REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

National Defense Authorization Act bill

POSTED BY: PIZMOBEACH
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 00:36
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3243
PAGE 1 of 2

Sunday, November 27, 2011 3:41 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/11/congress-to-vote-next-week-on-e
xplicitly-creating-a-police-state.html


The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world.

The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself. The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday.

::::::::::::::

I have no idea.

for Geezer:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:

btw - you have to add the ":" at the end of the link for it to work

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 27, 2011 4:27 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 27, 2011 4:50 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


What's the big deal?

What do you think They used to put a bullet in JFK's missing brain?

Bushobama and the jewmedia celebrate every time They drop a smartbomb down some US citizen's ahole.

Welcome to the Jew World Odor.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 27, 2011 4:59 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3
865&s_subsrc=fixNDAA


on-line petition against indefinite military detention



With all due respect, If I'm to believe this interpretation of this bill and that this is the dark direction our gov is really pursuing then shouldn't I be worried about any form that wants to collect who I am?? Sites can be spoofed, databases can be jacked, what good is a list of names against this?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 27, 2011 5:44 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Well, I'm not really sure what your issue could be.

Yes, this is a real ACLU link. No, it isn't spoofed. If you don't believe me, go to the ACLU website and do a search using the phrase "National Defense Authorization Act".

So, do you think the government has spoofed the site to get your email? Well, why WOULD the government spoof an ACLU site? I hate to say this, but if this is genuine and NOT spoofed by the government, if you fill out the form with real information, the government is going to learn - guess what! - your name and your physical address from which they can get your email address (a search that can be run for a small fee by anyone from any number of people-finder services) anyway, and how you feel about the particular provision of this bill. So why would they spoof the site if they're going to get your information anyway?

But I admit, a lot of people have been added to government watch lists due to the US 'Patriot' Act for completely trivial reasons. Perhaps this is THE petition that will land you on a list.

You're right. You should just crawl under a rock and hide. It's the only way to be safe.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 28, 2011 4:35 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Well, I'm not really sure what your issue could be.



Online petitions have been pretty soundly discredited since early 2000's, so chances are good this is just the ACLU trolling for concerned citizens (suckers) to fill their database. Fill out the form and then get ready to double your spam folder.

Why would sending our congress people our concerns about this be of any value if it's them we don't trust? Seems of little possible value. I actually know this to some extent for having signed one of these things back when there was a threat to internet radio. Spamtastic!

Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Yes, this is a real ACLU link. No, it isn't spoofed. If you don't believe me, go to the ACLU website and do a search using the phrase "National Defense Authorization Act".



Did you check the ip? Did you look at the source code to see where the data was being sent? Do they really need my phone number as well? I agree that it is highly likely the aclu site, the point is is data is easy to copy or steal, and it has a permanent shelf life.

Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:


But I admit, a lot of people have been added to government watch lists due to the US 'Patriot' Act for completely trivial reasons. Perhaps this is THE petition that will land you on a list.



I'm not sure if you are being genuine but this would be my point - there seems very little to gain from signing this and this to loose.

Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
You're right. You should just crawl under a rock and hide. It's the only way to be safe.



Make room, I'll be right over.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 28, 2011 6:16 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
for Geezer:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:

btw - you have to add the ":" at the end of the link for it to work



Thanks.

Per Sect. 1032 of the legislation:

Quote:


SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.
(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

(c) Implementation Procedures-
(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.
(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.
(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.



So this version indicates that military custody is not an option for U.S. citizens. This section is the only one that contains 'detain' or 'custody' in the title. Unless you can find somewhere else that contradicts this section, looks like the ACLU may be jumping the gun.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 28, 2011 6:26 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
for Geezer:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:

btw - you have to add the ":" at the end of the link for it to work



Thanks.

Per Sect. 1032 of the legislation:

Quote:


SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--
(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.
(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.
(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

(c) Implementation Procedures-
(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.
(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:
(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.
(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.
(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.
(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.
(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.
(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.



So this version indicates that military custody is not an option for U.S. citizens. This section is the only one that contains 'detain' or 'custody' in the title. Unless you can find somewhere else that contradicts this section, looks like the ACLU may be jumping the gun.

"Keep the Shiny side up"



As in "using FEAR to generate a mailing list." Looks like it might be aimed at illegal immigrants since it keeps stating "lawful resident" as the exception.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 28, 2011 11:02 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Are you both Americans? Do you consider yourselves to be 'freedom loving'?

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


Do you remember how all this happened? First you were considered to be protected by the 5th and 6th amendments if you were an American citizen or if you were on American soil. Then you were considered protected if you were on American soil, but if you were a citizen overseas woe betide you, you might legally be 'droned'. Now apparently being on American soil is no longer good enough.

I invite you to reread both amendments and see if they make those exceptions.

Or you can just shrug off the Bill of Rights piece by piece in order to protect your 'freedom'.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 28, 2011 12:18 PM

CANTTAKESKY


I had already started a thread on this.

http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=50286

My opinions are there.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 28, 2011 12:29 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Or you can just shrug off the Bill of Rights piece by piece in order to protect your 'freedom'.



Where do you get this presumption from? My intent was to have a discussion to find out what exactly was in the Bill since I'd not seen anyone here post anything about it - considering the ACLU's concerns I was very surprised by that, seems like people here would be all over it.

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/mrge8/did_anyone_even_bother
_to_read_s_1867_subsections
/

"The confusion is due to an earlier version of this bill (S. 1235). The ACLU wrote a letter to Chairman Leahy and Senator Grassley addressing the concern that some American civilians could be indefinitely detained according to the language of S. 1235. Since then it has been amended to exclude the requirement to detain US citizens."

So the ACLU seems to have cleared up part of the outrage, but as I mentioned, it leaves open detaining anyone else.

"Section 1031 is still being written, and when I checked a few hours ago was still completely omitted from the online version of the bill....
All of the subsequent sections refer to 'as outlined in section 1031', but again, what the final version of that section will look like is still up in the air. I believe that is where the controversy comes from, especially given the fact that Senator Reed wrote an open letter warning of how dangerous that section is, and Sens. Feinstein, Udall (and one other) have written an amendment to negate that section, before the public version has been made available. These are all warning signs to me."

So I agree with you - god only knows what kind of snark that will get me.


Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 28, 2011 12:32 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
So this version indicates that military custody is not an option for U.S. citizens.

That is not what it says.

Section 1032 says military custody is not a REQUIREMENT for US citizens.

But military custody is still an option. That is what ACLU is protesting, the POSSIBILITY that US citizens can be detained without trial under military custody. Anyone covered under Sect 1031 is a potential target.

Quote:


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112NRRpIl:e46099
1
:

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.



Note there are no preclusions for US citizens.

THAT is the problem.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 28, 2011 12:34 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
My intent was to have a discussion to find out what exactly was in the Bill since I'd not seen anyone here post anything about it - considering the ACLU's concerns I was very surprised by that, seems like people here would be all over it.

I posted. People discussed. See above.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 28, 2011 1:07 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


Pizmo

"My intent was to have a discussion to find out what exactly was in the Bill ..." which was easily discovered by reading the text. And yes, people discussed.

Now, as far as I can tell, you're position is that the link was spoofed, no one should speak up, the ACLU is just trying to stampede people to send them money, and as long as it's only 'those people' it's all good. Have I got that right?

Oh, as long as I'm taking the time to post, here's one more thing I didn't bother with before in the interest of saving time and keeping posts short -

The provision applies to people who have been >> "determined to be" << members of al Qaeda or affiliates. The way it reads, the military makes some kind of secret determination by unknown standards that you have no right to examine, then imprisons you without benefit of an open trial in court. The military gets to 'disappear' you at its discretion.

I hate to tell you this, but this sounds an awful lot like a military dictatorship, something you seem eager to see go forward, or at the very least excuse.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 28, 2011 1:26 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

One of the things important to me, as an American, is that we apply our rights as universal rights. The rights granted to our citizens do not exist because we feel that we are special and better than other folks. They were enumerated and written down because we feel that these rights apply to human beings in general. While we obviously can't control the conduct of other nations, we should be eager to apply our rights to all humans who are within our control. Once we start carving up humanity into those who have rights and those who do not, we become dividers and not uniters of mankind. We become oppressors of rather than protectors of freedom. I can imagine no vision for America that includes stripping a person of the fundamental rights we claim to hold dear.

--Anthony


_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 28, 2011 1:50 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Pizmo

"My intent was to have a discussion to find out what exactly was in the Bill ..." which was easily discovered by reading the text. And yes, people discussed.



