| ▲ | eigenspace 2 days ago |
| It's a re-instatement of a cold war era law that was suspended in 2011. |
|
| ▲ | nine_k 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| The point is not when the law originated, but that it's being reinstated. |
| |
| ▲ | eigenspace 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Okay sure, but I didnt say otherwise. I was just correcting someone who said something untrue. |
|
|
| ▲ | rvnx 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The main point was that they changed it so instead of being activated during crisis now it applies anytime, including in peacetime. Making it similar to the cold war provisions doesn't make it sounds better. |
| |
| ▲ | eigenspace 2 days ago | parent [-] | | No, the one that said it was only activated during crisis was the post 2011 version. |
|
|
| ▲ | petcat 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Seems like a distinction without a difference to me. |
| |
| ▲ | dmurray 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It's an important distinction because it prevents the defence of "oh it's just an old law, there are lots of old laws on the books that everyone knows aren't relevant, they can't be tidied up for political reasons". It was suspended for the last 15 years! Surely it was easier to leave it suspended and unsuspending it is a conscious choice. | | |
|
