Party Boy: WhoIsWillo: was passed by both Houses of Congress with a veto-proof majority.

Veto it, send it back to congress, and hold a press conference regarding it so it gets media coverage.


Whoever inserted the provision would have loved nothing more than an intransigent fight that would defund the military while making the President look soft on terrorists.

It was an awful rider, but firstly it's a blatantly unconstitutional, and secondly language (Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law) was inserted that makes sure it's trumped by current law like Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

It will go down in history as one of the most onerous pieces of legislation ever, but that's about it. Pisses of civil libertarians, but civil libertarians don't win elections.

Party Boy: DarnoKonrad: Whoever inserted the provision would have loved nothing more than an intransigent fight that would defund the military while making the President look soft on terrorists.

It was an awful rider, but firstly it's a blatantly unconstitutional, and secondly language (Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law) was inserted that makes sure it's trumped by current law like Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

It will go down in history as one of the most onerous pieces of legislation ever, but that's about it. Pisses of civil libertarians, but civil libertarians don't win elections.

This is a good summary. Frankly, when you've committed to an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and congress has sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, there isn't much more to talk about.


Well, I think he fulfilled that duty by refusing to sign it until the subsection neutering it was added.

Party Boy: DarnoKonrad: neutering it

Go on.
At best, I've seen a debate on whether it may or may not apply to citizens on domestic soil. Citizens traveling, on the other hand. The ACLU has another POV on it.
Maybe you have another POV.

"Existing law" does not allow the indefinite detention of anyone; it's explicitly forbidden by Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, and I agree with the ACLU that "military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA." Which is true whether it passed or not.

But does he have the Joementum?

If he's got the time, we've got the beer.

Huntsman is the only GOP candidate that stated he believes in evolution. he has no chance.

I like how 4 people +1'd the article. They do know that's a Google service, right?

I love this game of anyone-but-Romney. The kicker is that all roads lead to Romney - it's like the opposite of Waiting for Lefty/Godot/Guffman. Instead of waiting for someone who will never come, the republicans are trying to avoid someone who will inevitably be their representative.

It's gold, Jerry. Gold.

Huntsman is gearing up for 2016. He's smart enough to realize that 2012 will be the purging of the tea party to the alter of Obama. How nice of Romney to step forward as the sacrificial lamb

Party Boy: DarnoKonrad: "Existing law"

I've seen this. What about this?


"While the Supreme Court upheld the military detention of an American citizen captured as part of the armed conflict in Afghanistan, it has yet to hear an indefinite detention case involving anyone-citizen or non-citizen-picked up in the United States. . . .Nor has it handled a case involving a terrorist suspect, as opposed to a participant in a traditional armed conflict."

It doesn't appear she's read the majority opinion on this issue.

I can't read that opinion and come the conclusion citizens could be indefinitely detained -- as the latitude they do grant the president is almost entirely predicated on the status of being enemy combatant under the Geneva Conventions -- which is to say, if you're not, the president has zero latitude in holding you.

I guess this lady disagrees, but I don't see any evidence why.

"We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens."

I just wrote a Tolstoy on this in another thread that everyone has abandoned by now, so...

I think the people who find Huntsman appealing are people who will actually take time to look into his policies, and that's precisely the problem; Huntsman may have actually placed himself too far to the right on policy issues, even for Republicans. His dramatic, even radical program of privatizing (market forces in everything! Including education!) and de-regulating could possibly lead to uneasiness (it takes a special kind of dogmatism on the insurmountable perfection of market forces to propose all but eliminating the FDA.) Romney, for example, has many of the same policy ideas but often in more moderate (comparatively) terms and on less radical timelines.

Huntsman's foreign policy showboating has not garnered him the statesmanlike image he was looking for. He forgot to tell people what they want to hear about America's place in the world. Huntsman has a decent command of how America will need to compete with China in emerging markets, but focusing on competition with China, and demonstrating his facility with Chinese politics, is a subject matter that largely appeals to neoliberal elites. But I think Huntsman's realist-influenced take on great power politics (except for Israel of course), and contraction of American use of military power doesn't exactly mesh with the Reaganesque, interventionist, us vs. them view of the world that clearly still appeals to many Republicans, even after 8 years of George W. Bush's version. (The people isolationism appeals to are probably already supporting Ron Paul.) And for that reason his advocacy of leaving Afghanistan - whatever the consequences - is a gamble that hasn't paid off.

Huntsman focused on New Hampshire as his proving ground. We'll see if he gets any results. I think he will do substantially better than in Iowa, perhaps beating Rick Santorum, but he's focused all his efforts here. Could be his swan song.

Rent is too damn high: I like how 4 people +1'd the article. They do know that's a Google service, right?

Oh I'm so farking stupid. This is supposed to go in the Google butthurt article.

Huntsman represents the kind of Republican we would have in a reasonable, sane country. At this point the GOP isn't there. I would rather Perry or Santorum got the nomination at this point because I think it would be better if they go full-bore crazy and go down in flames. That's the only way they will be able to rebuild themselves as a respectable party.

Huntsman should have known he can't win the North East. That's Heinz country.

bobbette: I just wrote a Tolstoy on this in another thread that everyone has abandoned by now, so...

I think the people who find Huntsman appealing are people who will actually take time to look into his policies, and that's precisely the problem; Huntsman may have actually placed himself too far to the right on policy issues, even for Republicans. His dramatic, even radical program of privatizing (market forces in everything! Including education!) and de-regulating could possibly lead to uneasiness (it takes a special kind of dogmatism on the insurmountable perfection of market forces to propose all but eliminating the FDA.) Romney, for example, has many of the same policy ideas but often in more moderate (comparatively) terms and on less radical timelines.

Huntsman's foreign policy showboating has not garnered him the statesmanlike image he was looking for. He forgot to tell people what they want to hear about America's place in the world. Huntsman has a decent command of how America will need to compete with China in emerging markets, but focusing on competition with China, and demonstrating his facility with Chinese politics, is a subject matter that largely appeals to neoliberal elites. But I think Huntsman's realist-influenced take on great power politics (except for Israel of course), and contraction of American use of military power doesn't exactly mesh with the Reaganesque, interventionist, us vs. them view of the world that clearly still appeals to many Republicans, even after 8 years of George W. Bush's version. (The people isolationism appeals to are probably already supporting Ron Paul.) And for that reason his advocacy of leaving Afghanistan - whatever the consequences - is a gamble that hasn't paid off.

Huntsman focused on New Hampshire as his proving ground. We'll see if he gets any results. I think he will do substantially better than in Iowa, perhaps beating Rick Santorum, but he's focused all his efforts here. Could be his swan song.

See, Huntsman's mistake was trying to do things like "use facts" and "not just yell talking points". That's not going to get him anywhere in this race.

Is anyone else bothered by all the title usage in Nate's articles? There are 31 'Mr.'s in this article. Recently I've barely been able to understand any of his articles because I make it a couple sentences in and get distracted by all the title usage and by the time I make it to the end I have no idea what I just read.

Who cares? Huntsman isn't really running this cycle. He's clearly getting his name out there in preparation of a 2016 campaign.

FooDog: Who cares? Huntsman isn't really running this cycle. He's clearly getting his name out there in preparation of a 2016 campaign.

He's gonna run as a dem?

/No way fartbongo is getting elected. No farking way.

Well the Republicans could do worse than nominationg Huntsman. By nominating pretty much anyone else.

Party Boy: DarnoKonrad: majority opinion

I suspected we were going to Hamdi v Rumsfeld. Look up.

Yea I saw that. The authorization of detention is only predicated on combatant status. If they don't have that status they're covered by the "existing law" of the 5th and 14th Amendment cited in the opinion.

bobbette: Huntsman may have actually placed himself too far to the right on policy issues, even for Republicans. His dramatic, even radical program of privatizing (market forces in everything! Including education!) and de-regulating could possibly lead to uneasiness (it takes a special kind of dogmatism on the insurmountable perfection of market forces to propose all but eliminating the FDA.)

I'm not sure of your basis for this assesment, but I can say I have heard Huntsman support government agencies and programs for new energy research, saying that for certain things, the Government is simply the best agent.

He is definately a proponant of a smaller, more effective Federal government, but based on what I have seen listening to at least a half a dozen speeches in their entirety, two town hall meetings and an interview, he is not a 'free market and free market alone' purist.

Huntsman likes the Ryan budget

Least crazy candidate, but still crazy

OvenFreshJew: Is anyone else bothered by all the title usage in Nate's articles? There are 31 'Mr.'s in this article. Recently I've barely been able to understand any of his articles because I make it a couple sentences in and get distracted by all the title usage and by the time I make it to the end I have no idea what I just read.

