Hacker News Reader

Comment by maeon3 | Hacker News Reader

from the article: I’m finding that most of the concerns on the substance out there are unfounded. The notion that the solutions that have been put forth will break the Internet, or that certain legal businesses will go off-line because of new mandates is utterly unconvincing to me.

Good men had to die to give me the freedom this man is trying to take away. This man made his fortune in a country founded on what he is actively destroying. Lets take away some of godaddy's freedom. Lets make this an unprofitable year for them.

View on HN

Good men had to die to give us due process; yet our government can now officially assassinate citizens without trial.

Good men had to die to firmly establish habeas corpus; yet today our government detains people indefinitely without trial.

Good men had to die to ban unlawful search and seizure; that right lies in ruins amid warrantless phone wiretaps and a farcical law that says email left on a server for more than 60 days is abandoned property.

SOPA is terrible and the right of startups to avoid prosecution for user piracy is important — but for you to invoke the death of American soldiers across countless wars in support of this relatively narrow cause, when there is so much other injustice going on, greatly undermines your point. A little perspective goes a long way.

I think you're missing the fact that SOPA can be easily abused to shut down sites like wikileaks, or sites which would otherwise be documenting and broadcasting the injustices carried out by your first three points.

The government could kill, detain and illegally raid citizens who oppose them - and with SOPA, the internet will be censored such that people will be in the dark on these issues.

I think you're being facetious in turn by summarizing SOPA as the revocation of "the right of startups to avoid prosecution for user piracy".

SOPA is dangerous because it gives the executive wide power to deprive private citizens of their property, without any due process, in direct violation of the Fifth Amendment.

"Parsons enlisted in the United States Marine Corps. He was assigned to the 26th Marine Regiment which was attached to and operated as part of the 1st Marine Division. In 1969 he served as a rifleman in the Delta Company of the 1st Battalion, 26th Marines, during a tour of duty in Vietnam, in the Quảng Nam Province."

Looks like the owner of GoDaddy fought for your freedom as well.

Were the North Vietnamese threatening my freedom? I wasn't aware that they were.

US military Veteran != Fought for my freedom.

In some cases they did, in some cases they did not.

Is it possible for a member of the US military to refuse to participate in an armed conflict that is not being wage in defense of the US Constitution?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 (the Wars Power clause) grants congress the right to declare war and Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 gives the US President the title of commander in chief.

The legitimacy of military power in the US derives solely from the US Constitution. If war is waged in a way that does not support the Constitution, I would imagine it should not only be every soldier's right, but duty to disobey an order.

The Armed Forces Oath even suggests that should be the case:

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The Oath states that they are to defend the Constitution, not Congress, not the President, not Wall Street, etc.

When soldiers take the Oath, are they also required to learn the Constitution in detail? If not, how are they to know whether or not their actions are in defense of it?

I do not see how this is relevant. Perhaps you could explain that to me.

It is OT from the OP and probably a better to ask this on Quora, but your comment led me to ask this question

Fair enough. Afraid I don't know the answer.

I guess we're pretending the part about obeying orders isn't in there, then?

Weird. I had edited it to reference that, but my edit was saved. Doh!

Respect a soldier but not necessarily a war. The US did not need to be in Vietnam. We were not defending our country. It was a huge game played by certain people in power, and a military adventure that cost tons of money and ended thousands of lives. Big payday for military suppliers, much devastation for the people living there.

We've gotten a bit away from the topic at hand, have we not?

Americans and their glorification of war. :(

Losing the massacre in Vietnam seems not to have had any negative impact on the freedom of Americans though (it only had on the lives of millions in south east Asia).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com