Skip to main content

Or, "Mr. President, don't you care about the military arresting American citizens, on our soil, and locking them away without trial?"

According to Huffpo, and other sources, the defense authorization bill gives the president sweeping powers to lock up Americans. Also, according to Huffpo, a last-minute amendment by Senator Udall intend to protect us all was voted down by LIBERALS!

It took a long time to find a blog or article that linked to the actual text of the bill.

Finally I went to good old Thomas.loc.gov, that dry, undramatic recording of the congressional record. I browsed through the 800 page pdf. And there is absolutely nothing in it that supports the idea of these new, sweeping military powers.

Why don't we read the actual text
of the Defense Authorization bill that the Senate voted on?

Subtitle D—Detainee Matters
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:

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—
Nothing in this section is in
tended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
 (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be
 construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to
 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
 aliens of the United States or any other persons who are
 captured or arrested in the United States.

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.
6 (a) CUSTODY PENDING DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF
7 WAR.—(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.

Okay, but what about the amendment to the bill that would save us all?

Here's what was voted down:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) an order affecting the disposition of the individual that is issued by a court or competent tribunal of the United States having lawful jurisdiction (which the Secretary

[Page: S7729]  GPO's PDFshall notify Congress of promptly after issuance); or
    (C) pre-trial agreement entered in a military commission case.

    (d) National Security Waiver.--

    (1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Defense may waive one or more certification requirements specified in subsection (b) if the Secretary, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, determines that--

    (A) alternative actions will be taken to address the underlying purpose of the requirement or requirements to be waived; and

    (B) the transfer is in the national security interests of the United States.

    (2) REPORTS.--Whenever the Secretary makes a determination under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees, not later than 30 days before the transfer of the individual concerned, the following:

    (A) A copy of the determination and the waiver concerned.

    (B) A statement of the basis for the determination, including an explanation why the transfer is in the national security interests of the United States.

    (C) A summary of the alternative actions to be taken to address the underlying purpose of, and to mitigate the risks addressed in, the paragraph or subsection to be waived.

I'm not a law scholar, but to me it reads as an amendment telling the executive branch that it has to report to congressional committees before taking any action regarding the Guantanamo prisoners, including the decision of whether or not to hold their trial or tribunals in the United States. That is what was voted down.

So, all this bill did was keep the status quo. Thats all. It specifically does not give the President any sweeping new powers, and it doesn't take any powers that were conferred by earlier legislation.

But the net is swarming with hysterical headlines "Military can arrest citizens without trial!!!" "Battlefield Now the US!!!!" "The End of The Bill Of Rights!" from both the right and the left.

Why are we freaking out? I'm curious to know where this originated. I'd also be curious to find out who it benefits from the scare.

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

  •  Actual text (9+ / 0-)

    how dare you go actually read the bill.

    Republicans 2012 . . . Keeping millions out of work to put one man out of a job.

    by jsfox on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 10:21:01 AM PST

  •  The Criticisms of the Bill Seem to Be Based (8+ / 0-)

    ...on one of several specific angles.

    1. Sure it SAYS US Citizens are exempted, but what if they're really not?

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

    3. Indefinite detention of anyone for any reason is never OK whether they are a citizen or not.

    My suspicion is most people who dislike the bill are in camp #3, but they're trying to use the "We could be locking up US citizens" angle because it's easier to get people upset with that, even people who might not care if suspected Al Qaeda captured in the battlefield are indefinitely detained.

    And I'm not criticizing #3 either, that's a fine way to believe.

    •  I agree with #3 (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peptabysmal, sloopydrew, boilerman10

      The entire mess was created when the Bush Administration decided to an end run around the Geneva convention and the Justice system. The result is that we still have people imprisoned, and that the documentation regarding the prisoners is missing, misplaced or was never there at all. This was horribly compounded by the authorization of torture, which makes any information they may have gleaned from interrogation completely useless.

      We've got a prison camp full of people who may or may not be dangerous. No other country want to take them, and no federal prison in the U.S. will have them either.

      "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

      by Reepicheep on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 10:40:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  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 ]

  •  "The Nitty Gritty on the NDAA" (6+ / 0-)

    Thank you for the Diary. I know where some of it originated, but that's for another time and another place.

    Mother Jones:

    So what exactly does the bill do? It says that the president has to hold a foreign Al Qaeda suspect captured on US soil in military detention—except it leaves enough procedural loopholes that someone like convicted underwear bomber and Nigerian citizen Umar Abdulmutallab could actually go from capture to trial without ever being held by the military. It does not, contrary to what many media outlets have reported, authorize the president to indefinitely detain without trial an American citizen suspected of terrorism who is captured in the US.

    ....Still, the reason supporters like Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are happy with this bill is that it codifies into law a role for the military where there was none before. It is the first concrete gesture Congress has made towards turning the homeland into the battlefield, even if the impact in the near term is more symbolic and political than concrete.

