ONTD Political

Carl Levin says Obama wanted NDAA 1031 Indefinite Detention bill to include Americans

4:51 pm - 12/11/2011
CSPAN clip:

Speech from the video:

Levin: I'm wondering whether the Senator 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? 
citiesburning 12th-Dec-2011 05:29 am (UTC)
this is how i am starting to feel 90% of my life
ladypolitik 12th-Dec-2011 05:54 am (UTC)
layweed 12th-Dec-2011 06:23 am (UTC)
I just don't get why they need the pointy bits.
citiesburning 12th-Dec-2011 06:58 am (UTC)
good point. mine will just be flat.
layweed 12th-Dec-2011 07:09 am (UTC)
They look like aluminum foil acorn caps, lol.
vehemencet_t 12th-Dec-2011 08:11 am (UTC)
That was such a great scene. So hilarious.
hashishinahooka 12th-Dec-2011 11:06 am (UTC)
Really. Idk what's going on in this world these days, but things are getting more and more ridiculous.
executivehpfan 12th-Dec-2011 06:06 am (UTC)
It's midnight, I have been studying for finals the last five hours, and what in the fuck is this.
____jonas 12th-Dec-2011 06:20 am (UTC)

ar_feiniel_ 12th-Dec-2011 06:43 am (UTC)
That pretty much sums it up.
vehemencet_t 12th-Dec-2011 08:23 am (UTC)
Okay but really guys and gals. This *isn't* that surprising. It's been the policy of the Administration under both parties for a decade now to push this kind of legislation through--starting with the with shit like the Patriot Act, the myriad FEMA inspired Executive Orders which provide for martial law in the event of a perceived "national emergency" or the Prez assuming dictatorial authority, John Warner Defense Authorization Act and moving right on down to Obama's recently exercised ability assassinate any American citizen (http://www.salon.com/2011/09/30/awlaki_6/singleton/) he deems too dangerous to live.

That's why they continue to (not always) so subtly brand people like OWS or practitioners of disaster preparedness as of the "terrorist" bent and harass them.

mollywobbles867 12th-Dec-2011 02:20 pm (UTC)
I'm honestly not surprised. I am so fucking jaded nowadays.
kitanabychoice 12th-Dec-2011 02:27 pm (UTC)
This disturbs me on so many fucking levels. I woke up this morning and a video from anonymous about this was on my facebook feed and then realized that it sounded awfully familiar, this bill, because I had just read about it two weeks ago. I am legit scared these days.
archanglrobriel 12th-Dec-2011 05:35 pm (UTC)
They know they're going to have angry serfs coming out of the woodwork if they don't change their robber baron ways, and they want the ability to start throwing serfs into the all-slave, for-profit workhouses...er...jails. They've been out to derail our society of law for years now, so this doesn't surprise me a bit. It scares the bejeebus out of me, but doesn't surprise me.
ladypeyton 12th-Dec-2011 09:04 pm (UTC)
I've been watching politics entirely too long for this to even phase me. Yes it's bullshit. Yes it's evil. Yes it's against everything we like to think we stand for as a country. But Obama is still much less evil than the other guys.
cparamo 12th-Dec-2011 10:42 pm (UTC)
It's that "lesser evil" shit that led to things like this in the first place.
ladypeyton 13th-Dec-2011 02:18 am (UTC)
I don't know, in my opinion it's actually misplaced idealism that led to the election of Bush in 2000 that led to things like this in the first place.
cparamo 13th-Dec-2011 07:10 am (UTC)
Identifying people who voted for the candidates they liked the most as "misplaced idealism" is placing the blame way off base. If you keep voting for a shitty right-wing party that only looks left-wing when compared to the other big party, what incentive do they have to become less authoritarian and right-wing? This is even assuming that voting matters, what good is your vote and my vote when they can just turn tricks for business interests in exchange for large donations, which they use to distract the working class and poor with sunny rhetoric, identity politics, and wedge issues? This is why voter turnout is rarely more than 55%.
ladypeyton 13th-Dec-2011 11:27 am (UTC)
In my, been voting since 1985, experience (and don't make the mistake of poo pooing actual experience), punishing the party that is closest to your world view and actually has a shot at winning by voting for a party that has 0 shot of winning loses you the game and leads to 8 years of Bush.

Politics is not a zero sum game. It's a game of chess where sometimes you move slowly towards your ultimate goal in order to avoid moving sharply away from it because the side that wins is invariably the side that has convinced the moderates to vote with them.

Voter turnout is low, especially for the left wing, because the idealism of the young causes them to refuse to accept that politics is *all about* compromise. And I say this as someone who used to be extremely idealistic.

And no politician will ever do anything *but* turn tricks for big business if they want a shot at winninng, and that's not even their fault. It's the fault of Citizens United and won't change unless CU is either overturned in the courts or we actually manage to get a bill through. Both are possible, but only if the Republican party doesn't gain control.

Edited at 2011-12-13 11:35 am (UTC)
sarahbeez 14th-Dec-2011 11:56 am (UTC)
thank you
all these people who claims obama is 'just like bush' or a gingrinch presdeiency would be about the same as an obama presidency
are children or apparently are suffering from collective amneisa re: the bush years

sarahbeez 14th-Dec-2011 11:57 am (UTC)
given that obama knows that this won't stand up constitutionally and that's one of many reasons he'll veto it i don't think we can draw conclusions about the reasoning behind this. it's just confusing.
This page was loaded Sep 18th 2014, 7:47 am GMT.