There’s No Such Thing as an “Indefinite Detention Bill” and Other Pro Left Lies

An important read.






458 replies
  1. 1
    ornery says:

    Again with the circular firing squad, thanks Angry Black Person! Shove us all into pointless conflict, wonderful!

    Even for one who consistently takes a hearty piss on your own side, thought you might take a break for Christmas.

  2. 2
    erik says:

    Wow., I am with Glen on this.

    The point is not if its technically called the indefinite detention bill or not. The point is not whether we can “reverse this later or not” the point is that (as Glen mentioned) it gives administrations (Democratic, Republican, whomever) the option to detain US citizens (outside the US) without trial indefinitely. To say “we don’t have to worry, because the wording is too vague and won’t stand up in court” is ludicrous. How well has that argument held up with any of the other civil rights limiting bills that have been passed since 9-11?

    Sorry ABL, I think you (and the poster) are just wrong on this.

  3. 3
    ABL says:

    i think that provision of the NDAA is awful. I think the AUMF is awful. i think indefinite detention of citizens and non-citizens is awful. i think gitmo is awful. I think to avoid our elected reps (exec and legis) writing and signing these sorts of bills that contain these sorts of odious provisions, we need to elect better Congresscritters.

    that is all.

    and with that, i’m out before this thread turns into a barn-burner.

  4. 4
    ornery says:

    “To say “we don’t have to worry, because the wording is too vague and won’t stand up in court” is ludicrous. How well has that argument held up with any of the other civil rights limiting bills that have been passed since 9-11?”

    Thanks, you did much better than I, Erik. That’s the right way.

    It’s just a constant thing with this FP’er. I got enough of the constant in-fighting during the dkos Nader wars.

  5. 5
    Corner Stone says:

    “An important read” ?
    I’d like to make sure I have this straight. The bill doesn’t actually exist because Republicans inserted language into the bill, and Obama can’t veto the bill due to certain potential economic outcomes in an election year.
    So there is a bill headed for presidential signing…but it doesn’t exist.

  6. 6
    erik says:

    ABL: cant disagree with you there! I just found that the poster blaming it all on Congress is a bit of a cop out.

    Yes, the Rs are insane. We know that! And a lot of times you have to say “This is the best we can do, given the hand we have been dealt,” but some times there are things that are so odious that you have to draw a line and say “NO, this is beyond the pale.” Personally, I think this was one of those times.

    Now you may disagree, but to say that the “professional left ]” (hate that term) is “lying” and “this is what they do” is not just wrong, but I think is counter productive…

  7. 7
    turbo says:

    “i’m out before this thread turns into a barn-burner”

    What courage.

    And foresight!

    Not so many could see that an incendiary title could lead to a heated debate.

    Which is not at all what ‘barn-burner’ means, by the way. Or did you intend to say that you’re fleeing before the thread becomes “an impressive success”?

    At any rate, yes, the bill still allows for indefinite detention of American citizens without trial.

  8. 8
    Corner Stone says:

    From the “important read”:

    Lie #1. There is no such thing as an “Indefinite Detention Bill”. To imply there is means you’re also implying that Obama can veto this bill without killing the entire NDAA. He can’t.

    So there is a bill President Obama can sign or veto…but it doesn’t exist.
    I’m really not sure how someone can put the second sentence right after what they state in the first sentence. Seems like they’d put a few filler sentences in there in between, for some dignity or something.

  9. 9
    ChrisWWW says:

    Obama shares the responsibility with Congress for the bills he signs. End of story.

  10. 10
    Corner Stone says:

    I also happen to be a big fan of the, “Don’t worry. As long as we have Obama and Biden in the WH everything will be ok.”
    Whew!

  11. 11
    Schlemizel says:

    I’d be a lot more sympathetic to the author if they didn’t use misdirection & dishonesty to build their argument.

    I have not heard anyone say they is the “indefinite detention bill” – we all know this is one clause in the defense authorization bill.

    Yes, we are going to go after Dems & Obama because what good would it do to go after the GOP? We are not going to change their mind so we have to ‘blame’ the Dems for caving to an obvious election campaign ploy. They need to fight back against this not throw their hands up & say there was nothing we can do.

    Has Obama vetoed a bill yet? He has threatened repeatedly but then signed anyway. This is what we are stuck with unless Dems start pushing back. That some people feel the abandonment of the Bill of Rights and a step too far is understandable. Could they have presented their case better? Sure but this sort of vitriol is not going to help either.

  12. 12
    Insomniac says:

    @ABL: So if this is what you think, then what’s the purpose of the post’s title and the link to PCTC; especially with no analysis or commentary from you at the top there. Come on ABL, you should do better than this. This seems like it’s a deliberate effort to rile people up and, if that’s the case, then shame on you.

  13. 13
    paradox says:

    Quite a face splat for Balloon Juice.

  14. 14
    El Tiburon says:

    @ABL:
    Shorter ABL: what? I didn’t say nothing. Oh, left the oven on!

    Adam Serwer had a similar post seeming to disagree with Greenwald to some extent. I value both, but would side with Greenwald.

    But this linked article is just bomb throwing IMHO. Greenwald is not lying or obfuscating. His interpretation could be incorrect perhaps, but so could Serwers as well. But to accuse him of being The Professional Left is idiotic as is the article.

  15. 15
    gaz says:

    @erik: You didn’t read the link.

    Or the bill.

    That much is obvious. Painfully so.

    Go back to the salon cesspit and fap in the comments section of Greenwald’s mess.

    Unless you plan on engaging in reading, or at least engaging in some critical thinking.

    We have a higher expectation for the commentariat over here.

    And you are failing to live up to that.

    Badly.

    Go away.

  16. 16
    ABL says:

    @Insomniac: the title is the actual title of milt’s post, and other front-pagers cut and paste posts with no commentary.

    i just think milt details a side to this ongoing debate that has not been aired here yet.

    i am working on a post about the NDAA. i still need to finish reading some debate transcripts.

    it actually wasn’t intended to rile everyone up, however after a year of posting here, i recognize that most things i post rile people up. so maybe i’m just giving in to the crazy. :)

  17. 17
    brent says:

    The argument put forth in that article is extraordinarily weak. If you want to argue that Obama isn’t responsible for this bill and has little choice but to sign it, I can have some sympathy with that position, although I don’t find it especially compelling. But to make the case that Obama’s critics are using dishonesty or bad faith to make the case against the bill, the author will have to try a lot harder. What they did there is pretty much a crystalline example of weak sauce.

  18. 18
    gaz says:

    Jesus H Christ.
    teh stupid. it burns.

    Glenn obviously dispatched his minions/trolls to come here and spew nonsense. heh.

    fuckin hell. Read the goddamned link people!

    Better yet, read the fucking bill.

  19. 19
    El Tiburon says:

    @gaz:

    We have a higher expectation for the commentariat over here.

    But you seem to be exempt from this expectation.

  20. 20
    gaz says:

    @brent: How about you address section B and D of the bill eh?

  21. 21
    IM says:

    Glenn obviously dispatched his minions/trolls to come here and spew nonsense. heh.

    And he obviously needed only half an hour to do it!

    Impressive. Or perhaps a case of Greenwald derangement syndrome.

  22. 22
    erik says:

    @gaz.

    Hmm. Read the link, posted my thoughts. Not sure what you mean by the Salon thing. Besides the vitriol, do you disagree with something I said? If so, say so! If not, trying to be a “defender” of BJ by taking upon yourself to insult posters for comments makes you look bad and makes other people less likely to post!

    Is there some big Greenwald-Balloon Juice rivalry I am not aware of that makes people lash out like this?

  23. 23
    markg says:

    the linked to poster may or may not have a point. He lost me early when he characterized the Afghanistan war and occupation as a “rebuilding” effort. no more credibility after that.

  24. 24
    gaz says:

    ABL, for the record, I very often disagree with you on matters of Obama.

    For the record, I think you cut him an awful lot of slack.

    For the record, I’ve not seen anything he’s done that you haven’t attempted to justify.

    Just sayin.

    But on this particular instance, you are absolutely correct.
    Thanks for getting out in front of this the past couple of days.

    The firebaggers and the serial liar Glenn Greenwald almost had me convinced this time too. Until I actually read about the bill. And thanks for the above link.

    I still dislike the bill. But it’s not what these people claim that it is.

    Also, for the record, I love reading you – even when I vehemently disagree with you.

    Cheers

  25. 25
    13th Generation says:

    @gaz

    Your sanctimony is getting really old. You seem to think you’re the ombudsman around here but that position is already taken. how about dialing it back a bit for once?

  26. 26
    gaz says:

    @erik: No. There’s a rivalry between people that dislike being lied to, and the liars.

    Address the substance of the bill or get lost.

    Section B? Section D?

    What have you got to say about those?

  27. 27
    El Tiburon says:

    @ABL:

    it actually wasn’t intended to rile everyone up, however after a year of posting here, i recognize that most things i post rile people up. so maybe i’m just giving in to the crazy. :)

    That’s laughable on it’s face. Hanging around here a week is all you need to know that any topic re: Greenwald will rile people up. Especially a link with a failed premise. You could have waited until completing your post but you ran with this tripe and you knew what would happen.

    Please.

  28. 28
    agrippa says:

    @ABL:

    Agreed on all points, ABL.
    Is this the end of the world? No.
    Is this the first step on the road to tyranny ? No.

    I dislike these provisions. Currently existing criminal law provides all the means that are required to effectively deal with whatever needs to be handled. This is a fairly serious over reach.

    Do not be surprised if it is never used.

  29. 29
    IM says:

    @erik:

    Is there some big Greenwald-Balloon Juice rivalry I am not aware of that makes people lash out like this?

    Not regarding the front-pagers, with one exception. But some commenters like to shout firebagger – professional left – Jane Hamsher – Greenwald is lying – at a drop of the hat.

  30. 30
    cathyx says:

    @agrippa: Are you so certain that we will never have a republican president again?

  31. 31
    agrippa says:

    Greenwald is hyperventilating. I strongly suspect, but cannot prove, that he enjoys hyperventilating.

  32. 32
    Corner Stone says:

    @agrippa:

    Do not be surprised if it is never used.

    By who?

  33. 33
    JPL says:

    Greenwald is a libertarian not a member of the so-called professional left.
    The bill sucks and Congress and the President need to be called on this. Democrats need to yank that vise grip out the repubs hands and use it to hit them on the head. Just sayin!

  34. 34
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    Marcy does some analysis of the damage-control spin.

    http://www.emptywheel.net/2011.....etain-you/

  35. 35
    gaz says:

    @13th Generation: Whatever.

    I doubt you’ve even posted here before.

  36. 36
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    ABL posts yet another in a series of misinformed “shut up and clap louder” hit pieces filled with and army of falsehoods, selective editing, and straw man arguments.

    How anyone can actually believe ABL hasn’t completely consumed a keg of Obama brand Kool-Aid at this point is beyond help.

  37. 37
    Brian R. says:

    I’ve read the bill. Greenwald is wrong.

  38. 38
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    Oh, I forgot. She’s a FIREBAGGER.

    Mea Culpa

  39. 39
    13th Generation says:

    @gaz:

    Shows just how new you are around here.

  40. 40
    agrippa says:

    @cathyx:

    I am certain of nothing. Life is contingent.
    That statement was based upon the speculation that ‘terror’ is not the the threat that it is cracked up to be. There are not all that many people who are, in fact, mad, bad and dangerous to know.

  41. 41
    gaz says:

    @Benjamin Franklin: Thanks Ben.

    That link actually puts forth some compelling arguments against this bill, without lying about the nature of it.

    I appreciate it.

  42. 42
    Cain says:

    @erik:

    Is there some big Greenwald-Balloon Juice rivalry I am not aware of that makes people lash out like this?

    The funny thing is that Cole and Glen get along just fine. You will not find Cole flaming the crap out Glen.

  43. 43
    gaz says:

    @13th Generation: And yet I’ve established a rep as the BJ omsbudsman. Already.

    Hah.

  44. 44
    Insomniac says:

    @ABL: Appreciate the reply, ABL. I don’t always agree with what you post, but I do tend to read most of your stuff (even the things that make me roll my eyes ;-)). I look forward to your take on this. Also, don’t give in to the crazy! :)

    Also, too…other front pagers do it? Really? This is your excuse? What do grown-ups tell kids when they say stuff like this? ;^) Something about a bridge and jumping off it…or something. Besides, it’s your own fault because you don’t typically do this.

  45. 45
    El Tiburon says:

    @IM:
    AND these commenters are usually driven by an intense hatred and seem incapable of pointing out exactly how Greenwald is lying or is wrong. Then they will attack the offending commenter personally. It’s all they got.

  46. 46
    erik says:

    @ Gaz

    Really don’t see what you are arguing here. From the poster himself;

    “Section b) 2) does bother me, but I don’t think it’ll survive a court challenge because it’s too broad. What the hell is a “belligerent act,” for example? I once called a US Senator an asshole to his face; that was kind of belligerent.

    I will note, for the record, that the provision does fly in the face of the 14th Amendment, and I don’t like it. But I don’t see anything in it that isn’t reversible, and certainly nothing that’s worth putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work for, just as we’re recovering from the worst recession in 80 years.”

    So what he saying is that yes, this section is bothersome and is so broad as to cover anything and is probably unconstitutional, but it can be reversed and isn’t worth the disruption to jobs if the bill fails.

    Gaz, dont understand your vitriol here, the linked to poster is himself saying that this is a horrible, vague, broad and unconstitutional provision. The only place we differ is that he thinks its not worth a veto! I disagree and think that this horrendous limitation of civil rights should be unacceptable to Obama and America.

  47. 47
    13th Generation says:

    @gaz:

    You’ve been hard at it, I’ll give you that much.

  48. 48
    Corner Stone says:

    @Brian R.:

    I’ve read the bill. Greenwald is wrong.

    Case closed!

  49. 49
    B W Smith says:

    @markg: Your kidding, right? The guy characterized what his son, currently serving in Afghanistan, is doing. I didn’t read that as a characterization of the entire effort in Afghanistan. For all you know his son works in a unit building schools or bridges. That was actually a throw-away line to show why he cares about military funding.

  50. 50
    The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    Gotta gin up shit for Ron Paul’s third party campaign somehow. That rat ain’t gonna fuck itself.

  51. 51
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    Yesterday ABL mindlessly posted another embarrassing “rebuttal” to Greenwald, which upon initial review, was so wrought with errors, that it actually helped PROVE Greenwald’s case, instead of providing a cogent rebuttal. She has literally lost all credibility on any subject relating to Obama OR Greenwald.

    Enough already.

  52. 52
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    @gaz:

    No problem. I think constructive criticism of Obama is healthy. I’ve noticed
    an extreme antipathy for frank discussions, which don’t go welll with locals, at other sites.

  53. 53
    Jon O says:

    Y’know, there are a couple interesting things in that linked article – absolutely, the indefinite detention amendment (better now?) was slipped in as a poison pill by the GOP, and Obama doesn’t really have much of an option to veto the damn thing – but y’know, this is not something that I see the Jane Hamshers of the world complaining about as much. I don’t go to FDL! I don’t care!

    What I do care about is the huge contingent of twentysomething lefties that populate my Facebook friends. They support OWS, and aren’t particularly happy about seeing a bill that allows* for indefinite** detention.

    *- “but American citizens are exempt!” Right, because there have never been any American citizens at Gitmo. Those people were actual terrorists, but there’s a precendent there for revocation of citizenship for purposes of military detainment.

    **- “only til the end of hostilities!” dude, the next time we elect a GOP Prez and Senate, the “end of hostilities” might just be the end of the world. We don’t have a military budget equal to the rest of the world combined for nothing.

    Basically, I was really hopeful to see a rebuttal to the NDAA. Maybe it’s not so bad! But what I got was “fuck you, that’s why.” Sure, I would love to tell that to the first-time voters of 2008 freaked out about the latest erosions to the bill of rights. Sometimes, bad is bad, and if you just cheer everything… well, enjoy the NDAA, and SOPA.

  54. 54
    gaz says:

    @erik: Thank you for that.

    My vitriol is due to the fact that since this shit surfaced, people have been repeatedly characterizing it as a bill that sets a course for indefinite detention of US citizens.

    That’s not what this bill is, and I’m sick of being fucking lied to.

    Being lied to pisses me off.

    And then a bunch of people come over here to pile on ABL, and defend one of the chief architects of the indefinite detention lie. (That would be Greenwald)

    I stopped reading GG a long time ago, because I can get commentary on the same type of issues, delivered with intellectual honesty, and backed by actual knowledge of the law. Lawyers Guns & Money is a far better source than GG.

    It hasn’t been covered much over there yet. But I imagine it’s because Steve doesn’t like to talk out of his ass.

  55. 55
    Glenn Greenwald says:

    As usual, there’s nothing more predictable than the intellectual cowardice and dishonesty of Leader-venerating cultists:

    http://www.twitlonger.com/show/eo57p4

    http://www.twitlonger.com/show/eo8jcq

  56. 56
    Corner Stone says:

    @Jon O:

    Basically, I was really hopeful to see a rebuttal to the NDAA. Maybe it’s not so bad! But what I got was “fuck you, that’s why.” Sure, I would love to tell that to the first-time voters of 2008 freaked out about the latest erosions to the bill of rights. Sometimes, bad is bad, and if you just cheer everything… well, enjoy the NDAA, and SOPA.

    What kind of nonsense is this? Do you want Godzilla elected president? Because if you don’t support the signing of the NDAA then you are objectively pro-Godzilla for President.
    No, not a metaphor. If you complain then the actual Godzilla will destroy NYC and become president.

  57. 57
    Corner Stone says:

    @gaz:

    people have been repeatedly characterizing it as a bill that sets a course for indefinite detention of US citizens.

    I don’t want our government to have the power to indefinitely detain anyone without trial.

  58. 58
    Kola Noscopy says:

    Glenn, you rock. Your column is one of the very few that continues to give me hope in this Idiocracy that has been the Bush/Obama years.

    Thank you for your hard work.

    And it’s great seeing you drop in to eviscerate the BJ know nothing Kool Kid Obots.

  59. 59
    IM says:

    If you speak the devils name…

    And I claimed there isn’t a feud.

  60. 60
    gaz says:

    @Glenn Greenwald:
    (1) Detention under the law of war ******without trial****** until the end of hostilities authorized by the Authorization to Use Military Force.”

    Presented without context, in order to make your case. Love it. Expect as much from you.

    (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.

    (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) AUTHORITIES.—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.

    Oops.

    Context. It’s what’s for dinner.

  61. 61
    Jon O says:

    @The Sheriff’s A Ni-: I dunno, I have a lot of Ron Paul Revolution-minded friends, but almost none of them were going to vote for Obama. Silly, I know, and way too often just because of the drug war, but those guys have a completely different set of ideological priorities.

    With the GOP, on the other hand, I see a substantial number of people saying they like Ron Paul – people that would be voting for Rubio or Christie in a better field (y’know, imagining that those guys wouldn’t be quite as full of embarrassments.) That third party would probably hurt the GOP more than us.

  62. 62
    Bob says:

    Whew, that linked post is a little trip to a world I try to avoid on the internets, 90% ugly polemics, 10% content, nothing resolved. Lies, liars, lying sprinkled around for effect. Best I can tell, the law “merely” codifies things that are already asserted Presidential power. But the more codifying there is, the more solid the assertion becomes and the more tempting the power becomes. And of course, the Republicans and the prospect of a future Republican President using this power is pretty scary. Even when Bush/Cheney was president, there were still a few people who would say “We can’t do that.” No more.

