From that link ABL put up earlier, this may be the funniest thing I’ve read in a while:
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 such a thing without killing the entire NDAA. He can’t.
I’m dying over here. Guess what- there was no such thing as the “OBAMACARE bill,” it was actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Calling someone a liar because they are referring to a casual name instead of the official name is the depths we’ve sunk to smear our ideological enemies? This is the level of sophistry we need to sink to so that no criticism of Obama, however tepid, is made?
Bonus points for telling people what they are implying so you can set up the strawman.
Me: “Mom, pass me a Kleenex.”
Mom: “LIAR. THOSE ARE NOT KLEENEX. THOSE ARE KROGER BRAND TISSUES.”
People very seriously need to get a grip. And #2 and #3 on that list are equally funny. I’m a big fan of the fiction in #3 that we are just going to magically declare the end of “terrorism,” so really, there is no such thing as “indefinite detention.” Folks, this is Jonah Goldberg level stupid.
Major Mel Funkshun
I was wondering, and I haven’t seen it discussed anywhere, but could Obama do one of those “signing statements” that basically says “I’m not going to enforce this part of the bill”. Bush got away with this crap all during his terms when he was signing stuff he didn’t like. Sort of like a “line item veto”.
Yutsano
@Major Mel Funkshun: A signing statement can be used to interpret a part of a bill as unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable by the executive branch. Shorter answer: yes.
But could you imagine the freakout afterwards?
Svensker
@Major Mel Funkshun:
Yes, but it wouldn’t bind another President.
Cliff
But John. That was an important post for all of us to read so we can understand how the Professional Left secretly want to get Glenn Beck elected President.
hells littlest angel
Not fair. The “Obamacare” bill and the PPACA are one and the same thing. Indefinite detention is but one provision of the NDAA.
I’m not defending indefinite detention. But it’s not a stand-alone bill that Obama can just veto.
OK, maybe “lie” is putting it on a bit thick, but it is a distortion, whether intentional or not.
DFS
I hadn’t bothered to follow the link originally, but I figured I’d have a look after you mentioned it again. Holy God what a fucking maroon.
So this person seriously thinks that the President is going to get up one day and say “Congratulations, war on terror over, we’ll be emptying Gitmo and Bagram in time for the weekend, everyone have some celebratory punch and cookies.” Do they still believe in the motherfucking tooth fairy, too?
LT
Oh for fuck’s sake, that is desperate.
And how’s this for a topper, down in the comments, from the writer of the article, to a commenter:
Take that one in. It’s not about the bill? Holy shit.
And it’s followed by this:
It’s like he’s ABL’s father.
Mnemosyne
Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!
(No, seriously, a throwdown between ABL and Cole would be epic. But it would end like the one in The Quiet Man with them both getting drunk on Laphroaig and verbally abusing Newt Gingrich.)
Ben Cisco
@Yutsano: Not to mention that the whole point of electing someone who understood the Constitution was to AVOID the trappings of an Imperial Presidency.
Ian
THREAD NEEDZ MOAR TEBOW
LT
@hells littlest angel:
This is just funny. First, it isn’t about whether it refers to a whole bill a not, it’s that he’s just completely mixed up on the “indefinite detention bill” thing in a way that make’s Cole’s statement make sense. Look at this:
that’s just fucking dumb. Read it again.
But it’s especially dumb in light of the fact that the guy even says in his article that OBAMA THREATENED TO VETO THE BILL TO GET CHANGES MADE TO IT.
Please read “Lie #1” again now.
Yutsano
@Ben Cisco: There is actually a beautiful elegant process to this. Congress passes law. Executive says cannot enforce law because according to their legal interpretation it goes against Constitution. Congress goes to court. Judiciary makes decision. Happens all the time. Don’t like it? Blame Marbury vs Madison.
handy
@hells littlest angel:
Sorry but that’s a distinction without a difference. If it’s a provision in the bill, then it’s part of the bill. And the stand alone point is weak–Obama can still threaten to veto and tell Congress to take that language out. Or not. His choice.
shano
I do not understand why this was put in a spending bill, why there was no real debate on the language, why there is no real clarification (from anyone in or out of the Obama Administration) on the language of the bill.
Been reading the thread and responses at J. Turleys blog, a bunch of lawyers, and they are depressed so it must be bad.
WTF is Obama thinking? How the hell does he plan to fix this? This NDAA and SOPA are going to cause Obama to lose the youth vote and the OWS vote. They hate these two bills more than almost anything in politics.
handy
@LT:
Or what this person said.
Robert Waldmann
Heh indeed. Mega-dittos uh I mean mega-mimeographs
(heh just imagine the kids who won’t get offa my lawn trying to figure that out)
Actually I don’t know about your criticism of point 3, since, after point 1, I stopped reading. However, it does seem that John Stewart is on it.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-december-7-2011/arrested-development—one-way-train-to-gitmo
Also someone who is picky about language should not confuse “indefinite” with “permanent”. Indefinite doesn’t mean forever, it means we don’t know how long. And, since it is an abstract concept while previous surrenders have been groups of people, we sure don’t know when terror will throw in the towel, uh sorry the KROGER BRAND TISSUE.
Suffern ACE
@Yutsano: Wouldn’t Congress need to come up with people who aren’t being detained to prove that Obama wasn’t enforcing it?
Anya
i fully support the President. And I truly believe that he was dealt a bad hand (with a cowardly democratic senate and a house run by psychotic republicans), also, I am not a deminder of magic ponies, nor am I one of the “OBAMA SOLD US OUT” crowd, but this one really bothered me. A bill codifying indefinite detention should have received more push back from the WH. Also, fuck the assholes who voted for this with a rusty pitchfork They should all DIAF.
Donut
I just posted this in the other thread:
“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.”
Probably should have posted that here in different form, but, whatever.
LT
@Anya:
I am not a deminder of magic ponies
JR
My favorite part was where Carl Levin magically became a Republican.
LT
I accidently posted comment #20 before I was done. I was going to say something funnier than anything that has ever been said, too, but now I ruined it. I hate myself.
It had to do with Japanese culinary choices, just to note.
Yutsano
@Suffern ACE: Apparently the signing statement is proof enough. Or something. It’s not like it takes a lot for Congress to get upset at the White House as it is.
El Tiburon
Milt Shook does seem like a thin skinned wanker. Also, ABL, when she posted it here, didn’t really endorse it. But on her blog she totally co-opts it as her own. Also, Zandar links the article and endorses it 100% with little to know real scrutiny.
The Greenwald Derangement Syndrome is strong.
LT
@Mnemosyne:
In the way a throwdown between fire and a match would, you mean, right?
different-church-lady
I think you’re about 85% right here. The missing 15% corresponds to my guess as to how many people think there’s a stand-alone bill out there that specifically gives Obama himself the right to throw you in dungeon in the White House basement without due process. (And why, oh why, would anyone be left with such an impression?)
Yes, those people exist. But not enough to clutter up a blog talking about.
Crusty Dem
Either way, the GOP successfully put Obama in the classic “Superman II” position. And as always, in order to save benefits for a section of the population, Obama assumes the “kneel before Zod” position. He tipped his hand when he gave in on the Bush tax cuts, so the GOP knows exactly how to get their way.
Today’s GOP: “where indifference to the well-being of the American People is a strategic strength”TM
eemom
This is pretty Jonah-level stupid too, Cole. In neither instance is the “casual name” just an innocuous nickname — both are deliberately calculated to mislead people about the content and effect of the bill.
Mnemosyne
BTW, Adam Serwer probably has the best explanation of why the revised bill sucks, but at least sucks slightly less than the previous version that freaked everyone out.
The problem, of course, is that the previous version will forever live in the hivemind of the internet as being the one that passed, so we’re going to have to deal with months of people saying “But what about THIS horrible provision?!” that’s not actually in the final version.
It’s the same way that, for some people, ACA will always be The Bill That Max Baucus Wrote even though very few of his ideas were used in the final version.
carpeduum
Yawn, another day another glimpse at that firebagger/republican side of Cole that he claims never existed or is no longer there. And what Wrong Again Cole post would be complete without his apologists dutifully crawl our of the cracks in the floor to defend him.
different-church-lady
@Mnemosyne: You’re trying to direct traffic at the corner of Reality and Politics. Admirable. But no longer possible in the context of political blogs.
Today the only rule of political ‘discussion’ is: whoever sucks the most oxygen out of the room wins.
The Dangerman
I don’t get the indefinite detention thing; it applies to U.S. Citizens overseas, not domestic. Right now, we have it such the U.S. Citizens can be blown into really small pieces (re: Cleric in Yemen, name escapes me); I bet he would think detention sounds pretty good.
I get the concern, but I’ll vote for Obama even if he can’t deliver a Unicorn on Christmas morn; this is on Congress and a Republican party that has gone over the edge, not Obama.
Suffern ACE
@shano: I think it was put in a spending bill so that we’d talk about it instead of the spending, IMHO.
El Tiburon
@eemom:
You seem to be implying some kind of Luntzian espionage going on here. It’s just a short hand – not some kind of bait and switch a la the Death Tax.
Donut
@carpeduum:
You are stupid and boring.
Mnemosyne
@Crusty Dem:
I wish that were true, but the original, more heinous version passed with something like 85-17. And there ain’t 85 Republicans in the Senate.
Your “kneel before Zod” moment had far more Democratic support than you seem to think.
hells littlest angel
Eight years of Bush and Cheney transformed the United States into Ignorantmotherfuckerland. I don’t expect Obama to turn it all around, not even if he gets eight years to do it. He has to pick his battles. This particular battle is one that does not have to be fought in December of 2012, since this provision of the bill does not compel him to lock up Americans without due process.
I’d rather fight a hydra than the monster that America’s right wing has made of this country. But Obama is doing a damned good job of it, I think. I get pissed at him sometimes, just like everyone else does, but I know that criticizing him for not waving his magic president’s wand is foolish.
LT
I agree with Spectre:
There’s more to Spectre’s comment at the link.
LT
@El Tiburon:
I never got why people thought “Obamacare” was so heinous.
carpeduum
@Donut: Oh that hurt. Do more of that. It’s working. Really it is my little groupie.
amk
Paranoid left, paranoid right – no wonder amurika is so fucked up.
carpeduum
Bahahaha….I just figured it out. Wrong Again Cole is actually Ed Henry! Ed Henry was doing an on Camera stating that the President is in hiding today and almost right on cue the President came out behind him to do a press conference. At least that is what I hope happened. theobamadiary is implying that but I’m not sure. It would be funny if there was video.
http://theobamadiary.com/2011/12/17/christmas-in-washington/
Stay classy Ed you retarded hack! Same goes for you Cole, you retarded hack that makes much less money.
Donut
@carpeduum:
Okay.
You are stupid and boring.
shano
Screw both parties that passed this bill with so little debate. Fuck ’em all ….85-17 should live in infamy and probably will. Look how many had to scrape and bow for their support of starting the Iraq war. This may take longer, but the result will be the same, they will have to deny and rationalize their support of this bill. By then it will be too late to fix the problems caused by this legislation.
carpeduum
@Donut: And YOU are too kind my little groupie. MOOOAHhhhh (blowing big kiss with both arms).
different-church-lady
@LT: I think it’s neither — she simply made the same mistake that a lot of the most rabid critics of the administration make: take a legitimate but tiny detail and blow it entirely out of proportion.
It’s striking me that folks like GG and folks like ABL are using the exact same tactics and exact same arsenal of weapons to attempt to beat each others’ brains out, all the while claiming the other army isn’t following the right code of war.
Donut
@carpeduum:
That’s fine.
You remain stupid and boring.
different-church-lady
@Donut & carpeduum: Could you two just get a room already?
Mnemosyne
You know, in the spirit of Christmas, I think all of us, emobaggers and Obots alike, can join hands and agree that Carl Levin is a jackass.
peach flavored shampoo
Honestly, who cares? If they can assassinate US cits overseas, why shouldnt they feel the right to lock em up as well? This is a nothingburger
Donut
@different-church-lady:
I’m just trolling the troll.
Go ahead and put me in the pie filter.
LT
@different-church-lady:
The “exact same tactics”? GG made a case against very specific things in the bill, and he has a really lot of people backing him up here, people you should respect, including those at the ACLU and HRW. ABL isn’t countering with any actual substance on any issue – she linked to a really dumb article. How is this the “exact same”?
Spectre
@different-church-lady:
False equivalency.
That’s also part of ABL’s tactics. Act like a rabid fool and hope that people from a distance can’t tell who is who.
Senyordave
One of the problems is that early on, Obama and his people decided to never play hardball. They can be rolled on almost anything.
The GOP, politically, IMHO, are a bunch of traitors. They will always go against the best interests of this country if they can store points politically. I get that.
But occasionally call them out as explicitly as possible.
But it would be nice to not have sacks of crap like Schumer, Reid and Feinstein as the people who supposedly havbe your back. Not to mention Wyden, who should be primaried in 4 years.
different-church-lady
@Donut: Well do it in a more entertaining fashion then, please.
(FYI: I no longer use the pie filter because I discovered it was somehow slowing Firefox to a crawl.)
El Tiburon
@different-church-lady:
Say what? ABL links to a flawed article from some yahoo who calls Greenwald a liar. That’s it. She then admits in the comment section she was running away from the post.
Hate him or love him, Greenwald would never do something like this. He goes to great lengths to verify and do his research before posting an article.
The Dangerman
@hells littlest angel:
After Obama is reelected, we should reverse the applicable Amendment and let him run for a 3rd term (thus trying to explode the heads of those wingers that don’t explode after Obama wins #2).
eemom
@LT:
It’s not, on its face, but it was coined and used by Koch scum and their ilk as a rallying cry for the whole fearmongering racist-pandering Obama’s A Kenyan Soshulist Mooslim And He Passed This Law To Kill Granny meme that gave birth to the teatard “movement.”
Similarly with “indefinite detention bill,” those words are NOT merely being used “as shorthand”. They are being used in a deliberate effort to create misconceptions about what the bill actually does and the implications of a presidential veto.
I mean this is kind of politics 101, folks. “Casual names” and “shorthands” are not just innocuous words — they are tools by which minds are manipulated, and — in this particular case — complex issues are made to seem a lot simpler than they actually are.
BO_Bill
The Obama Administration really cares about me and therefore just wants a little more power to keep me and my family safe. Leave Barack alone.
Lysana
Except for where Greenwald LIES about the contents of the NDAA. Yeah, exactly the same. (sentence edited to remove self-reference acsusation because I realized my memory may be flawed on that point)
Crusty Dem
Mnemosyne:
Given that the more heinous version passed the house, and that the senate version of anything is always a glorious shitstain, I think the original statement stands..
RP
I thought the linked article was pretty lame and poorly reasoned, but the writer has a point about the fact that this is a rider on the NDAA and that he can’t veto the detention thing without vetoing the whole bill. That point (and the fact that a veto wouldn’t accomplish anything anyway) hasn’t gotten much attention AFAICT.
different-church-lady
@LT: Greenwald goes picking through tiny details in a bill’s language, blows them up into vast importance, and then is perfectly content to let others misconstrue and blow what he said into a larger tarball of “Obamabots are deluded”.
ABL goes picking through the internet, finds individual things and people to get outraged about, blows them up into the views of an entire enemy ‘side’ and is content to let others have the impression that anyone who criticizes is a hater.
They both lob bombs, they both leave out information, and they both rely on the idea that people will respond with emotion before intellect. The fact that Greenwald does a better job of building a case doesn’t subtract from the three items I’ve mentioned here.
different-church-lady
@eemom:
DING! You control the board.
LT
@eemom:
Yeah, I know all that about “Obamacare”, and it probably had some effect. I just didn’t think it was all that heinous.
You know, I’m going to go with the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, and any number of organizations and people who I think have a beter grasp on the subject that ABL, that guy who wrote the article ABL linked to, ABL herself, and, respectfully, you.
