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.

(Huffington Post) Stupid President Obama's senior advisors recommend he not veto NDAA bill that would make you safe, citizen. Continue on   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 326
More: Stupid, President Obama, senior advisor, vetoes  
•       •       •

2737 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Dec 2011 at 5:32 PM   |  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!



326 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-12-14 04:38:35 PM
Well. He is a constitutional lawyer.
 
2011-12-14 04:43:11 PM
Republicans may not have won the election in 2008, but they've certainly badgered this Democrat into getting their way.

If his advisors think that passing this thing is politically viable, then perhaps he needs new advisors. The GOP is gonna eat this up.
 
2011-12-14 04:44:27 PM
Considering the White House was the one who insisted on it including US Citizens and Lawful Residents, this is not surprising.
 
2011-12-14 04:45:26 PM
Have the teabaggers and hippies figured out that they've been duped yet? It's not left v right, it's The People v a bought and paid for government.
 
2011-12-14 04:45:59 PM
At this point, I hope Dems look to a 3rd party.
 
2011-12-14 04:49:46 PM
GaryPDX: Considering the White House was the one who insisted on it including US Citizens and Lawful Residents, this is not surprising.

Uh. What?
 
2011-12-14 04:54:47 PM
cameroncrazy1984: GaryPDX: Considering the White House was the one who insisted on it including US Citizens and Lawful Residents, this is not surprising.

Uh. What?


Section 1031 looks like it was pushed by the White House. Looking to verify.....
 
2011-12-14 04:56:42 PM
Of cousre they wanted more power.
 
2011-12-14 04:57:27 PM
cameroncrazy1984: GaryPDX: Considering the White House was the one who insisted on it including US Citizens and Lawful Residents, this is not surprising.

Uh. What?


Actually, the insistence was that the administration be permitted to use either the military or domestic law enforcement to detain anyone they want, citizen or no, without charges or trial, forever. That was the source of the veto threat: that the president not be fettered in his ability to imprison people with impunity like some third world dictator.

Surely you aren't surprised by this. You were in the thread yesterday where this was noted repeatedly.
 
2011-12-14 05:01:45 PM
Diogenes: cameroncrazy1984: GaryPDX: Considering the White House was the one who insisted on it including US Citizens and Lawful Residents, this is not surprising.

Uh. What?

Section 1031 looks like it was pushed by the White House. Looking to verify.....


A video was linked here (new window) on the 11th from C-SPAN but it's been mysteriously removed from Youtube.

The just of it is the White House insisted on the removal of the language that protected US Citizens and Lawful Residents. This thing gets signed into law, we are all "enemy combatants" that can be disappeared by the military.
 
2011-12-14 05:03:41 PM
(To the House) fark you. (To the Senate) fark you. (And to the White House) And fark you. (Eyes Supreme Court...)
 
2011-12-14 05:04:49 PM
Nabb1: (Eyes Supreme Court...)

Good luck with that.
 
2011-12-14 05:06:13 PM
make me some tea: Nabb1: (Eyes Supreme Court...)

Good luck with that.


I know. I know. A guy can dream, can't he?
 
2011-12-14 05:06:54 PM
I'm not a single issue voter, but this could very well cost Obama my vote. Problem is, the GOP slate is terrifying.
 
2011-12-14 05:07:09 PM
Sigh.
 
2011-12-14 05:07:50 PM
Nabb1: (To the House) fark you. (To the Senate) fark you. (And to the White House) And fark you. (Eyes Supreme Court...)

How the hell does it even GET to them?
 
2011-12-14 05:08:16 PM
GaryPDX: The just of it is the White House insisted on the removal of the language that protected US Citizens and Lawful Residents.

I don't think that's the case. I am pretty sure the white house was insisting on a freer hand to detain people, by either using the military or traditional law enforcement as it sees fit.

In any event the provision to strip the bill of the offending provision at issue was brought before the senate, and failed 61-37.
 
2011-12-14 05:09:21 PM
Diogenes: I'm not a single issue voter, but this could very well cost Obama my vote. Problem is, the GOP slate is terrifying.

There's only maybe one guy on that slate that would be against this, he'd be almost powerless to do anything about it, and he wouldn't be elected (rightly so for other reasons) anyway.
 
2011-12-14 05:09:24 PM
Nabb1: make me some tea: Nabb1: (Eyes Supreme Court...)

Good luck with that.

I know. I know. A guy can dream, can't he?