  63. 63
    Churchlady says:

    Whoa – NONE of this is true. There is no idefinite detention since every case must be reviewed annual, and it specifically exempts US citzens and lawfully present resident aliens, and guarantees Constitutional protections to everyone else including habeus corpus. You need to catch up – amendments overturned the GOP excesses. Only Kyl voted AGAINST Feinstein’s amendment to exclude citizens and aliens from ANY of this.

    Everything is as it was before – nothing changed, all laws conform with the SCOTUS demands – so you can “hate” it all you want, even you, ABL, but you need to understand you all once supported these steps as huge and important moves AWAY from Bush’s disregard of rights. The great moment here is that Dems moved to protect all we’d fought for over the past several years. Status quo in THIS case is excellent since WE got that done.

    And we saved it for the future in this DOD Reauthorization.

  64. 64
    eemom says:

    @Glenn Greenwald:

    As usual, there’s nothing more predictable than the reflexive name-calling of petty demagogues who can’t tolerate disagreement.

  65. 65
    Gus diZerega says:

    After reading the post and the comments, I will leave it to lawyers to interpret what the law says. I am troubled by its author’s insufferable self-righteousness and even so I hope he is right. Clearly it reads what it does depending on how clauses are interpreted in context.

    That said, I am sick and tired of those who blame Obama’s progressive critics for the failure of 2010. That is not true. And it ignores the lessons that could be learned.

    Many who stayed home in 2010 (I voted, BTW) were disappointed in what happened after 2008. Why? Mr. “Bipartisan” spent months trying to get right wingers to agree with him while trading away his more naive (and not just them) supporters’ hopes and excitement. He rarely offering leadership to his own side.

    This was disaster because, as many studies indicate, a president’s greatest power to set the agenda is in his first months in office. (Think FDR and LBJ for spectacular examples.) After that, Congressional campaigning gets in the way, and the next two years are dominated by the fact he might not be around for a 2nd term. That’s pretty basic political science research on the Presidency. Obama blew this opportunity.

    To give one example (and there are others):

    I followed the health care debate closely and over and over people were trying to figure out what the White House really wanted. Why should that have been so hard? Depending on how the polls were phrased the public preferred single payer, and even if it would not have made it through Congress, Obama could have set it as a long term goal. He could have suggested expanding Medicare to cover the youngest, setting a precedent. He could have just made it clear what he himself wanted. None of the above happened.

    I am NOT saying there was no difference between Obama and the Republicans. Any look at Supreme Court appointments gives the lie to that. But I am saying that Obama’s failure to lead, failure to give substance to the hopes he raised, even as an agenda for the future, are who so many people who voted for him the first time stayed home.

    They were wrong in doing so, but to blame those of us who said his behavior was a mistake is like blaming those who predicted disaster from invading Iraq for the disaster that then happened.

    The author should STFU on that point.

  66. 66
    gaz says:

    @Bob: I agree with you there.

    And I do not like this bill. I would like this bill to be burned.

    But: It’s not authorization for indefinite detention of US citizens. It’s as you say, codification of existing executive power. And it targets people actively engaged in acts of war.

  67. 67
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    Shorter version – “Nothing we do exists in a vacuum.”

    The big thing I agree with is that this is what happens when Republicans gain control of the House. And, while all of you here, including you Glenn, understand what the detention provision means – though some seem to understand it, once again you Glenn, less than what’s written in the bill – most of the public doesn’t. If it doesn’t pass, then what they will understand it paychecks to soldiers and workers are not flowing out, and Obama is the reason why they aren’t going out.

    This is entirely the Republicans’ fault. To say anything else is totally ignoring what is happening. They didn’t stick the provision in because of some specific threat. They stuck it in to regain some leverage they did not otherwise have. And it worked: These bills had to get passed so people could get paid, but if they stick something in there that will get people on the left pissed off at Obama for even though he didn’t write the bill, mission accomplished.

    Suckers.

    ETA: We talk about the right living in its own vacuum, but the left does it as well. Instead of arguing here about whether this provision sucks, which we know it does, we should be telling everyone around us that it sucks and it’s the Republicans’ fault.

  68. 68
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    Context? Let’s see… Bradley Manning released classified docs to Wikileaks and has been charged with “aiding the enemy”.

    Under the same context, how big a stretch would it be to apply the same standard to a civilian whistleblower on American soil? This bill, under that idea, would permit President Obama, or President Gingrich, for that matter, to order the military to snatch up that whistleblower and hold him or her indefinitely without trial until the end of hostilities in what we already know is an endless war on terror.

    How do we feel about that? Oh, right… Shut up and clap louder. Got it.

  69. 69
    The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    @Jon O: Eh, I didn’t say it was a completely brilliant plan. But in a nation of 27% and 50%+1, I’ve learned to never say never.

  70. 70
    Davis X. Machina says:

    I think to avoid our elected reps (exec and legis) writing and signing these sorts of bills that contain these sorts of odious provisions, we need to elect better Congresscritters.

    The big thing I agree with is that this is what happens when Republicans gain control of the House.

    We need better electors.The ultimate problem is that you and I live in a polity where indefinite detention of terrorist suspects without trial, ‘double Guantanamo’, the increasing militarization of policing are popular, and in the event of another terrorist act will all be considered watered-down half-measures, and having left the law stopped where its stop, still won’t save anybody’s career.

    You’ll get mixed poll results on this kind of thing, maybe even majorities who say they’re against them, but the people who think it matters, or works, are firm in their beliefs and will act on them, and those who aren’t, aren’t, and don’t

    They’re worked up enough to produce, and reliably return to office a governing coalition, in Serwer’s word of ‘politicians who believe the military should have an even larger domestic counter-terrorism role [and] simply aren’t going to be satisfied with this.” That coalition is not elected and returned by some alien occupying power — it’s elected and returned by the guy in front of you in the checkout line, or the woman who drops her kids off in day-care right after you.

    We need better citizens — and chances are we won’t get them, either. Take the fundamental depravity of mankind and the points. The fundamental depravity of mankind doesn’t always win, but it never fails to cover the spread.

  71. 71
    ruemara says:

    @Benjamin Franklin: That’s a pretty empty wheel. This is ridiculous. Do you really believe that this is a re-election strategy by Obama? Honestly?
    And having read GG on this, plus his links, plus the bill, I can’t even begin to take him seriously on it. You’re talking about someone who claimed Obama was establishing the indefinite detention of citizens based on a bill that had not yet passed the Senate, as if the bill was written by the WH. You have a Guardian article that was screaming this as a fact, on the 14th of December. The bill had not yet entered the Senate by the time it was published, yet it had been presented as a done thing with the President enshrining gulags for everyone. GG is still presenting it as indefinite military detentions for all with the sections he has highlighted, with his analysis of what it means filling in the sections Shook is talking about. You don’t have to love this bill, or be clapping louder to think that you’re not getting a fact based analysis of this bill from anyone. I have yet to see anyone deal with the idea that this bill enters the President’s hands with a veto-proof majority, so what then? Is this the pretend boyfriend aspect of governance, that he should veto it so we all feel better? What if he does a signing statement on it? Any one of you people who show up just to engage in a healthy round of firebagger-obot wars know that Feinstein is pushing another bill to clarify the language better? What does this do? Where is the analysis of that? Every fucking thing is about the President, nothing is about the Congress, even when it is about the one damn thing the Congress is fucking responsible for, creating the damn laws.

  72. 72
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    @gaz:

    I’ve been hoodwinked numerous times and it is a pisser for me, as well.

    But, this sloppery (sic) slope of Prez Powers expansion makes it critical we have a Solomonic President to keep the lifeboat stable. Obama is clever, but is no Solomon. Therefore, we must watch carefully.

  73. 73
    JD Rhoades says:

    The big thing I agree with is that this is what happens when Republicans gain control of the House.

    It passed the Senate 86-13.

    You can’t just blame Republicans for this.

  74. 74
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    Lol. I’ve been coming to is site for years, on a daily basis. I finally decide to post something in comments and I’m being censored. Good to know…

  75. 75
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @Benjamin Franklin: You need a hundred million people to watch with you. And they’re not there. And there’s no prospect of their arising.

    Self-government is hard work, and unpopular.

  76. 76
    gaz says:

    @ruemara: That too

    Although it’s not the main reason I have a problem with this mess (not the bill itself, but people’s reactions to it, particularly GG)

    It’s being dishonestly characterized as the “Indefinite Detention Bill”, it’s being dishonestly characterized as a bill that allows our government to simply lock up US citizens without ceremony, regardless of circumstance.

    They aren’t saying that the bill explicitly targets people that are engaged actively in acts of war, and acts of terrorism.

    This is a bad bill, and there’s plenty of honest criticism to level without making it into something it’s not.

    For all of the bullshit, this bill essentially codifies pre-existing executive power.

    I don’t dig that. In fact, it sucks. And I hate it. Same reason I hated Obama’s official argument for getting involved in Libya. (his argument essentially made the case for expanding exec power to engage in war) – It’s a power grab – or at least, it’s attempting to codify an executive power grab that started under W. And I dislike that very much.

    But it’s not what GG has been saying it is.

  77. 77
    The Sheriff's A Ni- says:

    @Davis X. Machina: This. We’ve been Occupying Everything for three months now over income inequality and collapsing economic opportunity. Nobody’s occupied shit over that prison camp we’ve been running in Cuba. Shay’s Rebellion, the Trail of Tears, Lincoln revoking Habeas Corpus, Jim Crow, the Pinkertons, the Palmer Raids, Prohibition, Japanese detention, HUAC, the War on Drugs…. its a long litany of just how willing we’ve been to look the other way when the majority deems it convenient.

  78. 78
    Corner Stone says:

    God damn you Jane Hamsher for the NDAA! Gods damned you to hell!

  79. 79
    El Tiburon says:

    @gaz:
    However you read that the door is left wide open for indefinite detention of ANYONE. Especially part D. But the rest of it is just vague enough and explicit enough for all kinds of abuse.

    So in reality it is apparent you are driven by your hatred of Greenwald.

    Also are you calling the ACLU and HRW liars as well?

  80. 80
    Montysano says:

    @Davis X. Machina:

    We need better citizens—and chances are we won’t get them, either. Take the fundamental depravity of mankind and the points. The fundamental depravity of mankind doesn’t always win, but it never fails to cover the spread.

    This.

  81. 81
    gaz says:

    @Benjamin Franklin: I agree.

    I just posted my (somewhat nuanced) position on this, in response to ruemara.

  82. 82
    dmbeaster says:

    As usual, there’s nothing more predictable than the intellectual cowardice and dishonesty of Leader-venerating cultists

    Anyone who asserts such as argument deserves no respect. It reinforces what seems to be plain – that you prefer bomb-throwing to make a point, rather than analysis.

    There are serious arguments here, but not coming from you.

    I agree that there should not be any such military detention bill, period. This one was watered down so that it does not have any of the potential ugliness claimed. Lying to make a point about what it is does not help.

    Pretending that politically the only proper way to deal with this crap was a veto is wrong.

    We are experiencing a repeat of 2000 with the veneration of Nader over practical politics about the direction of the country. Foaming at the mouth about Obama’s lack of leftist purity is not fact based or wise.

  83. 83
    Corner Stone says:

    So I guess I have a question. Is there a demarcation here on indefinite detention of “others” and the indefinite detention of “US citizens” ?

  84. 84
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    @ruemara:

    Feinstein, someone totally unexpected, is rising up, and deserves some credit.

    http://www.feinstein.senate.go.....1EF2893975

  85. 85
    smintheus says:

    If George W. Bush had signed such a bill, the left almost across the board would be in an uproar. If nothing else, it provides for indefinite imprisonment without trial…which is plainly unconstitutional. It also clearly inserts the military into domestic law enforcement.

    The bill’s supporters also imagine that it authorizes even US citizens to be thrown into military camps without trial, through a trojan-horse provision implying that the president already has that power.

    And yet Obama is not to be blamed for failing to veto the bill, even after he said he would veto it because the military should not be involved in law enforcement? The logic of that escapes me, and the hyperbole in the linked post does nothing to fill in that gap.

  86. 86
    Corner Stone says:

    @Davis X. Machina: I’m kinda disappointed. There’s no Latin phrasing in there anywhere, except the block quotes.

  87. 87
    gaz says:

    @El Tiburon: No it’s not.

    In fact, I generally avoid reading GG like I avoid watching Fox. Otherwise, I’d allow my hatred of being LIED TO ALL THE FUCKING TIME to overtake any argument I may have.

    So I avoid reading the spew.

    I’ve made my case on the forum.

    And based on your post history, I don’t trust you. You’ll say anything that equals “Obama is bastard”

    You’re as bad as ABL is “Obama can do no wrong”

    Two sides of the same wooden nickel.

  88. 88
    burnspbesq says:

    @El Tiburon:

    I value both, but would side with Greenwald.

    Which would be an error in this case.

    Look, boys and girls, there is no need to rely on pundits on this one. Go to thomas.loc.gov, find the statutory language, read it for yourself, and draw your own conclusions as to what it says and what it means.

    Unless you’re too damn lazy to be bothered.

  89. 89
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    @Davis X. Machina:

    Participatory democracy? Surely, you jest :>)

    If we could have Pharma introduce a pill to make more News Junkies……

  90. 90
    burnspbesq says:

    @smintheus:

    The bill’s supporters also imagine that it authorizes even US citizens to be thrown into military camps without trial, through a trojan-horse provision implying that the president already has that power.

    The bill’s supporters are absolutely wrong in that regard. Go read Section 1022(a).

  91. 91
  92. 92
    Davis X. Machina says:

    If George W. Bush had signed such a bill, the left almost across the board would be in an uproar.

    And nothing would have been accomplished. It can’t generate the numbers to move things off dead-center. Bullets, or ballots.

    Plan C takes generations. And we’re all in a rush these days.

  93. 93
    Corner Stone says:

    @smintheus:

    The logic of that escapes me, and the hyperbole in the linked post does nothing to fill in that gap.

    The, ummm…”logic” of the linked post is like watching a match of squash.
    It’s typical ABL echo chamber bullshit.

  94. 94
    burnspbesq says:

    @Corner Stone:

    So I guess I have a question. Is there a demarcation here on indefinite detention of “others” and the indefinite detention of “US citizens” ?

    Yes, there is. It’s in Section 1022(a).

  95. 95
  96. 96
    Jewish Steel says:

    As usual, there’s nothing more predictable than the intellectual cowardice and dishonesty of Leader-venerating cultists lovely weather down here in Rio!

  97. 97
    burnspbesq says:

    @El Tiburon:

    However you read that the door is left wide open for indefinite detention of ANYONE.

    No, it’s not. Have you bothered to read Section 1022(a)?

  98. 98
    Corner Stone says:

    @burnspbesq: No, sorry, my question should have been more specific as to where the “here” was.
    Here at BJ, do we care that our govt can detain without trial people around the world.

  99. 99
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @Benjamin Franklin: Some things are absurd, yet still must be believed. Hence democracy… and Christmas.

  100. 100
    El Tiburon says:

    @burnspbesq:

    Look, boys and girls, there is no need to rely on pundits on this one. Go to thomas.loc.gov, find the statutory language, read it for yourself, and draw your own conclusions as to what it says and what it means.

    Greenwald is not a pundit per se. He is a lawyer who specializes in this area. So he knows of what he speaks. Greenwald does not equal Freidmann or Will.

    Whereas I am not a lawyer, digesting legalese can be difficult. But from what I have read from Greenwald, Wheeler and the language and Obama’s actions, I believe there is no doubt that this bill does what Greenwald and the ACLU claims it does.

  101. 101
    Corner Stone says:

    @Jewish Steel: Ahhh, the inevitable Brazil rejoinder.
    Nicely done.

  102. 102
    Corner Stone says:

    From the ACLU:

    As I write this, the Defense Authorization bill is on its way to President Obama’s desk. The bill contains dangerous, sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provisions.
    __
    Leading members of Congress have already indicated that they believe that these provisions could be used by this and any future president to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial — even American citizens and others picked up within the borders of the United States.

    I wonder if they have read the bill?

  103. 103
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    @Davis X. Machina:

    And we’re all in a rush these days.

    Yup. People are just confounded about the death of teh ‘comity’ in DC.

    It’s the impatience of the 24-second newscycle, and the semi-transparency of what the politicos are up to that makes them so contentious.

    We see it, as they do it, and that is very upsetting to their self-image and hobbles their continued employment.

  104. 104
    gaz says:

    @Corner Stone: Me either.

    I’ve stated emphatically and repeatedly that this bill SUCKS.

    My problem with the reactions to this bill, is the usual suspects are LYING THEIR ASSES OFF about what it is and what it is not.

  105. 105
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    @gaz:

    typo? or have I missed some breaking news from ‘Frisco? :>)

  106. 106
    Jewish Steel says:

    @Corner Stone: One ‘cultist’ will get you one Brazil. Quid pro quo. Hey, get me all talkin’ lawyerlike!

  107. 107
    El Tiburon says:

    @burnspbesq:

    No, it’s not. Have you bothered to read Section 1022(a)?

    Are you able to paste the language here? I found a section 1022 but don’t think it is what you want me to read.

  108. 108
    El Tiburon says:

    @burnspbesq:

    No, it’s not. Have you bothered to read Section 1022(a)?

    Are you able to paste the language here? I found a section 1022 but don’t think it is what you want me to read.

  109. 109
    Judas Escargot says:

    @gaz:

    Context. It’s what’s for dinner.

    I got the same understanding you did when I finally got to read that. It only seems to apply to Americans if they are directly aiding AQ and/or have involvement with attacks on a very specific day. I don’t see where people are getting the idea that this means “indefinite detention for anyone and everyone!”.

    I suppose the 2013 Congress could declare OWS to be part of AQ, but I doubt even half of the 27-percenters would buy into that BS.

  110. 110
    Corner Stone says:

    @gaz: IMO, the focus on US Citizens found in the borders of the US, is a mistake for people saying the president has no choice but to sign this bill.
    It’s not a defense to argue US Citizens have some modicum of protection. If the USG can scoop up anyone it likes around the world and hold them without trial, until cessation of hostilities, then I have a big fucking problem with that.
    The distinction of US Citizen/Not US Citizen is a huge fig leaf that leaves signing this bill in no better light.

  111. 111
    gaz says:

    @Benjamin Franklin:

    Feinstein, someone totally unexpected, is rising up, and deserves some credit.

    I’m agreeing with you. I appreciate that Feinstein stepped up and attempted to restrict the bill, and put some much needed due process guarantees in it.

    But yeah – I meant She.

    I was totally thinking Fiengold. not feinstien… too early, not enough coffee, and it just subliminally happened. hence the He, initially.

    heh. Maybe it was the nature of the legislation she proposed. Seems like a fiengold move (even though he’s not a rep anymore)

    heh.

  112. 112
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @Benjamin Franklin: It doesn’t hobble their continued employment, though.

    You can count almost forever on an enraged minority rolling a merely interested majority.

    I am reading Pauline Meier’s Ratification, and small towns in Massachusetts are instructing their delegates to the state convention in Boston to vote against the proposed Constitution because the 1808 date for the beginning of any ban on the slave trade allows it to persist in the meantime.

    75 years before the Emancipation Proclamation, slavery’s a deal-breaker. But not for enough people, and not enough of a deal-breaker. The Southern Democracy was maybe numerically weaker, but they were prepared to fight, and did.

    75 years give or take is the age of the national-security state, as sketched by Garry Wills..

    F=MA. The Southern Democracy had the A, not the M.

  113. 113
    Corner Stone says:

    @Jewish Steel: DMX is gonna be pissed when he finds out you’re biting on his Latin phrase schtick.

