Skip to main content

Turn off your Greenwald-nuked limbic systems for just a moment and talk to me like we're all adults with triple-digit IQs and some measure of emotional self-control: Is it actually a fact that the revised Defense bill authorizes indefinite detention of Americans?  Is it actually a fact that the revised Defense bill authorizes such detentions on American soil?  Is it actually a fact that, having proven the previous two points, the President intends to sign that bill?  Do not respond to this diary with a one-word affirmation, simply repeating the claims.

Frankly, there is a trust gap on this issue between me and the diarists / bloggers whipping up the outrage over it.  I've too often seen some of these people bootstrap an issue out of thin air from some kind of compulsive personal contempt for the President.  Now, that isn't to say this isn't real - I don't know.  That's why I'm requesting a reality check here.  There may or may not be something truly dangerous going on.  It's just I see many of the same hallmarks of that pattern of behavior in the discussion surrounding it - going from concern to anxiety to fear and then to abject, hysterical terror without the core set of facts changing, all just from allowing reactions to build on themselves.

I won't pretend to hope I'm wrong, because if I am then there would be very real peril involved to our republic - if not from this particular President, then from the very next Republican to sit in the Oval Office who inherits the alleged powers involved.  But again, there is a trust gap between me and many of the people making the claim, and the evidence provided in the diaries about it thus far has amounted to second-hand, third-hand, or even meta-hand information (e.g., citing the fearful discussion itself as a reason to be afraid).  So, I await whatever facts can be given one way or another.  And remember, the following are not evidence:

  • Blog editorials making the claim without support, or whose only support is other editorials making the same claim.
  • Articles that refer only to the original bill in demonstrating the claim.
  • Language from the original bill that you fail to show is also in the revised bill.

Thanks for being adults.

3:47 PM PT: I am now convinced of the following: That the bill is a seriously irresponsible abdication and travesty of American law and principles by codifying into statute existing practices of indefinitely detaining non-Americans.  However, neither existing practice, nor the language of the final bill, nor the administration's record on indefinite detentions supports the claim that this gives them the power, either legally or practically, to detain Americans indefinitely.  The Constitution remains paramount, and otherwise extraneous language subordinating detention provisions to "existing law" recognizes that.  But let me say again, the President has badly failed to lead on civil liberties.  

4:15 PM PT: G2Geek has posted a very convincing argument in the comments that the bill is simply a conflict over jurisdiction between military and civilian officials in managing detentions, and that the President has sided with the civilian authority.  It is still an abdication to some extent in even permitting dangerous ambiguities to persist, but it now seems far less disturbing to me.

5:13 PM PT: Apparently it was AZDem that originally pointed out the above argument, not G2Geek, although G2Geek brought it to the attention of this diary.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Speaking for no one in particular... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn


    Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world. Nationalize the bastards.

    by Pluto on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:38:49 PM PST

  •  id like some clarification also, please n/t (6+ / 0-)
    •  Section 419C read it (8+ / 0-)
      (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposi2
      tion of a person under the law of war as described in sub3
      section (a) may include the following:
      4 (1) Detention under the law of war without trial
      5 until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Au6
      thorization for Use of Military Force.

      ....

      19 (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be
      20 construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to
      21 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
      22 aliens of the United States or any other persons who are
      23 captured or arrested in the United States.

      ...

      Looks to me like you would have to go to the Supreme Court to get it stopped.  If this had been passed during Bush, some of your neighbors might be missing.

      •  section 419 c of which version? (8+ / 0-)

        the revised one from the house?  

        here's my attempt to make some sense of it:

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        1032 is subordinate to 1031, which is in turn subordinate to  the AUMF, which is in turn subordinate to other treaties/laws/SCOTUS decisions.

        My goal is to make the world safe for anarchy. - 4Freedom

        by Cedwyn on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:10:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Digby is always a reliable and cogent (10+ / 0-)

        progressive voice.  Perhaps her comments on the bill will help:

        "An astonishing attack on our civil liberties"
        by Digby

        http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/

        •  This convinces me that the bill is an abdication (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Southside, kenlac, MKSinSA, Jeff Simpson

          of responsibility by statutorily authorizing existing practices with respect to indefinite detention of non-Americans.  I am gravely disappointed in the administration because of it, and worried about the inevitable repercussions in future administrations who do not have any level of respect for the underlying precepts of law.

          So I will associate myself with Sen. Leahy's remarks:

          Supporters of this measure will argue that this language simply codifies the status quo. That is not good enough. I am not satisfied with the status quo. Under no circumstances should the United States of America have a policy of indefinite detention.

          However, the claim that this authorizes indefinite detention of Americans on American soil is not supported by the language of the bill, or by the administration's record in carrying out the powers unfortunately codified by the bill.

          A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

          by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:42:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nonsense (6+ / 0-)

            The co-author of the bill insists that the bill he wrote does, in fact, allow indefinite detention of citizens. Who knows better than the one who wrote the bill?

            Link

            Sen. Rand Paul has introduced an amendment to delete this section entirely, and on Tuesday, he had the following exchange with Sen. John McCain, who is co-sponsoring the bill.

            Sen. Paul: “My question would be under the provisions would it be possible that an American citizen then could be declared an enemy combatant and sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely.”

            Sen. McCain: “I think that as long as that individual, no matter who they are, if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat.”

            There has been some confusion on the Internet as to whether the National Defense Authorization Act really applies to U.S. citizens. But Sen. McCain’s answer should clarify that once and for all.

            •  And if his insistence were law (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Lonely Texan, MKSinSA

              that would mean something.  

              A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

              by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 05:41:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  His insistence will soon be law (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                frandor55, Agathena, ozsea1

                He wrote the bill, thus his interpretation is paramount. If he interprets his own language this way, what is to stop the Executive branch from relying on that language to assert such powers?

                You are aware, I assume, that interpretations of the U.S, Constitution often rely on expressed intent of the founders as found in their other writings?

                He and all those privy to the congressional debate understand that this is the meaning and intent of the act. You're acting as if this isn't well understood by the lawmakers who have voted for this bill.

                •  He wrote the bill, and we can read the bill. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MKSinSA

                  And the bill doesn't say what he says it does, anymore than the Constitution says what he and his Party say it does.

                  A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

                  by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 06:12:05 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  This is willful obtuseness on your part (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    frandor55, praenomen

                    Of course the writer of the bill has a large influence in how it is interpreted. Why do you think he was asked about the intent?

                    Why do you think Udall tried to eliminate the provision with his amendment?

                    But that aside, constitutional scholars are weighing in with the same interpretation.

                    In other words, if there is any possibility at all for the bill to be interpreted in exactly the way its authors have intended, then that will be the way the executive branch will interpret the bill, since it provides more power to the executive.

                    Even if Obama changes his mind and becomes more concerned about constitutional rights than he is about being reelected, future presidents may not have such misgivings, although from all accounts Obama wants these powers, and in fact has already used them.

                  •  Troubadour, I posted this comment in another (0+ / 0-)

                    diary, but I think it might help you:

                    Dianne Feinstein has just introduced a bill to correct any ambiguity in the bill.  As it is written now, it will give the president power to have American citizens arrested and held without due process.

                    From Feinstein:

                       “We must clarify U.S. law to state unequivocally that the government cannot indefinitely detain American citizens inside this country without trial or charge. I strongly believe that Constitutional due process requires U.S. citizens apprehended in the U.S. should never be held in indefinite detention. And that is what this new legislation would accomplish.”

                    There it is in black and white.  It would have been ludicrous to introduce this bill if the NDAA didn't give the president the power to have American citizens arrested and detained without due process.

          •  huh? (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            frandor55, Agathena, MKSinSA, praenomen
            However, the claim that this authorizes indefinite detention of Americans on American soil is not supported by the language of the bill, or by the administration's record in carrying out the powers unfortunately codified by the bill.

            You're wrong.  As Lindsay Graham (may his soul burn in hell) pointed out, the current law of the land is that indefinite detention of Americans on American soil is constitutionally permissible.  Because it does not change that, this Bill effectively codifies it.  

            Has everyone just forgotten Jose?  

            "Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something." President Obama in Prague on April 5

            by jlynne on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 08:01:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  But doesn't that preclude the conclusion? (4+ / 0-)
        Nothing in this section shall be
        20 construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to
        21 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
        22 aliens of the United States or any other persons who are
        23 captured or arrested in the United States.

        The paramount of the existing law being the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.

        A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

        by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:31:39 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  "captured"? How many U.S. laws speak (12+ / 0-)

          of residents who have been "captured".

          The problem is the language is pretty ambiguous, and I think it's deliberately done this way.  This now shifts the burden of proof on the citizen who has been "captured" and declared an enemy combatant.  But when you're sitting in Cuba, it's going to be very hard to get a lawyer to take a case to the Supreme Court, and with the current Supreme Court, I have no doubt the law would be upheld and a new precedent would be set.

          This really turns innocent until proven guilty on it's head.  

          •  It is dangerous, I agree. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MKSinSA

            But as far as I can see, from everything people are showing me, the danger is in what a future administration might use it to justify, not in what it actually means now or in the hands of any other administration with even a passing respect for law.

            A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

            by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:30:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Existing law (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PhilJD, jlynne, frandor55, Agathena

          as spelled out in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists.