3 people sort of discussed for about 5 posts. No, it is not "easily discovered." The ACLU link was even wrong since they eventually got the bill's wording changed. Did you read the posts at Reddit? See how many people had different takes on the wording?

Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
Now, as far as I can tell, you're position is that the link was spoofed, no one should speak up, the ACLU is just trying to stampede people to send them money, and as long as it's only 'those people' it's all good. Have I got that right?



How, where, wha? How do you draw that conclusion from what I said? Maybe it's where I said I agreed with you?

Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:


I hate to tell you this, but this sounds an awful lot like a military dictatorship, something you seem eager to see go forward, or at the very least excuse.




Actually I think it gives you great joy to tell me that. You seem to need people to yell at even if you have to completely fabricate their motives - have a nice day.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 28, 2011 2:00 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"Sites can be spoofed, databases can be jacked, what good is a list of names against this?

Move on over (under the rock).

... chances are good this is just the ACLU trolling for concerned citizens (suckers) to fill their database.

Seems of little possible value.

... there seems very little to gain from signing this and this (and a lot?) to loose.

As in "using FEAR to generate a mailing list."

Looks like it might be aimed at illegal immigrants since it keeps stating "lawful resident" as the exception."



"Now, as far as I can tell, you're position is that the link was spoofed, no one should speak up, the ACLU is just trying to stampede people to send them money, and as long as it's only 'those people' it's all good. Have I got that right?"


"How do you draw that conclusion from what I said?" From your posts.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 28, 2011 2:06 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Much of this seems to be distaste directed towards online petitioning.

--Anthony


_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 28, 2011 2:29 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


What I noticed was that there was very little directed against the combinations and permutations of 'awful' found in the bill. No kick-back against Geezer's temporizing about how it isn't really THAT bad, but kick back against people who want to raise a stink. And a lot of criticism against what are merely his own suppositional issues directed against the ACLU. It leads me to wonder which one he perceives is the greater problem.



Oh, just to get back to the 5th and 6th amendments ... as I read them what I find peculiar is that they seem to be less about protecting people than they are about restricting government. They really don't specify who and under what circumstances may expect constitutional protections (with the exception of active-duty military during time of war or strife) as much as they restrict government, by spelling out what the GOVERNMENT must to do or refrain from doing. Obviously I'm not a constitutional expert, or even an amateur. But it does seems peculiar to me that those two are directed exclusively at restricting government.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 28, 2011 2:34 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I agree. Many of the founders were very concerned about the abuses of government, and I think much of the protections outlined in the constitution center around emphasizing what government must never do.

And if government must never do it, it seems to me it must never do it to anyone.

--Anthony



_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 28, 2011 4:14 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


This would change the current system, it is potentially dangerous, lets not do it.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:03 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by RionaEire:
This would change the current system, it is potentially dangerous, lets not do it.

LOL. Love that. Best and most succinct argument ever.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:05 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I can imagine no vision for America that includes stripping a person of the fundamental rights we claim to hold dear.

Excellent points you made. Even IF US citizens were exempt, this bill is merde, mierda, scheisse, and shit.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:09 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Much of this seems to be distaste directed towards online petitioning.

Right. I read that Pizmo really hates online petitioning. Not that he was gung ho FOR the bill.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:43 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Sites can be spoofed, databases can be jacked, what good is a list of names against this?

Move on over (under the rock).

... chances are good this is just the ACLU trolling for concerned citizens (suckers) to fill their database.

Seems of little possible value.

... there seems very little to gain from signing this and this (and a lot?) to loose.

As in "using FEAR to generate a mailing list."

Looks like it might be aimed at illegal immigrants since it keeps stating "lawful resident" as the exception."

"Now, as far as I can tell, you're position is that the link was spoofed, no one should speak up, the ACLU is just trying to stampede people to send them money, and as long as it's only 'those people' it's all good. Have I got that right?"

"How do you draw that conclusion from what I said?" From your posts.




I see what the problem is - you need to put people in boxes in order to make sense of their statements. If I criticize the ACLU (and I did) then put me immediately in the: I must hate immigrants box - right?

I said, "Sites can be spoofed, databases can be jacked, what good is a list of names against this?"
Somehow you see immigrant hate there, I see my lack of faith in signing a petition. See that part at the end, that you quoted: "what good is a list of names against this?"

