Jan 10th, 2012
Showing posts with label s1867. Show all posts
Showing posts with label s1867. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Gawking At S1867
Dec 13th, 2011
Gawker's Lauri Apple has a great piece on "20 Things You Should Know About America's Most Horrifying Law." Although I have written extensively about the indefinite detention provisions in S1867, I did not know this:
Gawker's Lauri Apple has a great piece on "20 Things You Should Know About America's Most Horrifying Law." Although I have written extensively about the indefinite detention provisions in S1867, I did not know this:
"Texas Republicans have somehow worked sex with animals into all this."
In all seriousness, she has assembled a very thorough set of sources and links.
Friday, December 9, 2011
S1867 - Still In Play, Still A Threat
Dec 9th, 2011
UPDATE: 12/12/2011 The original image we included was found to be tremendously upsetting by some readers (it is available HERE). We think this replacement still makes our point.
It increasingly appears that, one way or another, the covert arrest of American citizens on our own soil and their indefinite detention without trial or open review, dictated by 'classified' officials, will become the "law" of the land, perhaps, along with a return to "enhanced interrogation."
Without the free and open judicial system that was an essential predicate of our founders, this means that the shocking image above and to the left actually could be your father, your son, your wife or even your daughter.
They could be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
For the sake of argument, let's say that some online password to a bank account gets hacked and a few hundred dollars gets transferred to "the enemy." This transfer qualifies, under the pending legislation, as "terrorist support." Let us now admit that investigators, as they so often have done, might get it wrong.
The wrong guy gets followed. The wrong house gets raided. The wrong family's dog gets shot.
It. Happens. All. The. Time.
Now; let's picture an American citizen who has been wronged this badly being denied access to a civil attorney or even a phone.
How can they possibly communicate that they have been unjustly arrested? Or abused? They cannot, potentially, ever.
Within the provisions of the 2012 NDAA, it is more than plausible that an arrest under such circumstances might not be much different than a Chilean disappearance under Pinochet.
Where openness is abandoned, tyranny reigns.
Donny Shaw writes for Open Congress:
"At this point, the House and Senate have both passed their versions of the bill (H.R.1540 andS.1867), but they have disagreement on several provisions, including a provision opposed by the Obama Administration that would require the military to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects, including American citizens living in the U.S., without charge or trial.
With the House having voted 406-17 to “close” portions of the meetings and avoid public scrutiny, members from both chambers and both parties are meeting in a secretive conference committee to work on reconciling the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. On the military detention provision, their main task is going to be to find a solution that can pass both chambers (again) and not draw a veto from President Obama."
We have beaten our heads against the walL trying to draw attention to this madness HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.
UPDATE: 12/12/2011 The original image we included was found to be tremendously upsetting by some readers (it is available HERE). We think this replacement still makes our point.
Without the free and open judicial system that was an essential predicate of our founders, this means that the shocking image above and to the left actually could be your father, your son, your wife or even your daughter.
They could be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
For the sake of argument, let's say that some online password to a bank account gets hacked and a few hundred dollars gets transferred to "the enemy." This transfer qualifies, under the pending legislation, as "terrorist support." Let us now admit that investigators, as they so often have done, might get it wrong.
The wrong guy gets followed. The wrong house gets raided. The wrong family's dog gets shot.
It. Happens. All. The. Time.
Now; let's picture an American citizen who has been wronged this badly being denied access to a civil attorney or even a phone.
How can they possibly communicate that they have been unjustly arrested? Or abused? They cannot, potentially, ever.
Within the provisions of the 2012 NDAA, it is more than plausible that an arrest under such circumstances might not be much different than a Chilean disappearance under Pinochet.
Where openness is abandoned, tyranny reigns.
Donny Shaw writes for Open Congress:
"At this point, the House and Senate have both passed their versions of the bill (H.R.1540 andS.1867), but they have disagreement on several provisions, including a provision opposed by the Obama Administration that would require the military to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects, including American citizens living in the U.S., without charge or trial.
With the House having voted 406-17 to “close” portions of the meetings and avoid public scrutiny, members from both chambers and both parties are meeting in a secretive conference committee to work on reconciling the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. On the military detention provision, their main task is going to be to find a solution that can pass both chambers (again) and not draw a veto from President Obama."
