A repository for Marcospinelli's comments and essays published at other websites.

Barack Obama Waives Rule Allowing Indefinite Military Detention Of Americans

Tuesday, February 28, 2012


I swear that Obamaphiles have lost their minds or are brain-dead; they most certainly don't hold Democratic values.

If I wanted Republican policies and legislation I'd have voted for a Republican.  Who thought that when John McCain lost the 2008 election that we'd still be contending with his plans for governing?

If McCain Had Won

McCain would probably have approved a failed troop surge in Afghanistan, engaged in worldwide extrajudicial assassination, destabilized nuclear-armed Pakistan, failed to bring Israel’s BenjaminNetanyahu to the negotiating table, expanded prosecution of whistle-blowers, sought to expand executive branch power, failed to close Guantanamo, failed to act on climate change, pushed both nuclear energy and opened new areas to domestic oil drilling, failed to reform the financial sector enough to prevent another financial catastrophe, supported an extension of the BushTaxCuts for the rich, presided over a growing divide between rich and poor, and failed to lower the jobless rate.

Nothing reveals the true state of American politics today more, however, than the fact that has undertaken all of these actions and, even more significantly, left the DemocraticParty far weaker than it would have been had McCain been elected. Few issues are more important than seeing behind the screen of a myth-making mass media, and understanding what this demonstrates about how power in America really works—and what needs to be done to change it.


KEEP READING
About Terrorism
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Barack Obama Waives Rule Allowing Indefinite Military Detention Of Americans


If you're so certain that it was veto-proof, then with Obama's action today he can get the Senate to initiate a repeal of the provision and let's see who votes against it, both sides of the aisle.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Barack Obama Waives Rule Allowing Indefinite Military Detention Of Americans


Because the White House threatened to veto any legislation without the indefinite detention provision.

In the end, Udall voted for the legislation with the provision giving a president the ability to indefinitely detain anyone, American citizens inclusive.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Barack Obama Waives Rule Allowing Indefinite Military Detention Of Americans


Democratic politicians only put it in because Obama insisted!

If it was veto-proof, it was because Democrats were doing what Obama insisted on.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Barack Obama Waives Rule Allowing Indefinite Military Detention Of Americans


What's your point? That you believe that it had to be passed as it was or else the military wouldn't have gotten paid?

I wonder how many here know that Obama insisted on the indefinite detention provision over the objections of the Senate Armed Services Committee recommendation?
About Terrorism
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Barack Obama Waives Rule Allowing Indefinite Military Detention Of Americans


No, it wasn't.   It was straight out of CSpan.  I, like millions of others, watched it as it happened.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Barack Obama Waives Rule Allowing Indefinite Military Detention Of Americans


I read your comment and this does no better to explain your point. The carrot he dangled was to get Neslon to vote FOR the bill not to buy his support for pro corporate legislation. The npublic option was never even put on the table so he didn't have to worry about anyone voting for it.

===============================

And that's what ACA is -- Pro-corporate legislation.  It's a great big piece of pork, a grand giveaway to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, and which does nothing to get affordable quality medical treatment to everyone.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Barack Obama Waives Rule Allowing Indefinite Military Detention Of Americans


I read your comment and this does no better to explain your point. The carrot he dangled was to get Neslon to vote FOR the bill not to buy his support for pro corporate legislation. The npublic option was never even put on the table so he didn't have to worry about anyone voting for it.

===============================

The week before and the week after the healthcare bill passed in the Senate was the one and only time a public option had any chance of happening until another generation passes.  Prior to that, Obama and Democrats had been dangling it in front of the country in a "wait, we'll add it just before the bill gets passed".

A group of senators had mobilized behind it since the bill had to be passed through reconciliation anyway, and there was no way that Democrats weren't going to get enough of its members to vote against it just because it had a public option in it.

Obama nixxed it.

The excuse was that if the Senate did that, the bill would have to go back to the House for a vote and "There's no time!"

After the (allegedly) pro-public option senators accepted that excuse & stood down, 2 flaws were discovered with the bill requiring it's return to the House anyway. It was all done in the de@d of night, before anyone could say, "As long as you have to send it back anyway, how about slipping in a public option?"  

Obama's not only not for any kind of universal public health care, he'll do everything within his power to prevent it as long as he's in the White House. Because that was the deal that he made.  Those who believe that Obama's healthcare legislation is "incremental change", it institutionalizes the insurance industry as the gatekeepers to medical treatment (requiring having a job, too), which is something that everybody wanted to end.  And there never will be a public option or any kind of affordable, quality medical care for all as long as Obama and DLC-controlled Democrats are in office: "There Won't Be Any Public Option--Obama Never Was For It".  Watch it and weep.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Barack Obama Waives Rule Allowing Indefinite Military Detention Of Americans


X4
About Terrorism
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Barack Obama Waives Rule Allowing Indefinite Military Detention Of Americans


I already explained that in that comment which looks as if you only read part of (that comment I wrote, and the difference between carrots and sticks and what parties do to keep their caucuses in line).

Obama never pressured Blue Dogs to support a public option or any pro-populist legislation.  He has, however, dangled carrots (bribed) to them to buy their support for pro-corporate/Republican-like legislation.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Barack Obama Waives Rule Allowing Indefinite Military Detention Of Americans


What were they talking about?

Your mistake is in believing that it's only Republicans who oppose Obama.  As a matter of fact, about 20% of Republicans anticipate voting for Obama.  

A great number of Democrats, myself included, have no intention of voting for Obama.
About Terrorism
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Barack Obama Waives Rule Allowing Indefinite Military Detention Of Americans


The short version is that the Senate, controlled by Democrats, could initiate legislation to repeal that provision.  

If you believe that Republicans are preventing any and all legislation from passing, then you're not paying attention.  

Do you believe that any politician, in either party, would vote against it?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Barack Obama Waives Rule Allowing Indefinite Military Detention Of Americans


Even the one substantive objection the White House expressed to the bill — mandatory military detention for accused American Terrorists captured on U.S. soil — was about Executive power, not due process or core liberties. The proof of that — the definitive, conclusive proof — is that Sen. CarlLevin has several times disclosed that it was the White House which demanded removal of a provision in his original draft that would have exempted US citizens from military detention. In other words, this was an example of the White House demanding greater detention powers in the bill by insisting on the removal of one of its few constraints (the prohibition on military detention for Americans captured on US soil). That’s because the WhiteHouse’s North Star on this bill —  as they repeatedly made clear — was Presidential discretion: they were going to veto the bill if it contained any limits on the President’s detention powers, regardless of whether those limits forced him to put people in military prison or barred him from doing so.


Any doubt that this was the WhiteHouse’s only concern with the bill is now dispelled by virtue of the President’s willingness to sign it after certain changes were made in Conference between the House and Senate. Those changes were almost entirely about removing the parts of the bill that constrained his power, and had nothing to do with improving the bill from a civil liberties perspective. Once the sole concern of the White House was addressed — eliminating limits on the President’s power — they were happy to sign the bill even though (rather: because) none of the civil liberties assaults were fixed.


About Terrorism
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Indefinite Military Detention: President Obama Waives It For Americans


Obama had threatened to veto this bill, but it was never about substantive objections to the detention powers vested by this bill -- He was never objecting to the bill on civil liberties grounds. Obama is not an opponent of indefinite detention; he’s a vigorous proponent of it, as evidenced by his continuous, multi-faceted embrace of that policy.


Obama’s objections to this bill had nothing to do with civil liberties, due process or the Constitution. It had everything to do with Executive powerThe WhiteHouse’s complaint was that Congress had no business tying the hands of the President when deciding who should go into military detention, who should be denied a trial, which agencies should interrogate suspects (the FBI or the CIA). Such decisions, insisted the White House, are for the President, not Congress, to makeIn other words, his veto threat was not grounded in the premise that indefinite military detention is wrong; it was grounded in the premise that it should be the President who decides who goes into military detention and why, not Congress.


KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Indefinite Military Detention: President Obama Waives It For Americans


The 4 myths about the detention provision in the NDAA:  

3 of them are here.

The 4th (that Obama didn't want Americans included in the detention provision) is here.

SEN. CARL LEVIN: I'm wondering whether the Senator [McCain] is familiar with the fact that the language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved in the Armed Services Committee and the Administration asked us to remove the language which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section. 

Is the Senator familiar with the fact that it was the Administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee - and that we removed it at the request of the Administration - that would have said that this determination would not apply to US citizens and lawful residents? 


Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Indefinite Military Detention: President Obama Waives It For Americans


Obama actually write it.  He insisted that this provision be in the legislation.
About Terrorism
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Indefinite Military Detention: President Obama Waives It For Americans


It's a matter of standing.  The way that this legislation works (secretly), there's no way anybody would know nor have standing to challenge it.

Look at Gitmo, and Baghram, and the secret sites where detainees are still unable to get a day in court.
About Terrorism
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Indefinite Military Detention: President Obama Waives It For Americans


There's are two books that I read about 30 years ago by Raoul Hilberg that I think probably prepared me more for this period in our history than anything else I've ever read or studied. They help explain how government leaders manage to get citizens to accept that which the citizens would never grant permission for, and to do the unspeakable, unthinkable, to fellow human beings. 

Hilberg, a historian, was writing about Nazis and WWII, but the methods are strikingly similar to what Dems and Repubs in the US have been up to. Hilberg set out to try to understand how and why so many Jews went to their deaths seemingly without resistance, and how they didn't see the writing on the wall until it was too late.

Edicts curtailing their rights and movement (everything from limiting the amount of money they could have to where they could actually be in public, banning them from being in public squares or shopping at stores, and sending their children to school) didn't happen all at once, but one at a time, and their response each time was, "This has to be the worst that will happen; we can live with this", until they were rounded up and put on trains to death camps.  And their neighbors, who had lived among assimilated Jews, as friends and family, did nothing as the net was closing around the Jews. 

It's an eye-opener, about how it can happen to any people (and has since), and how so many of the same tactics used by the Nazis are used by modern day politicians. 

The only weapon against these tactics working is an informed electorate that see these tactics coming.

The Destruction of the European Jews 

&


Perpetrators, Victims and Bystanders by Raoul Hilberg
About Terrorism
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Indefinite Military Detention: President Obama Waives It For Americans


Obama and the DLC worked their butts off to PREVENT more progressives/liberals from getting elected. Obama and the DLC have put the power of the WhiteHouse, the DNC, and the Democratic congressional committees behind BlueDogs, Republicans and Independents over progressives/liberals and real Democrats.  Some, but not all, examples: 

BlueDog BlancheLincoln over progressive Democrat Lt. Governor BillHalter. 

Republican-turned-Independent ArlenSpecter over progressive Democrat JoeSestak. 

Republican-turned-Independent LincolnChaffee over Democrat FrankCaprio (which, in turn, was an effective endorsement of the Republican JohnLoughlin over Democrat DavidCicilline for the congressional seat Democrat PatrickKennedy retired from, and all of the other seats up for grab in RhodeIsland). 

Republican-turned-Independent CharlieCrist over liberal Democrat KendrickMeek. 

Republicans, with the smallest minority, have managed to thwart Democrats, who've had the greatest majority in decades.  You would think that with Republicans controlling the House, Democrats would've turned the tables and thwarted Republicans' continuing legislation like Bush's tax cuts for the rich?  Are Democrats just stupld?

Obama never pressured BenNelson (or BlancheLincoln, or any BlueDog). The Democratic leadership could've taken away committee chairs (BlancheLincoln's, too) of members in their caucus that filibustered a PublicOption for healthcare. They didn't.

The DNC could've taken away reelection funds. They didn't. 

Reid could've actually forced Republicans and turncoat Democratic senators to filibuster. He didn't (and doesn't).

The ProgressiveCaucus could have kept their pledge about not voting for a bill that didn't include a robust PublicOption. They didn't. 

Obama DID unleash the attack dogs to go after HowardDean when Dean said it was a lousy bill. Dean was then forced to get back into line. Obama went after Kucinich, the last remaining holdout on the ProgressiveCaucus, for threatening to vote no on the healthcare bill, and we all know how that ended. 

There is nothing that Lieberman (or Nelson or Lincoln) is doing that Obama hasn't ordered. Obama and the DLC-Democrats want Lieberman there, doing what he's doing, which is to take the heat off of Democrats.  

And the proof of this is that (since you mention Nelson), when Obama needed Nelson re: StupakAmendment, he 'bought' his support.  That's what Obama could've done for Nelson's or Lincoln's vote at any time, on any legislation.  

There could be 100 "progressives" in the Senate and 435 in the House, and they and Obama would still find a way to deliver to corporations instead of the People and blame it on Republicans. Because they're DLC, aka Republicans-in-Democrats'-clothing.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Indefinite Military Detention: President Obama Waives It For Americans


It was Obama who wanted it, and there was no "veto proof majority".  

It wouldn't have passed without Democrats signing on to it, and the only reason they signed on to it was because their leader demanded it.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Indefinite Military Detention: President Obama Waives It For Americans


 Obama insisted on it being in the legislation.
About Terrorism
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Indefinite Military Detention: President Obama Waives It For Americans


No judge will never know about it.  

The secrecy surrounding renditions and imprisonment makes it impossible to even challenge in a court of law, not to mention standing.

Do you realize how many are imprisoned in Guantanamo, Baghram and other US controlled he//-holes, who haven't been charged with anything?

Wake up!
About Terrorism
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Indefinite Military Detention: President Obama Waives It For Americans


That is absolutely and positively not true.  

But it made a nice cover story when the flak hit the fan afterwards.  The disinformation campaign after the signing was vintage Axelrod and Plouffe, complete with a spin campaign claiming that a CSpan video of Carl Levin on the floor of the Senate had been dubbed.  

I really don't understand my fellow Democratic voters who refuse to open their eyes about Obama and the 'New Democrats'.  There's nothing Democratish about them, just old time Republican.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Indefinite Military Detention: President Obama Waives It For Americans


You do not know what you're talking about.

Obama insisted on it.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Indefinite Military Detention: President Obama Waives It For Americans


Don't you wonder what they discussed?
About Terrorism
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Indefinite Military Detention: President Obama Waives It For Americans


It means nothing.

The secrecy in which this law is cloaked means nobody would even know the person was being detained.

Obama is the one who wanted, no, insisted on this provision in the legislation.  He can send it back to Congress to get it repealed.  And he should do it now, before November.
About Terrorism
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Indefinite Military Detention: President Obama Waives It For Americans


Repeal it NOW!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

About This Blog

  © Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP