If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico) Followup Senate passes bill with terrifying disputation policies. House says it's not lupus   (politico.com) divider line 39
More: Followup, Carl Levin, White House, Senate, lupus, detainees, abandonments, authorization bill  
•       •       •

1933 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Dec 2011 at 10:47 AM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



39 Comments   (+0 »)
   
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2011-12-02 10:34:56 AM
People get too rilled up over these things. It was just a mistranslation, like the whole "Thou shalt not kill" thing in the bible. It's "Habeas cruciatus" in the original Latin version of the Constitution written by Jesus.
 
2011-12-02 10:41:18 AM
I farking hate Congress, I really do.
 
2011-12-02 10:54:32 AM
I suspect Carl Levin of being a terrorist supporter and urge his indefinate imprisonment.
 
2011-12-02 10:55:25 AM
Sometimes both sides are bad. Obama should veto.
 
2011-12-02 10:55:37 AM
GAT_00: I farking hate Congress, I really do.

get that off your chest now, before it's criminalized to say so ... oh wait they'll make it ex post facto to boot!
 
2011-12-02 10:57:09 AM
We have got to get age maximums and term limits on these farkers.
 
2011-12-02 11:00:33 AM
ole prophet: We have got to get age maximums and term limits on these farkers.

What good would that do? Corporations and the super wealthy own the elections now.

Get rid of elections altogether and institute a random draft.
 
2011-12-02 11:01:51 AM
DarnoKonrad: Sometimes both sides are bad. Obama should veto.

He should, but I don't think he will. Unless he can get 27 Democrats to switch back to a sane vote, the veto will get overridden, and that's a torpedo into the side of the office. I think it should be done anyway, but if it didn't happen, it wouldn't be shocking.
 
2011-12-02 11:02:09 AM
The Senate overwhelmingly passed the defense bill Thursday night, 93-7, after Levin agreed with critics to include language ensuring that nothing in the bill would affect current law for those arrested in the United States. But the administration's most significant concerns - that the bill could impede sensitive intelligence investigations - don't appear to be fully resolved, potentially escalating tensions between the White House and Capitol Hill.

So why I should be opposing this?
 
2011-12-02 11:06:33 AM
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who sided with Levin and was referring to the White House's veto threat. "There's not that much going on here that's bipartisan - so you got something moving in that direction, you ought to embrace it."
================================================================

If that bipartisanness is 'we can imprison anyone infinitely without trial'... then you take that bipartisan dildo and you shove it up your ass.
 
2011-12-02 11:06:35 AM
GAT_00: DarnoKonrad: Sometimes both sides are bad. Obama should veto.

He should, but I don't think he will. Unless he can get 27 Democrats to switch back to a sane vote, the veto will get overridden, and that's a torpedo into the side of the office. I think it should be done anyway, but if it didn't happen, it wouldn't be shocking.


Exactly. It passed 93-7. He should, but Obama isn't one to pick fights hes 90% certain of losing. If we have learned anything about him in the last 3 years its that he loves the tactical withdrawal.
 
2011-12-02 11:06:54 AM
ole prophet: We have got to get age maximums and term limits on these farkers.

They are not immortal and we have elections.
 
2011-12-02 11:07:57 AM
jake3988: Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who sided with Levin and was referring to the White House's veto threat. "There's not that much going on here that's bipartisan - so you got something moving in that direction, you ought to embrace it."
================================================================

If that bipartisanness is 'we can imprison anyone infinitely without trial'... then you take that bipartisan dildo and you shove it up your ass.


God thats retarded. Its identical to a teenager using the excuse "everybody's doing it!"
 
2011-12-02 11:13:35 AM
GAT_00: DarnoKonrad: Sometimes both sides are bad. Obama should veto.

He should, but I don't think he will. Unless he can get 27 Democrats to switch back to a sane vote, the veto will get overridden, and that's a torpedo into the side of the office. I think it should be done anyway, but if it didn't happen, it wouldn't be shocking.


Obama is far more popular than congressional democrats or republicans. He should veto it and denounce it as 'big government over reach.' It wouldn't be hard, even the Pentagon hates this idea.
 
2011-12-02 11:17:48 AM
Frakking Fascist filth. Why haven't we broken out the guillotines for these miscreants yet? How many more liberties must we lose due to old, scared crybabies?
 
2011-12-02 11:22:41 AM
Obama is going to sign it. He's not going to put up that big a fight, especially for a national defense authorization.

He knows he'll get killed for hating the troops or some such. And, he won't be able to control the message about the extremely scary parts of the indefinite detention.