          What the new bill does is codify and clarify existing law. That's why it claims to not be changing existing law. Obama thinks existing law already allows him to detain without trial American citizens. In fact, not only has he done this, he has killed citizens under the law. If he "changed" the law, that would be admitting he lacked authority before. This new law acts as if its provisions have already been in existence.

          AUMF 2001 -Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

          (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

          (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

              (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

          As Greenwald says:

          First, while the powers this bill enshrines are indeed radical and dangerous, most of them already exist. That’s because first the Bush administration and now the Obama administration have aggressively argued that the original 2001 AUMF already empowers them to imprison people without charges, use force against even U.S. citizens without due process (Anwar Awlaki), and target not only members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban (as the law states) but also anyone who “substantially supports” those groups and/or “associated forces” (whatever those terms mean). That’s why this bill states that it does not intend to change the 2001 AUMF (even as it codifies far broader language defining the scope of the war) or the detention powers of the President, and it’s why they purposely made the bill vague on whether it expressly authorizes military detention of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil: it’s because the bill’s proponents and the White House both believe that the President already possesses these broadened powers with or without this bill. With a couple of exceptions, this bill just “clarifies” — and codifies — the powers President Obama has already claimed, seized and exercised.
          •  Where has the President said (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MKSinSA

            he has the power to indefinitely detain Americans?  And do you have a link to stories about this administration actually doing so, as you claim?

            A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

            by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 06:24:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Section 1031, page 419 (0+ / 0-)

        Just correcting the reference. It's not section 419.  Section 1031 begins on page 418.

  •  oh there are a lot of facts.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Avila

    and reports and votes on strengthening an already old law....

    http://www.fas.org/...

    The goal is not to bring your adversaries to their knees but to their senses. -- Mahatma Gandhi

    by Mindmover on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:46:34 PM PST

    •  This is non-responsive to my questions. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SoCalSal, Avila, MKSinSA

      It's a report last updated in 2005.

      A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

      by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:51:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was giving you the start of the current law..... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Troubadour, Avila

        this was 6 hrs ago....

        http://rt.com/...

        The goal is not to bring your adversaries to their knees but to their senses. -- Mahatma Gandhi

        by Mindmover on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:53:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The linked article contains some troubling quotes (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cedwyn, Fogiv, Avila, MKSinSA

          from lawmakers, but doesn't even mention revisions to the bill let alone language from it.  And given how strongly editorial the article is, I'm afraid it has to be classified as one of the things I said were not evidence: An editorial that simply asserts the claim I'm asking to have supported.  

          A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

          by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:02:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  For what it's worth, RT is worse than FOX (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cedwyn, Fogiv, Avila, Troubadour, highacidity

          when it comes to propaganda (and in some cases outright falsification.)   The article you linked may be accurate, but given the high level of unreliability of the source, it's better just to go the original sources like the ACLU or the Congressional record.

          Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

          by pico on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:08:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  disagree with this blanket dismissal of RT (0+ / 0-)

            "Repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed." --J. Steinbeck

            by livjack on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:34:31 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're welcome to, but (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              highacidity, Troubadour, MKSinSA

              I've been following them pretty closely, from their atrociously pro-government slant on the Russian protests (don't even get me started on how unethical and deeply wrong their coverage has been), to their outright false information during the battle over Tripoli.  They have a record of bad journalism and propaganda, and you're better off not using them as a primary source.

              They're pretty popular here because they're one of the few networks that's made American imperialism a target, so sometimes they're willing to devote time and attention to issues they feel does damage to that.  But if you can get the information anywhere else, get it somewhere else: they're not always wrong, but they're always suspect and you're better off with more reliable sources.

              Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

              by pico on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:47:19 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  If you look at that report, even though it needs (8+ / 0-)

        to be updated, it contains this paragraph:

        The Department of Justice argues that the recent decisions, coupled with two World War II  era cases, Ex Parte Quirin and In re Territo, support its contention that the president may order that certain U.S. citizens as well as non-citizens be held as enemy combatants to the law of war and Article II of the Constitution.

        Perhaps the crux of the argument is this: can U.S. citizens be defined as enemy combatants and held without legal representation during an undeclared war.  The Constitution is very clear that they can't, but it is the use of the term "war" that is being manipulated to give cover for an unnecessary and odious power grab.

        This is just a rehash of Bush policies.  If you loved John Yoo, then this is the bill for you.  There are many reasons this bill stinks, but if you allow yourself to be detracted by the rhetoric coming from the White House, then I promise you, you will not find a truthful answer.

        •  But again, how does a report from 2005 (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MKSinSA

          and arguments made by the Bush regime relate to the facts of the current administration?  You are merely asserting that they are the same.  Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge no US citizen has been detained by this administration as enemy combatants.  In fact, I don't even know if they've detained foreigners as enemy combatants who have been arrested on US soil.  If you have such information, I would appreciate it.

          A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

          by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:52:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  what is this a treasure hunt???? (0+ / 0-)

            http://www.thedailybeast.com/...

            or are you just being contrary....?

            The goal is not to bring your adversaries to their knees but to their senses. -- Mahatma Gandhi

            by Mindmover on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 07:08:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That refers to *prosecutions*. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MKSinSA

              What the hell do you think we're talking about here?

              A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

              by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 10:25:42 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I am simply trying to answer your own stupid (0+ / 0-)

                questions which I will stop doing because I do not think you understand your own writing.....

                Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge no US citizen has been detained by this administration as enemy combatants.  In fact, I don't even know if they've detained foreigners as enemy combatants who have been arrested on US soil.  If you have such information, I would appreciate it.

                The paragraphs below come from the link provided....

                "The list of 25 U.S. citizens who have been charged with such offenses in the last 18 months was compiled and provided to NEWSWEEK by a U.S. law-enforcement official, who requested not to be identified because it is not an official government publication and is not meant to be exhaustive. “These cases clearly suggest that an increasing number of U.S. citizens, both native-born Americans and naturalized citizens, appear to be getting involved in the terrorist cause. It’s not an encouraging trend,” said a Justice Department official who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive information."

                "The official who provided the recent information said he did not have such statistics broken down by citizenship for terrorism prosecutions during the George W. Bush administration, and a search of government and academic sources did not turn up comparable figures. By one comparison, in the 18 months before Barack Obama took office, the Department of Justice prosecuted 35 terrorism cases against all suspects—both American citizens and foreign nationals—according to DOJ information released to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University (PDF)."

                I know now that you just want to verbally abuse because you think you have some power in this blog.....guess again.....

                The goal is not to bring your adversaries to their knees but to their senses. -- Mahatma Gandhi

                by Mindmover on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 10:46:36 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Do you understand that we're talking about (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MKSinSA

                  enemy combatant detentions, not terrorism prosecutions in court?

                  A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

                  by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 11:00:23 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  ....... (0+ / 0-)
                    In the United States on March 13, 2009 the Obama administration announced its abandonment of the Bush administration's use of the term "enemy combatant".

                    The goal is not to bring your adversaries to their knees but to their senses. -- Mahatma Gandhi

                    by Mindmover on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 11:16:13 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Do you or do you not (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MKSinSA

                      have any information about instances of detention without trial occurring with suspects first taken into custody under this administration?  If you don't, then just say that and no harm no foul - it doesn't disprove your argument, it just means neither of us knows of such cases.

                      A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

                      by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 11:53:54 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

  •  I think it's the "slippery slope" argument. (18+ / 0-)

    There seems to be some vague language which people MAY interpret that way, but there is also language which specifically says that this does not apply to Americans or permanent residents.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:48:04 PM PST

  •  Throw away the key! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour, G2geek, bnasley, Cedwyn

    Photobucket

    Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

    by Radical def on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:49:25 PM PST

    •  Agreed. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bnasley, cotterperson

      However, I'm specifically addressing aspersions made against President Obama.

      A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

      by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:52:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is where your partisan thinking is (14+ / 0-)

        wrong and dangerous.

        It doesn't matter which President or party is assaulting the Constitutional rights of the American people.

        Presidents are temps

        Presidents are not only term-limited, but also extremely political in how they make their governing decisions.  

        Presidents are inter-changeable as they were always meant to be within the construct of our Democracy.  Their personal imprint was always meant to be limited in its scope - checked and balanced by the Legislative Branch and the JUDICIAL Branch.

        The Judicial Branch has had its ability to check severely limited in the past decade and today is yet another step away from the balance of power that is a necessary requirement for us to continue a democratic form of government.

        It does not matter that Obama is in the White House today as much as it matters that he and everyone else who holds that seat of government from this point forward will have extraordinary power and that the people will not be able to count on a proper judicial review when and if they come under the scrutiny of our all powerful government.

        •  With the right agitating for civil war... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Troubadour

          ...arming themselves to the teeth, with increasingly hysterical and draconian rhetoric and practice, it seems likely that drastic measures may prove necessary.

          Those who declare war should expect to be treated as enemy combatants, seems to me, regardless of their citizenship.

          Will the suppression be conducted fairly, justly, humanely?  

          Actual real progressive, liberal, rational moderate filibuster-proof Democratic Super Majorities in the House and Senate, Not rotten with Blue Dogs, would Not be "the same" as right wing dictatorship.

          In that regard, I would agree, this is Not about Obama, so much.

          It's Much more about the relative right/left plurality in the House and Senate.