El Tiburon
@Lysana:
Please link to the lie. Or let me save you the time: you disagree with his interpretation. Not the same as a lie.
See, if I interpret your comment as stupid, I am not lying.
different-church-lady
@The Dangerman:
He can just use a signing statement and the bully pulpit for that, no?
eemom
@RP:
That’s exactly right. It is not the best-written article in the world, but its main point is solid.
But tell that to Cole and the rest of the chattering monkeys around here who are too busy giggling over Kleenex jokes to actually hear what they guy was saying.
LT
Fuck. Can’t edit, for some reason.
Comment #65 should read:
@eemom:
Yeah, I know all that about “Obamacare”, and it probably had some effect. I just didn’t think it was all that heinous.
You know, I’m going to go with the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, and any number of organizations and people who I think have a better grasp on the subject than ABL, that guy who wrote the article ABL linked to, and, respectfully, you, on whether these are “misconceptions.”
El Tiburon
@eemom:
Are you saying the bill does not outline indefinite detention?
Spectre
@eemom:
For example, using “The Professional Left” to try to obfuscate by association all criticism of a reactionary bill.
“Hey gaiz, remember those people called pro-left that annoyed you earlier? Well they don’t like this bill, and we don’t like them, so no need to think further!!”
Weak.
jakethesnake
I nominate this for best post of the year.
Corner Stone
But…”An important read” ?
How can you argue with that?
Wither the important read?
LT
@RP:
This is so stupid. Obama did – and this is even pointed out by the writer and people supporting Obama on this – threaten to veto the whole bill to get changes made. We know it means the whole bill.
Who the fuck do you think doesn’t know that?
different-church-lady
@El Tiburon:
It does, but the point that’s being attempted here is that it does a whole hell of a bunch of other things to. It is but one component of a much larger bill. So refer to it as though it were a bill specifically addressing indefinite detention is misleading.
And misleading for a purpose: to create the reaction where people think, “OBAMA’S COMING FOR MY RIGHTS!” without understanding the true complexity of the situation.
eemom
@LT:
shorter you: I’m a sheep, but I bleat to the right pigs.
Easier than reading the bill, reading both perspectives, and actually — gasp
— thinking it through for yourself, innit?
Corner Stone
This is some good shit.
AJStrata
Seems we agree again on stupidity in DC
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/17739
LT
@El Tiburon:
I hear someone stuttering…
Corner Stone
@LT:
It’s hilarious. From Uncle Milty it seems the bill doesn’t actually exist unless Obama has the power to veto parts of it.
Anya
@LT – stupid iPhone has a mind of it’s own. If you’re not carful you end up with gibberish.
RP
Part of the problem is that these are very complex issues, and the language in the bill isn’t exactly crystal clear. In fact, as I noted in the other thread, it seems “built for litigation.” But GG is trying to argue that the plain language and real world impact of the bill are perfectly clear. I don’t think that’s even close to being true.
At times, GG reminds me of people on the right who claim that the language of the 1st or 2nd amendment is clear on its face and requires little to no interpretation.
carpeduum
@LT: Post any images of home appliances lately?
LT
@eemom:
For you, apparently, reading the opinions of the ACLU, HRC, too many other over-qualified and time-tested experts – and ABL and that dick she linked = “both perspectives.”
Brilliant.
Cain
@carpeduum:
Oh fuck off, you don’t know Cole any more than the rest of us. He is what he is. He never claimed he anything about anything. He’s being a rationalist in the context of this article.
Cripes.. some people.
Spectre
@different-church-lady:
Almost every bill does more than 1 unified thing, and often have benign titles. Referring to it by a # or by its benign title, is simply OBFUSCATION.
People need to know what the important impacts are. If an act was named “The Eliminate Cancer Act”, and its provisions called for murdering stage four cancer patients and increasing funding for the girl scouts of america – it would be accurate to shorthand it as the “Kill cancer patients act”.
carpeduum
More proof that Wrong Again Cole still reads Greenwald….just doesn’t like to admit it anymore.
Did YOU actually read the bill Cole?
RP
Yes, he did threaten to veto the entire bill. But the fact that the detention provision was slapped onto a much larger bill plays an important role in his decision on whether or not to carry out his threat. He has to balance the importance of the other parts of the bill, the usefulness of veto considering the vote totals, and the detainee provisions when making that decision. I think a lot of opponents of the detention provisions see it as: “detention language stinks, so just veto the bill unless it’s removed.” But it’s not that simple. The GOP has leverage because of the larger bill. Obama made a decision that the detention provisions were changed enough that he could stomach the bill as a whole. I think he should have vetoed it anyway, but I don’t think it’s an easy decision.
carpeduum
@Cain: As you blow spunk all over Coles face.
kccomment jc
Ah, sanity. Thanks, Cole.
LT
@carpeduum:
Let’s just make this very clear. And John Cole should see this too: You just made a comment about my blog, in some weird, quasi-threatening, stalkeresque way. Something eemom has seen fit to do lately, too.
I find it very, very odd behavior. It’s something Cole should squash like a fucking bug.
Spectre
@RP:
You guys really miss the point. Even if interpretations can vary, the point is that if something CAN be interpreted that way, then the law in effect permits it for the executive.
I have some nice beach front property in GITMO to sell you if you think they’ll take the civil libertarian interpretation of this. (HINT: They already aren’t. Most of these powers are already claimed)
carpeduum
@Cain: Actually he has made claims. Look into it.
different-church-lady
@Spectre: OK, so referring to the bill by its actual name is “obfuscation”, but referring to it by a made up name is accuracy. Got it.
carpeduum
@Spectre: Yawn, another know nothing that has not read the bill, cannot be bothered to read the bill, will not listen to non-partisans who are much smarter than him who have read the bill….and yet he thinks he understands EXACTLY what is in the bill because of something greenwald said or what he read on that orange site in a post by someone calling themselves meteor blades.
eemom
@LT:
Again: easier than thinking for yourself, right?
I’d wager you haven’t read jack shit from the ACLU on this, and I’d bet the rent you haven’t read the bill itself.
You’re a hyperactive, knee-jerking clown.
LT
@Anya: It was funny gibberish. I pictured a group of Japanese businessmen eating monkey brains and magic pony minds.
Spectre
@different-church-lady: @different-church-lady:
I don’t know about you, but I refer to North Korea as a dictatorship, and not the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”. But then again I’m honest.
Benjamin Franklin
@carpeduum:
Don’t you have to drown the Christmas puppies before the end of day?
Lojasmo
Guess who’s not going overseas to act on plans to attack the United States! Me!
And I said it in the other thread, but this passed with supermajorities in both houses of congress. Veto would do no good.
In this context, dog whistle catch-phrases like “indefinite detention bill” do nothing but vilify Obama for doing something he has absolutely no power to not do.
Silly sophistry.
Cacti
@different-church-lady:
Lee Atwater would be proud.
carpeduum
@LT: Let’s just make this very clear, when someone says something you don’t like you want them “squashed like a bug”. That is exactly what you just said.
And this is the funniest thing I have read so far today so thanks for the entertainment.
In response to my comment about LT’s dumb blog where he has nothing better to do than post a picture of a washing machine.
“You just made a comment about my blog, in some weird, quasi-threatening, stalkeresque way. Something eemom has seen fit to do lately, too.
I find it very, very odd behavior.”
BAHAHAhah……..funny shit.
different-church-lady
@Spectre:
If you did so in an effort to lead people to think that dictatorship was the only defining quality of North Korea, then you’d be less than honest.
eemom
@LT:
Shove that one right back up your asshole, you twerp. Show me where I said something “quasi-threatening” or stalkeresque” about you or your fucking blog.
You have a blog open to public view — your nym here is a hotlink to it. By applying those adjectives to the simple act of commenting on something that YOU linked us to, you reveal yourself to be yet more of a stupid drama queen than was previously evident.
stinkdaddy
Oh, well I’m glad that’s potentially settled then. Probably.
Spectre
@different-church-lady:
The North Korean apologists would probably say: “We also provide some state subsidized health care and the alternative to us is really exploitive uber capitalists!!!! HOW DARE YOU CRITICIZE! YOU MUST WORK FOR THE ENEMY!”
And they’d sound just as silly as you do.
LT
@carpeduum:
Your comment could have been more innocent than I thought. If it was, I apologize. With what eemom’s been doing lately, I thought it was stalkeresque creepy shit.
Spectre
It is amazing though. In this thread people have been reduced to defending North Korea, and how it’d be wrong to call them a dictatorship. Jesus Christ.
Authoritarians are becoming a self-parody.
LT
@eemom:
Eemom, making many, many comments to a person, in successive threads, about where they live and places they’ve traveled based on their website makes you a creepy, stalkeresque fuck. That ain’t my fault.
kc
@Spectre @97: Remember the ” Clear Skies Act?”. Good times …
carpeduum
@Benjamin Franklin: Drowning puppies are for summertime fun.
http://youtu.be/HzPblVSBfiw
different-church-lady
@Spectre: If you think I’m defending North Korea’s government then you are seriously off your rocker and really not worth having even hypothetical discussions with.
carpeduum
@LT: “stalkeresque creepy shit”. Oh, that’s completely different now that you put it that way. For a second I thought you were trying to be mean.
Suffern ACE
If I were a defense contractor, I’d be sooooo happy that this language got put in the bill. A bill that I thought was supposed to be a discussion about defense cuts to balance the budget. Thank god the public isn’t discussing that.
Schlemizel
John –
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU
Spectre
@different-church-lady:
I’m showing you the necessary extension of your really poor logic.
FlipYrWhig
@Spectre: Your sarcasm detector needs a tuneup.
Crusty Dem
Wow, this has devolved into the worst (non-ABL) thread here in my memory. I’m ashamed for my contribution.
Joseph Nobles
Repeal AUMF, end of these powers. Read the bill, John. The whole thing is predicated on the AUMF.
Svensker
@LT:
The carp is a John Cole stalker. He gets banned periodically. Keeps changing his nym and showing up to post stupid stuff about Cole. Occasionally takes swipes at other folks. Ignore him.
Schlemizel
@Crusty Dem:
Oh come on, ABL deserves a good share of the credit for this thread – it would not have been necessary if not for her.
LT
@Svensker: Thanks for the advice.
FlipYrWhig
Ya know, that other thread, once it got past the kinda odd and weak linked piece, actually yielded a fairly productive discussion about the issues of the bill. People had been clamoring for one of those for days. I don’t see what the purpose is of smugly pissing on that thread from above.
different-church-lady
@Spectre: I thank you for that Spectre. Or would it be more accurate if I called you “Purveyor of Orwellian Claptrap Without Any Obvious Irony”?
NR
@Lojasmo:
And as I said in the other thread, it did NOT pass with a supermajority in the House. Learn to read, you fucking idiot.
ruemara
@El Tiburon: You’ve got to be kidding. If you read his link to the guardian uk article, GG is citing a source that is saying that Obama has as of date of publishing on 12/14/11, signed into law a bill that allows indefinite detention. which means an article finalized by the 13th had come to this conclusion about a bill that had not yet passed the Senate until the 14th. That’s good sourcing.
And, Cole, considering I’ve been in a 4 way fight with some lovers of GG and all things liberaltarian over the horror of what Obama hath wrought with this bill, you should really allow that some people think the main portion of this bill is “Indefinite Detention of Americans Act of 2011” and not “Potpourri of Stupid Ideas Stuffed in a Spending Bill-version 4.7” Shook has a weak argument, to me, I get what he’s saying, but I think the Serwer critique was a better sourced, better analyzed piece. and frankly, I’m glad the ACLU is against this, but they’ve been fighting this stuff for a long time, most of the angry yowls are from people who have no idea that the US can and has been holding people for various legal reasons in violation of the constitution for a while.
Donut
@different-church-lady:
How about I fucking troll you instead? Cuz you’re sure bothering to troll me while I’m trolling the troll. I’m over entertaining myself, asshole. You go right ahead and skip over me any ol’ time you like. Fuck if I care. It’s a fucking comment section of a blog. You want a seminar, sign up for “5154W CSCL – Theoretical Constructions of Space
” – or maybe “CLST 2050 and HAA 2401:
CULTURAL STUDIES COMMON SEMINAR
Cultural Formation Now: Contemporaneity, Connectivity, Planetarity”
Yeeesh.
@Cain:
“You are stupid and boring” is more succinct.
Fuck this.
Mino
I think Dave Waldman over at GOS had a good idea to use that law in a novel manner. SEC says it can’t make cases against financial terrorists: well, there you go! Jamie D. would look real good in orange.
And surely if the telecoms can get retrocative immunity, it shouldn’t be a problem to get the reverse of it for the banksters. Since that Bill of Rights thingy is so passe nowadays.
shano
True Joseph. Most lawyers are really disturbed by this legislation as codifying things our government was already doing. When I asked, so, this could lead to a POTUS shutting down political opposition, anyone who looks like a threat to established power, or simply disappearing people who protest the current powers (whomever they may be)….yes, is the answer I get.
The reason is because the language is so murky. Maybe deliberately murky. That is why it is so frightening and why there is so much confusion about the bill. Anyone in power can expand on this bill in any way they choose.
Greenwald seems to be right about this bill, he has the support of all the lawyers I have been reading on line and some of my friends who are lawyers agree with his interpretation.
Corner Stone
@shano:
What do you mean “maybe” ?
There is every indication the WH asked for specific language.
Hill Dweller
@Corner Stone: Specific language to imprison American citizens?
Hill Dweller
That should say indefinitely detain American citizens.
different-church-lady
@Donut: Yeah! Now that’s the stuff!
Corner Stone
@Hill Dweller: Specific language to allow the broadest interpretation of executive authority. I didn’t stutter.
Joseph Nobles
@shano: The people covered by the detention policies as described in the bill, I have little problem with being detained. I want more review of their status as covered persons than just five Congress critters or so. But that’s an easy fix.
My main problem with it all is how people are determined to be covered persons in the first place, and I’m sure you agree. What’s that process like? Yes, I agree that getting yanked off an airplane with a bomb showing “Allahu akbar” puts you square in the center of covered persons of both these sections of the NDAA. It’s the edges I’m concerned about.
different-church-lady
@Corner Stone: Far as I’ve been able to figure out, the specific language they asked for was so that any detention was not automatically military detention, in turn so that they could have the option of trying detainees in civilian court.
But at this point so many people have said so many things about what the administration wanted and why they wanted it that I can’t tell with any accuracy if they asked for different language, made more than one request, etc. etc.
Corner Stone
@different-church-lady: I just don’t trust in the better angels of men.
I don’t like language that gives them a foothold. And I don’t like it any better when my side is asking for the leeway.
Mnemosyne
@shano:
Who are you getting that answer from? It sure ain’t Greenwald, so please provide a link.
Hill Dweller
@Corner Stone: I was simply asking a question you insufferable dick.
You should have a bit more consideration for people who have to plow through your incessant drivel and, what you seem to think passes for, wit in order to reach the actual substantive comments.
fasteddie9318
@Joseph Nobles:
I’m sure the next majority-Democratic Congress will get on that right after they restore tax rates to pre-Reagan levels, abolish NAFTA, institute a serious cap-and-trade policy for greenhouse emissions, pass a constitutional amendment overturning Citizen’s United and instituting full public campaign financing, establish a single-payer health insurance system, lower the retirement age to 55, and institute free undergraduate college for all qualified applicants. Right on it.
eemom
@LT:
if you are such a pitiful little p*ssy that comments from someone on the other side of the planet trip your “creepy stalker” alarm, you might want to reconsider, you know, pimping your blog on public forums. Hell, you might want to reconsider coming out from under the bed.
In any event, now that you’ve reminded me, let me reiterate the simple thesis of my “many” “stalker” comments: If YOU don’t live here, YOU don’t get to tell us what to do. So, like, STFU.
patroclus
I think John and ABL should have a dance-off to decide this.