We have beaten our heads against the walL trying to draw attention to this madness HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.
Jon Stewart Takes On S1867
Dec 9th, 2011
Again, on one of the most important issues of our time, the clearest critique comes from a "comedy show."
Again, on one of the most important issues of our time, the clearest critique comes from a "comedy show."
Friday, December 2, 2011
Quote Of The Day - Here and Now Edition
Dec 2nd, 2011
"Sept. 11 didn’t succeed because we granted the terrorists due process. The attacks did not succeed because al Qaeda was so formidable, but because of human error. The Department of Defense withheld intelligence from the FBI. No warrants were denied - the warrants weren’t requested. The FBI failed to act on repeated pleas from its field agents, agents who were in possession of a laptop with information that might have prevented Sept. 11.
These are not failures of laws. They are not failures of procedures. They are failures of imperfect men in bloated bureaucracies. No amount of liberty sacrificed on the altar of the state will ever change that."
-- Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), still fighting hard against the frightening Levin/McCain provisions in the NDAA
"Sept. 11 didn’t succeed because we granted the terrorists due process. The attacks did not succeed because al Qaeda was so formidable, but because of human error. The Department of Defense withheld intelligence from the FBI. No warrants were denied - the warrants weren’t requested. The FBI failed to act on repeated pleas from its field agents, agents who were in possession of a laptop with information that might have prevented Sept. 11.
These are not failures of laws. They are not failures of procedures. They are failures of imperfect men in bloated bureaucracies. No amount of liberty sacrificed on the altar of the state will ever change that."
-- Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), still fighting hard against the frightening Levin/McCain provisions in the NDAA
Thursday, December 1, 2011
S1867 - An Absurd Addendum
Dec 1st, 2011
The NY Times reports:
"After a passionate debate over a detainee-related provision in a major defense bill, the lawmakers decided not to make clearer the current law about the rights of Americans suspected of being terrorists. Instead, they voted 99 to 1 to say the bill does not affect “existing law” about people arrested inside the United States.
“We make clear that whatever the law is, it is unaffected by this language in our bill,” said Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who helped shape the detainee-related sections of the bill with Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee."
Now, let me state, for the record, that this should fool no one. Unfortunately, it already seems to have done just that. Andrew Sullivan writes, "The law remains, mercifully, as it was."
Excuse me, but that's not exactly accurate. The law is, for the time being, as it was for the simple reason that this bill hasn't been signed into law. Let's be very clear here; this only muddies the water further. The Senate essentially passed a resolution stipulating that S1867 doesn't, in fact, say what it quite clearly says.
This is bullshit. That Sullivan would suggest breathing easier is nuts.
The NY Times reports:
"After a passionate debate over a detainee-related provision in a major defense bill, the lawmakers decided not to make clearer the current law about the rights of Americans suspected of being terrorists. Instead, they voted 99 to 1 to say the bill does not affect “existing law” about people arrested inside the United States.
“We make clear that whatever the law is, it is unaffected by this language in our bill,” said Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who helped shape the detainee-related sections of the bill with Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee."
Now, let me state, for the record, that this should fool no one. Unfortunately, it already seems to have done just that. Andrew Sullivan writes, "The law remains, mercifully, as it was."
Excuse me, but that's not exactly accurate. The law is, for the time being, as it was for the simple reason that this bill hasn't been signed into law. Let's be very clear here; this only muddies the water further. The Senate essentially passed a resolution stipulating that S1867 doesn't, in fact, say what it quite clearly says.
This is bullshit. That Sullivan would suggest breathing easier is nuts.
S1867 - Assaulting Liberty & Codifying Permawar
Dec 1st, 2011
UPDATE: 8:45PM CST - The bill has passed the Senate with the Levin/Mccain provisions intact
A short time ago, a second attempt to counter a dramatic expansion of military power over U.S. citizens here at home was rebuffed. An amendment to the contentious National Defense Appropriations Act (S 1867) proposed by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) failed in a 45 to 55 vote. The threat to long established freedoms continues.
As I wrote earlier this week, when the the first effort to block this un-Constitutional expansion of power failed, there were other proposals to do so. I also wrote that they were no more likely to succeed. With today's renewed fighting, it's time to look this arch redefinition of our system squarely in the eye.
