Community | December 19, 2011 | 59 comments

How America And The Mainstream Media Got Breitbarted On NDAA

source: http://www.politicususa.com/en/ndaa-breitbarted

Image
WakeUpPeople
An edited video of Carl Levin claiming that Obama wanted the language in the NDAA caused outrage among many Americans, but the full Levin video reveals the opposite.

The YouTube video claimed to be proof that Obama is going to sign a citizen imprisonment law: (VIDEO1)

However, in the first 30 minutes of the debate Sen. Levin stated that the NDAA provisions do not apply to US citizens: (VIDEO2)

Hours prior to the YouTube proof video Sen. Levin stated on the Senate floor that the Obama administration requested that the provision be changed so that it does not apply to American citizens, but he explained the provision wasn’t changed because it already didn’t apply to American citizens, “The administration officials reviewed the draft language for this provision the day before our markup and recommended additional changes. We were able to accommodate those recommendations, except for the administration request that the provision apply only to detainees who are captured overseas. There is a good reason for that. But even here, the difference is relatively modest, because the provision already excludes all U.S. citizens. It also excludes all lawful residents of the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution. The only covered persons left are those who are illegally in this country or who arrive as tourists or on some other short-term basis, and that is a small remaining category, but an important one, because it includes the terrorists who clandestinely arrive in the United States with the objective of attacking military or other targets here.”

People need to stop believing everything they read from certain pundits and every claim made in a two minute video.

Yes, NDAA was poorly written originally and even after the changes is a crappy bill; it was written in the Senate Armed Services Committee (McCain/Graham- hello), and as such is a nod to Republican authoritarian stances of the Bush administration. It was co-authored by a Democrat, whom many saw in the above shortened video from C-SPAN claiming the President had asked for “this language”.

Of course, the President did not ask for this language, and this is a matter of record, see the November Senate Armed Services Committee mark up of their original NDAA bill referred to by Levin with objections from Obama:

"---
The new bill would also clarify a number of provisions addressing detainee matters in an effort to address concerns raised by the Administration and others. As requested by the Administration, the new bill would clarify that the section providing detention authority does not expand the existing authority to detain under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Force and make Guantanamo- related restrictions one-year requirements instead of permanent restrictions.

The new bill would also modify a provision requiring military custody of al Qaeda members who attack the United States (subject to a national security waiver) to clarify the President’s authority to decide who makes determinations of coverage, how they are made, and when they are made. As modified, the provision makes it clear that these determinations will not interfere with any ongoing law enforcement operations or interrogations. Under the modified provision, the Executive Branch has the flexibility to keep a covered detainee in civilian custody pursuant to a national security determination, or to transfer a military detainee for trial in the civilian courts. The Administration agreed to have military custody apply to al Qaeda members captured outside the United States (subject to a national security waiver) but disagrees with the committee decision not to preclude the application of the provision inside the United States.
---"

You might be wondering why the video was edited to lead you to believe that he did. That’s a great question.

You might also be asking yourself if the same people who were so willing to believe the author of the bill, Carl Levin, will be as willing to believe Levin’s full statement, in which he clearly says that the President did not want this language.

Had Obama not objected to the language, we would be stuck with the original bill since 83 senators voted yes on the original bill which also passed through the Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously.

People should be asking themselves about the agenda behind not holding the authors of the bill and indeed the Senate accountable for the language in this bill, as it is the same Senate who refused to fund Obama’s executive order to close Gitmo. We note their attempt to run an end-game around Obama’s push for civilian courts and their attempt to slide in permanent changes to restrictions regarding Gitmo. The President objected to those permanent changes.

One would think that anyone who cared about the issue of closing Gitmo would be up in arms at the Senators’ attempt to use a funding bill to get around Obama’s attempts to get around their refusal to fund the closure of Gitmo.

We are in no way defending NDAA. However, the language was changed, and when taken in total (instead of parsed), courtesy of Mother Jones:

"---
It does not, contrary to what many media outlets have reported, authorize the president to indefinitely detain without trial an American citizen suspected of terrorism who is captured in the US. A last minute compromise amendment adopted in the Senate, whose language was retained in the final bill, leaves it up to the courts to decide if the president has that power, should a future president try to exercise it. But if a future president does try to assert the authority to detain an American citizen without charge or trial, it won’t be based on the authority in this bill….

The language in the bill that relates to the detention authority as far as US citizens and permanent residents are concerned is, “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.”
---"

The bill is still rotten. It takes us in the wrong direction, moving us toward the militarization rather than the civilian courts this President and the majority of the American people desire. The bill represents the Republican approach to national security; one that the American people soundly rejected in 2008. Luckily the President got the language changed, because even if he chose to veto it, it would be for naught, as the Senate had 83 votes for it and it takes only 67 to override a Presidential veto.

In the House the first NDAA vote was 322-96. The final vote was 283-136 with 43 Republicans voting no. If Obama would have vetoed and 35 of those 43 Republicans flipped to yes, the House would have had the votes to override a presidential veto.

The real focus should be on why this bill was written in this way in the first place, when we the people were very clear about wanting civilian trials, and this president has been clear about his desire to close Gitmo.

In the meantime, we urge you to watch the entire C-SPAN video of Levin, lest we all be Breitbarted, because it matters that we are all clear on exactly who is trying to take our country in the wrong direction.
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Politics,   Progressive America,   10 more
  2. tags:
    Republicans,  Gitmo,  NDAA,  Video Editing,  2 more
  3. recommended by:
    WakeUpPeople
  4.     
    |

59 comments // How America And The Mainstream Media Got Breitbarted On NDAA

  • WakeUpPeople
  • noxidereus
    • +1
      noxidereus  
    • Image

    • American Citizens are NOT EXEMPT.

      This bill does allow for the indefinite detention of American Citizens without due process. It is a lie that it does not.

      http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/

      "1022 — does not contain the broad disclaimer regarding U.S. citizens that 1021 contains. Instead, it simply says that the requirement of military detention does not apply to U.S. citizens, but it does not exclude U.S. citizens from the authority, the option, to hold them in military custody."

      "The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention."

      "In sum, there is simply no question that this bill codifies indefinite detention without trial (Myth 1). There is no question that it significantly expands the statutory definitions of the War on Terror and those who can be targeted as part of it (Myth 2). The issue of application to U.S. citizens (Myth 3) is purposely muddled — that’s why Feinstein’s amendments were rejected — and there is consequently no doubt this bill can and will be used by the U.S. Government (under this President or a future one) to bolster its argument that it is empowered to indefinitely detain even U.S. citizens without a trial (NYT Editorial: “The legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial”; Sen. Bernie Sanders: “This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges”)."

    • 5 months ago
  • WakeUpPeople
    • +2
      WakeUpPeople  
    • noxidereus:

      I appreciate the link, but when I read the actual bill, it makes it clear (at least to me) that section 1022 only applies to those who are authorized from section 1021. And since US citizens are exempt from 1021, they are therefore not applied to section 1022. (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but this is how I read it.)

      Excerpt of Sect 1022:

      (2) COVERED PERSONS.—The requirement in
      paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention
      is authorized under section 1021 who is determined—
      (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-
      Qaeda or an associated force that acts in co-
      ordination 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 1021(c), except that no transfer otherwise
      described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be
      made unless consistent with the requirements of sec
      tion 1028.

      (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The
      President may waive the requirement of paragraph
      (1) if the President 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 require-
      ment 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.

    • 5 months ago
  • noxidereus
    • 0
      noxidereus  
    • WakeUpPeople:

      Thanks for checking out the link. I'm not a lawyer either. I still tend to agree with Glenn Greenwald's interpretation though. Greenwald is a lawyer and so far I find his articles to be trustworthy and accurate. I guess we'll see... Thanks.

    • 5 months ago
  • WakeUpPeople
  • noxidereus
    • 0
      noxidereus  
    • WakeUpPeople:

      Thanks for the link. I think the best quote from that article is:

      "The reader who wants answers to simple questions faces a confusing array of conflicting information."

      That's pretty much how I feel. I have a feeling that's how we're all supposed to feel. I think the Obama administration is pretty much going to do whatever it wants with "terrorists". The things that everybody is sure of -- that our government wants to be able to (and already does) indefinitely detain (or assassinate) "terrorists" without any proof of their being guilty, nor any due process whatsoever is disgustingly draconian and unacceptable to me.

      The other details which nobody seems to be sure of... whether or not American citizens are going to be detained without due process -- I agree with Glenn Greenwald's interpretation (still). If the Obama wants to detain John Doe, Main Street, America, because his coffee mug says "I heart terrorism", then they're just going to do it. They already assassinated an American citizen and his teenage son.

      It seems like with all the confusion, people including you and I are choosing to trust the descriptions of the NDAA that make the most sense to us or fit in most with our perceptions of reality. I don't know 100% that Glenn Greenwald's interpretation is correct, but it is the one I trust the most. But regardless of how the subset of human beings who are American citizens are going to be affected, I am still disgusted by this. The war on terror continues to be a tool used to control us. The war on terror is a lie. So I err on the side of not trusting the Obama administration nor any other politician or government body who invokes it to gain more power over us -- the helplessly naive rabble.

    • 5 months ago
  • BrushwithDeathToothpaste
  • LivingPong
    • 0
      LivingPong  

    • If you get any half decent person elected, they still have to deal with congress. In our Australian political system, the same bullshit applies, the opposition will block any legislation or amendment unless it causes them severe damage in their opinion polling or funding starts getting pulled.

      The blatantly crooked politicians, corporate lobby stooges, Public Relations firms and other assorted criminals who have been exposed in recent history have undermined trust in all politicians to the point that no Party has a majority in any democratic government.

      The main conservative ploy is just to never tell the whole truth in an attempt to insulate itself against any negative press or popular opinion, while serving the interests of the corporations that fund their political campaigns. But don't let yourself be fooled that the more progressive parties don't also have factions funded by the very same people funding the conservative parties.

      Now imagine trying to achieve something in that bloody fiasco, while also trying not to piss off the people who backed you. You might have better luck dangling you family jewels in a bare trap and trying to guess when it will go off so you can whip them out of danger.

      If all political donations were published, along with with the assets of each politician, working out who was being possibly influenced by large cash donations and lavish gifts would be a much easier task. While the political system can be bought with large offers of cash and other incentives, public needs and interests remain only a secondary agenda and the scales of justice remain tipped in the favour of the multinational corporations.

    • 5 months ago
  • Fishinflick
    • +1
      Fishinflick  

    • "ANY PERSON" - that says it all folks.

      The headline alone enrages me. Bait and switch duplicity. More progressives are concerned with this bill than are far-righters so spare me your Brietbart-farts.
      Section 1031 authorized detention
      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.

      "…including any person who has committed a belligerent act" WTF is THAT supposed to mean? And again I submit "any person" includes you and me - but not Jamie Dimon, a real terrorist…

      Section 1032
      (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.

      Where is the language that clearly states what are the determining factors that constitutes proof of being someone who is "pursuant to the direction of" (Al Qaeda) that can lead to arrest and imprisonment? Is it a suspicion of being such a person - based on what? Are you pursuant to the direction of AL-Qaeda if you state that the war on terror is bullshit? OR is that just "a belligerent act"? OOPs in jail again… What can you do if you are seized without access to due process and you are innocent? Nothing. You can do nothing.

      Also 1031 states, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens…”

      Here we go again… "relating to the detention of" - NOT explicitly - "including the exception of indefinite detention of United States citizens under the protection of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution". The language is vague on purpose.
      The Patriot Act allows for surveillance of US citizens suspected in terrorist activities and already allows for the indefinite detention of suspected AL-Qaeda operatives. Many are still being held even though they've been cleared by intelligence and military authorities. So they are being held by who's authority? A promise of repeal and mitigation of these laws and unjust actions by the same guy? Really? And now it extends to "any person". Wake up - indeed.

    • 5 months ago
  • hombre76
  • WakeUpPeople
    • 0
      WakeUpPeople  
    • Fishinflick:

      We can't take part of the text as gospel without taking ALL of the text as gospel. The very important language which you have chosen to omit changes the entire context of the law.

      “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.”

    • 5 months ago
  • noxidereus
    • +1
      noxidereus  
    • WakeUpPeople:

      http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/

      "There are two separate indefinite military detention provisions in this bill. The first, Section 1021, authorizes indefinite detention for the broad definition of “covered persons” discussed above in the prior point. And that section does provide that “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.” So that section contains a disclaimer regarding an intention to expand detention powers for U.S. citizens, but does so only for the powers vested by that specific section. More important, the exclusion appears to extend only to U.S. citizens “captured or arrested in the United States” — meaning that the powers of indefinite detention vested by that section apply to U.S. citizens captured anywhere abroad (there is some grammatical vagueness on this point, but at the very least, there is a viable argument that the detention power in this section applies to U.S. citizens captured abroad)."

      "But the next section, Section 1022, is a different story. That section specifically deals with a smaller category of people than the broad group covered by 1021: namely, anyone whom the President determines is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” and “participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.” For those persons, section (a) not only authorizes, but requires (absent a Presidential waiver), that they be held “in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.” The section title is “Military Custody for Foreign Al Qaeda Terrorists,” but the definition of who it covers does not exclude U.S. citizens or include any requirement of foreignness."

    • 5 months ago
  • Fishinflick
    • +1
      Fishinflick  
    • WakeUpPeople:

      In US law there is no "Gospel", there is only interpretation of laws, which are not relevant to outcomes until a precedent is set.

      I deal with legal documents all the time. As an artist who licenses images to corporations (unfortunate necessity) I know that every word counts in the entirety of a sentence, phrase and paragraph including what each word can infer and intend and be interpreted as in context. Likewise purposely vague language leaves the door open for interpretation you may or may not agree with. It is also important to note what is left out.
      Within this bill "any person(s)", specifically US citizens, rights to due process are referred to as "relating to the detention of" which is clearly an opening for being detained relating to provisions in the bill that do not exempt US citizens depending on interpretation and optional provisions granting Executive power to make that determination.

      If this bill was meant to exclude US citizens from indefinite detention that are perceived to be terrorists it would clearly state that intention under specific Constitutional protections.

      Our privacy protection under the 4th Amendment with the passage of the Patriot act has already been compromised, US citizens are now subject to indiscriminate surveillance. The language in this bill clearly leaves the door open for detention without due process, it is open to interpretation and subject to Executive power to make that determination.

    • 5 months ago
  • WakeUpPeople
  • Fishinflick
    • +1
      Fishinflick  
    • Image
    • WakeUpPeople:

      I'm aware of that. Oh well, you can believe what you want. For the record, the Lawfare piece did not address "including any person who has committed a belligerent act" which could mean just about anything... it also states, Does the NDAA authorize the indefinite detention of citizens? No, though it does not foreclose the possibility either. As I've been saying, it's open to interpretation, we will not know until precedent is set. Our Constitutional rights have been weakened further by even leaving that door open. And don't forget US citizens who have been branded a terrorist are without due process, whether rightly or wrongly accused. Here's what Kucinich had to say about it today.

      http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/dennis_kucinich_on_the_ndaa_and_war_without_...

    • 5 months ago
  • WakeUpPeople
    • +1
      WakeUpPeople  
    • Fishinflick:

      A few things...

      First, I hope you didn't read my previous comment as being rude.

      Second, the "belligerent act" is language taken directly from the Authorization for Use of Military Force (“AUMF”) which has been in place for a decade.

      Third, The full quote from lawfare was this:

      "No, though it does not foreclose the possibility either. Congress ultimately included language in the NDAA expressly designed to leave this question untouched–that is, governed by pre-existing law, which as we explain below is unsettled on this question."

      So while it did not definitively clear up the issue, it didn't authorize it either and simply left it as status quo. The full explanation at the link is worth reading.

