Skip to main content

President Obama promised us he would veto the National Defense Authorization Act if the indefinite military detention provision remained, yet Senator Carl Levin on the floor of Congress reported:

"The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved ... and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section."

The NDAA's historic assault on American liberty: By signing into law the NDAA, the president has awarded the military extraordinary powers to detain US citizens without trial, Jonathan Turley,  The Guardian, January 2, 2012.

President Barack Obama rang in the New Year by signing the NDAA law with its provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens. It was a symbolic moment, to say the least. With Americans distracted with drinking and celebrating, Obama signed one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country … and citizens partied in unwitting bliss into the New Year.

Obama promising to veto the bill and then signing it with a phony fig leaf of a signing statement that claimed he was against indefinite detention rings doubly duplicitous, knowing that his administration demanded the language to protect Americans from indefinite detention be removed in the first place.

Jonathan Turley debunks Obama's spin rationalizing signing this odious bill:

1.  Funding the troops.  

Since it was the White House who insisted that language exempting American citizens from being subject to indefinite detention by the military, without charges or a trial, Obama's claim that he only voted for the bill to keep funding the troops rings hollow.

Furthermore, how is it beneficial or respectful "for the troops," who take an oath to defend the Constitution, to do away with habeas corpus and the right to a speedy trial?

2.  Obama has no intention of using the provision that allows indefinite detention of American citizens.

Whether or not Obama plans to use the provision is irrelevant.  Signing the bill allows the provision to be used in the future.

3.  NDAA only codifies what is already law.

That is not true. The administration has fought any challenges to indefinite detention to prevent a true court review. Moreover, most experts agree that such indefinite detention of citizens violates the constitution.

4.  Changes made to NDAA have exempted American citizens from indefinite detention.

The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans' legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens as not just subject to indefinite detention but even to execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality.
The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorisation to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.

Spin can not alter the fact that waterboarding is torture and that NDAA is a bad bill that threatens every American with indefinte detention without charges.

How can any of us feel that we can safely exercise our freedom of speech or assembly now?

We just lost America.

I'm sorry, but I can't stand up and cheer a President who signed this unAmerican bill into law that strips us of our rights and freedom.  To discover how this administration had a hand in not exempting American citizens from military detention without end/charges/trial while Obama claimed that he would veto it, only to sign it into law with a meaningless statement professing his displeasure adds insult to injury.

And as for the bullies who call us names for speaking the truth and patriotically defending our Constitution,  I ask them, do you "hate" our freedom, our Bill of Rights, our democracy, our country enough to throw them to the wind?  How can you love our Constitution and not demand that this bill be struck down?  How can you be so well satisfied with an administration who insisted we be threatened with indefinite military detention for no tangible reason and no hope of a trial?

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

  •  Abomination after abomination . . . (18+ / 0-)

    and yet we are supposed to smile and pull the lever on Nov 12.

    I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

    by bobdevo on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 02:13:05 PM PST

  •  It's amazing: (13+ / 0-)

    As a criminal defence lawyer of course I was well aware of this bill and how antithetical it is to everything I thought America stood for.  What amazed me is that when I went to visit my American in-laws over Christmas they had not even heard of it.  While they certainly are not informed to the level of Kos readers - they do read the newspaper and watch the news on TV.

    I guess I'm not socked at all that they were unaware of it.  But it does still amaze me.

    We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. - Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

    by RageKage on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 02:18:20 PM PST

    •  Ask them if they know about the Air Jordan (6+ / 0-)

      fights.  

      The managed news likes to give lots of air time to relatively trivial matters, like the race to buy special edition sneakers, and scanty air time to matters of great importance, like the erosion of our civil rights.

      The Air Jordon stories are an updated version of Welfare Queen, too.  So, they manage to divert our attention away from our country being turned into a police state and get to malign poor people, who have been brainwashed into buying $200 sneakers, believing them to be a good investment, making them look irresponsible and unworthy of our help.

      Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

      by CIndyCasella on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 02:39:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  A Twilight When Everything Seems Unchanged (4+ / 0-)

      Justice William O. Douglas

      As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.

      If you counted the minutes (or seconds) spent by the traditional media covering this aspect of the bill, it would explain why few in the general public even know what it contains.

      If you count the many here at dk who seem more than willing to assume (and argue) that it is a mere nothing and that anyone with any concerns is 'deluded', in the face of what we know has already occurred since 9-11 in the way of predations on the Constitution and individual freedoms, which divides what would likely be a unified voice of opposition if the bill had been signed by a Repulican, is it any surprise that even many active Democrats or liberals or Constitutional advocates are either ignorant, unconcerned or placated by having one of 'ours' making the choices authorized by this law?

      All the more disappointing that Obama's administration did not live up to his campaign promises on this issue.  

      He promised to do better in this area.  Even the most generous interpretations of this law admit that at best, he's doing no worse and that is both optimistic and reliant on the temporary presence of someone they believe will not do what past Presidents (and his own administration) have done - seek and try to hold onto more and more power.

      Someone in a very expensive suit is at the front door and says he wants to foreclose on our democracy. Where should I tell him he can put his robosigning pen?

      by Into The Woods on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 04:23:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The troops screaming, "SCOTUS, that (11+ / 0-)

    alone is all the reason one needs to vote for Obama," will be here shortly.  Followed by, "he's the bestest POTUS in my lifetime."  Then "Not perfect but not nuts."

  •  The end is near. (4+ / 0-)

    Not near, it is hear.
    We have lost America
    Finished, I tell ya!
    It's gone!

    Those bullies who hate us
    For our freedoms
    How dare they call themselves
    Patriots who love
    Their constitution, flag, freedoms, yes
    And the apple pie...
    Spin, spin, spin...it ain't gonna work

    Obama not only ate the kittens
    But he fried them first.

    "Corruptio Optimi Pessima" (Corruption of the best is the worst)

    by zenox on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 02:20:28 PM PST

  •  FALSE. You've been duped. Links below. (15+ / 0-)

    This video was edited to say the opposite of what Levin actually said.

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    http://www.politicususa.com/...

    Information first. Confirm and verify. THEN, if appropriate, the outrage. Any other order is irrational.

    •  Trust me (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Marie, Supavash, marty marty

      the bullshitedness of that video is not interesting to those who keep posting it.

      Its not good enough for many here that the NDAA was awful...IT HAS TO BE THE SINGLE WORST THING THAT HAS EVER FUCKING BEEN SIGNED INTO LEGISLATION IN THE ENTIRE FUCKING HISTORY OF THE FUCKING UNITED FUCKING STATES OF FUCKING AMERICA, GODDAMIT.

      I also not that there is no mention of the signing statement.  

      To be clear...the bill sucks...but man do I wish this was the worst thing Obama did in his first term.

      "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

      by Empty Vessel on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 02:37:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly. Worthy of 4 EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        marty marty

        If you don't stick to your values when they're tested, they're not values. They're... hobbies. -- Jon Stewart, Jan. 22, 2009

        by pat208 on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 02:41:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  OK, I'll bite. What WAS the worst thing? n/t (0+ / 0-)
        •  There many worsts (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sylv, lgmcp

          But the one that really got me was the capitulation to the House that resulted in the creation of the super-duper-committee.

          It played into all manner of right wing memes, perpetuated the idea that austerity should be done, and is still hanging around our necks.

          That's my nominee, the NDAA is bad, but despite all the protestations, more a continuation of an existing bad policy rather than the creation of a new bad policy.

          Lets put it this way...Here are the 7 senators who voted against the NDAA

          Voted No
          Sen. Rand Paul [R, KY]
          Sen. Jeff Merkley [D, OR]
          Sen. Ron Wyden [D, OR]
          Sen. Mike Lee [R, UT]
          Sen. Thomas Harkin [D, IA]
          Sen. Thomas Coburn [R, OK]
          Sen. Bernard Sanders [I, VT]

          There are some seriously liberal senators not on this list.  If it was really as bad as people think it is, why did they vote for it?  I mean this as a serious question.  Yes, I'm with Bernie on this one (and Tom Coburn, who'd a thunk)...but if the NDAA was actually as bad as people say it is...do you honestly think Al Franken and Sherrod Brown would have voted for it?

          "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

          by Empty Vessel on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 03:12:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  IMO, the worst was not telling "true progs" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          marty marty

          to jump in a lake when they demanded that triggered PO be dumped in an attempt to go for state-opt-out/in PO.  Triggered PO was in the bag with Snowe's support, but Obama agreed to let Reid go for something better, and we got no PO at all.  Classic case of throwing away a bird in the hand to go for two in the bush, and ending up with no birds at all.

      •  The video doesn't lie. Levin said this: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        marty marty
        "The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved ... and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section."

        Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

        by CIndyCasella on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 08:25:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Not duped, they know this is bullshit but it (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Escamillo, VickiL, hooper

      doesn't stop the superior liberal criticizing crowd from attacking the President over a lie.

      Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth. Didn't someone say that once?

      •  No, I think the diarist is sincere (4+ / 0-)

        as are others who really believe that Obama manipulated the NDAA process to get wild new extra-judicial powers.  

        They have legitimate concerns about the long-standing uses of the "war on terror" in eroding due process.   But this passion makes them ready to believe any reported danger is both new and horrible.  

        This story explains how they were misled:  http://www.politicususa.com/...

        "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

        by lgmcp on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 03:43:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  They're predisposed to being "misled" because (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CarbonFiberBoy

          they hold the president in horrible contempt and WANT to believe the worst of him in any and every situtation, it seems.

          •  And you are the bad cop, shooting the messenger. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            marty marty

            Not a word about the bill's content and what it does to our civil liberties, just shoot the diarist and accuse her and anyone else who is concerned about the bill to be contemptuous of the President.

            Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

            by CIndyCasella on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 08:48:19 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  So, you're the good cop pointing to the (0+ / 0-)

          politicususa as proof that the video is not to believed, but trying to convince others that I mean well, but am misled?

          The video plainly shows Senator Carl Levin saying this:

          "The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved ... and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section."

          Period.

          No matter what you or policususa or whatever other link you point to says, the video was not doctored.

          This time no matter how many times you all repeat that the video is not true, people can view the video and see and hear what he said.

          Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

          by CIndyCasella on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 08:44:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And when they watch the ENTIRE video (0+ / 0-)

            and read and comprehend the details of the story and the language of the bills, THEN they can see that you are in error about Levin's meaning.  You're wrong.  Possibly, it now seems, on purpose.
             

            "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

            by lgmcp on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 08:58:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  You do understand that taken out of context (0+ / 0-)

            has the same effect as doctored, right?

            Like, if I made a speech and said: "Marx was completely wrong when he said workers should seize the means of production", would it be "true" for you to run around saying, "Lgmcp says 'workers should seize the means of production'!"

            "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

            by lgmcp on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 07:35:11 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  The repeated lie = the video is edited/untrue (0+ / 0-)

        Over and over again, you guys swarm in and say the video is edited out of context, blah, blah, blah.

        The links prove the video is not believable.

        You guys are really stretching it to tell people not to believe what they see and hear on a video.

        The video recorded accurately Senator Levin saying this:

        "The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved ... and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section."

        Period.

        This subterfuge is ridiculous.  No one is going to fall for this.

        They've eaten enough yellowcake and mushroom clouds to fall for this ruse.

        Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

        by CIndyCasella on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 08:35:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I thank you for publishing (4+ / 0-)

      the link to the earlier diary by Cedwyn.

      This earlier statement by the Presdent, as quoted by Cedwyn, seemed especially encouraging:

      ...applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets.

      A close reading, however, makes it appear less so, to me. The concern is specifically limited to a  

      military custody requirement...

      Not, observe, a "military custody option."  That, apparently, would be all right.

      A specific concern stated was

      the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets

      A very important principle, but what about the even more fundamental principle of habeas corpus?

      Why merely fret that the provisions

      would raise serious and unsettled legal questions

      (red meat for attorneys, hooray)? Why not "would be totally contrary to the American system of justice, one of the pillars on which our freedom rests" or the like?

      If under these provisions American citizens cannot be dragged off in the dead of night from their homes and held without charges indefinitely, why is somebody in a position of power not saying so in words of one syllable?  Why the pussyfooting (sorry, pooties)?

      Why are those involved in drafting, passing and signing these provisions leaving it up to free lances at DKos, Politicus and the like to try and figure out their action   and rationalize it to the rest of us?

      Is it because they think people aren't concerned?  What, the White House and Congress don't track the blogsphere? And they maybe haven't noticed the OWS arrests about this out front of the White House?  They've been too busy with holiday shopping?

      Are our questions  just too obvious to be worth their time to discuss? I don't think so -- as a focus group of one, I can claim to be reasonably smart, reasonably well educated and to be paying more than the average attention as well as putting in more time than most others trying to understand this issue. So please no one tell me I am stupid not to quickly reach their own interpretation for myself, or urge me, "read the bill." I did read the bill. It's not that obvious to me what is the bottom line.

      Moreover if the detainee provisions are so wholesome, why is there such a great silence concerning who asked for them in the first place? (Even if the White House did not, we do not know who did.) Why is not someone stepping up proudly to take credit?  As for signing the bill in a New Year's Eve dump, this could have other explanations but is at least consistent with  trying to give it a low profile.

      I remain very, very bothered by this one.

    •  Confirm and verify. Back at you. (5+ / 0-)

      This Bill Expands What is an "enemy combatant"
      The sponsors of the bill believe that current law authorizes the detention of U.S. citizens arrested within the United States, without trial, until ``the end of the hostilities'' which, in my view, is indefinitely.

      Feinstein herself acknowledges that the law in this area is , at best, unsettled:

      ...The sponsors of the bill believe that current law authorizes the detention of U.S. citizens arrested within the United States, without trial, until ``the end of the hostilities'' which, in my view, is indefinitely.

      Others of us believe that current law, including the Non-Detention Act that was enacted in 1971, does not authorize such indefinite detention of U.S. citizens arrested domestically. The sponsors believe that the Supreme Court's Hamdi case supports their position, while others of us believe that Hamdi, by the plurality opinion's express terms, was limited to the circumstance of U.S. citizens arrested on the battlefield in Afghanistan, and does not extend to U.S. citizens arrested domestically. And our concern was that section 1031 of the bill as originally drafted could be interpreted as endorsing the broader interpretation of Hamdi and other authorities.
      ...

      Evidently Feinstein was persuaded that the 'saving section' giving direction to the courts would somehow trump the specific language of the bill.  I find little reason to believe that is any great protection.

      The folks being 'duped' are those that belive this bill has no effect or settles things once and for all either way.  

      But after close analysis, even with the 'signing statement', it has the potential for tipping the balance and encouraging lawless actions and aggressive interpretations that will infringe on our Constitutional rights in an environment where such rights are already being infringed, such interpretations are already terribly aggressive and no such encouragement is needed.  

      Appearances Can be Deceiving and Dangerous

      Senate Section 1031 = HF 1540 (final) 1021

      Analysis and Congressional Research Service

      ok. for like the 10th time.

      Someone in a very expensive suit is at the front door and says he wants to foreclose on our democracy. Where should I tell him he can put his robosigning pen?

      by Into The Woods on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 04:11:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I was being sarcastic... (0+ / 0-)

      ...they took my Obama fried and ate the kittens poem serious?

      Good grief!

      "Corruptio Optimi Pessima" (Corruption of the best is the worst)

      by zenox on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 04:28:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Before capping FALSE, calling me duped, read diary (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coffejoe, WattleBreakfast

      The video wasn't edited.  Levin made complete sentences which explained he was asked to remove language exempting American citizens by the Obama administration.  Period.  

      At the same time, Obama was saying he would VETO the bill if it didn't exempt Americans.  Period.

      Obama signed the bill.

      The bill didn't exempt Americans, as Jonathan Turley pointed out.  See number 4 in my diary, which you clearly didn't bother to read, in which Turley, a respected Constitutional lawyer, explains that Section 1031 doesn't exempt Americans from the indefinite detention provision.

      The myth is that:

      4.  Changes made to NDAA have exempted American citizens from indefinite detention.

      The fact is:

      The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans' legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens as not just subject to indefinite detention but even to execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality.

      The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorisation to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.

      Do you understand that?

      The trouble is that we go to war and lose our civil liberties because most people are duped to believe that Obama would never sign a law that could possibly remove our civil liberties and believe myths that there is no need to exempt Americans, this bill is codifying existing laws, or that Dubya would lie us into war with myths about yellowcake and mushroom clouds.

      Why did Obama bother writing a signing statement if the law was so clearly benign?  Why did he claim that he was going to veto it, but signed it on New Year's Eve Day when no one was paying attention?

      I have some homework for you to do:  read about how Obama administration tried to weaken the Freedom of Information Act: Obama Learns Newspeak: The Administration's Perversion of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

      UPDATE: Under pressure from legislators, including Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the Obama Administration has retracted its proposed rule change to the Freedom of Information Act. While we are gratified that the changes were never implemented, we remain quite disturbed that the administration proposed them in the first place. Our original article is below.
      President Obama should know better. Our constitutional-law-professor-in-chief has, once again, taken the government to unprecedented levels of secrecy while institutionalizing the perversions of our seemingly never-ending war-on-terror. On October 30th, the administration, without seeking Congressional authorization, proposed an executive rule that will license governmental agencies to issue bald-faced lies to the citizenry, making a mockery not only of the Freedom of Information Act, but of the President’s supposed promise of transparency.

      I'm sorry to shake your world.

      You call me duped?

      Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

      by CIndyCasella on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 06:15:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And read this to make sure you get the FACTS (0+ / 0-)
        Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not "limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "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." My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

        Link

        "Corruptio Optimi Pessima" (Corruption of the best is the worst)

        by zenox on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 05:30:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not impressed with the links. I still don't (0+ / 0-)

      see any proof  that the video was falsified.  In fact, the links don't seem to claim that the video was falsified, but "taken out of context."  

      This means that what Levin said in that video is true:

      "The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved ... and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section."

      None of the arguments cited in policususa or the diary impressed me.  It was rambling and grasping at straws.

      Do you have any links other than politcususa and a diary that mimics politcususa?

      Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

      by CIndyCasella on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 10:51:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  So (0+ / 0-)

    just thought I'd throw that in the pot

  •  The last I check the whole fucking senate voted (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lgmcp

    for the bill. I don't support the bill, I wish the bill never become law. However, blaming Obama alone for this is BS. There are more progrsessive senators in the senate than Obama. Is there a reason why they did not oppose the bill. If Obama had veto the bill would the congress not have overide his veto?
    Like it or not Obama wanted to get re elected just like every senator in the the united state congress.

    •  sorry,I meant almost the whole fucking senate (0+ / 0-)
    •  Yes, including my excellent D senators (0+ / 0-)

      Bingaman and Udall, both of whom have strong lifetime ratings from the ACLU, both of whom consistently opposed the PATRIOT Act and have worked to mitigate it, both of whom opposed the disgracefully-popular Iraq war resolution ... and so on and so forth.   I don't think they would be ending the Constitution AND the Magna Carta without one peep.    

      "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

      by lgmcp on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 03:32:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama signed it. The Buck stops with him. (6+ / 0-)

      And I don't care if the bill is not AS bad as it couldn't be.  It's still pretty fucking bad and gives the Executive  powers it shouldn't have.

      The fact that it codifies the powers Bush usurped to himself is even worse.  Someday a Republican's gonna have these powers.

      You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

      by Johnny Q on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 05:42:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Special interests own a lot of the Senators votes. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      crose

      I'm not blaming Obama alone.

      No, there are not enough Senators with the backbone required not to vote for this odious bill.

      It was tucked into a "support the troops"/"get the terrorists" bill, which most Senators fear will get them called soft on terrorism or whatever blackmail the special interest dish out if they don't vote as they are told.

      Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

      by CIndyCasella on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 09:00:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  watching (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zenox

    MSNBC coverage of Iowa; Lawrence O'Donnell said Obama needs to figure out how to talk to the anti-war constituents that follow Ron Paul.... and that goes for the anti-war caucus on the left;

    how to talk to the anti-war population in a world of woe

    Mitt Romney Would Buy The Election If He Could. - Newt Gingrich

    by anyname on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 03:33:52 PM PST

  •  Already been debunked by (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VickiL

    Cedwyn quite thoroughly.
    The Rest of What Levin Said on NDAA Provisions

    How many times are you guys going to trott this crap out?