UPDATE: 8:45PM CST - The bill has passed the Senate with the Levin/Mccain provisions intact
 |
| Image via |
As I wrote earlier this week, when the the first effort to block this un-Constitutional expansion of power failed, there were other proposals to do so. I also wrote that they were no more likely to succeed. With today's renewed fighting, it's time to look this arch redefinition of our system squarely in the eye.
Will Obama Veto S1867? cont...
Dec 1st, 2011
William Rivers Pitt wonders is not confident and wonders if we've simply gone too far to turn back and if any President could possibly be principled enough in this climate to do the right thing:
"The dreary fact of the matter is that the slash-and-burn attitude taken towards the US Constitution by the Bush administration did such tremendous damage to the most basic underpinnings of this society that it was widely feared there would be no going back. After all, any politician who has gotten to the point where the office of the President is even a possibility is a politician absolutely drenched in hubris, ego, and a desire for personal power. It cannot be any other way; there are no angels flying in that rarefied atmosphere of American politics, and my rule of thumb for many years now has been that a politician most people have heard of is, to one degree or another, an utter and complete bastard, for only utter and complete bastards have the will and ruthlessness to achieve such heights...and when it comes to presidents and serious presidential contenders, multiply that by a factor of ten. I've met a great many of them on too many campaign trails, and trust me, almost none of them are people you'd like to be stuck in an elevator with, much less allow them to run the country."
William Rivers Pitt wonders is not confident and wonders if we've simply gone too far to turn back and if any President could possibly be principled enough in this climate to do the right thing:
"The dreary fact of the matter is that the slash-and-burn attitude taken towards the US Constitution by the Bush administration did such tremendous damage to the most basic underpinnings of this society that it was widely feared there would be no going back. After all, any politician who has gotten to the point where the office of the President is even a possibility is a politician absolutely drenched in hubris, ego, and a desire for personal power. It cannot be any other way; there are no angels flying in that rarefied atmosphere of American politics, and my rule of thumb for many years now has been that a politician most people have heard of is, to one degree or another, an utter and complete bastard, for only utter and complete bastards have the will and ruthlessness to achieve such heights...and when it comes to presidents and serious presidential contenders, multiply that by a factor of ten. I've met a great many of them on too many campaign trails, and trust me, almost none of them are people you'd like to be stuck in an elevator with, much less allow them to run the country."
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Look, It Goes Beyond Party. PERIOD.
Nov 30th, 2011
The fight against S1867 does go beyond petty concerns of party, much less placating immediate fears; it is a question of existential proportions. Are we to become the enemy we behold in order to continue fighting our enemy?
The fight against S1867 does go beyond petty concerns of party, much less placating immediate fears; it is a question of existential proportions. Are we to become the enemy we behold in order to continue fighting our enemy?
Will Obama Veto S1867?
Nov 30th, 2011
by F. Grey Parker (still not detained... for the time being)
Will the President veto the NDAA now that the Levin/McCain provisions have withstood Sen. Mark Udall's challenge? This is the question. He should. Then again, there are lots of things he hasn't done that he should have.
There are also lots of things he hasn't done that he said he would have.
For as much time as I have spent pushing back against what I call the Other Obama Derangement Syndrome, the nearly irrational liberal opposition, I am not exactly confident.
by F. Grey Parker (still not detained... for the time being)
There are also lots of things he hasn't done that he said he would have.
For as much time as I have spent pushing back against what I call the Other Obama Derangement Syndrome, the nearly irrational liberal opposition, I am not exactly confident.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Addressing Levin and McCain's Apologists
Nov 29th, 2011
An ugly push is being made by those who would see our country pick and choose who is affected by the detention provisions in S1867. They point to this in particular:
From section 1032 which specifically addresses the impositions of 1031
This is not a prohibition on citizen detention. Though it is not a "requirement," it is also not prohibited. It simply means that the detention of citizens and their classification is left to the Executive Branch.
It is worth examining this exchange from today's debate between Sen. Rand Paul (about whom I am proud for the very first time) and Sen. John McCain.
Sen. Paul: "My question would be under the provisions would it be possible that an American citizen then could be declared an enemy combatant and sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely."