    • 5 months ago
  • Fishinflick
    • 0
      Fishinflick  
    • WakeUpPeople:

      I appreciate your courtesy. Our concern should be whether the language in the bill allows for detention of US citizens. It does. I've read nothing that refutes that. I keep saying this and I'll say it again for the last time, we won't know how this law can be abused until precedent is set, and the interpretation of existing laws which is unsettled on this question and that is where the danger lies. Regardless it is unacceptable that any avenue toward detaining US citizens is not permanently closed, and surveillance of US citizens as authorized by the Patriot Act is overturned.

      As watchdogs of our Democracy, we can never let any possibility of infringement of our civil liberties be passed into law. That's not something I trust to Chesney's opinions on the matter. And I certainly will not extend my trust to Congress, the Senate or the President at this point in time either, but that's just me. I will leave you the last word.

    • 5 months ago
  • littlwarrior
    • +4
      littlwarrior  

    • Why does anyone buy into this mans bullshit? He is constantly lying, editing, and creating things that don't exist. Yet people still buy his bullshit. Why America? Seriously WTF people?

    • 5 months ago
  • maasanova
    • -1
      maasanova  
    • Image

    • You can poo-poo the indefinite intention of Americans language of the bill now, but the fact of the matter is that that language was in the original versions of the bill passed by both the House and the Senate, co-sponored by two freedom-hating senators, one of which is a Democrat.

      Also, isn't it about time we start asking ourselves what this Al Qaeda nonsense is really all about?

      Dispelling Myths and Misinformation About NDAA

      http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/defense-drumbeat-blog?ContentRecord_id=...

      "Some of the misunderstanding arose because there have been several versions of the bill language and previous versions did not have all of the protections that were in the final bill. "

    • 5 months ago
  • WakeUpPeople
  • Vierotchka
    • +2
      Vierotchka  
    • Image

    • http://moredotcommonsense.blogspot.com/2011/12/ndaa-faces-changes-to-reduce-dang...

      NDAA Faces Changes to Reduce Danger of Extra Legal Detention for US Citizens and Permanent Residents

      Fairy Tales are for Children

      Reports that Obama wants a NDAA that will take away citizens' and residents' rights seem to have been over-hyped.

      I am getting a little clarity on what NDAA does do now. It was, as offered in the conference bill, apparently meant to be much less dangerous to citizens and permanent residents than it has been advertised. Too little evaluation and inspection and too much hype among sources we often trust has led us to believe it destroys our rights. That apparently was never the intent it seems.

      The first explosion on Twitter made me think that the US Government would be rounding up people it didn't like any day.

      I think some #ows people are worried they could be picked up for demonstrating and detained forever without seeing a lawyer. I worried about that too, but would Obama be okay with that?

      Some earlier detentions without a judicial review were about groups picked up and put in camps mostly because of their genetic identity such as being of Japanese descent during WW2 and/or political associations (or assumed associations) during the time of the blacklisting of people with alleged ties to communist groups, according to articles and blogs.

      From what I'm reading, changes made the bill in conference and now an attempt with a new bill that would amend the meaning of S1867 should cure us of the idea that the government wants to round up citizens and legal residents.

      Lawfare article The Conference Version of the NDAA: Lingering Ambiguity as to Citizens\ shows that Congressionals did try to amend the meaning of S1867 by inserting commas. A Lawfare article posted a little later "The Problematic NDAA: On Clear Statements and Non-Battlefield Detention" says that the experts at Lawfare don't believe the ambiguity was cleared up. And possibly the Senate's own lawyers agreed.

      Therefore: as of Friday just after midnight Lawfare had more: New changes reported by blogger Steve Vladeck show that 13 Senators led by Diane Feinstein have produced another bill that makes it clear that even under a Declaration of War the government would not be authorized to round up citizens or legal permanent residents without judicial review. See Lawfare The NDAA and the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011:
      An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.

      Above is from: feinstein.senate.gov Why is the government working furiously to clarify that they don't want to give the president the powers to round up people without judicial review?

      I can only think that the White House has put them up to it. Obama most likely doesn't want to sign a bill that contains any implication that US citizens could be rounded without legal protection.. A portion of Feinstein's statement and the list of co-sponsors from Diane Feinstein: United States Senator from California Press Release: “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.” The Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011 is cosponsored by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).

      Now I know that such a recognized Human Rights Organizations like Amnesty International have railed against Obama's promise to sign the NDAA. They haven't updated on the new information, that shows a clarified understanding exempting citizens and LPRs yet.

      Well, it is a weekend, and anyway the more AI gets people worried about their civil rights the more money the organization is likely to collect, so I'm not sure they care that they have an article that is now definitely inaccurate in an over-hyped way. I've lost a lot of respect for them though, and won't be trusting their opinions on what is a civil rights emergency in the future. AI's out of date article is here.

      I already lost faith in Human Rights Watch over the way they tried to pin the blame on Russia for the short Georgian-Russian war in 2008. It was then that I googled their history and found it was formerly known as Helsinki Watch a group that had learned how to make money crying out against abuses in the Soviet Union possibly with all validity, but obviously it's a lot harder to make money for such a group in the post Soviet era.

      The fact is that I'm pretty damn sure that the White House put Feinstein up to crafting legislation to explain more how citizens and legal residents cannot be rounded up by the US government and held without access to a lawyer or the courts. (If you have a green card, you are a legal permanent resident.)

      I don't know how the US government can go any further than that to promise not to round up citizens and permanent residents without legal protection. But Newt Gingrich would love it if you solidified your thoughts on this right now, before the outcome is known so he can convince you his presidency would be preferable to that of Obama's second term so that you keep yourself pure for Ralph Nader or who ever the new guy will be that emerges to hand the 2012 election to the GOP candidate.

      Instead let's all keep an open mind on this, though, until the entire process is resolved.

      Don't take the witch's candy at this time. She'll be passing out another, even crazier, flavor next week for sure.

      Note: I don't mean to imply that all people who are mistaken about the import of this bill are trying to deceive. I do think that large numbers have gotten the wrong ideas and don't have the additional information they need to evaluate what is really going on. That's why I researched on the matter, picking mostly lawyers instead of politicians to guide my assessment and wrote this post.

      I also suspect that the GOP is behind some of the misinformation being spread. I've seen that hand with the ratty glove passing out candy before.

    • 5 months ago
  • FoosMaster
  • UrbanErudite
  • COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM
    • 0
      COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM  

    • Why doesn't Obama state his own position on such a constitutionally significant issue? As a "constitutional scholar", surely he recognizes the importance of this to all citizens of the world. Wake up, indeed!

    • 5 months ago
  • Conniepae
  • hombre76
    • 0
      hombre76  

    • you can make all the fucking excusses for this till your blue in the fucking face its a bull shit bill revised or not and the fact that 97 senators many democrat vvoted for this peice of shit before it was even so call reformed speaks volumes about whether freedom loving americans can trust the democratic party. as always just to show I hate republicans let me say that we expect them to vote for this nazi shit the dem just claim they represent the rest of us. unless this bill is vetoed by the president this will be his last term. MARK MY FUCKING WORDS ON THIS. and the keystone pipeline. you all say your terified at the prospect of a republican at the helm then get your asses a ne canidate cause OBAMA aint gonna win PERIOD. no one beleives him or his appologists any more.

    • 5 months ago
  • nardo1224
  • FoosMaster
    • 0
      FoosMaster  
    • hombre76:

      So, because a Few Democrats voted for it then ALL Democrats are bad as far as you are concerned? What about the Republicans? I don't hear you ragging on them.
      Put blame where it belongs, on all of the Republicans, a few Democrats and the Republican committee that wrote it!

    • 5 months ago
  • hombre76
  • hombre76
    • 0
      hombre76  
    • FoosMaster:

      Try reading my disclaimer again

      as always just to show I hate republicans let me say that we expect them to vote for this nazi shit the dem just claim they represent the rest of us

    • 5 months ago
  • noxidereus
    • 0
      noxidereus  
    • FoosMaster:

      hombre76 is right. It's not just a few Democrats. Choosing sides in the fake battle between Republicans and Democrats is foolish.

      A quote from Glenn Greenwald's article: The Democratic Party's Deceitful Game:

      http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/singleton/

      "The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. One minute, it’s Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, it’s Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and “breaking with their party” to ensure Michael Mukasey’s confirmation as Attorney General; then it’s Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then it’s Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they can’t blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they don’t need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation."

    • 5 months ago
  • PetEr_Alan_ColE
    • 0
      PetEr_Alan_ColE  

    • The pres. can kill american citizens. What is worse? Being detained indefinitely or being assassinated? Well, after thinking about it, maybe it would be better to be assassinated than spend the rest of my life in Guantanamo. We have seen how they treat foreigners in there and We have seen how they have kept innocent people.

    • 5 months ago
  • hombre76
  • maasanova
  • WakeUpPeople
    • +4
      WakeUpPeople  
    • maasanova:

      The original language (which was passed by both houses) would have allowed US citizens captured on US soil to be detained indefinitely if accused. After Obama's objections, the wording was changed to:

      "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.”

      Feinstein's bill is an attempt to amend the current law named the 'Non-Detention Act of 1971' which states:

      4001. Limitation on detention
      (a) No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.

      Feinstein wants to make it clear that Congress does not have the authority to prevent the 6th amendment rights of US citizens. Seeing as how we had a close call with the original wording of the NDAA, I can see why she wants to propose this bill.

    • 5 months ago
  • hombre76
  • WakeUpPeople
    • +3
      WakeUpPeople  
    • hombre76:

      So do you disagree with the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011 that she is proposing, or do you want the unconstitutional Non-Detention Act of 1971 to be the law that we go by?

      We shouldn't get angry when people try to fix things. We should support them. Upholding the Constitution requires effort.

    • 5 months ago
  • hombre76
    • -1
      hombre76  
    • WakeUpPeople:

      It would not need fixing if they had not voted for the NDAA provision in the first place genius! Fucking a it like "ya I broke it but here I jerry rigged it back up for ya" Fucking dont break it in the first place then there is nothing to fix. Nice try there but I think I'll pass on the ol look whats in the other hand trick. thanks.

    • 5 months ago
  • WakeUpPeople
    • +2
      WakeUpPeople  
    • hombre76:

      Non-Detention Act of 1971

      4001. Limitation on detention
      (a) No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.

      It has been broken for a long time. And for the record, genius, the final NDAA bill that passed had the following language added to it:

      “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.”

      It was a close call, but thankfully Obama insisted on the change.

    • 5 months ago
  • WakeUpPeople
  • nikonwilly
    • 0
      nikonwilly  
    • hombre76:

      Your right no matter how one looks at it, Hombre76, Democrats or Republicans...it's the ELITE pigs wanting to push us into a slave farm when they decide they've had enough of our protests. There is nothing they won't stop at to control every citizen except for those ultra wealthy pigs on the Fortune 500 list. Their agenda becomes more and more obvious with each passing month and with the sheep that follow this Country's corporate owned media it's like a walk in the park for them. I swear, they could stand up and announce, "The Constitution has been suspended" and half the public would ask , " What's that?"
      The couple of honest politicians we have are no match for the majority who are rotten to the core...we are going to change nothing while this corrupt system continues and the majority of the populace are ignorant!

    • 5 months ago
  • hombre76
    • -1
      hombre76  
    • WakeUpPeople:

      yup it was illeagal then and its illeagal now. the only thing nessisary to stop it then is also the only thing need to stop it now, decent people willing to stop being appologists for their party and the mistakes of the represintitives of that party. you obviosly lack the spine to make that principled dicision. thats why this shit happens cause people like you would rather pass the buck down the road rather than admit that you made a mistake when you elected that corporate Tool Obama. hell I voted for him and Im willing to say it was a mistake why cant you?

    • 5 months ago
  • WakeUpPeople
  • hombre76
    • -1
      hombre76  
    • nikonwilly:

      I swear, they could stand up and announce, "The Constitution has been suspended" and half the public would ask , " What's that?"

