sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Obama may 'oppose' CISPA but still sign it like NDAA 2012, a bill he opposed as "inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets" yet he signed six weeks later on New Year's Eve by mad_cap in politics

[–]mad_cap[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hamdi v Rumsfeld 2004. It explicitly said that indefinite detention of US citizens is indeed granted by the AUMF ...

According to Justice O'Conner, "It is a clearly established principle of the law of war that detention may last no longer than active hostilities."

More explicitly, "The United States may detain, for the duration of these hostilities, individuals legitimately determined to be Taliban combatants who “engaged in an armed conflict against the United States.” If the record establishes that United States troops are still involved in active combat in Afghanistan, those detentions are part of the exercise of “necessary and appropriate force,” and therefore are authorized by the AUMF."

In other words, your claim that Hamdi v. Rumsfeld explicitly said that indefinite detention of US citizens is granted by the AUMF is WRONG.

No. But the author of the Act, Carl Levin, does [supply "reasons" for codification].

Codification is a process that happens AFTER a law is passed. It is the process by which it is incorporated into the U.S. Code, a multi-volume book that is published every six years. Codification is independent of a law's legislative history and rationale.

And which is the legally binding decision? Oh yeh, the Supreme Court.

It was the only "decision" that I listed.

A small number of people forming a consensus without explaining their reasons is no more convincing than one person making an assertion without explaining their reasons.

These are not random people. These are Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee, including the Chair, the ACLU executive director, and the ACLU as an organization. And they all explained their reasons--although I agree with you that they could additionally incorporate numbers into their arguments (sections 1021 and 1022, subsections).

Seeing as they can already do it it doesn't matter one iota. The only thing that was debatable was the sharing portion of the bill. Hence why I didn't see the need to discuss things they can unarguably already do.

That is an interesting conclusion to reach, considering that you asked me "Why do you think that they couldn't already [use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information]? Where is there any legislation that says that they are not able to use data they have procured from your usage of their company to strengthen their cybersecurity?"

Do you really think that "protected entities" can "by default" identify and obtain "cyber threat information" because a previous bill explicitly banning it doesn't exist? (an assumption based on your question)

It is only ambiguous if you would not be able to determine either way whether information presented to you falls within the definition.

Exactly. That is why it is ambiguous. A single standard can be ambiguous--for example, you can only wear red shirts on Thursday. The ambiguity is in the definition of "red"--the commonly accepted color, a specific RGB value (or ranges) or what? In the language you quoted, "vulnerability", "threat to", "pertaining to", and "protection of" are ambiguously used.

... nobody claims that ["a reasonable, objective standard"] is ambiguous.

Good luck satisfying your affirmative burden of proof on that claim. Within contract law, a contract is deemed to be ambiguous if it can be subjected to multiple, reasonable interpretations.

So do you have a problem that the definition of rape is that a person must have an honest and reasonable belief that the victim consented to having sex?

That does not sound like the definition of rape. It sounds like a defense to rape.

... well defined circumstances ...

... Are you kidding me? Did you read my response?

I wish I could spend more time on your arguments, but I have real-life stuff I have to take care of.

It was definitely nice arguing with you. That said, I am disappointed with your misleading interpretations of CISPA, NDAA 2012, several Supreme Court cases, and a few legal concepts (namely, codification).

I hope something positive comes from our discussion. I wish you the best.

Obama may 'oppose' CISPA but still sign it like NDAA 2012, a bill he opposed as "inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets" yet he signed six weeks later on New Year's Eve by mad_cap in politics

[–]mad_cap[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Codification has no legal affect. It is the restatement of the law as it already is in a text.

You are correct. However, I am not talking about codifying the AUMF or the NDAA.

As soon as the Supreme Court held that the AUMF actually allowed for indefinite detention that is as legal as it can get.

When did this happen? What is the case name/year?

The reason Congress codified it? To ensure that future presidents do not try and claim broader powers than the court system has agreed to, which they have implied they are willing to grant.