    But "symbolic" and "political" doesn't mean "meaningless." Codifying indefinite detention on American soil is a very dangerous step, and politicians who believe the military should have an even larger domestic counterterrorism role simply aren't going to be satisfied with this. In fact, if there is another attack, it's all but certain they will hammer the president should he choose not to place the suspect in military detention.

    http://motherjones.com/...

    Newt Gingrich is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like. - Paul Krugman

    by RhodaA on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 10:56:24 AM PST

    •  PS: To me the really bad thing about the bill (4+ / 0-)

      is that it creates a "presumption" of military powers that we didn't have before even though they can be waived. A future president may not choose to exercise those waivers.

      Newt Gingrich is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like. - Paul Krugman

      by RhodaA on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 11:00:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wrong... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dinazina, Johnny Q, sloopydrew

        ...what can be waived are the constitutional protections of US citizens.  In other words, indefinite military detention of US citizens is not manditory as it is with non-citizens because the the congress has given the executive branch the option to waive the exclusion of US citizens as it sees fit.

        The danger isn't that future presidents will choose NOT to exercise the waivers in the bill, it's that he or she WILL choose to exercise said waivers.

        •  *sigh* (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RhodaA

          And you know this how?

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

          by lcj98 on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 11:13:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  *sigh* (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sloopydrew

            Because I know how to read.

            I realize that words like manditory and optional and waiver have a meaning.  

            Bills are worded in a very particular way.  Just because something isn't manditory doesn't mean it isn't optional UNLESS the option is specifically enjoined.  That is why the executive is granted the power of a waiver to exempt American suspects from the usual constitutional protections and have them detained indefinitely by the military.

            Tell me, why did the administration lobby Levin to remove specific language which exempted Americans from indefinite military detention?  Why?  Why did the president threaten a veto if that language was INCLUDED in the bill?  Why?  Because the administration AGREES with the previous administration insofar as it BELIEVES it already has that authority under the AUMF and it didn't want Congress to explicitly STRIP it of that power.

          •  Because he's not blinded by partisan BS (0+ / 0-)

            I hate the Republicans as much as anyone. But I despise the Democrats who were a part of this -- because I expect them to know better. The law is written in a confusing manner, but constitutional law scholar after scholar has said this ABSOLUTELY "codifies" the right to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens WITHOUT right to a lawyer or a trial. It just doesn't "require" it. PLEASE understand, on this issue, you are WRONG, lcj98.

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

            by sloopydrew on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 02:10:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  The waiver is of military detention. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Reepicheep

          The President wanted to be able to divert people to FBI jurisdiction and civilian court jurisdiction.  He got that.  It was essentially a jurisdictional battle between the FBI and the military.

    •  But doesn't it need to be codified? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RhodaA, mikeconwell

      If this unending "war" on terrorism is going to be conducted by our military, then isn't it time we started writing some guidelines about what their limitations are?

      "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

      by Reepicheep on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 11:06:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I understand what you're saying but I don't (0+ / 0-)

        know enough about the law to answer that. Feinstein wrote a bill to be introduced sometime later (I hope). Give me a second and I'll post it.

        Newt Gingrich is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like. - Paul Krugman

        by RhodaA on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 11:09:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Feinstein's amendment (0+ / 0-)

          to the bill was already written, voting on and failed. Republican? Democrat? It doesn't matter. They want the right to arrest U.S. citizens. When the 99% screamed about the 1%, they forgot the 1% are paranoid and the 1% make ALL the laws.

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

          by sloopydrew on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 02:12:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Here's Feinstein's bill: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lcj98, Kathy S

        December 15, 2011

        Feinstein: Prohibit Indefinite Detention of American Citizens Without Trial or Charge

        Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, today introduced the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011, legislation that states American citizens apprehended inside the United States cannot be indefinitely detained by the military.

        The Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011 amends the Non-Detention Act of 1971 by providing that a Congressional authorization for the use of military force does not authorize the indefinite detention—without charge or trial—of U.S. citizens who are apprehended domestically.

        The Feinstein bill also codifies a “clear-statement rule” that requires Congress to expressly authorize detention authority when it comes to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. The protections for citizens and lawful permanent residents is limited to those “apprehended in the United States” and excludes citizens who take up arms against the United States on a foreign battlefield, such as Afghanistan.

        More:
        http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/...

        Newt Gingrich is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like. - Paul Krugman

        by RhodaA on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 11:12:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  damn... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RhodaA

          you're good.

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

          by lcj98 on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 11:18:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Why is such a bill necessary? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Johnny Q, sloopydrew, Reepicheep

          By your reasoning, the current bill awaiting the president's signature doesn't grant him the power to have the military apprehend and indefinitely detain US citizens and have them tried in military tribunals.  It seems a bit superfluous to draft a bill to protect US citizens from a power that the president DOESN'T have.

          I'm not sure I understand why you think this bill is necessary.

          •  Why do the Republicans keep banning federal (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RhodaA

            funding of abortions over and over? They've got a base who can't get enough of it. Same here. If you can't convince a kid that the bogeyman isn't real, you pretend to shoo the bogeyman away.

