Becoming Disheartened

93 yea against 7 nay in the senate for a piece of legislation this week. That's great right? Congress is finally agreeing on something. That's a first. But wait, what are they agreeing on? The National Defense Authorization Act 2012, that sounds important. Let's see what this little piece of legislation says.

American soldiers can be detained on American soil if they're deemed anti-government. That doesn't seem right, unless there's a strict definition of "anti-government." What else does this legislation say? While being detained you may not be given the right to an attorney or even trial. What? How is that possible? Why would the senate pass this so close to unanimously when it so blatantly tramples the Bill of Rights?

Would you care to hear how else America is becoming like Communist China? It has been reported that some Occupy LA protesters have been ordered to 90 day reeducation camps in which they will be taught to learn about their Freedom of Speech. I thought that's what they were exercising before they were arrested, but I guess that's a minor detail.

If the NDAA 2012 were to pass in both houses of congress and to be signed by President Obama, it would be equivalent to spitting on the Constitution. It blatantly goes against what the Constitution is meant to uphold and what congressmen are supposed to uphold while they formulate legislation. The US has occasionally taken drastic measures during critical times (i.e. the lifting of Habeas Corpus during the Civil War) but I simply don't see this time as one of them.

Congress' approval rating is still around that of herpes and they continue to pump out unpopular legislation. It's almost seems as if they're trying to get a lower approval rating. SOPA, Protect IP, and NDAA 2012 are widely unpopular, so why does Congress continue to push them? It seems as if Americans are slowly losing their rights. It's unfortunate that this seems to be the case, but what are we expected to do?

What's the deal with SOPA?

Congress right now has an abysmal approval rating (9%) and in addition to that the Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA) is being put forth as an option in the war against Peer to Peer file sharing. Yes, this is a problem all over the world but is it America's problem right now?

One of the major arguments against SOPA is that it's currently vaguely worded. As it is, SOPA allows persecution for websites who have links to pirating websites in their comment features. So, if somebody commented on a Time magazine article online giving someone else a link to The Pirate Bay, they would be leaving Time out to dry and left faced with a fine or other repercussions to deal with.

This brings up another interesting point, The Pirate Bay specifically is one of the largest providers of pirated material. However, it is based out of Sweden. So how can American legislation be made to quell a foreign "threat?" The bill leaves a lot to be desired and is under a lot of scrutiny from a large number of internet companies, so that 9% approval rating could be dropping.

I feel this bill is either a distraction from other difficulties that are happening in America or the World. Congress might be using themselves as a scapegoat (if that's possible) to draw attention away from the Occupy movements. Either that, or Congress realizes that they have nearly no support and decided that they might as well do what they want since they don't have much to lose.

Opposition to SOPA claims that their rights are being infringed upon, even though they're aware that they are harming the entertainment industry by pirating music. The strongest opposition are those who advocate free media, and therefore the sharing of files freely. Their reasoning for this is usually because they don't have the money for it themselves, but use the example of the price of media being a day's wages in less fortunate countries and therefore the content should be free to them.

Now feel free to give your input on this matter.

Assange "abandoned" by Australia

http://www.smh.com.au/national/wikileaks-founder-abandoned-by-government-20111107-1n3wj.html

This article goes over the conflict Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder, has been having with the Australian government. Assange's legal team has been trying to save Assange from the potential death penalty which he faces on US soil. This is why they are working so frantically to get help from the Australian government,

Assange is well known around the world for leaking sensitive US government documents and was questionably arrested earlier this year. Assange brings up a critical point in citizens rights. Do citizens have the right to know what their government is doing? Is transparency good?

Some will argue that certain topics are too sensitive and somethings are embarrassing and therefore the government would prefer to keep it under wraps. Others would say that it is necessary for them to be aware of their governments doings. That way they have the information that they need to act politically in their community.

Another question Assange's case brings up is whether or not the government should protect their citizens even when on foreign soil. Australia and America are not on bad terms, but the Australian government understands that America isn't necessarily a government who likes to have their toes stepped on.

I think this will eventually end after long debate between US and Australian officials, but the US will give in eventually. It will be one of those events that most people forget about what caused it so they government will try to put off a resolution for as long as possible.

Kadafi's Death: New Libya

I'll be honest in admitting that I don't know much about the conflict that happened/is happening in Libya, but in which direction do you think Libya's new government will go? From what I've read Libya wants their laws/constitution to be based off of Islamic law. Do you think that they'll succeed in doing so either with or without American intervention.

American has been known to stick its nose where it doesn't belong and I feel this might be another case in which that's exercised. Obama might invoke the Truman Doctrine to help set up a democracy in Libya. Especially with next year being an election year, Obama needs to be careful of what steps he takes so that not too many potential voters are offended.

One argument for not stepping in in Libya is the potential for more conflict. Obama is pulling troops out of Iraq, but does it help any to move them straight into Libya? Kadafi still has supporters in Libya, of course. So what would stop them from protesting America's aid to the framers of their constitution.

On the other hand, by creating an ally with Libya could be very instrumental in the acquisition of petroleum, which is abundant in Libya. It goes without saying that that would be a PR win for Obama.

I feel that America will have its hand in the formation of the Libya constitution in one way or another, but I also feel that that will lead to more tension in the middle east, as we are already seen as an enemy. Even though Libyan officials say that they want an Islamic government do you think that's actually how it'll turn out?

Israel uprooting Palestinean homes

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/10/israel-doubles-rate-of-palestinian-home-demolitions-and-plans-to-uproot-30000-bedouin-clinton-says-palestinians-need-to-be-more-flexible.html

With Palestine's pending statehood up and coming with the UN Israel is making their stance on Palestine more clear (as if it wasn't already). Israel is planning on demolishing 30,000 homes in the Negev desert, land which is very important to Palestinean Culture. SoS Clinton believes that the only way to stop this is for Palestine to keep an open mind and reopen negotiations with Israel.

Although I don't agree with Israel's actions, I applaud their timing, seeing that if Palestine gets statehood the UN will attempt to prevent these kinds of actions. So, until Palestine achieves statehood, it can be assumed that similar initiatives will be taken by Israel.

Throughout the years Israel has constantly been provoked by Palestine, to say the least. In fairness, Israel has struck back equally at the people they have displaced. This is one such example. One problem with the nation of Palestine is their inability to stay as a unit. Palestine is split into multiple factions and therefore cannot aggregate their seperate ideological views efficiently. This is also one factor that members of the UN will consider when voting on recognition of Palestine's statehood.

Even though interest aggregation isn't necessarily the most important to Palestine due to their lack of government, being a unified nation comes across as more "professional" as opposed to individual factions or cells, which have a very different connotation that Palestine would prefer not to have.

To reiterate, Israel is applying pressure on Palestine which is conveniently beginning before Palestine potentially gets their statehood. This forced SoS Clinton to state Palestine's need to try and find a happy medium with Israel. To swallow some of their pride and negotiate with Israel will realistically be the only option for Palestine because Israel will be given free reign to continue to push Palestine further and further out of the picture.