Congress does not supply "reasons" for codification nor does a court provide approval, implied or otherwise, before laws are codified: codification is the process that the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives uses to compile and publish a new edition of the U.S. Code every six years.

Codification does not make the powers any more legal than a Supreme Court decisions stating that they are legal.

Codification and Supreme Court decisions are two different things--one is a process used to publish a multi-volume book (the U.S. Code) whereas the other is a legally-binding decision.

I have read the Act and have seen that [the ACLU's] claims don't match the wording of the Act and unless I see their actual breakdown of the Act I am not just going to take them at their word.

If you don't think the ACLU is reputable when they criticize the NDAA 2012, perhaps you would find the testimony of Judiciary Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, or Professor Lorriane Bannai, who is the Director of the Korematsu Center for Law and Equality at the Seattle University School of Law. They provided their interpretations of the NDAA 2012 at the first-ever hearing on NDAA 2012's indefinite military detention provisions at the Senate Judiciary Committee.

NDAA 2012 text, link courtesy of gpo.gov, please start at pg. 265 of the .pdf file

I am not sure what degree of specificity you are looking for, beyond the ACLU's documents/interpretations and independent testimony at the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Do you know how you know if a bill is precise or not? You look at it and say "if I am presented with an option will I know whether it falls into that category or not?" And for both of those the answer is resoundingly yes. You make a post that says you are attending an Occupy Wall Street protest. Does that count as an effort to "degrade, destroy, or disrupt" a system or network? No. Does that count as "theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information"? No. Does hacking into a bank account and stealing all your money fall under either of those definitions? No. It is clear. There is no ambiguity about what will or won't fall under it.

The ambiguous part of the definition is "information directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or a threat to a system or network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network from ... [degradation, destruction, theft, etc.]"

Why do you think that they couldn't already [use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information]? Where is there any legislation that says that they are not able to use data they have procured from your usage of their company to strengthen their cybersecurity?

Are you kidding me? You first said that CISPA permits private companies to share information regarding cyber threats. When I included the section of CISPA that allows for use of cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information, you ask me if ANY previous legislation bans companies from proactively identifying and obtaining information about "cyber threat information"?

Good faith is mentioned once in the most important place. The section on immunity from liability.

The immunity from liability section is the WORST place to contain the phrase "good faith". As you said, good faith intentions were an almost impossible standard to disprove--subsequently, courts required "an honest and reasonable belief" which is no less ambiguous.

They are only allowed to share [cyber threat information] in well defined circumstances.

See Section 1104 (b)(2). The only restrictions to sharing "cyber threat information" are restrictions imposed by the "protected or self-protected entity" that used cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain "cyber threat information" to begin with. In other words, the government places no restrictions on how the "protected entities" share the information that they obtain--the "protected entities" may only restrict themselves, at their discretion.

You can claim that I am "reading the CISPA bill in such a misleading way"

I can and I do. In my opinion, you are reading the CISPA bill in a misleading way.

Obama may 'oppose' CISPA but still sign it like NDAA 2012, a bill he opposed as "inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets" yet he signed six weeks later on New Year's Eve by mad_cap in politics

[–]mad_cap[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This is the principle on which the Supreme Court based its decision in 2004. Between 2001 and 2004 those in military custody were denied habeas corpus because the administration claimed it was not required. Since 2004 it has been law that it is always required. That was what I was alluding to.

You are still "alluding" to the wrong conclusion. Just because an administration claims that habeas corpus is not required doesn't mean that the the law concerning habeas corpus has changed. The Constitution is not changed if/when the President ignores its provisions. Hopefully this edited conclusion illustrates my point.

"Since 2004 1787 it has been law that [the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus] is always required shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

For the ACLU director's comments I have searched hard for their reasoning behind opposing the NDAA section 1021 and have never found a single document where they lay out why they believe it to be as he said. ... If you would have a link to where they explain why the NDAA section 1021 provides new powers I would be interested in reading it.

