The Center Stage

[Okuser]

Oh lol I thought he might be making fun of me or something

 

[Aesir]

Hmmmm I couldn't really think of anything good,

America has largely ignored the wishes of NATO for the past decade. Do you believe that we should engage in a prior and binding consultation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization over issues of foreign involvement, and why.

No because a binding consultation would just be ignored. While I agree with the sentiment and find that the more reasonable politicians would accept the terms (granted if the terms were reasonable them selves) However America as a strong Neo-Con presence, people who seem to think we have a right to do whatever we please even if it means rattling the hornets nest.

I imagine that might be hard to decipher. Do I agree with the idea? Yes kind of, though it would just be symbolic for the reasons I listed above. There's very little the international community can do about it we hold a lot of clout and unless there's a change in thinking in this country than it's just all symbolic actions that can easily be discarded under a new administration.

 

[Okuser]

I believe that we should engage in consultations with NATO. A unilateral withdrawal from collective participation in NATO will likely destroy the alliance. NATOs survival is essential to American security because NATO is currently the ONLY institution that can respond to global terrorist threats such as jihad at a moments notice.

However America as a strong Neo-Con presence, people who seem to think we have a right to do whatever we please even if it means rattling the hornets nest.

In addition, a multilateral approach improves our relations with other countries and secures Americas' position as a global Hegemon. Other countries in the alliance will fall rank and file behind us in whatever decisions we choose.

a binding consultation would just be ignored.

There's no telling what politicians are going to do sometimes, and a few of the consultations may be ignored but it's in our best interest for the long term if we obey Nato, for the reasons previously listed: Hegemony, Security and relations.

 

[Aesir]

I believe that we should engage in consultations with NATO. A unilateral withdrawal from collective participation in NATO will likely destroy the alliance. NATOs survival is essential to American security because NATO is currently the ONLY institution that can respond to global terrorist threats such as jihad at a moments notice.

Do note I didn't argue against this, I fully agree multilateral is good unilateral just makes us look bad. However I don't think you fully grasp the political climate in America.

In addition, a multilateral approach improves our relations with other countries and secures Americas' position as a global Hegemon. Other countries in the alliance will fall rank and file behind us in whatever decisions we choose.

Partially true, however it's already been shown that the other NATO countries will not blindly follow rank in file with whatever we do. Libya and Afghanistan are two that stand out to me. (However I agree with both of these so it sorta is a moot point)

There's no telling what politicians are going to do sometimes, and a few of the consultations may be ignored but it's in our best interest for the long term if we obey Nato, for the reasons previously listed: Hegemony, Security and relations.

You're arguing against a false position. Not sure if you read my post or just skimmed it, I'll assume it's the former and you may have just ignored it. However All of these things I agree with we should move Multilaterally with Nato and by saying "There's no telling what Politicians are going to do sometimes" Is false we have a pretty good idea what politicians are going to do (Unless you're the Chameleon in disguise formally known as Mitt Romney.). The last Administration either Ignored international law entirely or tried to re-write precedent. While the Current administration is likely to continue to move Multilateral, he won't be President forever and given the strong Neo-con presence in the States consultation would just be ignored by any nut job coming out of the wood work. When you have presidential hopefuls who are the front runners saying "I would attack Iran Tomorrow." Do you really think they're going to give a damn about international law? You can't approach an issue like this or any political matter without first understand what the political climate is, and understanding that while your policy might be sound and make a lot of sense, sensibility isn't a strong currency in politics.

 

[Okuser]

Yes of course I read your post, I read it multiple times in fact and couldn't figure out your position.

it's already been shown that the other NATO countries will not blindly follow rank in file with whatever we do. Libya and Afghanistan are two that stand out to me.

This assumes America in the status quo, not post engagement in genuine consultations which will lead to an improvement in relations and strengthening of US hegeomny which leads to these countries wanting to do as we do.

You're arguing against a false position. Not sure if you read my post or just skimmed it, I'll assume it's the former and you may have just ignored it. However All of these things I agree with we should move Multilaterally with Nato and by saying "There's no telling what Politicians are going to do sometimes" Is false we have a pretty good idea what politicians are going to do (Unless you're the Chameleon in disguise formally known as Mitt Romney.). The last Administration either Ignored international law entirely or tried to re-write precedent. While the Current administration is likely to continue to move Multilateral, he won't be President forever and given the strong Neo-con presence in the States consultation would just be ignored by any nut job coming out of the wood work

Obama has actually adopted many of the Bush Administrations unilateral approaches to foreign affairs. While what I said about politicians being unpredictable is probably a slight overstatement, Obama is going to do whatever is most popular in an effort to get re elected, disregarding multilateral efforts just as Bush did after 9/11 when he made the decision to invade Afghanistan without NATOs consent.