  114. 114
    burnspbesq says:

    @El Tiburon:

    Here it is. Decide for yourself what it says.

    (My apologies: the relevant provision is Section 1022(b), Not 1022(a)).

    (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.

  115. 115
    El Tiburon says:

    @gaz:

    In fact, I generally avoid reading GG like I avoid watching Fox. Otherwise, I’d allow my hatred of being LIED TO ALL THE FUCKING TIME to overtake any argument I may have.

    And based on your post history, I don’t trust you. You’ll say anything that equals “Obama is bastard”

    Seems to me you have deeper issues with trust. Again, you can disagree with Greenwalds interpretation, doesn’t mean he is a liar.

    That I disagree with a lot of Obama’s policies; doesn’t mean I hate him. He has done many good things. Unfortunately, they are overshadowed by a lot of terrible decisions.

  116. 116
    Montysano says:

    @burnspbesq:

    No, it’s not. Have you bothered to read Section 1022(a)?

    It’s actually Section 1032.

    1032(e)

    (e) Authorities- 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.

  117. 117
    RichJ says:

    Watching Establishment Dems tack to protect their White House idol has been quite a thrill to watch. That article was mostly strawmen nonsense. Of course Glen Greenwald knows it’s not called the “indefinite detention bill.” But the fact that such a provision exists inside a bigger, more innocuously named bill is precisely the point. He’s shedding light on a poisonous and dangerous provision in the bill. And we should be fucking scared.

  118. 118

    ABL, as we say in South Memphis, you have lost your damn mind.

  119. 119
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    @Davis X. Machina:

    75 years before the Emancipation Proclamation, slavery’s a deal-breaker.

    As I recall, Linclon delayed public release of the EP, until after his re-election, because the moderates in the border states wouldn’t have liked it.

  120. 120
    burnspbesq says:

    The real problem with respect to detainees is not Congress, and it’s not the President. It’s the D.C. Circuit, whose rulings on Guantanamo habeas cases are an outrageous misinterpretation of Boumediene. Until the Supremes take a case and issue the necessary smackdown, no one will be released from Guantanamo.

  121. 121
    Froley says:

    @gaz:

    Any entry-level government attorney can drive a truck through the limiting language. Here’s how it works:

    (b)(2) – “substantially supported” will mean any support

    (d) – despite the wording about not expanding, the government will focus on the not limiting the President’s authority language

    (e) – they will argue that “existing law” includes the right to detain Americans without trial while there are hostilities. But what about the al-Marri case? Well, they will argue that this law overturns the circuit court opinion which was not decided on constitutional grounds but on the fact that there was no law passed by Congress allowing indefinite detention. Now they have that law. It’s circular, but it’s how the system works. I agree with you that it shouldn’t be read in a way to allow indefinite detention, but the government attorneys will read it that way.

  122. 122
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent):

    These bills had to get passed so people could get paid, but if they stick something in there that will get people on the left pissed off at Obama for even though he didn’t write the bill, mission accomplished.

    Have you ever met a defense appropriations bill (this on is for 659 billion) that a Congress couldn’t pass? I think if he vetoed this (as he said he would) there would be grousing about having to work on Christmas, but the Senators and Congressmen could figure out how to pay the contractors and soldiers.

  123. 123
    gaz says:

    @Corner Stone: Again, I agree.

    And I appreciate your honesty in characterizing the bill.

    My problem is that a lot of people are poisoning the well with a bunch of bullshit.

    Adding, maybe where we differ, I don’t see the bill as the coming of the police state apocalypse. That ship has sailed. See 9/11

    This is a codification of that. I dislike it. A LOT. But I dislike being lied to about the nature of the bill as well. This bill doesn’t bring anything new to the table, but rather codifies an existing and established power. That’s what we’re seeing here.

    People don’t have to like it. In fact, I think it deserves to go down in effin flames. But nobody is serving that cause by lying about the nature of the bill. That’s my problem here.

    Adding, too: Arguably if Feinstein got her way, this bill would probably be an improvement over the existing status quo

  124. 124
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @Benjamin Franklin: Ending the slave trade was, even in 1787, very popular in Massachusetts town meetings on all the blogs.

  125. 125
    smintheus says:

    @burnspbesq: Obviously I’ve read that section of the bill. I see nothing in it that definitively states the president does not have the power. What is it you’re trying to imply?

  126. 126
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    @Judas Escargot:

    if they are directly aiding AQ and/or have involvement with attacks on a very specific day

    And…………they’re off !!!!!!!!!!!!

  127. 127
    burnspbesq says:

    @Montysano:

    Check your cite. I’m looking at the statutory language in the conference report, and there’s nothing at all like that in section 1032.

  128. 128
    El Tiburon says:

    @burnspbesq
    Ok, thanks. Now, I believe Greenwald discussed this specifically, and this is where I defer to him as a lawyer.

    I believe his issue was with the phrase ” does not require…”. It may not require, but it is still an option. Meaning indefinite detention of anyone is OPTIONAL. Again this is according to GG and I may be butchering his reasoning.

    And as I’ve stated here, I think Serwer seemed to disagree with GG, so there may be some wiggle room. But what about the ACLU? Are they mistaken as well?

  129. 129
    burnspbesq says:

    @smintheus:

    Remedial reading course for you. What part of “does not extend to citizens of the United States” are you struggling with?

  130. 130
    Montysano says:

    @burnspbesq:

    Check your cite. I’m looking at the statutory language in the conference report, and there’s nothing at all like that in section 1032.

    My bad. That was 1031(e).

  131. 131
    Corner Stone says:

    @El Tiburon:

    But what about the ACLU? Are they mistaken as well?

    I don’t think the ACLU or HRW bothered to read the bill. Because if they had, what could possibly be their issue?

  132. 132
    burnspbesq says:

    @El Tiburon:

    I believe his issue was with the phrase ” does not require…”. It may not require, but it is still an option. Meaning indefinite detention of anyone is OPTIONAL. Again this is according to GG and I may be butchering his reasoning.

    If that’s Greenwald’s analysis, it’s incomplete, because it appears to ignore the fact that there is currently no “insurrection” going on in the United States that would justify suspension of habeas corpus.

    Reading and understand statutory language is helpful, but it has to be read and understood in the context of the overall body of existing law.

  133. 133
  134. 134
    Jeff from Cleveland Hts says:

    The only thing this bill changes is that it provides due process for non-citizen enemy combatants for the first time. That is a good thing, last I checked.

    The Supreme Court has already ruled that indefinite detention of American citizens is illegal (Hamdi), so if you hear some asshole (Greenwald) saying otherwise you can safely assume they are lying.

  135. 135
    Corner Stone says:

    I’m still waiting for someone to indicate what about the linked polemic makes it “An important read”.

  136. 136
    eemom says:

    @El Tiburon:

    Wheeler is not a lawyer, and Greenwald is barely one.

    If you want an actual experienced lawyer who’s read the bill to help you “digest the legalese,” I’d go with Burnsy.

    Preemptive ETA: Yeah, suck on that one, Cornered Stone.

  137. 137
    Dave says:

    the linked post says there is no such thing as an indefinite detention bill, and then promptly admits that there is.

    given the history of, say, the hoover fbi, i have to assume any left agitation is going to be classified by law enforcement as a security threat. if the state is contemplating such indefinite detention of “terrorists,” you can be sure they’re also thinking at least in part of #ows or similar.

    anyway, i don’t know how anyone can be so cavalier about this kind of legislation floating around.

  138. 138
    burnspbesq says:

    @El Tiburon:

    But what about the ACLU? Are they mistaken as well?

    I think so, but I’m OK with that. I pay the ACLU to be over-zealous.

  139. 139
    gaz says:

    @dmbeaster: times fucking two!

  140. 140
    smintheus says:

    @burnspbesq: Oh, is that all you mean? I think GG is right on this, the use of the word ‘requirement’ leaves the door open; the president may still opt to detain US citizens in military camps, which is the baseline that this bill is setting for terrorist suspects in general.

  141. 141
    gaz says:

    @burnspbesq: heh. me too

    (If I do have some problems with the ACLU, it would be that occasionally they do a poor job of picking their battles – but OTOH, as you say – I pay them to be overzealous =P )

    And on this, I’m glad they are speaking out.

  142. 142
    jakethesnake says:

    I would like to point out how completely useless the article linked to in this post is. Seems like complete drama that is getting everyone exactly no where. And, what is up with the author insulting everyone in the comments? The guy is obviously looking for drama.

  143. 143
    Corner Stone says:

    We’ve already seen the planned execution of a US Citizen without US trial by this admin, why anyone thinks indefinite detention of one is a bridge too far kind of vexes me.

  144. 144
    smintheus says:

    @burnspbesq: Don’t be an ass. You cite the wrong section, telling us we’re fools because we haven’t read or understood it, waste our time as we try to figure out your obscure meaning, later admit you gave the wrong citation…and then get back on your high horse to denigrate me for not correctly divining your meaning via the wrong citation.

  145. 145
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    @dmbeaster:

    We are experiencing a repeat of 2000 with the veneration of Nader over practical politics about the direction of the country. Foaming at the mouth about Obama’s lack of leftist purity is not fact based or wise.

    Yes, I loved the way Gore and Liebermann showed exquisite manners and poise when they handed the Country over to Bush and wished him well.

  146. 146
    gaz says:

    @Benjamin Franklin: Is that snark? I can’t tell.

    We lost oregon’s electorial vote in 2000. (Actually shit, maybe I’m thinking of Ohio)… been too long, I’ll look it up.

    That much I know – and I blame nader for that.

    UPDATE: yeah – ohio. MOAR coffee. We came close to losing Oregon.
    http://www.gwu.edu/~action/states/or.htm

    (The problem was deeper than just Nader, but nader sure as shit wasn’t helping things)

  147. 147
    Suffern ACE says:

    Just a question. Under what circumstances would someone find themselves subject to infinite military detention under this act?

  148. 148
    Corner Stone says:

    @Suffern ACE:

    Just a question. Under what circumstances would someone find themselves subject to infinite military detention under this act?

    “Because we say so.” – USG

  149. 149
    fasteddie9318 says:

    Thank the FSM there are brave commentators like Milt Shook out there boldly pushing back against the all-powerful liberal forces out there who would pefer that the government can’t indefinitely detain us if it feels like it. Without heroes like Milt, who could use his time and voice to go after Republicans but has clearly identified the Real Threat to Our Nation, it’s entirely possible that these uncontrollable left-wing hordes could go on occasionally criticizing the president to absolutely no effect, and then where would we be?

  150. 150
    Corner Stone says:

    @dmbeaster:

    Foaming at the mouth about Obama’s lack of leftist purity is not fact based or wise.

    Excellent.

  151. 151
  152. 152
    burnspbesq says:

    @smintheus:

    Maybe, but absent a suspension of habeas, “indefinite” probably means “not very long.”

  153. 153
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    @gaz:

    Actually, sarcasm. I just think it’s a false choice. I blamed Nader for a long time, but he was just telling us all the Dems are pussies. That final speech to Congress (despite the catcalls) as Gore flamed out, persists as a more egregious event.

  154. 154
    gaz says:

    @Suffern ACE: Interpreting the bill to the letter, you can see from the existing comments here (and at the various sources for the bill info) that it explicitly lays out who is covered under the bill. People engaged in aiding Al-Qaeda, or associated entities, etc.

    Above on the thread. Ctrl+F for Al-Qaeda and you should be able to find the relevant sections.

  155. 155
    fasteddie9318 says:

    @burnspbesq:

    I think so, but I’m OK with that. I pay the ACLU to be over-zealous.

    Is there not a similar value in Greenwald also being (arguably) over-zealous? I get that he’s History’s Greatest Monster around here, but I don’t get how we can see the value that rhetorical bomb-throwers have on the right without seeing a similar role for those types on the left.

  156. 156
    burnspbesq says:

    @Suffern ACE:

    Pretty much the same circumstances under which they would be subject to indefinite detention under the 2001 AUMF.

  157. 157
    gaz says:

    @Benjamin Franklin: I agree that he was telling the Dems that they were pussies.

    And they deserved it.

    But running a 3rd party candidacy challenging the dems from the left was a stupid decision – and it cost us in a VERY close election.

    Florida and the GOP are probably more to blame, as was the idiotic ruling in Bush v Gore.

    But if the election weren’t as close as it was, I doubt they could have pulled it off.

    And besides the raw numbers of people he peeled off from the liberal base, what goes under the radar is how much he poisoned the well against Gore. I think that made a significant difference as well.

    I don’t mean to derail the thread, so I’ll comment on this no further, in the interest of being polite, I suppose.

  158. 158
    dmbeaster says:

    @El Tiburon:

    I believe his issue was with the phrase ” does not require…”.

    That phrase actually echoes the structural language of the bill, which states that military detention is required in certain circumstances. There is no general language authorizing indefinite military detention — there is a statement that it is required in certain circumstances. There is then this exception, which eliminates the requirement.

    These provisions, for example, would seem to invalidate a detention such as that practiced on Jose Padilla (who was Al Queda).

    It is important to remember that the Bush administration justified and practiced far worse behavior, and these limitations would have been very helpful in curtailing those abuses. Better would be a different system of laws for this.

    Also, this language seems to be part of the long curve of argumentation about military detention, and the resulting compromise language is a bastard child of that process. It should be seen in that context, as opposed to some enabling of tyranny.

  159. 159
    burnspbesq says:

    @fasteddie9318:

    Greenwald’s rhetoric is so far over the top that it becomes counter-productive, and detracts from his message. He’s the Stephen A. Smith of civil liberties bloggers.

  160. 160
    Corner Stone says:

    @fasteddie9318:

    Without heroes like Milt, who could use his time and voice to go after Republicans but has clearly identified the Real Threat to Our Nation,

    Godzilla? No, not a metaphor. The actual Godzilla.

  161. 161
    gaz says:

    @burnspbesq: What is this habeas corpus of which you speak?

    Last I heard, it went the way of the dodo:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.....st_Century

    Just sayin’

    Actually it appears that it still applies to US citizens. But things seem rather murky at this point, legally.

  162. 162
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    @gaz:

    It’s a two-party system. Accept this offering, o’ god of porcelain…

  163. 163
    Earl Butz says:

    Enjoy the next president, who will be a Republican, suckers. Republican Senate. Republican House. All for 2012. Maybe the Mayans were right. The GOP calls the tune and you dance like the easily manipulated fools you are.

    Eight more years and the GOP will ensure that this time there is a “permanent Republican majority”. Bank it. Can’t elect Democrats if it’s illegal to vote for them.

    Keep listening to that Glenn fellow. He’s the smart one.

  164. 164
    burnspbesq says:

    The place to go on these issues is Lawfare.

  165. 165
    Corner Stone says:

    @dmbeaster:

    It is important to remember that the Bush administration justified and practiced far worse behavior, and these limitations would have been very helpful in curtailing those abuses.

    Yes. It is important to remember others have done things.

  166. 166
    Nick says:

    I don’t see why we can’t agree — let’s blame Congress and Obama both! They wrote it and his signature is on it. I think everyone here can agree with both of the following propositions:

    — Congress is made up of ignorant, confused opportunists who couldn’t identify a Constitutional right if they ran it down on the highway and stopped to try and figure out if the carcass was edible.

    — Obama is an unprincipled weasel, who would sign a bill permitting indefinite detention.

  167. 167
    Montysano says:

    I’m running out the door, so I don’t have time to search links, but…

    IIRC, the Military Commissions Act of 2006(?) already codified the detention of US citizens by changing “alien enemy combatant” to “enemy combatant”. If true, would the new NDAA supersede the MCA re: US citizens?

  168. 168
    different-church-lady says:

    @Glenn Greenwald: Well gee, Glenn, thanks for finally making it clear it’s all about GLENZILLA VS. OBOTS instead any actual laws that might be passed.

  169. 169
    BradyB says:

    @gaz

    For all of the bullshit, this bill essentially codifies pre-existing executive power. I don’t dig that. In fact, it sucks. And I hate it. Same reason I hated Obama’s official argument for getting involved in Libya. (his argument essentially made the case for expanding exec power to engage in war) – It’s a power grab – or at least, it’s attempting to codify an executive power grab that started under W. And I dislike that very much. But it’s not what GG has been saying it is.

    Perhaps you ought to actually read the man who you are railing against so forcefully (and yet so futilely).

    Here is Greenwald saying exactly what you claim he has not.

    From his first post on this last week :

    I haven’t written about this bill until now for one reason: as odious and definitively radical as the powers are which this bill endorses, it doesn’t actually change the status quo all that much. That’s because the Bush and Obama administrations have already successfully claimed most of the powers in the bill, and courts have largely acquiesced.

    From his second post on the topic a few days ago <a href="“>here:

    First, while the powers this bill enshrines are indeed radical and dangerous, most of them already exist. That’s because first the Bush administration and now the Obama administration have aggressively argued that the original 2001 AUMF already empowers them to imprison people without charges, use force against even U.S. citizens without due process (Anwar Awlaki), and target not only members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban (as the law states) but also anyone who “substantially supports” those groups and/or “associated forces” (whatever those terms mean).

    From his final post on the topic yesterday <a href="“>here:

    It is true, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, that both the Bush and Obama administrations have argued that the 2001 AUMF implicitly (i.e., silently) already vests the power of indefinite detention in the President… But this is the first time this power of indefinite detention is being expressly codified by statute (there’s not a word about detention powers in the 2001 AUMF).

  170. 170
    Suffern ACE says:

    @burnspbesq: @gaz: OK then. I don’t think it hurts to clarify that point. Sucks to be labeled an associate of Al-Qaeda.

  171. 171
    different-church-lady says:

    @IM:

    Glenn obviously dispatched his minions/trolls to come here and spew nonsense. heh.

    And he obviously needed only half an hour to do it!
    Impressive. Or perhaps a case of Greenwald derangement syndrome.

    It is impressive: it took Greenwald himself an entire hour.

  172. 172
    Corner Stone says:

    @different-church-lady: Seems like those two links were pretty on point.

  173. 173
    Spectre says:

    ABL jumped the shark here by leaving us two choices. Either ABL is illogical, or is a propagandist. He/She can’t be both logical and honest here. How so? Consider the central argument of the propaganda post that ABL linked to:

    “Lie #3. “Until the end of the hostilities” does not necessarily mean “indefinite detention.” It’s entirely possible, even likely, that Obama will declare an end to al Qaeda within the next year, and he has already all but declared an end to hostilities against the Taliban. In fact, if we oversee an election of Democrats in 2012, and they declare both “wars” at an end, guess what happens? ”

    By DEFINITION that is an indefinite detention. Per dictionary:

    “in·def·i·nite/inˈdefənit/
    Adjective:
    Lasting for an unknown length of time: “indefinite detention”.
    Not clearly expressed or defined; vague: “their status remains indefinite”.”

    Just because something can end, doesn’t mean it will, and even if it eventually will, it doesn’t mean that there is any defined timeline for when it will end.

    And that’s without even considering the mountains of evidence as to why the U.S. state looks to perpetuate this type of loosely defined “war”.

    So it’s just an epic logical suicide to claim that something is not indefinite, simply because it’s not necessarily infinite.

    ABL seems literate enough to have basic logic, so his/her endorsement of that post can only be typically authoritarian propaganda in defense of Obama. Either that, or ABL actually is that dumb. IDK. Looks bad for balloon-juice either way.

  174. 174
    Corner Stone says:

    The Echo Chamber has now disowned the ACLU over their disagreement on the president signing this bill.

