General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPermit me to laugh at David Swanson
Obama signs NDAA, issues signing statement<...>
"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100295851
David Swanson: Let Me Be Clear
Obama then engaged for the umpteenth time in an abuse as dangerous in itself as any other. He rewrote the law as he signed it. In doing so, Obama gave himself the power to imprison without even military kangaroo courts and without even the formality of pretended "status review hearings."
http://davidswanson.org/node/3509
Oops. edited to add relevant paragraph and link.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
elleng
(141,926 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)I'm so confused!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Certain things just tick me off.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/david-swanson/40482/infiltrating-congress
elleng
(141,926 posts)Edit: Fuck Ron Paul.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)I mean, he qualifies the statement, both before and after. He is pointing out an irony. You don't get it? 
--imm
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"It's a form of 'Shit or get off the pot!" You no like?
...say it's a form of shit logic. I mean, one doesn't push for more progressives and if they can't get them, advocate for more lunatics.
unapatriciated
(5,390 posts)Cherry Pick certain statements out of context in order to bolster their own arguments.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"no, they would rather do what they so often accuse others of."
...they just don't find any justification for considering Ron Paul, you?
unapatriciated
(5,390 posts)I read the entire article and came away with a different impression than yours.
It was not justifying support of RP. Swanson points out and understands the reasons for the appeal, on the surface, to some. He based it on RP's stance on the Middle East Wars and our failed drug policies vs President Obama's policies on the issues. Telling us D's we better get a clue and grow a spine regarding these failed Wars or risk losing the votes we worked so hard to gain in 2008. I know I worked very hard in 2008, giving time (30hrs a week) and money. You?
You can spout how stupid those voters are but I live in the real world. I speak to them on a daily basis. You do realize that many RP supporters in 2008 voted for Obama in the general election. I'm not talking about the hardcore crazies, but the young who are still forming their opinions regarding politics.
Puregonzo1188
(1,948 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Are you bored with intellectually dishonest posts about Glenn Greenwald?"
...you saying that by issuing a signing statement, "My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," the administration gave itself the power to "imprison" Americans?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)president to abuse it.
The ACLU:
“President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law...Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody..."
"Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “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.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens."
Well, you won't always be president Obama, and existing law is Padilla.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)“President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law...Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody..."
He signed NDAA, but it was an existing law that Bush used to try to justify his indefinite detention of a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil.
The NDAA does not include any new authorization related to that. In fact, it add a weak clause stating that the law has no effect on existing law.
The SCOTUS rejected Bush's premise: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=100057
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)And, at this point in time Padilla is existing law. There is no point disputing this.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"And, at this point in time Padilla is existing law."
...according to the SCOTUS. And certainly not according to administration policy.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)If I were you, I would stop reminding people of this. I can't tell you how angry people are over this. The ACLU is correct. The people are on their own and thank god for OWS it is our only hope to get things done because all we ever hear from these elected representatives are excuses as they sell out the American people every chance they get.
Every time I think of how we were told 'just get Democrats a majority in the Senate and get the WH and THEN we will restore the rule of law' it reminds to never again believe a word any politician has to say.
What they didn't say was 'what rule of law' and we trusted them to do the right thing.
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)Wrong is the new right.
Quick, post the list again.
TBF
(36,589 posts)Do you really think people are that stupid?
a simple pattern
(608 posts)He left the option open to himself if he should change his mind, or if he is lying.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)
leftupnorth
(886 posts)people here were aghast. I was among them.
My horror at such actions, not to mention the legislation itself, does not change with the letter behind the politicians name.
But we just MUST root for the Blue team, mustn't we? It's only the patriotic thing to do.
"I remember when Bush did the same stuff people here were aghast. I was among them."
...Bush issued a signing statement rejecting indefinite detention?
Really?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100299985
No, signing statements re-writing the legislation, silly.
Once Obama is gone, then what? Will the next president be so wonderfully benevolent with this power?
These are arguments WE made against those that defended Bush's assault on the Constitution.
But we cannot let that get in the way of rooting for the goog guy pro wrestler in the blue tights against the villian pro wrestler in a red cape and speedo, can we?
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)Also, he has said that his administration is seeking a repeal of certain provisions.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"No, signing statements re-writing the legislation, silly.
Once Obama is gone, then what?"
...point is that the signing statement did not do what Swanson claims.
You can object to signing statements, but is rejecting indefinite detention something to object to?
As for the next President, the distortions of Obama's intentions have nothing to do with that.
There is time now to get Congress to fix the law.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)to treat it as such. Who the hell do you expect to "fix it"? The same supermajority of assholes that willfully constructed it?
The same fucks that rejected minimally wise amendments?
Who the fuck cares what Obama's intentions are, this shit should have never made it out of commitee, should not have received votes left of the fringe of the neocons, and should have been not only vetoed but used as bludgeon against each and every "Yea" and if the bastards override then let the pox be on their houses.
Signing statements are not binding, the enacted legislation is. Granting his handling, the shit is still on the books and no one is bound by the statements, including the person who issued them.
If he didn't want to own this right along with the traitors in Congress, his job is to punt it back to them and make the fuckers own it
You always fight to win, that does not mean you avoid fights you can lose or at times those that cannot be won now but perhaps the lost battle will provide space, opportunity, and/or inspiration to win the war.
A signing statement is figleaf or an announcement of the intent of creative enforcement and execution of the legislation, it cannot change what is behind the leaf and the creative interpretation last only so long as it does, at the discretion of the President, whoever it may be.
G_j
(40,568 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Democrats.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)They care about one man, over the rights that Americans shed blood for. I don't think you should have said that. And I sure hope it's not true.
I believe there are many Democrats whose principles are not situational and who still care more about this country than they do about individual politicians.
At least I hope so.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Why wouldn't they?
tledford
(917 posts)
tpsbmam
(3,927 posts)
Agony
(2,605 posts)
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)THIS is the "change" I helped elect? We were lied to by a con man.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,223 posts)"because it's going to pass anyway" and then saying that they'll "fix it later."
The president has veto power, as a Constitutional lawyer surely knows. He needs to use it more often (unless, of course, he secretly agrees with the Republicans on most issues).
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)We have a President with a "D" after his name, at a time when that "D" means Damn lil.
reACTIONary
(7,158 posts)...from any other statement made by the president at any other time, before or after legislation. At most they offer a clue as to how a president will interpret or implement a law. Interpreting and implementing the law is the president official duty.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)Instead of, you know, trying to turn Barack Obama into George W. Bush? Counter-intuitive, I know.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)Have any of the lawmakers handed him a perfect bill that he vetoed? No. He gets stuck signing watered-down bills that, although equal progress, can still be tweaked to perfection. And the poison in these bills are coming from the republicans.
leftupnorth
(886 posts)I mean, come on, really?
Excusing a lack of conviction in exchange for expedient passage of republican poison. Brilliant.
More three dimensional chess, I guess.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)Money to pay the troops in the field, infrastructure projects, a lot of really good stuff....but to get it, he has to swallow the pill, too. Or he vetoes it....and then there's a whole lot more unhappiness on a variety of issues. See how this legislation thing works? With this reincarnation of Congress, there will never, ever be a bill put on his desk that isn't designed to create him problems.
Republicans told us that their #1 job was to defeat Obama in 2012. Even if it kills this country's economy in the process. Did you think they were going to roll over and give him the legislation that would help re-elect him? They are the majority in the House...where bills are created.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)What is your dollar figure on due process?
Total Judas shit.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)Congress sent him the bill....take it up with the Republicans.
Here's what Obama did-
"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."
Maybe working to get Progressives elected in Congress instead of helping to get a Republican in the WH might resolve your concern about civil liberties? I know that's what I'm focused on in 2012.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)So the military can now detain civilians on US soil. And they can claim they will have a trial and take years to get to it. And bad as all this is, it is better than what will happen under the next administration.
We got Democrats elected in 2006 and in 2008 and all we hear are excuses as to why our civil liberties are in worse shape now than they were before. People take this very seriously. I get the impression that the seriousness of it has not registered with many Democrats. When legitimate concerns are dismissed, that does not resolve the problem at all. People died throughout US history to get these rights. To watch them being thrown away so cavalierly is devastating frankly. Especially by a Democrat.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)This shit has been going on forever, didn't FDR round up Japanese, Germans, and Italians during WW2 and put them in internment camps? They were U.S. citizens. Yet FDR is hailed as America's greatest President by Presidential Scholars. When THAT starts happening I'll be concerned. When drones are killing people over the U.S. I'll be concerned. When people start getting nabbed that have no connection to Al-Qaeda I'll share your concern.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)which is frankly, shameful of me, is commenting on it. I will do more such as call representatives and search for candidates'If in the next election who have a record of protecting our rights. I will donate to those consistently defending our rights, such as the ACLU rather than political campaigns from now on. That's all I can do right now. Other people throughout history have DIED to defend these rights, so my reaction is mild and completely ineffective by comparison.
FDR has to live throughout history with that stain on his presidency. It will follow him to the end of time. As will Bush's destruction of the Constitution, and now Obama's complicity and lack of courage to honor HIS oath of office also.
FDR unlike Bush, is praised for his accomplishments as he did much good for the people, but never, as your post demonstrates, are all of his great accomplishments mentioned without someone referring to the detention of the Japanese, as they should. If for no other reason than to prevent it from happening again.
I don't know what you mean by 'if that starts happening then I will be worried'. Were not worried when it started happening during the Bush administration? Airc, it was a huge issue for Democrats during the past ten years, ever since it began.
And now we know a vast majority of those detained were innocent which only makes worse.
