Welcome to Bizarro Amerika!

http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-and-the-tea-party-cant-save-you-2012-national-defense-act-is-terrifying-2011-12

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."---Benjamin Franklin

This might be the scariest bill I have ever read. So it looks I can be detained indefinitely without any rights. I don't get the Tea Party, who wrap themselves in the Constitution every chance they get but  vote for this bill. I wrote both of my senators and told them, they do not have a  prayer of having my vote after voting for this bill. Rubio is doing the rounds defending this bill. Our elected officials are supposed to uphold the Constitution and not destroy it. If our Forefathers came back from the dead, the first thing they would do is get armed and storm D.C.
The corporate controlled media dropped the ball on this one. We have to hear about Hermans, bitches and the only guy I know who could run a casino in the ground, moderating a debate.
When will the people in this country wake the fuck up.

Nothing like using the terrorist witch hunt to violate the masses rights.

Yeah...lilMike tried to blame this on Obama the other day:


He also said this too. I'm still trying to get myself from rolling on the floor over it!

This is actually a real thing, not just something that's been overblown.  The language is just vague enough to be dangerous.  And you're right, this is receiving zero  MSM attention. 

But I don't see how you view this as a tea party thing.  The entire Senate, except for these 7, voted for it.

 Sen. Thomas Harken (IA), Rand Paul (KY), Thomas Coburn (OK), Jeff Merkley (OR), Ron Wyden (OR), Mike Lee (UT), and Bernard Sanders (VT).

When you get off the floor tell me who Senator Levin said asked that the original language of the bill exempted US citizens?

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SenateSession4951 (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SenateSession4951)  at 4:43.

anyone suspected of terrorism against the United States be held in military custody indefinitely. This provision extends to American citizens on American territory.

I am glad my step dad retired from the military because he would have to arrest me if I was "suspected" of being a terrorist. Then I could rot in a jail with no chance at a jury of my peers.




In Russia, you can always find a party. In America, Party finds you! What a Country!

Yeah...and I listened a couple of minutes more and heard why, Mr. Breitbart.


Yakov?

Zat you??

I think what Nutty was saying, was that for all the flag wrapping and Constitutional idolatry the Tea Party envelopes itself in, you'd think THEY (of any of our reps) would have gone ape shit and made sure this never saw the light of day.  Instead, for all their patriotic bluster, they wiped their asses with the constitution...along with everyone else.

He was pointing out the irony and obviously hollow legislative resolve they possess. 

Constitutional Idolatry?  I take it you're not a believer...

But what I find ironic, is that Nutty singled out the Tea Party, when of the 7 Senators who voted against the bill, 2 are Tea Partiers:  Rand Paul (KY),  and Mike Lee (UT), and Tom Coburn is Tea Party friendly.  Considering how few Tea Partiers are in the Senate, that is a much better percentage of opposition than any other caucus in the Senate.  So don't blame this debacle on the Tea Party. When it comes to irony & hypocrisy, there is much more ammo to fling around in other directions.

OK let me have it.  What I heard was that the Obama administration requested that the language exempting US citizens be removed.  What did I miss?

Listen and see.

I should have left the Tea Party out of it, and used the word Republicans but it is getting hard to differentiate between the two anymore. DR. Paul's  seed is trying to fight this bill. Any Senator who voted for this bill, no matter what letter is after their name have failed their oath to uphold the Constitution.
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. I actually said, even if Satan ran against them I would vote for the devil himself because I know my current Senators from my state do not care for the freedoms, that make this country great. If Satan won and did not honor his oath to defend the constitution, I would vote the Lord of Darkness out as well.
My civil liberties are being reduced little by little one bill at a time all in the name of protecting my family. How about protecting my freedoms as well.

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.

I've been screaming about this for years.. sadly, it's worse than 'in the name of protecting your family'.. because the reality is it's in the name of your freedoms being thrown away so someone else's family can feel 'faux' safe at night.. your family isn't even on the radar, they will strip you and yours of rights faster than a cat can lick its ass if it means they feel safe.

the odd thing is, these same people will have epileptic fits if the government even looks at a higher tax rate because ya know, gov't should stay out of our lives and all.

I cannot fathom the mind that says "make gov't small" while trying to make gov't  so intrusive in ones private life that it is tasked with deciding which medical procedures women should have.. or  the claims that 'gov't is the root of evil", while wanting gov't to decide who should love who.. I hear the term 'social conservative' and I laugh because it's always these same people begging for the gov't to tell you and I what to do (because they don't like it..) who do everything in their power to destroy the gov't power to do anything..

are they retarded that they don't see the hypocrisy?