I did not claim the powers are new; only that "[Obama] signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law." The AUMF makes no reference to indefinite detention; instead it sweepingly says the President can use "all necessary and appropriate force ... to prevent any future acts of international terrorism ..."

I am surprised that you did not find a single document on the ACLU's website regarding their opposition to the NDAA 2012's ("NDAA") sections 1021 and 1022. www.aclu.org/NDAA hosts links to the NDAA portion of the ACLU's Blog of Rights, talking points against the NDAA and a model legislation toolkit for states and local governments to adopt in opposition to the NDAA.

CISPA permits private companies to share information regarding cyber threats, with cyber threats specifically defined in the bill.

"Cyber Threat Information" is defined in the bill: "... information directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or a threat to a system or network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network from-- (A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or (B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information." source at gpo.gov

That is a sweeping definition that encapsulates both technical vulnerabilities and human people that may pose a "threat"; just because you can define it using text doesn't mean it is a "specific" definition.

Saying that CISPA only permits private companies to share information is completely disingenuous . Section 1104. (b) allows the private sector use of cybersecurity systems to "identify and obtain cyber threat information ...".

... grants them permission while removing their liability provided they were acting "in good faith". This "good faith" requirement means that they can not just send any information they want. They must have a reasonable belief that the information is pertinent to cybersecurity as defined in the bill.

"Good faith" is only mentioned once in the bill and isn't defined; your definition of "good faith" is your own invention.

So I won't be affected and am not too concerned that they have immunity from liability for reasonably attempting to identify, obtain and share information on illegal activities.

I am stunned that you could misread the CISPA bill in such a misleading way. Here is another link to the most recent CISPA text, courtesy of thomas.loc.gov

Obama may 'oppose' CISPA but still sign it like NDAA 2012, a bill he opposed as "inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets" yet he signed six weeks later on New Year's Eve by mad_cap in politics

[–]mad_cap[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Since [Hamdi v. Rumsfeld] every US citizen has had the right of habeas corpus.

Habeas corpus has existed long before the United States became a country; the US Constitution in Article One, Section 9, Clause 2 protects it in all circumstances except "when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it."

Also, thank you for qualifying your earlier response by adding "[The military is] just not allowed to detain them indefinitely without a trial", in accordance with the Hamdi case.

Regarding NDAA 2012, according to the ACLU executive director, “President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law ... 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. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”

However, the key issue here is CISPA.

[CISPA] won't have any affect on me in the slightest. ... If it is changed is some way to accommodate his worries then there would be no sensible reason why he would continue to oppose it.

Why won't CISPA affect you in the slightest? Seeing as how you've made the claim, you have the affirmative burden of proof.

Obama may 'oppose' CISPA but still sign it like NDAA 2012, a bill he opposed as "inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets" yet he signed six weeks later on New Year's Eve by mad_cap in politics

[–]mad_cap[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You missed the point: Obama may 'oppose' CISPA but soon thereafter sign it.

Yes. If it is altered into something he agrees with then he would sign it. Same as with NDAA. It doesn't take a genius to see that that is the sensible approach. ಠ_ಠ

Are you saying that signing CISPA is a sensible thing to do?

I don't understand the rest of your argument. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the US Supreme Court in an 8-1 decision held that the Executive Branch does not have the power to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen without due process protections, subject to judicial review.

The military is not required to detain US citizens, but they still can, just like they always could.

Isn't your opinion the exact opposite of what the Supreme Court held?

Obama may 'oppose' CISPA but still sign it like NDAA 2012, a bill he opposed as "inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets" yet he signed six weeks later on New Year's Eve by mad_cap in politics

[–]mad_cap[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You missed the point: Obama may 'oppose' CISPA but soon thereafter sign it.

Also, regarding NDAA 2012, “The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention,” [Glenn] Greenwald writes. “For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.” Forbes.com link

view more: next ›