Skip to main content

Hey, Carl Levin and your weasel friend Graham, you want military detention of anyone whom the armed forces deem to be "associated" with Al-Qaeda, including U.S. citizens inside the United States.

Now, I saw your clever bait and switch.  Do you think we are all idiots?

You vest all power to determine if someone is a BOOGEYMAN (anyone who the army thinks is "a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an affiliated entity; and a participant in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.") not in the courts but the Armed Forces of the United States.  And then you REQUIRE the detention of all BOOGEYMEN, except that you only AUTHORIZE  the detention of BOOGEYMEN who are U.S. citizens.  

Hey, Carl, are you an arsonist?  Because I think you're trying to set fire to the Constitution.  Maybe you are someone who should be indefinitely detained.

But why stop there?  Go all the way.  These are enemies, no? And who cares what kind of slogans or phony patriotism they might hide under.

Sept. 4, 1973, Last March of the Popular Unity, -Santiago

Why not authorize FULL GODDAMN MILITARY RULE?  

We're under attack, right?  Here's your legal precedents for:

* Bombing the shit out of our own elected officials (they're really traitors, you see):

11 settembre 1973

la bandera al tope

* Disappear a few troublesome actresses:
My friend Carmen Bueno, actress, disappeared by secret police, Santiago, 1973

* Arrest a bunch of Al-Qaeda and don't bother the courts with a bunch of due process bullshit:

prisioneros

Carl, come on, you know you want it.  All this goddamn democracy and rule of law bullshit just gives cover for the terrorists.  After all, what could possibly go wrong with a military crackdown on domestic terrorism?

Afiche La Noche de los Lápices

Now Carl, I realize that you are a Democrat, and as I fellow Democrat, I am willing to forgive you.  Just simply admit that you were drunk, as that appears to be the only logical explanation for this.

UPDATE: Text of mendacious bill as passed the Senate below the squiggle.  And here isLevin's insane "trust your rulers" speech in support of the bill.

Here it is (note deceptive section title):

SEC. 1032. REQUIRED MILITARY CUSTODY FOR MEMBERS OF AL-QAEDA AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES.

(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) in military custody as an unprivileged enemy belligerent pending disposition under the law of war.
(2) APPLICABILITY TO AL-QAEDA AND AFFILIATED ENTITIES- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any covered person under section 1031(b) who is determined to be--
(A) a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an affiliated entity; and
(B) a participant 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) Requirement Inapplicable to United States Citizens- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(c) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on 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 date.

Poll

Is it a good idea to allow the armed forces to arrest and detain indefinitely and without trial anyone they damn well want?

3%2 votes
86%56 votes
10%7 votes

| 65 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (12+ / 0-)

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 06:26:27 AM PST

  •  crazy, maybe (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril, Rogneid

    not drunk.  One is a judgement based on the actions, the other is potentially a personal smear.  Just my personal opinion (and I agree with you that this is outrageous) but I don't like accusations like that which are meant to be just hyperbole.

  •  Drunk is the only reasonable excuse, because (5+ / 0-)

    it's possible he may sober up.  If he wasn't drunk, then this is tantamount to the destruction of the constitution.  Once you allow the military to be the sole judge of who is a terrorist (however the law attempts to define it) and who is not, and take away all rights to a trial, well, what is left?

    Let's not forget that torture is legal now too, so what is being set up here are the instruments of a dirty war, just waiting for an excuse to be used upon the population.

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 06:49:09 AM PST

  •  The lust for power does not only infect (6+ / 0-)

    people who self-identify as Republicans.  Our traditional politicians were accustomed to exercising power, virtually unfettered by the Constitution, because they'd been left with "sovereign immunity" and were untouchable until some legislative revisions, beginning about mid-century started to trim their sails. Then, with the advent of universal suffrage and free access to public information, popular government gained real potential and people became the enemy of our wanna-be rulers, the wielders of power.

    Now, since, to be felt, power has to hurt, those who lust for power must be into deprivation and the easiest thing to deprive is people's rights. If you lock them up, you can make people do what you want.  Moreover, because humans are social animals who are able to communicate, it's only necessary to lock up a few to get the message to the rest. The only problem is that the lust for power is never satisfied.  So, the deprivation of rights inevitably reaches a tipping point and the populace takes its power back.

    Why is that not just as bad?  Because the ability to hurt is associated with power that is concentrated.  When power is dispersed over the whole populace, it only becomes concentrated when there's an intellectual consensus for its use.
    That's why the power to use force was supposed to be lodged in the Congress.  That the Congress has abrogated its responsibility to allocate the use of force via the AUMF is another example of congressional corruption.  It is similar to having handed the power over our currency to the Federal Reserve.

    People to Wall Street: "LET OUR MONEY GO"

    by hannah on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 06:55:26 AM PST

  •  I'm not sure why anybody is shocked, remember (9+ / 0-)

    Post 9/11 everything goes to shit.  First we claim the ability to lock up anybody in secret prisons, no trial.  Then we claim torture is legal.  Next we claim the ability to wiretap any and all people within the country.

    We change presidents, the new one says he'll stop all that... then he doubles down on all of that says we can't try all those people in those jails.  Then he claims that he can assassinate American citizens where he wants sans trial or anything.

    We are taking baby steps.  IF and that's a HUGE IF, they declared that they were going to do all of this at once people would freak, but when they do it step by step nobody notices.

    It's like that story about boiling a frog.  Do it all at once and the frog jumps out of the pot.  Do it bit by bit and the sucker boils alive.  We are boiling alive and have been for several years.

    "Foolproof systems don't take into account the ingenuity of fools."

    by overclocking on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 07:07:26 AM PST

  •  is Carl Levin just pandering to the (5+ / 0-)

    "national security types" in the media?  Is he afraid of Fox News?  Or is he really this wrong headed?  Democrats never fail to disappoint me.

  •  here's an idea (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deicidalRuffian

    Why don't we empower the Supreme Court to arrest any legislator who proposes any legislation that could possibly be construed as unconstitutional?

  •  Senator Levin's infatuation with the military (5+ / 0-)

    Judging by hisfinancial disclosures, Carl Levin's motivations in promoting this disastrous policy do not appear to be based on personal gain, since he is one of the poorer Senators, worth only a couple million. He does not own stock in military or intelligence companies. He has been reliably liberal on education and other social issues and has an 84% positive rating from the ACLU. And he did not serve in the military.

    So it is hard to explain his blind faith in the military except as anything other than sincere, the product of years of service on the armed services committee. He is what Eric Hoffer called a true believer when it comes to the military (and only yesterday expressed outrage at Ron Paul's amendment called for repeal of the Iraq AUMF)

    If Levin had ever served in the military, he might understand that it is an inefficient bureaucracy totally unsuited to the administration of anything resembling justice.

    If my soldiers were to begin to think, not one would remain in the ranks. -Frederick the Great

    by Valatius on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 07:44:01 AM PST

  •  I saw Levin ranting about this on the (4+ / 0-)

    Senate floor yesterday and I was genuinely shocked.

    I would expect this crap from Graham or McCain.  But I was really shocked to see it from an old Democrat like Levin.

    He was yelling.  He was foaming at the mouth.  He looked genuinely furious at the senators who were supporting the Udall amendment.  He really looked deranged; and usually he seems very judicious.

    He kept repeating:  We're at WAR!  The enemy brought the battle to OUR SHORES!  The entire nation is a BATTLEFIELD!

    This whole damn country has gone crazy.

    "Oh wow. Oh wow. Oh wow." -- last words of Steve Jobs.

    by Timaeus on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 08:27:55 AM PST

    •  Have a link to his written speech (couldn't find (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Timaeus

      a video of his rant) but the written one is bad enough. Now I guess it's up to the army to decide if we get trials in civilian courts.

      You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

      by Cartoon Peril on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 09:40:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Cartoon Peril, your second link does not (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril

    work.  The first one does, but it's only to a committee report vaguely summarizing the key sections.

    I'm on a crappy home satellite Internet connection and can't download the text of the whole bill.

    If you have a convenient way to do it, it would be good to have an update showing the full text of sections 1031 and 1032, plus perhaps a link to definitional sections that define things like "unprivileged belligerents."

    "Oh wow. Oh wow. Oh wow." -- last words of Steve Jobs.

    by Timaeus on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 08:36:34 AM PST

  •  Only one thing gets a Senator that excited: MONEY (0+ / 0-)

    1) My guess is that the Israel Lobby billionaires like Haim Saban are feeling the crosshairs on their back and are offering to dump another $15 million into the Democratic Party in exchange for protection:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    2) After all, if you voted to send 4500 Americans to their deaths in Iraq to protect Israel, then what's 310 million more?

    3) By the way, Did  Kenneth Pollack and Marti Indyk at Haim's Think Tank on Middle Eastern policy ever find those nukes of Saddam's??  

    http://www.brookings.edu/...

    4)  If you want a good laugh, go read Pollack's 2002 bestselling book "The Threatening Storm".   Pollack was on Bill Clinton's National Security Council.   The Best and Brightest, as it were.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    5) Or go ask the ghost of Harvard professor Ernest May, consultant to the 911 Commission, why the Democrats on that Commission joined with the Republicans in REFUSING to examine WHAT  provoked the 911 attack.  

  •  It's really tricky and deceitful how (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril

    Section 1032 (which is now in the diary) is worded!

    At first blush, it seems like they're doing U.S. citizens a favor by exempting them from mandatory, indefinite military detention.

    We're there already--military dictatorship, with a phony veneer of democracy.  After all, even in the Soviet Union they used to have "elections."

    I wonder if there are any federal judges with the courage to call that provision unconstitutional.

    I wonder if Obama will have the courage to veto it, leaving him open to charges that he's weak on defense.

    "Oh wow. Oh wow. Oh wow." -- last words of Steve Jobs.

    by Timaeus on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 11:48:55 AM PST

    •  It only exempts Americans from MANDATORY (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Timaeus

      detention, and only if they're arrested state side.

      It IS deceptively titled and deceptive in its overall structure.  I don't say you have to be a lawyer to tease out the meaning, but I don't think it would very apparent to non-lawyers.  I had to pause and work through it, and I've been a lawyer for a very long time.

      You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

      by Cartoon Peril on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 12:26:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril

    They keep mentioning "Al Qaeda" but it's pretty obvious this is going to be used mostly on the #occupy movement.

    Our rulers are completing the transition from soft fascism to hard fascism that began in the aftermath of the WTC attacks. It seems to me the only option left is to overthrow the bastards like the Tunisians and Egyptians did.

    If you're reading this, you just lost the game. (-10.00, -8.87)

    by Texas Revolutionary on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 03:39:50 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site