Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

The real work of an opposition party is to hold the people in power accountable.

“That’s what the insurrection act is for!”

Never give a known liar the benefit of the doubt.

Republicans firmly believe having an abortion is a very personal, very private decision between a woman and J.D. Vance.

You don’t get rid of your umbrella while it’s still raining.

Make the republican party small enough to drown in a bathtub.

I have other things to bitch about but those will have to wait.

DeSantis transforming Florida into 1930s Germany with gators and theme parks.

Lick the third rail, it tastes like chocolate!

The most dangerous place for a black man in America is in a white man’s imagination.

Marge, god is saying you’re stupid.

An almost top 10,000 blog!

It’s pointless to bring up problems that can only be solved with a time machine.

I conferred with the team and they all agree – still not tired of winning!

Let us savor the impending downfall of lawless scoundrels who richly deserve the trouble barreling their way.

Republicans: slavery is when you own me. freedom is when I own you.

Republicans cannot even be trusted with their own money.

Democracy cannot function without a free press.

“Can i answer the question? No you can not!”

Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.

They love authoritarianism, but only when they get to be the authoritarians.

There is no right way to do the wrong thing.

Republicans don’t trust women.

Let’s show the world that autocracy can be defeated.

You are here: Home / Open Threads / Because of wow. / Weaker Sauce

Weaker Sauce

by | 247 Comments

This post is in: 

I have to disagree with Cole’s post in response to my post linking Milt Shook’s post. (This is the inception of BJ flame wars.)

Calling the PPACA “Obamacare,” or calling a Kleenex a “Kroger brand tissue” essentially assigns labels to concepts that are by and large identical. A Kleenex is a tissue; Obamacare is the PPACA. The latter is a politically charged alias, but it does not substantially alter the artifact to which it applies.

“Indefinite detention bill,” on the other hand, is a name chosen to incite the emotions of people expected to be rightfully horrified by the mere existence of a “detention bill,” as if it were the primary law being enacted. It is not. What is actually being enacted is a massive spending and authorization bill to fund and operate the entire United States military worldwide for another year.

In conclusion and with much love to my boo in WV, I have to call his example a preposterous false equivalence.

Reader Interactions

247Comments

  2. 2.

    Geeno

    C’mon ABL. John has a sad – or at least a very tired – in that last thread. He needs cuddling, not explanations.

  3. 3.

    Corner Stone

    “Indefinite detention bill,” on the other hand, is a name chosen to incite the emotions of people expected to be rightfully horrified by the mere existence of a “detention bill,” as if it were the primary law being enacted. It is not. What is actually being enacted is a massive spending and authorization bill to fund and operate the entire United States military worldwide for another year.

    Ooopsie! The whole “detention” part of it is a teensy tiny nothing butter part of the NDAA!
    Nothing to see here peeps!

  4. 4.

    Donut

    @ ABL

    Ok, whatever, but you linked to a post that was all about the whole, big bad “professional Left” supposedly lying all the time about the bill in question, and it took almost 1,700 words for the poster to provide one freaking example of such lies.

    And Milton came up with one. freaking. citation.

    Greenwald.

    Boy, that took some work.

    It was weak, weak, weak sauce, ABL. Sorry.

  6. 6.

    CT Voter

    “Indefinite detention bill” is certainly guaranteed to scare people.

    Wonder why it didn’t work with 86 Senators?

  7. 7.

    Benjamin Franklin

    “What is actually being enacted is a massive spending and authorization bill to fund and operate the entire United States military worldwide for another year.”

    “Mission Accomplished“

  9. 9.

    magurakurin

    wouldn’t be more productive of you, ABL, Cole, Greenwald et al to move on and perhaps begin to focus on Feinstein’s proposal which attempts to fix things a bit? It only covers arrest in the United States, but it is still a movement in the right direction, no?

    Arguing over who has the weaker sauce seems pretty fucking worthless to me.

  14. 14.

    shano

    I hope to hell we scare our government up enough for them to clarify this law that seems to codify “Indefinite detention” for the first time in America. They have done it in secret, never with the will of the people before. Why decide this in the Supreme Court when they could rewrite now. Lazy Congress has to get home for Xmas.

    oh. meh. move along. The NYPD kicked tourists and shoppers out of Times Square tonight because OWS was coming. I am sure the whole world knows we are ‘safer’ because of NDAA, especially tourists in NYC.

  20. 20.

    Poopyman

    I know it’s Saturday night and ABL is probably fixing herself up for a night on the town in LA and Cole is probably down in the dumps dreading the inevitable onslaught of drunk friends after the bars close and all, but can we just get the “Weakest Sauce” out there and over with? Cause frankly I don’t give a shit and would rather go back to reading snark as I sit here eating my leftover Chinese food.

    I wanna be ENTERTAIIIIINed!

    Just sayin’.

  21. 21.

    TooManyJens

    @magurakurin: I agree — we should be getting behind Feinstein’s proposal. Of course, I wish it didn’t just apply to U.S. citizens. Indefinite detention of anyone without charges is wrong. Yes, in an actual war, you can hold the POWs until the war is over, but this “war” will never be over.

  24. 24.

    magurakurin

    @shano: regardless. Do you want to see it fixed or do you prefer to just bitch and moan about it? Loss of possession is not the end of a football game. And in political football the game never ends the ball just keeps passing back and forth.

  25. 25.

    Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)

    @shano:

    I hope to hell we scare our government up enough for them to clarify this law that seems to codify “Indefinite detention” for the first time in America.

    I’m not sure what you would call AR190-8, then. That’s the codification under military law for the holding of enemy POWs. The last time I checked, that *is* indefinite detention. We’ve codified that basically since the beginning of the republic. I’m not fond of the way that the current bill expands and alters that codification, but pretending that indefinite detention of non-citizen enemies is something never before heard of mostly demonstrates that you’re an idiot.

  26. 26.

    Baud

    @magurakurin: I just read your link to the Feinstein bill. Did you happen to notice the infinite loop problem in the legislative language? And this bill is supposed the clarify the law?

  28. 28.

    El Cid

    Then in this case it would be (accepting the premise of language authorizing indefinite detention) a defense authorization bill with indefinite detention sections, or amendments, or whatever parallel parlance one wants to use.

  29. 29.

    Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN)

    @TooManyJens: Right, but the problem is that the war won’t ever end, not that we are detaining enemies indefinitely. You’re focusing on the wrong side of the equation here.

    It’s also a problem that we’re holding some people who aren’t enemies indefinitely, but that’s also not a problem that is going to be fixed by screaming about the indefinitely part. It’s the not our enemies part that needs to be attacked.

  30. 30.

    Zandar

    These are not the drones you are looking for, CS.

    Also, I’m still trying to figure out how this law both enables and codified indefinite detention going forward, but it really doesn’t because the White House assumed those plenary powers to begin with, and by actually putting exceptions and protection in the detention policy as it relates to US citizens it’s really a tacit admission of those assumed powers, but the exceptions and protections are meaningless because of the assumed powers in the first place.

    The legislation is both the worst thing ever written in the annals of law since Hammurabi said “Hey, let’s write this stuff down” and at the same time, it’s utterly pointless, meaningless, and empty of value because functionally Obama could just have us all disappeared anyway through the Power Of The Executive.

    There’s enough straw men in this entire day of argument here at the Juice to seriously consider having the straw men incorporate their township, form a local government, and to petition for official signage and recognition by the state. They’d get a post office and a city hall and a school. There’d be a fire department, but let’s face it, the first serious fire in our straw township would pretty much kill everyone.

    Also, the other half would die in the municipal pool.

    Poor little straw dudes. :(

  35. 35.

    The Dangerman

    Barely care about indefinite detention rider…

    …I’m more curious about what the Republicans will want when the 2 months payroll tax extension comes up for renewal.

    By that time, Obama will have killed Keystone, so maybe it will rear its ugly head again.

  38. 38.

    not motorik

    Because of Obama’s blackness, it is inappropriate to use anything but pre-approved language when talking about bills.

    In fact, use of non-approved language about bills might *in itself* discourage black turnout and throw the election to the Republicans.

    This is how it is, you fuckers.

  39. 39.

    Suffern ACE

    O.K. I’ll try this again. How would this law affect actual cases? Let’s pretend that it was passed years ago. We’ve had an underwear bomber, a Christmas bomber, a Times Square Bomber, the Hutaree, five old guys in Florida, a Nail Polish Remover bomber, and a bunch of hapless schmucks who probably wouldn’t have been able to build much of any sort of bomb if they hadn’t met FBI informants. All of these have been prosecuted or are going through the courts. Does this bill change any of that?

  40. 40.

    Baud

    @Suffern ACE:

    Does this bill change any of that?

    I recall that the bill applies to AL-Queada and people who aid them. I can’t remember if all the people you mentioned fall into that category.

  44. 44.

    Baud

    I was looking at the NDAA and it mentions another statute that was passed in 2005. I shit you not, it’s called the “Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005.”

  45. 45.

    Corner Stone

    @Zander:

    These are not the drones you are looking for, CS.

    Well, I sure as fuck ain’t going to look in your pants for them. Which is, as I recall, the last place they were spotted.

  46. 46.

    Corner Stone

    @Zander: I’m still wondering about the “interesting” part Cole mentioned.
    Course, he’s been kind of 0-fer for this last bit.
    The EDK voting for Ron Paul bit must sting more than a little.

  49. 49.

    Loneoak

    I sent some of the FP’ers some pics and the birth story of my newborn son. Maybe one of them will put it up and we can forget about flame wars for a bit.

  51. 51.

    JG

    The first graph of GG’s most recent post on the matter:

    “Condemnation of President Obama is intense, and growing, as a result of his announced intent to sign into law the indefinite detention bill embedded in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).”

    Would Glenn go from being a member in good standing of the professional left to sober, serious pundit if he merely changed “bill” to “provision?” The idea that he isn’t acknowledging the NDAA is ridiculous.

  55. 55.

    Brandon

    I have a stomach ache. Can we stop all this talk about weak sauce and discuss some weak tea instead?

    As for the topic, Cole is mostly right and ABL is mostly wrong. So what else is new?

  56. 56.

    Raven

    The Des Moines Register, Iowa’s biggest and most influential newspaper, announced that it would endorse Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee for president.

  59. 59.

    muddy

    I’m just holding out hope that after winning the election, Obama will use this law against Dick Cheney, that’s why he wanted it all along. Okay, I know I’m dreaming, but it’s a good dream.

    sleep loose

  60. 60.

    jakethesnake

    It’s quite obviously reasonable to call the bill the Indefinite Detention Bill because that is by far the most significant part of the bill, plain and simple. Obama is taking heat for it because this is just another part of his record with regard to civil rights.

  62. 62.

    boss bitch

    @JG:

    “Indefinite detention bill,” on the other hand, is a name chosen to incite the emotions of people expected to be rightfully horrified by the mere existence of a “detention bill,” as if it were the primary law being enacted. It is not. What is actually being enacted is a massive spending and authorization bill to fund and operate the entire United States military worldwide for another year.

    You see the tactic here that ABL talks about? GG and other professional lefties do it all. the. time. Its not just this one time, its all the time. Some of you even do it here in the comments. That’s how most of the fights on this site start. I mean damn, are all these things not scary enough w/o having to manipulate, lie and fear monger? Just tell the truth.