            (Not weighing in on the substance here, for which I would refer people to Loge's analysis in one of yesterday's diaries. Just that I don't see anything unusual in the promulgation of superfluous legislation. Not an infrequent occurrence.)

            •  Let's see if I got this straight... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Johnny Q

              ...the only practical purpose of promulgating this particular piece of superfluous legislation -- superfluous because the current billed awaiting the president's signature guarantees that American citizens on American soil can NOT be apprehended, detained and tried by the military at the whim of the president -- is to shoo away the boogeyman invented by the kids who can't be convinced that it doesn't exist?

              Gotcha.

              I guess my next question would be, if this bill were ever to make it to the president's desk, do you think he would sign it?  I mean, it was he who asked that this language be taken out of the bill in the first place or he would veto it.

              Btw, Republicans didn't ban the federal funding of abortion in the health care bill -- Democrats did.  Nice strawman.

              •  Perhaps a better example would have been (0+ / 0-)

                the redundant moves to enshrine "In God We Trust," although you seem to have missed quite a few Republican moves on the abortion front.

                As to the rest of your crap, you don't "got" anything.

                Not weighing in on the substance here, for which I would refer people to Loge's analysis in one of yesterday's diaries.

                I meant it.  

                •  I read Loge's analysis... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...yestereday, so I know where you stand on the 'substance'.  And your example of redundant moves to enshrine "In God We Trust" makes less sense to me than your first example.  Moreover insisting that you're not weighing in on the substance of the diary is pointless.  Simply referring people to Loge's analysis IS you weighing in on the substance.  

                  You're tying yourself in knots trying to come up with some rationale for Sen. Feinstein proposing a piece of legislation which explicitly exempts American citizens on American soil from being apprehended, detained, and tried by the military on the order of the executive.  The Senator's reason for proposing the legislation is obvious, since she attempted to amend the bill which just passed both houses of congress -- she wants to deny the executive branch of government the power to have the military apprehend, detain, and try American citizens on American soil.

                  And I missed nothing on the Republican Front wrt abortion -- it's called the Stupak Amendment for a reason.  Republicans do not have a cornor on the Pro-life movement in the Congress.  I didn't (and still don't) follow your logic wrt your example.  

                   

              •  He DID sign it! (0+ / 0-)

                I'm a little lost as to why people keep saying, "Would he sign it?" He already did. Yesterday. Using the end of the war in Iraq as a nice cover.

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

                by sloopydrew on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 02:14:02 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  The purpose of the bill is to (0+ / 0-)

            make it clear that the AUMF essentially gives the military the right to treat enemy combatants as prisoners of war.

            Sec 1031, which restricts that power (subject to international war, ends upon cease of hostilities or transfer of prison, not applicable to U.S. citizens or green card holders), was not the purpose of the bill.  It was part of it.  The authorization was the purpose.

          •  Well, it goes back to (0+ / 0-)

            the "I demand you stop beating your wife," argument, doesn't it?

            Didn't one of the looney right pass legislation that banned Sharia law, even though there is now town or city in the country that uses Sharia law?                    

            "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

            by Reepicheep on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 02:44:26 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  ... (0+ / 0-)

        Isn't most of this being done by the CIA?

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

        by lcj98 on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 11:17:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  you ask... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RhodaA, Reepicheep
    Why don't we read the actual text
    of the Defense Authorization bill that the Senate voted on?

    because being accurate and factual is no fun!  no hissy fits to throw, no names to call, no epithets for those who disagree based on fact to be had...

    no fun at all!

    facts? we don' need no stinkin' facts - "we" wanna push an agenda whether it be reality based or not!
    /sarcastic cynicism

    Is GlowNZ back yet?

    by edrie on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 11:40:05 AM PST

  •  You are WRONG. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Reepicheep

    The bill absolutely gives the right to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely. It just doesn't "require" it. At the President's discretion, a citizen of the United States may still get his or her 6th Amendment rights. What happened was a travesty. It was both sides. But the buck stops with the President and the President didn't stop this hideous law from going into affect. The fact it's barely covered here -- or anywhere else -- is just as scary.

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

    by sloopydrew on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 01:56:29 PM PST

    •  So what is not required (0+ / 0-)

      is optional. I should be reading what the bill doesn't say?
      I'd hardly say its been barely covered. Its been covered by the NYT, by Salon, by hundreds of bloggers on the right and the left, and by a number of TV commentators.  

      This whole shitstorm comes right after Obama ends the war. Our attention, instead of being fixed on the end of this bloody fiasco, is now on the words that arent in the bill, and what the words that are in there seem to mean, but according to you, they don't.

      Come on. Death panels anyone?

      "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

      by Reepicheep on Fri Dec 16, 2011 at 02:40:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  THANK YOU (0+ / 0-)

    Our local Democratic Club was putting together a resolution against Section 1013 so I sat down and actually read it. (Something apparently nobody else bothered to do.) I reached exactly the same conclusions you have reached. The resolution has now been withdrawn.

    Mind you, I would much prefer that the AUMF was repealed entirely. But given the margins by which it passed, that is not going to happen anytime soon.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site