El Cid
@fasteddie9318: If we can maybe get 98 liberal Democratic Senators, then discussions on those points might be tabled.
NR
@El Cid: Are you kidding? 99 is the new 60. You need 99 votes in the Senate to do anything. Everyone knows that!
Brian R.
John, you’re misreading the post entirely.
The point wasn’t this stupid sidepoint about the name, it was that there is no SEPARATE and DISTINCT bill on indefinite detention and therefore the people demanding that Obama “veto the bill” don’t realize that would mean vetoing the ENTIRE appropriations act.
different-church-lady
@Corner Stone: I don’t trust the better angels either. But (and again, this is “as far as I can tell”) the language requested was so that detainees could get out of an automatic trip into the military system where they’d never get a trial and into the civilian system. Which, on merely that one point, should be seen as something positive.
What I’m hammering at here is that the idea that the bill gives the president too-broad powers and the language the administration requested might be two different things.
Bruce S
Hey Cole – those weren’t just lies. Those were “Pro Left Lies”, which as Sean Hannity can tell you are the very worst kind. If you don’t like circular firing squads, get yourself a different blog.
Carolinus
How about Adam Serwer instead:
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/defense-bill-passed-so-what-does-it-do-ndaa
Corner Stone
@Hill Dweller: You have a remedy you lazy jackass.
LT
@Brian R.:
Everybody knows that. The only people who don’t know that are ABL, the doofus she linked, to, you and several other commenters.
P.S. The fact that Obama did in fact threaten to veto the entire act – and that people like ABL, doofus, and you, even acknowledge that in some bizarre attempt to score points while not realizing it was an own goal – makes this all the stupider.
Baron Jrod of Keeblershire
If we call the bill that authorizes indefinite detention without trial the “Indefinite Detention Bill,” that makes us dirty ratfucking liars.
Ooooooooooookay…
@ruemara:
Do you actually have any reason to believe that, other than the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you must be ignorant hypocritical toads?
“Why are you people complaining? The Fourth and Fifth Amendments have already been gutted, so who cares if a new law is passed to gut them further? Why, if you care about this even slightly that means you’re an idiot and you hate America! Not like me! I show my love for America by bowing and scraping toward my Dear Leader five times a day, and logging at least a few hours insulting people online who have the sheer gall to offer even the tiniest criticism of Dear Leader. To admit that Dear Leader is capable of doing the wrong is the same as saying you want America to burn! Why do you hate America?!?!”
Toadies like you make me sick. Get it through your stupid thick skull: OBAMA IS JUST A HUMAN BEING AND IS NOT PERFECT, AND POINTING IT OUT WHEN HE OR ANY OTHER POLITICIAN STUMBLES IS NOT JUST OK, IT’S OUR DUTY AS CITIZENS. You Obots need to tattoo that inside your eyelids so you don’t forget.
Corner Stone
@Brian R.: Oh. Veto the “entire” bill?
I hadn’t realized that was the only resolution available.
boss bitch
@shano:
Well then they’re arses should have voted for Democrats in 2010 instead of staying home or voting Green. That tiny portion of the youth vote who thinks these are the only two issues that matter aren’t Obama voters. And how are you a part of Occupy Wall Street, screaming about income inequality and say you care about these two bills more than anything else? WTF? you are far more likely to lose your job overseas and your house and go bankrupt from medical expenses than you are to be caught up in some terrorist sweep.
Tell them to go vote Ron Paul 2012 – all the raw milk, legal weed and freedom they can ever ask for. They won’t have shit else to do of course but, “WEED, fuck yeah”.
Corner Stone
@patroclus:
I envision some nasty shit, like when the blonde Australian girl in Transformers goes to the Law & Order detective’s/hacker’s house to get help and he’s doing like a dance off with his cousin when The Man breaks the fuck in and stops their shit cold.
Mnemosyne
@Carolinus:
Sadly, facts don’t have much of an effect on this crowd once they’ve gotten themselves worked up into a good frenzy about a theoretical betrayal.
boss bitch
Oh hey, I hear Harry Truman is the new left’s civil liberties hero now.
I swear to mofo God, its like leaders on the left think there is no such thing as Google or a history book. Next thing I’ll hear is that FDR would never round up Americans and detain them.
El Tiburon
@different-church-lady:
And I guess my chicken fried steak dinner comes with mashed taters and a roll – but yet we all get by?
I understand the use of language and other internet traditions, but shorthanding a bill by a title of SOMETHING THAT IS ABSOLUTELY IN THE BILL is not some Luntzian-Rove deception mind-fuck. The bill absolutely outlines INDEFINITE DETENTION. To what extent it outlines it for American citizens is the bone of contention.
If Greenwald and the ACLU were calling it the ‘Obama-Sandusky Buggering Bill’ you and other might have an argument worth making.
Baron Jrod of Keeblershire
@Corner Stone: You gotta love the assumption that nobody wants to have the entire bill repealed.
Just for the record, bots, I do. Veto the whole fucking thing. Ohnoez! But without the appropriations bill how will we pay for drones to blow Afghan weddings into slimy red chunks?
Let Congress override the veto or remove the indefinite detention language. Let them decide how badly they want the war machine to keep crushing along, because I won’t be bothered if it stops.
Baron Jrod of Keeblershire
@Mnemosyne:
fixt
FlipYrWhig
@shano: Uh, IANAL, but I think this is totally around-the-bend crazy. There’s no way the bill provides for anything like that; if you’re concerned that a president, this one or any other, could _cook up_ terrorist connections to disappear a political foe or just to intimidate the populace, that has not been made any easier by this bill than it already was by either the Afghanistan AUMF, the “unitary executive” theories of Yoo/Cheney/Addington, or both. It specifically neither expands nor diminishes the discretionary powers of the executive branch. You, we, can lament that, but IMHO we can’t say that Obama has made things worse, only that he has blown an opportunity to make them better.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Mnemosyne:
That is exactly the problem, there is support among the voters for this and that’s why it passed with 85 votes in the Senate. This means that a large number of DEMOCRATS supported this bill, along with the Republicans. It was truly bipartisan in its passage. As much as some would like Obama to veto it, if Obama did so then politicians from both sides would attack him over it, another truly bipartisan act!
I hate this bullshit too but the only way it’s going to stop is to stop it at the local level. As long as it enjoys strong support from both sides it’s here to stay (and get even worse). Obama is no king, everything he does has some political calculation to it, that’s life. Get over it. If you don’t like it then work to change it.
At the local level, where the Republicans are beating your asses.
That or get a king.
ETA: Not pointed at you but at what you are pointing at. :)
different-church-lady
@El Tiburon:
Great. So we can accurately call the thing “The Pat of Butter Dinner” in order to prove it’s a dairy-based meal! Win!
In the end this whole branch of the discussion is kinda stupidly hypothetical, because as has already been pointed out very few people actually call the thing the “Indefinite Detention Bill” anyway. As an examination of Orwellian naming strategies it’s reasonably interesting, but to hang a whole
rantblog post on that premise is, as Cole said, weak sauce.On the other hand, to claim it’s more accurate to use shorthand… my goodness, what could possibly go wrong there?
Baron Jrod of Keeblershire
@boss bitch: So what you’re saying is that if anyone had complained about FDR detaining Japanese Americans during WW2, they would be just as bad as those awful firebaggers?
Because it sure reads like you think that FDR’s detention of innocent people based on their ethnicity was no big deal, and it’s really nothing to get worked up about.
I disagree. Yes, I understand that this makes me the most horrible person imaginable, so please save your fingers’ typing strength.
FlipYrWhig
@Baron Jrod of Keeblershire: I’m a pretty diehard Obot and I would veto the bill. But the point in question on these threads has been something else IMHO, and that’s what the bill itself actually does, in particular how extensively it alters the status quo. Whether the status quo is desirable is a different issue. For what it’s worth, my view is that it isn’t, and suspected terrorists should be treated in accordance with well-established criminal justice procedures.
different-church-lady
@Baron Jrod of Keeblershire: So, you’re kind of a fan of the scorched earth approach to things?
Anya
@LT: Ha
@Carolinus: That definitely puts my mind at ease about the “indefinite detention of US citizens and legal residents,” but the bill codifies “indefinite detention” of individuals who are captured in the “battle field”. Remember, the one that was passed during the 9/11 hysteria. I expect better from this President and I am entitled to be mad, disappointed, bewildered or worse, without being called a liar or any other name.
Having said that, I blame the cowardly Dem congress-critters and the nihilists party for this travesty more than I blame the President.
shano
FlipYrWhig: IMHO we can’t say that Obama has made things worse, only that he has blown an opportunity to make them better” Well said.
Anyone who does not think the language of this bill is ‘murky’, why does Diane Feinstein feel the need to ‘clarify’ the bill?
If the bill was perfectly clear about what it does or does not do why do we need another bill in order to set this straight?
Knockabout
So once again I have to ask: if you think ABL is wrong to the point of calling her out on it, why is she still a front pager?
You can do something about that, and it seems like many of us are asking you to.
Corner Stone
@boss bitch:
Yeah, you understand that from the ignorant fucking fools attacking the ACLU over their issues with this fucking bill.
Tool.
Corner Stone
Derpy derp. Truman to the derp. Derpy Truman? Derp.
FlipYrWhig
@El Tiburon: Yes, that part of the linked post was daft. Most of it was. The discussion it triggered, though, was pointed but enlightening, and I don’t want all those hundreds of comments dismissed because of this side issue of the merits of that piece, which had been left behind almost immediately.
El Tiburon
@different-church-lady:
What really is so tragic and sad about this debate is that we are having this debate. That Obama and the Democrats are such cowards that they will not erase the atrocities done to this country by Bush and the Republicans.
We are now parsing out how to dole out indefinite detention and to whom. Meanwhile we have actual human beings who have been in cages for years with not trial and at this time no hope for trial. It appears as though Obama and the United States is prepared to keep someone’s father, son or brother locked up without any formal charges or a chance to address those charges in a courtroom.
It is a shame. President Obama should be ashamed and if this were President McCain, I’m sure many of us would be talking impeachment.
And all of you are kidding yourselves if you don’t think this piece of legislation now erases all doubt about the power of locking human beings up for the rest of their lives without trial. Period.
Gordie
John,
I love you, I really do. I think the point the author was trying to make, however inartfully, was that Obama can’t veto those provisions of the bill without a LOT of collateral damage. Damage that may or may not, depending on your point of view, be worth it.
Now, you can agree or disagree. I wish a pony would show up on my doorstep, too. But if all I get is this donkey, I’m gonna ride it and keep working for the pony.
I think it’s an odious provision. But I’m not sure we can’t shoe this horse another time. The same thing seems to be happening with the Health Care bill. We all lamented that it didn’t go far enough. We didn’t get single payer, blah, blah, blah…. But now I’m reading more and more that in its entirety the bill is actually putting a noose around the necks of insurance companies that will eventually lead to single payer.
Rosa Parks didn’t get equality all at once. All she got was a seat on the bus.
Joseph Nobles
@fasteddie9318: The people upset about indefinite detention have an option besides crying about Obama. They can build a political movement to repeal AUMF and deal with the problem themselves. But that would mean getting off their asses and actually doing something instead of writing hate screeds from Brazil or rolling their eyes about how the Demmicrats ain’t no better.
Corner Stone
@Gordie: Has anyone ever kindly suggested you GFY? May I be the first?
Corner Stone
@Joseph Nobles:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
FlipYrWhig
@shano: Some of the murk has to do with the competing nterests of the different branches of government. The president, being president, wants to preserve the prerogative powers of the executive branch (for instance, how to proceed in cases of suspected terrorists, whether with criminal justice practices, military “tribunals”, or whatever else he/they deem appropriate).
In my view, presidents get so burnt out on the shenanigans of the legislative branch that they start to want to expedite things by claiming fuller powers. That’s a bad trend, but I can see why it gets so tempting.
shano
@El Tiburon: Well said. Our nations move to the right since Bush has been nothing but bad news. This is the latest example of the horrific legislation crafted under the guise of the “War on Terrah”. So horrific no one in the Obama Administration is willing to clarify what it really means or could mean.
Look at the militarization of our police and how we did not realize what happened until people took to the streets. I imagine this bill will do the same sort of damage to civil liberties unless it is changed.
Corner Stone
@El Tiburon:
Well, it’s pretty clear isn’t it? We have a bunch of people, that we know about, who will never receive a trial. And they are nominally in the control of US authorities.
That’s indisputable.
eemom
here’s a new voice of reason on this, hot off the virtual presses
Baron Jrod of Keeblershire
@different-church-lady: I just don’t think the earth can get any more scorched than to give the executive broad, vaguely-worded powers to detain people indefinitely. That this only applies to non-citizens is no comfort to me, btw.
I understand the political calculus being made here, and I agree with Flip that this isn’t going to dramatically change things. It does, however, make it perfectly clear that indefinite detention without trial is not some temporary aberration that America will eventually abandon, but a permanent part of our country’s law. It reinforces a flat-out evil part of the status quo.
I believe opposing that is worth the “risk” of our bloated military not getting all the toys it wants.
LT
@Gordie:
The worst thing about that article, and ABL’s linking it here, is that it has made a hundred people say something this fucking dumb a hundred times.
shano
@FlipYrWhig: No one wants the Executive office to have too much power, we seem to know where that leads. We want the Rule of Law, not the Rule of Men.
Everytime any people end up with the Rule of Men things go downhill fast, lol
Mnemosyne
And in case there’s any doubt, no one reliable — not even Greenwald — is claiming that this bill gives the president the power to detain US citizens on US soil. Even when Greenwald says it’s a “lie” that the bill doesn’t allow the US government to detain US citizens, he says the only provision that could potentially allow it is for US citizens arrested overseas:
So can we please at least drop the whole “OMG President Gingrich will have his political opponents arrested!” paranoia?
Joseph Nobles
@Corner Stone: You’re right. I meant to say “simpering purity tomes from Brazil.”
eemom
@Knockabout:
no, you’re pretty much the only one.
As you’re pretty much the only one who shows up here for the SOLE purpose of telling Cole how to run his own blog. Who the fuck are you, the Intergalactic Blog Patrol?
NR
@eemom: Shorter eemom’s link: Obama can’t stand up for the Constitution because the Republicans might say mean things about him.
Not convincing.
shano
@Baron Jrod of Keeblershire: “It does, however, make it perfectly clear that indefinite detention without trial is not some temporary aberration that America will eventually abandon, but a permanent part of our country’s law. It reinforces a flat-out evil part of the status quo.”
Yea, the whole thing is odious, and its frightening so many people in Congress are not in opposition.
Baron Jrod of Keeblershire
@FlipYrWhig: I don’t think John was pissing on the thread, though. All of his ire in his post is aimed at the article.
/blogosphericnavalgazing
eemom
@Joseph Nobles:
fer teh WIN.
FlipYrWhig
@El Tiburon: I think you’re indulging excessive slippery-slope-ism there. If I wanted to make your point I might say instead that it codifies a hitherto dubious policy _pertaining to suspected terrorists_, and that in conjunction with other developments that make it easier than it should to tag someone as a suspected terrorist, it tinkers with habeas corpus and other basic rights. But I still think it’s important to acknowledge that this bill does not in itself make it easier to treat someone as a terrorist. It makes it easier to follow that designation with a new kind of punishment (although even that was already happening because of the AUMF and the unitary executive theory).
FlipYrWhig
@shano: fair enough, but I mean more that structurally, in terms of the balance of powers, I’m sure that presidents start to gravitate towards notions of broad executive power because they want to get shit done. That doesn’t mean we have to follow them, mind you, but it’s another explanation besides corruption.
shano
@FlipYrWhig: So, can anyone describe ‘support’ of ‘terrorists’ and what that may entail and who will decide if you supported any organization that might be a ‘terrorist organization’?
FlipYrWhig
@Baron Jrod of Keeblershire: I guess you’re right. The early discussion on this thread was IMHO overly dismissive of the whole notion of a dialogue that would begin with a goofy linked post. At least we’ve gotten somewhere else since then.
Chuck Butcher
The funny thing is that we have a legal system capable of trying and convicting Charlie Manson and followers – this was terrorism and conspiracy. It has been managed with some others like OKC bombing.
Yes, they were citizens, but yes they were also convicted and punished. The idea that law can’t deal with some Al Qaeda fuck is on its face false. Fear, fear, fear because (fill in elected rep) can’t/won’t do anything in the interest of the American public other than the 0.1%.
Congress and the Prez can have all the credit for this that they can swallow and so can their pimps.
LT
@FlipYrWhig:
Why would it begin to matter what the motivation was? A whole lot of that story is about precedent.
Corner Stone
@Joseph Nobles: Is there a Purity Mountain in Brazil?
So sorry you haz a GG sad.
FlipYrWhig
@shano: That’s been an issue ever since 9/11, though, with that whole category of “enemy combatant” and the fiendishly too-clever-by-half use of Gitmo as a space both inside and outside America. This bill doesn’t wade into any of that, either to redress its awfulness or to make it worse.
El Tiburon
@FlipYrWhig:
Someone is engaging in something in your comment. Perhaps you could parse it down into simple folk language because our hitherto heads are esploding trying to digest that paragraph.
Benjamin Franklin
” but a permanent part of our country’s law.”
Well it take something truly heinous like a President who spies on his opponents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee
Chuck Butcher
@boss bitch:
More of the same clap-trap bullshit spewed with no data. Exit polling showed Dems showing up at ordinary rates, since data inside the booth is lacking all that is left is results which point to the beloved middle (I) shifting to GOP. Fuck you very much for your self-serving lies to oppose your actual allies.
This fantasy is regularly debunked around here and yet gets dragged out the second the Democrats don’t live up to being Democrats – especially if the name Obama gets mentioned.
shano
@FlipYrWhig: But the bill DOES say that people who SUPPORT “terrorist” organizations can be charged. etc. And then has a very vague “others” included.
NR
@shano:
That’s easy. The President.
Oh, what, that’s too much power for one person to have? Psh, checks and balances are, like, so 18th century.
windshouter
@shano ” I do not understand why this was put in a spending bill ”
You explain why yourself:
“This NDAA and SOPA are going to cause Obama to lose the youth vote and the OWS vote. They hate these two bills more than almost anything in politics.”
Absolutely the classic definition of a wedge issue. Expertly played by the Republicans, absolutely fumbled by us. We threaten to accuse Republicans of raising taxes, they yawn. They threaten us to accuse of supporting terrorists after years of success against terrorism and we hide. I’m talking about Congress mostly here.
FlipYrWhig
@LT: It matters insofar as you want to see Obama as an agent of elite power doing what elite power does, on the one hand, or as a president trying to MacGyver his way into doing what he thinks is right. In the ’04 election Kerry had a hard time explaining why he voted to authorize the Iraq war even though he disagreed with it, and he said something like he still thought it was a kind of authority any president should have. It was treated as a gaffe, but I think it’s an important distinction. Presidents want to have maximal authority and not be bound by legislatures and courts. It’s the nature of what it’s like to hold that branch.
None of that is meant to endorse claims of expansive executive power, but instead to offer up a slightly different view of why presidents go in that direction, even presidents who have been legislators and who teach constitutional law.
Donut
@different-church-lady:
(totally intended to make you laugh, hope you understood that…)
LT
@FlipYrWhig:
But that shouldn’t play into it. If you’re against the expansion, then what good does “My guy did it for the right reason!” do but aid the expansion?
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Knockabout:
Maybe because John, unlike too many others, has no problem with dissenting opinions amongst the FP’ers? Maybe he even tolerates it? Maybe even he knows that while ABL could be wrong, that he could be too? Or maybe you are in to confirmation bias and your poor soul needs assuaging?
I’m sure it’s probably one of these.
FlipYrWhig
@El Tiburon: I think you should include in your complaint the idea that it’s only by way of the concept of “terrrorism” that such a thing can happen. I don’t think the bill makes it possible for anyone to be disappeared at any time for any reason. At worst it makes it possible to use a trumped-up charge of being associated with terrorism to do that. People who are worried about the law being used to crack down on dissidents should IMHO remember to include the element of terrorist ties as the linchpin to that worry.
So, sure, the government _could_ conceivably frame someone as a terrorist associate and then detain them indefinitely. But I think that was true before, because of the AUMF and “enemy combatants” and the rest. This bill doesn’t prevent that, but I’m not sure it makes it worse, either.
gaz
@El Tiburon: *-snort-* *-chuckle-*
Which is why salon is the only place that will have him.
Which is why he regularly engages in drive by trolling on any blog that mentions his name.
Which is why he buries the fine print of his assertions so deep in his arguments that it would take a proctologist with a plumbing snake to find out that he was in fact full of shit – even though he knows – but purposefully obfuscates the context of his assertions…
The man is credibility personified!
*-snigger-*
*-chuckle-*
wow
smintheus
@Mnemosyne: You mean people will interpret these provisions based on the clearly stated intent of the amendment’s proposers, and the consistent tendency of nearly all its elements, without putting much stock in a brief bit of vague mush added as an afterthought that the amendment’s foremost critics weren’t satisfied by? How sad.
Could hardly be clearer that any future president who wants to lock up Americans without due process in military prisons will be able to claim that Congress permitted it, or at least considered the matter and did not prohibit it, under this bill. Unless Congress passes a law stating the opposite, which seems somewhat unlikely, it would be up to the prisoners’ lawyers to try to convince the courts that the true meaning of the vague mush was the opposite of how the president was interpreting the vague mush. And that litigation would take years, and that would provide ample opportunities for trolls in Congress to pass further legislation that would end the dispute by explicitly authorizing every power the president was claiming to have (and maybe more). That’s how the legal traditions of this country have been undermined during the last decade, and that’s why the last minute mush doesn’t really impress the critics of this amendment.
LT
@Odie Hugh Manatee: There’s a difference between a “dissenting opinion” and being flat out deceptive and wrong. (Nobody – fuckng nobody – implied that he could just veto the provision regarding detention.) Not to mention continuously and intentionally shit-stirring.
FlipYrWhig
@LT: It doesn’t help decide if you’re for or against it, no. I just meant that presidents both left and right like for presidents to have as much power as possible. I felt like we were starting to lump together “lots of power for the president” and “right wing.” Now I’m not sure why I thought that.
Corner Stone
@gaz: Pathetic.
invisible_hand
well, i mean they are right in blaming congress that they put the president in this position. if he vetoed this bill, they rethuglicans would be all over him, calling him weak on security.
now, that does not excuse the president’s decision. signing that bill is bullshit. but it’s an important component to the context.
FlipYrWhig
@smintheus:
If they offered an explanation that cited terrorist ties, perhaps. Not without that. Maybe they could fake it, but they’d have to use that device.
gaz
@FlipYrWhig: agreed. Except the parts where people kept trying to redirect it to bash on ABL. Like we don’t already hear that shit ON EVERY SINGLE THREAD.
gaz
@Corner Stone: I’m well aware that you are pathetic. You don’t need to keep reminding me.
I have a fairly decent memory.
still #winning I see.
You should lay off that shit. It’s no good for you. Ask Charlie.
Corner Stone
@gaz: Nobody’s going to give you any wet naps to clean up amigo. Just so you know.
LT
@FlipYrWhig:
Oh well okay then.
Could you be more blase about that?
Benjamin Franklin
@invisible_hand:
It’s taken him 3 years to understand that they will oppose anything he does.
I thought he was spawned in Chicago politics.
gaz
@Corner Stone: You’re obviously too drunk or stoned to be coherent.
So I’ve re-pied you.
El Tiburon
@gaz:
The only place? Seriously your derangement is really out of control.
And again: you don’t understand what an internet troll is. Defending your arguments is not trolling.
gaz
@El Tiburon: I’m sorry. Did I miss the part about him landing a gig at the NY Times or something?
And I know what trolling is. Apparently you don’t.
Anyway, it hardly seems worth arguing with you. As far as I can tell, you’re a troll as well.
El Tiburon
@FlipYrWhig:
It is precisely that this bill seems to codify what Bush and Obama are claiming are their powers under the AUMF that is so damning about this bill.
It’s like someone finally put the rules of sandlot baseball down onto paper and sure enough it says that it is okay for the pitcher to hit the batter in the head. It’s an imprecise analogy – but this is my understanding what is so odious about this bill.
That it says: Hey, for those of you wondering if we can capture and detain FOREVER WITHOUT TRIAL anyone who we suspect as being a terrorist or in cahoots with a terrorist – wonder no more. We do!
gaz
@El Tiburon: GG is arguing that it makes it worse.
LT
@gaz: He’s been published in the NYT a number of times.
Now it’s your turn to come back with, “The NYT? That proves how weak he is!”
Come on…
Odie Hugh Manatee
@LT: “Not to mention continuously and intentionally shit-stirring.”
Now that really made me laugh out loud! You do know that you are at Balloon-Juice, the blog that gets regularly trolled by it’s owner, the one where one of the FP’ers should have a PhD in sockpuppetry (if they don’t already)? The place that had the subtitle “Hot air and ill-informed banter” at the top of the page for years?
Right?
@gaz:
One thing I have noticed over the years here is that the people here have rarely ever called for the canning of a FP’er, no matter how horrible they are at any given time. Rarely. Then along comes ABL and we get an influx of people with new handles claiming to be regulars (or acting like it), all hating on ABL and calling for John to can her.
Odd. Maybe there’s something different about ABL that bothers certain people to the point of not even allowing her to express herself without calling for her censure or banishment.
Gee, I wonder what that could be… what could be so different about her writing that makes people act this way.
eemom
@El Tiburon:
Greenwald showed up in the earlier thread to call us all “Dear Leader” cultists, AGAIN. That’s all he wrote.
How is that “defending his argument”?
El Tiburon
@gaz:
You are erecting a huge strawman assuming he wanted a gig at the New York Times. Fact is he started as a lowly blogger and is now one of the most influential bloggers in the US.
But don’t run away from your ‘troll’ comment. Defending yourself is not being a troll. Dropping comments for no other reason to inflame is being a troll. That you can’t see the difference speaks to your intelligence.
shano
Ryan Hoffman @NewYorkCreator Close
93 Senators voting for the #NDAA proves what #occupywallstreet #ows has said from the beginning. There’s only one party, & we ain’t invited.
eemom
@LT:
“a number of times”? Really? Let’s see some links.
gaz
@LT: They reprinted him?
That is somewhat surprising.
El Tiburon
@eemom:
Bullshit you liar. He linked to FOUR DIFFERENT articles backing up his position. So, that defeats your argument, doesn’t it?
Using over-the-top rhetoric is just a part of the internet traditions. So calling you Obama cultists ‘Obama cultists’ or whatever is part of the fun. But that is not all he wrote.
gaz
@Odie Hugh Manatee: Pretty sure I’d have to play the race card if I answered that.
Corner Stone
@Odie Hugh Manatee: Are you stupid? (rhetorical)
EDK called for a no confidence vote on his FP abilities here. Leading to Cole posting the infamous GWB middle finger pic.
Yes, ABL is somehow different than Micheal D. or EDK or Mmenodies or whatever the fuck his name was before he flamed the fuck out.
She sucks balls just like the rest of them.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@gaz:
Just leave CS in the shallow end of the pool, he’s at home there and not out of his depth. I pretty much ignore most of what he says, only responding once in a while to give the thick Texas pinata another whack with the stick.
Then I move on, letting him rant and rage until he works it out of his system. Anything more would be a waste of my time.
gaz
@El Tiburon: And yet he wanted a gig at SALON?
really?
Do I really even need to go there?
Salon is the place where former broadsheeters and liberal hacks go to die.
Benjamin Franklin
@El Tiburon:
I disagree. I love his passion. It keeps the blood circulating, which for me, is life extension.
Svensker
@shano:
This is the key, to me.
El Tiburon
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
Could be her thin-skinned rantings and reliance on personal attacks are a bit off-putting for some of us.
For others it could be she is a woman. For others it could be she is black. Shit, maybe she is Jewish as well and some don’t like that.
Tell me: what is it about Greenwald that makes so many here hate him with a passion? Hmmm…what could it be?
Odie Hugh Manatee
@Corner Stone: “She sucks balls just like the rest of them.”
And we all know that you’re the expert on ball sucking, so I guess we’ll have to take your word on it. Problem is that while we all know that you are an avid conservative ball sucker, we also know that nothing you say is credible.
Win-lose for you, as usual.
gaz
@Odie Hugh Manatee: Precisely what I did.
Corner Stone
@gaz: Hola fruta!
Another weak ass pie disciple.
Joseph Nobles
@Corner Stone: Yes, there’s a Purity Mountain in Brazil! It’s in the Agony Aunt Mountain Range with a large concrete statue of Glenn the Redeemer right on top.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@El Tiburon:
I already stateed my opinion on GG in the other thread here, go find it for yourself firebagger.
Corner Stone
@Odie Hugh Manatee: I’m not sure where you’re going here Odious Manatee.
Care to expound?
Benjamin Franklin
I don’t believe in Icons, until they earn the descriptor. I know Icons, Icons are a friend, GG is no icon.
Odie Hugh Manatee
@gaz:
Yeah, I’ve had my fun stirring up the shallow end of the gene pool here, now it’s time to go finish cleaning my garage.
gaz
@El Tiburon: So when he spends GOD KNOWS HOW MUCH TIME combing through massive amounts of RSS feeds in hope that someone, somewhere mentioned something about him that he doesn’t like – so that he can drop in, make ONE comment and then bail… that’s not trolling?
And yet when some random user does this regularly on one or two blogs, it’s different, you know because STFU, that’s why!
I see.
LT
@El Tiburon:
Nice.
Corner Stone
@Joseph Nobles: Oooo, Churriguera the Redeemer!
Thanks and Blessings be to the Christ Child Greenwald for his Benevolence!
Do you have any sense of how fucking stupid and petty you sound?
Probably not.
Benjamin Franklin
@Odie Hugh Manatee:
WTF?
LT
@eemom:
Only if you agree afterwards to not acknowledge anything about it and quickly switch to some other nonsense.
Joseph Nobles
@Corner Stone: Awww. Him no like me harshing his Glenny buzz. Awww, poor thing!
shano
huh, I’ve always like Salon. And always loved Greenwald. Always been an Independent voter. Love good writing. I dont get the Greenwald hate. He is a really good writer and speaker, even if you disagree with him.
I guess if anyone gets tagged with the ‘Firebagger’ name around here, as seems to have happened with Greenwald, it is an automatic tribal hate fest?
rootless_e
It’s rare that I see someone miss the point of a pretty simple argument so spectacularly, and the wave of applause for it is even more hilarious. Of course, Shook’s point was not that the bill had a different name, but that it was a large complex bill that dealt with many issues and vetoing it would not simply be a veto of the absurd detention section.
Chuck Butcher
Given the subject matter, civil libertarians tend to get a bit self-rightous. Odd, that.
We’ve spent quite a bit of time shitting on civil liberties in the name of fear and enforcing on “the other.” Just to make a point – it’s about all of us – I give you RICO and turning Amendment words into wiggle words. Hardly a be-all/end-all of catagories, but fear will rule and so will the justification of “them.” RICO was all about the Mafia, funny how that works after a bit.
gaz
@Joseph Nobles: Don’t get me wrong, I love Glenn Greenwald. He’s the dipshit-lefters version of the dipshit-righter’s Ron Paul.
There’s nothing tastier than sacred cow, served rare. The way people cling to him is priceless.
Also, too – he’s a hack – and hacks are funny.
Corner Stone
@Joseph Nobles: Aww, derpy derp. I gots a serious GG crush but he won’t fuck me.