 

[Aesir]

Yes of course I read your post, I read it multiple times in fact and couldn't figure out your position.

Really? because I think I clearly outlined it. I support multilateral action, but I don't think it would matter if nato forced this new rule on America as it's going to be ignored and America has to much clout for there to be any real repercussions.

This assumes America in the status quo, not post engagement in genuine consultations which will lead to an improvement in relations and strengthening of US hegeomny which leads to these countries wanting to do as we do.

Again you're not saying anything I necessarily disagree with, but you have to realize that the United States while generally not well liked isn't going to face consequences by NATO if it ignores them. That's the problem, NATO really has nothing on the US. You can't go to the UN and apply sanctions because sanctions mean jack, you can't tariff United States goods because that'll pose SEVERE consequences on the world economy. Any Action taken everyone suffers. America is to much of a key player to be bullied into playing nice.

Obama has actually adopted many of the Bush Administrations unilateral approaches to foreign affairs. While what I said about politicians being unpredictable is probably a slight overstatement, Obama is going to do whatever is most popular in an effort to get re elected, disregarding multilateral efforts just as Bush did after 9/11 when he made the decision to invade Afghanistan without NATOs consent.

Partially true, you can't be a democrat and lower the bar on the military, it's political suicide. However he has lead from behind and acted a lot more multilateral than Bush ever did. Libya a is a prime example.

 

[Okuser]

Again you're not saying anything I necessarily disagree with, but you have to realize that the United States while generally not well liked isn't going to face consequences by NATO if it ignores them. That's the problem, NATO really has nothing on the US. You can't go to the UN and apply sanctions because sanctions mean jack, you can't tariff United States goods because that'll pose SEVERE consequences on the world economy. Any Action taken everyone suffers. America is to much of a key player to be bullied into playing nice.
.

Yes, obviously NATO cannot "punish" us, we are still a world super power. The most they can do, as shown empirically, is simply not support us! It's been established that America can do whatever the hell it wants, but this is irrelevant to what we're discussing.

but I don't think it would matter if nato forced this new rule on America as it's going to be ignored

It is not a "new rule", as I stated in my original post it is a "prior and binding consultation", which is a requirement of the alliance and has been around since the origin of the alliance.

As far as "ignoring NATO" goes, America CANNOT afford to ignore the alliance any longer. NATO is falling apart fast in the status quo and the only thing that can revitalize it is a renewed relationship with the United States. NATOs survival is of huge concern to the US because it is key to European and North American economies as well as protection for the US against global threats, as I stated earlier. This is why America will most likely NOT ignore NATO any longer.

And as for this debate, we're pretty much 90% agreeable so I don't see this going much further lol.

 

[Aesir]

It is not a "new rule", as I stated in my original post it is a "prior and binding consultation", which is a requirement of the alliance and has been around since the origin of the alliance.

It's 4 am here, so sorry if I got terms mixed up. I know what you're saying.

As far as "ignoring NATO" goes, America CANNOT afford to ignore the alliance any longer. NATO is falling apart fast in the status quo and the only thing that can revitalize it is a renewed relationship with the United States. NATOs survival is of huge concern to the US because it is key to European and North American economies as well as protection for the US against global threats, as I stated earlier. This is why America will most likely NOT ignore NATO any longer.

And as for this debate, we're pretty much 90% agreeable so I don't see this going much further lol.

The problem with that is the crazies in America don't care, A lot of these people are one prophet away from being the Ayatollah Khomeini. So while the argument is sound, a lot of them would just disregard the international community as shadow communists bent on destroying American and infecting us with gays and socialism.

 

[Okuser]

The problem with that is the crazies in America don't care, A lot of these people are one prophet away from being the Ayatollah Khomeini. So while the argument is sound, a lot of them would just disregard the international community as shadow communists bent on destroying American and infecting us with gays and socialism.

These crazies are pretty close to the truth though, the only difference is that the shadow communists don't really want to destroy America, just **** our churches and burn our women.

 

[Aesir]

^ What?...

 

[Okuser]

I mean.... what kind of response were you looking for haha

 

[Aesir]

I'm not sure if that was serious or a joke LOL.

