2012 national defense act craps on the US Constitution.

[ekg]

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.

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..

[ekg]

But I noticed that good old Chris didn't have anything to say about the issue that we've addressed in this thread.

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

[Howey]

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

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

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

Does he?

why does the right have this 'all or nothing' mentality.

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:

(Carl Levin)...the Administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section...

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.

I know you all saw the diary the other day with the video of Levin saying that Obama had specifically requested the language precluding the provisions applying to U.S. citizens be struck from the bill.  But that video isn't but one minute or so of Levin, taken from a 10-hour floor debate session.  And Levin said a damn sight more than just Obama requested they strike that language.
 
It's very important to remember that the detainee provisions are several separate provisions of the bill; statements made for or against one don't necessarily apply to all.  It's also helpful to know that the video in question is from November 17th; why it's suddenly all the rage right now, I don't know.  Circle Jerk of Attribution(*) strikes again, I guess.  But I do know that anytime one is presented with a one-minute sliver of video as "proof" of anything, one should do a little more digging.

In this case, there's a lot of digging to be had, starting back in mid-November, when the Administration released this statement in response to the original detainee provisions of the FY 2012 Budget, as drafted by Congress:
 

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.

So we have Obama on record as opposing the indefinite military detention of American Citizens; he advocated for the removal of that section outright.  He also supported DiFi's amendment to limit the detention to people apprehended "abroad.(**)"  According to DiFi (Dec 6 or 7 session, I forget), this kerfuffle was partly behind Obama's veto threat, in response to the Armed Services Committee not adopting his request for the "abroad" language in section 1032.  Which is why she offered her amendment.

* 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.
 

I have written on this topic of poorly-sourced, sensationalist stories before, noting how even respected bloggers can be sucked into the Circle Jerk of Attribution™ based on the flimsiest of sources and end up promoting highly-charged stories that may not be true.
 
Certainly, we can question why the Obama administration has not leaned on these local governments to back off OWS protesters. That's a legitimate discussion and there is plenty of room to criticize the administration's laissez-faire attitude toward the violence and destruction being wreaked on protesters by militarized police forces.
 
But as of this writing, not one other news outlet has confirmed Ellis' story, And neither has Ellis, despite his claims to be searching for confirmation.
 
A strict rule at Daily Kos is that we don't traffic in conspiracy theories. In fact, many posters have been banned from here for doing so. The diaries on Mr. Ellis' claim, and many of the comments contained within those diaries, read like a freerepublic post on how Obama is busy building FEMA camps to house Tea Party members after Holder confiscates their guns.

**Hah! I'm right again!

[Howey]

I heard rumblings about this 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.

WASHINGTON -- A massive defense bill is on the brink of final passage after the Obama administration and Congress resolved a fierce struggle over the president's ability to prosecute terrorist suspects in the civilian justice system.

The House voted 283-136 for the $662 billion measure Wednesday night, a rare bipartisan vote that reflected strong support for annual legislation that authorizes money for the men and women of the military as well as weapons systems and the millions of jobs they generate in lawmakers' districts.

The Senate was expected to clear the bill Thursday and send it to President Barack Obama.

In a statement, press secretary Jay Carney said the new bill "does not challenge the president's ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the American people."

Specifically, the bill would require that the military take custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates who is involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. There is an exemption for U.S. citizens.

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

[lil mike]

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.
 
So we have Obama on record as opposing the indefinite military detention of American Citizens; he advocated for the removal of that section outright.  He also supported DiFi's amendment to limit the detention to people apprehended "abroad.(**)"  According to DiFi (Dec 6 or 7 session, I forget), this kerfuffle was partly behind Obama's veto threat, in response to the Armed Services Committee not adopting his request for the "abroad" language in section 1032.  Which is why she offered her amendment.

* 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!

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.

[Howey]

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

There is an exemption for U.S. citizens.

[Howey]

What The Bill Does

[ekg]

What The Bill Does

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


see if this helps explain the problem..

[Howey]

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


see if this helps explain the problem..

Hah!

Misspelled signs!

[lil mike]

What The Bill Does

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...