Too bad for you boffin. I’m sure you’ll get over it one day.
shano
@rootless_e: Did our esteemed congresscritters think this would just pass quietly with no debate among the people and lawyers in America? How dumb do they think we are?
And then they cannot even explain or even attempt to explain this section in defense. It is ludicrous.
LT
@rootless_e:
This same dumb comment has now been posted 101 times.
John knew that. We knew that. Everybody knew that. The only ones who didn’t were Snook, ABL, you , and the BJ mental midget gallery.
Hey, I just thought of something about you:
Corner Stone
@rootless_e: Unfortunately, it is not rare to see you miss the entire point.
Shook’s article was garbage. Every sentient person here knew there were complicating factors involving a veto.
Benjamin Franklin
@gaz:
Your best, to this date.
lol
shano
@Chuck Butcher: Exactly. I think RICO is a very good example of what some American lawyers are saying about this legislation.
Joseph Nobles
@gaz: Sounds good to me, although I don’t know what’s particularly left about Glenn. In his place, he’s fine.
@Corner Stone: GET OUT OF MY HEAD
smintheus
@LT: Maybe also worth pointing out that this is stupid not just because Congress can more easily pass NDAA without the detention amendment if Obama were to veto it, but also because it is just an authorization bill. If it were an appropriations bill, then there would be the danger (however minimal) that the DoD would have to wait a while for needed funds. But defeat of a defense authorization bill complicates the lives of members of Congress, not of the military.
Hawes
I think when the author says “There is no such bill” he’s referring to the fact that it’s not a stand alone bill. It’s part of the larger defense appropriations bill that Obama wants to keep unemployment down. Veto the bill, lose thousands of jobs. I don’t see how that’s arguable. So they made some changes to remove some stink from the law. As others noted if the prez can kill an American in Yemen, why can’t he Gitmo him?
Still, it would be awesome to declare victory over Al Qaeda just to see wingnut heads explode and a generation of odious law become moot.
rootless_e
@shano: I somehow missed the vast public outrage against any of the civil liberty limiting bills.
gaz
@rootless_e: I think you are being somewhat charitable about that article.
It was piss poor. The reasoning was specious (wtf does an army brat have to do with anything?) ill-conceived and basically sloppy.
The fact that ABL lead with that (and finished with that, presented without comment even) was pretty shitty. It almost even spoiled the thread.
I agree with your conclusion though, I just think you are giving a whole lot of undue credit to author. The piece was garbage. It’s only real redeeming feature was that it at least quoted several parts of the bill.
LT
@rootless_e:
Another hilarious part of this is that since Obama did threaten to veto the entire bill – you must think he’s pretty dumb. Either that or you think his threat was empty, which means you don’t think much of him.
Corner Stone
@Chuck Butcher:
Yep. Until it wasn’t anymore. Exactly.
Laws hit the books for a reason. We shouldn’t expect them to get repealed for any reason.
FlipYrWhig
@LT: I’m not being blasé about it, I’m trying to specify what is the objectionable part of THIS BILL vs. the objectionable parts of the entirety of post-9/11 terrorist-related jurisprudence.
Corner Stone
@Joseph Nobles: You mean the derpy derp part?
Everybody knows that.
gaz
@Benjamin Franklin: clearly then, I must try harder =)
rootless_e
@Corner Stone: Lacking the mind reading abilities that seem to be so common among the True Progressives, I can only go by what John wrote.
—
I’m dying over here. Guess what- there was no such thing as the “OBAMACARE bill,” it was actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Calling someone a liar because they are referring to a casual name instead of the official name is the depths we’ve sunk to smear our ideological enemies?
—
This looks like a very confused response to Shook’s argument that either (a) Misses the point or (b) is deliberately misrepresenting the point. One assumes the first just to be polite.
shano
@rootless_e: yea, I keep asking Bush voters who complain about the deficit where the hell they were when Bush put two wars on a credit card. They have no answer.
I guess it is better to wake up sooner rather than later. When our system itself is corrupt, it is very hard to make changes in the system because it is a corrupt system. How we change the system is currently under debate all over the nation.
rootless_e
@LT:
Obama threatened to veto the entire bill if if the language of the section was not modified.
Shook points out that there is much more to the bill than that section.
Is that too complicated? Too many big words?
FlipYrWhig
@El Tiburon: I’d buy that explanation, with the caveat that it also holds open the question of what those original powers were in the first place. So something is codified, and something else is left in place. I’d like to see the whole thing come before the Supreme Court to test its compatibility with habeas corpus.
gaz
@Joseph Nobles: I wasn’t saying he was left.
I was saying dipshits of a lefty bent cling to him.
He’s a Libertarian. Which as we all know is shorthand for “over-privileged white male douchebag”
You’d think that’d be enough for people to want to ignore him.
Sadly, no.
Corner Stone
@rootless_e: Shook had no argument. That’s what Cole is saying.
ABL and you and the rest of the twitter jihad can try, try, and try again.
The NDAA sucks. It should be vetoed in its entirety.
Argue against that.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@El Tiburon:
Because he talks about issues as if he’s in some magical world where he only considers them one at a time.
El Tiburon
@gaz:
So, he has to come upon a blog linking to an article calling him a liar by chance. THEN, he has to come to the blog, make a comment, then stick around and engage for a set period of time. THEN, and only then, he would not be a troll?
Do you have any idea how many times he ‘trolls’ this board when his name is mentioned? I can tell you as a regular reader her for a long time and a Greenwald fan – it is very very few times. And if you haven’t noticed, he has a blog of his own. That he does drop in to defend himself on occasion is more than almost every other blogger/pundit who is discussed in the forum ever does.
Again – just because you hate the man doesn’t make him commenting on blogs that call him a liar a troll.
El Tiburon
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
Then tell me why many here don’t like ABL.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@shano:
No, our esteemed congresscritters knew that the majority – 85+% – of the American public wouldn’t care that anything was passed that might affect their freedom, and that most of them only care about whether they are going to be able to pay their mortgage or rent and buy their children food. And the congresscritters counted on:
1. Obama vetoing it and them being able to go after him for not supporting jobs.
2. Obama passing it and a group of people on the left going after him rather than Republicans.
Quaker in a Basement
“Remora” is not another name for “shark.”
Benjamin Franklin
+2
gaz
@El Tiburon:
Not by chance, but by effort. It’s a pattern of behavior.
And it’s not just this board. The man has posted on some obscure assed blogs. Links are forthcoming.
rootless_e
@gaz: If the argument is so crappy, surely one can refute it instead of pretending it said something entirely different.
I might as well attack Greenwald for his hatred of the environment and veterans for demanding a bill that contains a lot of money for renewable energy and veteran education be vetoed.
El Tiburon
@gaz:
You referring to Greenwald? I think he would say he is a civil libertarian, but not a libertarian in the Reason magazine variety.
FlipYrWhig
@Chuck Butcher: I like that comparison, but has RICO been used to clamp down on dissenting political views, and if not, why not? If the worry is that this indefinite detention structure could be used on non-terrorists like, say, Occupiers somewhere… Couldn’t RICO be used the same nefarious way? Couldn’t a US Attorney somewhere define OWS as a corrupt institution and nail it to the wall? What’s preventing that, and why wouldn’t the expansion of the indefinite detention provision to people who aren’t terrorists be prevented by the same thing, whatever it is? (I recall RICO being used to crack down on abortion clinic blockers… Right? It’s getting hazy.)
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@El Tiburon: Because ABL has chosen to define her presence on the web partially in terms of her being black, and refuses to suppress that so that people will feel more comfortable.
shano
@gaz: No, I think there is more to Greenwald than you say. He certainly is not some Randian asshole like Ryan or Paul.
People are complex, and really smart people are complex too. His life has been proscribed because of US law, having to live in Brazil if he wants to be with his significant other.
I have seen him connect some very complex issues, so reject the idea that he isolates issues one at a time.
But it is always about the culture war and slotting people into the left/right framing, no matter how harmful this has been to all of us in the past.
LT
@rootless_e:
So fucking dumb it’s difficult to start.
Shook said “People who think Obama could just veto the detention provision were wrong.” Nobody fucking thought that. Do you get this? It makes your response to my comment about the fact that Obama actually threatened to veto the entire bill – which Shook, biarrely, even mentions – a complete non-sequitor.
And you thought those were big words?
Joseph Nobles
@gaz: Ah, got ya. :D
@Corner Stone: MY HEAD, GET OUT OF IT (why won’t Glenny love me, sniff)
rootless_e
@Corner Stone: Well, forgive me for not being bowled over by the logical and rhetorical power of “Shook had no argument”, but frankly it seems sad.
Shook’s point is quite simple – and one that needs a more serious response. He says, you are asking the President to veto a bill that has wide popular and Congressional support when that veto would cause economic dislocation and pain and seems unlikely to produce a better bill (more likely to produce a worse one). And Shook says arguments demanding the veto are being made dishonestly, as if the detainment section were a stand-alone bill. Go ahead and try to refute that, but if the best you can do is “that argument sucks”, color me unimpressed.
gaz
osbornelink is one of them, I know of.
Having a bit of trouble separating the chaff from google.
Wish there was a way I could search and EXCLUDE headlines.
shano
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): Thats as good an explaination as I have seen. But I do not think it is only people “on the left” going after Obama.
Sure the right wing authoritarians will love it, but my group of Independent voters hate it. I think some Congressmen are going to regret voting for this piece of crap.
rootless_e
@LT: I have not seen a single argument for veto that either considered the negative effects of a stand-off given the other material in the bill or gamed out how this stand-off would produce a win in the end ( I know that winning is considered low class by the Custer Left, but still). So Shook’s point there is well taken.
cokane
STONE THE UNFAITHFUL MONKEYS
Corner Stone
@Joseph Nobles: One day he’ll acknowledge your existence.
Actually…nah, prolly not. You should just accept it at some point.
Joseph Nobles
@Corner Stone: Who are we talking about?
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@shano: I hope some of the congressmen do get in trouble for it. You’re also right, that it probably annoys some independents. But we’re completely arguing over the wrong guilty people, who are with out a doubt the Republicans.
Thing is, where I work – defense contractor which contains a lot of small government Republican voters – they aren’t even talking about that provision.
Corner Stone
@rootless_e: Shook’s point is indeed simple. Greenwald is a heretic who should burn and anyone who argues against the NDAA is costing Obama jerbs/votes in an election year and is objectively pro-Godzilla! No, not a metaphor. The actual Godzilla will be elected if we push back on Constitutional rights v some false fucking argument regarding the economy.
Even Godzilla knows that short term gains/losses in the moribund economy aren’t worth long term damage to civil rights as prescribed by the Constitution.
eemom
@rootless_e:
It IS the best he can do.
Cornered Stone is a stupid troll’s idea of what a smart troll sounds like.
LT
@rootless_e:
Again: Obama threatened to veto the bill. That you fail to absorb how this completely obliterates your reasoning is jawdropping.
NR
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): So everyone who criticizes ABL is racist? Is that what you’re saying?
Corner Stone
@Joseph Nobles: Treeluke the Christmas Elf.
If you’re a good boy he’ll make sure Santa grants your wishes.
shano
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): Well thats frightening in itself. They want a small government that lets the POTUS decide who to lock up indefinitely. yikes.
shano
@LT: To say nothing of the fact that Obamas veto threat was for all the wrong reasons, ie, more Executive power instead of protecting civil liberties
FlipYrWhig
@Belafon (formerly anonevent): @shano: I don’t think there are all that many civil libertarians out there deciding who to vote for on the basis of detainee policy and overly broad executive power. It’s just not that high on very many lists of political priorities.
Joseph Nobles
@Corner Stone: I think you’ve got me mixed up with someone. Treeluke? Are you sure you’re not high?
LT
@shano: I think it was for both good and rotten reasons.
LT
@Joseph Nobles: No, I am not high.
mangrilla
I also love that one of Shook’s “I’ve got the vapors” moments also comes from this:
So a win for opponents of the military industrial complex too, huh?
Where do I sign up?
gaz
@El Tiburon: I used to draw the distinction. But then I realized that financial matters aren’t really important enough by themselves to justify the distinction.
libertarian philosophy is crippled by the fact that it seems to be couched in the idea that there are simple answers to very complicated problems, and if you just follow a few basic principles… CAKE!
Military intervention isn’t always bad.
Some drugs should probably remain illegal.
etc…
Usually nowadays, I tend to see the self identified little l libertarians as confused liberals.
In my neck of the woods we have a word for civil libertarian s. We call them Liberals. Want to meet one? Hop over to hullabaloo and say hi to digby.
rootless_e
I denounce you enemies of the environment and education who demand a veto of the Renewable Energy and Veterans Education Bill.
What?You say there is no such bill, just provisions in the authorizations bill? Well, that’s stupid, it doesn’t matter what its called.
FlipYrWhig
@shano: That’s debatable. It seemed to me that the administration wanted more latitude on how to treat cases of suspected terrorists — part of that latitude was to keep open the option of trying cases in civilian rather than military courts, and the other part was about the sentiment that the legislature shouldn’t be able to tell the executive how to handle war-related matters. I have more sympathy for the first point than the second myself. But there were two tracks to their position.
Joseph Nobles
@LT: Do you wish that you were?
gaz
@LT: But apparently, you are Corner Stone’s sock puppet.
Chuck Butcher
@FlipYrWhig:
RICO was sold as a mafia buster and the seizure policies used to break corporate sized criminal enterprises. What and how it has been used since depends a lot on who is telling the story at the time. At the very least, a whole bunch of “baby RICOs” are enriching local law enforcement along with Fed agencies.
OR was sufficiently outraged to ban “baby RICO” seizures w/o convictions. I have no sympathy for people terrorizing and harassing abortion providers/clients but yes it has been used. “Unreasonable search and seizure” has become nothing more than wiggle language where it clearly was not meant as such.
I completely understand that “freedom of speech” doesn’t include a freedom to yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater, but that isn’t even close to what this shit is about. I also understand that govts have an inherent duty to protect themselves – I also understand that one of the reasons for the BOR is that govts do that.
I’m a Democrat and I think the purpose of govt is to govern and in the Fed’s case to do so in the interest of the populace at large rather than the narrower interests of the States. I’m also a Democrat in the sense of not trusting the govt to operate without serious limits on its abilities to interfere with citizens.
This terror horseshit is a figleaf, there are adequate laws and systems to deal with it and always have been. The fucking FBI and CIA had everything they needed to deal with 9/11 and failed out of incompetence at their jobs – not because laws or legal procedures were lacking or even because they didn’t have information. Not one thing was needed other than making those shitheads share and pay attention but we got… new bullshit laws.
LT
@gaz:
Well, to play at your level: You obviously fucked a cow this morning!
gaz
@FlipYrWhig: I’ve tended to agree with you for the most part over the course of the past two threads.
But I gave up on giving Obama the benefit of any doubt when he made it clear over and over again that he doesn’t deserve it.
Benjamin Franklin
Not to give them too much credit. legislation is their job.
Serving the American Public, not so much.
Extreme Liberal
I smell Frank Luntz for some reason. I suppose “Death Panels” were cool too, it’s just Kleenex, you know.
gaz
@LT: Okay then LT.
Let me see if I can be especially clear: (#312, #314)
I have to ask why you responded to a question directed at Corner Stone.
That’s where sock-puppet accusation came in.
Was it a mistake on your part?
LT
@Joseph Nobles: Depends on the drug. But yes, generally. Always.
LT
@gaz:
Oh. My. Jihad. Given the weirdness of that particular conversation already – Treeluke?! – you couldn’t follow what I was doing?
Anya
@El Tiburon:
Because he’s a sanctimonious douchebag who exists to gripe about all manner of things in the most dishonest high handed way. He’s also vindictive and petty. Fuck that asshole.
Joseph Nobles
@LT: Treeluke – TL, LT. I think I followed that transition.
eemom
@mangrilla:
And a LOSE for a lot of employees too, you simple-minded asshole.
LT
@Anya: What is dishonest about his “gripe” here, just to start with something.
FlipYrWhig
@Chuck Butcher: Thanks for the background… I’m just being skeptical about the idea that indefinite detention for suspected terrorists lays the groundwork for indefinite detention for political dissidents and enemies of the state. That would be a slippery slope unique in its steepness.
To the extent that there’s a “real” problem these detainee policies are intended to address, it seems to be an attempt to stack the deck even more thoroughly against acquittal, especially by circumventing ideas about probable cause for searches and by ruling _in_ evidence produced by means like torture. That’s what they’re trying to create, a parallel system that skews towards finding guilt. That’s bad. That’s a problem. I oppose that, and this bill abets it. But I think leaping to visions of indefinite detention becoming a means of handling the government’s critics and dissidents is hasty and unhelpful. I’d rather see the focus be on the unfairness with which suspected terrorists have been, and continue to be, treated.
gaz
@LT:
I had cornerstone himself filtered.
Taking off the filter, no, it still doesn’t make sense (I blame corner stone tho – sense is not his forte)
And Treeluke? is this something we’re expected to understand?
I figured it was just another babbling stream-of-consciousness spew from Corner Stone. He does that a lot.
Anyway – whatevs.
I half figured you weren’t corner stone’s sock puppet, by virtue of the fact that you can string more than 3 words together without sounding insane. – but I felt it was worth asking, because any way I slice it, the exchange didn’t make any sense at all.
LT
@Joseph Nobles:
?? Are you serious? You’re going to have to back up for me. What the fuck or who the fuck is Treeluke?
rootless_e
@Corner Stone:
English has different words for “liar” and “heretic” for a good reason.
“Even Godzilla knows that short term gains/losses in the moribund economy aren’t worth long term damage to civil rights as prescribed by the Constitution ”
So much wrong in a single sentence that it’s hard to pick a favorite, but the implicit theory that the GOP taking back the WH is not a catastrophe is the one that really grabs the prize.
Chuck Butcher
Whatever I might like or dislike about the Prez, there wasn’t a chance in hell he’d veto the bill as written and a large part of the commentariate here are the reason. The reason this thing passed with the margin it did is that Congress knows it not only can get away with shit, but that getting away with shit is good for them.
If you expect the Prez to veto in this fucking atmosphere and the “I’ll eat a shitsandwich as long as it has Mayo” environment you’re fucking nuts. I sure don’t expect the man to be Superman or whatever and I don’t expect a real big chunk of America to get it until they’re really screwed to the wall and probably can’t do anything about it.
I made the point about the Bush Tax Cut extensions and got the same answer – Mayo. In the face of the GOP’s use of revenue regarding paying our fucking bills. There was your damn trade off and you might look at the size of the damage being done in the name of that trade off, but most won’t. That is why it is important to punch hippies or civil libertarians. That’s why it is important to make up shit about who voted ’10, call civil libertarians “Libertarians”, and… fuck carry on.
Benjamin Franklin
+3
A system wherein innocence must be proven has been tried and found wanting.
gaz
@Joseph Nobles: sheesh…
that’s what this was?
man. confusing.
Baron Jrod of Keeblershire
@eemom: We must continue slaughtering the mud peoples! Just think of the jobs we’d lose if we ever stopped wantonly killing innocent people!
But tell me, what’s the trade value? How many Afghans violently transformed into a rotting red smear are worth one decent full-time American job?
gaz
@Benjamin Franklin: ahh, you old fuddy duddy!
Where’s your sense of adventure?
/snark
Chuck Butcher
@FlipYrWhig:
That’s exactly why I have not made any such assertion about who gets “detained”. It is such a piece of shit w/o even going there, but who the fuck cares???
I haven’t made any big defenses of GG either… I’ve seen him go off the rails, but nowhere nearly to the extent of the mayo on my sammich bunch.
FlipYrWhig
@FlipYrWhig: I tried to add this and timed out… Basically, either to produce findings of guilt, or to treat guilt as a foregone conclusion without ever having to adjudicate it.
Anya
@LT: He claimed without offering any proof that the President inserted indefinite detention into the Defense Authorization Act. Also, why can’t he manage to find any faults with the cowards in the congress? Did he ever blame the congress for blocking President Obama from closing GITMO? No, it’s always President Obama’s fault.
gaz
@Baron Jrod of Keeblershire: I wonder if I’ll live to see the day when we abandon all pretense of giving a shit, and just switch the world reserve currency from US dollars to Dead African Children.
LT
@gaz: No, that’s not what this was. And thinking LT means TL – that is just weird.
You obvously own this company, gaz!
Benjamin Franklin
@gaz:
Does my age show?
mangrilla
@eemom:
Sheesh, should have known one can’t snark on a threat with 300 comments. Let me ask you a question though. I don’t know whether or not you believe that military spending should decrease. Many liberals do feel that way, considering the amount we spend on it is mind-boggling. If you feel that way as well, how do we propose to do it without, you know, decreasing employment in companies whose sole existences are based on military spending?
I understand an argument that says, “It’s a rough economy, we can’t lose the jobs now.” But at some point, if the agenda is to cut military funding, people will lose jobs. Anyway, I just thought it was funny that the author assumes that an ideologue like Greenwald would be particularly swayed by that argument. Sorry to ruffle feathers with the obvious.
eemom
@Baron Jrod of Keeblershire:
Vitriol aside, you are asking a good question, and I have no idea of the answer.
My point is just that it is very, very far from as simple as “stick it to the MIC, yeehaw!”
Joseph Nobles
@LT: Treeluke is something Corner said to me. When I responded to it, you responded to me. The best I could figure, apart from sock puppetry gone awry, was that you’d jumped into the middle of an insane conversation on an insane tangent. Now you’re confused by my describing the tangent, so we’re back to sockpuppetry. Why did you answer a question I put to someone else at all?
Allan
What’s really weak sauce is that instead of going to ABL’s site and commenting directly on Milt’s post with your objections to it, Cole and his pack of brave keyboard warriors stayed safe in the epistemic closure of their hive to talk about how that girl at the other table smells bad, is a slut and probably has cooties.
Therefore, Milt’s post stands at ABL’s place with about a dozen comments, almost none of which take issue with its content. Readers of ABL’s site will never know that anyone objected to his observations or the quality of his work. Great job, all.
What a bunch of cowards, hiding behind John’s copious skirt.
Mnemosyne
@Chuck Butcher:
You mean the bill as currently written, or the original bill that he issued the veto threat for? Because the bill was re-written after the veto threat, which resulted in the withdrawal of the veto threat.
gaz
@LT: I gave up smoking shit I had to roll in papers years ago.
I only smoke kief when I wanna get high. Healthier, easier on the lungs, more potent.
LT
@Joseph Nobles: Because I thought it was funny.
Honestly, you two were going so far down the rabbit hole I just had to fuck with it further. I’m not mad at you for making the association, I just think it’s a bit reaching.
Jason
Let’s quote the fucking bill already. The hastily implemented amendation to Section 1021, authorizing (indeed requireing) indefinite military detention of “covered persons”:
“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.”
That’s not the resounding disclaimer the unconcern-trolls in this thread have been pretending it to be. In fact, it seems perfectly compatible with the Padilla doctrine that Bush and Obama have been trying so hard to entrench in America. Remember, they’ve already asserted the doctrine allowing for indefinite detention of a US citizen detained on US soil, with respect to Padilla, and although he eventually received his trial, the administration has never revoked this doctrine.
Second, as Glenn Greenwald points out, it only amends section 1021, not 1022, which also has language allowing for indefinite detention of a smaller class of “covered persons”, namely Al Queda and associates. That 1022 wasn’t also amended may be a simple oversight, rather than intent, but still, the loophole remains.
Thirdly, as Glenn Greenwald correctly points out, Section 1021 as amendeded has a scope ambiguity: it is unclear whether it applies to US citizens tout court, or simply US citizens detained in the US. We know that a Roberts court will invariably resolve any ambiguities in favor of increasing Government power. This scope ambiguity is also probably unintentional, and a function of the haste with which it was enacted and the general incompetence of its drafters.
Fourthly, wrt who is a “covered person”, the bill greatly expands the definition from the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in 2001 to include anyone who “substantially supports” groups that are “associated” with the perpetrators of 9/11. Bear in mind that Obama has claimed the AUMF allows his bombings in Yemen and Somalia of groups that didn’t even exist at the time of 9/11. It’s clear that a future administration will claim an “associated group” is any terrorist group, and “sustantially supports” means … well, whatever they want it to.
Fifth, wrt non-us persons, the indefinite detention bill (or sub-bill, to give the unconcern-trolls their due) solidifies an indefinite detention and secret prison regime that has already been bitterly opposed by groups like the ACLU and Human Rights Watch, and commentators like Glenn Greenwald. These groups would be appalled by the NDAA even if it explicitly exluded US persons from its provisions — which it very carefully does not.
To summarize:
1) It solidifies Bush’s secret prision and indefinite detention regime and is profoundly antthetical to due process rights, even if it was restricted to non-US detainees captured on non-US soil.
2) Even if you are happy with 1) wrt to non-US persons, there is every reason to believe the provisions will “leak” into applying to US persons on US soil. The “amendment” is in fact an empty statement, not an explicit disclaimer of protection. The draft of Patriot Act II attempted to codify the Padilla doctrine into US law, as did Lieberman’s 2010 terrorist expatriation act. Moreover, there is every reason to suppose a future administration will assert the Padilla doctrine to strip anyone of their citizenship, invoking the existing 12 USC § 1481(a) (7), to authorize the military detention of some future detainee — but don’t worry, coz Obama’s in charge, and he’ll only do it to people who really deserve it, right? yes, I’m aware that 12 USC § 1481(a) (7) requires a conviction by court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction”, but that’s only one amendment or a creative interpretation away from applying to you or me. Hell, it already applies to me, I’m not a US citizen.
However you slice this turd, civil libertarians should be very, very afraid of this bill, and I sure as hell don’t trust the obnoxious unconcern-trolls who bleat “HAVE YOU READ THE ENTIRE BILL?” and “YOU FAIL AT BASIC READING COMPREHENSION, DON’T YOU? THERE IS NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT!”
But GG is trying to argue that the plain language and real world impact of the bill are perfectly clear. I don’t think that’s even close to being true.
I think the bill is deliberate unclear, but given the deliberate ambiguity and the history of all this, there is not the slightest reason to be charitable wrt Obama or congress’s intentions. If Congress wanted to exempt US citizens or persons detained on US soil from being covered under Section 1021, it could have done so. It did not, and that alone speaks volumes about how this bill will be used by a future administration.
Chuck Butcher
@Mnemosyne:
Jayzuss, the current one, how the hell would I know on the version that didn’t make it? edit He said he would.
I don’t give two shits about the exaggerations, the whole damn policy as stated is a POS. Do you get that? Have I wasted enough words trying to make that point?
fuck
eemom
@mangrilla:
See previous comment.
This reminds me of when I was a young naif in my early 20’s watching a teevee documentary about the “war on drugs” — and they explained how many dirt poor South American farmers depended on the cocoa plant for their livelihood; it was either that or starve.
I had this lightbulb moment where I said — “Wow! If that’s the case, how can they EVER win the ‘war on drugs?'”
gaz
@Allan: That’s gonna leave a mark.
Heh.
Yeah – when all else fails, gang up on ABL. It’s a BJ sport.
I dislike the post she pointed to, and I disagree with her on a ton of things. I also think she blew it by the way she posted that article on the other thread.
But people – piling on ABL is getting seriously old. And I’d think JC could have left well enough alone without making a front page out of her fubar.
Personally, I think it was in poor taste.
And I think JC owes ABL an apology (but I’m not either of them, so I’ll leave it there for them to work out among themselves)
So I happen to agree with you. And thank you for bringing it up.
Tired of playing let’s all SHIT ON ABL
LT
@Allan:
Hoo hoo. ABL’s post has 12 comments and it’s our fault. (Never mind that she posted it here, and you’d think Cole gets to fucking post whatever the fuck he likes on his own fucking blog. Sheeshorama.)
Benjamin Franklin
@Allan:
” copious skirt”
He wears bloomers?
Corner Stone
@Allan: Why would anyone go to her shitty blog and put authoritarian hall monitors like you in the catbird seat?
ABL posted a link to Milt’s shit here. At this fucking blog. The reason there’s a dozen comments at ACLC is because you’ve got a sad clown posse commenting on a D- blog.
Jason
Unconcern troll is unconcerned. Do me a favor: read his analysis. You’ll find a lot of black letter law and informed speculation, and precious little vindictive sanctimony. Now, he could be wrong. That’s possible. But what the unconcern trolls in this threat have been doing is brazenly asserting that anyone who disagrees with them is nothing more than a vindictive asshole and their arguments not worth considering. That tells me there is something to be concerned about. I have a heuristic: I don’t trust people who argue with brazen assertion, insults, nitpicking, accusations of disloyalty, and ad hominem denunciations over facts and evidence. They sound too much like Republicans.
Joseph Nobles
@LT: OK, I can buy that. Peace out, Treeluke! :D
Corner Stone
@Allan:
For one shining moment there wasn’t even a cross post to her shitty blog!
How about people going directly to Milt’s shitty blog? Wouldn’t that be more apprapoesive Hall Monitor?
Allan
@Corner Stone: I rest my case. Bwack bwack bwack!
mangrilla
@eemom: I dunno, maybe you like calling people assholes and that’s just how it is so I guess I’ll give you another chance to do so by asking, “Huh?”
We can’t legalize drugs in this country because DEA officers will go without work and South American farmers won’t have a market for their wares? And we can’t decrease military spending because, god forbid, drone-makers would lose their jobs?
I still don’t understand how I’m an asshole for suggesting that saving military contractor jobs isn’t necessarily at the top of the liberal agenda. But this inability to understand could certainly make me simple-minded. Who knows?
JS
Sorry for not reading 300-some comments, but I’ve got to chime in just to say that I go along with the response to Greenwald, at least on the overall point that its not a battle Obama could have won, so it would have been stupid to take it on.
And no, I’m not happy about anything that’s been going on with civil liberties under this administration. In my view, any chance to start momentum toward restoring what we lost under Cheney lasted until the Senate voted on allowing Obama to close Gitmo and bring the detainees to the mainland US.
The vote was 90-6 against.
Ninety Fuckers to Six senators who could follow their oath to protect and defend the constitution.
That was the end of the fight right there. No pushback against the PATRIOT Act, no thought of going after any possible war crimes, nothing. It was futile.
But it gave certain segments of the commentariat a chance to get upset, and ignore that the entire frickin Republican Party was being obstructionist bastards against any attempt to fix what the Republicans fucked up. After all, if nothing got accomplished, Obama could be blamed. (Nah, the American people and good Democrats couldn’t POSSIBLY fall for that, could they?)
As Gov. Goodhair would say: uh, uh.. oops.
The decision was ratified by the 2010 elections. We are the people we were waiting for, but there was more work to do than show up to vote in a primary, and then the 2008 election.
If people are that upset over the president playing actual politics, go support Ron Paul, and ask him for the pony Barack never gave you. But don’t say I didn’t tell you so if Paul somehow gets elected, and opens his own horsemeat factory. It’ll come in handy when Paul and the GOP repeal the New Deal in 2013.
LT
@Joseph Nobles: I’m not Treeluke! I’m Corner… no, wait…
different-church-lady
@LT:
Yeah. But so has David Brooks.
mere mortal
All of this seems surreal to me.
Hypothetically, think of a huge, annual, humdrum bill moving through Congress seeing to it that standard everyday things that must be done are funded.
Ok.
Say someone added an amendment requiring the murder of puppies.
If someone I knew asked me if I had heard about the crazy puppy killing bill being considered, I would say “yeah, that shit is messed up.”
Not “you are a great big lying liar, that bill also makes sure someone gets paid to sweep the halls of the Pentagon.”
I must have picked the wrong week to stop taking my crazy pills.
