"the net is swarming with hysterical headline"

[ProSense]

When Did You Stop Beating Your Wife, Mr. President?

by Reepicheep

<...>

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.

<...>

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.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/16/1045830/-When-Did-You-Stop-Beating-Your-Wife,-Mr-President?via=siderecent

[Enrique]

1. I was worried about what seemed like a serious threat to civil liberties

but "Reepicheep" finds those concerns ridiculous so I'm ok with it now.

[noise]

2. Exactly

The fact that the US has tortured and indefinitely held people for years is nothing to worry about. These policies are ok because they are legal and obviously enacted in good faith by dedicated super patriots who should not answer to anyone for anything.

[ProSense]

4. It's

"I was worried about what seemed like a serious threat to civil liberties but "Reepicheep" finds those concerns ridiculous so I'm ok with it now."

...like reading the Constitution rather than relying on the RW's interpretation of it.

We're all interested in the facts, the actual text of the legislation, aren't we?

[noise]

5. If you

are accused of proving material support for terrorists do you want a secret panel to determine your fate based on "evidence" that is too secret to share with a judge?

[ProSense]

7. What? n/t

[FarLeftFist]

33. A secret panel?! DID YOU READ THE BILL?! There IS NO secret panel. You see a JUDGE!

[Vincardog]

9. DOES NOT CHANGE existing law or authorities, you are aware that The President already claims the

power to KILL US citizens on his own authority without review.
He also claims the authority to pick any of us off the street to be
questioned using any measures desired without notice or review.

[treestar]

23. Why do you allow others to cause you to "worry" at the drop of a hat?

All they have to do is say it and you'll believe it must be true. Look into it first rather than just following the first hair on fire declaration you see.

[Enrique]

27. why do you let the need to defend Obama override serious concerns?

why do you minimize people's serious concerns, to defend a politician?

[treestar]

30. Again, why are you so easily concerned?

I could just do a post:

OBAMA IS GOING TO DECLARE MARTIAL LAW TONIGHT!!

And you'd be concerned and in fear for your civil liberties.

OK maybe I have to get pundit of some fame status first. But if the right people said that, you'd take it on face value. It's funny how pundits and reporters are inherently and slavishly to be trusted. So long as they trump up the proper "concerns."

[redqueen]

3. Here's what I don't get...

he can veto it sure, but they *did* change it, as he requested (despite all the confusion and bafflement about the changes)... he asked them to change it, they did, and so what good would his veto do? They'll just pass it anyway.

It would likely sour his relationship with key senators, which if he DOES get re-elected (and thanks to this constant mantra about how he deserves to be dumped, is bush III, etc. I am in no way sure of), might actually perhaps be somewhat useful in a second term?

[SomethingFishy]

6. Did you get a message about that word? Hysterical?

Because every one of you defenders of the faith have been using it. You supposed liberals that are defending this draconian legislation because a Democrat won't veto it.

I see nothing hysterical about opposing that bill. I have actually read a good part of it. Yes, I have been reading the actual bill. And I am not hysterical. I am truly disgusted. Truly disgusted that people are running around saying "you're hysterical" because they have read one small section of the bill. Try reading the sections on "Missile Defense" or "The War on Drugs" or try digging through some of the financial stuff and see what THEY are spending MY money on while telling me that senior citizens and the middle class need to "share the sacrifice" and come back and tell me what a great bill this is.

[ProSense]

8. Well,

"Because every one of you defenders of the faith have been using it. You supposed liberals that are defending this draconian legislation because a Democrat won't veto it."

...I'm not really concerned that defending the facts is upsetting. Regardless of what one thinks of the legislation, the actual text of it matters, not the hair-on-fire distortions.

[EOTE]

11. Uhhh, he/she IS talking about the actual text.

He's saying that simply because one small snippet is kosher, that doesn't mean that there aren't many terrible things in it. It's a perfectly good point. Additional funding and powers for the drug warriors and we're still being asked to sacrifice. It's sickening.

[ProSense]

14. Well,

"He's saying that simply because one small snippet is kosher"

...that "snippet" has been the focus of the misinformation.

[SomethingFishy]

15. Not from me it hasn't... I have posted the entire bill

twice now trying to get people like you to read it and see for yourself what people are angry about. It's not just the detention stuff.

Both threads dropped without a single response. Call me shocked.

I take it from your reply that you have not read the actual bill. If you actually bother with it make sure you read the sections I mention before, plus you may enjoy the insanity of the "non-lethal" weapons parts as well as the "we live in a comic book fantasy so we will spend money on development of a FUCKING RAIL GUN" section. Those are really fun when you think about how many seniors are going to go without heating aid this winter. Rail Guns good. Heat for grandma bad!

[ProSense]

17. But

"Not from me it hasn't... I have posted the entire bill twice now trying to get people like you to read it and see for yourself what people are angry about. It's not just the detention stuff."

...the OP and the references are about the "detention stuff." If you have other concerns, fine. The fact is that people are making claims about the detention provision that aren't accurate.

[SomethingFishy]

31. Well apparently it's debatable whether or not the provisions remain..

Sanders Franken and Fienstein who actually wrote the amendment say it failed and the "detention stuff" is still in the bill. Now whether I believe you or them is another matter but my responses are in line with the ramming down my throat of this sorry excuse for legislation.

When you post that people are being "hysterical" they assume you are in support of this bill. Is that accurate? Or not? How about you stop playing word games and just come out and say "yes I support this bill" or "no I don't support this bill" . It would make it much easier for everyone when they know where you actually stand.

[Occulus]

25. Prosense doesn't read whole posts here.

Why would you expect it to read the whole text of something like a bill?

