Skip to main content

View Diary: When Did You Stop Beating Your Wife, Mr. President? (53 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  We have to understand that some people want to... (7+ / 0-)

    ...believe certain things. We have a tendency to acknowledge and chide those on the Right, while resigning ourselves to the wasted time by those on the Left.

    "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

    by sebastianguy99 on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 10:26:53 AM PST

    •  There's really no excuse for that, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Reepicheep, RhodaA, palantir

      for just "believing what I want to believe" when the facts exist and show you to be wrong.

      U.S. citizens and permanent residents are specifically excluded.  So, too, is anyone not a planner of 9/11 or a member or supporter of al Qaeda, the Taliban, or related forces.

      To slander people based on false narratives is highly irresponsible.  Misrepresentation is rife here, including on the front page (see Joan McCarter's innacurate report of John Boehner's statements regarding payroll tax cuts and Keystone XL).  Joan was either very sloppy or deliberately misleading.  Neither should be acceptable for a front page diarist.  Joan, you still haven't responded to my request to set the record straight.

      •  I was very annoyed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RhodaA

        by the lack of any links to the bill text, and I was also annoyed that most of the commentators didn't question it.

        "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

        by Reepicheep on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 10:53:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because the text doesn't matter. It didn't fit the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RhodaA

          preferred narrative that Obama is evil and will use it to lock up OWSers.

          Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

          by JTinDC on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 12:27:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You remind me of the people saying Weiner's wiener (0+ / 0-)

            wasn't his wiener. They spent WEEKS on this very site in blog after blog fighting against clear evidence, simply because Anthony was a Democrat and Andrew Sullivan is a an intolerable asshole.

            We need to stop treating politics like a team sport. BOTH sides dropped the ball on this one. It DOES make it legal to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely. And if that screws up your world view, tough titty. It's the truth.

            I will not touch Medicare, Social Security or Medicaid - Barack Obama

            by sloopydrew on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 02:01:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well apparantly the truth is open to debate. (0+ / 0-)

              The plain language says US citizens are exempt, others say the plain language doesn't matter. There's no point in even discussing it any further.

              And FWIW, I was not a Weiner's weiner defender.

              Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

              by JTinDC on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 02:07:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The bill was written to be confusing (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Reepicheep, Johnny Q

                But if you understand legalese, you will quickly understand that the bill simply does not "require" a U.S. citizen be detained indefinitely. It just makes that an option. Despite the fact it violates our 6th Amendment right to a trial by a jury of our peers.

                I will not touch Medicare, Social Security or Medicaid - Barack Obama

                by sloopydrew on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 02:16:53 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Do you understand legalese? (0+ / 0-)

                  1)Or are you relying on someone else's understanding of legalese?

                  2)Is that person a lawyer?

                  3)Can you cite case law where similar wording in a bill failed to hold up in court?

                  "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

                  by Reepicheep on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 02:30:33 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  My dad is a lawyer (0+ / 0-)

                    and I went through 2 years of law school before medical problems forced me to drop out.

                    So yes, I understand legalese.

                    I can also understand partisan bullshit where morons treat politics like a team sport. It's irrelevant if there's a "D" or an "R" next to the politician's name. It is the ACTIONS of said politician that matter. Nothing more. Nothing less. The actions of Democrats tend to be better than those of Republicans.

                    And fuck you to the bastard who lowered my status for not defending our Dictator-in-Chief. This site blows.

                    I will not touch Medicare, Social Security or Medicaid - Barack Obama

                    by sloopydrew on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 02:45:13 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Incorrect. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sloopydrew, Johnny Q, dewley notid

        And the words in the original and amended texts have meaning.  Just because something is not REQUIRED does not mean it is not OPTIONAL unless explicitly enjoined.  The administration lobbied to have the OPTION to have the military detain US citizens.

        U.S. citizens and permanent residents are specifically excluded.  So, too, is anyone not a planner of 9/11 or a member or supporter of al Qaeda, the Taliban, or related forces.

        They are only excluded from MANDITORY military detention.  The executive branch reserves the OPTION to detain US citizens in the same manner it does as those who meet the non-citizenship criteria for MANDITORY military detention.  The administration threatened to veto the bill if the OPTION to explicitly exclude American citizens was in the bill when presented for his signature...and the senate capitulated by voting down Feinstein's and Udall's respective amendments which would hae explicitly excluded US citizens from indefinite military detention.

        http://www.salon.com/...

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

        •  Ha ha ha ha... (0+ / 0-)

          2. Sure it doesn't CREATE sweeping new powers to indefinitely detain US Citizens, but it doesn't BAN such powers forever either.

          Thanks TFGR...

          "Math is a theory, so it's not taught in the Bible."

          by lcj98 on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 11:07:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't understand what you find funny. (5+ / 0-)

            What do you think the amendments offered by Feinstein and Udall did?  They EXPLICITLY exempted US citizens from this type of detainment.  The administration lobbied to have those amendments voted down or it would veto the bill.

            What's funny is that you misunderstand the scope of the bill.  The language is important.

            http://www.nytimes.com/...

            The bill has so many other objectionable aspects that we can’t go into them all. Among the worst: It leaves open the possibility of subjecting American citizens to military detention and trial by a military court.

            The sweeping new powers were the ones assumed by President Bush after passage of the AUMF.  The very powers many, if not MOST, of us were so up in arms about throughout most of his presidency.  This bill legitamizes those powers and that power grab.  And the current administration wasn't satisified with a modest rollback of those powers and threatened a veto if the power of the president did not include the power to indefinitely detain US citizens as it sees fit.  It's no laugihing matter.

            •  sure thing... (0+ / 0-)

              All I ask is wake me when the boogey man comes.

              "Math is a theory, so it's not taught in the Bible."

              by lcj98 on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 11:36:58 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  If that is true (0+ / 0-)

              I would like to read the text of the amendment where Udall specifically says that. I can't find it.

              Please explain how Feinstien's amendment is different from the text that I outlined above.

              "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

              by Reepicheep on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 02:03:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Udall's amendment... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Johnny Q

                ...was to strip aspects of the bill while the senate held hearings...I think he specifically referred to Section 1031.

                Here's a link to Lawfare which provides links to Udall's amendment, his statement as to why he proposed it, and the blog's author's anaylsis.

                http://www.lawfareblog.com/...

                As for the Feinstein amendment, it dealth with Section 1032 and adding the word 'abroad' to the language of the section.  It is explained thusly by the ACLU:

                Senator Dianne Feinstein has offered an amendment that would add the word “abroad” to section 1032 of the bill. The result would be that the mandatory military detention requirement in section 1032 would apply only when a suspect is captured abroad. While persons taken into custody in the United States could still be put into military custody under section 1031 of the bill (which pares back on the protections provided by the Posse Comitatus Act), the military would not be REQUIRED to put such person into military custody.

                I'm trying to find a link to the actual wording of the amendment.

            •  Also, can you source (0+ / 0-)

              your expert on the legal definitions of the wording?

              "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

              by Reepicheep on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 02:20:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Obama asked Senate Armed Forces to withdraw (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          4kedtongue, dewley notid

          languge in the bill that would've

          •  Precisely... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sloopydrew, dewley notid

            ...the administration asked the committee to remove language which would have precluded the executive from treating US citizens the same way it CAN treat non-citizens.  The committee obliged and the limiting language was removed so the executive could have the option to have the military apprehend, detain and try American citizens...just like it does with foreign combatants.

        •  No... you're missing something important (0+ / 0-)

          You are quoting Sec 1032, which applies to mandatory military detention.

          Sec 1031, which is the authorization for detention, sets forth the grounds for detention, who may be detained, and the exemptions for U.S. Citizens and permanent residents.

          Those paragraphs aren't in the clip of the text above, but if you click through the link, the whole thing is available (and all of Sec 1031 has been published on this site in other diaries).

          Your analysis would be correct if Sec 1031 did not exist.  But it does.

        •  Someone with the facts! Amazing! (0+ / 0-)

          Since the "Anthony Weiner is 100% innocent and those pictures aren't his -- it's a baby's arm!" blogs, I've really had my eyes opened to the nature of many posters on this site. They will defend what they would abhor, if a Democrat is in anyway involved. It's really sad. Politics shouldn't be a team sport. But it definitely has become exactly that. It's no longer a Democracy -- it's a religion.

          I will not touch Medicare, Social Security or Medicaid - Barack Obama

          by sloopydrew on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 02:04:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site