          Democracy is the most fundamental revolutionary principle. Information is the ultimate key.

          by Radical def on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:24:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  If the right arms themselves, they are (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Avila, aliasalias, Troubadour

            no match for this government and they should be entitled to a trial no matter what their alleged offenses are.

            Trials are good things.  In the best of cases they provide clarity and legitimacy.  Without trials being even a possibility we have not clarity and no legitimacy -- and that's when the real rebels start to emerge and wreak havoc.  I don't want to go there.

          •  We are indeed dealing with a slippery slope. (0+ / 0-)

            But the slipperiness is in multiple directions.  You are correct that right-wing insurrection is a real danger, and we are already in a state of affairs where economic elites are above the rule of law.  We still have to enforce the Constitution, though.

            A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

            by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:04:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  But you're begging the question. (0+ / 0-)

          You're simply asserting that this President is "assaulting the Constitutional rights of the American people," as opposed to failing to fight for them sufficiently.  Has this administration detained a single American citizen as an enemy combatant?  Have they detained a single foreigner as such that was captured on their watch on American soil?  I would like answers to these questions before I can reach further conclusions.

          A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

          by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:01:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Whether this president does it or not (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PhilJD, LaEscapee, poligirl

            is irrelevant.  This President's particular culpability may only ever be failure to veto it, but on some level that is probably worse from the perspective of history than the myriad of abuses of the Constitution we might see down the road from his successors.

            In any case, I don't care which President(s) attack the Constitution nearly as much as I care about the attack itself and the long-term ramifications of the attack.

            I am just not particularly partisan on this front.  I care more about this country, the people and our democracy than I care about any particular politician or party.

            •  My paramount concern is also this country. (0+ / 0-)

              And in particular, I recognize that Barack Obama and the Democratic Party are the best we've got to get where we want to go.  I wouldn't trust Glenn Greenwald in his position for a single day, and I know there are no other parties both willing and able to do the hard work.

              Perhaps this President is a little too reality-based, and stubborn about making decisions in historical and legal context rather than in reference to ideals existing in a perfect vacuum.  

              A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

              by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 05:35:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Greenwald could never be president: (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Troubadour

                if he was he'd have to spend his entire day writing articles about himself and all the horrible things he was doing.

                I support OWS. But that doesn't mean I support every dumb idea someone has about it.

                by kenlac on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 08:10:09 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Actually, that's not my assessment of him. (0+ / 0-)

                  People who are overly rigid of their criticism of authorities usually end up being extremely authoritarian leaders when put into power themselves.  When not in power, they blame the people in power; when they themselves have power, they blame the public with the same unyielding rigidity.

                  A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

                  by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 09:58:13 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  I would like to point you to this story (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PhilJD, LaEscapee, Tam in CA

            about George Washington's rejection of the offer to become King of the United States and suggest that you and others ponder the honor and restraint that he displayed in preserving the balance of power when our Republic was in its infancy.

            Ponder that kind of greatness and loyalty to the democracy and the will of the people.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

            George Washington knew more about terrorists and tyranny than anyone serving in government today.

            •  well, people who were white, and male only (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Troubadour

              but yes, your point is apt.

              [insert pithy sigline here]

              by terrypinder on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:22:38 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You have to start somewhere. (0+ / 0-)

                Cultural, political and social evolution takes centuries.

                99.9% of white guys in England didn't enjoy much by way of rights prior to the Age of Enlightenment, either.

                Remember the people called "serfs"?

                It is not so much that your point is invalid as it is that any historical progress by your standard is inherently illegitimate and therefore we have nothing to build on to get to the utopian equality that you clearly want and I, too, would aspire to achieve.  The truth is that the class system in England even today is still a challenge even for a lot of white guys.  We in the US took steps to depart from that system that made way for the Civil Rights advances in the 1960s.  Did it take too long?  Yes.  But I would argue that the Colonial settlers in the "New World" probably felt like the time between the 1600's and late 1700's took too long too.

                Anyway, today we go backward and that is my concern.  Less enlightened and less upon which to build the Utopia.

                •  Ah, but you make a critical point: (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Fogiv, terrypinder
                  Cultural, political and social evolution takes centuries.

                  You may, like many here, believe that indefinite detention is some recent innovation, but it isn't - there has never, ever been a firm legal finding that it is an action fundamentally denied to the US government under all circumstances.  

                  We can say that the President should be working toward such a finding by vetoing a bill that enshrines the status quo, but if you forgive men like Washington and Lincoln for having to live in their times, how can you possibly demand that the President live in a future time when such a finding is made?  Is his determination of what is achievable less credible than men like Washington who didn't try to end slavery?

                  A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

                  by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 05:50:34 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  The Ones Who Walk From Omelas (0+ / 0-)

                  (Utopias aren't possible.)

                  [insert pithy sigline here]

                  by terrypinder on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 09:09:47 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Washington was often lampooned (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Fogiv

              as a king nonetheless, and plenty of his actions as President merited serious criticism.  In historical context, we have a truly great (but also morally good) President in the White House today.  I find that the people most angry at Barack Obama are the ones who know the least about his job.

              I find this bill dangerous, but I'm not about to condemn the President or try to "Go Galt" with vote over it.

              A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

              by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 05:39:27 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Greenwald has anticipated your reaction (10+ / 0-)

    and provided a neat capsule summary, with links, that you may peruse at your leisure:

    Obama to sign indefinite detention bill into law

    "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

    by limpidglass on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:54:37 PM PST

    •  I've carefully read the article and the link (5+ / 0-)

      to the language of the bill, and what I find falls far short of what is being asserted.  At worst, it fails to explicitly state that American citizens cannot be legally indefinitely detained, which from my position the Constitution already guarantees.  

      I haven't heard the administration say that - nor are we likely to hear that, given the politics involved - but to my knowledge there also hasn't been a single American citizen detained as an enemy combatant under this administration.  To my knowledge, there haven't even been foreigners detained on American soil under this administration that they have been responsible for originally classifying as enemy combatants.  But if you know of such cases, I would like to know.

      I will admit to being disappointed that this President doesn't stand up for basic human rights on this point, but I can find no evidence in the bill that it changes the status quo.

      A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

      by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:29:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  the adminstration has always claimed (6+ / 0-)

        that it has the power, under AUMF, to detain without trial anyone it deems "substantially supported" al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or "associated forces."

        Section 1031 attempts to expressly codify the detention authority that exists under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) (the “AUMF”).  The authorities granted by the AUMF, including the detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect the American people from the threat posed by al-Qa'ida and its associated forces, and have enabled
        us to confront the full range of threats this country faces from those organizations and individuals. Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk.

        So there you go. They say they have the detention power under AUMF, as Bush did.

        The bill is dangerous because it explicitly affirms this authority to militarily detain, under AUMF.

        Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

        The bill's saying that the "requirement" to detain doesn't extend to citizens is no protection at all, meaningless doubletalk.

        You might as well pass a law that says the cops aren't "required" to ticket you for speeding. Of course, that won't stop them, because they're still free to ticket you for speeding if they feel like it.

        All that says is that it's up to the sole discretion of the president whether to detain--which it should not be.

        Greenwald's article contains links to numerous actions Obama has taken on indefinite detention: all of which show that he is a strong booster of that power. To leave all that out gives an incomplete picture of where we stand.

        People spend so much time emphasizing that Obama hasn't exercised these powers. To me that misses the point. The decision to exercise these powers does not belong to him.

        He may not exercise them openly, but he claims them and defends them aggressively. That is just as bad, in the long term. Because there may come a day when he will use them, or his successors will.

        But I don't think people will learn until it's too late.

        "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

        by limpidglass on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:59:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just because Bush asserted the AUMF (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Fogiv

          contained the power to detain American citizens does not mean that the Obama administration citing AUMF in another capacity demonstrates a wholesale acceptance of Bush's claims.  That's a bridge too far.

          People spend so much time emphasizing that Obama hasn't exercised these powers. To me that misses the point. The decision to exercise these powers does not belong to him.

          I agree, but American jurisprudence has never, ever found indefinite detention under military power inherently illegal, which means the ambiguities are preexisting.  This President would have to drag the entire body politic decades ahead of where it is - and in many cases, where it wants to go - to successfully assert that these powers do not belong to anyone.

          A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

          by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 05:55:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  There you go: (0+ / 0-)
        I haven't heard the administration say that - nor are we likely to hear that, given the politics involved - but to my knowledge there also hasn't been a single American citizen detained as an enemy combatant under this administration.  To my knowledge, there haven't even been foreigners detained on American soil under this administration that they have been responsible for originally classifying as enemy combatants.  But if you know of such cases, I would like to know.

        I will admit to being disappointed that this President doesn't stand up for basic human rights on this point, but I can find no evidence in the bill that it changes the status quo.

        That's pretty much all we need to know.

        -9.50/-7.59 - "Why are the missiles called peace-keepers when they're aimed to kill?" -Tracy Chapman

        by Situational Lefty on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 11:45:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  here goes: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Catte Nappe

    A. The Earth is flat.
    Hey, everywhere I look, it is flat. Period. Ergo the whole earth is flat. If you drop a marble, it stays put. If it were curved or round, it would roll off the top and head to the bottom.

    B. the universe is 7000 years old.
    Hey, were YOU there 7000 years ago? Can you prove that it is any older?

    C. Pi is equal to 3.
    Thus it is writ, therefore thus it is fact.

    D. There is no global warming.
    Hey, why would there be a forecast of 6 inches of snow next week, if there was so much warming? Huh? Huh?

    Oh, you wanted different facts? Sorry.

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:57:13 PM PST

    •  Uh huh. So rhetoric about ambiguous (0+ / 0-)

      language in a defense authorization bill = trivially verifiable laws of physics and inherent mathematical identities?  This kind of reaction is the definition of obtuse defensiveness.

      A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

      by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:07:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  There is one good place to look (10+ / 0-)

    if you want to know what's actually in a  bill.

    Thomas.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:58:25 PM PST

  •  Hear, hear. (9+ / 0-)

    I'm as troubled by this as anyone--but at the same time, there's a disconnect between the following two concepts that I simply can't reconcile:

    1. The Republican Party of 2011 despises Barack Obama--I mean, they hate this guy with the passion of a thousand suns, and have spent the past 3 years doing EVERYTHING and ANYTHING possible to destroy him, period.

    2. The Republican Party of 2011 just voted (in the Senate, all but 2 for the original version; all but 6 for the final version; in the House, 190 of them voted for it) to give Barack Obama more power over any individual he chooses than any other President in history.

    Now, if this bill had gone to a vote at any time between 2001 and 2008, and the GOP had voted party-line for it, it wouldn't surprise me one bit. And, if Obama does lose re-election, and this bill came up for a vote in 2013, it wouldn't surprise me either.

    HOWEVER, for 231 out of 280 Republicans (190 in the House + 41 in the Senate) to vote for a bill that gives a guy who they consider to be Satan Himself® the authority to declare anyone he wants to--including any U.S. Citizen--including EVERY ONE OF THEM, if he so chose--a terrorist and the authority to lock them up indefinitely without charges, trial or jury--makes no sense whatsoever.

    Why now? Why in December 2011 and not January 2013 (assuming Obama loses)?

    It simply doesn't make any sense, even from an ultra hard-line fascist POV.

    •  I should clarify: I'm not saying that the final... (6+ / 0-)

      ...version of the bill DOES grant Obama that type of extreme authority (statement #2), I'm saying that the claim that it does is in complete opposition to the first statement, which is 100% true.

    •  Yes, you nailed some of the circumstantial (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brainwrap, Fogiv

      disconnects squarely.  In addition to the lack of concrete facts saying so, and plenty to the contrary, the circumstantial pattern of interest doesn't justify the conclusion that the President is grabbing power.

      A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

      by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:10:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  because they are panicked by #OWS (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LaEscapee, Agathena

      and they want to protect themselves from a Tahrir Square situation here by giving the president the power to use the military to detain protesters.

      The conundrum you raise is only a conundrum if you actually believe that the Republicans and Obama are deadly enemies. In fact, they need each other: the Republicans need a scary, evil "Kenyan socialist Mooslim" in the WH to rouse their base, and Obama needs Republicans to provide an extremist foil for his Wall Street-friendly policies. He's much, much happier working with Republicans than he is working with Democrats--in his very first dealings with Congress as president, the stimulus bill, he spent a lot of time compromising with conservative Democrats and Republicans.

      This bill is a bipartisan bill. The Republicans are not scared he will use these powers to hurt them. They know these powers will be used against those who would challenge their own power and position.

      Power is rarely used against the powerful. It's almost always used against the powerless.

      "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

      by limpidglass on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:35:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  They expect to win it back (0+ / 0-)

      They are deluded to think that all Americans hate the Kenyan Muslim Atheist Socialist [n-word].  Thus they expect that they'll get the Executive branch back, and be able to declare that their political opponents are "supporters" of Al-Qaeda, making them eligible for life imprisonment without trial.

      Support, after all, can be interpreted very broadly.  At least three and possibly several more SCOTUS judges will back them automatically.

      •  What evidence do you have (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Fogiv

        that the SCOTUS judges Obama has already appointed would fail to strike down indefinite detentions of Americans, if any are attempted in the future?

        A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

        by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 05:58:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Who said anything about them? (0+ / 0-)

          Alito, Roberts, and Thomas are antidemocratic authoritarians who will absolutely uphold indefinite detention.  Kennedy usually sides with them on such matters.  Scalia's a wild card; he tends towards constitutional literalism, and this is a bit blatant for his taste.  Breyer, though, tends to support big, intrusive government.

          So while Sotomayor and Kagan would oppose, as would Ginsberg, they can be outvoted.

  •  Yo Troubadour: check this out: (15+ / 0-)

    I'm going to post the quote in its entirety, and I doubt AZDem is going to sic the copyright squad on me:

    ---- quote ----

    The facts are that:

    - The bill exempts US citizens and permanent residents

    - The bill specifically applies the international law of war

    - The bill, by its terms, applies only to 9/11 planners (maybe a moot point by now) and members and supporters of al Qaeda, the Taliban, and related forces.

    This bill isn't a stripping of civil liberties.  It just flat out isn't.

    I would like to ask anyone on this board to point to any language in the bill that diminishes civil liberties (i.e., any provision that makes civil liberties weaker after the bill is signed than before the bill is signed).

    The battle over this bill was about jurisdicition:  military versus civilian law enforcement.  The FBI wants to have jurisdiction.  The military wants to have jurisdiction.  The President was satisfied by a change giving him discretion.  He can divert detainees out of military jurisdiction.

    ---- end quote ----

    Source:  http://www.dailykos.com/...

    The above quote makes specific claims that can be checked.  Someone with legal experience needs to do that, ASAP.

    If it turns out that the above comment is correct, then we'all have to get the word out and get people to stop getting distracted and having fits over something that isn't the huge emergency it appeared to be.  

    "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

    by G2geek on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 02:59:38 PM PST

  •  Why do we have to give you facts? (7+ / 0-)

    Are you incapable of giving us the facts?

    Why post a diary one way or another?  If you don't agree/believe, do your own darn homework and show us that the 'Greenwald-nuked' diarists are wrong.

    •  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Troubadour

      The burden of proof should not be on the diarist, it is on the people who are claiming U.S. citizens can be held without trial.

      Unfortunately, I think the proof is in my posting above which it taken directly from the senate bill.

      •  I think claiming 'hysteria' requires some proof (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Avila, LaEscapee

        too.

        And I don't find the claims that have been made to be all that 'extraordinary', sadly.  For the last decade, we've watched our rights being eroded away one by one.  At this point, claiming that we were actually getting rights back would be the 'extraordinary' claim.

        •  I haven't seen the claim (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Fogiv, SoCalSal

          that we are getting rights back made, except as one possible interpretation of the fact that the bill asserts civilian authority over an area of policy previously dominated by the military.  However, I seen the claim made constantly that the bill is a power grab, that it authorizes indefinite detention of Americans, that Obama is Bush, and even crazier assertions based on nothing but fear and Greenwaldian zeitgeist.

          A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

          by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:23:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  You don't. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vintage dem, Troubadour

      But if want the diarist to support your cause you have a natural incentive to do so.  The diarist is clearly asking for help (and so are many others) properly understanding a very complex issue regarding the law.  That is what this place is for, isn't it?

    •  Are you saying it's illegitimate (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fogiv

      for me to request that people who've made extraordinary claims, and engaged in extraordinary vitriol on behalf of those claims, convince me of them?  If they aren't interested in persuading people, I'm not sure what they're doing blogging and writing editorials.

      Furthermore, this was an open-ended request for information from people of all positions on the issue, and I've already seen plenty of contrary information and arguments in the comments that oppose Greenwald et al's conclusions.

      It is not up to me to prove you or anyone else wrong.  It is up to you to prove yourself right, especially on matters of such importance and emotional potency.

      A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

      by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:22:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The best analyses I've seen of the NDAA (14+ / 0-)

    are the ones posted on Lawfare.  The different writers there are slightly different ideologically, but they've taken the time to go line-by-line and offer their critiques as specifically as possible.

    The most likely situation is that the NDAA is something of a muddle that offers implicit support for the status quo without resolving the legal issues that have arisen from it.  More here, and if you need some background on why this is such a muddle, it was discussed over at Volokh here.

    Either way it's not a status quo we want preserved: it's still unconstitutional b.s. masquerading as 'necessary' for the alleged GWOT, and because it comes with the sanction of all three branches of government it's a much harder status quo to defeat.  There are some 'good' things about this NDAA, in that the administration negotiated out some much worse provisions; some of the other bad ones were conferenced out, including a direct ban on use of funds for transfer of detainees out of Guantanamo (why are we still so terrified of that?), etc.  It's a big bill.

    I need to spent some more time reading up, but a quick scan of the available sources and analysis suggests that it's a bad bill, not apocalyptically bad (some of the comparisons I've seen on this site are beyond hyperbole) but not something to defend the president/Congress on, either.  It's still a bad bill.

    Here's the statement by the administration on his intent to sign, with their analysis of the final bill.

    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

    by pico on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:05:25 PM PST

    •  it's a bad bill, bad policy, & bad governance (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PhilJD, Tam in CA, aliasalias, esquimaux

      if this had happened under Bush, there would not be one single post like this. everybody... to a blogger, would be screaming bloody hell.

      but because it is a Dem, then it must mean something different, it is safe and we're safe. it can't be what it reads like it is...

      oh no! lions and tigers and bears, oh my.
      or is it chicken little, and that sky falling scenario thing is finally happening...

      •  there would have been one (0+ / 0-)

        but that post would get shouted down.

        [insert pithy sigline here]

        by terrypinder on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:33:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Awareness of context is not hypocrisy. (0+ / 0-)

        We usually choose to forget the powers FDR asserted and regularly abused as President, because history proved he was trustworthy on balance.  Meanwhile, we despise Richard Nixon for conducting a few of the same abuses simply to support his own personal power.  Morality is not as simple as some robotic carrying out of a laundry list of principles - there is judgment involved.  To deny any ambiguity whatsoever is as reckless as to deny any absolute whatsoever.

        So here's a free lesson in citizenship: NO, it is not the same when someone you trust does something dangerous and questionable vs. when someone you know for a demonstrated fact is malevolent does it.  If it were, we wouldn't even need human beings in office, we could just program our laws into a computer and let it mechanically act them out.

        A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

        by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 05:11:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  you're right, it's not the same, it's worse (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Into The Woods

          let us be clear here. this bill is not protecting us from those whom we need protection.

          those this bill labels as terrorists did not meltdown in the pacific ocean, that was a nuclear plant in Fukushima (and a whole industry is reponsibile, not to mention that we should have deployed forces worldwide to stop this thing).

          those so-called terrorists did not blow a dirty bomb in the Gulf, that was BP.

          those labeled terrorists did not crash the world economy. that was bankers and brokers and politicians worldwide.

          those we trusted to stop it, the reason we turned out in record numbers in 2008 was to stop this kind of behavior.

          so you're right, it is NOT the same. it is soul-killingly so much worse to have Obama be one of the agents behind this bill.

           

    •  All 3 branches of gov now sanction.... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Troubadour, ozsea1, Into The Woods

      is a pretty big deal in my opinion.

      One's emotional reaction to this can not be judged objectively.  It's a bad bill.  

      Thanks for the links, I have been skimming....

    •  Excellent comment and forwarded to Top Comments (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pico, Into The Woods

      Considering the seriousness of the issue.

      Thanks for posting this. I'm gonna dig in.

      An Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt Democrat.

      by ozsea1 on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 09:03:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Great resources. Thanks. NT (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pico

      Someone in a very expensive suit is at the front door and says he wants to foreclose on our democracy. Where should I tell him he can put his robosigning pen?

      by Into The Woods on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 04:01:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The fact that you're more knowledgeable (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aliasalias, Situational Lefty

    about this issues involved than Greenwald and the complete know-nothings at HRC is all that needs to be said.

    Ahem.

    •  The HRC article doesn't make the same claims (0+ / 0-)

      as Greenwald et al.

      A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

      by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 05:05:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yes! Stop the hysteria! I know as an American (6+ / 0-)

    citizen that I have nothing to worry about. I know they won't ever come and take me away because I know my rights and according to the Constitut-

    THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN CENSORED. MOVE ALONG, NOTHING TO SEE HERE. THERE WAS NEVER A BLOGGER NAMED DOPEMAN. HAVE A NICE DAY.

    As long as a bucket costs less than the amount of money it can hold, nothing trickles down. Nothing. Ever.

    by Dopeman on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:11:00 PM PST

    •  In other words, you decline the invitation (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TFinSF, Fogiv, Jeff Simpson

      to have an intelligent conversation.  Thank you, your concerns are duly noted.

      A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

      by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 05:01:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And you, Sir or Madam, decline to have a (0+ / 0-)

        sense of humor. Thank you, your Seriousness is duly noted.

        As long as a bucket costs less than the amount of money it can hold, nothing trickles down. Nothing. Ever.

        by Dopeman on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 06:03:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Humor has to be based on reality to be funny. (0+ / 0-)

          If it comes from false assumptions, then it just sounds delusional and the joker becomes the joke.

          Worries about civil liberties are legitimate.  Lampooning views that pooh-pooh those worries might be funny.  But what you're lampooning is simply the intelligent examination of claims, as if even questioning that something is as bad as asserted is some kind of inherently dishonest or delusional position.  That's crazy and stupid.

          A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

          by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 06:17:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  thanks for writing this (8+ / 0-)

    no, it does not allow for the indefinite detention of Americans or permanent residents.

    link

    One of the most important issues in the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) involves detainee issues. I would like to take a moment to explain my position.

    First, the AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) section in our bill, Section 1021, merely codifies current law. It specifically states, “nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”  Quite simply, our courts will decide what the law is regarding detention of U.S. citizens.

    Second, any U.S. citizen detained under Section 1021 has the right under habeas corpus to have the legality of any such detention determined by our courts.  The courts have also held that anyone detained under the AUMF at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, also has habeas rights.  We do not change these rights.

    Third, Section 1022, entitled, “Military Custody For Foreign al-Qaeda Terrorists” specifically excludes US citizens. It states, “the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.” It also states the requirement to detain under Section 1022 “does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.”

    Fourth, we also codify periodic review for those being detained at Guantanamo Bay, now and in the future, which is an important procedure for those detained indefinitely as a threat to the United States under the law of war.

    This is from the letter from Rep. Smith (D-WA). Folks I've talked to on Twitter have decided that he's lying. shrug.

    [insert pithy sigline here]

    by terrypinder on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:11:26 PM PST

    •  see below (highlighted in bold) (9+ / 0-)

      SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

      (a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

      (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

      (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

      (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

      (c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

      (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

      (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

      (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

      (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

      (d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

      (e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

      (f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

      SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

      (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

      (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

      (2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--

      (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

      (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

      (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

      (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

      (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

      (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

      (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

      (c) Implementation Procedures-

      (1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

      (2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

      (A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

      (B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

      (C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.

      (D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

      (E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

      (d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

      SEC. 1033. REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF DETAINEES AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND OTHER FOREIGN ENTITIES.

      (a) Certification Required Prior to Transfer-

      (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (d), the Secretary of Defense may not use any amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2012 to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to the custody or control of the individual’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity unless the Secretary submits to Congress the certification described in subsection (b) not later than 30 days before the transfer of the individual.

      (2) EXCEPTION- Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any action taken by the Secretary to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to effectuate--

      (A) an order affecting the disposition of the individual that is issued by a court or competent tribunal of the United States having lawful jurisdiction (which the Secretary shall notify Congress of promptly after issuance); or

      (B) a pre-trial agreement entered in a military commission case prior to the date of the enactment of this Act.

      (b) Certification- A certification described in this subsection is a written certification made by the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, that the government of the foreign country or the recognized leadership of the foreign entity to which the individual detained at Guantanamo is to be transferred--

      (1) is not a designated state sponsor of terrorism or a designated foreign terrorist organization;

      (2) maintains control over each detention facility in which the individual is to be detained if the individual is to be housed in a detention facility;

      (3) is not, as of the date of the certification, facing a threat that is likely to substantially affect its ability to exercise control over the individual;

      (4) has taken or agreed to take effective actions to ensure that the individual cannot take action to threaten the United States, its citizens, or its allies in the future;

      (5) has taken or agreed to take such actions as the Secretary of Defense determines are necessary to ensure that the individual cannot engage or reengage in any terrorist activity; and

      (6) has agreed to share with the United States any information that--

      (A) is related to the individual or any associates of the individual; and

      (B) could affect the security of the United States, its citizens, or its allies.

      (c) Prohibition in Cases of Prior Confirmed Recidivism-

      (1) PROHIBITION- Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (d), the Secretary of Defense may not use any amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to the custody or control of the individual’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity if there is a confirmed case of any individual who was detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, at any time after September 11, 2001, who was transferred to such foreign country or entity and subsequently engaged in any terrorist activity.

      (2) EXCEPTION- Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any action taken by the Secretary to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to effectuate--

      (A) an order affecting the disposition of the individual that is issued by a court or competent tribunal of the United States having lawful jurisdiction (which the Secretary shall notify Congress of promptly after issuance); or

      (B) a pre-trial agreement entered in a military commission case prior to the date of the enactment of this Act.

      (d) National Security Waiver-

      (1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Defense may waive the applicability to a detainee transfer of a certification requirement specified in paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (b) or the prohibition in subsection (c) if the Secretary, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, determines that--

      (A) alternative actions will be taken to address the underlying purpose of the requirement or requirements to be waived;

      (B) in the case of a waiver of paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (b), it is not possible to certify that the risks addressed in the paragraph to be waived have been completely eliminated, but the actions to be taken under subparagraph (A) will substantially mitigate such risks with regard to the individual to be transferred;

      (C) in the case of a waiver of subsection (c), the Secretary has considered any confirmed case in which an individual who was transferred to the country subsequently engaged in terrorist activity, and the actions to be taken under subparagraph (A) will substantially mitigate the risk of recidivism with regard to the individual to be transferred; and

      (D) the transfer is in the national security interests of the United States.

      (2) REPORTS- Whenever the Secretary makes a determination under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress, not later than 30 days before the transfer of the individual concerned, the following:

      (A) A copy of the determination and the waiver concerned.

      (B) A statement of the basis for the determination, including--

      (i) an explanation why the transfer is in the national security interests of the United States; and

      (ii) in the case of a waiver of paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (b), an explanation why it is not possible to certify that the risks addressed in the paragraph to be waived have been completely eliminated.

      (C) A summary of the alternative actions to be taken to address the underlying purpose of, and to mitigate the risks addressed in, the paragraph or subsection to be waived.

      (e) Definitions- In this section:

      (1) The term ‘appropriate committees of Congress’ means--

      (A) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Appropriations, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and

      (B) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Appropriations, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.

      (2) The term ‘individual detained at Guantanamo’ means any individual located at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as of October 1, 2009, who--

      (A) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and

      (B) is--

      (i) in the custody or under the control of the Department of Defense; or

      (ii) otherwise under detention at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

      (3) The term ‘foreign terrorist organization’ means any organization so designated by the Secretary of State under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189).

      (f) Repeal of Superseded Authority- Section 1033 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4351) is repealed.

      SEC. 1034. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO CONSTRUCT OR MODIFY FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES TO HOUSE DETAINEES TRANSFERRED FROM UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.

      (a) In General- No amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2012 may be used to construct or modify any facility in the United States, its territories, or possessions to house any individual detained at Guantanamo for the purposes of detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the control of the Department of Defense unless authorized by Congress.

      (b) Exception- The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply to any modification of facilities at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

      (c) Individual Detained at Guantanamo Defined- In this section, the term ‘individual detained at Guantanamo’ has the meaning given that term in section 1033(e)(2).

      (d) Repeal of Superseded Authority- Section 1034 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4353) is amended by striking subsections (a), (b), and (c).

      SEC. 1035. PROCEDURES FOR PERIODIC DETENTION REVIEW OF INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.

      (a) Procedures Required- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report setting forth procedures for implementing the periodic review process required by Executive Order No. 13567 for individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40).

      (b) Covered Matters- The procedures submitted under subsection (a) shall, at a minimum--

      (1) clarify that the purpose of the periodic review process is not to determine the legality of any detainee’s law of war detention, but to make discretionary determinations whether or not a detainee represents a continuing threat to the security of the United States;

      (2) clarify that the Secretary of Defense is responsible for any final decision to release or transfer an individual detained in military custody at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, pursuant to the Executive Order referred to in subsection (a), and that in making such a final decision, the Secretary shall consider the recommendation of a periodic review board or review committee established pursuant to such Executive Order, but shall not be bound by any such recommendation; and

      (3) ensure that appropriate consideration is given to factors addressing the need for continued detention of the detainee, including--

      (A) the likelihood the detainee will resume terrorist activity if transferred or released;

      (B) the likelihood the detainee will reestablish ties with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners if transferred or released;

      (C) the likelihood of family, tribal, or government rehabilitation or support for the detainee if transferred or released;

      (D) the likelihood the detainee may be subject to trial by military commission; and

      (E) any law enforcement interest in the detainee.

      (c) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined- In this section, the term ‘appropriate committees of Congress’ means--

      (1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and

      (2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.

      SEC. 1036. PROCEDURES FOR STATUS DETERMINATIONS.

      (a) In General- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report setting forth the procedures for determining the status of persons detained pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) for purposes of section 1031.

      (b) Elements of Procedures- The procedures required by this section shall provide for the following in the case of any unprivileged enemy belligerent who will be held in long-term detention under the law of war pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force:

      (1) A military judge shall preside at proceedings for the determination of status of an unprivileged enemy belligerent.

      (2) An unprivileged enemy belligerent may, at the election of the belligerent, be represented by military counsel at proceedings for the determination of status of the belligerent.

      (c) Report on Modification of Procedures- The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on any modification of the procedures submitted under this section. The report on any such modification shall be so submitted not later than 60 days before the date on which such modification goes into effect.

      (d) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined- In this section, the term ‘appropriate committees of Congress’ means--

      (1) the Committee on Armed Services and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and

      (2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.

      SEC. 1037. CLARIFICATION OF RIGHT TO PLEAD GUILTY IN TRIAL OF CAPITAL OFFENSE BY MILITARY COMMISSION.

      (a) Clarification of Right- Section 949m(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--

      (1) in subparagraph (C), by inserting before the semicolon the following: ‘, or a guilty plea was accepted and not withdrawn prior to announcement of the sentence in accordance with section 949i(b) of this title’; and

      (2) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ‘on the sentence’ after ‘vote was taken’.

      (b) Pre-trial Agreements- Section 949i of such title is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

      ‘(c) Pre-trial Agreements- (1) A plea of guilty made by the accused that is accepted by a military judge under subsection (b) and not withdrawn prior to announcement of the sentence may form the basis for an agreement reducing the maximum sentence approved by the convening authority, including the reduction of a sentence of death to a lesser punishment, or that the case will be referred to a military commission under this chapter without seeking the penalty of death. Such an agreement may provide for terms and conditions in addition to a guilty plea by the accused in order to be effective.

      ‘(2) A plea agreement under this subsection may not provide for a sentence of death imposed by a military judge alone. A sentence of death may only be imposed by the unanimous vote of all members of a military commission concurring in the sentence of death as provided in section 949m(b)(2)(D) of this title.’.

      [insert pithy sigline here]

      by terrypinder on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:27:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Jesus fucking christ on a stick. Can Greenwald (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lying eyes, Troubadour

        fucking read?  It couldn't more clear. WTF is wrong with these people?

        No, it does not apply to American citizens or permanent residents. It has also numerous other limitations on who it applies to that make it so limited it is laughable.

        No, thank you for writing this.

        •  that's from the actual bill. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Catte Nappe, Troubadour, SoCalSal

          It's an ugly bill, I won't deny that. I mean the whole thing is a give-away that we can't exactly afford, but no, the Occupy folks aren't going to get disappeared.

          And as for Gitmo, well, Congress has no interest in closing it (and it's their job.)

          [insert pithy sigline here]

          by terrypinder on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:35:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm sure he can read. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Southside, Troubadour, SoCalSal

          The problem is that he can also write. And keeps doing it even when what he reads doesn't matter to him.

          I support OWS. But that doesn't mean I support every dumb idea someone has about it.

          by kenlac on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:39:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, but it's so much more fun to demonize Obama. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Southside, Lying eyes, Troubadour

          WTF is wrong with these people? Seriously. Is it a medical condition or what?

          Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

          by JTinDC on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:42:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Sorta-kinda. It's actually a bit more muddled (5+ / 0-)

          than that: the section terrypinder bolded refers only to "the requirement for military custody", not to the question of indefinite detention, which is the one raised in the diary.  

          On the question of indefinite detention, the most pertinent section of the NDAA is actually this one:

          (e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

          In other words, Congress accepts the status quo. But the problem is that the existing law is muddled because the issue of potential indefinite detention of citizens has been handled on an ad hoc basis and bounced around the courts.  The NDAA basically says "We're not touching that, so we'll leave the existing system in place."  Which means that, yes, it is possible for someone holding U.S. citizenship to be detained indefinitely under certain circumstances.  

          This is what I meant above about the NDAA essentially codifying the status quo and clarifying nothing.   Still a bad bill, not the end of the world, but nothing to be complacent about either.

          Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

          by pico on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:03:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  this is already true in civillian courts (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pico, Troubadour
            yes, it is possible for someone holding U.S. citizenship to be detained indefinitely under certain circumstances.

            material witnesses (sometimes), being held in contempt. I'm certainly not arguing that it's right, though.

            [insert pithy sigline here]

            by terrypinder on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:14:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think it's broader than that, though: (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              terrypinder

              I think this is referring back to the whole package of practices that began under the GWOT legislation.  Point taken, though.

              Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

              by pico on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:31:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  PS thank you (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            pico

            yes you're right. I addressed the military portion, although you're still right, it's just the status quo, which is not what we want on this.

            But with this Congress? We're lucky there isn't a "lynch them thar terrists where they stand!" provision.

            [insert pithy sigline here]

            by terrypinder on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:25:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  key word above "required" (0+ / 0-)

        I feel better now it isn't "required", just like cops aren't 'required' to write me speeding ticket,...but they can.

        without the ants the rainforest dies

        by aliasalias on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:57:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  They can also shoot you (0+ / 0-)

          but their decision to do so is still subject to review, just as the decision to designate an enemy combatant is subject to a judicial finding of status.  To completely reject even the possibility of enemy combatant status would be a truly big change in long-standing law and policy - one I support, but it's silly to pretend that detention is the radical position.  It's a dangerous position, but it's not a change from standard policies going back to WW2.

          A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

          by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 06:01:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  The pertinent sections (0+ / 0-)

    Read it and weep

    Text of H.R. 1540: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

    Subtitle D--Detainee Matters
    SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
    (a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
    (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
    (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
    (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
    (c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
    (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
    (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
    (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
    (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
    (d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
    (e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
    (f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
    SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
    (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
    (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
    (2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--
    (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
    (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
    (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.
    (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.
    (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
    (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
    (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
    (c) Implementation Procedures-
    (1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
    (2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
    (A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.
    (B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.
    (C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.
    (D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.
    (E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
    (d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.
    SEC. 1033. REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF DETAINEES AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND OTHER FOREIGN ENTITIES.
    (a) Certification Required Prior to Transfer-
    (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (d), the Secretary of Defense may not use any amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2012 to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to the custody or control of the individual’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity unless the Secretary submits to Congress the certification described in subsection (b) not later than 30 days before the transfer of the individual.
    (2) EXCEPTION- Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any action taken by the Secretary to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to effectuate--
    (A) an order affecting the disposition of the individual that is issued by a court or competent tribunal of the United States having lawful jurisdiction (which the Secretary shall notify Congress of promptly after issuance); or
    (B) a pre-trial agreement entered in a military commission case prior to the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Certification- A certification described in this subsection is a written certification made by the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, that the government of the foreign country or the recognized leadership of the foreign entity to which the individual detained at Guantanamo is to be transferred--
    (1) is not a designated state sponsor of terrorism or a designated foreign terrorist organization;
    (2) maintains control over each detention facility in which the individual is to be detained if the individual is to be housed in a detention facility;
    (3) is not, as of the date of the certification, facing a threat that is likely to substantially affect its ability to exercise control over the individual;
    (4) has taken or agreed to take effective actions to ensure that the individual cannot take action to threaten the United States, its citizens, or its allies in the future;
    (5) has taken or agreed to take such actions as the Secretary of Defense determines are necessary to ensure that the individual cannot engage or reengage in any terrorist activity; and
    (6) has agreed to share with the United States any information that--
    (A) is related to the individual or any associates of the individual; and
    (B) could affect the security of the United States, its citizens, or its allies.
    (c) Prohibition in Cases of Prior Confirmed Recidivism-
    (1) PROHIBITION- Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (d), the Secretary of Defense may not use any amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to the custody or control of the individual’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity if there is a confirmed case of any individual who was detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, at any time after September 11, 2001, who was transferred to such foreign country or entity and subsequently engaged in any terrorist activity.
    (2) EXCEPTION- Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any action taken by the Secretary to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to effectuate--
    (A) an order affecting the disposition of the individual that is issued by a court or competent tribunal of the United States having lawful jurisdiction (which the Secretary shall notify Congress of promptly after issuance); or
    (B) a pre-trial agreement entered in a military commission case prior to the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (d) National Security Waiver-
    (1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Defense may waive the applicability to a detainee transfer of a certification requirement specified in paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (b) or the prohibition in subsection (c) if the Secretary, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, determines that--
    (A) alternative actions will be taken to address the underlying purpose of the requirement or requirements to be waived;
    (B) in the case of a waiver of paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (b), it is not possible to certify that the risks addressed in the paragraph to be waived have been completely eliminated, but the actions to be taken under subparagraph (A) will substantially mitigate such risks with regard to the individual to be transferred;
    (C) in the case of a waiver of subsection (c), the Secretary has considered any confirmed case in which an individual who was transferred to the country subsequently engaged in terrorist activity, and the actions to be taken under subparagraph (A) will substantially mitigate the risk of recidivism with regard to the individual to be transferred; and
    (D) the transfer is in the national security interests of the United States.
    (2) REPORTS- Whenever the Secretary makes a determination under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress, not later than 30 days before the transfer of the individual concerned, the following:
    (A) A copy of the determination and the waiver concerned.
    (B) A statement of the basis for the determination, including--
    (i) an explanation why the transfer is in the national security interests of the United States; and
    (ii) in the case of a waiver of paragraph (4) or (5) of subsection (b), an explanation why it is not possible to certify that the risks addressed in the paragraph to be waived have been completely eliminated.
    (C) A summary of the alternative actions to be taken to address the underlying purpose of, and to mitigate the risks addressed in, the paragraph or subsection to be waived.
    (e) Definitions- In this section:
    (1) The term ‘appropriate committees of Congress’ means--
    (A) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Appropriations, and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
    (B) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Appropriations, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.
    (2) The term ‘individual detained at Guantanamo’ means any individual located at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as of October 1, 2009, who--
    (A) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States; and
    (B) is--
    (i) in the custody or under the control of the Department of Defense; or
    (ii) otherwise under detention at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
    (3) The term ‘foreign terrorist organization’ means any organization so designated by the Secretary of State under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189).
    (f) Repeal of Superseded Authority- Section 1033 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383; 124 Stat. 4351) is repealed.

    Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

    by EdMass on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:22:39 PM PST

    •  Note the part (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      terrypinder, Fogiv, Troubadour, SoCalSal

      where it explicitly states it does not apply to U.S. Citizens or legal residents.

      •  Note the part immediately before it (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PhilJD, EdMass, aliasalias, Agathena
        (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

        A) (1) requires the person to be held by the military.

        B)(1) Says it doesn't apply to U.S. citizens.

        A) (4) Says the Secretary of Defense can waive A (1) which makes B(1) meaningless!

        Pretty tricky isn't it?  Loudly declare that it doesn't apply to U.S. citizens, but then let the Secretary of Defense decide to override it.  This means the Secretary of Defense can have the CIA hold someone indefinitely  and void the part about the U.S. citizens.
         

    •  Uh, I read it, but I'm not weeping. (0+ / 0-)

      Disturbed that it enshrines dangerous ambiguities about war powers into statutory law, yes.  But those ambiguities don't seem to directly assault the rights of American citizens as claimed.

      A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

      by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:58:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  There are intelligent critiques of the bill. (8+ / 0-)

    At places like Lawfare.

    But, there is not intelligent criticism here--just the usual hyperbolic Glenn-Beck style echo-chamber.

    It's too bad, because the issue deserves intelligent debate.   But it's impossible to find here.

     

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:40:02 PM PST

  •  I assume this is in response to something on (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lying eyes, Geekesque, Fogiv, Troubadour

    the rec list.

    It should be noted that by popular vote the rec list has been turned into a propaganda delivery device. Asking for facts in that context is futile.

    I support OWS. But that doesn't mean I support every dumb idea someone has about it.

    by kenlac on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:42:47 PM PST

    •  How on earth can this site have any credibility? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Geekesque, Fogiv, Troubadour, SoCalSal

      Not much difference between this place and WND sometimes. Apparantly Markos doesn't care, so I suppose we shouldn't either, but I can't help it, I do care. I just wish he did.

      Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

      by JTinDC on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 03:48:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sadly, and surprisingly, I find that it's making.. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Catte Nappe, Fogiv, Troubadour

        ...me sour on the entire 'progressive movement'.

        I certainly have no intention of giving up my progressive politics. But I'm starting to feel that there's a whole hell of a lot of people out there who believe in the right things, but believe in them so fervently that they are willing to lose all perspective, twist any logic, leap on any crumb of conspiracy, and go on Pavlovian rants at the slightest hint of a bell. None of which is going to do a damn thing to aid the cause of pulling the country in a better direction. They don't merely discredit this site, they discredit progressivism itself.

        In short, they behave a lot like rabid right-wingers. But ironically, they also behave like the caricatures of liberals that rabid right-wingers create. I used to think that kind of liberal was mostly a mythical creation of the right. It has been very disheartening to suddenly see them materialize in such numbers.

        I support OWS. But that doesn't mean I support every dumb idea someone has about it.

        by kenlac on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:00:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The Wreck List here has never (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Troubadour

        had much credibility.  No one is going to link to a Wreck List diary and say "See, look, the people at Daily Kos think this.  It must be true!"

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:04:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Never futile. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kenlac, Fogiv

      An uphill climb, as always, but people who promote Reason will never labor under the delusion that it's the standard condition of humankind.

      A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

      by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:51:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  True. But it's not even reason that's in question (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Fogiv, Troubadour, SoCalSal

        in this case: here you're just trying to nail down some raw facts first, that you can then apply reason to.

        This used to be the order sane people approached things with: facts, comprehension, reaction, judgment. In that order.

        But today that's taking the long way 'round. Why go though all those tedious steps when you can just gauge someone else's tone of outrage and immediately skip right to your own? We're all supposed to act like the Queen of Hearts: reaction now, reason later. If we ever do bother with the second part.

        I support OWS. But that doesn't mean I support every dumb idea someone has about it.

        by kenlac on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 07:59:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Here's my criticism of the bill: (5+ / 0-)

    It enshrines the current state of the law rather than allowing the courts the room to walk it back given changing circumstances and making determinations whether the war is still active, etc.

    It's bad not because it destroys any liberties (it doesn't, and anyone who thinks it's unprecedented to detain and even execute American citizens without a civilian trial needs to open a history book), but because it makes it more difficult to roll back some of the more troublesome developments over the past decade.

    That is a real problem, and it needs to be pointed out.

    But, that will have to happen elsewhere.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:03:34 PM PST

    •  probably at Balloon Juice (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Geekesque, virginislandsguy

      it's not possible here at Daily Kos.

      [insert pithy sigline here]

      by terrypinder on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:12:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Please elaborate: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PhilJD, Agathena, ozsea1
      It's bad not because it destroys any liberties (it doesn't, and anyone who thinks it's unprecedented to detain and even execute American citizens without a civilian trial needs to open a history book), but because it makes it more difficult to roll back some of the more troublesome developments over the past decade.

      What troublesome deveoplments are you talking about?  Seriously?  How can you make that statement without offering up ONE example of a troubling development?

      Your entire comment says NOTHING.

      ...rather than allowing the courts the room to walk it back given changing circumstances and making determinations whether the war is still active, etc.

      What does that even mean?
      What would constitute this war not being 'active'?  Surrender of all terrorists?  No terrorist activities targeting the US or its allies for 2 years?  4 years? 100 years?

      As Greenwald himself has written several times, this law doesn't change anything EXCEPT that it codifies the powers the Executive Branch (Bush AND Obama) has claimed it has during a time of war.  

      Determining when this war is over is at the crux of the matter, however -- we are in a perpetual state of war and this is the way it's going to be from now on.

      There has been some confusion on the Internet as to whether the National Defense Authorization Act really applies to U.S. citizens. But Sen. McCain’s answer should clarify that once and for all.

      The confusion stems from Section 1032, which deals with the military detention of the people the Armed Forces captures “in the course of hostilities.” Part of Section 1032 states: “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”

      Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel of the ACLU, explains the problem.

      “The exclusion on Section 1032 only applies to 1032. It doesn’t apply to 1031,” he says. “And that only makes it worse, because any judge is going to say, ‘Of course, members of Congress meant for American citizens to be detained because if they didn’t, they would have put in the exception they put in one section later.’

      ~snip

      Which the Senate WITHDREW at the request of the White House.

      Anders also noted that Sen. Lindsey Graham, a backer of the bill, has said multiple times on the Senate floor, including on Tuesday, that American citizens should be put into military detention without a lawyer.

      Here’s what Sen. Graham said in the Senate on Nov. 17:

      “1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”


      http://www.progressive.org/...
      •  The law preserves the status quo (0+ / 0-)

        as far as the right of the Preznit to detain people.

        If you think that there was too much latitude given by Congress in the AUMF, that's a bad thing.

        If you think Congress didn't go far enough in authorizing such detentions, it's a good thing.

        But, it's not some thunderbolt out of the sky that's taking away rights that were in existence the day before.

        "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

        by Geekesque on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:34:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  An evasion... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PhilJD, Geekesque

          ...what troubling developments are you talking about?  How does this bill stymie attempts to roll back troubling developments?  Which troubling developments?

          As you've made clear, you do not believe that the power of the Executive to detain and hold its citizens in perpetuity absent due process is an erosion of basic civil liberties.  While I disagree with you, I have no problem UNDERSTANDING that aspect of your argument.  None.  You've been clear as the noon day bell on that point.

          Where you lose me, however, is in your criticism of the bill.  I am confused by what you mean by this:

          it [the bill] makes it more difficult to roll back some of the more troublesome developments over the past decade.

          What exactly are the 'more troubling developments over the past decade' which need to be rolled back, and how does this bill prevent this roll back from occurring?

          •  Congress included no limitations (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Troubadour, 4kedtongue

            or even oversight in the AUMF of 2001.

            Constitutionally, the President is allowed to do that stuff, if Congress grants the authority.

            Should Congress give him the power?  What we're seeing in this bill is some of the debate that should have happened in 2001.

            The troubling developments, forgive the abstractness, have been a complete failure by Congress to provide guidelines, rules, processes, and limitations to constrain or guide the executive.  Instead, we get law by decree, because that's what Congress wants.

            "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

            by Geekesque on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:52:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Unfortunately... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Geekesque, ozsea1

              ...as Senator Levin and former Speaker Pelosi have demonstrated, there is no will to constrain the executive regardless of party.  

              I don't disagree that Congress has been all too eager to hand over its power to the Executive Branch, but this bill is not the product of some debate that should have occurred back in 2001;  it is the result of NEVER having had the debate and STILL not having it.  No elected officials except "The Pauls" are talking about what a nightmare this bill is...and their arguments can be relegated to the fringe with one well-placed "Paultard" ad hom.

              This bill doesn't simply preserve the status quo -- it codifies that which 4 years ago MOST on this site saw as extremely dangerous.

              •  It preserves Boumediene and Hamdan as well. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Fogiv

                There is still a right to a hearing before a federal judge for any citizen detained on our soil.  That did not change.

                It's a bad bill, but it's nowhere near as bad as the FEMA camp folks here are arguing.

                "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

                by Geekesque on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 05:11:08 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Well said. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Geekesque

      A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

      by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:48:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Light vs Heat (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour, BobzCat, jan4insight

    Tipped & rec'd. More light vs heat needed on this topic.

  •  Why don't you... (8+ / 0-)

    ..seek & research the facts on your own, instead of trying to creating a pissing match over it here.

    If I want to know the true objective reality of a topic, the last place I seek that objective reality is on an internet messageboard.

     There are dozens of top quality internet search engines at your disposal.

    Why don't you use them.

    When Fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in excess body fat and carrying a misspelled sign.

    by wyvern on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:17:52 PM PST

    •  Because this is a team effort. (6+ / 0-)

      And I am simply asking for people making extraordinary claims to adhere to a modest standard of evidence.

      A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

      by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:46:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No you're not (8+ / 0-)

        You have been provided with many sources discussing this bill other than the diarist with which you seem to disagree. Yet the only ones that you give credence are any argument that supports your opinion.

        So don't try and play this off as some search for truth and just admit that it is an attempt to draw eyes away from the very good discussions taking place in that diary.

        Every government is run by liars and nothing they say should be believed~I.F. Stone

        by LaEscapee on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 05:10:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No. This is a totally legitimate discussion. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jeff Simpson

          And if you don't want to participate in it, no one is going to force you - but don't pretend your failure in that respect doesn't in any way impact the credibility of the arguments you espouse.

          A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

          by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 06:08:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            joe shikspack, Agathena, priceman

            espousing anything. I have no standing to make much of an argument either way. I am researching and reading some of the very informative information being provided by many others.

            Having said that from what I can determine is that at the very least this is a terrible bill and should not be signed in it's current form. Something else I believe is that it perpetuates the bumper sticker slogan GWOT meme that our government officials use to scare the masses.

            Another thing I have decided is that anyone brushing this off as a nothing to see here issue are a bit naive in their outlook. One more thing I believe is that the people that are accepting this because it is being done under a Democratic president doesn't grasp the concept that not all presidents will be Democrats.

            And last but not least read my sig and consider the truth behind that statement.

            Every government is run by liars and nothing they say should be believed~I.F. Stone

            by LaEscapee on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 06:41:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I am clearly not "brushing this off." (0+ / 0-)

              What I am also not doing is losing my mind in some fear fugue.

              A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

              by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 09:56:30 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  You've done a good thing facilitating this (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Troubadour

        community effort at getting to the truth. Not saying the objective truth has been fully discovered, but it does seem that some hysteric claims are not supported by the language in the bill. That's pretty relevant to the conversation and it's stunning it should take this long for that to happen.

        Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

        by JTinDC on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 06:09:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Something from overseas (detachment is good) (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour, ZappoDave, Geekesque

    compliments of Al Jazeera

    Gist being, that since the Hamdi case...


    ...what we've seen since then is that her (SC Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's) language was still not specified enough, like when do military operations in Afghanistan end? We've been involved in various phases in war there for now a decade and so there is still the implication that hostilities can be long-standing and permanent.

    And the way that both administrations [Bush and Obama] have interpreted that language is by using the language from the Hamdi case to essentially justify near-permanent detention, because hostilities are endless.

    What you see in the [NDAA] bill is the effort to use phrases from cases in order to justify the practice, but to strip out in various ways the meaning of the phrase that might have limited the reach of detention powers."

    •  This article largely describes concerns (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ZappoDave, Geekesque, Fogiv

      about the slippery slope the administration has embraced in accepting dangerous ambiguities in the laws of war, but doesn't add anything on the specific question about what the current version of the NDAA does beyond describing the tactics it uses to push the disputed language.

      But just to step outside the narrow limits of this diary, I would like to address this broader issue by saying that we shouldn't lose sight that real ambiguities exist, and that in some cases there are no practical ways to eliminate them.  We cannot allow the fact that some ambiguities are purely interest-based to make us deny the existence of genuine ambiguity.

      For instance, legal war must be an act of self-defense, but the individual actions within it do not require a standard of self-defense - i.e., a soldier doesn't have to claim that someone he judges to be an enemy soldier was pointing a gun at him to justify shooting him: All that's needed is for them to reasonably conclude the other guy is an enemy soldier.

      This gets very complicated with networked international guerrilla terrorism.  Many countries simply have no control over their own territory, or else insufficient control that makes law enforcement a moot or dubious proposition.  Institutions of power will naturally try to deal with ambiguity by increasing that power, and the only way to prevent that is to offer superior alternatives - e.g., by evolving national and international oversight mechanisms to designate what is and is not a battlefield rather than just extending it to the whole world.

      So there are real ambiguities involved, and the only way the true villains can get away with exploiting them is if we fail to adequately address them.

      A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

      by Troubadour on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 04:44:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  To James Hepburn: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BobzCat, Troubadour

    way to be mature about this.

  •  I'll bet anyone ten grand that James Hepburn (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight, Troubadour

    doesn't get punished for his bogus HR in the tip jar. He is anti-Obama. He should be golden. Unless I'm completely mistaken and there is not really a double standard.

    Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

    by JTinDC on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 05:53:33 PM PST

  •  This same commenter? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Agathena

    from your update above:

    Apparently it was AZDem that originally pointed out the above argument, not G2Geek, although G2Geek brought it to the attention of this diary.

    is this the same AZDem?

    There is nothing unConstitutional about any of the legislation that has been enacted to make it easier for the President and law enforcement to keep us safe.  There are, certainly Constitutional issues involved and we always have to balance and debate them.

    How sad.

    An Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt Democrat.

    by ozsea1 on Thu Dec 15, 2011 at 08:58:03 PM PST

    •  I came by the attribution second-hand (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ozsea1

      via G2Geek.  I am not familiar with AZDem.

      A process cannot be understood by stopping it. Understanding must move with the flow of the process, must join it and flow with it. --The First Law of Mentat

      by Troubadour on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 12:06:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site