Or are you only concerned about US Citizens, because I would not relax about that either since we are now claiming the right to do worse than detain them. This administration claims the right and exercised it, to assassinate US citizens.
I don't know when it becomes appropriate to start reacting. For me it was the first day Bush declared that people, human beings, could detained indefinitely without charge by this government. I don't care whether they are US citizens or not. This is basic human rights abuse. And it is devastating that our one hope of ending it has been crushed.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
tpsbmam
(3,927 posts)
In one simple paragraph, a profound critique on the state of our "democracy" (or lack thereof) and the "Democrats" who are feeding into this travesty. I'm horrified at seeing the implications of the NDAA so "cavalierly" dismissed here all because it was Obama who signed it into law and added his useless signing statement.
It's sickening.
a simple pattern
(608 posts)and a Presidential finger pointing at Congress. So convenient that way.
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)Have much hope for Congress in issues of civil liberties any more.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)And I can't stand the bills Clinton didn't veto -- bills like the Gingrich Welfare Reform Act that many Democrats now reflexively support.
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)When I argued months ago that they'd sooner cut Social Security (and Obama and the conference committee said as much in holding the specter of military cuts over them if the Super-Commission failed to enact cuts in the first place)
And 2nd, why would anyone be afraid to stand by a vote against the enemies of mankind (opponents of basic civil liberties enshrined in common law)?
If one of us were President, would we own up to our beliefs on the subject? Or go along with the tyranny of the 53%, the bare-majoritarians who seek to maintain the status quo?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Habeas corpus and human rights should be a higher priority than imagined political popularity scenarios.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)Nor does it change the law he signed.
The Republicans don't run the Senate and this wasn't passed with anything resembling only Republican votes. Democrats voted "yea" at about the same clip.
Working to elect liberals is my full intent but that effort does not solve my concerns. Hell, even actually electing liberals doesn't solve my concerns. Only recinding this and the other pile of shit legislation on the books moves toward solving my concerns.
You guys can stop hanging on his signing statement, it isn't even binding on him much less future administrations and I trust no mortal human with such authority and granting and accepting such power is antithetical to our entire system of law and the fundementals of western civilization.
Don't let your heart be troubled, I am much more angry at Congress but let's not pretend this was something the TeaPubliKlans thugged through, it is really close but maybe in the Senate more of them actually voted against it and we marginally control the Senate at that. You act like we had a fillabuster going and they broke it and further that Obama has to sign the shit into law because it reaches his desk.
This bill has proven that DC needs an enema and that most of our "representatives" are traitorous garbage deserving to spend the rest of their time on earth at the end of a rope or in prison, certainly not leading our nation.
The thing with Congress is I can't directly do a damn thing about 532 of them. My rep voted "nay" and neither Senator is up (though the horrendus Paul had enough decency to also vote "nay" which only makes me more angry with the unacceptable fucks that we will be told we must re-elect. All I can reall do to elect a better Congress is maintain my rep and send a few bucks to other decent candidates and maybe make some calls to pick up any slack.
If Presidents, Senators, and House members don't have magic wands, voters certainly have even less arcane power to throw around.
MADem
(135,425 posts)That "Voice of reason and common sense" stuff is the way to ruin a good tiff with loads of dudgeon all round!
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)and stick to try and force cuts to entitlements (as a solution to the debt ceiling crisis) by PROMISING cuts to military spending instead?
And it turns out they were unwilling to do neither.
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)the unhappiness on a variety of issues would be the sole focus here.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)piratefish08
(3,133 posts)powerless pawn in Congress's game.........
a simple pattern
(608 posts)so cruelly twisted by those mean Republicans
leftupnorth
(886 posts)And I will not support one. This rush toward a fascist police state must stop.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)Progressive congress. Are you implying that you are not voting?
leftupnorth
(886 posts)Cynicism is all I've gotten out of it.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)Bummer....I wanted a unicorn pony, too...but I didn't get one when Obama got elected. 
tledford
(917 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)I remember when distortion and twisting the facts had "people here were aghast."
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Permit me to put your opinion in my circular file"
...OK. I understand that it's taboo to jump off the distortion bandwagon.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)
Kaleko
(4,986 posts)for those who were asking "who is next?" in the mad rush to eliminate Obama critics who write well enough to hit a nerve.
Or three.
"Here's the answer for those who were asking "who is next?" in the mad rush to eliminate Obama critics who write well enough to hit a nerve."
...long history here. You should have seen the exchange several years back.
I'm not picky about who I call out when it comes to distortions. Not a fan for that very reason.
Kaleko
(4,986 posts)who is the best distorter of them all?
"Not a fan for that very reason."
Exactly.
"Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the best distorter of them all?"
...you saying that you agree with Swanson that Obama gave himself the power to "imprison" Americans by issuing a signing statement, "My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens"?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Isn't he a member here? I thought it was against DU rules to call out other DUers?
Any reason why you cannot take this up with him as a member of this community rather than attacking a DU member in an OP?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Is this a call out to another DUer?"
...you should direct that to the admins. Alan Grayson is a DUer.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)It's extremely strange that since David is a member here, you chose to 'laugh' at him in an OP rather than go directly to him and have a respectful conversation about whatever is bothering you now. Why didn't you do that?
Frankly I didn't read your post, I saw a suggestion that everyone laugh at another member of DU, and didn't bother reading past that.
It's extremely strange that since David is a member here, you chose to 'laugh' at him in an OP rather than go directly to him and have a respectful conversation about whatever is bothering you now. Why didn't you do that?
Frankly I didn't read your post, I saw a suggestion that everyone laugh at another member of DU, and didn't bother reading past that.
...that's your choice.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)post a mocking OP. Not my problem. I haven't been able to find the rules, that is your job anyhow, two people have raised the question, so the choice is now yours. I'm done with this.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Kaleko
(4,986 posts)TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)is without force, the law is on the books.
Hanging onto a statement and willfully conflating it with the law won't hold up.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"His signing statement is without force, the law is on the books.
Hanging onto a statement and willfully conflating it with the law won't hold up."
...signing statement is a matter of policy, and I am not conflating it with the law. And the SCOTUS did issue a ruling: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=100057
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)You are pitching it as the law.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)Did he in fact do that? I honestly do not know the answer, but it seems to be the pivotal question.
Edited for clarity
is the Statement of Policy sent to Congress.
Detainee Matters: The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about many of the detainee provisions in the bill. In their current form, some of these provisions disrupt the Executive branch's ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted restrictions on the U.S. Government's ability to aggressively combat international terrorism; other provisions inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military's operations and detention practices.
Section 1031 attempts to expressly codify the detention authority that exists under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) (the “AUMF”). The authorities granted by the AUMF, including the detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect the American people from the threat posed by al-Qa'ida and its associated forces, and have enabled us to confront the full range of threats this country faces from those organizations and individuals. Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk. After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country. While the current language minimizes many of those risks, future legislative action must ensure that the codification in statute of express military detention authority does not carry unintended consequences that could compromise our ability to protect the American people.
The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects. This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals. Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets. We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult. Specifically, the provision would limit the flexibility of our national security professionals to choose, based on the evidence and the facts and circumstances of each case, which tool for incapacitating dangerous terrorists best serves our national security interests. The waiver provision fails to address these concerns, particularly in time-sensitive operations in which law enforcement personnel have traditionally played the leading role. These problems are all the more acute because the section defines the category of individuals who would be subject to mandatory military custody by substituting new and untested legislative criteria for the criteria the Executive and Judicial branches are currently using for detention under the AUMF in both habeas litigation and military operations. Such confusion threatens our ability to act swiftly and decisively to capture, detain, and interrogate terrorism suspects, and could disrupt the collection of vital intelligence about threats to the American people.
Rather than fix the fundamental defects of section 1032 or remove it entirely, as the Administration and the chairs of several congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters have advocated, the revised text merely directs the President to develop procedures to ensure the myriad problems that would result from such a requirement do not come to fruition. Requiring the President to devise such procedures concedes the substantial risks created by mandating military custody, without providing an adequate solution. As a result, it is likely that implementing such procedures would inject significant confusion into counterterrorism operations.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps1867s_20111117.pdf
leftupnorth
(886 posts)Unacceptable.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)Then the GOP can go around saying "Obama won't sign the defense bill, he doesn't care about our country or our troops safety".
leftupnorth
(886 posts)I'm jaded. Sorry. I won't burden you all with my honest opinions any longer.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)leftupnorth
(886 posts)just voting in the 'right people' isn't going to fix a damn thing. The underlying stupidity still exists.
watrwefitinfor
(1,409 posts)read no further than Swanson's post, and note the reaction here. Then imagine the same propaganda on ads like Romney is now running against Gingrich in Iowa.
Suffer in cour collective stupidity?
Even stupid people deserve better than another Republican regime, and those of us who can see through both the Republicans AND the Swansons certainly deserve better.
Wat
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Republicans won't say bad things about the President? Is this in the Constitution anywhere? That violations of Constitutional rights should be sacrificed to prevent the opposing party from saying bad things about other politicians? Didn't the President take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution rather than defend and protect himself from Republicans talking badly about him?
Were you joking or do you really believe our Constitutional rights are this disposable?
leftupnorth
(886 posts)FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)
grantcart
(53,061 posts)The question is that if you are against it is it acceptable to lie and mistate the President's position on it.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)he voted "yea" on FISA, as he assumed the authority to kill American Citizens at his discretion, as he signed indefinite detention without trial into law and signed his own "handcuffs" into law preventing him from exercising his branch's Constitutional duties and authority regarding prosecutions and the assignment facilities.
His position is to consistently sign all of this garbage and as a consequence the state of the rule of law, privacy, due process, and individual liberties are worse than when the President took office and he has cemented too many evil points of consensus.
And the bulk of these shitbrick Senators! Holy Fuck, what a mess. Very little to build around.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)I confess that in this case I haven't had time to read all of the relevent original source material so I have had to go with the factual summaries I have seen.
In any case your point seems to be at odds with the OP and not my reply.
My point is this:
If your position is so determined to be anti-Obama then is it acceptable to clearly lie and mistate the facts involved as Swanson does repeatedly.
It would appear from your statement that you think that the offenses conducted by this President are so aggregious that it is no longer necessary to be bound by truthful statements and completely untrue statements can be made.
The truth of what I am saying can be clearly seen by the fact that Swanson repeatedly stated that the President had caved on leaving combat troops in Iraq and yet the trooops left a little head of schedule. Swanson is a repeat offender and I have cited other clearly incorrect factual statements in this thread that Swanson has made as an essential element of his larger argument. In a word he makes it up as he goes. For the record I don't agree with the OP, because I don't find such conduct laughable.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)My statement is he signed the bill, if you think that is lying then you are off the rails.
His position is he affirmed the legislation. Blah, blah, blah all day and night but the only position that matters at all is he signed the bill and that is where he is in black and white with his signature and that signature joins several others that say what his position is.
Did he vote for FISA?
Does he affirm the AUMF?
Did he sign an extension of the Patriot Act?
Did he sign the bill superceding his constitutional authority, codefying the detentions without trial in Gitmo?
His position are clear as day.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)all of the other facts related to the policy, not the least of which is the signing statement and
give it an interpretation that is not based in fact.
Well we all have our standards of discourse.
No one on this thread has refuted ProSense's point by point argument and has instead diverted onto completely other areas unrelated to the actual points that she discussed..
The point I brought to the thread was that the particular criticism of Swanson's polemical attacks against the President are part of a pattern of even greater and more outlandish statements as a consistent pattern of historical malpractice.
His habit of making hyperbolic rhetoric that is completely baseless is inherent in his product that when you read his material you have to fact check every sentence. Apparently he is trying to establish a professional blogger profile by making routine outlandish statements like 'Obama is caving on troop withdrawals' or equating the allies with Germans going so far to say that the allies killed millions of German civilians and so on, all which can be checked by competent authorities in a few minutes. Examples from his journal are voluminous. For the exercise above I took less than 3 minutes looking at his journal and found several completely baseless assertions by Swanson and found peer reviewed historical documentation refuting it in a New York minute.
The issue is Swanson's complete abandonment of credible factual basis for what he states because of his ideological point of view.
Do you think that it is acceptable to make something out of whole cloth that is not true if it supports your ideological (and income stream) point of view.
I don't, and I don't think we need to, the facts are on our side. Let's leave the remythologizing of America to the fundamentalist reactionaries.
Oh and thanks for kicking the thread.
I don't have much time but if you want to help THIS thread going I will be happy to go to bed a bit latter every night to do so.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)The signing statements are meaningless since they have no hold on even the President who issued them.
His only position is what he signed into law. If he didn't want such a position he didn't have sign and could have sent the piece of shit back to Congress as well.
I don't care about any hyperbole or over the top rhetoric because he signed the bill and bought it as sure as he voted for it. His position is the bill or he wouldn't have signed it at all. If it is in the bill he signed then he owns it as hi official position, anything else stated is meaningless rhetoric and spin.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)His only position is what he signed into law. If he didn't want such a position he didn't have sign and could have sent the piece of shit back to Congress as well.
...his position is the signing statement, not the position you would assign him just to bolster your argument.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)It's a relatively useless footnote to a position.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)His position is the law he put his signature on, the signing statements have zero force of law.
He doesn't even have to abide by them, certainly no future President has to.
If the law he signed was not his position then he was in no way compelled to throw his John Hancock on the piece of shit.
I measure his positions by what he does and what he did is sign the bill. Further refusal to sign the bill or even a veto in no way negates or limits his ability to creatively enforce the legislation as asserted in the meaningless signing statements.
The only purposes of such statements is to publically thumb ones nose at Congress like Bush did at times or to act as a fig leaf to try and cover over the fact the law is being signed with supporters (also not alien to Bush) and either way I don't care because the bill was signed.
The only position with force of law, is that he signed the bill. The statement does not amend the bill signed.
Make7
(8,550 posts)
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)The argument against codification is blatantly dishonest. The law on the subject of detention is not settled, as even a casual observer should know. The only settled aspect of it is the unwillingness of the executive or legislature to follow the dictates of the constitution and carry out trials in the civilian courts. The military courts end-run runs counter to Civil War era jurisprudence, which expressly states that if the civilian courts are open and unimpeded, military courts are not an option. That's black letter law. I find it hard to believe that the Civil War and Reconstruction eras were somehow less dangerous a time than the present. However, that's what the political branches would have us believe in their rush for courts martial. Yes, I realize Obama made gestures toward the constitution in this regard, but he should have made it non-negotiable. Legitimizing the use of courts martial for criminal offenses not committed by persons subject to the UCMJ or clearly contemplated in advance makes the above worries about "the military patrolling our streets" just hilarious. They're not patrolling the streets, just the courtrooms. See, that makes it all ok!
The primary reason the executive doesn't want this authority codified is that it gives Congress a voice and sets limits on executive power. That's not a conspiracy theory, it's a fact of government. All executives argue in favor of their own power. That is to be expected. It was anticipated by the Framers, which is part of the reason we have a divided government. Arguments to the contrary should be read as examples of naked executive interest, which requires balancing from the other two branches.
I could go on, especially about the hilarity of the danger of legal challenges, but it's late. I'm not concerned about indefinite detention of citizens, just the executive trying to extend its power in a very dubious arena.
"The argument against codification is blatantly dishonest. The law on the subject of detention is not settled, as even a casual observer should know. "
...why would the "argument against codification" be bad? Right the law isn't settled, it's ambiguous, and the administration's point was against codification.
"Yes, I realize Obama made gestures toward the constitution in this regard, but he should have made it non-negotiable. "
Evidently the negotiations reached an impasse, with Levin insisting that the bill didn't authorize indefinite detention.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)1. The administration, in your quoted citation, argues against codification as being unnecessary because it claims that the law is settled. It most assuredly is not. Codification is the usual method of solving the problem of unsettled law, but the administration would prefer not to use the usual method. I suspect this is due to the executive not wanting to share decision-making power with Congress. From a historical standpoint, it's terribly typical. The executive generally claims that it has no need for Congress to be involved with regulating the various incidents of the war-making powers, but it's an inherently dishonest claim. I do not mean that Obama is inherently dishonest. I am saying that claim, which has been made for decades if not centuries, is inherently dishonest. Congress has pervasive power to regulate all aspects of war, including detention. Any claims that it's not necessary sidestep the basic point that making laws is what Congress does and that it has both a right and duty to deal with this issue.
2. The bit about non-negotiability is very simple. Criminal trials in civilian courts are an absolute guarantee. Period. It is a guarantee dating back to the Civil War, which was a far more volatile time than now. The term "existential crisis" is disgustingly in vogue currently, but it is deadly accurate for describing that period of history. The Supreme Court explicitly stated that if the civilian courts are open and unimpeded, they are the proper venue for a criminal trial. As both of those standards are clearly met, the move to try detainees in military courts is facially invalid. If the Civil War and Reconstruction era military government were not sufficient to meet the standard of open and unimpeded, I fail to see how the present does.
This fight was actually in 09-10. The president, admirably, understood the clear dictate of the constitution and made moves in the correct direction. The proper venue for a trial of people involved in 9/11 is the Southern District of NY, i.e. Manhattan. NY and Congress screamed bloody murder about security costs and Obama backed down. This was unacceptable. Public hysteria is not cause for actually unconstitutionally. It may be an excuse, but it is never a reason. I know my stance on this is uncompromising, but some things really do have to be beyond the pale. The idea that people can be tried for crimes in military courts when the military courts lack the jurisdiction is disgusting political expediency. It's being done to make use of lowered evidentiary standards. I just see it as fundamentally dangerous.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)...related to the ambiguity. Some Senators insist the existing law is settled, others have a different interpretation of the law
But Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, said citizen terrorism suspects should retain their “fundamental civil liberties” in order to protect the founding principles of the United States.
“I think at a bare minimum, that means we will not allow U.S. military personnel to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens, regardless of what label we happen to apply to them,” he said.
Before voting to leave current law unchanged, the Senate rejected, 55 to 45, a proposal by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, to instead say that Americans are exempt from detention under the 2001 authorization to use military force.
The uncertainty over the current law added confusion. Some, like Mr. Graham and Mr. Levin, insisted that the Supreme Court had already approved holding Americans as enemy combatants, even people arrested inside the United States. Others, like Senators Feinstein and Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, insisted that it had not done so.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/us/senate-declines-to-resolve-issue-of-american-qaeda-suspects-arrested-in-us.html?_r=1
This is despite the SCOTUS ruling: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=100057
"2. The bit about non-negotiability is very simple. Criminal trials in civilian courts are an absolute guarantee. Period."
Remember, Congress originally rejected this, prohibiting the the transfers and cutting the funding.
"This fight was actually in 09-10. The president, admirably, understood the clear dictate of the constitution and made moves in the correct direction. The proper venue for a trial of people involved in 9/11 is the Southern District of NY, i.e. Manhattan. NY and Congress screamed bloody murder about security costs and Obama backed down. This was unacceptable. Public hysteria is not cause for actually unconstitutionally. It may be an excuse, but it is never a reason. I know my stance on this is uncompromising, but some things really do have to be beyond the pale. The idea that people can be tried for crimes in military courts when the military courts lack the jurisdiction is disgusting political expediency. It's being done to make use of lowered evidentiary standards. I just see it as fundamentally dangerous."