  175. 175
    Laertes says:

    Let’s break this article down:

    PPs 1-2: preamble, no content

    PP3: A claim that the indefinite detention bit was a Republican invention. (Is this true? Sen. Levin claimed that the administration asked for this bit.)

    PP4: My kid is in the army.

    PP5: Vetoing the bill containing this appalling provision might briefly disturb the flow of cash to the military-industrial complex. Jerbs.

    PP6: Jerbs.

    PP7: Republicans are worse.

    PP8: 2010 was Jane Hamsher’s fault.

    PP9: Jerbs.

    PP10: PPACA is awesome. (True, by the way!)

    PP11: Obama won’t use this power that he specifically asked for. And no Republican will ever win the white house ever again.

    PP12: It’s okay. This provision doesn’t require the president to shred the constitution–it only gives him the option to do so at his whim.

    PP13: A pretty good point about section (e). It’s a shame that this good point is buried in a mountain of angry, bitter horseshit.

    PP14: Accenting the good point just made, and then some more horseshit about how we shouldn’t worry about bad laws because the Roberts court will protect us.

    PP15: It’s okay to make bad laws because they’ll surely be un-made before they can do any damage. (cf. CDA, PATRIOT, DOMA)

    PP16: Once again the claim, disputed by Carl Levin, that the administration had this provision forced into their unwilling hands. They asked for this.

    PP17: We should be frightened of teabaggers.

    PP18-21: My reading comprehension skills, not great under the best conditions, decline still further when I see Glenn Greenwald’s name.

    PP22: Whose side is Greenwald on anyway?

    PPs the rest: Greenwald is missing the point about section 1021(e), Whose side is Greenwald on (again), and yet another instance of the (entirely unsupported and most likely wrong) claim that the administration didn’t ask for this.

    Not a very impressive piece. It could have been boiled down to about 1/10 the length to far greater effect.

  176. 176
    dmbeaster says:

    @fasteddie9318:

    Is there not a similar value in Greenwald also being (arguably) over-zealous?

    Not when he is shitting his own bed.

    Otherwise, yes. We live in a structural political system that requires frequently attaining 50% + 1 to survive politically, or else become irrelevant regardless of the sincerity of belief (see Ron Paul). There is plenty of room for criticism within the 50%, but not when it undermines the ability to keep the 50% + 1. That means you have to take your lumps on a lot of ideological issues from your own side.

    As for Nader just pointing out that Dems were wussies, he was basically right but proposed a solution that was disastrous – grievously undermine the ability to get 50% + 1. For that, he deserves credit for giving us Bush, and thinking that plague on both your houses is a viable strategy for long term political benefit is simply nuts.

  177. 177
    Zandar says:

    It amazes me the number of people in this thread who say “our civil liberties are being curtailed!” and in the same breath say “SO STOP TRYING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT IT!”

    No, actually, it doesn’t amaze me. It’s par for the course.

  178. 178
    gaz says:

    @different-church-lady: hah!

    And then he came on a posted links to aptly named TwitLonger.

    The latter of the two suffering from an egregiously dishonest lack of context. Par for the course with GG, I think. Pretty much what I expect from him.

    The first link I didn’t look at, because it contained no direct content. And I don’t think Glenn is worth it as far as chasing down links to try and piece his bullshit together. Especially considering the dishonesty of the 2nd link. Maybe I would have checked the first link more if he didn’t have a history of being a liar.

  179. 179
    Corner Stone says:

    @Spectre:

    Looks bad for balloon-juice either way.

    Maybe John Cole should consider being embarrassed at some point?

  180. 180
    Corner Stone says:

    @Zandar: Shouldn’t you be hiding from the DRONES EEEEERRRYYWHERE?!

  181. 181
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    “SO STOP TRYING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT IT!”

    The same people? Who?

  182. 182
    Maude says:

    @burnspbesq:
    The Supremes fell down on the job with Bournediene.
    They left a mess as far as Gitmo is concerned. It allows Congress to play National Security games with it. They’ll shout that they are keeping us safe from terrorists.
    The Republicans must miss the term War on Terror.

  183. 183
    different-church-lady says:

    @El Tiburon:

    Again this is according to GG and I may be butchering his reasoning.

    Well, be fair to yourself here: GG frequently butchers his reasoning.

  184. 184
    different-church-lady says:

    @Corner Stone: Yeah. The question is, which point?

  185. 185
    different-church-lady says:

    @Corner Stone:

    Maybe John Cole should consider being embarrassed at some point?

    Since when do blogging and sense of shame have a relationship to each other?

  186. 186
    Corner Stone says:

    @different-church-lady: From my reading, one displayed pretty accurately that the fools like the one linked to by ABL feel comfortable attacking GG but lack the same conviction to attack ACLU and HRW. Which have made similar points.
    The second displayed language in the actual bill, that some may consider up for interpretation.

  187. 187
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    Unfortunately, one of the major issues facing us is that a healthy percentage of the electorate is composed of “Good Germans.”

    Until we get past that, we’ll continue to see controversies like this one.

  188. 188
    Corner Stone says:

    @different-church-lady: I figure at some point even a guy admitting to naked mopping will get pretty red faced over the bullshit plopped on his blog.
    Of course, he tried a little editorial restraint at one point and got [New Era of Civility approved language] slapped by the Hall Monitor for it.

  189. 189
    gaz says:

    @Laertes: I ignored most of the piece except for the parts where it actually quoted the bill.

    The article is sloppy. But the bits of the bill it laid out in the article are pretty plain.

    Aside from the sections of the bill it quotes, I actually read your reaction to it more carefully than the link in question.

    Arguably, you have a point that ABL blew it with that source. She may have been better off just maybe linking to the bill itself, and offering highlights in her post.

    Nobody’s perfect. But the bill says what it says, quality of the post ABL linked to notwithstanding.

  190. 190
    Corner Stone says:

    @Villago Delenda Est: Should the president veto the NDAA as it currently stands?

  191. 191
    different-church-lady says:

    @Corner Stone: Admit it: you love it the way it is.

  192. 192
    smintheus says:

    @burnspbesq:

    Maybe, but absent a suspension of habeas, “indefinite” probably means “not very long.”

    Tell that to the many Gitmo prisoners whose mental state slowly disintegrated under prolonged indefinite detention without trial.

  193. 193
    FlipYrWhig says:

    I think the linked piece is bollocks because it takes way too long on trifling points and thereby clouds what is actually a simple issue.

    With the caveat that IANAL, here’s my take.

    The new thing the bill does is sketch out specific procedures for suspected terrorists. That’s where the “indefinite detention” part comes from. It does, however, declare those procedures to apply to Al Qaeda and their associates, and exempts American citizens.

    Now, here’s the wrinkle.

    There have been two schools of thought about the president having special detention superpowers. One view is that the president has no such authority; the other, originating with the Bush administration, is that he does, either because the president has always inherently possessed that power (I think that’s John Yoo’s view) or because he has been granted it as a result of the authorization for use of military force in Afghanistan.

    At one point this bill was set to weigh in on this question, especially as it pertained to American citizens. At the behest of the Obama administration, it did not. Thus the bill does not in my view expand any executive power to detain anyone, including American citizens. The worst that can be said is that it fails, by design, to _restrict_ those powers.

    So any president could invoke either the nature of executive power as stated in the constitution (the notorious “unitary executive” theory) or the AUMF for Afghanistan to detain terrorist suspects. They could do this before the bill, and they can still do it after the bill.

    Civil libertarians can still take offense at what went down, and even focus their ire on the president–but it would be much more accurate to fulminate about how something already in place persists, not about how something new has been done.

    (I think Adam Serwer would be slightly more negative than I am, seeing more of a departure from the status quo, but his view on the specifics aligns with mine. Greenwald is out on a limb with his readings of the text–which happens often, and in predictable directions.)

  194. 194
    Stav says:

    That is an incredibly stupid article you linked to. BTW has anybody come across the term “Indefinite Dentention Bill” before seeing this headline and the article it linked to?
    But thanks to letting us know that some dude out there thinks:
    1) Glenn Greenwald is a jerk
    2) It’s our fault that Obama has to sign this abomination
    3) Obama is a good guy and we only need worry about NDAA if the Republicans win in ’12

  195. 195
    Bruce S says:

    I was seeing some ABL posts that were good and constructive – oriented to bringing light to the real issues…

    Then this!

    Back to the same old game. “Pro Left Lies” – aaagh.

  196. 196
    different-church-lady says:

    As for the linked article itself: a few good points wrapped in a very thick layer of poor writing, lack of focus, and polemics.

  197. 197
    Corner Stone says:

    @gaz:

    Arguably, you have a point that ABL blew it with that source. She may have been better off just maybe linking to the bill itself, and offering highlights in her post.

    Wait a second. Your first 3 posts on this thread are castigating people for not reading the linked article.

  198. 198
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Yup. AUMF is the fig-leaf which covers all sins.

  199. 199
    JR says:

    It’s only an “important read” if accuracy and acumen are irrelevant to a piece’s importance. If not, it’s just someone being wrong on the Internet and not worth wasting time on.

  200. 200
    Anonne says:

    @Corner Stone:

    That is why I agree with Greenwald’s interpretation. All it takes is a smearing in the media of someone being a “terrorist” and then it’s Bradley Manning-style detention without charges for months on end for you, and no recourse.

  201. 201
    Corner Stone says:

    @different-church-lady: I love you, just the way you are. Isn’t that enough?

  202. 202
    different-church-lady says:

    @Corner Stone: Not only is it enough, it’s a little creepy.

  203. 203
    RP says:

    GG holds himself out as a con law expert, but I’ve found his analysis to be pretty weak most of the time (I’m a lawyer).

    As for the bill itself, it seems “built for litigation,” and I suspect that’s not an accident.

  204. 204
    gaz says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Excellent comment. Very precise, very thoughtful.

    Also, I happen to agree.

    the other, originating with the Bush administration, is that he does,

    and on that? Obama has this power by default, basically because Bush and his merry band of idiots/sociopathic enablers blazed the trail. <— but it was the Bush Admin that blazed that trail. Not this bill. (I think you and I are in agreement there). The bill just codifies it. And does make a few parts actually BETTER (AQ,indefinite detention, as you said).

    I don't like the whole mess. I wish we could roll back the clock to 1999, and mail Bush a very large shipment of Bulk Pretzels – and let the inevitable result of that sort it all out for us. But that didn't happen. And here we are.

  205. 205
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Corner Stone: If I were in Obama’s shoes, I would veto it, make a huge hairy deal about civil liberties and the best American political traiditions, then let the Congress override the veto with their superior numbers. I guess I’d get tagged with “weakness” both on Capitol Hill and with being tough on terror, but, you know, that’s just another day in the life. Especially given the overwhelming support for the bill as written, it’s actually a free shot, not jeopardizing defense funding or triggering any of the dire effects spelled out in the linked post.

  206. 206
    Corner Stone says:

    @different-church-lady: You have a problem with intimacy, that’s fine. We’ll take it slow.

  207. 207
    different-church-lady says:

    @Anonne: It is important to remember here that what Greenwald says is one thing, and what other people say based on what Greenwald says is another.

    And I honestly suspect GG himself has no problem working that to his advantage.

  208. 208
    Zandar says:

    Shorter thread: “Well, the bill actually does say what Milt Shook says, but we’re going to attack him for saying it anyway and ABL for making us go see what he had to say. Honestly.”

  209. 209
    Laertes says:

    BTW has anybody come across the term “Indefinite Dentention Bill” before seeing this headline and the article it linked to?

    Not I. It was always perfectly clear to me that this was a rider on a defense appropriations bill. I shouldn’t be surprised if someone, somewhere, is unclear on this point, but if you make this the center of your piece, all the people with above-room-temperature IQs are going to read it as straw-manning.

    @gaz: I agree entirely. It’s a weak piece, but there’s a good point buried in there. I’m happy to hear that this thing isn’t as evil as I’d heard.

  210. 210
    Corner Stone says:

    @Zandar: So, the Stupid won then I take it?

  211. 211
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Anonne: But that could happen before the bill too. The bill doesn’t change the possibility of that happening. I’m not sure the Levin language that was removed would have done so either.

  212. 212
    Corner Stone says:

    @Zandar: The language of the bill actually says what it says.
    No one needed to read Milt’s incessantly whiplashing polemic against History’s Greatest Monster to determine what the language of the bill says.
    Oh, and the 2012 elections are all someone else’s fault beside the administration.

  213. 213
    gaz says:

    @FlipYrWhig: me too.

    Adding, the people that *still* believe Obama is “soft on terror” will *always* believe that Obama is “soft on terror”, because ummm blackety black! librul! socialist muslim kenyan! dontcha know.

    I don’t really understand Obama’s rationale on this. And yet, I expect that much from him. He does crap like this all the time. It’s like he’s congenitally unable to bring his fight to the game, except when it comes to delivering empty rhetorical speeches. But hey, the speeches sound nice, don’t they?

  214. 214
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @gaz: It codifies it for those deemed to have ties to Al Qaeda and leaves a gray area around Americans who may be tied to Al Qaeda as well as a very big squishy one around how ties to Al Qaeda get proven.

  215. 215
    Suffern ACE says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Really. The media has been labeling individual people “terrorists” making the government detain them?

  216. 216
    Mnemosyne says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    As I said before, this whole kerfuffle is reminding me of the Plan B threads, where Sebelius’s horrible crime that required 400 comments was maintaining the status quo.

  217. 217
    gaz says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Agreed. And I don’t like it.

    But that’s the status quo, since 9/11.

    The bill doesn’t really change that – which has been more or less my overarching point from the get go.

  218. 218
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Laertes: Adam Serwer, writing at the Mother Jones blog, has a good rundown of the provisions in question and what they do and don’t do.

  219. 219
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Corner Stone:

    If I were in the President’s shoes, I’d veto it.

    But, I’d never be in the President’s shoes.

  220. 220
    Corner Stone says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    It codifies it for those deemed to have ties to Al Qaeda and leaves a gray area around Americans who may be tied to Al Qaeda as well as a very big squishy one around how ties to Al Qaeda get proven.

    Hmmm, the word “proven” there indicates a level of “proof”. Normally we have a mechanism to determine “proof”. In this situation, we have a cell somewhere because we have determined a trial isn’t necessary to determine “proof”.

  221. 221
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    I applaud all the commentators here. The exchanges are crisp and responses are honest. I especially like the dynamic between the so-called ‘o-bots’ and firebaggers. It is feisty, without excessive derogation. I never trust a relationship wherein the parties never argue.

  222. 222
    gaz says:

    @Corner Stone: This was status quo long before this bill was vomited forth from our legislative branch.

  223. 223
    Corner Stone says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    where Sebelius’s horrible crime that required 400 comments was maintaining the status quo.

    I’m always interested to see people defend the status quo. Does anyone remember who set the status quo for the previous 8 years of legislation and interpretation?
    Why would anyone be upset at continuing the status quo, one wonders.

  224. 224
    Ian says:

    @fasteddie9318:
    Did you read the point in the article linked where he said “This is a republican poison pill?”

  225. 225
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Mnemosyne: And as in that case I think it’s totally fair to voice disappointment in a lost opportunity to correct a troubling status quo. But that demands slightly different thinking, rhetoric, and calls to action.

  226. 226
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Corner Stone: Correct, and that paragraph says so rather than defending that state of affairs.

  227. 227
    Mnemosyne says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    And as in that case I think it’s totally fair to voice disappointment in a lost opportunity to correct a troubling status quo. But that demands slightly different thinking, rhetoric, and calls to action.

    Oh, I agree. But I guess “Obama does not change indefinite detention policy” doesn’t get as many blog hits as “Obama is going to imprison American citizens without trial!”

  228. 228
    gaz says:

    @Mnemosyne: FTW

    GG’s MO in so many words. Salon must love him.

  229. 229
    gaz says:

    I’ve noticed a few Front pagers on this thread.

    Could one of you (assuming you have the authority – not sure who’s a mod and who’s not) please review my comment at 213?

    It’s been in moderation hell for awhile now. FYWP

  230. 230
    Lojasmo says:

    Guess what. This passed both the house and senate with over 2/3 majorities. Anybody want to tell me what would happen if Obama vetoed it? Anybody? Bueller?

  231. 231
    gaz says:

    @Lojasmo: Sure.

    His veto would get overturned, but he’d get some cover for at least trying.

  232. 232
    Bruce S says:

    I vote for ABL getting a gig on FOX News being a Dem who persistently attacks the “Professional Left” (because we need our side to be all amateurs? or something…) There’s a market for this kind of package and I don’t think she’s exploiting it fully.

    Like elections, intentionally divisive, deceptive, intentionally inflammatory rhetoric has consequences. And what’s with “the professional left” as a term of derision. In the real world where folks aren’t gazing at each others navels in some hermetic cluster of blogs, attacking “the professional left” would imply that such as The Center for American Progress are destructive of our democracy and rational political discourse. Chris Coons, who reluctantly voted for this bill, and Jerry Nadler, who voted against, discussed this on Chris Hayes show this morning. It was a useful, civil, “non-incredibly-stupid” bit of discourse. Unlike the crap, idiotic and misleading headline ABL decided to shove our faces in before she bailed.

    This shit isn’t helpful. It’s essentially the same crap it pretends to criticize. Debate Glenn Greenwald. Fine. But implications that have the broad brush of being anti “pro-left lies” or “the professional left” are just infantile and do damage to our side.

  233. 233
    gaz says:

    @Bruce S: This thread is not about the professional left.

    It’s about the NDAA. But since you’ve got an axe to grind against ABL, who the fuck cares, right?

    /yawn

    Insomuch as it calls out the people in the usual camp who are lying about the bill – it’s about the professional left. But that’s all. Funny how you ignore that, and most of the thread, for that matter

  234. 234
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    Folks, we’ve already seen Bradley Manning charged with “aiding the enemy”. Was he a member or supporter of some official terrorist organization? Not that anyone knows of. Did that stop him from being charged with “aiding the enemy”? No.

    Tell me, what stops President Obama, or God forbid President Gingrich from applying the same standard to an American citizen whistleblower here in the states? And does that designation not trigger the ability to have the military snatch up that whistleblower and indefinitely detain him or her without trial? I see language in the bill which could very easily have applied to Manning, based on the governments own descriptions of Manning’s “crimes”.

  235. 235
    Corner Stone says:

    @gaz:

    This thread is not about the professional left.

    What? GTFOOH.

  236. 236
    Bruce S says:

    gaz – there’s this thing called English. ABL used in her headline.

    So yeah…as regards your yammer: yawn!

  237. 237
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Bruce S:

    There’s a market for this kind of package and I don’t think she’s exploiting it fully.

    The market spots for Democrats who attack Democrats have already been filled by frequent MSNBC guests Jane Hamsher and Glenn Greenwald. There is no room in the MSM for an actual defense of Democratic policies, only for attacks on those policies from both right and left.

    This week’s guests on “Meet the Press”:

    Rep. John Boehner
    Speaker of the House of Representatives

    Rep. Michele Bachmann
    GOP presidential candidate

    Gov. Nikki Haley
    (R-SC)

    E.J. Dionne
    Columnist, The Washington Post

    Mike Murphy
    Republican Strategist

  238. 238
    Jeff from Cleveland Hts says:

    The only thing this law does differently than what already exists is to require that non-US citizen enemy combatants see a military judge and receive a lawyer where before they didn’t necessarily get either. They also get a yearly review and it provides a process where they can be moved to civilian courts. Those are the only changes from the status quo.

    The existing law sucks, this law improves the situation a little bit.

  239. 239
    Knockabout says:

    I think we’re all in agreement here that BJ has gone sharply downhill, and that Cole’s recent additions (out of guilt, I would suspect) were a grievous error.

