I've been a strong supporter of the ACLU for a long, long time.
Their completely misguided support of the SCOTUS Citizen United decision is wrong (and I've written to tell them so)--but the ACLU is still a strong force for the ultimate good of the country.

5th amendment

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

5th amendment
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."


Fixed for you

I know this bill was passed with a large veto proof majority, but it would have been nice if he'd at least forced the senate to override it. I don't know how that works, if it's ever been done before or if it's even an option, but it would have gone a long way with his supporters.

Interesting point (the date), it's brought in on New Year's Eve when festivities are at fever pitch & nobody's taking a blinding bit of notice....Kind of reminds me of this from just over ten years ago.

I can't invoke "quality" 'cos I've got a question over in sift talk about it at the mo, but that won't stop me from giving this vid a *doublepromote 'cos I just l-o-v-e politicians being exposed for the snake-charmers that they are.

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, January 3rd, 2012 12:24am PST - doublepromote requested by Barseps.

Best TYT ever.

He wants the powers AND he wants us to support him. He's also basically saying, support me OR ELSE.
I think it is clear though that the establishment understands that OWS was just the beginning of protest based on inequity, and they want every power available to preserve the status quo.

History shows that ambiguous language is most often construed against the public interest.

When a whole area of law is created on an ambiguity (The War on Terror), there is an enormous problem.

Over are the days of Cincinnatus, enter Cesar and Nero.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I know this bill was passed with a large veto proof majority, but it would have been nice if he'd at least forced the senate to override it.


Acually, a veto-proof majority would have to be a 2/3 vote. 2/3rds of 435 is not 283, it's 290. The House was not veto-proof from NDAA and Obama easily could have vetoed.

One step closer to Nazi-America. Awesome.

Would somebody please assassinate this fascist already?

Senate:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00230

House:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml

This just in:

Al Qaeda wins.

For anyone who wants to read the actual signing statement, it's here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540

So the reason why Bush-era signing statements were bad is because Congress would force him to sign laws that would say things like "U.S. citizens detained as terror suspects need to be given trials in federal court", and Bush would issue a signing statement saying "That constrains my Constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief to protect the U.S., so take your courts and shove 'em."

The Obama-era signing statements are good, because Congress sent him a bill saying "You can detain anyone indefinitely without trial", and Obama says "I believe that the authority granted by this bill violates the Constitution, so I won't use it".

But Cenk, Cenk sees these as equivalent, because he's a fucking idiot.

And yes, I wish Obama would have just vetoed it and made Congress override his veto, but that would have just been pure political theater. Worthwhile political theater, IMO, but it wouldn't have changed a damn thing.

>> ^NetRunner:

For anyone who wants to read the actual signing statement, it's here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/stateme
nt-president-hr-1540
So the reason why Bush-era signing statements were bad is because Congress would force him to sign laws that would say things like "U.S. citizens detained as terror suspects need to be given trials in federal court", and Bush would issue a signing statement saying "That constrains my Constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief to protect the U.S., so take your courts and shove 'em."
The Obama-era signing statements are good, because Congress sent him a bill saying "You can detain anyone indefinitely without trial", and Obama says "I believe that the authority granted by this bill violates the Constitution, so I won't use it".
But Cenk, Cenk sees these as equivalent, because he's a fucking idiot.
And yes, I wish Obama would have just vetoed it and made Congress override his veto, but that would have just been pure political theater. Worthwhile political theater, IMO, but it wouldn't have changed a damn thing.


I disagree with you, and agree with Cenk on this.

Yes, Obama said this is bad and we won't use it.
But, as Cenk points out it is now Law and subsequent administrations can easily use this law to detain citizens indefinitely.

Obama...just another suave politician, saving his own ass while still doing the same old shit Bush Administration was doing. And that's why he was elected in the first place, to undo the damage Bush Administration has done. But nothing has changed. Only thing that's different is that he's a much better orator and he 'SOUNDS SMART', and that he's the first minority elected as president, which we've all mistaken for 'SYMBOL OF CHANGE AND HOPE'.

This is just too much irony I can handle for a day.... I gotta sit down... FUCK.

Be careful, if there's too much outrage we're going to have to legitimize the law by using it against a universally loathed figure.
I guess all we need now is a civil emergency. Framework for martial law, check. Domestic "surveillance" drones, check. FEMA Camps, check. Looks like those damn conspiracy kooks were right after all. (again)

@NetRunner
You're living proof that psychological warfare is a more powerful weapon than any gun or bomb. So vetoing the bill would've been political theater, but the hollow signing statement is "good"? LOL What about Obama spending months pledging to veto the bill, was that political theater? I guess we don't actually expect the President to keep his word, do we?

Main point that Cenk omits:
Specifically, it was the White House, not lawmakers, that demanded Section 1031 be expanded to empower the government to detain U.S. citizens without trial.

Uploaded to YouTube Dec 10, 2011:


Also, Obama has been claiming for over a year and a half that he could target American citizens for assassination without any trial or due process. (http://www.salon.com/2010/06/25/assassinations_3/)

Recent Greenwald articles on the NDAA:
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law/singleton/

I'm definitely on the lunatic fringe "left" side of the political spectrum and as such I am hoping that Obama will elect to not run for a second term.

@Boise_Lib, the part I disagree with Cenk about is in his characterization of Obama as being chiefly to blame for the law Congress drafted and passed, and that Obama issuing a signing statement only makes things worse, not better.

I agree with the analysis that the signing statement doesn't fix the problem with the law that Congress passed.

I disagree with the "analysis" that the signing statement is a load of bullshit meant to cover up some secret personal desire on Obama's part to enshrine indefinite detention into law.

@marbles, the most powerful psychological weapon being deployed on us right now is the simplistic idea that you can classify an entire category as universally "bad" or "good".

Signing statements are not all bad, nor are they all good.

Similarly, "targeted killing" is a pretty icky concept. But Obama's trying to emphasize that as an alternative to the full scale war the Bushites preferred. I'm not sure where you come down on war these days, but IMO I'd have preferred just drone strikes on Al Qaeda's hideouts to the full scale invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

I wish both would stop, and moreover I wish that military force was never necessary in the first place, but since this is still the real world, I'm willing to settle for our military reaction to national security threats returning to being somewhat proportional to the actual threat being presented.

Where we fit this into our concepts of rights and laws is an important question, but the present law passed by our duly-elected representatives in 2001 in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force is what codified this as being a "war" where the President could kill people whenever the fuck he felt like it, in accordance with the Constitution's definition of war.

Keeping people in prison is a similar matter. Technically, the people in Gitmo are "prisoners of war" and not really charged with any sort of crime, beyond being combatants for the other side in this "war".

Now, to your specific comments about "section 1031" -- that section (in the original Senate draft of the bill) is titled "DEFINITION OF INDIVIDUAL DETAINED AT GUANTANAMO". Originally it specifically excluded U.S. Citizens from being legally classified a detainee at Guantanamo.

Now, IANAL, but I looked at the rest of the bill for references to "individuals detained at Guantanamo", and it doesn't say anything about how people become detainees at Gitmo, just a long list of restrictions on the President's ability to release those detainees (like, you can't turn them over to non-military personnel, you can't move them onto U.S. soil, you can't let them go to their country of origin, and there's a list of conditions countries must meet before they can receive custody of them).

But the God's honest truth is that ever since Bush insisted on this being legally defined as a war, it hasn't mattered what the fucking laws say, because in a war there isn't any real rule of law. There's the Geneva conventions, but that's international law, and seriously, which country out there is gonna try to enforce those against us?

I don't think Obama likes any of this. It's another fucking mess the Bush administration made, and Congress is definitely not helping him out in trying to fix things. Moreover, Congress is responsible for passing the AUMF, and allowing something like Gitmo to exist (and now essentially refusing to give Obama any legal avenue to close it down, either), and now apparently they want to make sure to enshrine in law the legality of keeping something like Gitmo in operation indefinitely.

Nothing about what Obama's done makes me think he's changed his mind about this all being awful. But I think he's trying to do the best he can given that there seems to be no appetite in Congress for repealing the AUMF, or even allowing the detainees at Gitmo trials in Federal court.

As with many things, I think Obama could and should be making a big principled stand on the issue, but as I've come to accept, Obama just doesn't do that kind of thing. I think that's a pretty big flaw, and ultimately it's the only reason why he's not gonna cake-walk to re-election, but I don't think that's the same thing as actively supporting the things Congress is foisting on him.

All I know, is that I'm sick to my stomach.