Right, so you understand, there is no argument.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)The administration claimed the law was settled. That is part of their argument against codification. It says it directly in the paragraph regarding 1031 that you quoted.
The DU link you provided is not a ruling per se, it's a denial of cert. It may, MAY, amount to the same result, but it's not a ruling. I say that because I'm both picky about that sort of thing and for clarity, though mostly for pickiness.
I'm not arguing detention at all, nor am I concerned about citizens being tried in military courts RIGHT NOW. I am concerned about setting precedent on a weak justification. The military courts did not have jurisdiction for this sort of thing when the "War on Terror" began. They had never been contemplated as such a venue. These detainees/terrorists/whatever are being tried for violations of the US Code, not the UCMJ or the "laws of war." The only appropriate venue is a civilian court, either federal or state (state courts could conceivably be a proper venue, as they do have jurisdiction to hear most types of cases arising under federal jurisdiction).
My original comments were a bit of sarcasm directed at the administration's justifications of its position as a means of showing that this administration is no different from any other when it comes to defending executive prerogatives, no matter how flimsy the ground or weak the reasoning. I don't mean that Obama will be slapping Gingrich in Gitmo tomorrow and hauling him in front of a court martial the day after, not even remotely. I think the administration is essentially reactive on this issue, which is standard operating procedure for this White House, in that they found themselves blind-sided by Levin and McCain on this issue. If they really wanted to settle the law regarding detention and trials, it could have been organized by the administration. They should have said that Congress needed to be involved and then said what they needed. Sure, there would have been a fight and the various horse-trades. The executive would be occupying the field, however, instead of reacting with weak justifications to a fait accompli.
I feel my original point is being lost. I was mocking their reasoning by pointing out the flaws.
"The administration claimed the law was settled. That is part of their argument against codification. It says it directly in the paragraph regarding 1031 that you quoted."
...understood that. Do you reject the SCOTUS decision?
"The DU link you provided is not a ruling per se, it's a denial of cert. It may, MAY, amount to the same result, but it's not a ruling. I say that because I'm both picky about that sort of thing and for clarity, though mostly for pickiness."
OK, but there are those who accept the decision as a rejection of indefinite detention.
I don't consider it a decision because all a denial of cert means is that there weren't 4 votes to hear the case. It could be because the court feels the 2d circuit did such a bang up job of settling the law that the issue is settled. It could also mean that that 6 justices felt the underlying case was insufficient to rule on such an important point of law. It could also be that 6 justices just aren't interested in the subject. Ultimately, all we know is that they chose not to hear the case.
I only accept denials of cert as a ruling when they cause an irrevocable action. The Schiavo situation is an example. There's no polite way to put it, so I'll be blunt. Her death made further action moot because the underlying issue no longer existed. I doubt the same is true of the issue over detention. The court is well known for biding its time until ready to make decisions, so all we have now is persuasive authority from the 2d circuit. It's a good decision, but it's not the same as a Supreme Court ruling.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I don't consider it a decision because all a denial of cert means is that there weren't 4 votes to hear the case. It could be because the court feels the 2d circuit did such a bang up job of settling the law that the issue is settled. It could also mean that that 6 justices felt the underlying case was insufficient to rule on such an important point of law. It could also be that 6 justices just aren't interested in the subject. Ultimately, all we know is that they chose not to hear the case."
...possible, but that still shows the case was rejected.
The problem is that actual decisions have citations to reference the past and lines of reasoning to guide the future (wow, I'm a little idealistic here, but that's how it should work). We have neither in this case, so uncertainty still exists.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Well Done.
Recommending posts by MFrohike in this thread for those interested in the facts and not the Hype
or partisan spin.
You Win the Thread!
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
tpsbmam
(3,927 posts)I've taken the liberty of pulling out two paragraphs and bolding the parts that go to the heart of my strongest criticisms of Obama and his administration.
My original comments were a bit of sarcasm directed at the administration's justifications of its position as a means of showing that this administration is no different from any other when it comes to defending executive prerogatives, no matter how flimsy the ground or weak the reasoning. I don't mean that Obama will be slapping Gingrich in Gitmo tomorrow and hauling him in front of a court martial the day after, not even remotely. I think the administration is essentially reactive on this issue, which is standard operating procedure for this White House, in that they found themselves blind-sided by Levin and McCain on this issue. If they really wanted to settle the law regarding detention and trials, it could have been organized by the administration. They should have said that Congress needed to be involved and then said what they needed. Sure, there would have been a fight and the various horse-trades. The executive would be occupying the field, however, instead of reacting with weak justifications to a fait accompli.
I lived through the LBJ administration in a very close way -- Dad was involved in politics at the time and actually sat on one of LBJ's commissions. Though I was a little kid at the time, we heard about the goings on in DC on a regular basis -- our dinner table conversations were dominated by politics! We lived in DC during the Kennedy administration and partially through LBJ. When one looks at the power wielded by LBJ, who had his own multitude of flaws, it's laughable to hear the whining on behalf of Obama today. The '64 Civil Rights Act was met with filibuster, for god's sake, and one of the longest in history was engaged in by a Democrat -- Robert Byrd. The Southern Democratic bloc engaged in a 54 day filibuster! It took brilliant maneuvering of a group of senators (both Republican and Democrat) along with LBJ, RFK and others who mustered enough votes to end the filibuster, an historic success regarding civil rights. So the "he had a Democratic majority in both houses" excuse is bullshit -- the Act only passed with truly bipartisan votes. There was opposition from both parties and most strongly from Southern Democrats, but it was overcome through active measures and maneuverings on the part of both the Kennedy & Johnson administrations, among others. And both administrations led the fight. Johnson was advised and was well aware that his push to pass the Act would lose him Southern votes and, it was believed, probably re-election. He pushed anyway -- he did not[/l] let politics or the possibility of losing the next election stop him from doing what was right. (Believe me, LBJ did plenty wrong, with Vietnam top of that list, and he did other things for political expediency, but the Civil Rights Act wasn't one of the things he dumped for political expediency, to his credit.)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)people are either all too williing to ignore the dangers in what just happened here, or they do not understand them.
And many Military Prosecutors agree with you, among others. There is nothing wrong with being uncompromising on what is right. For many people this has become the line they cannot cross.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)Laughter has been pretty much non-stop....
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)I don't expect ProSense to, this sort of legislation is right up his alley.
The Magistrate
(96,043 posts)It is quite possible for both these things to be true at once, you know.
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)But I don't feel like muddying the waters by debating the peccadillos of individual posters on unrelated issues... unless the person is a blatant troll.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)I assume it must have been the Republicans who added this in. I guess I wonder why? A poison pill, knowing how this would be perceived by Democrats and progressive independents? Veto the entire bill and take his lumps with the RW Wurlitzer? Or accept with qualifications via the signing statement?
Either way, it should provide motivation in getting progressive Democrats/independents elected in 2012 to deal with this kind of unitary executive and creeping militarism that Republicans seem to want to legislate unto this country.
Emillereid
(3,332 posts)analyze for yourself. That's one of the reasons I like Randi Rhodes -- she seems to actually do her homework.
I don't know if it's true but a friend told me that there's a stand alone piece of legislation to undo the onerous provisions of the NDAA. Would never pass the house though.
For a reasoned discussion go to: http://www.lawfareblog.com/
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)
flvegan
(66,244 posts)Who knew?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)'"Blue links of change' has turned into Bold Font."
You're going to start a fear of "Bold Font" to distract?
OK.
LOL, stop thinking so highly of yourself. And you don't distract, you entertain.
"LOL, stop thinking so highly of yourself. And you don't distract, you entertain."
...you're following me around posting comments about "blue links" and you're accusing me of "thinking so highly" of myself.
flvegan
(66,244 posts)You and your former "blue links of change" were highly entertaining for many of us. Your opinion that you matter is another issue altogether.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Your opinion that you matter is another issue altogether."
...that's your opinion, and it has nothing to do with me. It's a reflection on you.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)So if someone doesn't agree with you they don't matter? Does that make them sub-human?
Wow.
Julie
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)
RL
Generic Other
(29,080 posts)I have been reading his posts here for years. What's going on?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)in case they are different on DU3.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)I have no doubt ProSense's OP has been alerted on several times.
Be heartened that the thread has zero recs and does not represent DU in any way.
"You can call out DUers. You 'take your chances.'"
...that is not the intention. If it's a mistake to consider Swanson a writer in the same context as Greenwald, I will find out.
And this is a discsussion for the Help and Meta forum, not this thread.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)We should be allowed to oppose their opinions.
Let them join DU and make themselves un-opposable - not buying that.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)general public. However, it appears the rules have changed and it is no longer against the rules to call out other DUers.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Public figure exception. If Greenwald joins DU, we wouldn't be able to disagree with him then.
If Obama joined, you wouldn't be able to call him out either.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Swanson is good democratic activist who is also a member of DU. There are other people here who have have had more public exposure than he has, should they be trashed also in Subject Lines like this? Should ANYONE. I would not support this being done to anyone, public figure or not. This is what has destroyed political discourse.
When Obama was a candidate he went to Daily Kos and posted two Diaries. He was attacked and trashed in both of them and never came back. It was disgusting, just as this is disgusting, just as the Subject lines re Greenwald were disgusting, and this kind of thing comes back to haunt blogs like this.