    I think it’s long past time to clean house of the front pagers who just can’t cut it.

  240. 240
    Keith G says:

    @eemom:

    As usual, there’s nothing more predictable than the reflexive name-calling of petty demagogues who can’t tolerate disagreement.

    Did you type this with a smile and your fingers crossed?

  241. 241
    BradyB says:

    @gaz

    This thread is not about the professional left.

    Oh really? What is the title again?

    There’s No Such Thing as an “Indefinite Detention Bill” and Other Pro Left Lies

    “Indefinite Detention Bill” and Other Pro Left Lies

    Pro Left Lies

    Pro Left

  242. 242
    Spectre says:

    @gaz:

    “The professional left” was in the thread title. And as already demonstrated by my previous post. Either ABL does not have a sound grasp of basic logic, or he/she is being a propagandist. If it is propaganda, then one must ask “why?” The use of “professional left”, is very telling in this respect. It’s the same type of attack that pretty much everyone authoritarian in history uses on whatever is to their left.

  243. 243
    different-church-lady says:

    @gaz: That’s exactly what I would expect an O-bot like you to say.

    [nods in simple-minded satisfaction]

  244. 244
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn:

    Tell me, what stops President Obama, or God forbid President Gingrich from applying the same standard to an American citizen whistleblower here in the states?

    You mean other than the fact that Manning is a member of the military being tried by a military court using the Unified Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), where “aiding the enemy” has a different meaning that it does in a civilian trial using civilian laws?

  245. 245
    gaz says:

    @Corner Stone: Read my *entire* comment. I clarified what I meant by that.

    This is about liars. This is about people who sensationalize shit like ZOMG! OBAMA IS GONNA LOCK EVERYBODY UP… (oops, please read the fine print)…

    That many happen to be on the “Professional Left” is just an aside. And of that camp, several notable figures are indeed LYING, and misrepresenting the facts.

    It’s about sensationalism, and dishonesty surrounding the NDAA.

    I really could give fuck all about the “professional left” label. So the fuck what. I don’t even really know what that means, and I doubt I’m the only one. Do they have a PAC or something?

    I will say this though, as a point of agreement. ABL’s use of the label “Professional Left” really is kind of a distraction. She could have just as easily named names.

    But to focus on that is just to distract from the meat of the issue, not to discuss it.

    That’s my problem with the post I was responding to.

  246. 246
    Bruce S says:

    Mnemosyne – you really don’t get it, do you?

  247. 247
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    This week’s guests on “Meet the Press”:

    Don’t forget the Equalizer, David Gregory,

    What happens to journos when they get that prestigious perch at the top spot?

    Like, Entertainment Tonight and ‘Who wants to be a millionaire?”

  248. 248
    Spectre says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    Democrats are backed by rich and powerful interests, as are republicans. Left wing critics of democrats are not.

    That’s why it’s particularly interesting to ask why Balloon-Juice is letting itself become an outlet for attacking “the professional left”.

  249. 249
    Knockabout says:

    Anyone else notice that this thread has degenerated into a fight between ABLC contributors and the BJ regulars, or are we not aware we’re being played by ABL for page views again?

  250. 250
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @Mnemosyne

    You didn’t answer the question. The bill has specific language which applies domestically to civilians which is the same as those I mentioned being applied to Manning. Explain what prevents a civilian whistleblower from being labeled in the same way? The language is IN THE BILL.

  251. 251
    different-church-lady says:

    @Corner Stone:

    No one needed to read Milt’s incessantly whiplashing polemic against History’s Greatest Monster to determine what the language of the bill says.

    Well sure. But how many owls of the internet have attempted to feed the owlets using the regurgitated shreds of Greewald polemics? Did they need Greenwald to understand what was in the bill?

    It’s hot polemicist on polemicist action! I, for one, don’t usually become satisfied with the situation by merely choosing the polemicist that makes me feel the better of the two.

  252. 252
    gaz says:

    @different-church-lady: LOL.

    Yeah I’m such an o-bot.

    Except when I disagree with him.

    Then, apparently – I’m a firebagger. or something

    =)

    I guess I’ll have to wear the o-bot label on this thread.
    By the next thread, I’ll be dutifully called out as a firebagger… and so it goes.

  253. 253
    Suffern ACE says:

    @gaz:

    His veto would get overturned, but he’d get some cover for at least trying.

    Yes. Cover from the people who don’t have his back against the plethora of others who’d love to go on TV to talk about how he cares more about the rights al Qaeda supporters than paying the troops.

  254. 254
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    @gaz:

    You’re not an o-bot, as far as you know… :>)

  255. 255
    different-church-lady says:

    @Spectre:

    That’s why it’s particularly interesting to ask why Balloon-Juice is letting itself become an outlet for attacking “the professional left”.

    You seem to be one of those people unclear on the idea that Cole runs this joint with no higher purpose than his own whims.

    And I find it odd that these people only tend to show up on ABL threads. Actually, no, upon reflection they’d show up on the ED Kane threads too.

  256. 256
    gaz says:

    @Knockabout: Yep. Trying to put a stop to the nonsense, I was told GTFOOH.

    heh.

  257. 257
    Bruce S says:

    gaz – “ABL’s use of the label “Professional Left” really is kind of a distraction. She could have just as easily named names.”

    Not “just as easily” because to not use the garbage labels would have required something more than jerking the knee. This isn’t just lazy and it’s not “beside the point” – it’s an essential tool in certain types tool-box. They are just as destructive of rational discourse among liberals as some of the “progressives” who rely on reductionist labels and arguments to undermine the broad coalition that needs to hang together. Also, the implication that this thing is being discussed as a discrete bill among “the left” as opposed to an amendment to the defense appropriation is total bullshit. Another cheap straw-man, on top of FOX-style anti-left hyperbole, that moves one farther away from examining the substance of the issue.

  258. 258
    Knockabout says:

    But let’s continue to validate ABL who quit her job to blog and is totally not like Glenn Greenwald in having minions ruthlessly attack anyone who disagrees with her.

  259. 259
    Cliff says:

    The “Indefinite Detention Bill” will only potentially have a negative effect if a Republican wins in 2012, in any case.

    That’s fucking idiotic.

    Yes, I do admit section c) looks troubling, especially if you look at it all by itself. But as long as we have Obama (or Biden) in office, we have time to get rid of it, especially if we give them a Democratic Congress.

    That’s fucking idiotic.

    It’s entirely possible, even likely, that Obama will declare an end to al Qaeda within the next year, and he has already all but declared an end to hostilities against the Taliban. In fact, if we oversee an election of Democrats in 2012, and they declare both “wars” at an end, guess what happens?

    That’s fucking idiotic.

    The rest of his post is merely unconvincing.

  260. 260
    gaz says:

    @Bruce S: So let’s make the thread about how ABL sucks, rather than the issues surrounding the controversy or non-troversy of the NDAA.

    Win, right?

    (Especially since nobody EVER says ABL sucks on any ABL threads, so this kind of thinking is new, fresh and required). heh

  261. 261
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Spectre:

    Democrats are backed by rich and powerful interests, as are republicans. Left wing critics of democrats are not.

    So therefore it’s okay for left wing critics to echo the same criticisms of Obama that right wing critics do since they’re not getting Koch money?

    The “professional left” get teevee time because they criticize Democrats. Notice how none of them got on cable when Bush was in office and there was some danger that they would criticize him. If (god forbid) a Republican president were elected, Greenwald and Hamsher would vanish from the airwaves like they never existed, because their only value to the media is as critics of the Democrats.

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn:

    Again, the fact that you don’t seem to understand that military personnel are subject to a different set of laws than civilians are means that there’s no point in even trying to do the comparison. It’s like trying to explain to a right-winger that someone who overstayed their visa has “broken the law” in the sense that it’s a civil violation, but they’re not criminals because immigration violations are not criminal violations.

  262. 262
    dogwood says:

    @Benjamin Franklin:

    I applaud all the commentators here. The exchanges are crisp and responses are honest.

    Absolutely.

    Threads like this are a constant reminder of the fundamental differences between Democrats and Republicans. I think there are a handful of reflexive critics of the President from the left who begin with an assumption and find evidence to back up their claims. That said, this still requires a willingness to read legislation, signing statements, executive orders etc. It demands working knowledge of the Constitution and a sophisticated understanding of American history. To be a reflexive critic of the President from the right requires the ability to analyze the decorations on the White House Christmas tree, or the Obama girls’ school lunch menu.

  263. 263
    different-church-lady says:

    @gaz: I thought every ABL thread was a referendum on how she sucks.

    Or is it just that it always turns out that way?

  264. 264
    fasteddie9318 says:

    @Ian: My bad. A half-sentence in a massive screed about how lefty liberal ruiners are ruining everything by not shutting the fuck up when they don’t like something clearly addresses the point of my complaint. My apologies to Milt, and best wishes for continued fornication with that piece of poultry.

  265. 265
    Spectre says:

    @different-church-lady:

    “Did 4 lulz” is a 4chan justification, not one for a political blog. If the line being taken is one that starts constantly defending power from left wing criticism, then it bears asking “why?”

    If this issue comes up more often in ABL threads, I suspect it’s probably because ABL’s style of left-baiting is particularly vulgar.

  266. 266
    Snowball says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    This week’s guests on “Meet the Press”:

    So 4 Republicans and 1 Democrat. They aren’t even trying to hide their basis anymore. I use to watch Meet the Press all the time. I haven’t watched it for 9 years since it is obvious they have an agenda.

    It boggles the mind. Republicans will watch FoxNews, not NBC. It is curious that NBC will intentionally lose viewers like me.

  267. 267
    different-church-lady says:

    @Benjamin Franklin: The ironic voice is the last refuge of scoundrels.

  268. 268
    Knockabout says:

    No big mystery here, Cole’s too lazy to moderate and ABL is taking full advantage of that.

  269. 269
    El Cid says:

    What kind of law would need to be passed regarding issues of detention for me to worry about it?

  270. 270
    different-church-lady says:

    @Spectre:

    “Did 4 lulz” is a 4chan justification, not one for a political blog.

    Obviously you are aware of all internet traditions.

    It’s Cole’s blog. He runs it to his standards, not yours. Saying you think a given front pagers sucks is one thing. Saying it you don’t like that front-pager because she doesn’t adhere to your perception of what BJ’s standards ought to be is a cop-out.

  271. 271
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    @different-church-lady:

    No irony implied, or…..inferred :)

  272. 272
    Spectre says:

    @gaz:

    ABL posted something that demonstrates ABL to be either entirely illogical to the point of mental handicap, or dishonest. It’s unlikely that ABL is just stupid, so we point out that he/she is fulfilling a propaganda function.

    How so? It’s the only purpose of using “professional left”. The post wasn’t meant to elucidate truth, it was meant to inspire derision for critics of Obama. ABL attacked people, not arguments, thus ABL gets discredited. Good.

  273. 273
    different-church-lady says:

    @Knockabout: Yeah, Cole’s gotta get rid of the interloper he invited.

    Seriously?

  274. 274
    Knockabout says:

    But yes, ABL does nothing but start fights she can’t finish, DougJ Ito a lesser extent is like that and Zandar’s not bright enough to do anything but lose his own argument.

    So what do they contribute to this place other than rancor and lowering the bar of the community?

  275. 275
    gaz says:

    @different-church-lady:
    The derailers are out in force.

    Thread hijaack in T-minus…

  276. 276
    My Truth Hurts says:

    So the very insulting and patronizing author is ok with the provision as long as his “team” holds the White House? And that the rest of us are just too stupid to understand this multi-dimensional chess game Obama is playing? Sounds just like Bushies circa 2004.

    I call bullshit. What a load of steaming crap.

    The provision is bullshit, Greenwald is not a liar and I don’t care if fucking Santa Claus is the President I don’t trust any man or woman with powers like that ever. Obama is not a “good” guy, Obama is a politician who sought and obtained political power. I don’t trust anyone who does that.

    I can’t believe the blind trust some people have just because the current Prez is on their “team”. That’s just fucking mindless.

    For the record, I hate Republicans with every fibre of my being and would not vote for one to be dog catcher. That does not mean I find a home or like minded people in the Democratic Party, that just means I hate the GOP more.

  277. 277
    different-church-lady says:

    @Benjamin Franklin: But does your statement specifically prohibit irony?

    The fabric of our blogitutional rights hangs on that answer.

  278. 278
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Spectre:

    If the line being taken is one that starts constantly defending power Democrats from left wing criticism, then it bears asking “why?”

    Fix’d. I still have never seen ABL defending Republicans or conservatives from left wing criticism, only Democrats.

    You may have a polemical “power is power is power” view where any attack on anyone who has any power is automatically good, but the fact remains that Democrats do in fact have less power than Republicans or conservatives, especially in the media.

    So the question becomes, why are you so eager to defend people who prefer to go after the easily attacked Democrats rather than the harder to attack Republicans?

  279. 279
    Bruce S says:

    gaz – the words “other Pro-Left Lies” are as long a phrase as her actual post above (“An important read.”) And the link is couched in exposing Greenwald as a “liar.” This wasn’t a post about this issue – it was another attack on some imagined “Professional Left” embodied by Glenn Greenwald.

    As I said, this was discussed in depth on “professional leftist” Chris Hayes’ MSNBC show this morning (you know, the network where one can’t escape Jane Hamsher and Glenn Greenwald rearing their ugly heads to attack Democrats – except they’re rarely on any MSNBC show) and a funny thing happened. Nobody crapped their pants and tried to rub someone else’s face in it. Shook and ABL have a problem – it’s the exact problem they pretend to want to expunge with their attacks on “the professional left.” This crap is destructive. Also it’s too easy to find rational, civil discourse on, say, MSNBC or other blogs dealing with the issue at a serious level – without axegrinding – rather than getting stuck in this muck.

  280. 280
    Spectre says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    “So therefore it’s okay for left wing critics to echo the same criticisms of Obama that right wing critics do since they’re not getting Koch money?”

    That’s another authoritarian technique. Besides your premise being wrong (the criticisms aren’t the same), the link you try to make is invalid. What matters is not who else makes a criticism, what matters is whether it’s true or not. In this case not only is Greenwald’s criticism true, but ABL’s post was exposed as a mechanism to attack “The Professional Left”.

    There are reasons to engage like that, but none of them having to do with “honesty” and “progress”.

    Good that this is backfiring.

  281. 281
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    @El Cid:

    What kind of law would need to be passed regarding issues of detention for me to worry about it?

    Disclaimer; I am not suggesting these places are for American Citizens

    @El Cid:
    http://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/dwnmap

  282. 282
    Spectre says:

    @different-church-lady:

    Saying it you don’t like that front-pager because she doesn’t adhere to your perception of what BJ’s standards ought to be is a cop-out.

    Which is why I never said that. Rather, I’m saying that she reflects terribly on the blog because he/she is either illogical, or a propaganist.

    Then the question becomes: Is this laziness on the part of the blog, or is this the line the blog wants to push? It’s an important question for a political blog.

  283. 283
    El Cid says:

    Look, it’s perfectly okay if you think that a certain part of a law being passed is wrong, or harmful, or maybe even really bad.

    The point is, just don’t say too much about it. You could do a lot of damage that way.

  284. 284
    Snowball says:

    @My Truth Hurts:

    Obama is not a “good” guy,

    Actually, he is the good guy. He is the one who tried to close Gitmo. The cowards in the Democratic Congress almost unanimously voted to ban funding for the closure. Heck, even if the progressive “hero” Bernie Sanders voted against closing it. And who did dailykos etc get mad at? Obama, not Congress! You really can’t make this crap up.

    It amazes me that among the so called Democratic base there is such irrational criticism, almost hatred for Obama when there is hardly peep towards to the pathetic Congress. Especially the Democrats in Congress who has made Obama’s life a hell of a lot more difficult.

  285. 285
    Knockabout says:

    Oh, so we’re supposed to take ABL at her word that all we have to do is stop using straw men and polemic nonsense against other progressives and everything will be okay, while she gleefully leads us to an article filled with polemic nonsense and straw men?

    Yes, I think that is beneath this community and it’s about time Cole did something about it.

  286. 286
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    @different-church-lady:

    But does your statement specifically prohibit irony?

    Irony trumps specifics, but then, I think denial is a river…..

  287. 287
    Spectre says:

    @Knockabout:

    No big mystery here, Cole’s too lazy to moderate and ABL is taking full advantage of that.

    I’d like to think that’s the case, but I doubt it. If ABL was making pro-Romney4president arguments, is there any doubt that this character would be gone?

    To that extent, I can’t help but shake the feeling that the blog fully endorses attacks on left wing critics of the president.

  288. 288
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Spectre:

    That’s another authoritarian technique.

    Pointing out that not everyone in this situation has the same amount of power is an authoritarian technique?

    Besides your premise being wrong (the criticisms aren’t the same), the link you try to make is invalid. What matters is not who else makes a criticism, what matters is whether it’s true or not.

    Good, so I can ignore Greenwald, because his criticism is not in fact true.

    Of course, I’ve been ignoring Greenwald ever since he claimed that Obama lied throughout his presidental campaign about wanting a public option and personally torpedoed it from the PPACA because he secretly hated the idea all along, so nothing new here.

  289. 289
    gaz says:

    @Bruce S: If I tell you are right, and that ABL was wrong, will that validate your ego enough to move onto the issues surrounding the bill?

    Or will you be requiring a blowjob as well?

    This thread was doing fine, arguing around ABL’s bullshit, and being about the NDAA, and the misinformation campaign around it. Until you and few others dropped in to make it about ABL’s tendency to be over the top, and missing the mark – or linking to an article that was poorly written – even being dishonest. Guess what? You are preaching to the choir. Many of us here thoroughly understand that dynamic already. It’s not news. my post at #27 touches on that briefly. You seem to want to make a federal case out of it.

    And it’s not important in the big scheme of things. Let’s talk about actual federal cases, mmmkay? And the bullshit surrounding the NDAA.

    Otherwise you are just spinning your wheels.

    The fact that ABL blows shit out of proportion does not detract from the fact that GG is waging a disinformation campaign surrounding the bill. Or that the bill doesn’t change the status quo.

    It’s more important when GG is doing it – he gets more clicks. It’s not okay when ABL does it. But ABL is minor league, and most of us here already know the score as far as her posts. Especially when it comes to Obama.

    So again, /yawn.

  290. 290
    different-church-lady says:

    @Spectre:

    Rather, I’m saying that she reflects terribly on the blog because he/she is either illogical, or a propaganist.

    Blog don’t give a shit. Blog just takes what he wants.

    Why is this so difficult to understand?

  291. 291
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    @Spectre:

    It’s an important question for a political blog.

    Traffic is the life-blood of a blog. I’ve often wondered whether drawing in folks temporarily has a lasting effect, but it is traffic. There are also a lot of posters competing for comments. Just my take…

  292. 292
    Knockabout says:

    Or Occam’s Razor says Cole is an O-bot and Greenwald’s criticism is correct and always has been.

  293. 293
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @Mnemosyne

    Nice dodge. AGAIN, the exact same language being applied to Manning in his military trial is IN THE NDAA BILL, AND IS APPLICABLE TO CIVILIANS. Now, please explain what prevents the exact same “crime” Manning allegedly committed aka: leaking classified information, leading to a civilian being labeled as “aiding the enemy” the same way Manning was?

    Don’t know if you are simple-minded or just trying to obfuscate, but the question I am asking deserves a real answer instead of an ad hom. You say it’s different because it’s a civilian case? Why? WHAT PREVENTS THE SAME CHARGE BEING APPLIED? Name the statute or exception. Give me something to back your arrogant dismissal of my point.

  294. 294
    Bruce S says:

    “Or will you be requiring a blow job as well”

    Didn’t read past that.

    Go fuck yourself. You’re an asshole.

  295. 295
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Spectre:

    To that extent, I can’t help but shake the feeling that the blog fully endorses attacks on left wing critics of the president.

    So?

    Seriously, is the left wing so weak that they can’t defend their own attacks? When people present you with evidence that Greenwald is overstating his case, to say the least, your only response is that it’s “propaganda” and all attacks on the left must cease.

  296. 296
    Spectre says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    Defending one faction of the business party of the other, isn’t any form of principled courage. Your claim that democrats are marginalized in the media is simply ludicrous at face value. Let’s take a simple controlled experiment from MSNBC.

    Melissa Harris-Perry (unpopular authoritarina defender of Obama) v. Cenk Uygar (popular left-liberal, not a radical).

    Which career flourished more at MSNBC?

    Democrats as victims is just silly consider who gets what money, who controls which branches, and what the general media attitude is towards left-criticism.

  297. 297
    Knockabout says:

    Ben Franklin is right.

    So why allow her and other front pagers to continue to write explosive bullshit just for fame? Is this Townhall or Corner now?

  298. 298
    gaz says:

    @Spectre: Yes. We’ve been issued a directive by John Cole, our fuhrer. We must always attack those who attack Obama from the left

    (Except of course when we are attacking Obama from the left ourselves – Section 4 subsection C in the prime directive, IIRC)

  299. 299
    different-church-lady says:

    @Knockabout: Down the road, not across the street.

  300. 300
    NR says:

    @Lojasmo:

    Guess what. This passed both the house and senate with over 2/3 majorities. Anybody want to tell me what would happen if Obama vetoed it? Anybody? Bueller?

    Guess what? The bill didn’t pass the House with a 2/3 majority.

  301. 301
    gaz says:

    @Knockabout: Yeah dude. John Cole should totally ban her.

  302. 302
  303. 303
    Spectre says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    Good, so I can ignore Greenwald, because his criticism is not in fact true.

    Of course, I’ve been ignoring Greenwald ever since

    If you’ve been ignoring Greenwald, then you have no basis for knowing whether what he says is true or not. #WHENCHEAPZINGSGOWRONG

  304. 304
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn:

    You say it’s different because it’s a civilian case? Why? WHAT PREVENTS THE SAME CHARGE BEING APPLIED?

    Because federal law and the UCMJ are not the same thing. They are two different sets of laws with their own definitions and apply to different sets of people. “Aiding the enemy” under the UCMJ has a different definition than it does under, say, the AUMF. For one thing, the AUMF specifies that “the enemy” refers only to al-Qaeda, and that same language is maintained in this legislation. The UCMJ has no such limitation — “the enemy” is whomever the military says it is.

    I don’t know how many other ways I can explain it to you. Worrying that Occupy protesters can be prosecuted for “aiding the enemy” because that’s what Manning is being charged with is like worrying that Occupy protesters will be prosecuted for making speeches because military personnel can be prosecuted for making a speech in their uniform and thus falsely implying that their service branch endorses what they’re saying.

  305. 305
    different-church-lady says:

    @gaz: Only using Occam’s razor, of course.

  306. 306
    Snowball says:

    @Spectre:

    Melissa Harris-Perry (unpopular authoritarina defender of Obama) v. Cenk Uygar (popular left-liberal, not a radical).

    Apples and oranges since one hosted a show and the other person was simply a recurring guest.

    But I do know that whenever Cenk was on at MSNBC, he always went out of his way to criticize Obama (If I wanted to hear criticism of our Democratic President, I can get that just fine at FoxNews) So, I eventually stopped watching his show and turned to CNN instead. His ratings ended up being horrible and this why his show was cancelled.

  307. 307
    Spectre says:

    @different-church-lady:

    Blog don’t give a shit. Blog just takes what he wants.

    You can get a lot of clicks by putting up viral sensations like “2 Girls 1 cup”, I still wouldn’t recommend it for a political blog that wants to maintain credibility though.

  308. 308
    gaz says:

    @Bruce S: When it’s called for, I am. I won’t apologize for that.

    You were the asshole first, by trying to derail an otherwise good thread.

    (Which you are *still* doing, and which, since I’ve allowed myself to be dragged into it with you, I’ve decided to pie you, for the sake of my own sanity, and the sake of the thread)

  309. 309
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Spectre:

    Melissa Harris-Perry (unpopular authoritarina defender of Obama) v. Cenk Uygar (popular left-liberal, not a radical).

    I’m sorry, the major networks are running shows where there are 4 Republicans to every 1 Democrat and you think that the true representation of Democrats in the American media is Harris-Perry vs. Uygar? Seriously?

    ETA: Remember where I said you seem to think that anyone with any minute amount of power has exactly the same amount of influence as David Koch? This is what I’m talking about.

  310. 310
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    Maybe someone can give me some positive spin on throwing cancer victims under the Federal Bus…Is it such a stretch to see citizens detained without benefit of law?

    http://articles.latimes.com/20.....n-20111007

  311. 311
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn:

    Tell me, what stops President Obama, or God forbid President Gingrich from applying the same standard to an American citizen whistleblower here in the states?

    Um, the fact that American citizens are specifically exempted from the provisions of the bill, and that anything that could have been done vis-a-vis targeting Manning could have been done long before this bill was drawn up? Seriously, see Serwer.

  312. 312
    gaz says:

    @Benjamin Franklin: No it’s not a stretch.

    And on that specific point, I agree with many of the people here.

    But again. it’s already the status quo. The bill doesn’t change that. At worst it codifies existing executive power (bad, but codification of executive power is not that important, it’s codified by default, see pretty much the entire history of the various War Powers Act(s), and executive violations thereof reaching all the way back (at least) to FDR)…

    And at best, it lays the framework for maybe limiting this executive power. But I think it’s overly optimistic to think that that will happen.

    For Obama’s part – he should probably be taking the fight to a veto. But he wont. He probably figured the threat of veto (followed by a retraction) was enough. Because he’s a nancy when it comes to playing political hardball. He doesn’t do it well, when he does it at all. A little more LBJ, and a little less Carter would do wonders for his election chances, I think. But he’ll not do it, then probably wonder why half his base is running away from him come 2012.

    The bill as a whole SUCKS. But it sucks for the same reason that the current status quo sucks.

  313. 313
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Spectre: I hate to break it to you, but Melissa Harris-Perry is, from her credentials to her style to her appearance, INFINITELY more appealing as a media figure than Cenk Uygur. The former is a pretty, witty professor and author. The latter is a guy with a deep voice and a huge head.

  314. 314
    NR says:

    @gaz:

    Interpreting the bill to the letter, you can see from the existing comments here (and at the various sources for the bill info) that it explicitly lays out who is covered under the bill. People engaged in aiding Al-Qaeda, or associated entities, etc.

    And who gets to decide if you’re “aiding Al-Qaeda?” The president, that’s who. He doesn’t have to convict you of a crime, he doesn’t have to get any kind of judicial review, he doesn’t have to accord you any due process at all. The president says you’re aiding Al-Qaeda and off you go to indefinite detention and that’s that. Checks and balances, who needs them?

    Do people seriously not get that sooner or later, this power will be abused? Because it will. It won’t just be used against terrorists (or even suspected terrorists).

    It will be used to settle scores.

    It will be used to quash dissent.

    It will be used to extract concessions from political opposition–sometimes major ones.

    Because even if you trust Obama completely, this power is going to continue to rest in the Oval Office long after he’s left it.

    And lest anyone accuse me of focusing too much on Obama, I’ve said for years that the time for the Democrats to rein in this kind of presidential abuse of power was four years ago, when they controlled both houses of Congress and the president was a lame duck with an approval rating in the 20s.

    That was in 2007. It is now four years later. And there is not one thing that has happened in the realm of “national security” policy that is a break with past practices.

    So much for change.

  315. 315
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @Mnemosyne

    Where to begin.

    “For one thing, the AUMF specifies that “the enemy” refers only to al-Qaeda, and that same language is maintained in this legislation.”

    WRONG.

    The NDAA has added to the al Qaeda and Taliban language to include “or associated forces 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

    I’ll ask again, what would stop a current or future POTUS from interpreting the actions of a domestic whistleblower the same way the military did with Manning???? WHAT PREVENTS IT????? Nothing. Zippo.

    Tell me, what stops President Gingrich from determining a civilian whistleblower committed a “belligerent act” and therefore “aided the enemy”? Please enlighten me as to what mechanism prevents President Gingrich from taking that course of action? Name it.

  316. 316
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Benjamin Franklin:

    Yeah, sorry, this was one of those “no there there” stories. Even the defenders of the dispensaries were defending them on economic grounds, not patient’s rights.

    We had a bunch of shady dispensaries, and they got themselves shut down because they weren’t complying with California law. There’s no general crackdown on closing all dispensaries.

  317. 317
    Binky the consumer bear says:

    @ABL: Does awful=incompatible with the constitution? The Milt Shook thing is just a lot of hopium that will be obliterated the next time we find an American citizen disappeared to some third world hellhole who will subcontract torture services?

    I have never seen a more explicit demand to exchange liberty for security, and I’m starting to think the really delusional progressives aren’t the firebaggers.

  318. 318
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn:

    I’ll ask again, what would stop a current or future POTUS from interpreting the actions of a domestic whistleblower the same way the military did with Manning???? WHAT PREVENTS IT????? Nothing. Zippo.

    Other than the specific language in the statute that says it cannot be applied to a US citizen or a legal resident of the US.

    But other than that, your hysteria is totally justified.

  319. 319
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @gaz: From a coldly political perspective, there’s little that Obama would stand to gain by vetoing on grounds of principle. And, frankly, I’m sure that when someone becomes the executive and sees first-hand how aggravating and inept the legislative branch really is, he starts to want to work around their nonsense by any means necessary.

    I think it would be interesting for an interviewer to ask Obama about whether his views on executive power have shifted since he took office, and, if so, what would explain that shift.

  320. 320
    gaz says:

    @NR: I never said I supported the bill.

    I was answering a question from a previous commenter.

    I’m well aware of the dangers of the current status quo. Which the bill doesn’t change.

    And I am no supporter of it.

    (My criticisms on this thread are primarily directed at the misrepresentation of the effects of the bill, and secondarily, the inexplicable ignorance of people who think that the bill somehow changes our currently fuxored status quo)

    For like the eleventybillionth time, I do not support the bill, nor the current precedent, which is basically what the bill serves to describe and codify…

  321. 321
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @flipyrwhig

    “Um, the fact that American citizens are specifically exempted from the provisions of the bill”

    Except that’s not true. The REQUIRMENT to detain is not applicable, thus making it a choice instead of a requirement. President Gingrich has that choice.

  322. 322
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @NR: That’s a valid way to approach the subject, I think, but your critique would still be something more like “Obama should have ended these practices but instead left them in place” as opposed to “Obama did something entirely new and uniquely ominous”.

  323. 323
    Observer says:

    @FlipYrWhig: In general, I don’t this is the right way to view the bill.

    Life isn’t a debating class. If a president in your opinion “violates” some part of some law what’s really going to happen? Well either one of two things: people in power get all pissed off and force the POTUS to back down or people in power don’t.

    It’s a country of 300+ million people, and no one with power (guns or a SCOTUS seat or a vote in Congress) cares what you think, really. It doesn’t matter if your arguments here prevail in any technical sense.

    So the question to be asked about the bill isn’t whether the technical wording is this or that; the question to ask is what is the intent of the bill in terms of influencing how people in power are going to react. And it’s pretty clear that the intent of the bill is to give enough “ammunition” to those who are going to support the POTUS if/when an American citizen does in fact get put into indefinite detention.

    So it should be crystal clear (at least to anyone who isn’t naive) what’s going to actually happen the next time a POTUS wants to put someone in the slammer who they brand a “terrorist” and who also happens to be an American citizen.

    No one is going to listen to you as you run to court to file some sort of constitutional grievance and hope it gets heard. EDIT: And this isn’t personal, no one is going to listen to me neither.

  324. 324
    Donut says:

    I’m not bothering to read this thread. But I also know that I went to the link supplied by ABL, and MILT SHOOK opens the piece with, “One of the most galling things about the professional left is the number of times they lie to make a point.”

    Okay.

    So it takes the writer 1,648 words to get to A SINGLE CITATION of said pro left lying about the bill.

    Uh…something is wrong there. I’m not reading the piece. Sorry, ABL, you wanna start a flame war, you should at least come at it with better-sourced stuff than this.

    I’m willing to listen to the self-identified Obots and the ‘professional Left’ both, and I don’t identify with either “side” – but I’m not reading what looks like a 2,000 word post about the so-called lies of the professional Left that only cites one Greenwald article.

    Fucking lame.

  325. 325
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @Mnemosyne

    “Other than the specific language in the statute that says it cannot be applied to a US citizen or a legal resident of the US.”

    Except that’s simply not true.

    It states the REQUIREMENT to detain does not apply to U.S. citizens. You understand what the word requirement means? It means President Gingrich isn’t compelled to detain that American citizen whistleblower, but he still could if he chose to do so. The bill codifies that right into law.

  326. 326
    gaz says:

    @FlipYrWhig: I’d certainly love to see that interview.

    I’ve been wanting to hear detailed description of Obama’s eleventh dimensional chess tactics for some time.

    I’d also hope it was open forum, so people could ask him why he keeps playing the same kind of game, even though it’s proven not to work.

    I’d like to understand also, why he seems to think bipartisanship is so damned important, despite the fact that he knows one party is currently being driven by nothing more than bad faith and a prayer. As does most of the electorate, and definitely most of his base.

    See Charlie, Lucy, Football…

    These are questions I’ve wanted answers to for quite some time.

  327. 327
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn: That’s just false. See Serwer as I linked above, and read the plain language of the bill. You’re getting tripped up by restatements of what the implications are by usually trustworthy interpreters who have botched this one.

  328. 328
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    I’m looking at the bill right now. The language is clear to me.

    I’ll read the Serwer piece now and see what he has to say…

  329. 329
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Your link to Serwer didn’t open.

  330. 330
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Found the article. Not compelling at all.

    Serwer: “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 key words in that are “nothing in this section…”

    In this section. That section is a different one from the one I’ve been listing.

  331. 331
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Observer:

    So the question to be asked about the bill isn’t whether the technical wording is this or that; the question to ask is what is the intent of the bill in terms of influencing how people in power are going to react. And it’s pretty clear that the intent of the bill is to give enough “ammunition” to those who are going to support the POTUS if/when an American citizen does in fact get put into indefinite detention.

    I dispute that. The intent of the bill is clearly to keep terrorist suspects in a weird legal limbo so that they don’t have the rights and protections normal criminal defendants have. The bill seems to envision a rather bright line between terrorists and Americans. Without conceding that any of this is appropriate as a means of combating terrorism — it isn’t — the scenario you envision has nothing to do with this bill, is actually specifically excluded from this bill, and to the degree that it’s at all a legitimate concern, it arises from notions of executive power and the broad scope of the AUMF for Afghanistan, both of which have been issues for a decade.

  332. 332
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    “The bill seems to envision a rather bright line between terrorists and Americans.”

    I have no idea how you can come to this conclusion. The exemption cited by Serwer applies only to the specific section in which it appeared. In a completely different section lives the language I have posted already on this thread, which could very easily apply to a civilian citizen whistleblower. In THAT section, U.S. citizens are not REQUIRED to be detained, which means it is merely an option. That means President Gingrich has the option to designate a civilian whistleblower as someone who committed a “belligerent act” and therefore have the option of detaining that person based on the language in this bill.

  333. 333
    Groucho48 says:

    I tried to skim through the bill, but, didn’t get very far. So, maybe an example could clear things up for me.

    Let’s consider Martin Luther king. He had a couple of commies as advisers. If, in this amendment, “al-Qaeda” was replaced with “dirty, rotten commies”, what would this bill permit the government to do to MLK, or, say, a Freedom Rider, which it doesn’t already have the power to do?

  334. 334
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    The hard problem here is that no one, US Citizen or not, should ever be “indefinitely detained” by the US government under any circumstances without due process of law, which means charging them with something and then setting a date to try them.

    Otherwise, we’ve taken the step of ignoring due process as outlined by the Founders, and welcome to a Kafkaesque nightmare.

  335. 335
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    That’s the cover story. When prop 19 was on the ballot, Holder made sure everyone knew Fed law would still be enforced.

    Reducing the number of dispensaries reduces access, as well, making it harder for the poorer folks to get the meds.,,,, unintended. consequence

  336. 336
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn: Oh, I see. Nonetheless, president Gingrich would have been able to act on that power irrespective of the bill. So my first answer about it not applying to Americans was overstated, but I would still say that the bill itself has not created any new power to do what you describe.

  337. 337
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn: (

    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.

    Yeah, in other words. Government whistleblowers. I see your point.

  338. 338
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Groucho48:

    If, in this amendment, “al-Qaeda” was replaced with “dirty, rotten commies”, what would this bill permit the government to do to MLK, or, say, a Freedom Rider, which it doesn’t already have the power to do?

    No. Everyone from Greenwald to Marcy Wheeler to Adam Serwer seems to agree that American citizens cannot be detained under this law. The only person who seems to think they can be is Fed Up in Brooklyn.

  339. 339
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    “Nonetheless, president Gingrich would have been able to act on that power irrespective of the bill”

    How so? The language in this bill expanded those who can be detained from the previous law. What gives you the idea that it was codified in the first place??? Specifically in the case of the hypothetical whistleblower?

  340. 340
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn: Our answers crossed in the ether, but my view would be that such an act would be invoked by someone warping the intention of the AUMF or taking a skewed view of the executive power delineated in the Constitution (like John Yoo does), rather than having anything to do with this particular bill. Someone with an expansive, authoritarian view of the executive branch could endorse kidnapping a whistleblower on trumped-up charges of aiding terrorists well before this bill, and this bill neither restrains or widens those powers.

  341. 341
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    That’s the weaksauce defense that can be made for the bill — by codifying indefinite detention, it at least sets up parameters like requiring an annual review of the cases and a mechanism to transfer cases to civilian or military courts, as opposed to the current situation.

    I will not defend the bill, but that’s the one logical defense I’ve seen.

  342. 342
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Suffern ACE: I think Fed Up is envisioning someone being railroaded on fake terrorist connections to silence them. IMHO that’s been a risk for years and this bill doesn’t add to it — or lessen it.

  343. 343
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    I still have not seen a cogent rebuttal from you on this. Just saying something isn’t true, absent any evidence isn’t compelling. And no, not everyone believes U.S. Citizens can’t be detained. The ACLU, for example, disagrees with your fact-free assertions.

  344. 344
    gaz says:

    @Groucho48:

    what would this bill permit the government to do …. which it doesn’t already have the power to do?

    (I edited your quote, for clarity).

    It doesn’t authorize the government to do anything the executive can’t already do. At least not in any significant sense.

    Executive power has already been extended (starting under Bush) to allow for this. The bill doesn’t really expand that, nor does it remove that. It basically just codifies it.

    I’m not defending that bill, nor the executive power the WH already HAS. But the bill doesn’t actually change anything of consequence.

  345. 345
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Disagree. The actual wording of this bill provides cover for such an action.

  346. 346
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    The only person who seems to think they can be is Fed Up in Brooklyn.

    ‘Can be..’ is the equivalent of possible and it is certainly possible this has not been walked back far enough if there should be some sort of National excusecould turn the possibility into a reality.