      Ya but serriosly it be more like what you dare suggest messia Obama would ever do anything to hurt you? well you must be a Republican! Ya cause I realy look like a Republican sporting a Che Icon. fucking loosers and thats why the Democrats alwy are the loosers cause they are always half ass half messures and fucking excuses as to why they failed to stand up for what they "believe" in. Fucking Pathetic if you ask me and I for one am done with it let these fuckers eat republican shit cake for another 8 years then maybe that'll push them the fuck off the fence they're riding.

    • 5 months ago
  • hombre76
  • WakeUpPeople
    • +2
      WakeUpPeople  
    • hombre76:

      Good, then you know how critical I can be of him when I disagree with him. However, unlike you, I am not going to blindly attack him when he actually deserves credit. Part of me wonders if you have even read this post. You do realize that Obama insisted that American citizens be protected in this bill, right?

    • 5 months ago
  • hombre76
  • WakeUpPeople
  • FoosMaster
    • +2
      FoosMaster  

    • As I often say; "Put the blame where it belongs, on the Congress". Way too many people are eager to blame Obama for the bills that manage to get through congress and ignore who is actually responsible. I tend to go by what he has Asked for, not what he eventually got from this militaristic, obstructionist Congress.

    • 5 months ago
  • hombre76
  • wolfess
    • +2
      wolfess  

    • Like I posted on another article: It's time to kick ALL their cans down the road! How can anyone with even a modicum of gray matter even consider voting for ANY reptard after this? Never mind what Obama is or is not doing -- we have MORE than enough proof that ALL reptard legislators are the peoples' enemy -- send THEIR worthless asses to Gitmo and throw away the key!

      Pwr 2 the 99%! Dismember the 1% and their political WHORES!

    • 5 months ago
  • Ambill94
    • +2
      Ambill94  

    • I will admit to being Breitbarted regarding the law as it applies to US citizens, if indeed that proves to be so...I am also probably guilty of being a cynic...however, this was never just a one-sided or one-dimensional issue, and with the extreme level of betrayal by our elected officials it is not a huge leap to believe the first interpretation...

      Further and perhaps nearly as important...this is a heinous piece of legislation in that it apparently then denies Constitutional protections to Americans in foreign countries and foreigners here...if we sit by and tolerate the abrogation of the Constitution as it relates to one class of people, we have opened a dangerous door in establishing a precedent that could easily be modified to include citizens of this country...

      Legitimizing the things that have happened in places like Gitmo, including torture and unlawful detention etc.and other un-Constitutional actions is an insult to every American citizen and especially to those who have served this country in the military...

      This legislation again tells the world that we are the most arrogant and willful nation on the planet and that we will destroy liberty to enforce our so-called "democratic principles" anywhere in the world...

    • 5 months ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • Not everyone judges their opinions on videos. Some of us actually read it and do not like it. It is still a bill that is very vague in regards to American citizens being targeted as Al Qaeda (on evidence that can still be contrived if the person accused is deemed "unfriendly" to this government) whether it is on American soil or not. It is still also OK for Obama and I suppose any subsequent president to murder American citizens outside of the U.S without trial. It is an un needed bill in regards to detention as we already have the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act. A cherrypicked video does nothing to change that for me.

    • 5 months ago
  • Leen61
  • WakeUpPeople
    • +3
      WakeUpPeople  
    • JanforGore:

      I think most of us agree that this is a crap bill (as does the author of the article), but thanks to Obama's objection there is no longer any vague language in the bill that allows US citizens captured on US soil to be detained indefinitely. I guess the point of me posting this article was to prove... a) contrary to popular belief Obama did not demand the vague detention language, b) US citizens' due process is still protected on US soil, and c) there was a good chance that even if Obama vetoed the original language, it would have been overridden by the Congress that overwhelmingly passed the bill.

      We still have plenty to complain about though. I have yet to be convinced that US citizens abroad have the luxury of their 6th amendment rights if accused of conspiring with Al-Qaeda. And if there is a weak link in the chain, you can be certain that it will be exploited.

    • 5 months ago
  • JanforGore
  • KB723
  • WakeUpPeople
  • WakeUpPeople
more from Community:
from the community

top videos