I am actually fairly confident, because of Hamdan v Rumsfeld. I don't see how this is remotely constitutional.
 
2011-12-14 05:10:24 PM
Relatively Obscure: Nabb1: (To the House) fark you. (To the Senate) fark you. (And to the White House) And fark you. (Eyes Supreme Court...)

How the hell does it even GET to them?


I guess at some point someone gets detained indefinitely under this provision and challenges it.
 
2011-12-14 05:10:35 PM
So we kill bin Laden, and the farker still wins.

USA! USA!
 
2011-12-14 05:11:28 PM
gilgigamesh: Nabb1: make me some tea: Nabb1: (Eyes Supreme Court...)

Good luck with that.

I know. I know. A guy can dream, can't he?

I am actually fairly confident, because of Hamdan v Rumsfeld. I don't see how this is remotely constitutional.


Good point. Very good point, actually.
 
2011-12-14 05:11:58 PM
Nabb1: Relatively Obscure: Nabb1: (To the House) fark you. (To the Senate) fark you. (And to the White House) And fark you. (Eyes Supreme Court...)

How the hell does it even GET to them?

I guess at some point someone gets detained indefinitely under this provision and challenges it.


Good luck with that, too. Haven't alot of cases up to this point been denied the ability to confront their accusers? Either de facto or de jure?
 
2011-12-14 05:12:21 PM
Nabb1: I guess at some point someone gets detained indefinitely under this provision and challenges it.

I think the ACLU will probably file suit the minute it gets signed into law to enjoin it. They are pretty good at finding a plaintiff to avoid a standing issue.

/Off to make a donation, yet again.... *sigh*
 
2011-12-14 05:13:18 PM
gilgigamesh: /Off to make a donation, yet again.... *sigh*

Shiat. At this point maybe we should donate to Amnesty International.
 
2011-12-14 05:14:20 PM
Nabb1: Relatively Obscure: Nabb1: (To the House) fark you. (To the Senate) fark you. (And to the White House) And fark you. (Eyes Supreme Court...)

How the hell does it even GET to them?

I guess at some point someone gets detained indefinitely under this provision and challenges it.


I'm wondering if that will even be possible.
 
2011-12-14 05:14:23 PM
Diogenes: gilgigamesh: /Off to make a donation, yet again.... *sigh*

Shiat. At this point maybe we should donate to Amnesty International.


HA!
 
2011-12-14 05:18:41 PM
I wish somebody represented me in DC ...
 
2011-12-14 05:20:41 PM
If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about.

/derp
 
2011-12-14 05:21:28 PM
The language on detainee provisions via @chrislhayes. Link (new window, .pdf)
 
2011-12-14 05:21:44 PM
Nadie_AZ: I wish somebody represented me in DC ...

Representation is overrated. Ask anyone who's voted lately.
 
2011-12-14 05:23:29 PM
Nadie_AZ: I wish somebody represented me in DC ...

I've been served by people in DC.

There was that cool bartender at popular pub in Georgetown, the lovely staff at the Hyatt...
 
2011-12-14 05:23:33 PM
BigTuna: Nadie_AZ: I wish somebody represented me in DC ...

Representation is overrated. Ask anyone who's voted lately.


What, you want a monarchy or totalitarian regime?

Yeah, my Rep is the party boy son of the dingbat VP of Bush Sr. He represents himself and his lobby. Sady ...
 
2011-12-14 05:24:52 PM
Nadie_AZ: Yeah, my Rep is the party boy son of the dingbat VP of Bush Sr.

Oh god. His dad was just dumb. He's dumb and pretty damned mean.
 
2011-12-14 05:25:40 PM
 
2011-12-14 05:31:31 PM
Blues_X: The White House did not demand the military detention policy. They threatened to veto the law if it included that:

However, critics complained the deal was weighted toward the military because it required any suspected al Qaeda terrorists, even those captured inside the U.S., to be held potentially indefinitely by the military. That concerned the White House and many lawmakers who think the responsibility belongs, in part, to law enforcement agencies and the federal courts and warned that Americans could possibly be detained indefinitely by the military. (new window)


What the white house demanded is the highlighted part of your quote. They want the option to use either the military or traditional law enforcement to detain people forever.

They do not care about Americans being detained indefinitely; they just want a free hand on who does the interrogating and detention.
 
2011-12-14 05:32:20 PM
Blues_X: The White House did not demand the military detention policy. They threatened to veto the law if it included that:

However, critics complained the deal was weighted toward the military because it required any suspected al Qaeda terrorists, even those captured inside the U.S., to be held potentially indefinitely by the military. That concerned the White House and many lawmakers who think the responsibility belongs, in part, to law enforcement agencies and the federal courts and warned that Americans could possibly be detained indefinitely by the military. (new window)


I'm not seeing a veto. I don't care if my taxes go up and the defense industry has to wait a bit longer for money to play as a result of these fights. I'd rather the country change course than continue to live in abject fear and terror. Actually we aren't afraid of terror anymore. Mostly just afraid of ourselves. Can't have a man look 'unnormal' around some kids. He must be diddling them. Can't have some kids protesting things anymore- they must be jobless, which is evil. Can't be poor- else you aren't white. Can't be anything but christian, else you'll convert every single powerless person to the dark side. Can't see or talk of sex, else everyone'll get cornholed. The bullsh*t goes on and on and on and on ....
 
2011-12-14 05:37:48 PM
Sigh.
 
2011-12-14 05:37:49 PM
gilgigamesh: Blues_X: The White House did not demand the military detention policy. They threatened to veto the law if it included that:

However, critics complained the deal was weighted toward the military because it required any suspected al Qaeda terrorists, even those captured inside the U.S., to be held potentially indefinitely by the military. That concerned the White House and many lawmakers who think the responsibility belongs, in part, to law enforcement agencies and the federal courts and warned that Americans could possibly be detained indefinitely by the military. (new window)

What the white house demanded is the highlighted part of your quote. They want the option to use either the military or traditional law enforcement to detain people forever.

They do not care about Americans being detained indefinitely; they just want a free hand on who does the interrogating and detention.


It was my impression that section 1031 specifically excluded "US Citizens and Lawful Residents" prior to this final Bill. That language was removed at the insistence of the White House.

Naturally they would want military and civilian LE to have the same ability. Civilian LE is more paramilitary these days anyway.
 
2011-12-14 05:37:57 PM
Diogenes: I'm not a single issue voter, but this could very well cost Obama my vote. Problem is, the GOP slate is terrifying.

Perhaps he's planning on using the provision to arrest the GOP slate indefinitely. Problem solved.
 
2011-12-14 05:38:49 PM
DarnoKonrad: Diogenes: I'm not a single issue voter, but this could very well cost Obama my vote. Problem is, the GOP slate is terrifying.

Perhaps he's planning on using the provision to arrest the GOP slate indefinitely. Problem solved.


We were promised FEMA camps that one time.
 
2011-12-14 05:39:30 PM
Will you assholes stop arguing about left and right and figure out a way to get this thing killed?

/subby
//I already called my rep
 
2011-12-14 05:39:33 PM
Obama's record on civil liberties is mixed, at best.

He'll sign it...
 
2011-12-14 05:42:53 PM
Here is a guy who might wind up being a plaintiff:

Faruq Khalil Muhammad 'Isa, a 38-year-old citizen of Iraq currently in Canada, from which the U.S. is seeking his extradition.

Its also interesting in terms of another concern I have regarding the ever changing definition of what constitutes a "terrorist": in this case, an Iraqi, angry about perceived US atrocities in Iraq, who attacked a military target in Mosul and killed 5 US soldiers.

We are at war in Iraq -- so we are repeatedly told -- but apparently that works only on one side. When Iraqis retaliate against purely military targets in their country, that is now "terrorism", resulting in possible extradition to the US and indefinite detention until the GWOT is... *ahem*.,.. over.
 
2011-12-14 05:44:47 PM
Churchy LaFemme: Obama's record on civil liberties is mixed, at best.

He'll sign it...


Mixed at best? He gets a solid F in my book, and I voted for the bastard.

He's doing a great impression of a republican on foreign policy though. Better than most republicans could hope to do.
 
2011-12-14 05:45:43 PM
Nabb1: I know. I know. A guy can dream, can't he?

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, biatch.
 
2011-12-14 05:46:12 PM
Marine1: I already called my rep

You probably just put yourself on a watch list.
 
2011-12-14 05:46:33 PM
elchip: Nabb1: I know. I know. A guy can dream, can't he?

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, biatch.


Sorry, I meant Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Biatch.
 
2011-12-14 05:46:50 PM

From: The Library of Congress (new window), search for S. 1867

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) 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.
 
2011-12-14 05:47:30 PM
DarnoKonrad: Marine1: I already called my rep

You probably just put yourself on a watch list.


Like I wasn't already.
 
Displayed 50 of 326 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »