"President Barack Obama has signed a death knell for the Bill of Rights."

[Better Believe It]

2012's Civil Liberties Apocalypse Has Already Happened
by Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis
January 19, 2012


In case you missed it, President Barack Obama has signed a death knell for the Bill of Rights.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) makes a mockery of our basic civil liberties. It shreds the intent of the Founders to establish a nation where essential rights are protected. It puts us all at risk for arbitrary, indefinite incarceration with no real rights to recourse.

.... it also includes Sections 1021 and 1022, bitterly opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch, among many others. The New York Times urged Obama to veto the bill because of them. The UK-based Guardian said NDAA 2012 allows allows for indefinite detention of US citizens "without trial [of] American terrorism subjects arrested on U.S. soil, who could then be shipped to Guantanamo Bay." The Kansas City Star was equally blunt, stating that the NDAA is "trampling the bill of rights in defense's name."

Section 1021 reasserts the President's authority to use the military to detain any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners." It also includes the military's power to detain anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies under the law of war. Despite widespread public pressure, Obama did not veto the bill. In his signing statement he said: "I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists."

Read the full article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/19-10


Harvey Wasserman is senior advisor to Greenpeace USA and the Nuclear Information & Resource Service. He and Bob Fitrakis have co-authored four books on election protection, including Did George W. Bush Steal America's 2004 Election?, As Goes Ohio: Election Theft Since 2004 , How the GOP Stole America's 2004 Election & Is Rigging 2008, and What Happened in Ohio. BBI

-----------------------------------------------------------------------



President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Into Law
December 31, 2011

President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) today, allowing indefinite detention to be codified into law. As you know, the White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use it and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations.

The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.

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, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.

We are extremely disappointed that President Obama signed this bill even though his administration is already claiming overly-broad detention authority in court. Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back those claims dimmed today. Thankfully we have three branches of government, and the final word on the scope of detention authority belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA’s detention authority.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/NDAA


-----------------------------------------------------------------------



US: Refusal to Veto Detainee Bill A Historic Tragedy for Rights
President Decides to Sign Ill-Conceived National Defense Authorization Act
December 14, 2011

Washington, DC) – US President Barack Obama’s apparent decision to not veto a defense spending bill that codifies indefinite detention without trial into US law and expands the military’s role in holding terrorism suspects does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad, Human Rights Watch said today. The Obama administration had threatened to veto the bill, the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), over detainee provisions, but on December 14, 2011, it issued a statement indicating the president would likely sign the legislation.

“By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side.”

The far-reaching detainee provisions would codify indefinite detention without trial into US law for the first time since the McCarthy era when Congress in 1950 overrode the veto of then-President Harry Truman and passed the Internal Security Act. The bill would also bar the transfer of detainees currently held at Guantanamo into the US for any reason, including for trial. In addition, it would extend restrictions, imposed last year, on the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo to home or third countries – even those cleared for release by the administration.

“It is a sad moment when a president who has prided himself on his knowledge of and belief in constitutional principles succumbs to the politics of the moment to sign a bill that poses so great a threat to basic constitutional rights,” Roth said.

Read the full article at:

http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/14/us-refusal-veto-detainee-bill-historic-tragedy-rights

[SidDithers]

1. Keep trying...nt

Sid

[spanone]

2. +1000

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

21. +1,000,000! It is so clear to me what's going on here at DU. Obama-Biden 2012!! n/t

[tallahasseedem]

33. +1

It's getting ridiculous.

[AtomicKitten]

44. + 1

[Tarheel_Dem]

73. Thank you Sid!

[WCGreen]

84. Yep....

A lot of hype to get the donations running...

[dionysus]

99. now sid, don't piss in anyone's bowl of trollios...

[Number23]

106. Sid, please. Like he needs ANY damn encouragement

[SunsetDreams]

134. Hyperbole is the new facts

"death knell" please! Oh well anything to get reader ship rolling in, heck that's not even the title of the actual article.

Hmmm Apocalypse or death knell...which one is more hyperbolic? Both mean you're suppose to haul it PDQ and get off the street and button down the hatches!

[Zalatix]

143. Yeah, the ACLU is all about hyperbole.

I'm voting for Obama in 2012 but this is certainly a negative mark on his record.

[SunsetDreams]

146. The article co authored by Green Party Bob Fitrakis is hyperbole

I'm voting for Obama in 2012 as well, and while I agree that it is not a high mark for his Presidency...to use hyperbole in order to cause FEAR is over the top. Death knell and Apocalypse? please! The authors need to worry more about how to fix this than using hyperbolic terms in order to scare up readers. More readers and hits...more money in their pockets. What gets me is there doesn't seem to be very many news outlets/media out there willing to tell the straight truth instead of using buzz words and hyperbole laden articles in order to line their pockets with more money. People just take it and run with it instead of writing Congress and flooding their lines which would matter more because that is where the true problem lies right now.

[Zalatix]

151. Yea, this is an attempt to get more readers and hits. However...

The straight truth? Sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA do in fact authorize the Government to imprison anyone who pisses the Government off.

Any time you have a law that allows for indefinite detention without a trial, you have shot the Constitution DEAD. You've left a hole in its heart that is just waiting for someone to come through. This is like someone repealing the 1st Amendment and saying it's not a death knell because no one has come knocking on your door yet.

With the NDAA around, the difference between America and China is how often this law's harshest aspects are actually invoked.

The responsible thing to do, as you said, is to flood Congress with calls. Not sure what the point is now though, since it is law, and Congress is loathe to undo a law they just passed. See: USAPATRIOT... sigh.

[SunsetDreams]

155. The Problem is really with the AUMF of 2001

That is the existing law that is out there that is now codified. I don't agree with the term "imprison anyone who pisses the Government off". The law is set up for known and suspected terrorists who would plot against the United States. I do agree that it needs to be fixed, so that there is no room for doubt as to who they are referring to. The NDAA is a yearly budget and expenditures law that has been passed for the last 49 years. This one is for 2012 only, and President Obama made clear in his signing statement that his administration would not be using it. Does it suck that he signed it? Absolutely. I wish he hadn't of signed it. Unfortunately, I believe his hands were tied, because to NOT sign it, would have meant that things like Military pay would have been on hold. The Military has to feed their families too.

I blame Congress, specifically the Republicans who put that in the bill knowing that, that late in the game he would have no choice but to sign it. I am glad that he made the signing statement and registered his disapproval for parts of the bill. He couldn't veto only part of the bill, he would have had to veto all of it. Our job now, is to call and write congress and register our disapproval for their games in inserting this outlandish language in the bill that codifies existing law. It will hopefully make them think twice about inserting it in next years NDAA, or any other law. They like to get re-elected and this is the perfect year to do it.

[Zalatix]

156. Yeah, that's the best way to fight back, make sure it doesn't get slipped into the NDAA again.

Now we just need to get the calls rolling in.

[SunsetDreams]

158. Yes and get them to Vote for S.2003 - Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011

S.2003 - Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011

A bill to clarify that an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States and for other purposes.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s2003/show

[cthulu2016]

3. The hyperbolic headline doesn't help

It makes serious issues seem dismissable.

I garee with the ACLU et al, but this is not a singular civil rights event. It is part of a long ongoing process of erosion.

[Mojorabbit]

28. I agree nt

[elleng]

4. ...

[FSogol]

5. Cut and Paste!, Cut and Paste!

[mfcorey1]

6. El toro poo poo again!

[gratuitous]

7. Please to wait until they come for you

Any of this Jeffersonian "alarm bell in the night" concern is just so much posturing and pointless angst, designed to stir up groundless fear. You must wait until things have gotten completely out of hand before registering your objection. At which time, you will be tut-tutted for not speaking up sooner, and really it's for the best, and why are you such a Debbie Downer, anyway? Meanwhile, comfort yourself with the knowledge that you just don't understand how The Real World works and that President Obama's fiendishly clever and subtle 12-level chess move is just beyond the comprehension of you wild-eyed fringe dwellers. Please learn to focus less on results and more on rhetoric. What could possibly go wrong?

[MisterP]

48. not only that, but if you're against NDAA you're a GOP plant undermining liberalism

if you support AUMF, NDAA, SOPA you're a true liberal

[FredStembottom]

183. +1000

What!? Me worry!?!

[ProSense]

8. Interesting

that you didn't post Human Rights Watch's latest piece:

Letter to President Obama: End Detention Without Trial and Close Guantanamo
http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/01/10/letter-president-obama-end-detention-without-trial-and-close-guantanamo

Posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002157001

[think]

35. It is a great relief that Obama did use a signing statement in regards to the NDAA

It is unfortunate that the headline solo's out Obama. A better headline would make note that almost our entire Senate voted for this legislation.

In fact here were only 13 Senators that did not vote for it:

The 13 senators who voted against the bill were Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Rand Paul (R-Ky.),

Full Article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/15/indefinite-military-detention-bill-passes_n_1152114.html

[Logical]

129. When have you ever posted anything critical of Obama? Don't lecture the OP about what you...

always do.

[ProSense]

174. Hmmm?

"When have you ever posted anything critical of Obama? Don't lecture the OP about what you...always do."

It wasn't a lecture, it was an observation. I mean, you don't have to read HRW's letter.

FYI, I will make whatever observations I damn well want to. Feel free to respond with your absurd demands.

[Logical]

176. Why the useless one word subject lines? Your calling card I guess.

[ProSense]

178. To

"Why the useless one word subject lines? Your calling card I guess."

...get your attention. It worked.

[Logical]

179. I always look for your posts first in any OP that says anything except "Obama is Perfect".....

It amuses me to see what length some people will go to defend even wrong decisions. Obama has been a good president and 1000 times better than any GOP candidate. But 100% supporting and defending everything he has done is as ridiculous as the Bush defenders were.

[ProSense]

180. Here

I always look for your posts first in any OP that says anything except "Obama is Perfect".....

It amuses me to see what length some people will go to defend even wrong decisions. Obama has been a good president and 1000 times better than any GOP candidate. But 100% supporting and defending everything he has done is as ridiculous as the Bush defenders were.

... was my first comment in this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002192234#post8

Still, I'm flattered that you're stalking me. Enjoy!

[Logical]

181. Stalking means I give a shit. I don't. I really just do it for entertainment.

[ProSense]

182. It's

"Stalking means I give a shit. I don't. I really just do it for entertainment."

...stalking for "entertainment"?

OK!

It's still creepy!

[Logical]

202. You just don't like being called out when you are wrong. It is within the rules!

[FarLeftFist]

9. Eff it, lets all stay home on election day. That'll show Obama and that veto-proof congress!

[cthulu2016]

10. The Daily Hate also doesn't help

At some point the swarming schoolyard taunts in BBI threads start to suggest the question, what is so laughable and vomit-worthy about ACLU press releases?

[kenny blankenship]

199. When they hear the letters ACLU

that's when they reach for their revolvers.

[emilyg]

11. knr

[Octafish]

64. +1

The Bill of Rights still matters to me, I don't care who the "president" is.

[emilyg]

88. It should matter to ALL.

[Capn Sunshine]

120. You got that right

however I don't think a law designed to prevent Al Quaeda and Al Quaeda only from operating inside this country is going to cause the death knell of anything. That language is amazingly histrionic. But it IS good for fundraising.

Octafish is spot on about the gradual erosion as the executive assumes more power. Obama's advisores, and Obama as a Constitutional scholar himself believe in strong exercise of the Executive Branch Power.

But having worked with and known the President and many of his advisors for years I trust them to do the right thing.

Others here, not so much.

[FredStembottom]

184. Believe me, we are all relying on pure trust that these new powers...

...will not be construed so as to put others in jeopardy.

The very essence of personality politics.

I prefer the Bill of Rights.

[BlueIris]

200. emilyg!

Good to see you. Howz it going?

[emilyg]

204. Doing ok. How about you.?

[BlueIris]

209. Can't complain, all things considered. nt

[DevonRex]

12. Run for your lives!!!!!!!!! Barack is really Damian in The Omen.

Bo turns into the Hound of Hell at night!!!!!!!!!!!

[Better Believe It]

17. Do you have an opinion on the ACLU and Human Rights Watch statements?

I'll read it.

[DevonRex]

20. I'm stuck on "death knell." That's what hyperbole does. nt

[Better Believe It]

24. Try to get unstuck and read the other two articles if you respect the ACLU and Human Rights Watch

[DevonRex]

25. Really, no thank you. Hyperbole is a complete turnoff. nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

100. Then I'll hope you'll curtail posting in this thread due to your self-imposed ignorance

[DevonRex]

111. Aren't you just the sweetest thing!!

Bless your lil ole heart

[TBF]

166. Although northerners may not understand

I sure get this post and your lack of civility is noted.

[DevonRex]

195. Good. Nt

[Puglover]

163. Best post yet! We can only hope that would happen with many posters.

[Bobbie Jo]

171. Present company included. nt

[Zalatix]

152. S/he couldn't care what the ACLU and Human Rights Watch say. They are Obama haters.

Criticism of any sort = hatred of Obama. You'll be the first one they come for.

I'll be the second.

(Although it probably won't be Obama who sends the thugs after me - it'll be a Repug President who seized upon the powers the NDAA grants him/her.)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

23. Oh, shit!!!

[sabrina 1]

114. Well no one said that, but the Director of Human Rights Watch did say this:

“By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side.”

Do you disagree with him? That last time a bill similar to this was passed, it passed OVER THE VETO of the president, in the McCarthy era. But at least that president's place in history is assured. He tried to stop it.

[ProfessorGAC]

161. You Do Realize This Is Opinion Not Fact?

So, if a guy from HRW has an opinion we are not allowed to disagree.

Well, that's intellectually lazy. All one has to do is find the opinion of someone with the credentials assigned an interest group and the discussion's over? How convenient.

Just because this guy has extended toward hyperbolically comparing this signing to McCarthy era legislation doesn't mean i have to agree. I think he's being ridiculous and i don't believe he has the special wisdom required to take his opinion as the fact you would like it to be.
GAC

[sabrina 1]

185. Of course we are allowed to disagree, but I saw no one even address what he said in

this thread, all I saw was a lot of childish behavior and insults directed towards the OP.

[mythology]

207. Perhaps that's reflective of people's opinion of the original poster

Personally I find the absolute dedication to finding everything Barack Obama, and seemingly just Barack Obama, does as horrible is rather amusing. But when you post articles claiming that Barack Obama has killed the Bill of Rights, you're likely to attract some mockery on a site primarily geared toward Democrats.

I imagine if someone had gone to Free Republic during the Bush presidency and tried to constantly post similarly over the top articles, that they would not have been tolerated nearly as long.

[sharp_stick]

13. I keep waiting to see an original post

instead of the always predictable commondreams dreck.

It's been a long wait and I'm pretty much ready to throw in the towel.

[Better Believe It]

19. And what is your opinion on the ACLU and Human Rights Watch statements?

If you have one, post it!

[sharp_stick]

26. I provided opinions on them

weeks ago when they were written and heavily reposted and reposted and reposted and reposted. The only "new" thing here is the comically predictable commondreams rant and the comically predictable over the top subject line.

[Better Believe It]

58. Really? Will you provide links to your opinions?

[Capn Sunshine]

121. can you provide links besides Common Dreams and IhateObama.com?

just wondering about the extent of your intellectual curiosity.

[Better Believe It]

135. You're now being put on ignore for your constant personal attacks.

If you'd rather engage in trash talk rather than civil debate and discussion perhaps you should look for a different discussion board.

Bye.

[Capn Sunshine]

136. excellent

because I'd rather you didn't bother to read what I have to say. It's not germane to your world where the President is some kind of evil dictator and the only solution is electing a republican, because.....oh, right, that's where I just don't follow that line of thought.
What's funny about people who use the ignore feature , that I never understood, why bother? Unless there is such a long list of people you don't agree with that you might find yourself accidentally reading something you don't like. If that's the case, it might just be that you are posting at the wrong website. Firedoglake is just a click away. Don't bullshit me. You're reading this anyway.

[JNelson6563]

165. ROFL Coming from you, that means a lot! No, really!

Master of the cut and paste hit pieces demanding those who reply give an opinion?? lolz


If you posted a few sentences of original thought from time to time, you may have a little credibility in such matters but you don't. Fucking ever.

I can only guess you are working with some seriously burdensome quotas or something, poor soul.

Ah well, you can always drink yourself silly when we Democrats win ANOTHER election! All those posts, for nothing!!1!

Hilarious! So transparent!

Julie--who marvels that anyone buys into this schtick at all anymore

[Bobbie Jo]

169. That just about sums up.

Perfect description.

[treestar]

14. So how is the ACLU still operating?

Why haven't the black booted thugs appeared yet?

[Better Believe It]

15. What is your opinion on the ACLU and Human Rights Watch statements?

I'm listening.

[ProfessorGAC]

34. You're Listening? Really?

The question that poster posed was his opinion. It's your fault if it sailed past you.
GAC

[Better Believe It]

54. Has "treestar" asked for your assistance in answering my question or do you normally answer ....

questions that are not directed to you?

I believe that "treestar" is fully capable of answering my question without your "help".

[LanternWaste]

65. Much as you are capable of answering Treestar's question...

Much as you are capable of answering Treestar's question...

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. (However, I do realize we often hold those with different opinions to higher standards than we hold ourselves...)

[ProfessorGAC]

75. You Do Not Run This Site

And i don't take orders from you.
GAC

[DevonRex]

112. Would you mind telling that to post #100?

I don't think my way wil work as well as yours.

[treestar]

57. That's answering a question with a question, isn't it?

I think the statements may be exaggerated. Or else they couldn't be making them.

[Better Believe It]

59. So the ACLU and Human Rights "statements may be exaggerated" or they may not be ....

"or else they couldn't be making them."

Yikes!

What in the world does that comment mean?

Break it down for me.

Thanks.

[treestar]

125. Since the Bill of Rights is gone

Obama has all power now, no? Obama may now shut down the ACLU for saying that, no?

Indefinitely detain all upon the ACLU premises for terrorism, no?

Why isn't this happening?

That evil Obama is so clever I tell you!

[sabrina 1]

132. The ACLU was still functioning when Bush was shredding the Constitution.

I don't recall anyone on the left using that as proof that our civil liberties were not under attack then. In fact, the outrage over Bush's assault on the Constitution on the Left was so intense that it was a major issue in every election up to the 2008 election.

Did you think Bush's policies were not dangerous to Civil Liberties because the ACLU was still functioning in spite of them?

[treestar]

133. The Death Knell for the Bill of Rights, per the OP, was signed just

recently by PBO. Ergo, apparently the Bill of Rights was still alive during then entire Chimpadministration.

Bush tried, but only the evul Obama pulled it off.

[sabrina 1]

137. What is being said in all of the articles is that with this bill

Bush's policies have now been codified into law making it much more of a threat than it was. And rather than working on reversing those policies by vetoing the bill and leaning on Democrats to vote against it, this President has endorsed Bush's dangerous policies. There is really no argument against that. Which is probably why people are attacking the messenger rather discussing the issue.

When this country faced a similar issue during the McCarthy era the then president vetoed the bill which puts him on the right side of history, even though Congress passed it. This president by signing it, is on the wrong side of history. I have faith that this will be overturned some day. I just wish this president had been the one to at least veto it and show that Democrats take their oaths of office to defend and protect the Constitution seriously.

[Zalatix]

153. You CAN'T be serious, right? If Bush signed this law we'd be in an absolute uproar.

[mfcorey1]

16. GOP Candidates Flub Facts In Republican Debate

GINGRICH: "Under Jimmy Carter, we had the wrong laws, the wrong regulations, the wrong leadership, and we killed jobs. We had inflation. We went to 10.8 percent unemployment. Under Ronald Reagan, we had the right job – the right laws, the right regulators, the right leadership. We created 16 million new jobs."

THE FACTS: Sure, inflation was bad and gas lines long, but under Carter's presidency unemployment never topped 7.8 percent. The unemployment rate did reach 10.8 percent, but not until November 1982, nearly two years into Reagan's first term.

Most economists attribute the jobless increase to a sharp rise in interest rates engineered by then-Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker in an ultimately successful effort to choke off inflation. Unemployment began to fall in 1983 and dropped to 7.2 percent in November 1984, when Reagan easily won re-election.

The economy did add 16 million jobs during Reagan's 1981-1989 presidency. Gingrich's assertion that "we created" them may have left the impression that he was a key figure in that growth. Although Gingrich was first elected to the House in 1978, his first Republican leadership position, as minority whip, began when Reagan left office, in 1989.

___

PAUL: "I had the privilege of practicing medicine in the early `60s, before we had any government (health care). It worked rather well, and there was nobody on the street suffering with no medical care. But Medicare and Medicaid came in and it just expanded."

THE FACTS: Before Medicare was created in the mid-1960s, only about half of the elderly had private insurance for hospital care, and they were facing rising costs for those policies on their fixed incomes. Medicare was hugely contentious at the time, seen by many doctors as a socialist takeover, but few argued that the status quo could be maintained.

A Health, Education and Welfare Department report to Congress in 1959, during the Republican administration of Dwight Eisenhower, took no position on what the federal government should do but stated "a larger proportion of the aged than of other persons must turn to public assistance for payment of their medical bills or rely on `free' care from hospitals and physicians."

Paul advocates a return to an era when doctors would treat the needy for free. But even in the old days, charity came with a cost. Research from the pre-Medicare era shows that the cost of free care was transferred to paying customers and the insurance industry.

[Better Believe It]

22. Your post is way off topic. That could be seen as a violation of DU posting rules.

Do you wish to delete your post?

[Ikonoklast]

29. Actually, is is *exactly* on topic.

The topic you embrace daily is finding any press release, news item, or blogger post to bash Democrats and Obama, the poster you responded to is doing the exact opposite.

How do you feel about the ACLU defending Limbaugh?

[TheKentuckian]

116. Like the Klan, I oppose what he bellows to death but believe he had the right to express it to the

same extent.

[mfcorey1]

36. Cry me a river!

[Better Believe It]

55. Oh I'll do better than that. You're now on ignore!

Bye!

[mfcorey1]

60. Loving it.

[MineralMan]

52. If you believe a reply to you breaks DU rules,

I encourage you to alert on it and let a jury of your peers decide if you are correct.

[sabrina 1]

66. The Republicans agree with this bill. So is your post meant to point out the fact

if Republicans agree with something, we should oppose it? Because if so, I could not agree more.

So far in this thread I have seen no argument against the ACLU's statements, but thank YOU at least for pointing out that Republicans often 'flub facts' in a debate. Not that we didn't know that already.

Any opinion on why they supported this piece of legislation?

[think]

18. There use to be a petition at WhiteHouse. gov but it's gone due to insufficient signatures:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=whitehouse+.govpetition+against+ndaa+2012&oq=whitehouse+.govpetition+against+ndaa+2012&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=5390l6254l0l6419l4l4l0l0l0l1l281l553l0.2.1l3l0

The ACLU still has an email petition for the president if anyone is looking for a quick way to express their concern and disapproval with our government's passing of this draconian piece of legislation:

https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3909&=111215_NDAAveto_ac

[Codeine]

27. Control-V for Victory!

The legions of cutting and pasting march ever on!

[FSogol]

30. LOL. They need a Control-V Flag! n/t

[SidDithers]

39. That's awesome!...

I'm so stealing that.

Sid

[FarLeftFist]

31. HERE'S AN IDEA!:

How about the ACLU find out a way for the President to fund the closure of GITMO while having a 90-6 VETO-PROOF Senate and no one to fund it! Maybe they can donate the funds. Otherwise, they are living in a bubble. Back to reality.

[AtomicKitten]

53. !

http://www.alternet.org/rss/breaking_news/409276/us_congress_blocks_guantanamo_closure/

US Congress blocks Guantanamo closure

US lawmakers have effectively blocked President Barack Obama's efforts to close the controversial terror prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by approving a Pentagon budge that forbids spending money on the move.

[sabrina 1]

67. Here's a thought. Democrats control the Senate.

A Democratic president generally is the leader of his party and is capable of influencing them. You seem to be saying that Obama is not respected by his own party? Or am I reading you wrong?

[FarLeftFist]

76. Here's a thought: People have FREE-WILL whether you agree with them or not.

Besides, then we're back to that pesky lil' funding issue.

[sabrina 1]

81. Well, basically what you are saying is that having a Democratic majority

and the WH means nothing at all. How do you convince people then to vote for Democrats if this is your argument? Do you realize what the response to me will be if I am campaigning and trying to get people to vote for Democrats by saying 'sorry, I know we had a majority, but hey, so what?? It really doesn't work all that well to have a majority'?

We had an expectation that by working hard to get those majorities it WOULD mean something. You are saying, it does not? I hope the Dem Leadership has a better argument than this. Because it's difficult enough to convince people to vote for Democrats without telling them it won't do any good anyhow.

[FarLeftFist]

115. Uhh, apparently you are forgetting the HUGE amount of accomplishments this President has achieved.

Nice way to "accidentally" forget about HOW MUCH policy has passed. The MOST since LBJ. And WITH an even crazier opposition. Good luck shitting on Obama and then thinking Progressivism has any other shot at the WH within the next 5 decades. Way to throw the baby out with the bath water. Wanna convince people to vote D? How about showing them a list of what has been done in such a short period of time. Show them how the alternatives are worse. If that doesn't work you could always break out some charts and graphs and remind them how fucked things were and how they're getting better.

[sabrina 1]

117. I'll be working for Progressive Democrats, very hard in order to remove from Congress

all those who are beholden to Big Business.

And do NOT accuse me of something that exists only in your imagination.

Good luck shitting on Obama

Prove that statement, go through all of my posts and find one that 'shits on Obama' or have the decency to retract it.

Should be easy to do.

[FarLeftFist]

119. I've seen you do it PLENTY of times, besides, I'm not able to go through your posts.

Only your last post it lets me see. I'll point it out next time, just for you. You also go after other posters as well, 99% of the time unprovoked.

[sabrina 1]

124. No, you have not. Now either post an example of my 'shitting on Obama' or this post

will remain as proof that you cannot. I don't know you. I'm flattered that you apparently have been studying me, although I do find it a little creepy frankly.

'Go after other posters'. This is a discussion board. Discussion is now 'going after other posters'. Lots of posters then 'go after' me I suppose. But since I am here to discuss I never actually thought of it as them 'going after' me, no matter how they much we may disagree.

Mmm, I guess you are 'going after' me by your logic.

Wait! I just realized something:

I've seen you do it PLENTY of times, besides, I'm not able to go through your posts.

Only your last post it lets me see. I'll point it out next time, just for you. You also go after other posters as well, 99% of the time unprovoked.

So you can't go through my posts, yet you make an allegation with nothing to back it up. Besides, we do have a search engine btw. A few key words should produce those 'shitting on Obama posts'. If they existed.

Then you make another false allegation which I'm sure you'll tell me you can't back up because you can't find those posts either.

Too funny. Enjoy yourself attacking DUers, we're used to it, btw so you probably won't get much of a thrill out of it, other than losing a lot of credibility when you make these kinds of false statements where people actually know each other and their posting style.

'Shitting on Obama' allegation made and debunked for lack of evidence, because there is none.

Fyi, I criticize policies, never people when it comes to politics. If you were here reading as much as you claim, you would have known that.

[FarLeftFist]

128. Riiiight. Amazing what people tell themselves. Actually, who started this here conversation?

You don't always discuss, you also belittle. Unprovoked. Like this for one example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002184082#post143

I don't really care to continue talking about this either, I'm here for politics, not to have personal issues with people, and I don't know what's to feel creepy about unless you have your own personal issues with people remembering people and what they write. If having a great memory and attention to detail is considered creepy than I find that that creepy. It's not that big of a forum. But you know what is creepy? Your hypocrisy of thinking it's "creepy" to remember people, yet re-click my above link and re-read what YOU WROTE about single poster here that apparently is "highly respected". Creepy.