 

[Okuser]

@Allegory Am I not yalls first recruit in months? I don't see how I would devalue the title ...

Can I get a mod to revoke the request I sent a few weeks earlier, it was on accident. I want to send another.

 

[GwJ]

Is Okuser a new DBer? I don't remember if he wasn't back when he made these previous posts.

If he is, what did he do to get in? I'm just curious because the discussion that happened in here wasn't that extensive or anything.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Is Okuser a new DBer? I don't remember if he wasn't back when he made these previous posts.

If he is, what did he do to get in? I'm just curious because the discussion that happened in here wasn't that extensive or anything.

I don't believe it needs to be extensive more than you need to show you can debate on a topic and have a good argument to back up your words. That's what I think, anyway.

 

[GwJ]

Ah, I see. I was always under the impression that I had to come up with some obscure topic I wanted to debate and find someone to debate who usually played Devil's Advocate and then succeed in 'winning' the debate.

edit: I think it should go on an invite system anyway. You should be recommended by another DH member and have a vote to decide if you should be allowed in IMO.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I think they more so look for someone that has some knowledge of politics, philosophy, religion, and/or science, rather than debating ability itself. I lack knowledge in all of those areas, so it is to no surprise that I am not in, yet those who are more studied pop up and slide right in. I think the same applies to you as well Jumpman, not to say you are ignorant like me but just not as knowing in those subjects as the others who got in.

 

[GwJ]

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to imply I should be in the DH. I was just curious on the process. I generally only give my input on certain threads because I have some amount of knowledge in them. I abstain from even posting in most threads for that reason.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I get ya. I personally just like talking about things that most people actually around me wouldn't be interested in discussing.

 

[Sucumbio]

I'd actually support both of yours inclusion.

 

[rvkevin]

Ah, I see. I was always under the impression that I had to come up with some obscure topic I wanted to debate and find someone to debate who usually played Devil's Advocate and then succeed in 'winning' the debate.

That's one method. You can also link to a couple posts (~3-5) where you posted some content/points to consider that contributed to the discussion. Since we don't actually follow every thread, it helps us when people say that they think they merit inclusion and point to the posts they have made, which can then be posted in this thread. This process is just basically to prevent people from posting one-liners to threads or people who don't/can't back up their position. As such, the standard is fairly low.

 

[Dre89]

I didn't know Gw and Holder weren't in yet.

Off to the Jedi Council I go.

 

[GwJ]

So, I just reread the last ~10 pages or so of this thread (Which go back to mid 2010 I think). Makes me realize how much I hate reading my old posts.

But jeez, so much religion debates.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Yeah, I think we aren't going to be having any more religion debates, it has been beaten to death. Although, if it is to happen, it needs to happen here and not in the User Blogs or Teran is going to have a field day with infractions.

Also, thanks for the support for the both of us. :D I think I'd learn and get better by being there, although not too much is going on there currently. Maybe something can be stirred though.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Here's something that can be stirred:

Apparently, the the House of Representatives passed the CISPA bill. That being said, Obama stated he will veto the bill as it did "not contain adequate oversight or accountability measures necessary to ensure that the data is used only for appropriate purposes". This begs the question of how many times will people rewrite these kind of bills until they get that one bill to finally be made law. Furthermore, I haven't even heard of CISPA until recently (literally yesterday), which also brings the question of how many people are aware of these bills since the defeat of SOPA, and if enough hype and awareness will be made in opposition of later similar bills

My fear is that people will become too comfortable with the idea that these bills will never pass, and eventually one of the many modified bills will pass underneath the noses of the majority of citizens. Some people may argue that they're only doing this to monitor the pirates and those with criminal backgrounds, but who's to say the government won't create what could potentially be a "Big Brother" system, where everyone is monitored online, thus destroying not only the security of our privacy, but breaking amendments to and fro? Personally, should something like this pass, it will give the government unprecedented power which they will abuse; it's not even a matter of "if" at this point. Any thoughts?

 

[GwJ]

Like you, I haven't really heard of CISPA until yesterday either. I'm subscribed to some people who do talk about it, but I haven't watched those videos. I'll get some information and give my input later.

 

[Claire Diviner]

How am I supposed to get in the Debate Group if there's no one active in the Center Stage?

 

[GwJ]

Well, Holder and I pulled it off, so it's not impossible. I'm guessing that the post where I asked about getting into the group reminded everyone that people have to get invited in and prompted them to consider me and Holder. So I guess you just have to bring it up to somebody.

Also, you can lurk the Jedi Council thread to see if they're considering people.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Well, Holder and I pulled it off, so it's not impossible. I'm guessing that the post where I asked about getting into the group reminded everyone that people have to get invited in and prompted them to consider me and Holder. So I guess you just have to bring it up to somebody.

Also, you can lurk the Jedi Council thread to see if they're considering people.

I did send in my request, but I don't think anyone answered it. I'm assuming the Debate Hall was never this inactive in the past?

 

[GwJ]

From what I got from reading the Jedi Council, the group leaders don't actively check the requests. They vote on having someone in then they check to see if that person has a request. If yes, they let him in; if not, they wait for him to send one in.

edit: Out of curiosity, can you link some of the threads you've posted in?

 

[Claire Diviner]

edit: Out of curiosity, can you link some of the threads you've posted in?

That's the problem: I don't remember which threads I have posted, and they aren't much given the lack of activity. I was hoping TheBluAssassin's threads would've been good to get into some major debating, but we know how his threads turned out. I guess I either have to wait for a good opportunity for something decent, or create a thread myself. The problem also stems from the fact that certain topics have been debated to hell already, so trying to come up with something fresh to debate over has also become a game of patience.

Maybe I'll never get my chance, maybe I will get it. Who can say, I guess?

 

[GwJ]

Well, if I am understanding the Jedi Council as I currently am, any Debater can initiate the vote for somebody. If you can find some threads you've done (I know you've done some, I've been in a few with you) or you at a later point do some, post the links here.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Well, if I am understanding the Jedi Council as I currently am, any Debater can initiate the vote for somebody. If you can find some threads you've done (I know you've done some, I've been in a few with you) or you at a later point do some, post the links here.

Indeed I will. Honestly, I've seen better topics in the actual hall than in the grounds, but that's just from casual observation.

 

[GwJ]

I never really lurked the DH because it was so dead that all the threads fell out of the range to have them visible by default, I think it's like 1 month and newer.

 

[ciaza]

if you want to get in, say so here and a debate haller will be happy to debate you on any agreed upon topic

it's not like we're some secret presitgious society that only lets in scholars, we are a smash forum after all. why don't you debate him gwjumpman? you are a debater now after all, ne?

find a topic you guys want to debate about then do it!

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

My fear is that people will become too comfortable with the idea that these bills will never pass, and eventually one of the many modified bills will pass underneath the noses of the majority of citizens.

When bills become passed into law, they are not invulnerable to being amended or repealed. Congress simple writes a new law that either amends the language of the previous bill or introduces a new law that supersedes old legislation. Depending on the climate and pressure exerted by their constituents, politicians should be moved to repeal or amend a law if their career is in jeopardy. That depends on the consensus of citizens.

Before you mentioned an executive check on the legislative, however that is not the only check in place if an unpopular law is passed and deemed to be unconstitutional. Under the jurisdiction of the supreme court, judicial review may be enforced if the court deems a law to be unconstitutional. This might be a more effective method of effecting change if there is only a niche of individuals particularly concerned about the passing of cyber-security legislation that they deem to be a violation of human rights.

Some people may argue that they're only doing this to monitor the pirates and those with criminal backgrounds, but who's to say the government won't create what could potentially be a "Big Brother" system, where everyone is monitored online, thus destroying not only the security of our privacy, but breaking amendments to and fro?

I don't know what events would incite the United States to imitate the political climate of China, North Korea, Iran, or other "enemies of the internet." The only type of scenario where I can see such an incident taking place is in cases of direct terrorism in which domestic warrantless wiretapping occurred. However, such an action was subsequently deemed to be unconstitutional and a violation of the fourth amendment.

Personally, should something like this pass, it will give the government unprecedented power which they will abuse; it's not even a matter of "if" at this point. Any thoughts?

I personally find two ideas to be fallacious. The first being that once the bill is passed, it can't be repealed. Certain activist groups such as the ACLU and networking professionals will progressively act towards repealing such legislation in court such that "Big Brother" cases if they occur, will be punished heavily and will not be repeated again. The second is that there is no reason for the US government to pursue a "Big Brother" approach on its own citizens save for the threat of terrorism. This also is a problem that should be regulated through courts and legislation. If there is immediate issues then proxies, vpns, and tor services are available.