As proof, examine all- and I do mean all- of its posts on this matter over the past 24 hours. You'll discover that Prosense "steers" conversations by cherry-picking specific parts of posts, quoting them in its subject lines, and then responds to just that part.

IOW, Prosense isn't interested in honest discussion. Prosense is only interested in pieces of honest discussions over which it has complete control.

[ProSense]

32. Actually

"IOW, Prosense isn't interested in honest discussion. Prosense is only interested in pieces of honest discussions over which it has complete control."

ProSense thinks that comment is full of shit because ProSense can read: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=29316

[Scurrilous]

34. "It?"

Shameful.

[emulatorloo]

35. Referring to another DU'er as "it" is pretty low.

[phleshdef]

18. If anything is the "pretentious a-hole word of the day", its the word "codified".

And yes, when people go around foaming at the mouth about something a bill supposedly does when said bill doesn't actually do what they claim, I'd say hysterical is an accurate way to describe those people, though it may even be a bit too nice.

[Occulus]

26. Of course, when several Usual Suspects suddenly start using such a word all at once,

at the same time, in the same ways, over the same subject matter, one can be reasonably certain it's something else entirely.

[hootinholler]

10. I will not be happy with any law that Bernie *and* Al voted against n/t

[okieinpain]

12. i'm happy with it. n/t.

[ProSense]

13. Were

"I will not be happy with any law that Bernie *and* Al voted against"

...you happy when Senator Franken voted for the Patriot Act?

Everything isn't always black and white, but facts are facts.

[hootinholler]

19. Since we're throwing facts around

Franken wasn't a Senator when the Patriot Act was passed, but, I will assume you mean the reauthorization. The one that the Republicans held the citizenry hostage to get passed? That one?

Even though I was angry about that republican extortion, your assertion doesn't negate mine as Franken voted yea. ASfter all, facts is facts, eh?

I challenge you to find a bill that Both Franken and Sanders voted against that subsequently passed and I am happy with.

[ProSense]

20. You

"Franken wasn't a Senator when the Patriot Act was passed, but, I will assume you mean the reauthorization. The one that the Republicans held the citizenry hostage to get passed? That one?"

...mean in the same way the Republicans "held the citizenry hostage" to get the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich passed?

[hootinholler]

21. Well to be fair

We've been held hostage so many times, they kind of all blur together.

I will admit that I didn't research the specific reauthorization of the patriot act, I took your word for it. Was that a mistake?

[GeorgeGist]

16. Love me them National Security Loopholes. /nt

[fasttense]

22. Please, force me to pass this law I want passed.

Obama is playing a game. He makes it look like the RepubliCONS are forcing him to pass things like the bush billionaire tax give away, (which he conveniently doesn't veto) while all the time that is what he really intended to do.

He is a very smart man. He knows what he is doing. It's just that what he is doing is NOT what We The People want him to do.

In the end it really doesn't matter because we are no longer ruled by laws. We are ruled by the whims of a handful of very rich psychopaths. If they want to ignore the law, like the do not torture law, they will. If they want to make up laws and enforce them, like strip searching an American citizens with a net worth of less than $500,000,000.00, they will. Of course all the laws (made up on the spot and those legislated laws) only apply to the middle class and poor.

[SammyWinstonJack]

24. It's been this way his entire first term. His game playing isn't in the best interest of the 99%.

[Overseas]

28. I'm hysterical because tossing people into detention without the right to face their accusers is

still talked about as okay as long as US citizens are exempted.

Maybe because I've lived overseas, I don't want to be living in another country where their government can toss me into detention because I went to some kind of gathering I didn't realize was on a blacklist, without even telling me why I was imprisoned.

The US used to be admired for our civil liberties, which included the right to issue a writ of habeas corpus, to just ask why we were detained. The government had to provide a reason for detaining people. We were proud of being different from dictatorships in which people were thrown into dungeons with no legal recourse.

In the US hysteria after the terrorist attacks, we actually removed habeas corpus from our basic rights in the USA.

Habeas corpus, or the Great Writ, is the legal procedure that keeps the government from holding you indefinitely without showing cause. When you challenge your detention by filing a habeas corpus petition, the executive branch must explain to a neutral judge its justification for holding you. Habeas corpus prevents the King from simply locking up subjects in secret dungeons and throwing away the key. It’s been a pillar of Western law since the signing of the Magna Carta in England in 1215.

The Founders of our nation believed habeas corpus was so essential to preserving liberty, justice, and democracy that they enshrined it in the very first article of the United States Constitution.

What happened to habeas corpus?

In its waning days, the last Congress passed the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006. Among many ill-considered and dangerous provisions, the MCA revoked the right to habeas corpus for anyone detained at Guantánamo Bay as well as for any foreigner the government detains anywhere and labels an “enemy combatant.” This provision applies to legal residents of the U.S. as well, meaning someone who has lived in the U.S. for years could potentially be labeled an “enemy combatant” and then thrown into prison with no legal recourse to challenge their detention.

For more on the erosion of our constitutional rights, please visit the Center for Constitutional Rights, see http://ccrjustice.org/issues

[snot]

29. If the statute does not change existing law, why are we passing it?

Please be aware that if there is anything in it that's inconsistent with the portions you've quoted, the law opens the door to obfuscation.

[bhikkhu]

36. Its a 600+ page bill - only a tiny portion has to do with policy

and I think the policy is in there as a matter of stating current practice, which has been a bit different from what was the case in the bush era.

Most of the bill has to do with the dispositions and drawing down of forces, with modernization and cost-cutting, alternative energy programs, etc. There's actually a lot of good things, if you take the time to read it, and its (at least) a good exercise in learning something about how these things are written and organized. The Library of Congress "thomas" site is a good place to read it - bill #1867 if you want to google it.