Is Anonymous real with legit points or exaggerating?

Every word, sadly.

Well, there’s some “maybes” and “probablys” concerning what will happen if the bill becomes law, no mention at all of the potential for the bill’s failure under judicial review, or the fact that it has essentially been the law since September 14, 2001. But other than that, it is essentially true.

All signs point to “legit.”

Exaggerated in the sense that it points the finger at Obama. A lil’ over the top with the sound track and spooky voodoo computer voice overs.

I’m no Obama fan, but it’s not his fault that the country is in the state it is. It’s a combination of many factors built up over decades.

Vote Ron Paul and put an end to the B.S.

Anonymous is pretty often both exaggerating at least a little bit (at the very least, using a hyperbolic rhetoric), while also making totally legit points at the exact same time.

They are not doing anything differently to any other group that pushs a political view point – they take the truth and they exagerate the worst case senario. I mean really thats how the legislators got the damn law made in the first place.

The law will not stand up to a Supreme Court challenge, even the very conservative court we now have.

@LostInParadise You can’t challenge the law in court. Indefinite detention without trial means that it never goes to court. No trial. No judicial review.

The law will stand indefinitely.

Is that really true? Does the Supreme Court only hear cases involving trial decisions? That would mean that anyone arrested without a constitutionally mandated trial would have no recourse. That really would be scary.

As best I can tell, it would boil down to “standing.” One could argue quite effectively that any US citizen has sufficient standing to bring the cast before SCOUS, but this gets a bit too involved in Constitutional Law for me to interpret it.

I grabbed this from Wikipedia:

In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case. In the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the plaintiff is (or will imminently be) harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff “lacks standing” to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality.

So you have to prove harm, from a secret program it is illegal to talk about, and you fall under suspension if you do. And the government can throw you in prison without charging you with a crime.

We should all probably just stop talking about a law we’re not supposed to talk about.

R.I.P. America.

Like @CaptainHarley, I’m at the edges of my legal knowledge here. Still, it seems to me that he is correct that a US citizen might be able to claim antecedent harm via an unconstitutional limitation of ones civil rights (especially if we’re actually not allowed to talk about it—the First Amendment may not give me a right to know, but it certainly gives me a right to discuss just about anything I discover). One would need to be tactical, however, and make sure to file in a court that is unlikely to dismiss. If the Supreme Court is interested in getting this overturned, they may just take it up after the initial rulings.

Alternatively, there might be the possibility of challenging it by successfully resisting arrest under the law, going to some sanctuary, and then filing a suit from there. This would be quite tricky and might get one locked away upon leaving the sanctuary to appear in court, but then others would know about the suit and one’s lawyer might be able to pursue it on one’s behalf. I’m really not sure on this one, though.

It’s a sad day indeed when venal politicians can, with the stroke of a pen, negate what so many died defending. I’m almost ashamed to call myself an American. : ((

The law should be challenged as a violation of the First Amendment and of the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a person’s right to a trial. I wonder if the ACLU is looking into this.

They’re trying to protect themselves… uh, I mean us against the truth of those like Bradley Manning imprisoned now for 18 months without trial. How dare he release a video to Wikileaks depicting American forces gunning down Journalists and Children, and bragging about it as it happened, while refusing the best medical attention to the children. How dare Bradley Manning release a video which clearly opposes the official statements made to the press by military officials.

We have a right… no a duty… to protect ourselves from the truth.

“With liberty and justice for [REDACTED].”