  64. 64.

    Villago Delenda Est

    @Tissue Thin Pseudonym (JMN):

    Yeah, but the thing is, POWs have certain rights that the criminal deserting coward assmalistration chose to ignore in the case of anyone connected with the “war on terror by brown muslim types, as opposed to fascist shitstains like John Yoo”, in violation of US and International law.

    Perpetuating this illegal crap by defiining “indefinite detention” better AND ignoring the protections afforded POWs under US and International law is just fucking wrong.

  65. 65.

    Cain

    @boss bitch:
    +1

    I hate being maniuplated. On the ohter hand, this bill is troubling. Yes, there is something to be said that we are defining in writing what the executive branch is already doing or thinks it can do.

    The reason the FBI/CIA and all these other federal depts object is precisely because it is no longer nebulous. Once it is in writing it means that it can also be changed to be more restrictive depending on whatever the political winds are.

    No one should be detained without a time limit or their time in court and certainly not under secrecy. Let’s hear and learn what both sides are doing so there is justice.

  66. 66.

    CaliCat

    You are 100% correct, ABL, and sadly, Cole entirely missed the point. This reminds me of the incessant use of the term “Catfood Commission” on Daily Kos. Very Rovian.

  68. 68.

    Chuck Butcher

    Cripes on a busted crutch, the Patriot Act is exactly what? An exercise in … How about a few other goldies from BushCo with titles that had about spit to do with their outcomes? Really ABL you want to play this stupid a game? You want to pretend to not know that Titles may have spit to do with contents or cover for contents?

    I actually can take a lot when it comes to defending a preferred candidate, but making shit up and being all “eeek” when somebody says BS about BS is a bit much.

  69. 69.

    Omnes Omnibus

    More of this? Christ, more or less a codification of the current shitty state of detention law. It doesn’t change a fucking thing. Oddly, this is a reason to both be righteously pissed off and not upset at all at the same time.

  70. 70.

    smintheus

    “What is actually being enacted is a massive spending and authorization bill to fund and operate the entire United States military worldwide for another year.”

    I don’t think that’s true. AFAIK it’s not an omnibus bill but just a plain authorization bill. So it doesn’t actually spend money or fund the DoD; it’s a blueprint for the spending that Congress plans to appropriate during the next year.

    That’s just one of many reasons why Milt’s piece is ridiculously over the top. It may be inconvenient to force Congress to vote again on a NDAA stripped of the internment amendment, but that wouldn’t necessarily endanger any part of the Pentagon’s bloated budget or turn off the money pipeline.

    Anyway sometimes it’s worth doing the right thing even when it is slightly inconvenient.

  71. 71.

    carpeduum

    Don’t sugar coat it ABL. Cole is a diaper soiling greenwald reading firebagger asshole with childishly simplistic views of the world.

  73. 73.

    gnomedad

    Can’t we pleeeease start a rumor that Obama plans to use this power to put all registered Republicans in internment camps next November?

  76. 76.

    Chuck Butcher

    This shit is so goddam obviously obfuscation that maybe we can all go along and pretend that the UE, FICA doesn’t have a … non-existant thing in it about some XL Pipeline? That it is immaterial that it’s there simply because the Title of the Bill isn’t XL Pipeline?

    It isn’t necessary to exaggerate or bullshit about the actual contents of the provision, rebutting that is pretty simple – but the pretense that someone is playing Rovian GOP games on the poor mis-used Pres is fucking childish.

  77. 77.

    Allan

    @Knockabout: My husband’s late father worked for the same company for most of his adult life, and they decided when he was hired that his Hispanic first name was too hard to pronounce, so they just gave him a different name and he just had to suck it up and smile.

    Your comment reminds me of that.

  78. 78.

    not motorik

    Firebagger racists don’t realize that their very posts here in this thread virtually guarantee Obama’s defeat.

  84. 84.

    LT

    Good god, you are tiny-minded.

    Shook’s whole thing is a straw man of epic proportions. Add to that that Obama actually did threaten to veto the entire bill (doesn’t he know it has more than just detention stuff in it?!”) makes this even stupider.

    Cole was right to call you and Shook out.

  85. 85.

    LT

    What is actually being enacted is a massive spending and authorization bill to fund and operate the entire United States military worldwide for another year.

    Everybody Fucking Knew That.

    What fucking idiocy.

  87. 87.

    some guy

    allow us to detain forever scary people we don’t like, or your military towns get it.

    allow us to ignore habeus corpus and 600 years of common law, or you hate the troops.

    allow us to define “terrorists” anyway we want, without proving anything in any court of law, or else you tank the economy.

    sure seems like “common sense” to me.

  88. 88.

    smintheus

    @boss bitch: This position is a silly semantic game. Reminds me of right-wingers high dudgeon whenever people refer to Paul Ryan’s plan to replace Medicare with vouchers; no, no, they scream, it’s a ‘premium support’ plan, and they freak out unless you agree to join them in their preferred nomenclature…as if the world is going to embrace gutting Medicare if only they hear it named in less threatening terms.

    The indefinite internment amendment could and should have been offered as a stand alone bill. Everybody discussing its provisions on line knows that it’s embedded in NDAA. If there is anybody out there referring to it as ‘the indefinite internment bill’, they’re not misleading anybody. Pretending otherwise is tedious.

  91. 91.

    some guy

    Simpson-Bowles was the Catfood Commission. gutting SS will mean real seniors actually budget for catfood. what part of this is confusing to the Center Right Balloon Juicers?

  98. 98.

    Suffern ACE

    @LT: I’m beginning to think that there’s a conspiracy afoot of people with law degrees who blog who just want to lead us into foolish discussions about the names of the bill. Both sides do it.

  99. 99.

    Odie Hugh Manatee

    @CaliCat:

    But they neeeeeeed the short, catchy names to drive The Cause of the Day!

    How else is anyone going to believe them?!

  102. 102.

    Kola Noscopy

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    I was wondering the same thing.

    The knockabout comment to which the Allan thing referred above is gone and I never saw it, so I’m guessing the little whiner bitched to the clown lady about something and she used her quick trigger banning device without a moment’s hesitation.

    So obviously it was something spot-on. Allan and ABL don’t handle comments like that very well.

    I and other commenters have been banned by herself for being “annoying.” wtf?

  105. 105.

    LT

    @some guy:

    Simpson-Bowles was the Catfood Commission. gutting SS will mean real seniors actually budget for catfood. what part of this is confusing to the Center Right Balloon Juicers?

    Giving things nicknames is evil! (But only whilst criticizing Obama.)

  107. 107.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @LT: In this context, I think it does matter. The detention provisions are part of a huge bill. It is different than a stand alone bill containing the same language. A discussion that does not acknowledge that fact is dishonest.

  110. 110.

    Suffern ACE

    Was Knockabout the one who was trolling Zandar threatening to contact his employer over some kind of workplace grievance that I really couldn’t care about?

  112. 112.

    some guy

    how about “Explicitly Overturn Habeus Corpus or the Bloated Defense Industry Gets It Act of 2011” ? would that be more aptly descriptive?

    no wonder fauxgressives like Snookie are crapping their tightly wadded undies.

  113. 113.

    Bago

    Perhaps referencing a fakeapstylebook tweet was a tad bit esoteric. Just typing that sentence seems to hammer that point home.

    So there’s this song By a j-kwon that involves a mispronunciation of everybody as errrbody, regarding the imbibation of alcohol. Hence the tipsy bit.

  116. 116.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Corner Stone: I asked for the cello links. Dickhead. I have no problem with dissent. I don’t necessarily agree, but flame away. Hell, I won’t install the pie filter.

  117. 117.

    gaz

    @ABL

    I agree in the general sense with your position on the issue. And again, I appreciate you getting out in front of it like you have these past few days.

    OTOH, I think the link you provided was counter-productive. The article itself was sloppy.

    As far as JC’s post about you – false equivalencies not withstanding, I thought it was rather trite, and in poor taste. (By trite, I mean the “let’s all pile on ABL” bullshit that seams to have become a major sport here at BJ)
    To be honest I expected better than that from JC.

    He’s probably tired. And I hope you two kiss and make up (or however it is you two handle disagreements – heh)

    Offered FWIW.

    Even I didn’t care for how you prepared that post, it lead to a pretty good thread (or rather, a thread with some good high points). So thank you.

  120. 120.

    LT

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    In this context, I think it does matter. The detention provisions are part of a huge bill. It is different than a stand alone bill containing the same language. A discussion that does not acknowledge that fact is dishonest.

    I’ve said this, but the fact that OBAMA THREATENED TO VETO THE WHOLE FUCKING BILL makes this so fucking stupid.

    Please get this formulation they’re making:

    • They’re criticizing people for criticizing Obama with what they call obfuscation about the bill – to the point that vetoing the entire bill it would be very difficcult.

    at the same time that

    • Obama threatened to veto the entire bill

    This does not fucking compute. Do you not get this?

  121. 121.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @LT: I did not say that GG didn’t. I saw people, including you, seeming to head in a direction that I thought was not helpful to a real discussion, so I tried to head off a tangent. That is all. Not omsbudding or anything; do as you wish.

  123. 123.

    amk

    @James: Why give a shite about that when you have the latest poutrage dejour to yell about ?

    Even, cole, for all his whines about Iraq war, just put up a lukewarm meh post about it.

  125. 125.

    LT

    ABL has to stay on this straw man point, because she has nothing afterward. If Greenwald and everybody else, said, “Um, okay, let’s call it ‘A small provision in an enormous bill’ – now can we talk about the detention issue?” ABL and ilk would not. Could not. because it’s never about issues – it’s about personalities.

  127. 127.

    Yutsano

    @amk: Which Cole? I’m guessing not this one. Unless I’m missing something.

    @Omnes Omnibus: I’m not obsessed with them. I just get them. And that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

  128. 128.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @LT: Okay, fuck you. There, now that I feel better, I know he threatened to veto the entire bill based on certain language. That language has been eliminated/changed so the threat was withdrawn. What is more, Obama’s veto threat wasn’t over the fact that the objectionable language was in the bill. He doesn’t come out of this with high marks on the civil liberties front. That doesn’t mean that an argument cannot be made that the bill should, nevertheless be signed because, in toto, it does more good than harm. Note, however, that I am not making that argument.

  129. 129.

    CaliCat

    @carpeduum:

    Don’t sugar coat it ABL. Cole is a diaper soiling greenwald reading firebagger asshole with childishly simplistic views of the world.

    There was a time no so long ago when this would have sounded cartoonish and extreme.

  130. 130.

    Allan

    @Kola Noscopy: That’s kind of amusing, because my two thoughts when Knockabout’s comment disappeared were:

    1. Where did that POS go? and
    2. One of the more disgusting bottom-feeders who thrive on the toxic waste of BJ will probably infer that I was somehow involved in its removal.

    Nice to know my instincts are still sound.

  131. 131.

    dogwood

    @Chuck Butcher:

    Cripes on a busted crutch, the Patriot Act is exactly what? An exercise in … How about a few other goldies from BushCo with titles that had about spit to do with their outcomes?

    Point taken. However, I think some here object to the idea that there is a eagerness on the part of some Democrats or left leaners to use rather incendiary language to describe crappy legislation when there’s a Democrat signing the bill, yet they were pretty willing to go along with Republican language when even worse crap was signed by Bush. “Patriot Act” was a term used to make America feel all safe and patriotic. Why Democrats used it was beyond me.

  135. 135.

    LT

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    I know he [Obama] threatened to veto the entire bill …
    __
    That doesn’t mean that an argument cannot be made that the bill should, nevertheless be signed because, in toto it does more good than harm.

    Then shouldn’t you and ABL and everyone else have been making that argument to Obama when he threatened to veto it?

    I don’t know how you can pretend this doesn’t expose the dishonesty in this argument.

  139. 139.

    Suffern ACE

    @chopper: We haven’t even started on the internet censoring act, and you want us to start in on something that happened after that?

  141. 141.

    Trurl

    He doesn’t come out of this with high marks on the civil liberties front.

    Yes, setting himself up as administrator of a gulag did lose him points in the civil liberties round.

  142. 142.

    glasnost

    “Indefinite detention bill,” on the other hand, is a name chosen to incite the emotions of people expected to be rightfully horrified by the mere existence of a “detention bill,” as if it were the primary law being enacted. It is not. What is actually being enacted is a massive spending and authorization bill to fund and operate the entire United States military worldwide for another year.

    This is dumb.

    Really, it’s dumb.

    I think this has been said before, but I think I can let you know that the reason why someone might have said “bill” instead of “provision” is that they just don’t think it makes a goddamn difference. And they’re right.

    No one’s trying to deceive, misrepresent, or mislead about whether this is an “indefinite detention bill” instead of an “indefinite detention provision in the NDAA”. You can trust us on this, because we find the idea that this distinction matters to be hilariously alien and sort of pathetic. Why in God’s name would anyone bother to mislead about this piece of trivia? You might as well be claiming we’re being misleading because we quoted the bill using scary bold font but the real bill has no bold font.

    The fact that the detention provisions are surrounded by a bunch of other bullshit – no one in their right mind cares. It is a distinction without a difference.

    I don’t care about the bullshit “political price” of vetoing an NDAA. We’re all – and I’m an Obama supporter – very, very tired of our leaders acquiescing in the commital of evil because they’re afraid of having somber pontification against them on CNN. Nobody believes in the political price. Nobody respects the political price. It’s a stupid excuse to fail to do the right thing.

    Honestly, the idea that anyone would bother to obfuscate that this was in a larger defense bill is funny in a sick way. Who cares? Who fucking cares?

    Does anyone believe that congress would tolerate soldiers missing pay for a week? Anyone? That’s the only thing they all show consistent interest in and deference to whatsoever, sucking up to soldiers and veterans.

    No disrepect intended to said soldiers and veterans, but congress sucks up to you 24/7.

  143. 143.

    gaz

    @Omnes Omnibus: Well, FTR, I’m pretty sure I’d have a hard time swallowing that argument (the one you are NOT endorsing – heh)

    The indefinite detention thing is so bad that the rest of the bill should be sent back.

    I *do* appreciate that Obama threatened the veto.

    I think he needs to follow up with either an actual veto, or a signing statement.

    I think Feinstein’s modification is at least a half-lurch in the right direction.

    But I’d much rather see a bill that actually undoes all the executive crap we’ve seen since 9/11…

    with a few more representatives pushing limitations for this bill (like Feinstein did) there’s an opportunity to use it to actually ROLL BACK the executive power we saw enacted under bush. Sadly, it’s a missed opportunity. But I doubt our representatives are all that interested in such a thing.

    It’s too bad.

  144. 144.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @LT: I am sorry, what position do you think I am taking in this discussion? I honestly don’t know if I think that the harm of codifying the shittyness of current detention law overwhelms the fact that these provisions don’t change anything about current law. If it this shit was in a stand alone bill I would be all for vetoing it. In a Defense auth. bill? I don’t know. Does this make me a bad person? I am really not sure where I stand on this particular issue. As far as the substance of my previous comment, again, I was trying to keep people off of what I saw as a tangent.

  146. 146.

    kc

    “Also leading to blog bloat on this issue… which now spans 3 posts and probably 1000 comments or more”

    Yeah, but 500 of them are yours.

  147. 147.

    Kola Noscopy

    @Allan:

    Nice to know my instincts are still sound.

    No, your instincts are as fucked up as ever. It’s just that your well earned reputation as a whiney hall monitor type precedes you.

  149. 149.

    Thymezone

    The legislation is both the worst thing ever written in the annals of law since Hammurabi said “Hey, let’s write this stuff down” and at the same time, it’s utterly pointless, meaningless, and empty of value because functionally Obama could just have us all disappeared anyway through the Power Of The Executive.

    Probably the most intelligent thing said on this topic on this blog so far. Which is faint praise, but there it is.

    The law not only doesn’t really change anything WRT detention of US citizens, it even contains language (14(3)) that SAYS it doesn’t change anything. Just in case, you know, people would think it did. And the language passed in an amendment by a vote of 99-1, and even the asshole John McCain stood up for it. The president has no new power as a result of the new NDAA. The thing declares itself to have no effect on the current state of law WRT US citizen detention.

    The whole “issue” is a giant troll.

  150. 150.

    amk

    @glasnost:

    No disrepect intended to said soldiers and veterans, but congress sucks up to you 24/7.

    That’s the least these cowardly and corrupt mofos can do to these men & women in uniform. So what’s your whine about ? That they passed their salaries bill?

  151. 151.

    Chuck Butcher

    @dogwood:
    You mean back when all the DFHs were foaming at the mouth and using really rude words about those fucking bills and that, no shit, Democrats fucking voted for.