  •  Please Delete the Diary (0+ / 0-)

    The video you are posting was edited to say the exact opposite of what Carl Levin really said.  See Dracowyrm's post above.  

    •  Please read my response to him. I will try to (0+ / 0-)

      write more diaries.   I had no idea how little people know about the assault on our civil liberties and how secret our government has become.

      Bush started it, but Obama has been a great disappointment.

      There are so many important issues that people do not know about, because the MSM doesn't report it.

      The lack of information about this bill is alarming.  Most people don't know about it at all or they believe the myths about how it doesn't apply to Americans, when it does, or that it "codifies" pre-existing laws, which is also not true.  It was never legal for the military to arrest American citizens without charges and hold them indefinitely, but now, thanks to massive ignorance/apathy, which is more than evident in the comment thread, there is such a law.

      Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

      by CIndyCasella on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 07:17:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  How America And The Mainstream Media Got Breitbart (0+ / 0-)

    on NDAA

    ....Hours prior to the YouTube proof video Sen. Levin stated on the Senate floor that the Obama administration requested that the provision be changed so that it does not apply to American citizens, but he explained the provision wasn’t changed because it already didn’t apply to American citizens, “The administration officials reviewed the draft language for this provision the day before our markup and recommended additional changes. We were able to accommodate those recommendations, except for the administration request that the provision apply only to detainees who are captured overseas....

    People need to stop believing everything they read from certain pundits and every claim made in a two minute video....

    You might be wondering why the video was edited to lead you to believe that he did. That’s a great question.
    You might also be asking yourself if the same people who were so willing to believe the author of the bill, Carl Levin, will be as willing to believe Levin’s full statement, in which he clearly says that the President did not want this language.

    Had Obama not objected to the language, we would be stuck with the original bill since 83 senators voted yes on the original bill which also passed through the Senate Armed Services Committee unanimously....

    “The only thing that happens in an instant is destruction … everything else requires time.” ~ First Lady, Michelle Obama

    by ParkRanger on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 08:51:54 PM PST

  •  What's absolutely hilarious about this diary (0+ / 0-)

    and these claims is that none of the diarists or the commenters, on either side, have read the effing bill!!!!

    What Obama demanded and got were two sections, one in the civilian detention section 1021 and one in the military detention section 1022 which plainly state that none of this applies to American citizens, legal alien residents, or any other person arrested in the US.

    Yeeeesh.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/...
    http://www.gpo.gov/...

    Search the ENR (enrolled) bill text for "detain."

    (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.

    Please read the bill before commenting or diarying further.

    Corruption is what keeps us safe and warm. Corruption is why we win. -Syriana

    by CarbonFiberBoy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 08:57:02 PM PST

    •  Read my diary. Read what Jonathan Turley wrote. (0+ / 0-)

      He debunks your comment.

      This is the myth:

      4.  Changes made to NDAA have exempted American citizens from indefinite detention.

      Here are the arguments that debunk the myth:

      The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans' legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens as not just subject to indefinite detention but even to execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality.

      The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorisation to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.

      Sadly, most people buy the same myth you have heard over and over on the MSM and do not understand how this bill has opened the door for us to be arrested wiihout charge and held indefinitely.

      In Obama's signing statement, he assures us that he won't use the authority this bill grants him, which is an asmission that this bill gives the executive office the authority to have any of us arrested without a shred of any charge, but that doesn't mean another President will respect our Constitutional rights enough not to deploy the powers vested in this odious bill.

      Information is the currency of democracy. ~Thomas Jefferson

      by CIndyCasella on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 10:02:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Did you read the bill? (0+ / 0-)

        NO. You have no text to support your very weak argument. Basically, you are saying that this bill doesn't change anything and so it's very, very bad. That may be false, that may be true, but it is certainly not true that Obama just signed a bill authorizing the indefinite detention of American citizens. Sec. 1022 has similar language exempting American citizens, to wit:

        (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.

        You may have a problem with the Constitution. Many of us do, but it is the law of the land.

        I await your quote from the bill backing up your argument.

        Corruption is what keeps us safe and warm. Corruption is why we win. -Syriana

        by CarbonFiberBoy on Tue Jan 03, 2012 at 10:20:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site