Sen. McCain: "I think that as long as that individual, no matter who they are, if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat."
To represent this as some sort of protection against the arbitrary abuse of expanded war powers is dishonest.
Nevertheless, that argument is now making the rounds. It has no merit.
An ugly push is being made by those who would see our country pick and choose who is affected by the detention provisions in S1867. They point to this in particular:
From section 1032 which specifically addresses the impositions of 1031
(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.
This is not a prohibition on citizen detention. Though it is not a "requirement," it is also not prohibited. It simply means that the detention of citizens and their classification is left to the Executive Branch.
It is worth examining this exchange from today's debate between Sen. Rand Paul (about whom I am proud for the very first time) and Sen. John McCain.
Sen. Paul: "My question would be under the provisions would it be possible that an American citizen then could be declared an enemy combatant and sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely."
Sen. McCain: "I think that as long as that individual, no matter who they are, if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat."
To represent this as some sort of protection against the arbitrary abuse of expanded war powers is dishonest.
Nevertheless, that argument is now making the rounds. It has no merit.
The Udall Amendment Fails, cont...
Nov 29th, 2011
A surprisingly large and, yes, bi-partisan group of U.S. Senators gave our most cherished traditions of justice a real beating today. The failure to pass the Udall Amendment to the NDAA marks a very dangerous moment in our history. Here is the roll call. Not one of the public servants who voted nay deserves to hold any office in this country ever again.
| Akaka (D-HI), Yea Alexander (R-TN), Nay Ayotte (R-NH), Nay Barrasso (R-WY), Nay Baucus (D-MT), Yea Begich (D-AK), Not Voting Bennet (D-CO), Yea Bingaman (D-NM), Yea Blumenthal (D-CT), Yea Blunt (R-MO), Nay Boozman (R-AR), Nay Boxer (D-CA), Yea Brown (D-OH), Yea Brown (R-MA), Nay Burr (R-NC), Nay Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Cardin (D-MD), Yea Carper (D-DE), Yea Casey (D-PA), Nay Chambliss (R-GA), Nay Coats (R-IN), Nay Coburn (R-OK), Nay Cochran (R-MS), Nay Collins (R-ME), Nay Conrad (D-ND), Nay Coons (D-DE), Yea Corker (R-TN), Nay Cornyn (R-TX), Nay Crapo (R-ID), Nay DeMint (R-SC), Nay Durbin (D-IL), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Yea Franken (D-MN), Yea | Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea Graham (R-SC), Nay Grassley (R-IA), Nay Hagan (D-NC), Nay Harkin (D-IA), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Nay Heller (R-NV), Nay Hoeven (R-ND), Nay Hutchison (R-TX), Nay Inhofe (R-OK), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay Isakson (R-GA), Nay Johanns (R-NE), Nay Johnson (D-SD), Yea Johnson (R-WI), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Yea Kirk (R-IL), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Nay Kyl (R-AZ), Nay Landrieu (D-LA), Nay Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea Leahy (D-VT), Yea Lee (R-UT), Nay Levin (D-MI), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Nay Lugar (R-IN), Nay Manchin (D-WV), Nay McCain (R-AZ), Nay McCaskill (D-MO), Nay McConnell (R-KY), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay Merkley (D-OR), Yea Mikulski (D-MD), Yea | Moran (R-KS), Nay Murkowski (R-AK), Not Voting Murray (D-WA), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Nay Paul (R-KY), Yea Portman (R-OH), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay Reed (D-RI), Nay Reid (D-NV), Yea Risch (R-ID), Nay Roberts (R-KS), Nay Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea Rubio (R-FL), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea Sessions (R-AL), Nay Shaheen (D-NH), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Nay Snowe (R-ME), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay Tester (D-MT), Yea Thune (R-SD), Nay Toomey (R-PA), Nay Udall (D-CO), Yea Udall (D-NM), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Nay Warner (D-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay Wicker (R-MS), Nay Wyden (D-OR), Yea |
It's Not A Left/Right Issue
Nov 29th, 2011
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III is deeply alarmed by the Levin/McCain provisions of S1867
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III is deeply alarmed by the Levin/McCain provisions of S1867
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