    They were everybodies’ friend then, now they’re traitors and racists. Fuck that. If you fucking do something, you’ve done it. I give a rat’s ass about your race, your religion, your goddam Party.

    Why in the hell worry about damage to your base and cry about it, unless you’re up to something that might just cost you. If it shouldn’t cost you, then show why it shouldn’t. The alternatives are pretty starkly bad, soooo – why are you crying?

  152. 152.

    LT

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    It’s like I keep talking about the engine and you keep saying the bucket seats are nice.

    You can honestly argue about whether or not the whole thing should be vetoed. I get that. You can not honestly argue that people shouldn’t criticize Obama for not vetoing the bill – when Obama threatened to veto the bill.

    And I’m about over you and others pretending not to get that.

  156. 156.

    LT

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    I honestly don’t know if I think that the harm of codifying the shittyness of current detention law overwhelms the fact that these provisions don’t change anything about current law.

    Codifying it is changing it.

  158. 158.

    Allan

    @gaz:

    with a few more representatives pushing limitations for this bill (like Feinstein did) there’s an opportunity to use it to actually ROLL BACK the executive power we saw enacted under bush. Sadly, it’s a missed opportunity. But I doubt our representatives are all that interested in such a thing.

    May, 2009: Senate votes to keep Gitmo open 90-6.
    Dec, 2011: Senate votes for amended NDAA 86-13.

    So there’s some good news. At this rate, there should be 60 Senators ready to override filibuster and bring a bill ending AUMF to the floor in the fall of 2040.

  159. 159.

    dmbeaster

    The slang title for the bill is inflammatory but largely pointless. So is talk about whether to veto it or not, or whether a veto is allegedly impractical. This is not rebuttal but trivialization, and I am no fan of the GF line on this.

  161. 161.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @LT: Why did he threaten to veto it? Not because of the language that you find objectionable. Try to be factual. He threatened to veto because of the implicit threat to executive authority in the bill. The veto threat does not redound to his credit and the withdrawal of the threat was not a cave.

  162. 162.

    Trurl

    Does this make me a bad person? I am really not sure where I stand on this particular issue.

    Why yes, your pretending that Obama going out of his way to insure the survival of the American gulag isn’t an obvious moral abomination because of your loyalty to the Party makes you a very bad person indeed.

    Hope this helps.

  164. 164.

    LT

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Why did he threaten to veto it? Not because of the language that you find objectionable.

    You’re trying to kill me.

    I. Know. That.

    Gah.

    Tell me honestly if you’re drunk.

  166. 166.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Jewish Steel: I had a Jewish S-3 in my artillery battalion. He was the leader of the unofficial faction of West Point/private college snotty drunks. Yeah, I was in it.

  167. 167.

    Lysana

    @Zandar: I think I love you.

    @Thymezone: And you’re coming up close.

    Go home, everyone. Eat some pie. Especially Corner Stone there. You’re all trolling or being trolled except the ones pointing out the NDAA drama is bullshit. Oh, and if Mr. Greenwald is reading this, go to Rio. Or move back to the US so what happens here actually affects more than your paycheck.

  170. 170.

    Thymezone

    @gaz:

    Heh. Flamed? What on earth is that? I kid, I kid. I start my eighth year here in about 8 weeks.

    One needs to read the excellent KOS thread on this topic from last week, which cites at length the Congressional Record surrounding the debate on the amendment that put the 14(3) language into the bill. The one sentence summary is that this NDAA kicked the detention can down the road, changing essentially nothing. It was a cowardly move by a cowardly congress, but not one that really hurts anything any more than it has already been hurt. And unraveling the hurt will take good legislation and courage, and … well, you know, we don’t have those things right now. Maybe if we can get voter turnout in the next election up above the low forties we got in 2010 …. but who knows?

    I will look up that KOS thread and see if I can drop in a linky.

  171. 171.

    Belafon (formerly anonevent)

    Having chimed in a little on the previous threads, and read a number of comments on all of them, I have following observations/questions:

    1. We all agree that even having a discussion over the US detaining anyone is bad; it should be that all detentions have a justification that is verified through a court (though we’ve had POWs since the American revolution, so that gets tricky).
    2. Some of us think it is the worst thing ever, and some of us don’t think it’s worth vetoing an entire bill over since the newer version doesn’t really change much.
    3. Why isn’t this entirely the fault of the party that started it, the Republicans, and the Democrats in Congress who are too chickenshit to vote against it? Hell, if Obama were to veto it, it would be overridden by the gutless Democrats in Congress.
    4. Who has written their congressman, newspaper, and the President? Most of the public has no clue what is going on, and need to be told by someone.

  174. 174.

    Suffern ACE

    @Omnes Omnibus: @LT: It seems to me that both of you agree on everything that’s actually important here. And if you’re both stuck on whether or not it makes sense to argue about the merits of ABLs sauce, you should just share recipes for hollandaise and move on. It’s not worth fighting about that.

  175. 175.

    gaz

    @Omnes Omnibus: God – I hate playing inside baseball.

    I won’t pretend to know the private motivations behind the veto. If there’s one thing I know about politics though, it’s that the public justification is the one presented for “optics” and has no bearing on the actual reasons something gets done. Laws, Sausages, etc…

    As long as they’re still fighting over the fucking thing – cool. I don’t care why.

    Levin say’s the WH argued that it wanted to include language allowing for indefinite detention of US citizens. If true, then FUCK THE WHITEHOUSE, and MOST OF THE DEMS.

    But you know what? At the end of the day, I only really care what ACTUALLY ends up happening, and what doesn’t.

  177. 177.

    LT

    @Omnes Omnibus: I’m not talkign at all about reasons on eithe rside for vetoing or not vetoing. Okay?

    I’m saying that ABL and others are defending Obama for not vetoiing bill – cuz it’s too big! – after Obama actually used a threat to veto the bill to get something he wanted. That’s dishonest.

    Because I am sure you will not get this, let me reiterate:

    • ABL defends dog for not eating cat

    • Dog actually did eat cat

    • Dishonest.

    ‘kay?

  178. 178.

    Yutsano

    @Jewish Steel: I calmly await the inevitable freakout when we have a Jewish president. That will be fun. Plus we’re behind the times: Great Britain had a Jewish Prime Minister already.

    @Omnes Omnibus: I’m just waiting for someone to figure out I’m not taking this thread seriously at all.

  179. 179.

    Anonne

    Too bad our “leader” didn’t acquiesce to evil, he was fomenting it. The veto threat was because he wanted stronger provisions, not weaker ones. So he got exactly what he wanted, the wiggle room to detain US citizens indefinitely if they are linked to Al Qaeda or other terrorist activity, something that is pretty easy to do with our mindless, complaisant media.

  181. 181.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Suffern ACE: I am not buying one of those fucking McMegan machines no matter what LT says.

    @LT: Okay, aside from the you being an asshole part, I take your point. We were talking past one another and, more or less, making separate points regarding the veto threat.

  182. 182.

    Suffern ACE

    @sb: We don’t know whether Obama wanted stronger provisions and didn’t get them (in which case the veto cave is a good thing); or whether he wanted weaker provisions and got them (in which case he didn’t cave at all), or whether he wanted to keep everything the same and that’s what happened (in which case I’m moving to a cave because I don’t why he’d veto a bill that didn’t change anything). There’s progress.

  187. 187.

    Jewish Steel

    @Yutsano: Word. About a century behind Great Britain. Frankly, I don’t see it happening in our lifetimes.

    You could get a sense of indefinite detention reading through the nearly 1K comments so far. Is this some kind of performance art blog?

  190. 190.

    gaz

    @Yutsano: I think my wife and I will be heading off to Querendaro on a more or less permanent basis once my wife finishes her masters degree.

    Mexico is already a shithole, but at least it’s a change of pace.

    Also, I’d rather not sit around here and watch my country burn to the ground around me.

    I’ll do what I can from afar. I have no plans on giving up citizenship ;)

  194. 194.

    Thymezone

    Sorry, I can’t find it. It was a very long frontpaged diary at KOS a short time after Senate passage of the NDAA bill. I will keep looking. It is useful for containing Congressional Record passages which illuminate the intent and background behind the language referencing detention.

  195. 195.

    gaz

    @Thymezone: Thanks for trying at any rate. I’ll pop over to KOS at some point on my own.

    For now, I’m thinking skyrim though. Yeah. definitely that.

  197. 197.

    Corner Stone

    @Yutsano:

    I’m just waiting for someone to figure out I’m not taking this thread seriously at all.

    Yes, you’re quite the amuse douche.

  200. 200.

    dogwood

    @Chuck Butcher:

    Your response is out of line. No where in my comment did I call you a traitor, a racist or any other disgusting name. There’s nothing in the comment that even implies I think such a thing. I will certainly cop to being unclear. I should have been more direct in stating that Democratic politicians and pundits used the term “Patriot Act” rather than employing a title that more accurately describes what the bill actually does.

  201. 201.

    Arundel

    Well, you basically said nothing about the post you linked to, ABL. Why do you get to call yourself a writer, again? You seem scarcely familiar with the Shift key on the computer in front of you. Bullshit links, presented in the most hostile manner, isn’t actually writing you know. I might have said, “work on that”, but I really don’t care about your career or giving useful advice. You’re kind of boneheadedly set in your own particular go-nowhere Internet rut of an alleged job “writing” or just “linking” and seem happy there, so good for you.

  203. 203.

    Violet

    Oh, my goodness. Is this issue still the main topic being discussed? It’s been all day. Time for an open thread?

  208. 208.

    Suffern ACE

    @Omnes Omnibus: That would be my grandmother’s punch. She had a tendency to add alcohol “for the flavor”, which meant whatever amount of booze was called for, she’d reduce it to two tablespoons, tops.

  212. 212.

    FlipYrWhig

    @gaz: I think it was that the administration didn’t like a section that explicitly exempted American citizens — not that they _wanted_ a section that _included_ American citizens. They wanted Congress to butt out as much as possible in hopes of protecting executive-branch turf. That’s why so much of the adapted language is about how nothing in the bill does X or interferes with Y (paraphrasing).

  213. 213.

    Suffern ACE

    @Omnes Omnibus: Nah. I’m still trying to figure out the proper proportions for blackberry brandy and 7-Up, though. That used to be what the family was allowed to toast the new year’s in. 8oz 7-up and 1 tsp. brandy. Took us ten years to finish that bottle….

  215. 215.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @Suffern ACE: In any case here one is:

    Artillery Punch

    1 pound sugar
    1 quart champagne
    3 lemons
    1 quart Old Jamaica Rum
    2 oranges
    1 quart sherry
    1 quart strong tea
    2 pint brandy

    Put sugar in bowl, add grated rind of three lemons, juice of two lemons, juice of two oranges, pour in boiling tea. Cover and cool. When cool, add rum, sherry and brandy.

    Chill. When ready to serve, add champagne. Dilute with one or two quarts of soda for other branches of service.

  221. 221.

    Thymezone

    @gaz:

    It was a frontpaged piece, and one of the longest I’ve seen. But the title and main topic may have been something that makes searching for it difficult if that topic didn’t reference NDAA.

    I will keep poking around. The upshot was that the 14(3) language was inserted via a 99-1 amendment vote. It was called a “fix” to the bill to eliminate … pretty much the whole “controversy” that surrounds the bill now. But as you see, epic fail in that regard.

    Meanwhile, I am reminded of the DKos phenomenon … with all that promise and hype a few years ago, the bottom line on “netroots” as far as I can tell was the 2010 election, the rise of the Tea Party, and a totally gridlocked government. Meanwhile the blog itself has just become a cesspool of cranky lefties who blame Obama for everything they don’t like, much as Tea Partiers do. Another epic fail. DKos is now DPos.

  222. 222.

    Formerly Formerly (Formerly Formerly)

    @CaliCat:

    Why, “Catfood Commission” was soooo Rovian that the President went above and beyond the recommendations of its co-chairs last summer when in budget/debt ceiling negotiations with Republicans.

    Fail fail fail.

  227. 227.

    dogwood

    @Chuck Butcher:

    No problem. In fact I just re-read your initial reply to me, and I think I over reacted. My comment seemed fairly innocuous, so I guess I was surprised to get any response, let alone a passionate one. Though no apology is necessary, you are gracious to offer one, and I accept.

  228. 228.

    JR

    Whether Cole’s response was a false equivalence or not, the article you linked was shit on a CSS. And those of us who clicked through to read what you thought was “important” are all dumber as a result.

  232. 232.

    MacKenna

    ABL is an Obamabot.

    She will defend everything Obama does (including all his weak-kneed caving to disgusting Republicans) until hell freezes over. She’s not going to persuade anyone that the bill doesn’t suck. I don’t give a rat’s ass if indefinite detention is but one “small part” of the act. It’s IMPORTANT. It’s SIGNIFICANT. And anyone with half a brain understands that.

  233. 233.

    Ted

    I have never been compelled to comment before, but feel I must comment now. To think that this bill doesn’t authorize indefinite dentition (or worse, to know it does, but assume that is ok since it is part of a larger bill) is the most craven pile of excrement since GWB sat there reading “Deer caught in a headlight” or rather “my pet goat”. Does ABL really think that indefinite detention if fine, since it is part of a larger bill? Is she really that fucking stupid?

  234. 234.

    amk

    Listen up whiners…

    In order to restore balance between Congress, the White House, and the courts, Gingrich recommended ignoring rulings, impeaching judges, subpoenaing justices to have them explain their rulings and, as a last resort, abolishing the courts altogether.

  236. 236.

    Ian

    @Zandar:
    I am sure someone has made this point in the past 300+ comments, but the Defense Bill really is the worst law since eye for an eye? Not to mention decimation, slavery, divine right, and so on? You sir, are pushing the envelope.

  237. 237.

    amk

    @Suffern ACE: Or probably has already committed them and is wishing for a way to get out. How this corrupt-to-the-core racist thug is being taken seriously beats me.

  238. 238.

    Suffern ACE

    @amk: Yeah. I am disturbed that he isn’t the only candidate who is taking the “normal” “I won’t appoint activist judges” to new heights. Perry has been talking this stuff as well. James Fallows has a good series of postings on nullification on the fact that the GOP senate isn’t even pretending that laws already passed should be honored.

    But in this case, you can only sigh. Yeah, Newt…if only the judges explained why they made decisions. Perhaps they should put that reasoning down on paper so that people could read what that reasoning was. I’m surprised no one has had that idea before.

  239. 239.

    Snowball

    @Thymezone:

    Heck, there were numerous diaries on their rec list that advocated that Democrats don’t even vote in the 2010 election. What a great idea! Their so called thought process was that this would teach President Obama a lesson and force him to move to the left.

    I hope they are happy with the outcome as unions are being abolished and voter suppression laws are taking hold just about everywhere. Compare that with the tea party which DID vote and have much more power than the daily kos crowd.

  242. 242.

    Robert

    I really want to see where anyone is shouting support for the content of this bill. The discussion ABL and a few others are trying to lead is about semantics. If you call the bill that determines the entirety of military spending (as well as provisions regarding military rape, training veterans, and military pay raises) the “Indefinite Detention Bill,” what are you trying to accomplish? And what are you trying to accomplish after that one item was ammended to clarify that, no, US citizens and resident aliens can’t be shipped out to Gitmo for looking the wrong way in the United States?

  243. 243.

    A Humble Lurker

    So to sum up:
    There’s lot’s of panic over the bill itself, but a lot of panic over language that has actually already been removed,
    the racist, the pedophile defender and various first time posters have come out of the wood work to berate ABL again,
    and for all the screaming and crying about this on either side it will be forgotten by all within a week.

    Does that just about do it?

  245. 245.

    Thymezone

    NDAA is going to prove to be especially dangerous to people like Al Kayda, that SNL character who was bemoaning the shitty treatment he was getting back in 2001. “Why don’t people like me?” Etc.

    Now they will grab him up and throw him in Gitmo and throw the key in the ocean and America will be toast. Amirite? We are well and truly fuck-ed, are we not?

    Outrage, people. Outrage!!

  246. 246.

    MacKenna

    @agrippa: Oh, did you approve of Bush creating indefinite detention? No.

    But you approve Obama continuing the policy. How is that “blah blah blah”?

  247. 247.

    gaz

    @Thymezone: I’ve felt more or less that way about KOS for some time.

    It does have it’s high points here and there. MinistryOfTruth/(LaGreca?) made some excellent hay during the initial pangs of the OWS movement. Knocked the teeth out of the MSM in the process. Awesome guy – utterly bursting at the seams with epic WIN =). Take that! Not-joe-the-non-plumber ;) we’ve got a thinking, working man’s spokesman here. And he’s not full of shit!

    heh.

    Just one example. There’s enough bits of WIN interspersed with all the noise at KOS to keep me going back occasionally, but I basically agree with you about it, as a whole.

Comments are closed.