I think that's The New York Times standard writing format. He's probably forced to do that.

Or to put it another way, we'll have something to worry about when the headline is "President signs law suspending the writ of habeas corpus ." Which I don't think the NDAA does.

Huntsman's energy policy combines "domestic" and "natural gas," and that really concerns me because that easily leads to fracking. (Giggity.)

He's also toeing the GOP line on anti-EPA rhetoric, which is just as scary. I'm a dirty hippie liberal who's pretty pro environment. If you want to put a leash on the EPA, I won't immediately oppose it, but I don't want the talking point; I want the detailed, 50 page answer as to why. That's not on Huntsman's site, and I'm going to guess it's probably not on Newt's either.

/ Wish the debates were longer

Party Boy: AUMF time?

Well I've argued before that the NDAA can't do anything the AUMF doesn't already do -- as open ended and ill-conceived as it may be. One thing it can't do is detain people indefinitely -- citizen or otherwise -- unless congress suspends habeas corpus. Which would be kinda frightening.

I heard Romney go off on Huntsman for serving a Democratic President and being off in China instead of staying hom like a good American and helping Republicans get elected.

As a Republican, I just had to go beat my head against the wall. Since when was service to the party more important than service to America?

/been beating my head against the wall frequently recently
//looks like I'll be voting for Obama (again)

Le Grand Inquisitor: Huntsman is gearing up for 2016. He's smart enough to realize that 2012 will be the purging of the tea party to the alter of Obama. How nice of Romney to step forward as the sacrificial lamb

I've held this to be true since he announced his nomination. Anyone running against Obama is going to lose, he's definitely done a wonderful job of setting himself up. However, I don't know about the whole sacrificial lamb thing... Romney seems to actually believe he has a chance.

xsarien: Huntsman's energy policy combines "domestic" and "natural gas," and that really concerns me because that easily leads to fracking. (Giggity.)

He's also toeing the GOP line on anti-EPA rhetoric, which is just as scary. I'm a dirty hippie liberal who's pretty pro environment. If you want to put a leash on the EPA, I won't immediately oppose it, but I don't want the talking point; I want the detailed, 50 page answer as to why. That's not on Huntsman's site, and I'm going to guess it's probably not on Newt's either.

/ Wish the debates were longer

Huntsman spent years in China. He has to realize what a weak (or no) environmental regulation brings out. In China you smoke to get fresh air (since the cig at least has a filter). He's by all accounts a smart man, so I'd hope he wouldn't rush out to neuter the EPA on the first day of office.

BojanglesPaladin: He is definately a proponant of a smaller, more effective Federal government, but based on what I have seen listening to at least a half a dozen speeches in their entirety, two town hall meetings and an interview, he is not a 'free market and free market alone' purist.

He 100% supported the Ryan plan.

DarnoKonrad: It doesn't appear she's read the majority opinion on this issue.

I can't read that opinion and come the conclusion citizens could be indefinitely detained -- as the latitude they do grant the president is almost entirely predicated on the status of being enemy combatant under the Geneva Conventions -- which is to say, if you're not, the president has zero latitude in holding you.

The ruling is pretty explicit that citizenship does not grant magical protections:

There is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. In Quirin, one of the detainees, Haupt, alleged that he was a naturalized United States citizen. 317 U.S., at 20. We held that "[c]itizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of ... the law of war." Id., at 37-38. While Haupt was tried for violations of the law of war, nothing in Quirin suggests that his citizenship would have precluded his mere detention for the duration of the relevant hostilities.

The President is authorized to detain citizens under the same burden of proof required to detain non-citizens per the AUMF (pretty much none whatsoever).

The only real objection the court had to indefinite detention was the perpetual nature of the war and poor basis for determining an end of conflict stretching the normally fine practical definition of 'indefinite'.

Link (new window)ha-ha-guy: I heard Romney go off on Huntsman for serving a Democratic President and being off in China instead of staying hom like a good American and helping Republicans get elected.

As a Republican, I just had to go beat my head against the wall. Since when was service to the party more important than service to America?

/been beating my head against the wall frequently recently
//looks like I'll be voting for Obama (again)

Have you never heard of Romeny before?