Lets invite all the politicians for a gigantic bi-partisan discussion on this subject in orlando...specifically kennedy space center.


"Hey this doesn't look like a forum...?"

cman: Normally I would biatch and complain that this is all of your fault for voting the same two parties back in power, but since I am ignored, why the fark should I care anymore? Its not like I love my country or something.

The important thing is you were able to feel victimized, while still being condescending.

... I hate headlines like this.

It's freaking Reconciliation! It happens all the farking time! The Senate and House rarely pass identical versions of the same bill, requiring this shiat regularly!

It's not 'secretive' when it's built in to the farking system. Yes, it's a hot button topic right now. Yes, I understand the author is an ignorant dipshiat who either skipped basic US gov't in college or used that time to see how big of a puddle of drool could form on his desk while he slept.

I don't have to like it.

cman: Normally I would biatch and complain that this is all of your fault for voting the same two parties back in power, but since I am ignored, why the fark should I care anymore? Its not like I love my country or something.

I will do everything in my power to prevent the Republicans with their anti-civil rights, anti-tolerance, pro-deficit agenda from gaining more power in government. If the most reasonable means of achieving that end is to vote for Democrats, that is what I will do.

With the House having voted 406-17 to "close" portions of the meetings and avoid public scrutiny, members from both chambers and both parties are meeting in a secretive conference committee to work on reconciling the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill.

Well there's one thing both parties can agree on, they know this shiat is messed up and they don't care.

F*CK YOU.

/you know who you are

Cinaed: ... I hate headlines like this.

It's freaking Reconciliation! It happens all the farking time! The Senate and House rarely pass identical versions of the same bill, requiring this shiat regularly!

It's not 'secretive' when it's built in to the farking system. Yes, it's a hot button topic right now. Yes, I understand the author is an ignorant dipshiat who either skipped basic US gov't in college or used that time to see how big of a puddle of drool could form on his desk while he slept.

I don't have to like it.

There's that, too. Plus, after conference, it goes back to both houses to get voted on again.

We must protect children from their parents making nutritional decisions for them.

beta_plus: We must protect children from their parents making nutritional decisions for them.

Our plan to help provide nutrition to our kids? Uhh....ahhh fark it. Just list everything as fruit and vegetable. That will shut those nutritionists up.

Hang on, did I read this right?

":As you can read for yourself here, Section 1031, affirming the "authority of the armed forces of the United States to detain covered persons..." does not contain an exemption for U.S. citizens. Section 1032, mandating the military detention authority be used for terrorism suspects, does, but that is the section that the Obama Administration says must be removed or else he will veto. "

So Obama is threatening to veto unless the section limiting the law's use against U.S. citizens is removed. WTF?

beta_plus: We must protect children from their parents making nutritional decisions for them.

It's my right as a parent to feed my kid arsenic and mercury!

It's pretty typical of Farkers to bash our troops, but this is making me sick. The troops are protecting your freedom to sit in your mom's basement and bash them. It makes me want to puke!

Such is the sad state of politics these days that I took the headline to be factually accurate until I clicked on the article.

And such is the sad state of politics that I wish it had been.

Rapmaster2000: It's pretty typical of Farkers to bash our troops, but this is making me sick. The troops are protecting your freedom to sit in your mom's basement and bash them. It makes me want to puke!

I actually support the troops, not their leaders' oops.

Peki: Hang on, did I read this right?

":As you can read for yourself here, Section 1031, affirming the "authority of the armed forces of the United States to detain covered persons..." does not contain an exemption for U.S. citizens. Section 1032, mandating the military detention authority be used for terrorism suspects, does, but that is the section that the Obama Administration says must be removed or else he will veto. "

So Obama is threatening to veto unless the section limiting the law's use against U.S. citizens is removed. WTF?

Dusk-You-n-Me: Link (new window, .pdf)

"Any bill that challenges or constrains the President's critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the Nation would prompt the President's senior advisers to recommend a veto."

I lost a finger while I was laying in two weeks worth of food stores. Should I be worried about this?

I would just like to point out subby's real contribution, ?buttholes.

\why yes, I am 12 years old

Peki: Hang on, did I read this right?

":As you can read for yourself here, Section 1031, affirming the "authority of the armed forces of the United States to detain covered persons..." does not contain an exemption for U.S. citizens. Section 1032, mandating the military detention authority be used for terrorism suspects, does, but that is the section that the Obama Administration says must be removed or else he will veto. "

So Obama is threatening to veto unless the section limiting the law's use against U.S. citizens is removed. WTF?

He's threatening to veto it, but not for the reason you stated. Here is the White House position and objections to S1031/1032.

This is what's relevant:
"Any bill that challenges or constrains the President's critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the Nation would prompt the President's senior
advisers to recommend a veto."

The problem (as far as the White House is concerned) is that military detainees can be considered prisoner's of war are therefore afforded the protections of the Geneva Convention. By maintaining their status as "enemy combatants", the provisions need not apply.

Rapmaster2000: It's pretty typical of Farkers to bash our troops, but this is making me sick. The troops are protecting your freedom to sit in your mom's basement and bash them. It makes me want to puke!

Tertorist rarely attack my basement.

Wellon Dowd: I lost a finger while I was laying in two weeks worth of food stores. Should I be worried about this?

Nah.. as long as you like prison in Cuba you should be fine.

Rapmaster2000: It's pretty typical of Farkers to bash our troops...

You're either an imbecile, missing the point, or just badly trolling.

LarryDan43: Wellon Dowd: I lost a finger while I was laying in two weeks worth of food stores. Should I be worried about this?

Nah.. as long as you like prison in Cuba you should be fine.