He'll sign it and a small percentage of liberals will hate him for it. Meanwhile, everyone else won't care.
 
2011-12-02 11:24:20 AM
When both the SecDef and the FBI Director say it's a bad idea, it's probably a BAD IDEA. Sure, they made a face-saving compromise at the last second to "ensure Americans won't be subject to this", but the bill is still a steaming pile of BS.

Those "severe defense cuts"? Simply a reduction in the amount that spending will increase next year. No real cuts to be found.

And the new detainee policy? A slap in the face of the Geneva convention and just about any sane idea of treating POWs. That McCain sponsored this renders any future talk from him on his years as a POW to be pure grandstanding and nothing more.

This quote from Sen. Ayotte sums up how bad this is:
"We need the authority to hold those individuals in military custody so we aren't reading them Miranda rights."

IMO, enough of this cr@p. Put all detainees on trial in Federal court immediately, with the evidence on hand. Either the Feds have a winning case, or they don't. If convicted, fry them. If acquitted, then they are released into a country that will take them.
 
2011-12-02 11:26:55 AM
bulldg4life: and a small percentage of citizens, those that dislike totalitarianism, will hate him for it.
 
2011-12-02 11:37:10 AM
All he needs to do is point out this portion of the bill when he vetoes. You think those ass-covering whiny little biatch congressmen will override his veto if the media grabs on to the "indefinite imprisonment without trial" bit?

Of course this ultimately benefits him, the White House, and future presidents, so why in god's name would he veto? This bill has little effect on his running for re-election but surely gives him reins for even more power, and ultimately he's a goddamn politician. Of course he's going to sign it. The people and their rights mean nothing to these monsters.
 
2011-12-02 11:39:35 AM
Wicked Chinchilla: Obama isn't one to pick fights hes 90% certain of losing.

He wasnt going to veto it anyway. He may have made some statements to quiet his supporters that dislike this legislation, he was going to sign it or at least not sign it but not veto it.
 
2011-12-02 11:41:35 AM
Veto that farker. Congress is broken when a "liberal" Dem (who votes with his center-right party 9 out every 10 times??? Yeah, he's super liberal) is in favour of detaining people indefinitely.
 
2011-12-02 11:43:54 AM
Grand_Moff_Joseph: When both the SecDef and the FBI Director say it's a bad idea, it's probably a BAD IDEA. Sure, they made a face-saving compromise at the last second to "ensure Americans won't be subject to this", but the bill is still a steaming pile of BS.

Those "severe defense cuts"? Simply a reduction in the amount that spending will increase next year. No real cuts to be found.

And the new detainee policy? A slap in the face of the Geneva convention and just about any sane idea of treating POWs. That McCain sponsored this renders any future talk from him on his years as a POW to be pure grandstanding and nothing more.

This quote from Sen. Ayotte sums up how bad this is:
"We need the authority to hold those individuals in military custody so we aren't reading them Miranda rights."

IMO, enough of this cr@p. Put all detainees on trial in Federal court immediately, with the evidence on hand. Either the Feds have a winning case, or they don't. If convicted, fry them. If acquitted, then they are released into a country that will take them.


Totally agree. I don't understand how our leadership can strut around bragging about how brave and strong we are then be scared shiatless about putting potential terrorists on trial on our own soil. For farks sake we try serial killers all the time and I guarantee you a bunch of them have killed more people than these guys. Plus, if we are scared about them getting off because of lack of evidence then we better not be fracking holding onto them in the first place, don'tcha think?
 
2011-12-02 11:44:44 AM
Saiga410: Wicked Chinchilla: Obama isn't one to pick fights hes 90% certain of losing.

He wasnt going to veto it anyway. He may have made some statements to quiet his supporters that dislike this legislation, he was going to sign it or at least not sign it but not veto it.


Depressingly enough I think you are probably right.
 
2011-12-02 11:53:03 AM
Please pay attention Democrats. This, right here, is why you shouldn't complain when the left tries to put pressure on the political system by bucking the Dems. Here's your precious "bipartisanship" in its full glory.
 
2011-12-02 12:03:10 PM
On Thursday, the Senate rejected repeated efforts by Feinstein targeting the detainee provisions in the bill - one that would limit military custody to those caught outside of the United States and another to prohibit American citizens from being held indefinitely without trial or charge. She did win the Senate's support after she agreed to change her second amendment spelling out that it would not affect existing law, but that didn't appear to alleviate concerns many Democrats had with the bill.

Am I to take that to mean that current law allows citizens to be indefinitely detained?

