2012 national defense act craps on the US Constitution.

[Howey]

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

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.

[lil mike]

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!

[Howey]

They were talking about the bill. 

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:

SA 1126. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Udall of Colorado) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill S. 1867, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:

    On page 360, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:

    (e) Applicability to Citizens.--The authority described in this section for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain a person does not include the authority to detain a citizen of the United States without trial until the end of the hostilities.

However, as reported earlier, the compromise amendment still may not pass muster.

Can Americans be indefinitely detained by the military on suspicion of terrorism if arrested on American soil? Thursday evening the Senate added a compromise amendment to the defense spending bill that states: Maybe. Specifically, it says the bill does not alter current authorities relating to detention, leaving either side free to argue whether current law allows or prohibits indefinite military detention of Americans captured in the US [...]
 
The reason the compromise amendment worked is that it leaves the question of domestic military detention open, leaving the matter for Supreme Court to resolve should a future president decide to assert the authority to detain a US citizen on American soil. Senators who defended the detention provisions can continue to say that current law allows Americans to be detained based on the 2004 Hamdi v Rumsfeld case in which an American captured fighting in Afghanistan was held in military detention. Opponents can continue to point out that the Hamdi case doesn’t resolve whether or not Americans can be detained indefinitely without charge if captured in their own country, far from any declared battlefield. They have the better of the argument.

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

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

Hahahahha! Delusional!

[Howey]

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

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:

Do you mean you support the administration's language that didn't exclude US citizens?

What I heard was that the Obama administration requested that the language exempting US citizens be removed. 

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

Do you mean you support the administration's language that didn't exclude did include US citizens?

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.

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.

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". 

[lil mike]

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:


However, as reported earlier, the compromise amendment still may not pass muster.

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

Hahahahha! Delusional!

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
 
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.

[lil mike]

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.

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

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?

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?

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". 

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.

[Howey]

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!

[Howey]

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.

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.

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?

The conference committee working out the differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill added and amended several provisions in an attempt to produce legislation that would pass muster with President Barack Obama, who appealed personally for fixes.

But the version released Monday night still contains the authority to indefinitely imprison suspects linked to al Qaeda or associated groups, including citizens captured in the United States.

[44nutman]

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?

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.

Our country should never operate that way. That is what our founding fathers were trying to escape when they left Europe.

[Howey]

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.

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!

[44nutman]

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.

[ekg]

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. 

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..

[lil mike]

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   

[Howey]

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   

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

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?

[lil mike]

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?