  347. 347
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn: How does this law expand anything? To a Cheney-Yoo minded person, the executive has always had these powers; to others, the Afghanistan AUMF confers them on anyone associated with terrorism. I don’t see how this law broadens that category any further. Frankly, I don’t think it _could_ be expanded any further.

  348. 348
    Observer says:

    @FlipYrWhig:
    Bills don’t have intent. People do. And it’s pretty clear how the people with power are going to interpret this: the same way they’ve interpreted every other “ambiguously worded” national security bill.

    This isn’t Sunday school. You know why this bill is getting created and you know what the outcome is. And you know how the players on the field are going to use the bill.

    And if your job was in the national security sector, you know exactly what message is being sent here because it’s the same message that’s been sent since 9/11: “do what you need to do, we’ve got your back.”

    The current political process requires somewhat ambiguously worded bills so that technocrat lefties such as Serwer can argue the letter of the law and intent and all that. This allows everyone’s conscience to be clear and all good Dems can now “tut tut” under their breath about “evil Republicans” and can now continue believe in their man while they cover themselves with the fig leaf that was so generously left in the bill for them to use.

    But everybody in room with power knows exactly what’s going on here.

  349. 349
    gaz says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Too right.

    See Unlawful Combatant. See Jose Padilla (US citizen) for example.

    This is already in place, in terms of WH power. It just wasn’t codified by the legislative branch. Until now.

  350. 350
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @gaz:

    “It doesn’t authorize the government to do anything the executive can’t already do.”

    That isn’t true. The language in this bill has expanded those who can be detained from the previous law. Yes, it codifies what Bush and Obama already think they can do, but now they have the legal cover of the new wording in this law, which naturally expands that assumed power.

  351. 351
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn: I’m rather sure it doesn’t, but YMMV.

  352. 352
    gaz says:

    @Observer:

    The current political process requires somewhat ambiguously worded bills

    Actually, no.

    All of this power to detain, torture, etc… for the past decade or so, it’s all come from the Executive Branch. No Law was in fact, necessary.

  353. 353
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @gaz:

    Guys… Padilla fell under the wording of the previous law. A whistleblower wouldn’t have fallen under that wording. That same whistleblower WOULD be subject to detention based on the NEW wording in THIS version of the law. It’s different. It expands the power beyond Jose Padilla and co.

  354. 354
    gaz says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn:

    Yes, it codifies what Bush and Obama already think they can do.

    FTFY

    Haven’t seen much legal blowback for indefinite detention so far. What makes you think things are so different than they have been since 9/11? And yes – it’s already been applied to US citizens in the past. Again Jose Padilla. Terrorist or not, I don’t care. Someone called him an unlawful combatant. And that was that. Pretty soon he’s shipped off to brig on a ship just off the coast of virginia. No oversight, no nothing…

    And then there’s manning… and and and… etc

  355. 355
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    You just need to simply compare the wording from the original 2001 AUMF to the new version to see the expanded definitions in the latest monstrosity. It’s right there in black and white.

  356. 356
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Observer: Um, the bill is crafted to combat terrorists, not to suppress dissent under the cloak of combatting terrorists. I don’t think it’s at all necessary to create a parallel justice system for terrorists, but the sinister implications you see are at most an aftereffect, far fom being the whole point, as you seem to be alleging. It’s not the Alien and Sedition Acts redux.

  357. 357
    Spectre says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    So?

    So if a blogger is loyal to a person over an idea, then it admits dishonesty when invoking principle.

  358. 358
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @gaz:

    Remember, Padilla’s case was about to reach the Supreme Court when the government finally charged him to avoid the court reviewing the legality of his detention. There’s been blowback, but unfortunately, the power of the administration is pretty strong and they have fought like hell.

  359. 359
    gaz says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn: Interesting point, and you made it as I was typing my previous reply.

    Care to cite though? I didn’t catch the whistle blower part.

    Has a section? Sorry if you already said it somewhere above. The thread is massive at this point.

  360. 360
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    “Um, the bill is crafted to combat terrorists, not to suppress dissent under the cloak of combatting terrorists.”

    Yet the WORDING in the bill allows great latitude as to who can fall under its grip. That’s the problem. We can’t assume all our leaders in the future will stick to the “intent” of the law even when it gives them enormously expansive powers to apply it to numerous people who have nothing to do with terrorism.

  361. 361
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn: I can’t tell who you’re envisioning as a “whistleblower” anymore. Do you mean someone who never has had any association with a terrorist organization but is saying inconvenient things, so the government cooks up false charges to shut him up? Because that would be a risk of the whole “enemy combatant” thing and the idea of secret evidence and fewer legal protections in such cases.

  362. 362
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @gaz:

    Original AUMF wording:

    “That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

    The new wording, as posted above, expands on who can fall under the grip of this law.

  363. 363
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn:

    As far as I can tell, the ACLU has not actually delivered an opinion on the final bill. This is what’s on their website:

    Leading members of Congress have already indicated that they believe that these provisions could be used by this and any future president to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial — even American citizens and others picked up within the borders of the United States.

    That’s not, “ACLU lawyers have read this and this is their opinion.” That’s, “Some members of Congress are saying this.”

    Once the ACLU’s lawyers have read it, I fully expect them to continue to be just as scathing as they already have been since they don’t think that non-citizens should be indefinitely detained, either, but at least as of right now, the ACLU doesn’t seem to have determined that American citizens would be subject to the revised bill’s provisions like you’re claiming.

  364. 364
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    Still waiting for a single rebuttal to my numerous fact-filled posts. Holding my breath beginning…. now.

  365. 365
    gaz says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Precisely what I see here too.

    Any time there was a legal challenge, they had the option of sweeping everything away from public view under Executive Privilege/National Security.

    The fact that they didn’t ALWAYS do so doesn’t mean much to me. I think whether or not they decided to do so or not was more a function of political calculus than it was any sort of fear of actual legal repercussion. John Yoo (among others) pretty much gave them as much leeway as they wanted (see the torture memos, rationalizations)

    They had the power to stomp all over the law. They didn’t always do it. But nothing was really stopping them if they wanted it bad enough.

  366. 366
    Corner Stone says:

    Sorry, I was in the other room mainlining hopium. I’ll come back through this cluster foxtrot shortly.

    And anyone responding to Capt Mnemo? She’s a congenital liar who is incapable of actually responding lucidly to questions/posts.
    I’d castigate her further but she is simply not right in the head and can not help herself. She’s perfectly off her nut.

  367. 367
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    Manning was a whistleblower.

    Thank you Wikileaks.

    http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_n.....rotections

  368. 368
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn: The wording in this bill doesn’t appear to me to be any more expansive than the AUMF was. Here’s the language of the AUMF:

    those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.

    Here’s what I find in your section (second hand via Wikipedia)

    who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces

    What am I missing? The turn from 9/11 to the organizations themselves?

  369. 369
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Imagine a civilian Bradley Manning. the new language could easily apply to him, whereas the original couldn’t.

  370. 370
    gaz says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn: Maybe.

    Under the old regime, he simply would have been swept up in a military tribunal, held in secret, where he couldn’t review the charges against him because of executive privilege national security concerns. I CAN HAZ TURKEEE!

    All they needed was a razor thin veneer of bad acts on manning’s part. Could have easily cooked that up by saying he was leaking info to the enemy. Done and done.

    Maybe the particular machinations have changed, but for any real intent – this is the same as it was under Bush.

  371. 371
    FlipYrWhig says:

    Ok, from above:

    (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.

    I don’t see anything there that could justly apply to a whistleblower. Sure it could be used on trumped-up charges, but that was already a risk. I guess it depends on the statutory meaning of “belligerent act” and “direct support.”

  372. 372
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn: He could say that civilian Manning was aiding an organization that was linked to 9/11. That’s the kind of thing that has been done with the AUMF. I don’t see a significant difference there. Maybe the shift from a 9/11 focus to the ongoing or subsequent terrorist acts of those who had earlier planned 9/11.

  373. 373
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    The original clearly linked to those who committed the 9/11 attacks. The new language has an important difference:

    “or associated forces 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”

    We have already seen the U.S. government charge a whistleblower, who had no connection to any terror group, with “aiding the enemy.” His name was Bradley Manning. Regardless of whether he was in the military or a civilian, it shows you clearly how easy it is to label a whistleblower as someone “aiding the enemy.” That language is new to the current bill. Additionally, what exactly constitutes an “associated force”???? Does anyone know? that’s new too. It’s vague enough to be interpreted by any POTUS in any number of ways and the way Manning has been tied to “the enemy,” is a scary real life example. He fell under military law, and now a civilian can easily be labeled in the same way, under the same circumstances.

  374. 374
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    Both sides of this argument have valid points.

    The question is; Which side will be interpreting, refining this thing?

    There’s the Rub…

  375. 375
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    Question: Do you think the Obama administration sees Wikileaks as “an associated force engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners”?

  376. 376
    gaz says:

    @Benjamin Franklin: The only refinement this bill needs can be performed with some gas and zippo.

    Ditto for the executive power that already does the same thing

  377. 377
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    In other words, we know Wikileaks isn’t tied in any way to those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, but would anyone be surprised to see the Obama administration place Wikileaks under the banner of an “associated force engaged in hostilities,” or one which is committing “belligerent acts”??? I wouldn’t.

  378. 378
    Corner Stone says:

    @Knockabout:

    I think we’re all in agreement here that BJ has gone sharply downhill, and that Cole’s recent additions (out of guilt, I would suspect) were a grievous error.

    Well, if by that you mean ABL, Zander and soonergrunt, then yes, obviously.

  379. 379
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    Well, I’ve made my case and am now exhausted. Nice chatting with (most of) you. Cheers

  380. 380
    Corner Stone says:

    @Bruce S:

    Mnemosyne – you really don’t get it, do you?

    No. She lacks the capability.

  381. 381
    Corner Stone says:

    @Knockabout:

    or are we not aware we’re being played by ABL for page views again?

    Surprisingly, she has yet to cross post to her clown site. Which is kind of the MO.
    She shits out something with a big C&P, and then says there’s more at her Angry Clown Blog.

  382. 382
    Corner Stone says:

    @different-church-lady: I’m able to read something independent of polemicists and arrive at my own conclusion.

  383. 383
    Corner Stone says:

    @gaz:

    Yep. Trying to put a stop to the nonsense, I was told GTFOOH.

    You flat out lied about what the post subject matter was.

  384. 384
    Corner Stone says:

    @El Cid:

    What kind of law would need to be passed regarding issues of detention for me to worry about it?

    One passed by not-Obama, natch.

  385. 385
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn:

    Still waiting for an actual fact-filled post from you and not a bunch of hysterical speculation that’s not backed up by anything from Greenwald, Wheeler, Serwer, or the ACLU. But it sounds like I’m going to have a long wait.

    ETA: And, really, yet another person who doesn’t understand that the US military has its own laws that it is allowed to apply to its members like Bradley Manning that can’t be applied to civilians? Really?

  386. 386
    Corner Stone says:

    @Spectre:

    ABL attacked people, not arguments, thus ABL gets discredited. Good.

    She very quickly retreated to her Echo Chamber. And Cole has no stomach to take down her shitty post.
    So, mission accomplished.

  387. 387
    Corner Stone says:

    @Knockabout:

    and Zandar’s not bright enough to do anything but lose his own argument.

    Zander’s too worried about the DRONES EEEEEERRRRYYYWHERE!!

  388. 388
    Corner Stone says:

    @El Cid:

    The point is, just don’t say too much about it. You could do a lot of damage that way.

    Could it potentially cost an election, do you think?

  389. 389
    gaz says:

    When the trolls start jacking each other off is it safe to say the thread is finished?

  390. 390
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    @Glenn Greenwald:

    I love the fact that you’re so invested in your bullshit that you have to cruise the internets and make sure that anybody who disagrees with you knows what you think of them. Oh, and that they are WRONG and you are RIGHT!!

    One problem with that plan is that the people you are calling names have to actually give a shit about what you have to say about them and that your approach is one guaranteed to piss people off. The second problem for you is that you’re being childish in your assessment, analysis and response to this. Rather than looking rationally at this and discussing the various aspects of it and what they could mean (in a serious manner), you chose to dive off the deep end into black helicopter airspace.

    IMO you could do better but I really don’t think you want to.

  391. 391
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    yet another person who doesn’t understand that the US military has its own laws that it is allowed to apply to its members like Bradley Manning that can’t be applied to civilians? Really?

    Thar she blows….Really? You think this is carved in stone, immutable?

    To not see the flexibility in fluid situations is well, conservative.

  392. 392
    gaz says:

    @Odie Hugh Manatee: As certain as I am that this is untrue, I’d like to believe that my response to his mendacious bullshit was too much for him, and then he bailed. heh.

    Of course, we’re aware of all internet traditions. And that includes the traditional drive-by trolling by Glenn Greenwald, so I’m sure he just had to get his rocks off and bolt.

    What a fucking insecure loser.

  393. 393
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    @Odie Hugh Manatee:

    Sounds personal…carry on.

  394. 394
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Benjamin Franklin:

    Thar she blows….Really? You think this is carved in stone, immutable?

    Could there potentially be a law written someday that would treat civilian whistleblowers the way FUIB fears? Sure, there could be. Who knows what future laws will be written?

    Is this specific law it? As far as I can tell, no. So claiming that civilians can be treated the same way Manning is being treated because the charges against Manning from the UCMJ include wording that is similar to this law is either hysterical hyperbole or a complete misunderstanding of what law is being applied to Manning.

  395. 395
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    @gaz:

    GG’s done his drive-by schtick here in the past, always in the same manner. SSDD for GG.

    @Benjamin Franklin:

    Gee, thanks for the observation and advice that follows it. I could have been lost, wandering around in the wilderness forever, wondering what to do if not for your advice. You’ve saved the day for me.

    What a hero.

  396. 396
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    I think this is the crux of the disagreement. You are arguing on the basis of
    this bill; examining with a microscope. The other side is arguing there is too much faith in this latest legal minimalism. The entire concept should have been walked back, so that it would be made more difficult to let loose the Dogs of War.

    We’re arguing about window-dressing, instead of looking through the window.

  397. 397
    burnspbesq says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn:

    Folks, we’ve already seen Bradley Manning charged with “aiding the enemy”. Was he a member or supporter of some official terrorist organization? Not that anyone knows of. Did that stop him from being charged with “aiding the enemy”? No.

    Nor should it. That’s not an element of the offense under the applicable provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    Tell me, what stops President Obama, or God forbid President Gingrich from applying the same standard to an American citizen whistleblower here in the states?

    Mnemosyme already explained this. If you’re one of the slow kids, I can explain it again.

  398. 398
    burnspbesq says:

    @Spectre:

    In this case not only is Greenwald’s criticism true

    Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

  399. 399
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    @Odie Hugh Manatee:

    You sounded pretty worked up. Sorry if I failed to lighten it.

  400. 400
    Corner Stone says:

    There are entirely too many “My Guy” arguments being made in this thread.

  401. 401
    burnspbesq says:

    @NR:

    Guess what? The vote on the conference report, which is the only vote that matters, was 283-136. Do the math.

  402. 402
    NR says:

    @burnspbesq: Guess what? Two thirds of 435 is 290. Whee, math is fun!

  403. 403
    gaz says:

    @Odie Hugh Manatee:

    GG’s done his drive-by schtick here in the past, always in the same manner. SSDD for GG

    Precisely what I was saying. It’s an Internet Tradition(tm)

  404. 404
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Benjamin Franklin:

    Hey, if people want to have a philosophical discussion about the direction our laws should be going in, they shouldn’t start it by insisting that a specific law on the table has provisions that it doesn’t.

    In fact, the whole problem with the Greenwaldian “attack from hyperbole” is that it takes so long to parse out the difference between what’s actually in the bill and what the potential long-term effects of new legislation that would later be based on the bill that no one cares anymore by the time we finally get to the, “Well, okay, maybe that stuff isn’t actually in the bill, but it could be in a future bill, so we need to stop this one.”

  405. 405
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @burnspbesq

    My god, how dumb are some of you? I already explained, in detail, how the new language could be easily applied to civilian whistleblowers. The Manning example, obvious to anyone with a functioning brain, was merely an extrapolation. Even if Manning didn’t exist, the new language could be applied to a civilian version of Manning and wikileaks. This has been explained over and over and I keep getting the idiotic and completely irrelevant response which simply points out that Manning is in the military. No shit. Learn to read and comprehend.

    I’ll dumb it down for the slow children in the room:

    Would it surprise you if the Obama administration accused wikileaks of being an enemy of the united states? And further would it shock you if the administration then claimed wikileaks is engaged in “belligerent acts” against us? If you have a brain, the answer is no to both questions. Therefore, according to the new language in this version of the law, anyone who gave classified information to wikileaks, even civilians, would be violating this law and subject to the OPTION of being detained by the military. How difficult is this?

  406. 406
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    @Benjamin Franklin:

    If you thought that was me being worked up then… wow. You new here? ;) It was an accurate description of how I view GG, his inflaming style of writing and how he comes across to people like me. I have agreed with GG in the past (gasp!) and have actually enjoyed reading some of his better material, but he has gone off the rails over the past few years over Obama.

    I’m one of the people that GG could be seriously speaking to except that GG is no longer serious.

  407. 407
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    “Well, okay, maybe that stuff isn’t actually in the bill, but it could be in a future bill, so we need to stop this one.”

    Looking for gnat turds in rat scat accomplishes little, except as a distraction

    Maybe that’s the set-up, making us all double-chumps.

  408. 408
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn: It also seems pretty clear from the wording that hostile or belligerent groups or individuals refer to those that are related to al Qaeda and the Taliban and not “any sundry hositle groups that we deem fit.”

  409. 409
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    @Odie Hugh Manatee:

    I see. You have a history with GG. I have none, except the comments I’ve made to him which came back as undeliverable.

  410. 410
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @Mnemosyne

    I already showed, in detail, what is IN THE BILL can be applied to a civilian whistleblower here in the U.S.

    Willful ignorance on your part doesn’t negate that fact.

  411. 411
    gaz says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn: My only disagreement with you is your (presumption?, implication?) that this couldn’t have all gone down before the bill was passed.

    The power was already in place, was already used, and already exists.

    That’s pretty much the area where I disagree with you.

    Bush and his brownshirts were fully capable of locking up anybody they wanted to – for however long they wanted to.

    I’m not disagreeing with your premise that certain details of how it is done have changed. That’s pretty plain.

    But as far as you maintaining that this somehow couldn’t have gone down without this bill? no. can. and did. with or without it. Also you seem to be almost singularly focusing on the AUMF. That’s not the whole of this crap. There were multiple mechanisms in place to ensure that the executive could do whatever the hell they wanted.

    Also, the civil courts have very limited ability to weigh in on this, because most of it is under the purview of the military law. Furthermore, blanket executive privilege was regularly used to prevent oversight, and nothing ever stopped them from employing it if they wanted the courts out of their hair… okay, maybe it was slightly inconvenient for them, but not by much.

    I don’t fundamentally disagree with MOST of your position. But I really think you are misrepresenting the state of things prior to this bill.

  412. 412
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn:

    This has been explained over and over and I keep getting the idiotic and completely irrelevant response which simply points out that Manning is in the military.

    No, what we keep pointing out is that Manning is being prosecuted under military law, which is different than civilian law.

    Therefore, according to the new language in this version of the law, anyone who gave classified information to wikileaks, even civilians, would be violating this law and subject to the OPTION of being detained by the military.

    Wow. I’m not even sure how to argue against the awesome “logic” presented here. I think you may need to look up what the actual legal definition of “belligerent acts” is before you dig yourself any deeper — it does have an actual legal definition. It’s not just, “Julian Assange is an asshole.”