During the Campaign eg, Obama went to Fox and did an interview with Bill O'Reilly. O'Reilly asked him if he wanted to 'distance himself from Daily Kos' which he described as a loony leftwing site. Obama was in a corner. By then DK had gotten behind him as the nominee but the history was still there. Obama managed with some difficulty not to say anything nice about DK while trying to deflect O'Reilly's statements. I have a feeling Obama probably agreed with O'Reilly after what he witnessed there himself. Unless you are a trusted user there you cannot see those comments, but they are still there, just hidden from non-members. And that's the problem, this stuff never goes away.
No one should be called out like this, no one. I thought we o the 'left' were better than this, but over and over again I am seeing evidence that not only are we not better, we are worse. At least the right don't attack their own. Here on DU that is all that happens lately and people are getting pretty sick and tired of it, except for those who support this for their own petty, personal reasons.
treestar
(82,383 posts)No matter what they say?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Mocked, attacked,smeared, name-called, lied about, "like that".
That is what Republicans do, only NOT to each other. Do you think we ought to emulate Republicans? Only do it to other Democrats?
treestar
(82,383 posts)or a lie.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Hey, if you find out there is a rule that says you cannot criticize DUers who have articles published or who have appeared on TV, let me know. Some folks would be in a lot of trouble! 
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)against the rules here. And if I saw such an OP directed at you, or anyone else, I would object to it also. My question was related to the fact that we used to criticize Freepers for this kind of behavior, but even they generally did not attack their own members, their childish vitriol was reserved for Democrats. Here two DU members have been attacked in the most disgusting way over the past few days using subject lines, easily found on Google, to do so. And as could be expected once it was accepted as the standard it escalated, or devolved is probably a better word to attacking Greenwald, eg, based on the fact that he is gay.
That thread was rec'd by members of the community, so absorbed in the 'let's get Greenwald' game they were playing, they ignored the vile homophobia, or agreed with it, who knows, and all standards of decency were lost. Those of us who objected to all of this got comments hidden, while those joining in the attacks were cheered on. It had the feeling of watching a mugging, frankly. Until finally the administration was alerted to the last and most disgusting thread and ended it.
My point is that if there are no standards, this is what happens, and this blog and democrats in general, hardly benefit from any of this. Is it so hard to just disagree with someone based on what they say without sinking to the level this got to in the end?
Anyhow, that is my opinion, no one has to agree with it.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)At least this is a good change for variety sake if nothing else, the Greenwald smear campaign was getting a bit stale (not to mention totally ineffective).
At least this is a good change for variety sake if nothing else, the Greenwald smear campaign was getting a bit stale (not to mention totally ineffective).
...now that you got that out of the way, do you have a problem with Swanson' obvious distortion?
quinnox
(20,600 posts)So now, I'm supposed to debate seriously with you, when you won't do the same with me and others? It isn't going to happen. If you start actually responding to peoples' points in various threads you make, instead of the usual routine, then I will consider it, deal?
"So now, I'm supposed to debate seriously with you, when you won't do the same with me and others? It isn't going to happen. If you start actually responding to peoples' points in various threads you make, instead of the usual routine, then I will consider it, deal?"
...what? I simply asked if you have a problem with Swanson's obvious distortion?
I mean you felt the need to respond to the thread with a snarky comment about "hit list." Why not take the opportunity to respond on topic?
Kaleko
(4,986 posts)Mirror, mirror on the wall... etc.
Unless and until you take your own advice, and consistently so, it's a waste of time to seriously argue with you on any of the points you bring up in your relentless obfuscation campaigns.
"ProSense: 'Why not take the opportunity to respond on topic?'"
...my comment on the topic: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002108027
You can add yours if you choose to.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)No, you did not. Your subject line asked DUers to laugh at another DUer. I don't know about anyone else, but I did not read past that.
You are chiding someone for being snarky when your OP's Subject line invites DUers to laugh at another DUer??
There's a thing called 'moral authority'. It means that in order to get respect from others, YOU have to act in a respectful way yourself.
A person loses the moral authority to criticize the behavior of others when their own behavior is worse. Calling out someone in a mocking way IS a 'hit' on them.
Your OP set a tone that precluded any discussion of whatever it is you say you want an answer to.
If you do not want the tone of your threads to devolve as this one has, then set a different tone. Try being respectful to other members. It IS possible disagree without being disagreeable.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Do you really not see why people are not responding in a serious way to this OP?"
...you're a perfect example. Do you not see that others are actually having a discussion about topic?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)It would be a good thing to acknowledge those points.
T S Justly
(884 posts)Wonder who.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)What little credibility was left is gone.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"What little credibility was left is gone. "
...a good thing I consider the source.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I hear Ron Paul is living in the Twillight Zone.
"I hear Ron Paul is living in the Twillight Zone."
...he has company: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=108107
Rex
(65,616 posts)and public transportation.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)It sure has failed here.
pecwae
(8,021 posts)I didn't have great expectations in that arena.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)when it's obvious that certain people run ruff shod over any real and open discussion and instead lower the DU bar to snark and reframing as the norm.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)Funny, though...no one who is taking exception to your post will answer your question. I wonder why?
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"What question?"
...variation of the question asked in a few comments throughout the thread: Do you agree with Swanson that Obama gave himself the power to "imprison" Americans by issuing a signing statement, "My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens"?
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)length of time the President, present or future so dictates but the law is on the books.
This entire line of argument is based on a temporary and nonbinding figment and as such Swanson is way, way, way closer to correct than you are.
The basis of your defense is a fucking figment, and a transitory one at that.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"A signing statement is not a law."
...it definitely a signing statement, and it does not do what Swanson claims it does.
The basis of your defense is a fucking figment, and a transitory one at that.
Swanson specifically referenced the signing statement when he said:
That is false.
I mean, do you agree with Swanson that Obama gave himself the power to "imprison" Americans by issuing a signing statement, "My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens"?
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)for me. I am not in a high opinion of them and don't believe the executive requires them to creatively interpret and/or enforce the law so that mostly makes them a thumb the nose deal or a cheap figleaf to spin away signing a bad bill.
Swanson is pretty sharp, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the sentence you are quoting is not the source of his problem with the President on this.
I say if you are under oath to protect and uphold the Constitution then you are duty bound to veto this piece of shit and I don't give a damn if the vote was unanimous in both houses and every channel was running a special about how wonderful and vital the law is.
There is no excuse, just as there is no excuse for each traitor the voted "Yea".
Fucking oathbreakers.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Swanson is pretty sharp, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the sentence you are quoting is not the source of his problem with the President on this."
...that a reason to intentionally distort the President's position?
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)all the signing statements in the world don't change that not one iota.
He signed the bill.
He signed the bill.
He signed the bil.
His position is he affirmed the legislation. His non-binding caveats or his current posture of creative enforcement are only as meaningful as the President decides they are. Not just this President but any going forward. The President is fully free to make his statement and then utterly disregard it from the moment he sets down the pen and that being the case, his position was to enact the legislation.
He signed the bill.
He signed the bill.
He signed the bill and the rest is spin.
Every single person that affirmed this bill should be run out on a fucking rail and barred from holding any Federal office for life.
Cameron27
(10,346 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)That's hillaryous!!
"He signed the bill.
He signed the bill.
He signed the bill.
He signed the bill."
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)I thought your post on the Matrix was great.
It is very apropos to DU.
In case you haven't noticed, some members from Kentucky posting here never complain about McConnell.
They only complain about President Obama.
There's something fundamentally wrong with that, too.
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)
Here's a peace offering:
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)This thread has been amazing -- watching the fingers-in-the-ears defense of the indefensible on a "liberal"/"Democratic" site makes my stomach churn. 
It is a good lesson on just how insane some get when it comes to either a Party or politician. I used to say Bush fans could watch him ass fuck a Boy Scout live on TV and they would find away to excuse/support it. It boggles my mind we would find that here.
T S Justly
(884 posts)
RainDog
(28,784 posts)in this manner.
So that's why some of us wonder what the SOP is on this issue and how such things are decided... which is something that is for another forum, but thought you deserved an answer as to why some are taking exception to this post.
unapatriciated
(5,390 posts)It is one thing to disagree quite another to call them out and mock them.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"It is one thing to disagree quite another to call them out and mock them."
...I have a threshold for rejecting intentional distortion.
Oh, care to respond to this question: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=108351
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)Thank all that is good and green, it will be a blessing when you find it but knowing is half the battle.
You are the one conflating a temporary to worthless signing statement with the actual law put into effect.
Obama doesn't even have to comply with it, much less any future President.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"You are the one conflating a temporary to worthless signing statement with the actual law put into effect."
...I'm not
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=108394
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)Why are you repeatedly trying to shove Swanson's nose in an obviously non-contentious sentence of the signing statement when the actual law is the problem not the temporary and non-binding figleaf and/or declaration of creative interpretation and/or enforcement of the law.
Signing the law is the problem, to try to conflate that with a sunshine and rainbows line in the signing statement is willful distortion.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Why are you repeatedly trying to shove Swanson's nose in an obviously non-contentious sentence of the signing statement when the actual law is the problem not the temporary and non-binding figleaf and/or declaration of creative interpretation and/or enforcement of the law."
Is that what they're calling distortions these days "non-contentious?
It's his statement. Swanson specifically referenced the signing statement when he said something that was false:
Again, do you agree with Swanson that Obama gave himself the power to "imprison" Americans by issuing a signing statement, "My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens"?
TBF
(36,589 posts)imprison Americans by issuing a signing statement - Swanson did no such thing.
But keep distorting facts, it is obvious that you will get away with saying whatever you want on this website, no matter how crazy and/or inflammatory.
unapatriciated
(5,390 posts)I have a low threshold for those who use disingenuous tactics and have no real intent to discuss.
Dewey Finn
(176 posts)You know, an objective observer might conclude that your threshold is subject to some pretty subjective and easily shifting standards, which would be fair enough, at least if you weren't so strenuously trying to insist otherwise.
unapatriciated
(5,390 posts)did you confuse me with the op?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)can take up those concerns in the appropiate forum.
You can also choose to address the point: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=108394
Dewey Finn
(176 posts)another DUer, right? Is that really a position you want to advocate? Seriously?
Response to Dewey Finn (Reply #100)
ProSense This message was self-deleted by its author.
unapatriciated
(5,390 posts)of NOT endorsing call outs or mocking of fellow duers.
and to answer your question - Yes I do advocate not calling out or mocking fellow duers. I think that is part of the rules around here.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"What is wrong with taking the position...of NOT endorsing call outs"
...for one, this is the wrong forum, and you don't hijack a thread by resorting to call outs in protest.
unapatriciated
(5,390 posts)I made one observation and you responded, I responded to you and so it went. I'm out, I will leave you to your thread that I supposedly hijacked in the wee hours of the morning.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)If somebody asserts that "X is true" or in this case that "Swanson issued an absurd attack on Obama" then I would rather see people argue the merits of the assertion. Is X actually false or is Swanson's attack NOT absurd?
To instead argue "you are not allowed to say that" seems like a weak argument, a bad tactic.
As for call outs, well Swanson is not just a DUer, he is an author, and a writer in other forums. In fact, he really seems to just use DU to promote his writing, rather than belonging to this community and actually discussing things with other DUers. He posts OPs and then never, or very rarely, replies to any of the replies to his OP. As such, he's almost no more of a DUer than Michael Moore, or Glenn Greenwald, or Amy Goodman, or Ralph Nader. However, unlike them, if he, Swanson, gets trashed on DU, he at least has the option of logging in and defending himself.
unapatriciated
(5,390 posts)She would have gotten a different reply from many on this board.
I will tell you what her title accomplished in regards to myself.
I followed her link and read Swanson's post including the link in his post. The second link goes into detail regarding his statements.
I might not have seen his post if not for the sensational thread title. I now agree with him, where before I did not have an opinion.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Some claim that the act does not extend to US citizens and legal residents, but it is clear from the language that the "exemption", as you mention, says only that detention is not "required".
It DOES NOT SAY that it is not allowed.
The claim that this says that it does not shane existing US law is ridiculous of course since if that were true there would be no point in the legislate in the first place.
Furthermore, Obama's signing statements are not binding on future US Presidents, so it is of little comfort and he should NOT have signed.
For me, it is another in a long list of unacceptable actions.
does not conplain here about detention of US citizens. The NDAA act does not have to say that detention of US citizens is not allowed, because such detention is already not allowed. The act does say that it does not change things in regard to US citizens. This law does not have to say that it is NOT ALLOWED if other laws and precedents already establish that and this law does NOT change those previous laws and precedents.
Then why have the law at all? Because it changes other laws and precedents with regard to the detention of foreign combatants.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)is a prime example of why I don't frequent these parts much anymore.
This is absolutely pathetic. Calling out a fellow DUer by name -- in a thread title, no less -- and using such hateful and mocking language was formerly grounds for a post to be deleted. Now with this whacked-out jury process all kinds of venom can be spewed and allowed to stand with no consequences. I feel like I need to take a shower after reading this thread.
Adios. You guys can have it.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Since Swanson isn't a Democrat, he has no problem calling supporters of this president in his writings.
"President Barack Obama waited until New Year’s Eve to take an action that I suspect he wanted his willfully deluded followers to have a good excuse not to notice."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002104244#post39
What a SUPER guy!
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)this is the worse crap i have seen in 10 years.
PA Democrat
(13,428 posts)Another PRIME example of why unrec is needed. A callout mocking another DUer does NOTHING to foster constructive dialogue. But then some people apparently have a different agenda.
pecwae
(8,021 posts)seems to be different rules for those agendas.
Wind Dancer
(3,618 posts)Why is it still standing?
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)calling out and mocking a fellow DUer. Content-free.
Something I'd expect to find on Free Republic, not here. Rimjob? That you?
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Response to Union Scribe (Reply #131)
Post removed
bvar22
(39,909 posts)or have a job?
or have a life?
a simple pattern
(608 posts)to Baghdad Bob
kentuck
(115,400 posts)
Why couldn't the President just send it back to Congress and say "Fix it!"
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)"He/she/it really hasn't an ounce of class."
...would have to agree. 
"I would have to agree."
...1
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"it" is a she! FYI.
"He/she/it really hasn't an ounce of class. "
...I do, and I'm not delusional enough to believe in lunatics: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=108107
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)You laugh at Sid, and the other personalities of "it"
RL
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
ProSense
(116,464 posts)How is this for logic fail:
Swanson's article are always posted on DU, and within those threads, he's is always roundly criticized for his distortions.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002104244
I am not a prominent writer and commentator.
By your logic, no one should be able to criticize Swanson. His distortions should be posted here and around the Internet, and he should remain off limits.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Oh I think you underestimate yourself. I'd say I see more posts from you than any other DU'er. There are rumors floating around that you are not one person. That there is no way a single person has that much time to write on DU...
Anyone who can write enough so that people think they are more than one person I'd say is "prominent". Don't underestimate yourself.
tledford
(917 posts)RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)You shills must get bored after awhile...
And by you, I mean all 10 of you who are the same shill.
RL
Catherina
(35,568 posts)I have full faith that the old adage that you can fool all of the people some of the time or some of the people all of the time is going to prove right soon.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)"Some of the people" have been consistently "fooled" extending credibility to posers on this board for the last several years.
Believe it.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)can get this website back to its underground roots and away from shallow propagandists ... [b0Believe it.
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)What you fail to realize is that one such prolific poser has established it's roots here to the tune of 17,000 posts since 2008.
Consider your chain yanked . Believe It.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Catherina
(35,568 posts)Your distortions about about another DUer are by far a worthier target for laughter.
Your distortions increase David Swanson's appeal and these threads only serve to see who's providing accurate analysis of this administration's shortcomings. Congrats with thanks.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)mmonk
(52,589 posts)You didn't disprove his statement. Only that through his signing statement, Pres. Obama made a personal claim or promise. That does not mean he did not sign that power to the executive branch. That is for the courts of which, his DOJ always argues in for untouchable, unchecked power.
PA Democrat
(13,428 posts)You don't sway anyone with a crappy callout of another DUer.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)DU is degenerating into name calling and slanders. The reputation of this community is sliding fast, and frankly there are just a handful of nasty posters who are trying to push us all into the McCarthyite gutter of the politics of personal destruction. I reject those posters and their cowardly, right wing tactics.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)I detest people who support horrid RW lunatics.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=108107
Quantess
(27,630 posts)unless you want to erase all doubt in anyones' minds that Obama made a terrible mistake.
The smart thing to do would be to ignore it, if you are trying to make Obama look better.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"unless you want to erase all doubt"
..."doubt" is not an intentional distortion.
I mean, do you agree with Swanson that Obama gave himself the power to "imprison" Americans by issuing a signing statement, "My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens"?
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Obama gave himself, and future Presidents, the power to "imprison" Americans by simply signing the NDAA. Not sure why you are confusing the issue by implying that he did so by "issuing a signing statement". The signing statement is immaterial, and carries absolutely no weight on future administrations, NOR does it compel this administration to adhere to what was stated in the signing statement.
On edit: Typos
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)required more than the ability to fog a mirror. But then again, if I got my wish, we wouldn't have as much comedic material, would we?
Well done PS, as usual.
Julie
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Facts are good. 
Sid
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)And I gotta believe the attention is fueling some wild 'n' crazy wet dreams of a certain someone.....
lolz I think this whole this is hysterical.
Julie
ProSense
(116,464 posts)
ClassWarrior
(26,316 posts)NGU.
Autumn
(48,952 posts)a lot of people laugh at you.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)I find it fascinating that some people value distortions over facts., criticizing others for blind support and then being willing to justify away distortions.
So laugh away!
Autumn
(48,952 posts)It is indeed fascinating that some people value distortions over facts., criticizing others for blind support and then being willing to justify away distortions. You do it well 
ProSense
(116,464 posts)just repeating your criticisms of me helps to avoid committing to an opinion on the topic.
Do you agree with Swanson that Obama gave himself the power to "imprison" Americans by issuing a signing statement, "My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens"?
Autumn
(48,952 posts)I'm sure any future puke president will appreciate that.
"Yes I do, but what chaps my ass, is he gave any future administration that power."
...they already had that power, and even that is disputable. Some Senators insist the existing law gives them that power, others have a different interpretation of the law.
But Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, said citizen terrorism suspects should retain their “fundamental civil liberties” in order to protect the founding principles of the United States.
“I think at a bare minimum, that means we will not allow U.S. military personnel to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens, regardless of what label we happen to apply to them,” he said.
Before voting to leave current law unchanged, the Senate rejected, 55 to 45, a proposal by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, to instead say that Americans are exempt from detention under the 2001 authorization to use military force.
The uncertainty over the current law added confusion. Some, like Mr. Graham and Mr. Levin, insisted that the Supreme Court had already approved holding Americans as enemy combatants, even people arrested inside the United States. Others, like Senators Feinstein and Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, insisted that it had not done so.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/us/senate-declines-to-resolve-issue-of-american-qaeda-suspects-arrested-in-us.html?_r=1
President Obama signed NDAA, but it was an existing law that Bush used to justify his indefinite detention of a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil.
The NDAA does not include any new authorization related to that. In fact, it added a weak clause stating that the law has no effect on existing law.
The SCOTUS rejected Bush's premise: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=100057
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)...by saying, "he rewrote the law as he signed it" was not referring to the signing statement.
Obama can arbitrarily enforce the law how he sees fit, and so can all future Presidents. On that Swanson (and I say this with little admiration for the man), is correct.
Whether there is a case that Obama would actually do that or that future Presidents will do that is up for debate.
But Presidents aren't known for rejecting power when they have it. For example, Obama took targeted killing to a level never before conceived, not even by Bush.
I personally don't think Obama will go back on his signing statement, at least until he gets reelected (so you have 11 months or so of assurance). But I'm not convinced he won't back off on it, unless the legislation is rendered moot by a Democratic Congress (and I don't think he'd veto such legislation).
Note: The Habeas Corpus precedence has very little bearing because it would have to be retried on this new legislation. While one could say that a future case based on an authoritarian reading of the legislation is possible, it would not occur until the damage has been done to one or more individuals, which is not particularly comforting.
ClassWarrior
(26,316 posts)Very thoughtful. Thank you.
NGU.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"...by saying, 'he rewrote the law as he signed it' was not referring to the signing statement."
...not what he said. Swanson specifically referenced the signing statement when he said something that was false:
Again, do you agree with Swanson that Obama gave himself the power to "imprison" Americans by issuing a signing statement, "My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens"?
In fact, the other part of his statement in the OP is also a distortion:
Obama did no such thing.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)The "not make an exception for U.S. citizens" statement is based on Carl Levin's quote, which is admittedly taken out of context, and not a very thorough analysis on Swanson's behalf (Levin was referring to a version of the draft which was even more ambiguous). I doubt it was a distortion as a lot of people got that one wrong, because of all the conspiracy sites trumpeting Levin's quote as proof.
Swanson did not say that Obama's signing statement was what "He rewrote the law as he signed it." He is not referring to any signing statement here. Your question is not parseable or answerable.
I do agree with Swanson that Obama, signing NDAA into law, rewrote the law.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)The "not make an exception for U.S. citizens" statement is based on ">Carl Levin's quote, which is admittedly taken out of context, and not a very thorough analysis on Swanson's behalf (Levin was referring to a version of the draft which was even more ambiguous). I doubt it was a distortion as a lot of people got that one wrong, because of all the conspiracy sites trumpeting Levin's quote as proof.
Swanson did not say that Obama's signing statement was what "He rewrote the law as he signed it." He is not referring to any signing statement here. Your question is not parseable or answerable.
I do agree with Swanson that Obama, signing NDAA into law, rewrote the law.
...you're using my paraphrase and not Swanson's actual statement, which is false:
Also, it's impossible for you to use Levin's claim, which was never about the version of the law that passed and as you say was "taken out of context," especially since Swanson's statement was made after the fact of the statement of policy and the signing statement:
Obama did not ask Congress to "not make an exception for U.S. citizens." That's simply false.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)...he didn't say.
He never said that Obama's signing statement was what conferred him the power to imprison. Simply "quoting it" over and over again doesn't make it true. You are reading what he wrote wrong.
With regards to Levin I'm just saying that Swanson is not thorough and he isn't attempting to be deceitful or distort here. I of course agree with you that "Obama did not ask congress to "not make an exception for U.S. citizens"," that's more than "simply false." That's a conspiracy site meme that spread the internet like wildfire, which Swanson likely picked up.
To prove a case of distortion you must show that Swanson has knowledge that Obama did not do that, I highly doubt Swanson has that knowledge.
Now, when you, again quote Swanson's words and try to assign those words to Obama's signing statement, you will be the one who is distorting, as it's been clearly explained that he's not mentioning the signing statement there. Signing statements are not law therefore they cannot rewrite law.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"He never said that Obama's signing statement was what conferred him the power to imprison. Simply "quoting it" over and over again doesn't make it true. You are reading what he wrote wrong."
don't you cite the quote and specifically show where I'm wrong instead of repeating that he didn't say what he said?
Specifically citing that he "rewrote the law" followed by "in doing so" is about the signing statement.
As for the rest, thanks for seeing that it's a distortion.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Signed what? He can't rewrite law with signing statements. So what do you think he signed? The law itself. A better phrasing might be, with identical meaning, "As he signed the law, he rewrote the law." But I personally like the authors approach.
I did not say it was a distortion, as you did not establish that the author distorted. It is incorrect, misinformed, but not a distortion. A distortion assumes that someone knows what they are saying is not what they are saying. If you provide an example where the author shows knowledge that the Levin quote is taken out of context, then it would be much easier to prove the distortion case.
Meanwhile this is the third time I have explained to you that the author did not refer to any signing statements in the quoted text, and this is the third time you intentionally, willfully, twist what the author said.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Signed what? He can't rewrite law with signing statements. So what do you think he signed? The law itself. A better phrasing might be, with identical meaning, "As he signed the law, he rewrote the law." But I personally like the authors approach.
...what does is being referred to by "rewrote"? Is it the signing statement? Of course he signed the law, but to mention that he "rewrote" indicates he altered the law as passed by Congress. It's a specific reference to the signing statement.
How do you know what Swanson was thinking? Regardless of whether or not it's intentional, and you can't know that, it's still a distortion.
I am basing my assessment that it was intentional on of a pattern. Here's what you said
Now if you and I know that, why am I to believe that Swanson doesn't?
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Not being thorough and being ignorant or misinformed does not equate distortion.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"A signing statement does not alter law."
...stating, "He rewrote the law as he signed it. In doing so, Obama gave himself the power to imprison without even military kangaroo courts and without even the formality of pretended "status review hearings," is false.
"Not being thorough and being ignorant or misinformed does not equate distortion."
Well, that's not the quality of a good writer, and definitely not one that should be given a platform. Unlike you, I don't think Swanson suffers from "being ignorant or misinformed" about the situation. He has a pattern of pushing distortions.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)I do wish you could provide evidence that he distorted, though, as it would be instructive. I don't give the author much credit because he's not very thorough and believes unsupported conspiracies, if he was thorough and intentionally presenting falsehoods, at least then I could view him as a pundit as opposed to a hack.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)Especially here:
"But Presidents aren't known for rejecting power when they have it. For example, Obama took targeted killing to a level never before conceived, not even by Bush."
A much as some may try to discount or mock those concerned by this latest betrayal,
the fact IS that America has moved away from the rights enumerated in the Constitution,
and the unchecked powers of the Unitary Executive have been codified and expanded.
Good Post.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)
Tarheel_Dem
(31,454 posts) whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)by jurors not acting in good faith.
ClassWarrior
(26,316 posts)NGU.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Are you speaking of this post or something else? Just curious...
ClassWarrior
(26,316 posts)NGU.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts) bvar22
(39,909 posts)...sinks even lower.
"An the bar for acceptable behavior at DU...sinks even lower."
...don't know. I simply cannot equate calling out a distortion with "sinks even lower"
Some people are funny and deserved to be ridiculed, don't you agree?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100298462
bvar22
(39,909 posts)..and certainly guilty of gross distortion and partisan spin,
but as a member of DU,
you don't deserve to be ridiculed or mocked.
My Momma taught me better.
....but I guess thats A-OK now that the bar has been lowered.
tledford
(917 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)but as a member of DU,
you don't deserve to be ridiculed or mocked.
My Momma taught me better.
....but I guess thats A-OK now that the bar has been lowered.
...you rec that thread? I mean, some people are offended by the term.
If it makes you feel better about yourself to accuse me of "gross distortion and partisan spin" for calling out a clear distortion, then there is much I can do about it.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Problem is: there shouldn't be anything to exagerate in the first place!
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Post removed
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)comments on the topic are quite interesting.
hlthe2b
(113,850 posts)Shame on them.
pecwae
(8,021 posts)used to complain about Mods on DU2. Frankly, I miss them.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts) As if indefinite detention for a NON-citizen is perfectly A-OK. As are extrajudicial killings. As are drone wars. As are financial crimes My god how far in the toilet "Democratic Party" values as exspoused here have fallen.TransitJohn
(6,937 posts)Nov/Dec 2007 is when it shat the bed. No it just stinks. I miss a lot of the good voices we used to have around here who have been purged. And that this thread stands is a fucking disgrace.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts) At some point you have to decide where you really stand -- it took an O presidency for me to decide I am a Liberal, not a Democrat, first and foremost. This site has been struggling mightily with that decision since Jr. went buh-bye.
CrispyQ
(40,945 posts)I used to believe that voting for the lesser of two evils was the thing to do, but when we continue to vote like this, politicians like Obama are fine with moving even further to the right, because we've shown that we will still support them. At what point are we voting for republican values instead of democratic values?
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)they will continue to act this way. I am moving past "lesser of two evils" myself and into "A&E's Intervention" territory -- Dems, if you do X, these will be the consequences.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)citizens"
But the Mitt Romney administration will.
a simple pattern
(608 posts)that you will receive no answer to this.
BklnDem75
(2,918 posts)The outrage is just as hilarious. All of a sudden, criticism must be stifled.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)for a loooong time to come.
BklnDem75
(2,918 posts)Facts are soooo much better than made up outrage.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)Gotcha.
BklnDem75
(2,918 posts)Did you actually read the OP?
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)and I read all of the responses in the thread.
Prosense did not post any of her own facts, just a couple of vague excerpts.
My opinion is that Prosense will not admit that she was totally wrong over the past few weeks when she declared criticisms of NDAA to be completely without merit. If the bill was so perfect, why did the President need to issue a signing statement?