"There's not that much going on here that's bipartisan - so you got something moving in that direction, you ought to embrace it."

If the republican compromise was to allow the president to order the military to arrest and hold citizens in the US without charge or trial then damn, what was their original position? To allow the military to summarily execute anyone suspected of jaywalking?
 
2011-12-02 01:51:04 PM
Karac: On Thursday, the Senate rejected repeated efforts by Feinstein targeting the detainee provisions in the bill - one that would limit military custody to those caught outside of the United States and another to prohibit American citizens from being held indefinitely without trial or charge. She did win the Senate's support after she agreed to change her second amendment spelling out that it would not affect existing law, but that didn't appear to alleviate concerns many Democrats had with the bill.

Am I to take that to mean that current law allows citizens to be indefinitely detained?

"There's not that much going on here that's bipartisan - so you got something moving in that direction, you ought to embrace it."

If the republican compromise was to allow the president to order the military to arrest and hold citizens in the US without charge or trial then damn, what was their original position? To allow the military to summarily execute anyone suspected of jaywalking?


Your papers please, citizen. Oops...too slow *blam*.
 
2011-12-02 02:33:07 PM
Wicked Chinchilla: if we are scared about them getting off because of lack of evidence then we better not be fracking holding onto them in the first place, don'tcha think?

Bears repeating.

How big can the set of "people who are so obviously guilty of murder and/or attempted murder they don't need a trial, but if we had a trial, they might not get convicted" possibly be?

I blame Hollywood - they use the "obviously guilty perp gets off on a technicality" trope so often, to build drama, that we think it's common. When it happens in real life it's pretty newsworthy - see OJ and Casey Anthony.
 
2011-12-02 02:42:10 PM
Gaseous Anomaly: When it happens in real life it's pretty newsworthy - see OJ and Casey Anthony.

I wouldn't even put OJ in that group. He didn't get off on a technicality, he got off because of a shiatty jury and an incompetent prosecution.
 
2011-12-02 02:49:57 PM
Mercutio74: Gaseous Anomaly: When it happens in real life it's pretty newsworthy - see OJ and Casey Anthony.

I wouldn't even put OJ in that group. He didn't get off on a technicality, he got off because of a shiatty jury and an incompetent prosecution.


I guess the same is true of Casey Anthony now that you mention it. Hmm. Anyone know of a case where someone obviously guilty of murder walked on a legal technicality?
 
2011-12-02 03:19:42 PM
My guess is that no one in the Senate has ever read the 6th amendment to the constitution.
 
2011-12-02 03:42:02 PM
indefinitely imprison suspects
indefinitely imprison suspects
indefinitely imprison suspects
indefinitely imprison suspects
indefinitely imprison suspects

"my country right or wrong"
sieg heil baby!

/mahalo
 
2011-12-02 04:18:49 PM
FTA: And on defense issues, he's often sided with Democrats, leaving some of his allies perplexed at his position during the latest fight.

If we can't have term limits, couldn't we, at the very least, include in each Congressmans' health package a free (to the Congressman), annual screening for senility?
 
2011-12-02 04:19:58 PM
deadcrickets: I suspect Carl Levin of being a terrorist supporter and urge his indefinate imprisonment.

He looks like an al Queda supporter to me.
 
2011-12-02 06:11:13 PM
We should really blame all of this on the Arabs and their version of spring break.
If they had stayed quite and content under their oppressive regimes,our own such
leaders would not be knocking at the knees. Take your pick on who our leaders are,financial institutions,big business,Congress,they are all scared of losing power. Bring in the troops and then they'll eat cake!!
 
2011-12-02 07:55:07 PM
Why does this tread have so few comments? It seems like the indefinite imprisonment of any individual without trial would be something a lot of people should be up in arms about.
 
2011-12-02 08:07:38 PM
No one that voted for this should get another term. This needs to be publicized.
 
2011-12-02 08:31:51 PM
andino: Why does this tread have so few comments? It seems like the indefinite imprisonment of any individual without trial would be something a lot of people should be up in arms about.

Beats me.

I thought this thread would be full of 2nd Amendment activists discussing how they'd fight tyranny.
 
2011-12-02 08:33:56 PM
andino: Why does this tread have so few comments? It seems like the indefinite imprisonment of any individual without trial would be something a lot of people should be up in arms about.

No Right-Wing trolls? Because even THEY can't defend this.
 
2011-12-02 09:34:43 PM
hazeleyedwolff: No one that voted for this should get another term. This needs to be publicized.

Agreed. Unfortunately, I live in Retardville so my asshat reps and senators will get re-elected.
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »