[Hiya! This is a post by Milt Shook for which I'm quite grateful because now I probably don't have to write one. See? Procrastination works! -ABLxx]
(Stay to the end, and watch me expose Glenn Greenwald as a liar once again.)
One of the most galling things about the professional left is the number of times they lie to make a point. You can’t be a progressive and also lie to the people who read your stuff. As this blog notes time and time again, the truth has a liberal bias; Fox News needs to lie; we do not.
Case in point; the hysteria over what many pro and emo lefties refer to as the “Indefinite Detention Bill.” Even people I often admire are buying into the hysteria, and it’s become depressing.
First thing you should know is, there is NO SUCH THING as an “Indefinite Detention Bill.” The actual bill Obama first threatened to veto and has now agreed to sign is called the “National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012.” The part about the “indefinite detention” is actually a poison pill amendment Republicans inserted into the bill to portray any Democrat who votes against it or President Obama if he vetoes it as being “against our troops.” Republicans put it there, not Democrats or Obama.
Yet, who the hell do these supposed “liberals” go after? Not the people who put that crap into the bill in the first place, of course. They go after President Obama, who has command the military (which includes my son, who’s working hard trying to rebuild Afghanistan, by the way) and have little choice but to put up with such Amendments. How incredibly stupid is this? Did so many progressive really learn NOTHING from the 2010 elections?
Obama doesn’t have a line-item veto, so he can’t veto the “Indefinite Detention Bill” without vetoing the entire NDAA. Now, you may think that would be a good thing, but would it? It’s not just about the troops. What about all of those civilians who might lose their jobs for at least a month or two, while Obama and Congress, including teabaggers, who have declared defeating Obama as their main goal, worked out a new NDAA without that little amendment, assuming they could do so? What do you think canceling all those defense contracts for a month or two would do to the unemployment rate? How about six months? What would happen to all of those small towns that depend on the military bases and contractors to support their small businesses? Do you imagine the GOP might be a bit energized after the unemployment rate suddenly rises to 10%?
Those of you who claim “principle” when you discuss this need to stop. Many pros and emos claim Obama’s showing a “lack of principle” by signing this “Indefinite Detention Bill.” Forget the fact that you’re claiming a lack of principle when you’re lying to the public about a bill that doesn’t exist. You’re actually advocating for an action that could put millions of people out of work for a few months, and forcing our troops to lose their meager pay for a few months for… what, exactly? What are your “principles” when you advocate for that, in order to kill an amendment that will probably ultimately have zero effect on anyone, and might even die in the courts?
I don’t like this amendment any more than you do. But you know what? If he vetoes this bill to kill that amendment, and then causes the Republicans to win in 2012, they’re just going to pass the same bill, and allow President Gingrich/Romney/Perry to detain people at will, anyway, right?
See, this is how politics works, pro and emo lefties; elections have consequences. When our side trashed Obama and the Democrats mercilessly in 2009-10, we helped right wing Republicans win. Hell; after the 2010 election, pro and emo “progressives” were CROWING about having defeated “Blue Dog” Democrats, thus giving teabaggers most of those seats, giving the Speaker’s chair to a Boner, and handing committee chairs over to right wingers, who replaced the progressives that had been chairing those committees. Look, folks; when you help right wingers get elected, you don’t get to act shocked and sadden when they do exactly what they promised to do.
It’s not Obama’s fault he doesn’t have a line-item veto. The only way to veto this thing is to kill the entire bill. With Congress recessing today for about a month, that means the entire DOD and its contractors could go unfunded until late January or early February, if a deal could be worked out. That means a lot of contractors would have to fold up shop in the meantime. It could put some out of business altogether, but it could also mean millions out of work for at least a month or two. What about military people and contractors who are facing foreclosure; what would this do to them? It’s possible Congress might pass an emergency appropriation to cover this problem, but given the influence of the teabaggers, who in their right mind would count on something like that? In one year, they’ve damn near pushed through four government shutdowns.
If you think you’re adhering to “principle” by demanding Obama veto this thing, I’m afraid you don’t understand the concept of “principle” very well. Each individual “principle” doesn’t work in a vacuum; they all work together. This reminds me of those idiots who wanted to kill the entire health care bill because it didn’t include a “public option.” To deny 30 million people health insurance, and force those with insurance to continue to endure the restrictions on coverage, just because you didn’t get what you wanted is not “principled.” It’s the opposite.
The “Indefinite Detention Bill” will only potentially have a negative effect if a Republican wins in 2012, in any case. Obama probably won’t use it, except maybe to trigger a court challenge, which this amendment will probably fail, anyway. The Hamdan case alone would seem to indicate the president cannot have such power over US citizens, at least.
Here’s the language in section 1021 that has the pro lefties up in arms. It’s in the Conference Report. Follow along, please. Oddly (?), most pro left cite (1), but leave out (2)-(4). I know, that just seems so odd, doesn’t it?
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111– 84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
Yes, I do admit section c) looks troubling, especially if you look at it all by itself. But as long as we have Obama (or Biden) in office, we have time to get rid of it, especially if we give them a Democratic Congress. But I would also note that the pro lefties also leave out sections b) d) and e). When you read them you’ll know why.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) 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.
Oops.
Yes, you read that right. The so-called – the “Indefinite Detention Bill” that pro and emo lefties are trying to convince you will give the president the power to round us all up and detain us forever without a trial, not only doesn’t exist on its own, but the language is somewhat limiting, and specifically excludes US citizens or people who are in the United States legally. Section b) 2) does bother me, but I don’t think it’ll survive a court challenge because it’s too broad. What the hell is a “belligerent act,” for example? I once called a US Senator an asshole to his face; that was kind of belligerent.
I will note, for the record, that the provision does fly in the face of the 14th Amendment, and I don’t like it. But I don’t see anything in it that isn’t reversible, and certainly nothing that’s worth putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work for, just as we’re recovering from the worst recession in 80 years.
AND I BLAME CONGRESS FOR THIS, NOT OBAMA. They put it there, not him. In fact, if Democrats were still in charge, this entire discussion probably wouldn’t be happening. Blaming this on Obama is kind of like blaming the company who put the olives in the jar because you didn’t chew your olive responsibly. Just saying.
In order to kill the above provisions, Obama has to kill the entire bill. That would be a politically stupid thing to do, and anyone with any common sense would understand that. The best way to handle this is to keep this provision in mind, give Obama a second term, and give him a Congress that will pass a repeal that he can sign. There you go; problem solved.
I’ll end this with a short critique of our “friend” Glenn Greenwald’s Salon post entitled “Three myths about the detention bill.” In it, he lies like a rug. Here are the most blatant lies:
Lie #1. There is no such thing as an “Indefinite Detention Bill”. To imply there is means you’re also implying that Obama can veto this bill without killing the entire NDAA. He can’t.
Lie #2. Obama did not announce his intention to sign the “Indefinite Detention Bill” and for Greenwald to claim it’s “embedded” in the 2012 NDAA is an obfuscation, if not an outright falsehood, because it implies a possibility for him to veto just that “bill.”
Lie #3. “Until the end of the hostilities” does not necessarily mean “indefinite detention.” It’s entirely possible, even likely, that Obama will declare an end to al Qaeda within the next year, and he has already all but declared an end to hostilities against the Taliban. In fact, if we oversee an election of Democrats in 2012, and they declare both “wars” at an end, guess what happens?
(Note; that does not mean I want this part of the bill to survive. I want to see it repealed, which will happen if assholes like Greenwald start going after the perpetrators of this nonsense, and stop attacking Obama and Democrats incessantly. I’m just saying, there are other ways around it, and to declare such a thing as essentially “true” is a lie.)
Lie #4. As you can see when you read both d) and e) in section 1021 above, the “bill” does NOT expand the scope of the AUMF, and explicitly does NOT expand it.
Lie #5. The “bill” DOES explicitly exempt US citizens from its provisions. Strangely, Greenwald cites Section 1022 as proving his point. Here’s the language:
(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.
Strangely, Greenwald highlights certain sections of this in his article, and then inexplicably says the following (bold in original):
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.
Except for one problem; Section 1021, which explicitly forbids detention of US citizens and resident aliens. He’s counting on us all reading each separate section as if it operates on its own, which is not the case.