 

[Claire Diviner]

When bills become passed into law, they are not invulnerable to being amended or repealed. Congress simple writes a new law that either amends the language of the previous bill or introduces a new law that supersedes old legislation. Depending on the climate and pressure exerted by their constituents, politicians should be moved to repeal or amend a law if their career is in jeopardy. That depends on the consensus of citizens.

Suppose the pressure isn't high enough or even there to begin with, and it isn't repealed right then, couldn't they just keep whatever bill they write as is? Granted many citizens ("many" being an understatement) will not like the idea, but that isn't going to change things unless said citizens do something more than complain, whether by boycotting, protesting, petitions, or - in extreme cases - rioting and anarchy.

Before you mentioned an executive check on the legislative, however that is not the only check in place if an unpopular law is passed and deemed to be unconstitutional. Under the jurisdiction of the supreme court, judicial review may be enforced if the court deems a law to be unconstitutional. This might be a more effective method of effecting change if there is only a niche of individuals particularly concerned about the passing of cyber-security legislation that they deem to be a violation of human rights.

This is true, but the Supreme Court has made some unfavorable decisions in the past. Their decision in Dred Scott vs. Sandford helped to uphold slavery in 1857. Plessy vs. Ferguson upheld segregation under the guise of the "separate but equal" doctrine in 1896. A 2009 bench with a conservative majority has "become increasingly hostile to voters" by siding with Indiana's voter identification laws which tend to "disenfranchise large numbers of people without driver's licenses, especially poor and minority voters", according to a report. Here's a link to the source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/opinion/15tue4.html?_r=1

Yes, they can repeal, but who's to say they won't do it immediately? The Supreme Court isn't exactly the "end all; be all" deus ex machina to solve bills like this. We can be hopeful that they see the bill(s) as unconstitutional, but we also have to prepare in the case they don't overturn it as soon as it passes (assuming it does actually pass).

I don't know what events would incite the United States to imitate the political climate of China, North Korea, Iran, or other "enemies of the internet." The only type of scenario where I can see such an incident taking place is in cases of direct terrorism in which domestic warrantless wiretapping occurred. However, such an action was subsequently deemed to be unconstitutional and a violation of the fourth amendment.

This one, I admit is hard to argue, though there have been searches without warrants in the past as recent as 2006, and they all involve either bending the rules, or finding loopholes. Who is to say they won't find loopholes for online monitoring?

I personally find two ideas to be fallacious. The first being that once the bill is passed, it can't be repealed. Certain activist groups such as the ACLU and networking professionals will progressively act towards repealing such legislation in court such that "Big Brother" cases if they occur, will be punished heavily and will not be repeated again. The second is that there is no reason for the US government to pursue a "Big Brother" approach on its own citizens save for the threat of terrorism. This also is a problem that should be regulated through courts and legislation. If there is immediate issues then proxies, vpns, and tor services are available.

I never said it couldn't be repealed, because there have been repeals before. Just not as swiftly as they should have been, like in my above statements. The "Big Brother" scenario, while admittedly unlikely, is still a possibility we cannot completely ignore, whether it gets repealed quickly or not. Granted, there are proxy programs that can be used to effectively dodge this, if it ever does happen, the point is that we shouldn't have to do that. I can still see your point nonetheless.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I just read the wikipedia page for CISPA and I've got to say that there are drastic changes which were made in comparison to SOPA. For one, the bill no longer has such a strong focus on intellectual property which was carried out to a ridiculous extent in SOPA (simply using the avatars we have now would be considered a legal breach). Second, I think that wording in SOPA didn't make it very friendly with ISPs, ICANN, and other internet related providers. However, with this new language in place it seems far more friendly and cooperative towards such organizations and requests cooperation on issues of national security. How it is enacted is dubious, but from what I see on wikipedia alone it looks like SOPA & CISPA target two fundamentally different issues even though both can be considered to some individuals to be a "violation of privacy."

 

[Claire Diviner]

That's the thing, no matter how they look at it, or word it, it still has the potential of "invasion of privacy", and who's to say they won't go overboard with it should it pass? They can spray perfume on a dog turd and make it smell nicer, but in the end, it's still a dog turd.

 

[GwJ]

Sol, I'm not sure if you have done this yet, but if you haven't, can you point out which parts of the bill are viable targets for loopholes and other issues? Theorycrafting about this is great and all, but if we can't even find any parts of the bill that are suspect to misuse, there's no point discussing this really.