Cuba is a tropical paradise though, those lucky ducks.

Didn't they make a movie about American citizens being sent to Gitmo?



/Mr. Sulu and the former Associate Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement

Wonder what would happen if I told my boss that from here on out I'll be working in secracy to avoid his scrutiny?

Rapmaster2000: It's pretty typical of Farkers to bash our troops, but this is making me sick. The troops are protecting your freedom to sit in your mom's basement and bash them. It makes me want to puke!

The troops are protecting my freedom to oppose a bill that would enable the troops to spirit me away to a dark room underneath GTMO for [redacted, but still applicable to you, citizen].

Let's hope the troops refuse any such orders "until the suspect is at least aware of what crimes the government is charging them and makes appropriate plans to make these charges public, in a court of law," like the Bill of Rights says (could you even challenge such a detention on Constitutional grounds? Not if they deny you a lawyer and any means of communication...)

ACTUALLY protect our freedoms, instead of shooting at shepherds in the mountains.

With this happening wouldn't the Military be required to arrest and/or detain congress. I seem to remember the oath they take "protect the country from all enemies. Both foreign and domestic." Isn't congress becoming a domestic enemy with these actions.

pounddawg: With this happening wouldn't the Military be required to arrest and/or detain congress. I seem to remember the oath they take "protect the country from all enemies. Both foreign and domestic." Isn't congress becoming a domestic enemy with these actions.

It's an argument that has been floating around.

Just what we'd need: a military coup because of excessive power being given to the military.

pounddawg: With this happening wouldn't the Military be required to arrest and/or detain congress. I seem to remember the oath they take "protect the country from all enemies. Both foreign and domestic." Isn't congress becoming a domestic enemy with these actions.

Realistically speaking?
Congress signs their paychecks, so... no.

I fear our politicians are putting alot of laws in place that will come back to haunt the shiat out of future generations. But they are doing it in a haphazard manner that suggest the current lot doesn't have any real plans of their own.

They are just dancing to the tune of "secure the nation" with no clue as to how one goes about doing that.

/Meeting in secret so no one can facepalm them out of office next year.

And if any nation did this to US citizens it would be a 'terrible war crime' - but when the US does it to their own people it's for the greater good.

This does not happen in the UK.

cman: Normally I would biatch and complain that this is all of your fault for voting the same two parties back in power, but since I am ignored, why the fark should I care anymore? Its not like I love my country or something.

Hmm. That's funny, because in the other threads on this topic you seemed to think it was all the Dems fault.

John Stuart was talking about this last night on the Daily Show and it occurred to me while he was talking that he and everyone else at Comedy Central would be some of the first round of detainees, because the last thing any crooked government wants is being laughed at while someone shines a light on their hi-jinks.

///Time to fire everyone in Washington DC and turn the Capitol Building into a YMCA. Just imagine the Senate Floor turned into a swimming pool for all the poor black kids in DC. Makes me all warm and glowy inside.

Stupid Liebruls! Sugar is refined from beets or cane, which are plants and therefore vegetables. DUH!

Xai: And if any nation did this to US citizens it would be a 'terrible war crime' - but when the US does it to their own people it's for the greater good.

This does not happen in the UK.

I wouldn't be so sure about that if I were you. I seem to recall reading somewhere that we're basing most of these laws on English ones already on the books. Can't seem to summon the googlefu to find those articles, so I might be misremembering, but even if I'm not, the UK gov still has a far more established right to surveil and detain than has long attained in the US.

Sekrit committee, huh? Probably to keep the Politics Tab trolls out...

Dr Dreidel: Rapmaster2000: It's pretty typical of Farkers to bash our troops, but this is making me sick. The troops are protecting your freedom to sit in your mom's basement and bash them. It makes me want to puke!

The troops are protecting my freedom to oppose a bill that would enable the troops to spirit me away to a dark room underneath GTMO for [redacted, but still applicable to you, citizen].

Let's hope the troops refuse any such orders "until the suspect is at least aware of what crimes the government is charging them and makes appropriate plans to make these charges public, in a court of law," like the Bill of Rights says (could you even challenge such a detention on Constitutional grounds? Not if they deny you a lawyer and any means of communication...)

ACTUALLY protect our freedoms, instead of shooting at shepherds in the mountains.

The appellate courts have already established that you do not, in fact, have the right to challenge a secret detention, both because it is a state secret and because you lack standing. The SC refuses to hear cases on this subject, so for the moment, if you are disappeared you have no legal recourse.

*sigh* Ten years until this shows up in my country. Canada seems to feel a need to slavishly copy whatever the States does, just with a decade's delay so that we can pretend the idea is dripping with maple syrup instead of bald eagle shiat.

I would say that Harper's probably creaming himself over what's floating down the pipe if I thought robots were capable of orgasm.

Weaver95: Because if there's one subject that should be decided by a secretive court and no public oversight, it's if law enforcement can torture the shiat outta US citizens and not face any consequences for doing it.

They have already done it, and worse.

Cinaed: Rapmaster2000: It's pretty typical of Farkers to bash our troops...

You're either an imbecile, missing the point, or just badly trolling.

But you repeat yourself.

They're also working on the Ban Censor the Internet (SOPA) law.

Heron: The appellate courts have already established that you do not, in fact, have the right to challenge a secret detention, both because it is a state secret and because you lack standing. The SC refuses to hear cases on this subject, so for the moment, if you are disappeared you have no legal recourse.

Do you have any of the case law that says this? I was not aware, but would definitely be interested in a little light reading.

most ethical and transparent

Reading the US Constitution the first day of Congress fulfills their quota for both upholding and defending.