Look, folks, I don’t like this section of the bill much more than Greenwald does. On its face, without lying, it’s odious, especially if Obama is replaced by anyone in the current Republican field. The problem is, the bullshit braying being screeched by professional lefties like Glenn Greenwald actually helps make the possibility of a Republican president and a Republican Senate greater, not less likely. If you really want crap like this amendment repealed, you’ll need a Democratic House and Senate and a Democratic president. You’ll also need a Supreme Court appointed and approved by Democrats, because an entire court full of Scalia/Thomas/Alito clones will happily give a Republican president this power.
The only thing I ask of any actual progressive is that they tell the truth, and place the blame where it belongs.
Obama didn’t place this odious amendment into the bill; Republicans did, even if they didn’t place the exact language into the bill, they created the impetus for including crap like this in an irrelevant bill in the first place. Go after them!
Stop lying, and go after those who are actually responsible. For a change.
[You can find Milt Shook at his blog, Please Cut the Crap and on the Twitters.]
(edited at 8:50 p.m. to remove reference that GOP inserted detention language into the bill.)
I keep trying to point this out to people and all I get is but “indefinite detention” – it’s happening.
They can’t be bothered to read the actual language, but they know better, don’t they?
No wonder we can’t hold the Democratic Party together.
This is why we cant have nice things
They blather on radio and print about how this administration is slow on the ball, how come he cant have balls like Clinton, gets everyone depressed, then wonders why people dont want to vote
Its kinda annoying
So glad to see you here, Milt, and thanks for writing this.
I especially enjoyed this analogy:
“Blaming this on Obama is kind of like blaming the company who put the olives in the jar because you didn’t chew your olive responsibly. Just saying.”
Now, did you have a certain elfin member of Congress in mind when you drafted that lovely sentence? ;-)
What’s the difference between Glenn Beck and Glenn Greenwald?
Beck has a blackboard.
Thanks for the breakdown for laymen like me, Milt
They’re doing the same shit with this payroll tax situation
Congress, who makes the legislation cant get their shit together, cant get a revenue component, but it ends up being Obama’s cave, even though he’s not in Congress, in a whole another branch of government
Gotta love these progressive talk formats that most of them go for the reactionary scare point, and we’re not suppose to be like this.
Is the left going into histrionics over perceived betrayals beginning to become a Christmas tradition?
In 2008, it was his choices for appointees and White House staff.
In 2009, it was the healthcare bill.
In 2010, it was the Bush tax cut deal.
And now, its NDAA and the payroll tax cut.
Jesus Christ this is ridicules, I really don’t like the existing law the bill codifies, but the President can’t actually do anything to stop this other than make the Professional Lefties feel all warm and fuzzy inside by issuing an utterly pointless veto.
Believe me, I’ve had my issues with the Obama administration when its come to stuff related to the PATRIOT Act, but this just isn’t one of those cases.
Obama signs the bill and throws all the goopers, especially every one who swooned over the “unity executive” while Bush was president, into indefinite detention. Problem solved.
Congrats on the shout out from Hal Sparks, ABL
He’s lighting up the PLs today on his show
orly? i’ll have to listen. i love me some hal sparks!
You know you should try to just inform instead of tearing down people. The original language of the bill did include US citizens. So to say they were up in arms about it is completely correct on why. So to continue to attack those who feared the bill because they have not been shown or no about the changes is ignorant at best. And to say that Obama and democrats had nothing to do with the original writing of the bill is just as misinformed as what you are saying the lefties are. Instead of attacking you should try informing.
But they are still attacking and blaming Obama after the changes have been made.
And this wasnt Obama who brought this up, it republicans, and he threatened a veto to remove said language
They’re still harping over what was in the original bill, ignoring that it was taking out, and those with an agenda to discredit the Obama Administration used this as another cudgel, and thankfully, people who are well informed in legal speak are calling those out who are straight up lying, and those after we make a logical case and provide proof, still refuse to let their “Obama is the same as Bush” meme
Even more ridiculous are the people who are well aware of the changes and still insist that provisions preventing the indefinite detention of US citizens and resident aliens means no one is protected. That’s…not what the adjustments to the bill say at all. Yet the people who were up in arms about the original bill swear the new bill that corrects that language is more dangerous.
@Skeptic: In case you haven’t noticed, and obviously you haven’t, all of the screeds that Milt mentions are coming out after the final language was decided, and published. So if Greenwald and company were actually interested in informing their readers, they wouldn’t be writing what they were. Either they’re dishonest, or stupid. Pick one.
thank you for sharing…….