What's more, a signing statement does not appear to supersede written law and thus can easily be ignored by Obama or future Presidents.
BklnDem75
(2,918 posts)The criticisms of NDAA are without merit, just like every other freak outrage that turned out to be wrong throughout this President's term.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"My opinion is that Prosense will not admit that she was totally wrong over the past few weeks when she declared criticisms of NDAA to be completely without merit. If the bill was so perfect, why did the President need to issue a signing statement?"
...would I admit I'm wrong when I'm not? When did I "declared criticisms of NDAA to be completely without merit"?
It seems your problem is focusing too much on me.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)in a new thread? Or are only certain posters allowed to do this? I seem to remember this was a pretty big deal on DU2.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)2 weeks ago you, and many others were slamming anyone you could about how the NDAA had no provisions for holing American citizens.
Now you are saying the bill was so bad that Obama had to issue a signing statement saying he wouldn't use it.
So just a quick question. Are you admitting you were wrong about the bill?
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)You will know them by their words!
yurbud
(39,405 posts)CrispyQ
(40,945 posts)
slay
(7,670 posts)so lets see so far you have attacked David Swanson, Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, and Cenk Uygur. If Obama winning re-election is so important to you that you feel he can not win unless you throw every progressive under the bus - all you will accomplish is alienating progressives and showing us once again why we should all vote for someone other than Obama in the primaries if at all possible.
*Oh and in case anyone missed it - just look at ProSense's posts over the last week or so and you will see all the attacks I mentioned. I'm not calling him/her out - just stating facts.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)takes obama's worthless signing statement and jams it up our collective asses! so fucking laugh it up!!!
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Oh wait...damn.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts) girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)so everyone can see what an absolute embarrassment Prosense is to this community.
indeed
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"so everyone can see what an absolute embarrassment Prosense is to this community."
I'm 100 percent sure this isn't going have the intended consequence, but the spotlight will certainly be on you.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Do you mean the same David Swanson that announced to the world that Obama had 'scrapped' the withdrawal from Iraq?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8326038&mesg_id=8326038
So, we elected a president who promised a withdrawal from Iraq that he, or the generals who tell him what to do, is now further delaying. And, of course, the timetable he's now delaying was already a far cry from what he had promised as a candidate.
or the David Swanson who repeates the tired right wing lies that FDR lied us into WWII?
and in the same article announces to the world that
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/davidswanson/1294
"Hitler killed millions of Germans, but the allies killed as many or more, Germans ordered into battle by Hitler or Germans in the wrong place when allied bombs fell."
No as it is laughable it makes my stomach turn to see people fall for this crap.
For the record about German scholarship puts deaths by allied bombing at about 500,000 and total civilian deaths from the allied invasion at less than a million.
All of the deaths of German soldiers should be layed at Hitler's door since he is the only reason that they died. The total number of Germans estimated to have died from the war from all causes besides the extermination of civilians by the Nazis.
But all of that doesn't make any difference to nuts like Swanson that are always trying to establish a false equvilency between the US and the worst regime of the time.
And in making his case he will use any untruth possible. Swanson approaches the historical record the same way a fundamentalist approaches the bible, he has a predetermined opinion of what he wants history to say and will pick out a fact to make his case even if out of context it isn't the least bit true. If he can't find the fact he is looking for he will just make a sweeping statement that sounds justified but, in fact, has no truth to it at all.
In this case I am all laughed out.
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)The poster ProSense is calling out is not at issue here.
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)And would otherwise belong in the Lounge.
If NDAA is what is at issue then ProSense is coming out in favor of it.
So, a question for all the center-left democrats: Why isn't support for this legislation a TOS violation? Let's see, we instaban people who have "reservations" about gay marriage, but support for indefinite detentions and military detentions on US soil is insufficient proof that someone is not supportive of Democratic principles?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)That tactic disgusts me.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I like that some people and groups are pushing for peace and civil liberties. Id be scared if they werent out there.
Like in many other cases, I think he is wrong here. Congress had the votes to override the President if he had vetoed and that is exactly what would have happened. There would have been no win by a veto. In fact, that veto would have ended up harming him and the Democratic party.
That sucks, but that's the truth. I dont mind charging the machine gun nests if there is a point. That point would have been drowned out in this case by the charge that the President vetoed not to fund troops in the field. Again, that sucks but that is what would have happened.
So, David jumps the shark on occasion, and this is one of them IMHO, but again, I'm glad he is out there.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Did he make any effort to get the votes he needed to be able to over ride Congress? I have not seen any information on what efforts he made, especially since he initially said he would veto it.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)It was pretty unanimous legislation (unfortunately MIC appropriations always are, especially in an election year, because the American people love warmongering).
Obama could've vetoed but he would've been overridden and then the Republicans would've used it as political ammo against him.
I think he would've vetoed were it not for Feinstein's amendment (which passed 99-1).
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)And resulted in numerous battles with Congress. In fact it killed the Democratic Party in the south.
So i guess constitutional rights are not as important as getting reelected. LBJ is looking better every passing day.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Once that got fixed then he just decided to go with it. There's some good stuff in there, albeit minimal at best, it's mostly MIC funding which the American people adore.
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)
At least a veto would have shown that someone takes the issue seriously.joshcryer
(62,536 posts)...as long as we keep electing MIC lovers.
The Democrats (and a few Republicans) tried ending AMUF (since we're no longer in Iraq), it failed hard (30/60 if I recall correctly). Next Republican President could just unilaterally invade Iraq again if he wanted to. Shit like that needs to end and the only way to do so reliably, long term, is to oust the Republicans.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)a result of those fights. Charging the machine gun nests was worth it in that case.
All that would have been remembered from an Obama veto of this bill would be that he voted to defund the troops in the field. Nothing antiwar or pro civil liberties would have been advanced. And he would have looked weaker on top of it as all Presidents do when their vetoes are over-ridden.
Take a look at the votes in the house and senate and give me an example of a Presidents veto that stuck after congress voted so overwhelmingly for a bill.
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)donheld
(21,331 posts)girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)"Go ahead. I spend quite a bit of time laughing at you."
...I don't even know who the hell you are.
So permit me:
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)Donheld with 20k plus posts, here and active as hell in GD since 2004.
If you spent less time spamming your blue links, you might actually get to know your fellow DUers.
great white snark
(2,646 posts)Information you no likey is certainly not spam. Accomplishments that might remind you of your ungratefulness are not spam. Repeated postings of said Democratic accomplishments on a Democratic forum are not spam.
Pro has 78k plus posts and is no spammer.
jannyk
(4,810 posts)"Pro has 78k plus posts"
In 3 years! All blue links, no interaction - that's 'spam'.
good call - i've noticed the same thing.
donheld
(21,331 posts) Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)'Accomplishments that might remind you of your ungratefulness are not spam.'
Don't you think gratefulness is for serfs?
'
Bobbie Jo
(14,344 posts)Hence the hostility. I guess it's a blow to the ego when your confirmation bias is exposed repeatedly.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)And yes, I do consider the repeated reposting of the same info -- factual or not -- spamming. The OP has a very well-known reputation for offering links and very little else to the debate. I do not believe that adds to the community that DU is supposed to be.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)I don't think that counts in a pissing contest.
I don't know who donheld is either.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)Just noting that someone who has spent so much time here should be aware of who their fellow DUers are. If you are actually trying to be part of an online community instead of a propagandist, that is.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)How is this thread still up?!
If this were a grave-dancing thread it would have been locked a long time ago...on DU2, that is. David Swanson hasn't even been tombstoned!
Leopolds Ghost
(12,875 posts)Let the crap float to the top so that it can be skimmed off by discerning drinkers.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Some free speech.
getdown
(525 posts)As sloppy and loose with facts as it was presented from the get go.
Yes, why is it still up?
And why have so many got so little respect for those who fight the good fight FOR their lazy asses?
Quantess
(27,630 posts)threads like these would have been locked within the first 30 minutes, back in the DU2 days.
getdown
(525 posts)that might be a start.
he could research right on DU! maybe
or www.afterdowningstreet.org
Festivito
(13,879 posts)But, I'm glad for the openness of the list.
Old and In the WayOne of the 99mzmollyCognitive_ResonanceItchinjimmonmouthyoung but wisepnormanonenoteJNelson6563SidDithersFSogolMineralManBklnDem75treestarSunsetDreamsSwedeJTFrogTarheel_DemBobbie JoTheWraithwatrwefitinformopinkoScurrilousMajor Hogwashsufrommichgreatauntoftripletsuponit7771AtomicKittengrantcartDenzil_DCRFKHumphreyObamaapocalypsehowmusette_sfNYC_SKPBumRushDaShowOneTenthofOnePercent
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"What's sad about DU3 is that the list of recommenders cannot be easily set on ignore."
...not embarrassing in the slightest. This is:
David Swanson: Obama Crowned Himself King on New Year’s Eve
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002104244
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/david-swanson/40482/infiltrating-congress
Ron Paul on Cordray appointment: ‘The president is not a dictator or a king’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002124972
Crackpots Do Not Make Good Messengers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002112129
Festivito
(13,879 posts)They're good points.
Why you put notations by DU links to what turn out to be other writers, other than the one you spend a whole thread saying you don't like, is questionable.
So, why did you do that?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)Bitterly attacking the powerless in defense of the powerful, day after day, with divisive and shallow rhetoric or derisive and unpleasant ad hominem. I would not want my nom de plume attached to any of it.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Did you know I have a fan club: http://www.democraticunderground.com/124020508
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)Lucky you!!1! 