I find it ridiculously easy to tell the difference between the Republicans and the Tea Party, but I admit I may be closer to the issue than you.  You guys seem to think of the Tea Party as a super conservative verison of the Republicans, but the Tea Party's primary target in 2010 were Republicans, not Democrats.  They want to take over the Republican party, not join the establishment.  Of course over time we'll see how that works out...

But even using Republicans, when they are a minority in the Senate, doesn't really get to the core of the problem.  The core hypocrisy is all of the liberal Democrats who voted for this, when they opposed every anti terrorism measure of the Bush administration.  Sometimes not because the measures were themselves bad, but because of the slippery slope.  Well, this legislation is the bottom of the slippery slope and they voted for it.  And it wasn't even close, it was a landslide vote.

So if you are not going to vote for Nelson because he supported it (no support for Rubio is a given) what about Obama?  It's his measure after all.

I might throw away my vote on Ron Paul. He is kooky but he is not bought.
I can't vote for Mitt Kerry, even though at one time in his life he has been on my side on every issue.
Newt, looks great in the debates but he is an insider, and has been going Conservetard lately. Newts skeletons will kill him.
I would be Herman's wing man at a club but never would have voted for him.
Would vote for Huntsman but the only way he would get elected is to shoot Elton John or some other famous gay celebrity. Huntsmen views on China are spot on but he is not Conservtard enough for his own party.
Bachman and Santorum, I would only vote for them if a gun was to my head and still would have to ponder the vote.
Perry is an idiot.
I think that covers them all.
The funny thing the GOP needs to look at 2004 on how this election is going to play out. The left thought no way Bush gets re-elected but the Dems put up an idiot against him.
Obama has been worse with my personal freedoms than Bush. The whole gunning down a US citizen without a trial, was my last straw. Obama is going to pull out all the troops in Iraq before the election, tout his toughness on terrorist(which with Osama gone he can) and what little gains in the economy he makes will help him out.
Cliff notes.
The 2nd time in the last 3 presidential elections I am going to vote for the lesser evil of the two.

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

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 (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-december-7-2011/arrested-development?xrs=share_copy)

Mr. Speaker, may I address the claims (http://www.tampabay.com/news/military/war/national-defense-authorization-act-spurs-uprising-from-left-and-right-on/1205269) 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.

I'm inclined to side with the President on this matter, in spite of assurances (http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/obama-threatens-veto-of-defense-authorization-bill-20111117) 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.

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..

OK so I listened, what are you referring to?

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.

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

Didn't you read this?

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

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: (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/five-things-know-about-detention-defense-bill)

I pointed it out to you here:

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

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.

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!

Incorrect. The problem is your assumption that those involved were talking about the bill. They weren't. They were talking about the amendment to the bill that had been proposed. Which specifically excluded US citizens from the House Bill that was written by the Republicans, which included, as in applied to, US citizens as well.

First:  You're incorrect.  They were talking about the bill.  Are you just going to throw stuff on the wall and hope it sticks?

Secondly:  What happened to my English lesson?  I want you to hear some more confused meanderings on proper English from you!

Duh. Not to muddle the issue any further, I'll agree they were talking about the bill. They were also talking about the amendments to the bill, as each speaker announces. Feinstein, for example, at around 5:50:

What they were discussing (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r112:1:./temp/~r112Hni9jU:e324337:):



However, as reported earlier, the compromise amendment still may not pass muster (http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/feinstein-amendment-punts-issue-indefinite-detention-americans-courts).


So, I'll still support the President's veto if it happens.


Hahahahha! Delusional!

This is what caused the confusion. Your point all along was that Obama did not want language in the bill exempting American citizens.

You said:




Take out your double negative in the first quote and replace it with:


and we see the two statements mean the same thing. Which you admitted to. You are stating categorically that the President supported inclusion of American citizens in the bill, which is, of course, incorrect.

I mean...why would all those people line up and say they're introducing amendments to the bill to exclude American citizens because the President didn't want it to?


So. You are wrongo.


I'm tempted to use my mod powers to change your board name to lilGuardian, or lilIcee just to put an end to your incessant scrambling of words to weasel your way out of admitting your are wrongo.

Or maybe I'll wait and let ekg use her Bitch Mod Powers and change your board name to "Wrongo".  ;D

Your Thomas link was dead by the way.

Those Feinstein amendments were not what Levin was discussing at 4:43.  This Senate debate was held on November 17th and the Feinstein amendment was not introduced and voted on until December 1st.  So Feinstein mentioning that there are proposed amendments mean exactly nothing.

So I get that you trust Obama, blah blah blah, but remember, Obama was the one who requested the language to include US citizens (Or asked for the bill not to exclude US citizens, whichever is clearer to you).

So in summary, Obama wanted the power to detain US citizens indefinitely regardless of where they are picked up, and you are cool with him having that power.

Also Obama did threaten a veto but not over the issue of detaining US citizens. That was his proposal after all. I already gave you the administrations misgivings:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saphr1540r_20110524.pdf (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saphr1540r_20110524.pdf)
 
So it’s interesting that support of Obama is more important than any one principle or policy for you.  I pretty much knew that but glad to have you confirm it.

Nope, you're the one who is incorrect.  That the President supported inclusion of American citizens in the bill is exactly the issue.




Uh they are introducing amendments to exclude American citizens because the President didn't' want to. 

Do you really, after what, 3 pages, not understand this issue yet?


Look, if you want to pull the Mod card, I can leave, you don't have to pull hi jinks, you can just ask me to leave and I will.  You've done that multiple times this year, and after a few months, ask me back.  I assume the reason that you keep asking me back is that at some point, even you get tired of of just high fiving and perfect agreement.  I can't tell from looking at the site since the last time you gave me the boot that you've ever discussed any issues in a substantive way.  It's never been your strong suite, but it's fairly obvious that this place is fucking boring without me.

But at the same time, you really can't handle dissension or disagreements from the party line very well.

So say the word and I'll leave and you can go back to your regularly scheduled blandness and uniformity of opinion.

Oh, no! I don't want you to leave!

This seems to be a problem. Can anyone explain to me why lilMike is lying and saying the president wants to detain US citizens indefinitely? (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/13/indefinite-military-detention-defense-bill-citizens_n_1146181.html)

Keeping any person in prision indefinitely is crapping on the Constitution. I don't give a shit if they are a member of Al Queda or El Debarge.
(http://www.powerhouseradio.com/images/debarge-donna.jpg)
Our country should never operate that way. That is what our founding fathers were trying to escape when they left Europe.

I had a good friend in school in Germany who absolutely rocked the 'fro mullet.

Back on topic, you didn't answer my question. I mean, common sense tells us that if Obama had ever voiced support for detention of American citizens, Republican­s in Congress would automatica­lly be opposed to it!

I don't care which side favors this bill, neither should, because it violates their oath to protect the Constitution.

for one who supposed to watch "Hardball" as much as you claim to, you sure got that wrong.

For months Matthews has had people on the left condemning Obama for this that or the other that is not a "Liberal" policy position..He's has tons of people complain that Obama just isn't 'left' enough on many issues and he's even talked on that topic as well... Even the extreme hollywood lefties have gone against Obama, hell the theme for the last many many months has been the left becoming increasingly critical of Obama and his 'non-left' policies.. but you're just as oblivious to that as you are everything else.

so just carry on with your bubble..I know nothing said or read can or will get through..

Point noted.  Chris and gang has had some angst that from their point of view, Obama is a moderate.  Although none of those people will be voting for anyone else but Obama next year.

But I noticed that good old Chris didn't have anything to say about the issue that we've addressed in this thread.  I suspect the past few weeks of Hardball would be quite different if Bush or some other Republican President, had requested that the authority to indefinitely detain US citizens be slipped into a Defense funding bill.  By the way, I've noticed that your outrage at this issue is somewhat muted towards the administration that requested it.

Returning to the bubble    ;D

Before you go, are you going to answer my question?

The irony of you calling me a liar!

Why does President Obama want the authority to hold US citizens indefinitely?

I don't know.  I would assume you would know him better than I.  Why would he?

I don't get this.. why wouldn't they vote for him? I mean, you do know you can be against a person on some issues and still vote for him right?

why does the right have this 'all or nothing' mentality. We saw it in hyper-mode during the Bush years, but as of now.. you can't tell me you agree 100% with any GOP candidate running.. so what does that mean for you? That you'll just have to vote Obama?

ha!

funny thing is.. I think if it's newt or mitt, you will vote Obama and just never say anything about it.. ;)

you should watch Olbermann, because he addressed it last night..

Sure. I'm on a first name basis with ol' Barry.




Does he?


Oh. You know why. For the same reason they have this knack for taking words out of context and using sound bites to prove a point that doesn't exist. Remember, we talked about it on that secret section of the muche Mike doesn't have access to.  ;)

The simple fact is that Obama never wanted to include detention of American citizens in the bill. Regardless of what Levin said in lilBreitbart's blurb from CSpan.

It's very hard to the right to look at the "big picture" and make judgements when all they do is view things in black and white and cribbed thirty second sound bites. Of course, that's the only way they have to lie. Just ask lilBreitbart and bigBreitbart.

Here's an example:

Sound bite at @4.42:
The truth at @1.30: (Carl Levin) Administration officials reviewed the draft language for this provision and recommended additional changes. We were able to accommodate those recommendations, except for the Administration request that the provision apply only to detainees captured overseas and there's a good reason for that. Even here, the difference is modest, because the provision already excludes all U.S. citizens. It also excludes lawful residents of U.S., except to extent permitted by the constitution. The only covered persons left are those who are illegally in this country or on a tourists/short-term basis. Contrary to some press statements, the detainee provisions in our bill do not include new authority for the permanent detention of suspected terrorists. Rather, the bill uses language provided by the Administration to codify existing authority that has been upheld in federal courts.

Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? (At least to us  ;))

lilBreitbart's favorite, the Daily Kos, did the same as I and looked even further (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/11/1044215/-The-Rest-of-What-Levin-Said-on-NDAA-Provisions).


* This is the funniest thing I ever read!

And there we have the classic internet Circle Jerk of Attribution™, where a single source for a story is reinforced by a second source citing that original single source as a source.
 

**Hah! I'm right again!

I heard rumblings about this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/15/national-defense-authorization-act-ndaa-obama-detainee-policy_n_1150593.html?ref=politics) this morning but wanted to wait to get the details. There is now a waiver for American citizens and as a result the President is expected to sign the bill.






I guess all we can do now is wait around for lilBreitbart's next internet Circle Jerk of Attribution™.

Hah!  Not even close!


I read the Daily Kos article you linked with interest since a couple days ago I was reading both an article in the National Review and one from Talking Points Memo about the bill and it was interesting at the differing takes they had on it.  The TPM article just addressed the detainee issues that the administration originally threatened a veto over with no mention of the US citizens provision.  It looks like the Daily Kos is trying to deliberately mix those issues to obfuscate the administration’s fingerprints.

It does so by linking the administration’s statement about military detention, which the administration opposed in the language of the bill as it made the military detention mandatory.   The administration wanted the flexibility to use either civilian or military systems for detainees.

This was the administration response:

The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects. This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals. Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.

From this, the Daily Kos exclaims, “So we have Obama on record as opposing the indefinite military detention of American Citizens; he advocated for the removal of that section outright.”

The administration said nothing about US citizens.  The administration wanted to remove the mandatory military detention section, as they had said in the White House response to the bill that I have already linked in this thread.
I will say one think for the White House; they are being much more clear and honest about what they want then the Daily Kos, or you for that matter, is.


But the best part was at the end, where they quote Levin’s comment that I first directed you to:

Is the Senator familiar with the fact that the language which precluded the application of section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved in the Armed Services committee and the Administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section? Is the Senator familiar with the fact that it was the administration that asked us to remove the very language -- which we had in the bill which passed the committee, and that we removed it at the request of the administration -- that would have said that this determination would not apply to U.S. citizens and lawful residents?

The Kos writer’s response to that?

“So 1031 is all about codifying and clarifying the already existing detainee provisions as defined by the AUMF, but not fundamentally changing any of them.  Apparently, those provisions already exclude U.S. citizens.”

Weak!

The AUMF doesn’t address US citizens.  That was not even on the radar at the time that was passed.

But here is the best part:

“So why would Obama object to the redundancy of specifying in section 1031 that section 1031 does not apply to U.S. citizens? Why would he request that language be excised, as Levin says?  IANAL and I can't claim to know what is in Obama's head. “

In other words, like you, the writer just trusts Obama and doesn’t worry his silly head over such details.  At least Kos addressed this issue though and tried to provide a phony cover story for the administration. That was better than the TPM effort.

blah blah blah

What The Bill Does (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/defense-bill-passed-so-what-does-it-do-ndaa)

I like how you think that will get thru his bubble..


see if this helps explain the problem..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEElA5b4AkM

Hah!

Misspelled signs!

I hope you're right about the compromise language.  So you concede that the bill actually needed "compromise language?"

Now, are you also ready to concede that it was Obama who wanted the US citizens language thrown in?  Even your Kos buddy admitted that.  Bless his heart he just couldn't understand it...