I stayed to the end and I’m still waiting for the Glenn Greenwald is a liar part. I read quite a few lies of yours. For instance, making sport of those who’d have him veto the entire bill because he can’t just veto this part of it. Uh, that’s what he said he’d do if Congress didn’t rewrite it to keep the Executive Branch in charge of detainees. Have a problem with that? But now you do, because Obama is okay with it. And I hope you don’t think Obama wanted changes because of us—- Awlaki and son could tell you otherwise but you know what happened to them.
So you admit it’s a lousy bill just so long as Obama doesn’t get blamed for it, you can make people think they’re stupid if they think he could veto just that part and are hateful for all the misery they’d cause if they “forced” him to veto the whole thing eventhough it was fine when he said on his own he’d veto the whole thing if they took away his power to stick detainees where he wanted and gave it to the military. All those contracters and service people could go suck eggs in that case. The Big O was displeased.
And you’re a madman if you think Obama is going to try and get this thing changed or let it go to court. He’ll state secret this sucker away from any judicial judgment in 2 seconds. You scream about Greenwald, well ABL, you and your ilk are the ones who let the guy get away with civil liberty murder, predator drone murder, Patriot Act instead of constitution murder, indefinite detainment of so-called enemy comabatants murder and all the other Bush policies he’s adopted and you not only don’t call him on it, you make BS, dumb as hell twist yourself into a pretzel arguments to defend him. This shouldn’t even be an argument, but you, like him, agree up front that no habeus corpus for certain crimes is a given and then start arguing what comes after.
You people are the worst thing that ever happened to the Democratic Party. You’re scared to death of the Republicans — you ARE Republicans. If this crap was going on in 2005 you’d be up in arms. Instead you turn on those of us who are not going to change our principles because the thug in the WH has a D after his name. Which means you’ve forfeited your right to be outraged the next time an R gets in office. Because it won’t be any different. It’s one party of empire, greed, death, and moving toward no dissent. “But the R’s would be so much worse.” (They’d drone 10 countries instead of 7 their first 2 years in office?)
But of course they will. They’re going to have all these great new BushObama Executive branch “rights” to spy, detain, kill and state secret anything they want right out of court to play with. Even after killing bin-Laden or whoever and whatever the hell happened over there and admitting in his new cowboy manner that there isn’t much of AQ left, they’re ratcheting up the spying, droning and detention powers. Plus they’re seeing something mighty like AQ everywhere from Somalia to Yemen to middle Africa, they’re going to go to war with Iran and most likely Pakistan. Yet you think they’re going to call an end to hostilities and give up all this cool shit? Amazing.
btw, the vote was 93-7 so I think it’s safe to say the Democratic congress is just as complicit in this as BHO is in as far as getting this put into the Defense Bill. And one of the two sponsors was Levin-D.
They are the same effing party for crissakes. I’m just glad we have the likes of Greenwald, Scahill, Chris Floyd, Marcy, Alonya, Taibbi, OWS and others who can see what’s actually going on. Yeah, the R’s suck; but at this point they sure aren’t the only ones. And if you think it makes a difference who wins in 2012, you are seriously deluded. It doesn’t.
Be sure to wear a condom when you ratfuck, you might catch something
Answer his question. Why is it acceptable to threaten a veto at one point but not now?
Then answer my question. If the provision input by the R’s (McCain I believe) is a poison pill, what good does it do us to take said pill? Or are you going to make a pledge that you will tirelessly chase this administration and Congress to remove that provision?
The veto was threatened to remove harmful language that made the NDAA a civil liberties nightmare, once removed, that threat was withdrawn
This site has offered up expertize and logical explanations to say as much, if you choose not to accept it, thats really on you, good luck to you
But the bill does not do the crap that the fear mongers on the left are spreading, its a shitty bill, no doubt, but nothing to suggest Barack Obama will come in the dead of night to snatch you up and send you to an undisclosed black sight if you look at him funny, thats tin foil hat paranoia
I don’t need to read someone else to know what is in a bill that I can read myself. This bill locks in the idea that we can grab someone and keep them indefinitely without any recourse to the courts. This is not tin foil hat. I don’t give two shits that US citizens are exempt and we would never do that to our own people (except we did Jose Padilla). I care that we are a nation founded on the fear of just this sort of behavior.
Don’t bother to reply, I will just hear more apology because it’s ‘our’ guy instead of ‘their’ guy and who cares if they rot in prison, they are all terrorists anyway. Oh, and you’ll be quick to tell me how important it is to not stop useful legislation just because it has a few poison pills inserted.
Well, this is me not giving a Good Rats’ fuck about your feelings relative to replying.
When you’re wearing a tinfoil hat, a ground cable is needed to prevent it simply acting as an antenna booster.
Yours is not attached.
Don’t bother to reply, I will just hear more apology because it’s ‘our’ guy instead of ‘their’ guy
There has not been a single word written making this argument.
You’re just reading off your note cards because you can’t hold up your end of the argument that’s actually happening.
Obumma is a descendant from the king of England as was all but 1 of our presidents.He is trained in the muslim religion and sharia law.He is as illegal as his drunk uncle that ran into that cop.Or his free loading illegal crack smoking aunt.Or the 200 muslims that just ran across the border into Arizona.He has Saudi Arabia hiring TSA agents and training them.He has appointed a muslim in charge of the FBI.He has appointed a women who fought to impose sharia law in other parts of the world ahead of religions in America.He appointed the guy who wrote a book for Hitler on how to depopulate the world as a ceazer.He has removed the name Al-Quida and muslim from the 9/11 reports.Like that removed it from our minds.He has passed a law to lie to the people.To start wars unilaterally with out congress approval.He has tried to force this health care down our throats.He has made bestiality legal.Is constantly trying to kill our gun rights.He is sending money to the middle east to build muslim worship centers.Made it so muslims can wear their religious head dress in the military.Made his own 2 man congress.Is attacking states for enforcing immigration.He wants to make 9 million illegals legal.He lied about ending wars.He lied about having a open congress and white house.He is nothing more than a slug.Wake up before it is to late.I can not believe their are so many illiterate people in America.Lay off the fluoride,vaccines,and stay out of the chem-trails,it is killing what little brains you may have left.He has forged documents.He showed us a fake b/c.He lied about killing Bin Laden.He then had the seal team killed before they could let us all know of his lies.He has topped George bush on murders and needless wars.And if you all do not wake up you will soon see the truth as you are forced to do as you are told,or you get taken away to a camp for who knows what and how long.This is just a small account of his treason on America.Look up his record and what he has voted on.See how much experience he has.Look who his donors are.And if you still think he is a good guy then you will know you are a total moron,all doubt removed.
http://www.naturalnews.com/034538_NDAA_American_citizens_indefinite_detainment.html
This author is an example of the bad consequences of knowing “a little bit of law and politics”. The essay’s analyses of legislative sections are uninsightful and generally mistaken. The essay’s central claims are false and its main argument that damage or threats to our core civil liberties are acceptably codified in order to avoid a slight increase in unemployment or bad attention on the President, both of which are speculations, can be offered only by someone who takes for granted what makes our country good. (What about air? Can we also threaten the air we breath? Anything to prevent a 1% rise in unemployment or bad press for the President, right? Right!). Author’s son soldiers in Afghanistan, how would he feel to return to a country where the freedom he thought he was fighting for no longer existed in the US, it had been gambled away in a political game. Author expects that this legislation will be repealed by a future congress lol! Laughably unwise expectation, since it was voted for by 86% to 93% of Senators. The authors’ perspective is unfortunately blinded by the party-mentality. These issues are not party issues, so the author’s hope that shifts in parties are the answer to them is a downfall of author’s attempt to say anything informative or enlightening about NDAA 2012. I said all of that without conveying whether I am dem, GOP, conservative, or liberal, thereby helping to clarify that point. Author wants to place blame on Senators for the Bill. They certainly wrote it, but Obama made his own decision to sign it. Obama could have vetoed it and made a press release explaining in articulate terms that congress brought grave threat to our Bill of Rights, which forced him to veto NDAA 2012 as written. Two highly decorated US Marines have said this is what he should have done and that it would not have interrupted military funding. With a Senatorial approval rating of 8%, especially after the Patriot Act, the people would have been likely to side with the President and even greatly appreciate him for doing that. From what I have seen, his signing it is what, if anything, will prevent his being reelected. People don’t like their basic rights threatened. That hits most in their core, their gut and it is not something they forget. Author allows these sections as acceptable concessions because it will allow the President to be reelected, and that, along with a democratic congress would allow these sections to be taken out. Lol. Another possibility is that none of that happens and instead even greater threats to our civil liberties are passed in additional Bills. It’s okay to take one step back so we can take two forward? Not here. Basic human rights are not the sort of things you can ever subject to a political game. Our founding fathers knew this, hence the reason the Bill of Rights is stated as it is, e.g. the government shall never make legislation that… [work against these inalienable rights]. And it is for that reason that the 536 politicians (congress and the President) who did just that in 2011 are referred to by many as ‘traitors,’ ‘committers of treason,’ and ‘oath-breakers’. If we cannot trust our representatives to defend our freedoms as codified in law, who can we trust? Corporations such IBM that helped orchestrate the Holocaust for profit? Banks that profit from gambling with our home ownership and now get away with illegal foreclosures?
As for author’s claims that the sections “really aren’t that bad” … Author’s comments do very little and fail to address the fact that there is no small offense to basic human rights. One simple question will suffice, at least for US citizenry, however. If it does not apply to US Citizens, why were the proposed amendments that made that explicit even proposed, much less rejected by congress?
Well, of course it’s written from the perspective of someone who embraces OWS. (The Google is my friend – rocket surgery that wasn’t.)
Please go take a course in reading comprehension before posting again.
I love how the Obamabots are now hysterical that huge swaths of the population isn’t in their church. The majority didn’t vote for Obama in 08. Because the eligible majority didn’t vote at all. This country is an oligarchy with a Democratic propaganda system. The people who own the economic space (private power) make the decisions. Politicians serve their needs. But since this only applies to a small elite primarily, and secondarily to the top 10-20 per centers who serve them, it leaves huge chunks with virtually no material stake in the outcomes outside of the theoretical explanations of the Democrats (I actually had a guy suggest that in my state of Florida, we all could have voted for some guy who lost the primary to Alex Sink…not grasping the basic systematic flaws of this pure theory impossible practice explanation). So in 2010 40% show up, slightly over half of them vote for the GOP, and in 08, with all of the massive lottery level hope hype, 62% turned out and just over half voted for Obama. Many of them, in fact I would venture to guess, that the majority of voters had little clue of his policy programs (not that this really matters, since there is no meaningful institutional way to determine the political program outside of mass media and the private financiers who share policy via the elections sham we have here). The bottom line is that holmes is just another in a long line of imperial presidents, arming our thugs, and chastising the thugs (Saudi Arabia) that do not follow orders (Iran). American foreign policy is absolutely horrifying for anyone who closely looks at the historical record, and it’s domestic stuff isn’t much better, though the freedoms developed in this country have been won, they have all been won by the left. The real left, the popular left, the agitate and raise hell left. To the lament of the Dems, the GOP, and the oligarchy in general.
“e rizzle” drizzled this:
“…though the freedoms developed in this country have been won, they have all been won by the left. The real left, the popular left, the agitate and raise hell left. To the lament of the Dems, the GOP, and the oligarchy in general.
Bullshit.
Pure, unadulterated bullshit.
The real victories in this society have been won in courtrooms and legislative chambers.
To believe otherwise is foolish in the extreme.
Hey now, Ponytail Guy, the left raised hell and screamed “Dump the Hump” and gave us Richard Nixon!
Nixon – the gift that keeps on giving. Kind of like herpes, really.
I’m not against protests and direct action, by any means. But if it isn’t tied into a goal of electing better legislators, appointing better judges, and making the incremental changes inherent in the nature of “progress,” then I haven’t any patience with it as a goal in and of itself.
Not a fan of useless, empty theatrics, then?
Odd, neither am I. Must be why I like this place.
“Obama didn’t place this odious amendment into the bill; Republicans did, even if they didn’t place the exact language into the bill, they created the impetus for including crap like this in an irrelevant bill in the first place.”
Good point. Setting aside ideology, Obama does not have a Tip O’Neil or Gingrich to work with on the opposition side, and congressional Dems have been terrible allies. I can’t remember ever seeing a president this isolated by the incompetence of his own party, and confronted with outright criminality in the opposition party.
I am troubled that Obama did not make a fight over this bill, but by the same token, I can understand why. Tough call either way.
I wish I lived in the delusional bubble y’all did.
Which delusional bubble do you live in? The one where the United States hasn’t always been a country founded on slavery, genocide, capitalism, and imperialism and where one person should be able to turn it around in less than four years?
I mean the one where the President can enact any decision he wants and a small group of morons will support it.
It’s embarrassing. He’s not your boyfriend.
But clearly you thought he was A Magic Daddy-Man who could make things all better for you and now you’re mad. You do know that the NDAA was drafted by Congress and passed with a veto-proof majority, right? Do you just get off on symbolic gestures?
Wow, a Joan Walsh talking point, how nice.
Listen, this is basic civics, and this legislation was not push by the President, it was by Congress and the Senate, and he made a signing statement saying he will not enforce the bullshit you got your panties in a wad about.
It was a shit bill, and since there is no line item veto, pass the bill, or dont pass it, and the servicemen dont get paid, veterans dont get medical benefits.
Do you protest to make a point and hurt people, or do you swallow the poison to try and fight another day.
There seems to be nothing but armchair quarterbacking going on here
Plenty of interesting reading here on the subject of illegal detention, so I’ll just say that I take issue with the author’s argument that “When our side trashed Obama and the Democrats mercilessly in 2009-10, we helped right wing Republicans win.”
Insistence that we must abandon our principles, squash our criticisms of and pledge our allegiance to the “lesser-of-two-evils” is not the solution – along with money in politics and the ridiculous winner-take-all electoral process, it’s definitely part of the problem.
When you trashed Obama and the Democrats in 2009-10, you most assuredly did help the teabaggers win. Spreading lies and constant barrages of misdirected disenchantment do one thing – they create a disinclination for Democrats to go out in support of their candidates. Thus, helping the Republicans/teabaggers win.
That is pretty damned obvious, so you don’t get to hide from it.
Now, as to “abandoning principles” and the rest of your notions: When you live in a perfect world, you can live by perfect principles. Until then, it’s always going to be a question of this version or that suiting the broadest possible collection of needs and interests best, full stop.
Anything else is pure counterfactualism. (That’s a long, schmancy way of saying “bullshit”, just in case you were wondering.)
When you are presented with a choice between A and B you simply do not get to choose number eleven. Not in any version of the real world.
Politics is not self-actualization, it’s not therapy, it’s not unicorns and/or rainbows. It’s the shit-work that gets the garbage collected and the fires put out.
And it’s time for you, and the rest of the “principled purists”, to grow the bloody hell up and face that fact.
I haven’t advocated the spreading of lies. I’ve criticized the author’s “you’re either with us or against us” mentality.
A cause too fragile to bear criticism isn’t worth our effort if your only solutions are to A) blindly follow or B) shame sympathetic critics as disloyal. How is this different from the Republican Party’s phony 911 patriotism and assault on civil rights?
“Principled purism”? Exposing policy to debate is a natural and principled way to vet a movement…at least to vet one that listens to or addresses the views of it’s loyal critics…or (god forbid) it’s people. Criticism from your base only becomes a serious problem when you decide you’re not going to listen to them anymore.
And that’s where I think we are now. We’ve ignored the abuses of the Bush Administration (Harriet Meiers and Karl Rove still need to honor Congression subpoenas, Bush needs to be charged with lying us into a war, etc. – or do the laws against those things only apply to “purists”?) and now we’re ignoring the abuses of the Obama Administration (same torturing, same kidnapping, same funnelling of public funds to huge mega banks) because we’ve been thrown a few crumbs with all the broken promises of his campaign.
Like an abused spouse you apparently prefer to ignore the abuse and broken promises and blame the social worker who tells you to leave.
And just like any abusive relationship, support for all the hurtful policies of the Obama Adminstration “because they mean well” will not improve our lot in the short term, nor will it change anything in the long term. And no, pointing out these abuses does not make us Republicans…it simply makes us less cowardly than you. And if you stopped running away from these “impure” thoughts about your leaders abuse you wouldn’t be enabling them any more.
The ideal of a “pure” sterile vacuum of unquestioning support across the Democratic party – “unprincipled purism” is what’s delusional here. You need join people struggling for accountability in this broken Democratic system, not try to silence them because you think that’s the only way to win. Winning that way just gets you more of what you fought against.
Start holding your leaders accountable when they break their promises instead of beating up on the people they disappointed.
And no, Virginia – Nader did not lose the 2000 election for Gore. Bush stole it. Maybe if enough people were willing to get mad at Bush about that back in 2000 instead of bashing Nader supporters we wouldn’t be arguing about which massive Bush injustice we’re going to compromise on reforming next.
Apologies in advance for the Godwin.
I tend to get the “indefinite detention” and the “assassination of American citizens” (read: Anwar Al-Awlaki) hand in hand. “But we shouldn’t be doing this to American citizens!”
What nobody mentions is that we’ve done it before to American citizens and nobody blinked twice. Back then it was Americans in what was called the George Washington Brigade – a division of the Waffen SS composed of Americans who answered Hitler’s call and fought on behalf of Nazi Germany.
It’s simple: renounce your citizenship and/or bear arms against the country (read: treason) and the rights of that citizenship are revoked as well.
If we’re talking about the right to due process, and how our government and military seems less and less willing to recognize it in a “post 911″ world, citizenship is kind of a moot point, though it’s probably worth noting that our government seems to want to explore whether the fictional Executive authority to indefinitely detain, assassinate, kidnap or torture human beings can be extended to US citizens without too much fuss from hysterical lefties.
The hot topic of hysteria on the left and misinformation about the NDAA may be completely true to the scale of a nationwide hoax.
That IMO is less important than the issue of human rights under Bush, and now Obama that is falling by the wayside – and is feeding this hysteria on the left. Until Obama’s Administration and it’s supporters address it, it’s going to find dedicated enemies among Progressives for VALID reason, ones NOT based on misinformation.
And no, “it” is not a simple argument about citizenship. The right to due process is a human right – not a right subject to citizenship status. This is an international law the US (a signatory of Geneva) has pledged to abide by, which makes it a US law.
Geneva guarantees basic human rights such as the freedom from torture, kidnapping and the right to a trial among other things.
Bush and now Obama claim that labeling a person an “enemy combatant” allows them to kidnap, torture, indefinitely detain without trial and assassinate people without violating Geneva and it’s prohibitions on kidnapping, torture, indefinite detention without trial and assassination.
FYI: (At Nuremburg we executed Japanese soldiers convicted of waterboarding), (or to kidnap and deliver to friendly governments or private agencies with the knowledge that they will torture on our behalf) is complete BS.
IMO the only simple fact in all of this is that the US is guilty of crimes against humanity by it’s own laws. Whether these crimes are carried out on US citizens is beside the point. We are allowing our government to commit crimes against humanity at their own discretion. If they decide to commit them against US citizens now or sometime soon, I’m sure legislation to codify this behavior will be offered with the assurance that an informal “claim” of authority already exists and codifying it into law “doesn’t change anything.”
And aren’t you the brave little warrior, sneaking into long-off-the-front-page posts in your attempts to have some sort of last word.
FWIW, Joe, I completely agree with you.
“All great truths begin as blasphemies.” – George Bernard Shaw
I thought I made some comments worth addressing, if sarcastic innuendo and personal insults are what you are about then I guess you can have the last word and I’ll respond as if you had taken the high road and responded to some of my points.
I’m more concerned about torture, kidnapping and indefinite detention under Obama than whether some people on the left (including me – if I am I’ll happily admit it once I finish reading all the crap everyone’s throwing at me) are misinformed or passing on misinformation about the NDAA.
It’s of very little concern to me whether the issue is on the front page right now or is more generally in vogue…except that it’s a bad thing that we seem to have forgotten that it’s still happening under Obama, and there’s more bashing of the left for what’s in the NDAA going on this week than there has been bashing of Obama for the last 4 years over what sorts of human rights violations he’s doing right now.
The point I’m trying to make(which I hope you are grasping)is that these illegal practices are still going on whether they make the news cycle or not, and that’s a fact – you think it’s “sneaky” of me to bring it up, fine. you think it’s off topic? I disagree. I think if the left spent half the time holding Obama’s feet to the fire on his torture practices as they are defending the NDAA and bashing Glen Greenwald, we’d have saved some lives by now. If that makes me a “brave little warrior” then I’m a proud one, thank you very much.
Wow. This is an example of a disgusting Obama apologist.