Corner Stone
@Joseph Nobles: How dare you take the name Treeluke in vain!!
Burn heretic!
And may Santa pass you by this Halloween.
Joseph Nobles
@Jason: 1022 covered persons are a subset of 1021 covered persons. Anyone who’s a 1022 covered person has the 1021 exemption automatically applying to them. And 1022 is only about a mandate for the US military to hold that 1022 class of covered people, a mandate US citizens are explicitly exempt from.
different-church-lady
@El Tiburon:
Is there prize money involved in that?
Corner Stone
@LT: You wish you made kickass nachos.
Allan
@Corner Stone: You know, you could create your own shitty blog, where you could smear your feces into patterns for the world to admire, and decide how open you were to comments and feedback. WordPress is free.
Or you could continue to do whatever this is that you do.
LT
@Corner Stone:
Now you’re reading my mind!
different-church-lady
@El Tiburon:
I dunno about the rest of you, but for me it’s the skinny tie.
Corner Stone
@Allan: You rest your case?
Nobody wants to comment on her shitty D- blog except the 4th rate stable she has running the shop there an that makes your case?
Tell us again why anyone should go to ABL’s clown site to discuss Milt’s POS when she posted it here at BJ and if we chose we could actually go to Milt’s own site to comment?
I’m sure there’s a logical reason why ACLC is the place to be as a middle man in all this.
different-church-lady
@shano: It’s kinda like Jesus: he’s okay, but his followers suck a fair amount.
Corner Stone
@Allan: Well, I don’t pimp someone else’s D- shitty blog, so that’s one down for whatever I do or don’t do.
Don’t you have a ponies blog somewhere? Or is that buried under pony shit lately?
gaz
@Jason: You stated the case better than greenwald himself. (I think more honestly as well, because you carefully addressed potential counter-arguments, right up front. Very well played.
I’m still having trouble understanding how this expands the defacto power of the government to detain and hold.
Here’s basically why:
Back when Cheney was running things, we were actively kept in the dark as to the reach and scope of our ability to detain “unlawful combatants”. Also, “unlawful combatants” potentially included US citizens. As far as I can tell, according to Bybee, Yoo, and the rest of the enablers, Executive power was whatever the hell the executive wanted it to be – when it came to locking people up. Any court challenges were pretty readily swept up using executive privilege, and national security arguments. And most of the time, this stuff was exclusively handled under military law. Even when it involved citizens. I seem to remember that once you were labled an “Unlawful combatant” you were considered a soldier, not a civilian. (except “lawful” combatants -heh- may have arguably had a few more rights)…
To me this bill is a codification of a system we already had in place. They munged some details, but the game’s the same.
The fact that it is now codified is a double edged sword. And almost certainly more bad than good. It’s bad for the reasons you state – it’s potentially good (and I doubt good will come of this – but it’s a possibility) in that it lays the groundwork for actually defining the scope of what is considered OK under the law. Before that, we were working with a bunch of vague notions of executive power, and legal memos. This arguably, gives us the possibility of putting a fence around this particular beast. I doubt it will, of course, but hey – at least *now* after about a decade, we finally have some working knowledge of the rules of engagement. We didn’t really have that before.
For Obama’s part, I think he should have probably vetoed on ceremony. It wouldn’t have mattered much – except for the optics.
And – this is the fault of congress. Obama’s done his share of dirty deeds – but this is congress shitting all over our liberties, not Obama – at least not in this particular case. With the vote count they had on this, it’s clear that he *really* couldn’t have done anything about it. I’m not saying he would have if he could have, but it bugs me that people want to make this about Obama.
I’m still hoping for a signing statement. But I won’t hold my breath.
Milt Shook
I wrote the argument about which you find such amusement.
The argument I made was simple; we have the truth on our side. We have to use it to our advantage. I already covered these arguments in the post at pctcblog.com, but I’ll repeat them here, since apparently no one’s actually read the post.
Now, if a swing voter saw GG talking about the “Indefinite Detention Bill” and goes to Thomas or calls someone about it, and finds out there actually IS no such bill, what will that person think of every other argument GG made?
The NDAA runs 902 pages, and there isn’t even a section called “indefinite detention,” so someone who’s scrolling through the bill isn’t going to find the troubling provisions, ESPECIALLY since, after the Conference Report, the section numbers changed.
There is another section in that bill, which actually greatly expands whistleblower protections. What’s to stop a supporter of the NDAA from calling it “The Whistleblower Protection Act”?
One of the problems we progressives have had for decades — and the one that has led to 32 years of neocon domination of the politics — is that we think we’re smart when we adopt the same tactics the right wing does. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work, because swing voters and moderates — the people who actually decide elections — HATE the right wing and their tactics. When we do the same thing, they just get disgusted with the whole process.
Funny that you should use the term “Obamacare” as an example. Someone earlier today used the term “Cat food commission.” Our job as progressive media types is to increase understanding. When we use inaccurate terms to describe issues, we make it impossible for the average person to understand.
My complaint about GG and people like him has nothing to do with his stance on the issues. It’s this need that some progressives have to exaggerate and even fabricate aspects of policy positions to make them seem scarier to people.
Why is it NOT more palatable to note that there is a small provision in the massive NDAA bill that could create problems for people? Why is it necessary to fabricate the name of a non-existent bill?
As for your characterization of #3, you said:
“I’m a big fan of the fiction in #3 that we are just going to magically declare the end of ‘terrorism,’ so really, there is no such thing as ‘indefinite detention.'”
Compare that to what I said:
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?
See, here’s the thing. I’m engaging in speculation and so is GG. The difference is, there is nothing in the sections GG refers to that points to “indefinite detention” being a fact. What makes it a lie is that GG is a lawyer, and he knows that what he’s calling a “myth” (besides being a “myth” that almost no one is citing) isn’t actually proven to be a myth by anything he cites.
My purpose with my post has little to do with the NDAA. It has to do with the rhetoric we use; rhetoric that has been undermining the progressive cause for at least a generation. Being just like Fox News undermines our cause; it certainly doesn’t enhance it.
Corner Stone
@Allan: Shouldn’t you be writing resumes for executive ponies or something?
I mean, I was told there would be some.
Jason
But the gossip is that the White House actually lobbied for the indefinite detention provisions and resisted any attempt to water them down. Senator Carl Levin confirms: “The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section”
If true, Dear Leader got exactly what he wanted from it. We won’t get so much as a signing statement from him to say he doesn’t agree with it, because this is as much Obama’s instrument as Affordable Care Act.
Democrats right now are acting like the shy girl with low self esteem who got fucked by her date at the prom, and hasn’t heard from him since. “He must have been really busy.. I don’t believe those stories he’s been seen running around with that awful Dana Emmanuel… he’s actually a wonderful guy… he really cares for me… I know, I’ll make him a really lovely sandwich and cash in my bank account to buy him those chrome hubcaps he’s been talking about. He’ll call me then.”
Corner Stone
@LT: I could teach you, my son. But only if you’re willing to paint my fences and wax my collection of cars first.
gaz
@shano: No. I disliked greenwald before disliking greenwald was cool. =P
/playful snark
Allan
@Corner Stone: Well, last I checked, there’s nothing stopping you from taking the extra step to go to Milt’s blog to comment there.
But ABL did not cross-post Milt’s piece here at BJ, she merely posted a link to it at her blog, so that those of you BJ readers who were interested could come to her blog and read Milt’s piece. Some might consider that an invitation to respond directly to the post at the place where it was featured. Cole could have done the same. I think one BJ commenter offered some critique of the piece at ABL’s place, and I thank that person for taking the time to do so.
And since ABL has access to your most secret identifying details as an admin on this here blog, what makes you think your IP address has not already been harvested by her and supplied to Janet Napolitano so that you can be swept up for indefinite detention before the ink from Obama’s pen has had time to dry on the NDAA?
Knock knock, Cornerstone.
different-church-lady
@shano:
What, Massachusetts was too cold?
Allan
@Jason: Is that you, Susie Madrak?
different-church-lady
@NR:
No. Only you.
Happy now?
LT
@different-church-lady:
A lot of layers of dense in that comment.
Anya
@Jason:
Even with all that charm, originality and wit, you cannot persuade me to read GG’s meandering analysis. But thanks for trying. You get an “A” for effort.
different-church-lady
@gaz: Below the belt, mister.
Allan
@different-church-lady: Excuse me, but as of today, same-sex marriages do not confer the same protections to foreign-born spouses because DOMA. I find GG loathsome and repellent, but US immigration policy does create a real obstacle to gay couples, and agree it’s not a cool angle from which to attack him.
Suffern ACE
Yeah, like that would ever happen.
LT
@Allan:
Allan, you and ABL and the rest of that lot have proven too many times that you can’t be trusted with a conversation about an issue. Yo uhave your stable, as CS said, but you have no real following, because if someone so much as looks at Obama the wrong way you scream FIREBAGGER and high five each other like a bunch of band camp doofueses.
You don’t do issues. Ever. You could, but you don’t. You do personalities. GG. Hamsher. Obama. It’s a sad spectacle to watch.
EDIT: Let me amend that. You DO do issues. Of course you do. But when it comes to critique of Obama, you are so deeply lost in instant FIREBAGGER that you add nothing but ugly to any conversation on many actual important issues. This one included.
Allan
@LT: Thanks for reading!
Joseph Nobles
@LT: A-almost-ha!
@Corner Stone: Quiet, you. Other people are talking.
rootless_e
@Jason: This metaphor of the discarded girl who put out keeps showing up in True Progressive rants. Very weird.
gaz
@Jason: I think I’ll hold out for Scott Lemieux to weigh in (over at LGM)
Suffice it to say, I generally go to him for the kind of commentary you go to greenwald for.
I don’t find GG to be credible. Take that as you will – I’ve enumerated the reasons I don’t find him trustworthy so many times over the years, I’m getting sick of repeating myself.
He’s not entirely wrong here – but he’s a sensationalist, and often overplays his hand – that’s about the nicest criticism I can level at the man, so I’ll leave it at that.
For now I’m eagerly awaiting the cadre at LGM to finally get around to offering a substantial dissection of this topic.
At least then I know I’m getting the scoop. Scott tries so hard to be even handed about everything it’s almost infuriating. But on the other hand – that makes him tend to come off the same way you did on your post – just the facts, like em or not. He’s honest to the point of being boring. And I could use some boring dissection of this topic at this point. My capacity to absorb any additional outrage is severely hobbled at the moment.
Had enough.
LT
@Joseph Nobles: I only ever get close. Sigh.
different-church-lady
@LT: Wait… he’s worked for Al Qaeda? Help me out here.
Corner Stone
@gaz:
Where?
different-church-lady
@Allan: OK, so Brazil was the answer to not getting US Federal protections?
PS: I’m not really attacking GG — I just think the idea posited that he needs to be in Brazil to be with is partner is kinda stupid.
LT
@different-church-lady:
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt here.
You made a nasty comment about GG and Mass. Do you really think his problem is solved by Mass.? Cuz if you do, you should shut up. You look dumb.
different-church-lady
@LT: That’s a really long winded way of saying “The wheels on the bus go ’round and ’round.”
LT
@Corner Stone:
I think we’re getting somewhere…
LT
@different-church-lady:
Wow.
Wow.
Um…sorry?
different-church-lady
@LT: Ah, my mistake: I was under the impression that Brazil was more restrictive on gay marriage than Mass. was.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Brazil
I have no idea what GG’s personal timeline was, but it looks to me like Brazil granted federal protections before marriage was legalized in Mass. However, marriage was legal a lot sooner in MA than in Brazil.
Suffern ACE
@different-church-lady: I have no idea what his partner does for a living and how easy it would be for him to get a visa, or whether or not some family circumstance prevents him from moving, but we don’t, despite the press, give permanent residence visas to everyone, not everyone wants to move here, and not everyone who has a career thinks that what GG does for a living is that important.
LT
@different-church-lady:
You already made a public idiot of yourself on this. Can you stop digging?
And who the fuck are you to say to someone “Just move to another state!” even if it were so. Fuck you. What an asshole thing to say.
different-church-lady
@Suffern ACE: OK, so if I’m finally figuring this out correctly (forehead slap) his partner is a Brazilian national who can’t necessarily get into the US.
My bad.
Corner Stone
Ouch.
different-church-lady
@LT: Sooo… move to another country instead?
Anyway, I think Suffern ACE just set me straight.
LT
@different-church-lady:
“My bad” is good enough for me. Thank you.
Chuck Butcher
Let’s just try an exercise in reason and take ABL and GG out of the loop and discuss what indefinate detention is and why any Democrat would have anything to do with it. You all are playing at personalities to fight rather than what is actually in the bill.
Fuck a bunch of who said what or linked what, how about what is actually there and what it means and – you know – stuff like that.
different-church-lady
@LT: The thing about “my bad” is that it’s so darn easy to say that I can’t for the life of me understand why people don’t say it more often.
LT
@different-church-lady:
Can you not contemplate what difficulties people in that situation go through?
gaz
@shano: The only reason I’m being “simplistic” about greenwald is would be a great disservice to the board for me to enumerate everything I think about the man.
It’s not as simple as him being a randian asshole. If I implied that somehow with my “privileged white douchebag” remark it was because I was offering your sacred cow up to the the thread. (with snark in full effect). Bottom line about his libertarianism – IMNSHO it’s fundamentally the same as any other libertarianism – too simplistic overall – and has never yielded a working model of the ideology. When you try to wedge his libertarian viewpoints into reality, they start to sound an awful lot like liberal viewpoints.
I’m familiar with much of greenwald’s work. I was even more or less a fan when I first started reading him, but the more familiar I became with him, the less I found him to be credible. YMMV. One day I just finally gave up on him pretty much altogether.
I won’t expound further because it’s simply not important to me, as much as he is to you. Adding, at this late stage – it will probably take a lot longer for you to convince me to come back around than you have time for. Ditto for me.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree about the man.
different-church-lady
@LT: I was just trying to figure out why moving to another country was easier than moving to another state.
And now that I realize I was missing a critical bit of information my whole question becomes moot anyway.
LT
@different-church-lady: Alright.
eemom
@different-church-lady:
Just to clarify the record, Greenwald has NOT been “published in” the NYT. Like, EVER.
He’s been linked on a couple of their “bobblebots are saying” blog posts. That’s all.
And don’t beat yourself up over the Brazil thing. He’s still an insufferable, dishonest demagogue, wherever the hell he lives and for whatever reason.
Allan
Good. At least we’re all up to speed on why GG living in Brazil is not a productive or useful line of attack.
I’m glad something good came of this clusterfuck.
gaz
@eemom, different-church-lady: Thanks ladies. =)
I was too bored by that guy (El Tiburon) to actually check. So I made the mistake of assuming he wasn’t in fact, full of shit. My bad.
shano
@Jason: yea, Jason, this whole thing makes me think of the horror of the Padilla case. retching now. blegh
LT
@eemom:
Greenwald has never been published in the NYT.
Eemom, your move now is to dismiss this particular kind of “published.” And then to move on to something else. Cuz that’s what you do.
Fact wise, you’re like the Month Python dude with no arms or legs.
gaz
@mere mortal: The part of this whole mess I don’t care for is this:
(Taking your analogy further).
So congress moves on a bill that has a murdering puppies clause.
Some of my friends say ZOMG! CONGRESS IS GONNA MURDER PUPPIES!… kk – that’s all fine with me.
But then some douchebag chimes in and says, ZOMG! NOT ONLY IS CONGRESS MURDERING PUPPIES, BUT THEY ARE GOING TO ANALLY RAPE THEM FIRST AND THEN GRIND THEM UP AND PUT THEM IN ALL OF OUR FOOD PRODUCTS! AND IT’S ALL OBAMA’S FAULT.
That essentially sums it up. If that sounds ridiculous, consider what you gave me to work with.