I said: "... chances are good this is just the ACLU trolling for concerned citizens (suckers) to fill their database. "

Again, pure immigrant hate on my part, right? How dare I criticize the ACLU, especially when in my own experience I was caught in a similar "sign up to fight back" campaign by a similar People's advocate like the ACLU that ended getting me spammed by the group.

I said: As in "using FEAR to generate a mailing list." and I stand by that - if you disagree and think the ACLU is somehow above collecting emails in such a way to build a mailing list of like minds, then you are very naive.

I suggested: "Looks like it might be aimed at illegal immigrants since it keeps stating "lawful resident" as the exception."
Seems like sound reasoning, but you leap to: "Yay! Let's round up the brown skins!"

You said: "Now, as far as I can tell, you're position is that the link was spoofed..." No, if you'd read my post you'd see I said it probably wasn't.

"... no one should speak up..." never said that, that's your assumption.
"... the ACLU is just trying to stampede people to send them money..." wrong again. I said collect email addresses.
"... and as long as it's only 'those people' it's all good. Have I got that right?" No, but I'm thinking it makes you feel it justifies your righteous indignation.

It's actually all pretty funny since my wife is one of "those people."


Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:48 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:

Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Much of this seems to be distaste directed towards online petitioning.

Right. I read that Pizmo really hates online petitioning. Not that he was gung ho FOR the bill.




Thanks for that, for not jumping to negative conclusions, both of you. I really try and hold people regardless of their political affiliations, as well as my friends, and family and myself, to at least above average standards. It's why I am critical of OWS even though I agree with a number of their beliefs.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 10:10 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
But military custody is still an option. That is what ACLU is protesting, the POSSIBILITY that US citizens can be detained without trial under military custody. Anyone covered under Sect 1031 is a potential target.

Quote:


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112NRRpIl:e46099
1
:

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.



Note there are no preclusions for US citizens.

THAT is the problem.



Don't know where you got this exerpt (and the link doesn't work), but it's not the current form of S.1867, which has no Sect. 1031 in it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 10:41 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Don't know where you got this exerpt (and the link doesn't work), but it's not the current form of S.1867, which has no Sect. 1031 in it.

If Sect 1032 references Sect 1031, it stands to reason Sect 1031 MUST exist. In fact, it is right above Sect 1032, imagine that.

You just have to click on the right link.

1. Go to this link.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:

2. Then click on Subtitle D--Detainee Matters.
This link is right above the link to Sect 1032.



-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 10:43 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"If I criticize the ACLU (and I did) then put me immediately in the: I must hate immigrants box - right?"

No. Not a all. In fact, not even on the target, let alone close to a bull's eye.

What I see is a persistent, repeated bias of criticism.

On the one hand you posted repeated, increasing wildly speculative criticism of the ACLU based on no facts at all, and let me repeat that, based on no facts at all, simply based on your wholly unfounded speculations. And on the other hand you posted only one cautious criticism of the provision of the bill, even though there are available, if changing, actual facts. By tallying your posts and their basis, I conclude you think the ACLU is a bigger problem than any provisions in the bill.

The anti-immigrant comment was based on your comment about how the bill was aimed at illegal immigrants, with the implications that it couldn't be unconstitutional or worrisome for us 'real' people who are, presumably, the only people who count when it comes to constitutional protections.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 10:55 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"If I criticize the ACLU (and I did) then put me immediately in the: I must hate immigrants box - right?"

No. Not a all. In fact, not even on the target, let alone close to a bull's eye.

What I see is a persistent, repeated bias of criticism.

On the one hand you posted repeated, increasing wildly speculative criticism of the ACLU based on no facts at all, and let me repeat that, based on no facts at all, simply based on your wholly unfounded speculations. And on the other you posted only one cautious criticism of the provision of the bill, even though there are available, if changing, actual facts. By tallying your posts and their basis, I conclude you think the ACLU is a bigger problem than any provisions in the bill.

The anti-immigrant comment was based on your comment about how the bill was aimed at illegal immigrants, with the implications that it couldn't be unconstitutional or worrisome for us 'real' people who are, presumably, the only people who count when it comes to constitutional protections.



You are truly weird.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 11:03 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Don't know where you got this exerpt (and the link doesn't work), but it's not the current form of S.1867, which has no Sect. 1031 in it.

If Sect 1032 references Sect 1031, it stands to reason Sect 1031 MUST exist. In fact, it is right above Sect 1032, imagine that.

You just have to click on the right link.

1. Go to this link.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:

2. Then click on Subtitle D--Detainee Matters.
This link is right above the link to Sect 1032.




CTS - "If Sect 1032 references Sect 1031, it stands to reason Sect 1031 MUST exist."
It stands to reason unless you are a US gov document. - I think you may be looking at a cached version of yesterdays. Today, 1031 no longer exists except as referenced in 1032 of course.



If anything it speaks to the mind blowing complexity of these bills - they could hide almost anything in a document this big and if it's found they could just move it.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 11:07 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


"If anything it speaks to the mind blowing complexity of these bills - they could hide almost anything in a document this big and if it's found they could just move it."

I actually scanned the whole thing - there were some weird things in there, but nothing else I saw that was like the 1031 provision.

FWIW, from my time as a contract negotiator, I find edit/ search to be quite useful.

But, that's why it's nice there are organizations like the ACLU, MoveOn, EFF and others who have poorly paid but dedicated staffers and unpaid volunteers who read these things to find out what's going on.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 2:39 PM

DREAMTROVE


Hrm. I guess it's over then. Do we have a definition for "Rogue State" ?

Quote:

Originally posted by 1kiki:
https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3
865&s_subsrc=fixNDAA


on-line petition against indefinite military detention



AKA: A list of volunteer targets.



ETA: Also, I'm so not butting in to this argument, but I think we have to take for granted that our dictator has suspended the constitution, so no rights apply.



That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 2:50 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I think you may be looking at a cached version of yesterdays. Today, 1031 no longer exists except as referenced in 1032 of course.

I am looking at it right now, and it is not a cached version.



Yes, that is it. Did you click on Subtitle D? It is at the top of the page if you click on Subtitle D.

-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 29, 2011 9:35 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


So, is DreamTrove saying it passed? I hope not.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 2:50 AM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

Originally posted by RionaEire:
So, is DreamTrove saying it passed? I hope not.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya



Nah, the constitution was suspended some time ago, but it's not a good idea to become enemies of this policy, history has taught us. But I see a lot of other people already said this. I'm considering lying low, or disappearing to somewhere they're not looking.


That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 3:23 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:
If Sect 1032 references Sect 1031, it stands to reason Sect 1031 MUST exist. In fact, it is right above Sect 1032, imagine that.

You just have to click on the right link.

1. Go to this link.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:

2. Then click on Subtitle D--Detainee Matters.
This link is right above the link to Sect 1032.


Oh, Okay. I was using the index, which (as Pismo noted) doesn't show 1031.

I'd have preferred the House version, in H 1540.

Quote:

SEC. 1034. AFFIRMATION OF ARMED CONFLICT WITH AL-QAEDA, THE TALIBAN, AND ASSOCIATED FORCES.

Congress affirms that--
(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;
(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note);
(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who--
(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or
(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and
(4) the President's authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.1540:


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 5:19 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"until the termination of hostilities."

Hello,

The 'War on Terror' appears to be an ongoing concern.

One wonders how long the 'hostilities' can be expected to continue.

One also wonders why we need this law at all, a decade into the fighting.

What is the impetus to act, here? What is this law meant to gain?

--Anthony



_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 5:28 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by canttakesky:

Yes, that is it. Did you click on Subtitle D? It is at the top of the page if you click on Subtitle D.



I did not - seems a might hidden, 1032 is linked from the front, 1031 is not.

Do you feel this is still a threat to citizens or any other people on US soil, or has it been cleaned up?

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

===========================================

Section b talks about covered persons, then 1 & 2 beneath that try and define "covered persons." There's a fair amount of presumption in both of them - how do they know if someone, "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks."
Maybe this is why some people say like sausage, you don't want to see how bills are made.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 1, 2011 5:20 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Glenn Greenwald clarifies facts and myths on the NDAA.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/01/congress_endorsing_military_detention_
a_new_aumf/singleton
/

As usual, Greenwald's analysis seems right on the money to me.


-----
Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth. -- Lucy Parsons (1853-1942, labor activist and anarcho-communist)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 1, 2011 5:31 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

A rush to codify reprehensible policies to ensure that public opinion can not casually sway back in the direction of sanity, and take government action with it.

--Anthony



_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 1, 2011 7:55 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Indeed, I think the fact that Corporate America and the Federal Government were ready to pour millions into HBGary in order to shut him up actually gave Greenwald MORE street cred than anything he ever wrote - talk about backfiring, heh.

As for the rest, this article is also a handy summary of how things are going in this country today.

30 Signs That The United States Of America Is Being Turned Into A Giant Prison
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=37466

Oh, and in regards to article #15 there, some of em have learned this is a bad, bad idea - phone software, and also phone scanner software, as a rule has piss poor protection against malicious programming - and it's not too hard to rig a phone to totally bollocks up the scanner, just so you know.
The fact that they were unable to identify the culprits of that stunt cause they scanned so MANY phones is very telling.

It's also made me money, in that we've adapted the SCRAMdrive technology to cellphones, currently only Motorola brand, though.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 7, 2011 5:03 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

This somewhat derivative video, ostensibly from Anonymous, appeared on my facebook account today.

Much of the language of the video comes from V for Vendetta. However, the concerns of this video are legitimate.




--Anthony

ETA - I am unaware of how to address the video glitch.


_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 7, 2011 5:09 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


(Failed attempt to fix video embed)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 7, 2011 6:07 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Been gone a couple of days and it's not worth reading all the way back in this thread, but I wanted to ask: Has anyone else heard that Obama is saying he would veto this thing if it's passed? Heard that a couple of days ago and wondered.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 7, 2011 6:13 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

I have heard that, as well. I am waiting to see if that Veto becomes a reality.

I suspect not.

--Anthony



_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 7, 2011 8:34 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Anthony, the video glitch isn't really that much of a glitch. The video link *IS* there, embedded as it should be, but it just isn't showing up.

The easy way to see it is to hit "Reply with quote" and then copy the vid-link from there.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 7, 2011 8:52 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Ah, found it. Notice it's not getting much play in the MSM...hmmmm
Quote:

December 3, 2011, New York – The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) issued the following statement calling on President Obama to honor his promise to veto the controversial National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), passed on Thursday by the Senate. More at http://www.ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/president-obama-must
-act-promise-veto-national-defense-authorization-act
debate over terrorism suspects on Thursday divided Democrats, with Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., squaring off over the language with Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Senate Intelligence Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

Democratic opponents of the provisions, who offered a series of amendments to strike or water down the language, appear to face an uphill effort to find the votes to amend the detainee language as almost all Republicans and most Armed Services Committee Democrats support it.

By moving ahead with the bill without a deal—the White House threatened to veto the bill earlier Thursday—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., reduced the leverage and ability of opponents to force changes. Feinstein said she isn't confident the bill can be amended, saying only that she strongly opposes the provisions. She declined to comment on Reid’s decision to press ahead with the bill but several Democratic aides said his move caught Democratic opponents of the provision by surprise. The aides said Reid told Democrats he is eager to move ahead with the bill in the face of pressure from Republicans and his own desire to clear “must pass” bills that are ready for the floor.

The Obama administration threatened to veto the major defense authorization bill because of language paving the way for many terror suspects to be put under military custody, a sharp escalation of its battle with Congress over the future course of the war on terror. More at http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/obama-threatens-veto-o
f-defense-authorization-bill-20111117
]





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 7, 2011 10:51 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

This president voted to let illegal wire-tappers go free. He elected not to pursue torturers. Guantanamo Bay continues to hold perpetual, untried detainees. I hope he will veto this bill, but I have no expectation that he will. History does not suggest it.

--Anthony


_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 7, 2011 5:34 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I hope he vetos it.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
White Woman Gets Murdered, Race Baiters Most Affected
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:40 - 20 posts
Alex Jones makes himself look an even bigger Dickhead than Piers Morgan on live TV (and that takes some doing, I can tell you).
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:29 - 81 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:11 - 7514 posts
Hollywood exposes themselves as the phony whores they are
Thu, November 28, 2024 07:02 - 46 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 28, 2024 06:03 - 4846 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, November 28, 2024 05:58 - 4776 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:56 - 44 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:51 - 48 posts
Where Will The American Exodus Go?
Thu, November 28, 2024 03:25 - 1 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:06 - 21 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:05 - 238 posts
Bald F*ck MAGICALLY "Fixes" Del Rio Migrant Invasion... By Releasing All Of Them Into The U.S.
Wed, November 27, 2024 17:03 - 41 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL