While we discussed Duck Robertson, and his dynasty, our liberties were voided.

[truedelphi]

US Senate quietly passed the authorization for indefinite detention and renditioning of Americans.

Oh and that TPP thing-ee is still steamrolling right along.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

1. I'm looking at Thomas and I don't see what you're talkign about.

Can you please post a link?

Thanks!

[lordsummerisle]

2. Do you have a link? n/t

[IDemo]

4. Here is one:

Last edited Sun Dec 22, 2013, 09:17 PM - Edit history (2)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c113:4:./temp/~c113kz3zq0::

[icymist]

5. That looks like a RW site...

Click on the front page and you'll see stories about Obama's third false flag rounding up all the men, women, and children in America, another story about how those bad gays activists are attacking poor Phil Robertson, and don't forget to be afraid of China! Nope, bad choice of web sites there.

[IDemo]

7. Thanks, updated

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c113:4:./temp/~c113kz3zq0::

[El_Johns]

3. Link please?

[Holly_Hobby]

6. KnR! n/t

[MineralMan]

8. Where is the link to your source for this, please?

[Lex]

9. And this wouldn't have happened had we been talking about something else?

I don't think so.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

10. My Oregon senators were two of 15 to vote against this bill.

Better wake up.

[davidn3600]

11. The government is never going to give up its power

Once it has power, it never gives it up. It just gets more and more ugly.

At least be happy we are living now, and will likely be dead for when the shit really hits the fan. But our grand kids are going to suffer...bad. We now have a government that is obsessed with information. It wants to know everything about everyone. It views every person, citizen or not, as a potential criminal. And it doesn't care about the Bill of Rights. And the scary thing is...we don't have any control over it at all. The rich and the corporations control the entire political system. We are at their whim.

[reACTIONary]

19. Where do you live? Russia? (nt)

[truedelphi]

20. No I am betting she lives in the United States, a land where

Real unemployment is over 13%; many jobs are low paying yet require a college degree for which the student must take out expensive loans, where we are about to lose our soil and water so Big Energy Companies can frack the F___ out of our lives, where oru elections are charades in which both parties have the candidate pre-selected by the One percent, etc.

Things our society needs, like Universal Single Payer HC for everyone, or upgrades to a fragile and crumbling infra-structure are not monetarily possible, according to the president's economic advisers. But hey, this OP was about the passing of a 600 billions plus "Defense Authorization" Act. So consider what Bernie Sanders said about why he voted Nay on an Act which takes away even more money for any meaningful type of Peace Dividend:

From Sanders Web feed:
Thursday, December 19, 2013

WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 – The Senate set a vote for late tonight on a Department of Defense bill that would authorize $625 billion for the military. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said he will vote “no” and issued the following statement:

“At a time when the United States has a $17.2 trillion national debt and when we spend almost as much on defense as the rest of the world combined, the time is long overdue for us to take a hard look at the waste, cost overruns and financial mismanagement that have plagued the huge Defense Department for years.

“The situation is so absurd that the Pentagon is unable to even account for how it spends its money. Earlier this year, the Government Accountability Office cited its inability to audit the Pentagon. They wrote that they were unable to do a comprehensive financial analysis due to ‘serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense that made its financial statements un-auditable.’

“I support a strong defense system for our country and a robust National Guard and Reserve that can meet our domestic and foreign challenges. At a time, however, when the country has a $17.2 trillion national debt and is struggling with huge unmet needs, it is unacceptable that the Defense Department continues to waste massive amounts of money.”

[reACTIONary]

26. The United States, a land where...

... the only thing we have to be happy about is that we are at the very least living? (sure.)
... where we will likely be dead because the shit is really going to hit the fan? (uh huh.)
... and where our grand kids are going suffer. Not just suffer, but suffer bad? (oh yes.)
... where we are all, including citizens, viewed as potential criminals? (right.)

This is a ludicrous, over-the-top, histrionic characterization - even if it were Russia that was being described.

(And the original post, IMHO, seems to suffer from the same out-of-this-world sort of panic attack.)

Chill!

[MineralMan]

12. Ah, you mean the defense authorization bill...

You can say so. Did you suppose they would not pass this? Really?

[WillyT]

13. Hey true... Did You Catch THIS:

DULink: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024200316

[truedelphi]

32. Great catch, thanks for getting me over to it. n/t

[Curmudgeoness]

14. I just read through the whole summary of the bill

and I saw nothing close to "indefinite detention and renditioning of Americans". I suppose that might not have been included in the summary, but this summary basically highlighted any changes to what we have for FY 2013.

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=127E1D4B-DD70-4B69-80DC-A036DA7B3519

[truedelphi]

16. I don't know for sure, but I get tweet feeds from Bernie Sanders and from ACLU

And other sites and this is my concern:



There is worrisome language inside Section 1071 of the version of the 2014 NDAA that was voted for by the House and Senate committees this week that it "grows" the scope of surveillance established by the Patriot Act and the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).

Inside the Section 1071(a) there is the authorization for the secretary of defense to “establish a center to be known as the ‘Conflict Records Research Center.’” According to the text of the latest version of the NDAA, the center’s task would be to compile a “digital research database including translations and to facilitate research and analysis of records captured from countries, organizations, and individuals, now or once hostile to the United States.”

In order to accomplish the center’s purpose, the secretary of defense will create an information exchange in cooperation with the director of national intelligence.

Key to the functioning of this information exchange will be the collection of “captured records.” Section 1071(g)(1), defines a captured record as “a document, audio file, video file, or other material captured during combat operations from countries, organizations, or individuals, now or once hostile to the United States.”
- See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/bigger-badder-ndaa-2014-quietly-passed-the-house-and-senate-yesterday-and-it-is-on-the-way-to-obamas-desk_122013#sthash.Ve8d9Hhf.dpuf

[Curmudgeoness]

17. Oh, I don't disagree that there are concerns.

I was just addressing the right wing meme that I have been hearing for quite some time regarding "US Senate quietly passed the authorization for indefinite detention and renditioning of Americans". So far, I have seen this no place except in wingnut emails that I get. Until I have any evidence, I am chalking this down as tin foil hat.

[truedelphi]

22. Just because an issue may be debateable, doesn't mean that a person should

get out the "Tinfoil" designation.

Even writers at Mother Jones are cautiously debating what is going on.

[ProSense]

15. It's

"While we discussed Duck Robertson, and his dynasty, our liberties were voided.

US Senate quietly passed the authorization for indefinite detention and renditioning of Americans"

...possible to focus on two issues at one time.

ACLU: Senate Eases Transfer Restrictions for Guantánamo Detainees
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024208484

"My Facebook Note Re: Phil Robertson"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024206915

[Blue_Tires]

18. And while you created this thread, our livable environment falls further out of balance

(hey, I'm allowed to be pissed off over the inaction for my critical issues, too, right?)

[woo me with science]

21. Well done. The resident corporate defense team does NOT like this thread.

You upset them when you explicitly reveal the propaganda that is used to divide and distract us, instead of lapping it up like good sheeple are supposed to.

Thank you.

[truedelphi]

25. Thank you, woo me.

[bvar22]

35. I'll thank you too.

DURec.

[politichew]

23. Fringe bullshit.

Know how I know?

Ted Cruz is peddling this woo.

[truedelphi]

24. I am going to put myself out on a limb here and say this:

In terms of my civil liberties, I applaud any and all who support those liberties.

If Democrats can't have their members looking out to protect my civil rights as an American, I accept anyone who will.

I was absolutely ashamed as a Democrat of the fact that it was SOLELY Rand Paul who gave an overwhelmingly passionate defense of our liberties sometime in the last year, when NDAA provisions were being set in stone.

Where are our leaders on this? For one thing, one of "our " leaders," Diane Feinstein is usually busy leaking insider Surveillance Info to her spouse so she and he can score on contract for surveillance that will enrich their own coffers while tightening the nooses around the necks of regular citizens.

On edit: BTW, TruthOut, not exactly known as a RW voice for RW propaganda, was also concerned about NDAA 2014:

http://truth-out.org/news/item/17070-indefinite-surveillance-say-hello-to-the-national-defense-authorization-act-of-2014

[reACTIONary]

28. Yep, Rand Paul, great champion of Civil Liberties...

... for racist bigots.

He isn't a racist - but he wants to do everything he can to help them out!

[politichew]

29. +1

[truedelphi]

30. I didn't say I support his racist policies -

I said I would support anyone who support my civil liberties, on that issue.

And I try to interest, for instance, my Blue Dawgie Representative, Mike Thompson on the issues of civil liberties, but he is too busy looking out for his own interests to care much.

It is a sad state of affairs when almost no one inside the Beltway gives a damn about anything but their own insider deals.

[reACTIONary]

33. I'm sure you would not...

... support racist policies, and apologize for any imputation to the contrary. However...

I think the issue is a bit deeper than racist policies that Paul may or may not support. It has to do with the libertarian conception of "civil liberties," and whether or not Rand Paul and his like are authentic supporters of civil liberties.

Paul, and many of his supporters, have spoken out against the Civil Rights Act of 1964's provisions against racial discrimination in commerce and in employment. The fact that racist bigots are forced by the law to deal fairly and equally with their fellow citizens of another race in commercial transactions is, in their mind, a violation of the "civil liberties" of racist bigots. According to them, these bigots are not being allowed to "express themselves" through their public actions and are being deprived by the "national security state" of their right to live their lives as they see fit. They believe that the Civil Right Act is actually a fundamental violation of civil liberties in principle.

Unless you accept that, you might want to consider that their ideology and their defense of quote-"civil liberties"-unquote is not in the service of what you and I would consider to be civil liberties, but rather a defense of a radical, reactionary, conservatism that would degrade, undermine and ultimately destroy what we consider to be legitimate and authentic liberty.

In this context, we maybe should be careful about applauding "any and all" who support those liberties when many amongst them passionately believe that "those liberties" include the "liberty" to discriminate against others in employment and commerce, the "liberty" to employee children as wage-slaves in coal mines, and the "liberty" to turn your back on our children and do away with public education. This is the essence of what Rand Paul stands for - this is what he means when he talks about "civil liberties" - he does us no favors and he deserves no applause.

Civil liberties are not absolute and without bound, and they do not have meaning or value as mere context free abstractions. In order to have a real and meaningful existence in our lives they must be preserved and protected within the context of a nation state that defines and enforces justice within our boundaries, and protects the independence of our people to establish and support our conception of justice from threats originating outside those boundaries. Our military and our intelligence services are doing far, far more for our civil liberties than Rand Paul will ever do - and they truly deserve your applause.

[U4ikLefty]

36. "Our military and our intelligence services" deserve our applause???

[reACTIONary]

37. Yep...

[reACTIONary]

27. Exactly right. Fringe Fear. (nt)

[truedelphi]

31. So it's is Fringe Fear, and yet

Mother Jones and Truthout have writers concerned about it.

[reACTIONary]

34. That fact does not contradict...

... the notion that it may be fringe fear.