2012 national defense act craps on the US Constitution.

[FooFa]

Now, now. Don't ya'll know the gov loves us and this could not possibly be um exactly what it is.

[ekg]

this was pretty cool.. after reading nutty's post and the fact that no one is covering this, I emailed a few shows with a "Hey, why aren't you following this?"  and look who did..video here

[Howey]

I sent a letter to both Bill Nelson and Marco Rubio and told them neither one of them would ever get my vote if they voted for this assualt on my constitutional freedoms.

Obama has been worse with my personal freedoms than Bush. The whole gunning down a US citizen without a trial, was my last straw.

Mr. Speaker, may I address the claims made by the Honorable Sen. Nutman?

President Barack Obama has threatened a veto, arguing the measures would complicate civilian intelligence gathering. FBI director Robert Mueller and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta have objected as well.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, this is why the also Esteemed Sen. Nelson voted for the entire bill?

"We have to look at the issue and say, 'America, is this what we want to do?' " said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who offered one of the amendments to remove the detainee language.

(Rubio voted against her amendment; Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson was in favor of it, though, like Rubio, voted for the overall defense bill.)

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, would it not be reasonable to pass a rule blocking amendments to the DAB that don't have anyfuckingthing to do with it in the future?

That would make it soooo much easier for our Republican House and Filibuster-loving Republicans in the Senate to go back to their honored tradition of doing nothing.

[Howey]

I'm inclined to side with the President on this matter, in spite of assurances the bill will not limit our freedoms. Here's why: Gawd help us under another president like Bush traipsing all over our freedoms using this amendment to the DAB as his justification.

Levin and other backers of the provision believe the administration’s concerns are overblown. The bill underwent several changes since the provision was first crafted last September, and proponents argue that the White House’s primary concerns have all been addressed. In a floor statement Thursday, Levin noted that Obama would retain the ability to determine whether suspects remain in civilian custody or be transferred to the military, as well as whether they’d be charged in civilian courts or before a military commission. The lawmaker said the provision expressly allows the FBI or other civilian agencies to continue ongoing probes or interrogations. And he said the language excludes all U.S. citizens and immigrants in the country legally.

[ekg]

Mr. Speaker, may I address the claims made by the Honorable Sen. Nutman?


Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, this is why the also Esteemed Sen. Nelson voted for the entire bill?

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, would it not be reasonable to pass a rule blocking amendments to the DAB that don't have anyfuckingthing to do with it in the future?

That would make it soooo much easier for our Republican House and Filibuster-loving Republicans in the Senate to go back to their honored tradition of doing nothing.

scariest part in all of that?


Rep. Allen West, a tea party Republican from South Florida, said he supports the changes and ticked off the names of recent terrorist suspects caught in the United States. On Wednesday he was named to the panel that will negotiate with the Senate. "There's more of this coming," West said, "and we've got to get serious about understanding that we're being infiltrated right here in our own country."

of course Herr West would think that.. so much for that whole 'tea party' huh West.

Look,  while I do not share nutty's problem with the killing of an American citizen, if he/she falls under the same type of 'american' as al-Awlaki did.. By giving Obama this power, we also give it to Newt if he becomes president.. or Palin, if she runs next time.. 

The 'fear' of Osama had done more damage to this country than Osama did himself.. it has to stop somewhere.. it will never stop with a GOP'er in charge, it will only increase because the selling of fear is their bread and butter.. so it has to be stopped by Obama, not amended or veto'd because he doesn't want the hassle of filling out a 'waiver'.. it shouldn't even get that far..

I am surprised at McCain for backing this.. one would think he would be against indefinite military detentions..

[lil mike]

Listen and see.

OK so I listened, what are you referring to?

[lil mike]

I would have expected it to be across the board, no exceptions.

I, personally, applaud any and all who voted against this abortion of freedom.

When I said Constitutional Idolatry, it was to highlight the fervor that seems to be paramount concerning the Constitution by the TP, as if no one else could possibly (or does) honor it's greatness like they can, which I find insulting...AND...they invoke it so much, it starts becoming farcical...all the more so...when something like this even makes it (with it's current language) for a vote...let alone, not making it a unanimous "Fuck no!" 

I fault them differently, because they raised the bar concerning their love of the Constitution. They platformed on it, they highlighted with deep passion their love and respect of it.

I fault them in the same vein as I would a staunch Family Values Rep., getting caught with a hooker, a mistress, having gay sex.  It revels the obviously false blustering and commitment to the thing they wield as an ideal, as a "better than" you shield.

As I pointed out to Nutty, the Tea Partiers  opposed this in greater percentages than anyone else in the Senate.  I mean, we're talking about maybe 4 tea party senators and 2 opposed this? The progressive caucus didn't make as good a showing.  Meanwhile those same progressives who had opposed virtually every Bush policy about detainees, now vote for a measure that's far worse than anything Bush proposed?

Proving a point I've made before about the left, it was always personal.  Policy didn't matter, and the Obama administration's national security policies and neo-con war policies proved it. 

But, go ahead and hold the Tea Party to a higher account for this.  At least they did have principles to fall from.

[Howey]

Obama

Glad you're sticking with your lie about not blaming Obama for everything. 

Didn't you read this?

President Barack Obama has threatened a veto, arguing the measures would complicate civilian intelligence gathering. FBI director Robert Mueller and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta have objected as well.

[lil mike]

I'm inclined to side with the President on this matter, in spite of assurances the bill will not limit our freedoms. Here's why: Gawd help us under another president like Bush traipsing all over our freedoms using this amendment to the DAB as his justification.
 

I'm not sure what you mean when you say you side with the President. Do you mean you support the administration's language that didn't exclude US citizens?

But this is old school Howey, not reading the article you are linking to.  The President's veto threat has noting to do with the indefinite detention of Americans, which is what this thread is about.  The President wants the flexibility to use civilian or military courts for detainees, and he wants the limitations on funding to move the Gitmo prisoners lifted.  All important issues, but they rather pale in consideration to the detention of American citizens.  Here is the administration document on their concerns about detainee issues, page 2.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saphr1540r_20110524.pdf

But maybe I missed the part about US citizens.

[Howey]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say you side with the President. Do you mean you support the administration's language that didn't exclude US citizens?
But maybe I missed the part about US citizens.

Oy...your insanity is turning into gibberish! No, I don't. btw - There is no "administration's language that didn't exclude US citizens". Never has been, never will be, as much as your comrades want there to be. Why do you think the Administration wrote this bill?

Nutty, et al, will be pleased to see this:

The bill no longer authorizes the indefinite military detention of Americans captured in the US. That authority was removed from the Senate bill by a compromise amendment that stated nothing in the bill was intended to change existing authority on detention. While Senators such as Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) argue that the president already has the authority to do so based on the 2004 Supreme Court decision Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, that case involved an American captured in Afghanistan. The Supreme Court has not yet weighed in on the constitutionality of indefinite military detention of Americans suspected of terrorism who are apprehended in the US.
 
The bill does mandate military detention for non-citizens. A bipartisan group of Senators approved provisions mandating military detention for non-citizens who are apprehended in the US and are suspected of "substantial" ties to Al Qaeda or affiliated groups, absent a waiver from the department of defense. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the Director of National Intelligence, the head of the FBI, and even former Bush officials have all said the provision would hamper counterterrorism efforts. Civil liberties groups, meanwhile, charge that it would violate longstanding prohibitions on the military enforcing domestic law. The administration has threatened to veto the bill over this provision.

[lil mike]

Oy...your insanity is turning into gibberish! No, I don't. btw - There is no "administration's language that didn't exclude US citizens". Never has been, never will be, as much as your comrades want there to be. Why do you think the Administration wrote this bill?

I pointed it out to you here:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SenateSession4951

And you've been dodging and weaving ever since.


 

[Howey]

I pointed it out to you here:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SenateSession4951

And you've been dodging and weaving ever since.

Paraphrase: "We need to check with the president and the executive branch before changing these rules. I understand the President and the Defense Dept have grave concerns regarding the wording of this."

hell. It's even Udall saying it!

Amazing, well not really, it's about thirty seconds before the time stamp you referred to, Mr. Breitbart!

[lil mike]

Paraphrase: "We need to check with the president and the executive branch before changing these rules. I understand the President and the Defense Dept have grave concerns regarding the wording of this."

hell. It's even Udall saying it!

Amazing, well not really, it's about thirty seconds before the time stamp you referred to, Mr. Breitbart!

I went back to before my timestamp and after.  What is the time stamp of this statement?  The only thing I heard similar was a statement after the 4:43 timestamp, in which Udall & Leahy said the administration had issued concerns.

The administration did have concerns about this bill which I documented a few posts up.  That has nothing to do with the issue we were discussing.

Since Udall didn't know the administration wanted the language to include US citizens until after the 4:43 timestamp, I hardly see how a statement like the one you are paraphrasing would apply to the germane issue of this being applied to US citizens.

[Howey]

the administration's language that didn't exclude US citizens?

the administration wanted the language to include US citizens

This is where your stupid shows through, like light shining through the ears of Rick Perry.

Somehow, someway, you've lost the brains to discuss politics.

[lil mike]

This is where your stupid shows through, like light shining through the ears of Rick Perry.

Somehow, someway, you've lost the brains to discuss politics.

That's hilarious!

You honestly can't tell that, "the administration wanted the language to include US citizens" and "the administration's language that didn't exclude US citizens?" are basically same thing?

Did you think they were opposites?

So my point, backed up by the evidence of the Senate debate, is that the administration wanted the language in the bill to:

a) include US citizens

B) not exclude US citizens

Oh how you will labor over those choices!