Truthfully though, the puppy murdering has gone on since 9/11
This bill doesn’t really change that one way or another. That doesn’t make it right. But the dishonesty surrounding this shit is pissing me off.
eemom
@LT:
I dunno, clown. It seems to me that “published in the NYT” implies that his work was, like, PUBLISHED IN the publication — in the manner of an actual stand-alone article. YMMV. Knock yourself out.
different-church-lady
@Allan:
Heh.
Just to be absolutely clear: I was not attempting to attack GG for living in Brazil. I don’t really care where he lives or why he lives there, and attacking people for things like that is bullshit.
I just thought the reason given here on BJ was odd. And it turned out that the reason it seemed odd to me was because I didn’t know his partner was Brazilian. My mistake, my egg, my face.
LT
@eemom:
Thank you for doing exactly as I said.
Oh, and I’m still not “nouveau riche.” But you’ll never admit a wrong – not your worst flaw, but an ugly one, nonetheless.
gaz
@LT: Yeah – halfway down a page, WAAY below the fold of a bush-league opinion section in a dusty corner of the online-only section of the NYTimes is technically published I suppose.
eemom… shame on you!
Allan
@different-church-lady: The view from Glenn’s side of the bed is certainly nicer than vice versa.
Anonne
IMO, Jason wins this thread. +1 to everything he said.
Suffern ACE
LT
@gaz: 1060 results.
And being asked to be part of the NYT’s “Room for Debate” I don’t know how many times somehow = “They’ve only ever linked him! He’s not published there!” Uh huh.
FlipYrWhig
@Jason: I appreciate your analysis and wish you had been around sooner for a more extensive conversation. I would suggest that you consider the possibility that some of what the WH said it wanted (and/or wanted removed) has to do with “separation of powers” dynamics at least as much as, if not more than, its views on the civil liberties of terror suspects. The skirmish with Levin would make more sense that way and would reconcile with the earlier press reports that they didn’t want to be deprived of the possibility of trying terror suspects in conventional criminal court. In essence, their response may be something more like “you (Congress) can’t tell us what to do” with a side of “you’re not helping” rather than “it is important to us to be able to be as capricious as possible with terror suspects because we’re just that badass, and if you cross us, you’re next”. IMHO they’re also trying to avoid setting precedents by which the legislature gets to thwart the executive’s powers in prosecuting “war” and “commander in chief” matters. Those don’t matter to us because we’re not presidents. But they matter quite a lot to presidents, as we’ve seen in regards to Libya and the War Powers Act and elsewhere.
Matt Osborne
It’s death panels for freedom.
Look, anyone who wants to bitch about Obama and NDAA should start from the understanding that it passed with 86 Senate votes. That’s your indefinite detention “constituency” in a nutshell: congresscritters responding to their own fear and loathing.
Furthermore, the president made his veto threat and succeeded in getting the worst parts changed or removed. So as far as I can tell, he did more to fix the NDAA than all the poutrage and petitions the PL has ever mustered.
Anya
@Jason:
@Jason:
NE Urruita
Check out this link from @farlefofright (twitter) Disregard the name of the Blog
http://somewhereinthemiddle2011.blogspot.com/2011/12/ndaa-national-defense-authorization-act.html
Allan
@Suffern ACE: I guess I don’t understand how Glenn’s vaunted purity works. Shouldn’t Feingold’s vote to keep Gitmo open make him a contemptible, vile, nauseating brown-baby murderer who should be spat upon by decent people?
Suffern ACE
@Allan: Perhaps civil liberties aren’t really what drives Glenn’s politics.
Kola Noscopy
@Allan:
Wow. What a bitchy, asshole thing to say.
Careful, your True Colors are showing. And Cyndi wouldn’t like them one bit.
Corner Stone
Godzilla. The actual Godzilla.
Allan
@Kola Noscopy: Glenn himself would probably be the first to say his husband is a very attractive younger man who is far more pleasant to look at than is Glenn.
I have similar feelings about my very handsome husband. And I was told by more than one person when we first began dating that I was setting myself up for disappointment, because I wasn’t nearly as good-looking as he is. But fortunately for me, and apparently for Glenn, our spouses were attracted to us for our many other good qualities.
I do hope that someday you’ll experience such joy in your life.
FromTheBackOfTheRoom
@Allan: @444
Wow. What a vile, disengenuous clot of filth you are.
MacKenna
THANK YOU JOHN COLE.
I realize it’s a belated thank you, but it needs to be said.
harlana
you have to admit, most ABL posts generate the most comments, even a post about a previous ABL post that was nothing more than a link to another blog post.
you crazy bunch of porky-pines, how i loves ya.
harlana
@Allan: comments on attractiveness are usually not well-received here. But i guess as long as it involves kicking Greenwald, it’s all good.
i don’t read him anymore, but personally, i think Greenwald is a self-absorbed and rather arrogant sort of person. even so, for what it’s worth, i do think he is a nice-looking guy.
insipid
You’re being dishonest here. I’ve never heard the PPACA called “the obamacare bill” any time other than here. Generally speaking it has been a derisive name for the entire revision of the health care system, not the name for the bill. You just added the word “bill” to “Obamacare” in order to create symmetry with the Indefinite detention bill.
Furthermore the Indefinite Detention Bill sounds like it could be a bill, Obamacare does not. A better analogy would of been if it were called the “torture Cindy Sheehan” act. While that name- Like the name Obamacare- would be cruder, it would also be as obvious an ad hominem.
Also, as pointed out by others the “Obamacare” is basically a stand alone piece of legislation(i know student loans were a part of it- but the GOP wanted to kill that too). The President COULD of vetoed that without also vetoing anything else the Republicans might of wanted. PBO could not of vetoed NDAA without also causing the U.S.- in a tough economy- to lose thousands of jobs.
The KLEENEX/KROGER tissue analogy is a crappy one because neither Kleenex nor Kroger are names made up with the intent of making us have a negative view towards the product. If an environmentalist called them “tree killer tissues” than the analogy would be a little more correct.
The reason why Glenn Greenwald calls the NDAA the Indefinite Detention bill is the same reason that Frank Luntz calls the PPACA Obamacare. It increases the likelihood that people will react negatively towards the bill. It has the added bonus of preventing us from thinking of all the ramifications of vetoing the entire NDAA.
Many people on this thread have accused “Obamabots” of going ape shit every time he is criticized. They strongly imply, if not outright state, that we are so enthralled with our leader that we cannot bare any criticism of him. The reason why i myself have gone “apeshit” more than once isn’t because Obama is criticized, it’s because he is dishonestly or unfairly criticized.
Renaming bills and actions in order to put them in a negative light is a Republican method. In fact that’s pretty much Frank Luntz’s job description. And if you feel you must use Republican methodology i suppose that is fine, but can’t you use it against Republicans?
Left leaning Obama critics do this all the time and yes, it does drive us “apeshit”. Obama did not authorize a hit on an “American Citizen” he ordered one on Al Awlaki- one of the world’s most wanted terrorists. He didn’t “cave” on the Bush Tax cuts, he gave those away in order to secure 1. unemployment benefits, 2. Tax cuts for the middle class 3. a second stimulus. And he did not sign the Indefinite detention Bill he signed the National Defense Authorization Act which contained this as part of an amendment.
When you re frame things in order to take out the nuance and put Obama in a negative light, you’re acting like Republicans. Don’t be surprised if we treat you like them.
Allan
@harlana:
Thankfully, the commenting system here at BJ doesn’t include little avatars with the authors’ pictures, because these threads would be even more nauseating than they already are.
@FromTheBackOfTheRoom: Mom? Is that you?
NR
@insipid: This comment is a perfect example of why so-called “Obamabots” (a term I dislike, btw) are not taken seriously by people with critical thinking skills.
Who was an American citizen. So yes, Obama did order a hit on an American citizen.
Obama ran against extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and then signed an extension of them, so yes, he did cave on the Bush tax cuts.
Distinction without a difference. He signed a bill that legalizes indefinite detention. You can’t “nuance” that fact away.
insipid
I have crtical thinking skills I just accept the fact that nuance is a part of critical thinking. When you leave out WHO Obama ordered the “hit” on you’re leaving out the most critical part of and you’re doing it to dishonestly make the killing worse than it was. When you say an “American Citizen” that makes it sound like Obama feels he order the assassination of Grandma Millie for making bad chicken soup. When you say “Anwar Al Awlaki” you’re making it known that he ordered the hit on one of the most wanted and deadly terrorists in the world- who also happens to be an American Citizen.
It would be as if I described the killing of Osama Bin Laden as “Barack Obama ordered the killing of a 54 year old father of five”. That’s an entirely true statement, Osama Bin Laden was a 54 year old parent of five childre, but it’s also an incredibly misleading statement.
If you want to debate on whether or not Barack Obama should be allowed to order the killing of a known terrorist, who is an American Citizen, hiding out in areas not amenable to arrest that’s fine, i’ll debate that. But if you’re trying to reframe the debate into “Obama is ordering the killing of American Citizen”. Then i gotta say you’re simply propogandizing.
The Republicans ran against any more stimulus, yet that was part of the bill. Why not frame the debate agaist the Republicans for “caving” on a second stimulus? Again, you are using the Frank Luntz method of 1. putting it in the worst possible light and 2. framing the message to make your oponent seem weak.
If you want to argue whether or not the ENTIRE bill was bad, i’ll be happy to have that argument with you. But if the first thing you type is “Obama caved on the tax cuts!” then it’s obvious to me that you’re simply engaging in Frank Luntz type propoganda. And doing it for the exact same reason- to hurt Democrats (or am i not allowed to mention that Obama is a Democrat?)
I’m sorry but that distinction is a HUGE difference to the 10s of thousands of people that would lose their jobs if Barack Obama vetoed the NDAA. And while i can’t “nuance” the fact away, i can ameliorate it by saying 1. It saved jobs 2. Barack Obama is not likely to enforce that aspect of it and 3.The bill did have a provision that it only applies to Al Queda or terrorists 4. It will most likely be overturned by the SC anyway.
I’m sorry, but Democrats in general and Obama, in particular, should not be afraid of details. Our plans are generally paid for, there’s generally at least a decent argument when we use military force etc. Nuance is our friend. Almost all of Obama’s actions make more sense with scrutiny. This is not the case for George W. Bush.
Because Barack Obama’s actions make sense his political enemies- both on the right and on the left- try to rebrand the actions in order to take out the nuance and to get people mad at him for particular things without considering any of the explanations. In fact when we give the explanations we’re generally accused of apologizing. As if adding “to get her out of the way of an oncoming Mack truck” is “apologizing” for pusing an old lady. Yeah, the old lady was pushed but the why is kid of important isnt’s it?
Just as the reason why Obama does thing (signing NDAA, killing Osama, agreeing to a budget deal, etc.) is important in evaluating whether he did or did not do the right thing. When you re-frame the debate to eliminate the WHY you’re being dishonest through omission.
insipid
I have critical thinking skills I just accept the fact that nuance is a part of critical thinking. When you leave out WHO Obama ordered the “hit” on you’re leaving out the most critical part of and you’re doing it to dishonestly make the killing worse than it was. When you say an “American Citizen” that makes it sound like Obama feels he order the assassination of Grandma Millie for making bad chicken soup. When you say “Anwar Al Awlaki” you’re making it known that he ordered the hit on one of the most wanted and deadly terrorists in the world- who also happens to be an American Citizen.
It would be as if I described the killing of Osama Bin Laden as “Barack Obama ordered the killing of a 54 year old father of five”. That’s an entirely true statement, Osama Bin Laden was a 54 year old parent of five children, but it’s also an incredibly misleading statement.
If you want to debate on whether or not Barack Obama should be allowed to order the killing of a known terrorist, who is an American Citizen, hiding out in areas not amenable to arrest that’s fine, I’ll debate that. But if you’re trying to re frame the debate into “Obama is ordering the killing of American Citizen”. Then i gotta say you’re simply propagandizing.
The Republicans ran against any more stimulus, yet that was part of the bill. Why not frame the debate against the Republicans for “caving” on a second stimulus? Again, you are using the Frank Luntz method of 1. putting it in the worst possible light and 2. framing the message to make your opponent seem weak.
If you want to argue whether or not the ENTIRE bill was bad, I’ll be happy to have that argument with you. But if the first thing you type is “Obama caved on the tax cuts!” then it’s obvious to me that you’re simply engaging in Frank Luntz type propaganda. And doing it for the exact same reason- to hurt Democrats (or am i not allowed to mention that Obama is a Democrat?)
I’m sorry but that distinction is a HUGE difference to the 10s of thousands of people that would lose their jobs if Barack Obama vetoed the NDAA. And while i can’t “nuance” the fact away, i can ameliorate it by saying 1. It saved jobs 2. Barack Obama is not likely to enforce that aspect of it and 3.The bill did have a provision that it only applies to Al Qaeda or terrorists 4. It will most likely be overturned by the SC anyway.
I’m sorry, but Democrats in general and Obama, in particular, should not be afraid of details. Our plans are generally paid for, there’s generally at least a decent argument when we use military force etc. Nuance is our friend. Almost all of Obama’s actions make more sense with scrutiny. This is not the case for George W. Bush.
Because Barack Obama’s actions make sense his political enemies- both on the right and on the left- try to re brand the actions in order to take out the nuance and to get people mad at him for particular things without considering any of the explanations. In fact when we give the explanations we’re generally accused of apologizing. As if adding “to get her out of the way of an oncoming Mack truck” is “apologizing” for pushing an old lady. Yeah, the old lady was pushed but the why is kind of important isn’t it?
Just as the reason why Obama does thing (signing NDAA, killing Osama, agreeing to a budget deal, etc.) is important in evaluating whether he did or did not do the right thing. When you re-frame the debate to eliminate the WHY you’re being dishonest through omission.
Bruce S
Milt Shook: “Being just like Fox News undermines our cause; it certainly doesn’t enhance it.”
Which is why Mr. Shook felt compelled to condemn “the lies of the professional Left.”
No kidding!
NR
@insipid:
Bullshit. All it makes it sound like is that he ordered the killing of an American citizen. Which he did. See, the Constitution doesn’t distinguish between Grandma Millie and Al Awlaki when it comes to their rights. They both have exactly the same rights to due process as American citizens under the Constitution.
And your “54 year old father of five” analogy fails because the term “American citizen” is a specific legal term while “54 year old father of five” is not. American citizens have rights under the U.S. Constitution–rights that Obama chose to ignore when he ordered the killing. And so the term “American citizen” is directly relevant to the discussion of Al Awlaki–it’s not just a different way to describe him.
Really, the apologetics are just pathetic at this point.
stinkdaddy
@Allan: “Why won’t all these firebaggers come over to the blog so we can complain about how all these firebaggers are invading the blog?!”
Could this entire thing be any more blatant of a link-whoring exercise? You’re supposedly outraged that people are discussing something that was posted on this blog on this blog, is that the story? Yeah, sure thing.
@Allan: And now with the personal attacks – and not just any, but of the completely arbitrary “I know things about people I never have nor will meet” variety. You’re a real winner.
Be more obviously butthurt that this whole thing didn’t turn into a hit bonanza for ABLC. No really, you’re very subtle. I could barely tell.
stinkdaddy
@Milt Shook: Having read this thread and the one that spawned it, I’ve seen plenty of people insist that Milt didn’t really mean that calling the NDAA the ‘Indefinite Detention Bill’ would make people think there was a separate standalone bill. I’m glad he’s come here to reiterate to us that this is, in fact, exactly what he meant. Hopefully that clears that part up.
It’s pretty clear that you don’t understand the meaning of indefinite detention, Milt. “Until some uncertain point in the future” is precisely what we’re talking about when we say indefinite.
If, if, if… you openly acknowledge that you’re speculating. You’re throwing out a scenario that requires several hypothetical possibilities to come true. It blows my mind that you don’t realize you’re actually making your critics’ argument for them. If the only way detention ends is based on a series of events you dreamed up, then guess what kind of detention that is?