3 ms·

Is there any other excuse that clearly is employed to restrict due process to the extent that "national security" (whatever that means) does? Not that I give a

Is there any other excuse that clearly is employed to restrict due process to the extent that "national security" (whatever that means) does? Not that I give a damn about crypto; for the most part it's a cancer on the country. But I find it curious how blithely people accept this reasoning despite it, well, not being coherent reasoning at all.

nerdponx 2y ago
> The U.S. Department of Treasury is amending its definitions of a military installation, adding to the list of military installations covered by the Committee on Foreign Investment int he United States (CFIUS) > The new list adds almost 60 military installations across 30 states to the existing list of 10 military installations that CFIUS has jurisdiction over. That enables the federal agency to have more scrutiny over real estate deals that happen in proximity to the bases. The Wikipedia page for CFIUS clarifies that it was originally created by an executive order as per the Defense Production Act, but its authority has since been expanded by legislation.
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  I don't think this explains much about peoples' blithe acceptance, just the formal and legal mechanism on which it rests. Any action you can conceive of can be formally declared with the declaration of law; this does not imply people have, should, or will accept it.
  - nerdponx 2y ago
    That's actually fair. I'm not anything close to a constitutional expert, but I I'm willing to assume that there is either court precedent backing this up, or there has never been a meaningful challenge to it and so it stand as law until otherwise struck down. I'd love to know from somebody more educated on this topic than I am.
slater 2y ago
I'm with you re: crypto being a cancer, but "for national security reasons" has been the go-to since at least 9/11 for "this gives the plebs a little bit toooo much control"
dumpsterdiver 2y ago
Something isn’t resonating when you express an opinion about due process while being baffled by the concept of national security. Clearly you understand the value of due process, but appear to miss the importance or necessity of protecting that process. I’m not sure how that happens.
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  Yes; I have no clue what "protecting that process" even means. Protect it from whom, in what scenario? Clearly the domestic nature of this process is real and already eroding domestic values and protections, whereas the threat to national security is at best hypothetical, at worst intentionally obscured for fear of evaluation. How can we even evaluate if the foreign actor is a greater threat to our lives than the domestic actor? This is not restricted to state-vs-state squabbling, either. The "no-fly" list and use of "terrorist" are equally concerning in how easily they're accepted despite enabling arbitrary, antisocial, and clearly unjust behavior of the state that undermine the theoretical values that the propaganda of the state itself advances.
  - dumpsterdiver 2y ago
    If you really believe that national security threats are “at best hypothetical” then we don’t share enough common ground to constructively discuss the subject.
    - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
      Well, yes. Hence why I made the post—to attempt (in good faith) to overcome americans' inherent unwillingness to discuss topics of substance. Here's how I interpret "national security": the goal of protecting against literally any kind of threat to the material comforts of average americans. Otherwise we would have sacrificed a lot of global trade in the last two decades to protect us against retribution a la 9/11. As it stands that threat has only increased. What sort of threat do you think is worth eroding values to protect against?

nerdponx 2y ago

> The U.S. Department of Treasury is amending its definitions of a military installation, adding to the list of military installations covered by the Committee on Foreign Investment int he United States (CFIUS) > The new list adds almost 60 military installations across 30 states to the existing list of 10 military installations that CFIUS has jurisdiction over. That enables the federal agency to have more scrutiny over real estate deals that happen in proximity to the bases. The Wikipedia page for CFIUS clarifies that it was originally created by an executive order as per the Defense Production Act, but its authority has since been expanded by legislation.

PittleyDunkin 2y ago
I don't think this explains much about peoples' blithe acceptance, just the formal and legal mechanism on which it rests. Any action you can conceive of can be formally declared with the declaration of law; this does not imply people have, should, or will accept it.
- nerdponx 2y ago
  That's actually fair. I'm not anything close to a constitutional expert, but I I'm willing to assume that there is either court precedent backing this up, or there has never been a meaningful challenge to it and so it stand as law until otherwise struck down. I'd love to know from somebody more educated on this topic than I am.

slater 2y ago

I'm with you re: crypto being a cancer, but "for national security reasons" has been the go-to since at least 9/11 for "this gives the plebs a little bit toooo much control"

dumpsterdiver 2y ago

Something isn’t resonating when you express an opinion about due process while being baffled by the concept of national security. Clearly you understand the value of due process, but appear to miss the importance or necessity of protecting that process. I’m not sure how that happens.

PittleyDunkin 2y ago
Yes; I have no clue what "protecting that process" even means. Protect it from whom, in what scenario? Clearly the domestic nature of this process is real and already eroding domestic values and protections, whereas the threat to national security is at best hypothetical, at worst intentionally obscured for fear of evaluation. How can we even evaluate if the foreign actor is a greater threat to our lives than the domestic actor? This is not restricted to state-vs-state squabbling, either. The "no-fly" list and use of "terrorist" are equally concerning in how easily they're accepted despite enabling arbitrary, antisocial, and clearly unjust behavior of the state that undermine the theoretical values that the propaganda of the state itself advances.
- dumpsterdiver 2y ago
  If you really believe that national security threats are “at best hypothetical” then we don’t share enough common ground to constructively discuss the subject.
  - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
    Well, yes. Hence why I made the post—to attempt (in good faith) to overcome americans' inherent unwillingness to discuss topics of substance. Here's how I interpret "national security": the goal of protecting against literally any kind of threat to the material comforts of average americans. Otherwise we would have sacrificed a lot of global trade in the last two decades to protect us against retribution a la 9/11. As it stands that threat has only increased. What sort of threat do you think is worth eroding values to protect against?