  413. 413
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @Suffern ACE:

    That’s your interpretation from the vague wording, which can quite easily be interpreted differently by President Gingrich.

    Why are so many people actually defending this draconian law? It boggles the mind. You realize Obama won’t be president forever, right?

  414. 414
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @Suffern ACE:

    That’s your interpretation from the vague wording, which can quite easily be interpreted differently by President Gingrich.

    Why are so many people actually defending this draconian law? It boggles the mind. You realize Obama won’t be president forever, right?

  415. 415
    Knockabout says:

    So far I count at least half a dozen commenters here in this thread who have better rhetorical skills and more cogent arguments than any of the last batch of most recent front pagers have written in months.

    Trying to figure out why ABL, Zandar or Soonergrunt are even here.

  416. 416
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn:

    Because it’s not some brand-new draconian law. It codifies some things that are already covered by other laws, but it doesn’t actually create any of the new things you’re trying to claim it does.

    It’s not “defending” something to point out that it already exists and you’re being ridiculous to insist that this is the Worstest and Most Unprecendentest Law Evah!

  417. 417
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    “Belligerant acts’. There’s usually a ‘rain barrel’ clause in legislation. You know, in case they forgot something.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/pol.....lly/37116/

    Any suspected unprivileged enemy belligerents considered a “high-value detainee” shall not be provided with a Miranda warning.

    The bill asks the President to determine criteria for designating an individual as a “high-value detainee” if he/she: (1) poses a threat of an attack on civilians or civilian facilities within the U.S. or U.S. facilities abroad; (2) poses a threat to U.S. military personnel or U.S. military facilities; (3) potential intelligence value; (4) is a member of al Qaeda or a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda or (5) such other matters as the President considers appropriate. The President must submit the regulations and guidance to the appropriate committees of Congress no later than 60 days after enactment.

    To the extent possible, the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Team must make a preliminary determination whether the detainee is an unprivileged enemy belligerent within 48 hours of taking detainee into custody.

  418. 418
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn: That language isn’t vague. Nor murky.

    In order to defend or attack this damn bill, I would like to know what it is and I’m not interested in doing that while people are shouting at me that the sky has fallen.

  419. 419
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Benjamin Franklin:

    Dude. You realize that refers to the McCain/Lieberman bill from a year and a half ago and not the current bill, right?

  420. 420
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    Holy sweet Jesus. Forget manning. Okay? Forget I mentioned him. You are literally too dumb to understand the nuance of the manning example, so I’ll retract it before my head explodes.

    I’ll make it even easier for you. Would it shock you if President Gingrich labeled wikileaks an enemy of the US engaged in “hostilities”? Simple question. That’s all it takes, chief. Therefore, a civilian, say a made up civilian named Madley Branning gave classified docs to that enemy. They would be eligible to be detained by the military. And as already shown, the US civilian exception pointed out by some is limited to one specific section of the bill. In a DIFFERENT section, Mr. Branning could be detained. This has been explained numerous times and has yet to receive a rebuttal from you.

  421. 421
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    Yes, I do. The point is ‘belligerant acts’ is VERY subjective, isn’t it?

  422. 422
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @Suffern ACE:

    Okay, I have no answer for that. To me, the language is clearly dangerously murky. To you, it’s clear. Impasse.

  423. 423
    gaz says:

    @Knockabout: FTR, I read Zandar’s blog on and off before he became an FP’er. I happened to enjoy it – sometimes. Mostly because it was funny.

    And despite my issues with ABL, I for one, am glad she’s here. Honestly, I don’t care for her polemic politics, and she has a tendency to go off half-cocked – OTOH she posts as *Angry* Black Lady, FFS, afaict it’s part of her schtick, and so I accept that. It has it’s ups and downs.

    Where she makes up for all of that, is bringing issues of marginalization, racism, othering, and sexism to the fore on this blog. Without her, there’d be a HUGE GAPING HOLE at BJ that a bunch of white guys, (and a few white women) simply can’t fill.

    Offering it up FWIW. I appreciate ABL, despite her flaws.

    Curious, though – that when you dismissed the “latest batch of FP’ers” you omitted Sarah, Proud and Tall – a powerhouse of wicked satire.

    Also, something I find equally curious, is your single minded devotion to commenting about how much BJ is going down hill, etc etc… esp on a thread that has nothing to do with that. Strikes me as trolling, but maybe you just don’t see how it comes across. It makes one wonder why you are so intent on reading and posting here, since it’s become such a cesspit.

    Shorter:
    You’re not gonna change anyone’s mind about BJ. Even if you could, what do *you* hope to gain from that? an FP spot? An apology from JC? a purge of the FP’s? Like that will happen. Furthermore, why are you even here?

  424. 424
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn:

    Would it shock you if President Gingrich labeled wikileaks an enemy of the US engaged in “hostilities”?

    Yes, because, again, “hostilities” has a specific meaning under US law, and it doesn’t include “releasing embarrassing documents on the internet.”

    Believe it or not, this is not the one and only law that exists in the United States. There’s an entire body of law that spells out what words like “hostilities” mean.

    Again, when I have Greenwald, Wheeler and Serwer on one side telling me one thing and you on the other side claiming something that none of them are claiming, I’m afraid that (much as it pains me), I have to side with Greenwald, Wheeler and Serwer.

  425. 425
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    First of all, you keep saying you have GG on your side, which is wrong. He’s been making the same case I am making. Secondly, this is the second recent post where you make a claim, yet provide no details. Please post the legal criteria for “hostilities” which proves me wrong. Thanks.

  426. 426
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Benjamin Franklin:

    The point is ‘belligerant acts’ is VERY subjective, isn’t it?

    Except that when you’re talking about federal law, it’s not actually subjective. It has a legal definition. It’s like the difference between how we use the word “theory” in everyday life and how scientists use the word “theory.” The word may be the same, but the definition is not.

  427. 427
    gaz says:

    @Mnemosyne: I’m not so sure “belligerent acts” has a concrete legal definition.

    If it does, I’d sure like to see it.

  428. 428
    El Tiburon says:

    @Odie Hugh Manatee:

    I love the fact that you’re so invested in your bullshit that you have to cruise the internets and make sure that anybody who disagrees with you knows what you think of them. Oh, and that they are WRONG and you are RIGHT!!

    What a dipshit you are.

    An influential blogger posts an article. A mid-level front-pager on another influential blog links to another article by a dipshit calling the influential blogger a liar.

    The influential blogger stops by to defend himself.

    Yet that is a bull-shit move according to O.D. Manatee?

  429. 429
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @gaz:

    Both belligerent acts and “hostilities” have numerous interpretations. Obama actually came up with a doozy in reverse when he claimed dropping bombs on Lydia wasn’t a belligerent act. Laughable.

  430. 430
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    Autocorrect is driving me insane, lol

  431. 431
    gaz says:

    @El Tiburon: There’s a phrase for what GG does. It’s called “drive-by trolling” and he does it quite a bit. Not just here. It’s one of the many reasons I have a hard time taking him seriously.

    OO’s post may have been shot through with some angry hyberbole, but he’s definitely right as far as GG’s habit of scouring the net to find people that disagree, so he can drop in, make a play, then bolt. I’m not sure precisely why he does that, but I chalk it up to insecurity.

  432. 432
    gaz says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn: as far as libya – yeah I thought so too.

    And the “multiple definitions” you claim seems to underscore my point, as well as Ben Franklin’s point about it.

  433. 433
    Zandar says:

    @gaz:

    I’ll try to include more humor for you.

    Sometimes.

  434. 434
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn:

    Read Greenwald carefully — while he says it’s a “lie” that US citizens are exempted from indefinite detention, even he admits it’s only in the part that deals with “enemy combatants” who are captured overseas, not within the US:

    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).

    So, no, Greenwald does not agree with your claims that a US citizen could be arrested and detained within the US. His only claim is that it’s his opinion is that the murky language might allow a US citizen captured overseas to be detained indefinitely.

    In your “whistleblower” scenario, I suppose it might be possible for a civilian working for the US government in Japan or Germany to be put into military detention for leaking documents to Wikileaks, but even Greenwald says it’s not possible for that to happen to someone inside the United States with the way this law is written.

  435. 435
    gaz says:

    meant Odie above when I said OO – oops

  436. 436
    gaz says:

    @Mnemosyne: You highlight another reason I have trust issues surrounding GG…

    With him, it’s always about the fine print. He seems to have no problem burying the context of his assertions as deep as he can, while trumpeting his point. A point that doesn’t generally stand up on it’s own. And the fine print is usually where you’ll find the trouble with his arguments. IOW, I think he does it on purpose.

  437. 437
    gaz says:

    @Zandar: Hah.

    So you know, I was *actually* defending you there.

    Not trying to damn you with faint praise. But I tend to equivocate a lot when it comes to matters of my raw opinion.

    (I know I know, with friends like me…) =P

    Suffice it to say that I appreciate your contributions to BJ.

    Bring teh funny =)

  438. 438
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    Lol. You tell me to read GG carefully, even as you stop reading before he gets to the next section, and provides evidence that it applies to US citizens domestically, as well. God, it’s painful.

  439. 439
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn:

    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.

    Yes, when he tortures the language to claim that this section that’s titled “Military Custody for Foreign Al Qaeda Terrorists” must also apply to US citizens because shut up, that’s why, he completely supports your claim that President Gingrich can have his political enemies arrested whenever he likes.
    /eyeroll

    I’m done with you. Please seek medical attention for your paralyzing paranoia.

  440. 440
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    Lol. Yes, his evidence was “shut up, that’s why.”. You really read him carefully, clearly.

    Your evidence? Who needs evidence?! Shut up and clap louder!!!

  441. 441
    NR says:

    You really have to feel sorry for Mnemosyne. Such a dilemma for her. On the one hand, this policy is wrong and dangerous and goes against everything America is supposed to stand for, but on the other hand, Obama supports it!

  442. 442
    Corner Stone says:

    @NR:

    You really have to feel sorry for Mnemosyne.

    No, not really. She’s one of the most awful people haunting this blogula.
    It’s disturbing that she can’t seem to get the help she needs.

  443. 443
    El Tiburon says:

    @gaz:

    There’s a phrase for what GG does. It’s called “drive-by trolling” and he does it quite a bit.

    I don’t think you understand what an ‘internet troll’ is or there purpose.

    Greenwald doesn’t ‘drop by’ to simply throw bombs. He comes here to defend his arguments. That’s not being a troll. that is called DEFENDING YOUR ARGUMENTS.

    So, your logic is that when Greenwald comes here to defend himself, that is being a troll and insecure? You do understand how stupid that is, right? I understand your hatred for Greenwald clouds your thinking.

    In the rest of the blogistan – taking the time to defend yourself on another blog is usually seen as a net positive.

    But I’ve seen you accuse Greenwald several times now of lying. So I’ll ask you: link to one lie. And I’ll save you the time as I did the other commenter: don’t worry about it because what irks you is you disagree with his interpretation of the bill. He is not lying. He is interpreting the language of the bill. Could be he is wrong. Doesn’t mean he is lying.

  444. 444
    Corner Stone says:

    @El Tiburon: gaz, or whoever it is, doesn’t actually care about that. He has his twitter marching orders.
    Greenwald=BAD
    Joan Walsh=BAD

    Done.

  445. 445
    IM says:

    I don’t think hostilities is vague. The problematic terms are

    associated

    hostilities with a coalition partner

    substantial support

    Would this include someone involved with the peace armada? Substantial support of Hamas (associated), involved in hostilities with Israel (coalition partner). Or some Somali militia fighting the government.

    And that, the coalition partners and the associated groups is new and wider compared with the AUMF. So that is more than just codification.

  446. 446
    Jnc says:

    Well since the bill has an innocuous sounding title, it can’t be bad, right?

    The level of thought and analysis is just pathetic.

  447. 447
    glasnost says:

    Gaz is driven by the grievance in his head, and it makes him say stupid things and become unable to read plain english.

    For example:

    that it explicitly lays out who is covered under the bill. People engaged in aiding Al-Qaeda, or associated entities, etc.

    That’s Gaz himself. So, Gaz, what’s an “associated entity”?
    Here, I’ll help you. An “associated entity” is anyone. If you once walked past someone in a mall who has ever been to Afghanistan, everyone you know and everything you’ve ever joined is an Al-Quieda associated entity.

    If you can’t see this, you’re very naive. And worse, you’ve chosen to ignore these arguments being made in plain english and pretend that nefarious “professional left” people are “lying” about the bill. The most charitable interpretation of you possible is that you and the “professional left” have *different opinions* about what this bill does, neither of which have been falsified in practice (obviously, as it hasn’t been used on anyone yet).

    But frankly, your arguments are so … lame.. that I find this to be way too kind. Let’s use another example.
    the “professional left” is lying because this just codifies “existing authority”? The fact that the President has been interpreting his AUMF powers this way is a scandal and a crime, and now it’s been legalized. Whether or not is codifies existing *claimed* authority has nothing, literally nothing to do with what the bill authorizes the executive branch to do. They don’t falsify each other.

    Honestly, you’re barely even making arguments at all. You’re seizing random factoids and waving them around, while distracting people with a bunch of baloney about how gee you also think this is a bad bill.

    Why is it such a bad bill, gaz? You know, because all the people talking about how bad a bill it is, you’re basically working to discredit these people. Why don’t you write a fucking post about how bad this bill is and why? I don’t really believe you have a problem with this bill at all.
    You seem a lot more invested in your failed misinterpretation of the comments of other critics as dishonest than you do about the actual law.

  448. 448
    glasnost says:

    It’s really a shame, ABL, if you think this is a bad bill and so forth, that what you actually do in the world, the cause you actually pursue, is to talk shit about the people most invested in stopping this bad bill. If you dig, you are effectively supporting this bad bill. Yeah, okay, locking people up and destroying their lives for no reason is bad, you agree, but right now you have to continue venting to respond to the fact that Glenn Greenwald doesn’t like you and says mean things about Barack Obama.

    It’s clear you like, or are stuck on, the fact that a lot of the commentariat is rude to you. My advice to you is that you’d do more for the world if you got over it and stopped wasting your life and undermining the fight against evil in the world by doing things driven by your flame war here. Because the opinions of commenters are just too stupid and trivial to do that, and because an obsession with criticism and critics consistently leads everyone who falls into it to become stupid and twisted.

  449. 449
    gaz says:

    @glasnost: First two paragraphs in your diatribe right after you quoted me were so flat out full of crap that it’s clear that you didn’t actually read what I wrote (but the bits and pieces you wanted to).

    Let me HELP YOU. See every comment I’ve made about this bill. I never ONCE defended the nature of the bill itself.

    Over
    and
    Over
    and
    Over
    and
    Over
    and
    Over
    and
    Over
    and
    Over
    again I’ve said, this bill is awful, but it doesn’t set a precedent. It codifies an existing one into law.

    Clearly, you didn’t even read my arguments. Or they went way over your head. Quite likely since I’ve spent about the entire thread repeating myself when you tools keep coming at me as though I endorse anything about this bill.

    Let me very clear. I DO NOT ENDORSE THIS BILL. IT SUCKS.

    By now i’ve said it probably 200 times on this thread.

    Why the hell are you so slow? I feel like I’m a teacher’s aid in a special ed class ….

    It *is* possible for a person to have an opinion that doesn’t entirely jibe with one side or the other entirely.

    ABL fucked up by pointing to that shitty article.
    GG is a hack. He misrepresented his position when he posted here. (Link #2, NO CONTEXT, very BOLD ACCUSATION ON HIS PART. The phrase “sanctimonious dishonest prick” comes to mind.
    And I can also disagree with the people that pretend that this is some kind of new and terrible thing that we haven’t been dealing with since 9/11 in one form another. It’s not. The precedent was already in place while Bush was in the WH trashing the place. That doesn’t mean I think it’s okay.

    But Glenn is at best, overplaying his hand, and burying the context in the fine print. He pulls that shit all the time. I’m sure you wish I were sorry that I called your sacred cow a liar, a loser and a troll, but I’m not. This isn’t the first time he’s been fundamentally dishonest and sensationalist. Fuck you and your sacred cow GG. Fuck Obama, and Fuck ABL too. Also, fuck me – and fuck John Cole with a broken bottle. For that matter fuck balloon juice.

    We *all* suck.

    Does that make you feel better? No? I don’t care. Get me a coffee.

    The whinge makes my eyes hurt. Glenn Greenwald is NOT jesus christ

    FFS

  450. 450
    gaz says:

    @El Tiburon: Dishonest rhetorical tactics = Lying.

    At least if you are supposed to be a journalist.

    I don’t need to link to GG. Just look at his post on this thread.

    I know you love your sacred cow. But I don’t care. He’s dishonest. We disagree? Suck it the fuck up.

  451. 451
    gaz says:

    @Fed Up In Brooklyn: Manning could have been labled an unlawful combatant for distributing information to Wikileaks – under the previous administration.

    ( I was thinking computer trespass was an act of terrorism under the patriot act – which would have make Wikileaks possible “terrorists” but it turns out I was thinking of another bill in 2001 (proposed but I think it didn’t pass – thank God)

    So I’ve removed that part of this post, as to correct my mistake.

  452. 452
    Allan says:

    @Corner Stone: The last thing BJ needs is some prissy hall monitor demanding that John Cole censor posts with which he doesn’t agree, amirite?

  453. 453
    Suffern ACE says:

    @gaz: Ummmm. Nope. I believe his access was lawful. That’s what’s so odd about the case. This was “Top Secret” information that apparently hundreds of thousands of people in the government had access to. So if a private has access to it (but shouldn’t distribute it) how secret can it be? Regardless, he wasn’t trespassing.

    Wikileaks could fall into to the “belligerent” category, although they have no real connection to belligerent status. I believe their stated goals are to collapse the government, even if that means that democracy ends for awhile and we’re forced into a police state.

  454. 454
    DanielX says:

    Mercy me…453 comments? I’m only seeing 249, but there’s definitely some world class wanking here. Cole has bigger problems right now than who’s trolling who, and there’s a whole world out there that includes grief, joy, kittehs, Christmas trees to be decorated and Oban single malt. Get over yourselves, lighten up, and save the savaging for people who deserve it like, oh, Newt Fucking Gingrich. Talk about your circular firing squads….

  455. 455
    FromTheBackOfTheRoom says:

    Oh sweet Jeezuz. Early on there was the first predictable “Hyuk Hyuk, Thurz gunna be 600 posts on this one. Ya dun did it up good this time!!” Then, beginning about 30 or 40 posts into what’s shaping up to be an enjoyably contentious exchange of views, precious pixels are indefinitely detained in service of representing the most trite, passionless & irrelevent admonishments from some bloodless shmuck who briefly sets aside their nightly bible study to lecture everyone to just stop all this unpleasantness and to adopt the shmuckitudinous virtues of comfortable equanimity in the face of appalling political fortunes.
    Please. Brush off your sweater, light your pipe and go take a nap Mr. Rogers & get off my screen.

  456. 456
    Corner Stone says:

    @Allan:

    The last thing BJ needs is some prissy hall monitor demanding that John Cole censor posts with which he doesn’t agree, amirite?

    Hmmm…sounds vaguely familiar somehow…

  457. 457
    Yutsano says:

    Is this thread on Namek yet?

  458. 458
    Fed Up In Brooklyn says:

    @gaz:

    Sure, Manning could have been labeled Santa Clause, but it would have been a sham as well. Now, thanks to the new wording, there is a law in place which allows a civilian version of Manning to legally be labeled as supporting an “associated group.”

Comments are closed.