefit of the doubt on these matters, and it would be a shame that possibly useful and effective executive powers must be sacrificed because one administration didn't know how to control itself. On the other hand, simply having people ready to watchdog the administration is a positive (not counting the Michele Bachmans and Glenn Becks of the world).
But in either case, it is difficult to deny that there is a fundamental difference between the nature of the two administrations that changes the nature of the debate.
heretic on 30/8/2009 at 02:51
Those are some very good points, and very well stated of course.
One concern that strikes me as particularly legit is that once you give this sort of power (in consideration with others in a similar vein) it will be a nightmare to take it back. I'm not convinced that there is a viable pay-off worth taking such a risk in this place.
I tend to wonder not if these measures might be misused, but when. I know you already addressed this sort of engagement, and maybe I am indeed too paranoid in this regard, only time will tell.
You know, you totally blew the reply I'd already had queued for Muzman. Fuck you Sir, and right in the ass. :(
CCCToad on 30/8/2009 at 04:49
Quote:
But in either case, it is difficult to deny that there is a fundamental difference between the nature of the two administrations that changes the nature of the debate.
What a lot of people will end up thinking, unfortunately, is that which administration is in charge also change the nature of a bill in question (barring those with expiration dates).
For example, think about what Dick Cheney would want to do with this power if he became president (hypothetically speaking, although there are plenty of others like him)
DDL on 30/8/2009 at 08:48
The problem with the "Oh but what if a total DICKBAG had this power instead?" argument, is that ultimately you end up doing utterly utterly NOTHING, because there's always going to be potential for abuse in pretty much everything.
I can see the point, certainly, but you have to apply limits or it's just stupid.