[sabrina 1]

130. Thanks I knew you wouldn't find any such posts. Just wanted to clear that up.

All taken care of so have a great evening and remember, when you make an accusation, as any good lawyer will tell you, be sure you have the PROOF before you do so.

[FarLeftFist]

131. Uh, I said I wasn't able to go through your posts. Do you think I'd waste my time caring about THIS?

I said I will properly point it out next time, just for you. Get back to talking about politics. You're starting to make this almost as creepy as your idol worship in the post I linked to, though not as creepy as the posts you make upon scrolling down from this little gem: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002184082#post280

I thought remembering people was "creepy"

cheers!

[sabrina 1]

141. Well, I'm not sure what that link was supposed demonstrate.

But look, people make mistakes all the time, just as you have. Best thing to do is admit it and move on.

You will not find any posts of mine anywhere on the internet over the past seven years since Obama first appeared on the national scene 'shitting on Obama'. But you are free to go looking.

I stick to issues although some of the Bush gang has tempted me to go against my principles on this, because I know that attacking PEOPLE, wins no one over. And my goal is to win. To win people over to vote for Progressive Democrats. And you don't do that by attacking people. Call it tactics if you will.

'Creepy' is when someone you never met before seems to know a lot about you. 'Creepy' is not responding to comments on a discussion board.

[FarLeftFist]

142. "Creepy" is YOU following ME around on a message board.

"Creepy" is also your idol worship of a single poster and elevating them on a pedestal like you're in charge of some secret society delegated to creating hierarchies on internet forums. Admit it and move on.

[sabrina 1]

144. Wow, now you're getting really silly. Time for a break maybe?

Here's some advice. If you talk to me, I will respond to you. That's how a discussion board works, and if someone comments in a thread, anyone is allowed to respond to that person.

If you do not want me to talk to you, you have a few options. First do not make false allegations about me, I don't take kindly to that and am pretty relentless about correcting false statements even when they are not made about me.

Another option is to use your ignore feature.

And now you have the option to ignore this comment and that will end the whole mess you created when you decided you could get away with falsely accusing people of things you apparently imagined.

[FarLeftFist]

147. I'm sorry for 2 reasons....

1- For even continuing this and feeding into whatever issue you have with me(?) and 2- I meant Obama supporters. You are constantly shitting on Obama supporters. Which is why I linked to a thread where your relentless cyber-bullying and hyper-progressivism turns people off. Here's another thread you should read a beautiful example of how such smugness, elitism, and make-believe hierarchies turn people off: http://www.democraticunderground.com/11022050

It's like sometimes you can't just let someone say something without you interrupting and belittling them. Like the internet police.

[sabrina 1]

149. Like I said, you need to take a break. You are begging for an alert now.

Your posts are becoming increasingly more abusive and more desperate to smear anyone who disagrees with you.

I do not know you. I am a little concerned about your obsession with me. You keep posting false statements about me, I will keep correcting them. You have the opportunity to control yourself and not respond to this comment. It's up to you.

[FarLeftFist]

150. You have the opportunity to stop telling people what to do and how to think. And remember:

YOU are responding to one of MY posts, so I'M on the defensive here defending my post. YOU'RE the one antagonizing and continuing this BS. I'm DEFENDING, you're OFFENDING. If anyone should be alerted it should be you. But I don't do that sort of thing, nor do I care to.

[Old and In the Way]

159. You certainly have more patience trying to have a rational discussion

with this poster than I would.

[sabrina 1]

160. You jumped into this thread with a snide comment about the ACLU

Last edited Sat Jan 21, 2012, 05:31 AM - Edit history (1)

not living in the real world. That had to be the first time I have ever seen a Progressive Democrat speak about the ACLU with such disdain. Unless it is against the rules to reply to that false statement, I believe I was perfectly within the rules to point out the fallacy of such hyperbole. You followed with a string of posts filled with false accusations and attacks then whined because someone has the nerve to correct those false statements and/or ask you to back them up. It seems you conflate disagreement on policies with 'shitting' on someone.

I see the problem now. A disagreement with a politician is 'shitting on them'. Sorry, when a politician is making decisions that affect me and my family and the American people in general, and especially this country, s/he is going to hear from the people to whom they are responsible. That is how a democracy functions.

[FarLeftFist]

175. Really, just stop. Also, I said I meant Obama supporters, as I've pointed to a few links proving me

Correct. And I made a snide comment about the ACLU?! I made a TRUTHFUL comment about the ACLU. This is the last time I'm responding unless you decide to say something offensive to me, you've already made this whole thing very awkward. I'm here to talk politics and I've been here for 4 years and this is the first time someone has stalked and followed me around trying to antagonize me. Listen, if you're happy with your hyper-progressivism scaring people away like the link I provided then you're doing more harm than good. Obviously I see your worldview, as you praise one poster for being "highly respected around here" (like we should all bow b/c you tell us to) then go after another poster who is new here. It's ridiculous. Guess what? I don't care if a poster has 50,000 and another poster has 200, I'm treating them equally. Equality, what a concept, huh? And I didn't falsely accuse you of anything. I said you shit all over Obama supporters and even gave you a link of one such example, not gonna waste my time giving you more.

[sabrina 1]

186. No, you said I 'shit all over Obama' so I'm glad you are retracting that false statement.

You are whining because you attack someone falsely and expect to bully them into just letting those false allegations stand.

This could have ended with this acknowledgement many posts ago. I have nothing more to say to you about this. I am happy with your retraction and wish you would have done so earlier.

[FarLeftFist]

187. I did do it earlier, WAAY earlier. Read up-thread.

Also, since I've cleared up the fact that I meant Obama supporters I noticed that you aren't denying that you go after Obama supporters. So there actually aren't any false allegations since I proved to you my claim by providing a link/example. But this is getting silly and the only reason I keep replying is because of principle.

[sabrina 1]

189. Principle.

I already pointed out the problem with your analysis here regarding 'going after people'. You describe responses to comments in disagreement with your opinion, to be 'going after'.

A principled position would require seeing both sides of a situation. I eg, do not 'go after' people unless responding to them is now considered 'going after' people on a discussion board.

Find a post by me where I launce the kind of childish attacks, name-calling, false accusations such as 'you are a Republican' if you can. You will not, so no need to waste your time.

By that logic, everyone who responds to me and disagrees with me, is 'going after me'. But fortunately I do not view even the most vile comments that have been directed at me and others on the internet, as 'going after' anyone, I realize that when you point out someone is wrong about something, some will become defensive and react with name-calling etc. The solution would be to never say a word on the Internet and let the bullies win.

The fact that you totally missed the swarm attack on this, and other OPs here, tells me you see only what you want to see. Which is not unusual at all.

But it is refreshing to find people who do not do that, but instead go after the content. And thankfully the number of people who engage in the kind of behavior just described, are in the minority here.

People can disagree without being disagreeable. But if just disagreeing cause some people to feel attacked, then that is not the fault of anyone but themselves.

[FarLeftFist]

194. Physician, heal thyself.

[Bobbie Jo]

173. LOL...I see you're the latest contestant

in the "find my posts" deflection game.

Before you toss any more beanbags I should tell you...they don't fit the holes.

[sabrina 1]

193. Well, the issue has been resolved. There are no such posts, which has been

acknowledged now. So not sure what you mean. If someone makes an allegation it is on them to back it up, isn't it? I do give credit to the poster for acknowledging s/he was wrong.

[Bobbie Jo]

201. Whoooosh.

....and the beanbag doesn't fit the hole.

Ever.

[sabrina 1]

203. And another example of a personal attack in response to a comment that was not.

[Mimosa]

208. Sabrina was among the earlier Obama for President DUers

I know it because I was too.

[vaberella]

91. Most BS ridden statement ever. Tell that to Clinton, Carter, and the many other Dem Presidents. n/t

[sabrina 1]

95. Most content free comment ever. Well, almost.

You too seem to believe that Democrats holding a majority means nothing. Sorry, I do not agree with that.

[vaberella]

188. Actually it does when counting the quality of the Dems.

I was paying close, very close attention to what went on the first two years. Public Option was killed by Senators like Landrieu and Lincoln and any other Conservadem. It's like you were absent when the conservadems were holding hostage the Health care reform bill.

I was there when Dems turned their back at every alternative Obama gave in order so he could shut down Gitmo. But I guess you were absent or on vacation for that. I'm sure at one point in time dems could have done a lot. However, more often than not on the significant stuff they have not.

It was many Dems in the Clinton era that gave us DOMA and DADT. You might have thought those things were great bills. I don't think so. I don't hold any majority as effective if they don't push effective legislation since that is their duty. And sadly the Dem majority has had a good number of dems who went against.

And if you give me this BS about Obama being to twist arms this is not the era of Bugsy Siegel, since people like bringing up several other dead Presidents who weren't under the same level of scrutiny to their actions in the hill because of little media involvement due to technological limitations. Shit like that gets him a 24 hour run spot on Fox News and CNN with plenty misinformation to boot.

I didn't feel my statement needed a long indepth statement in order to be relevant since a logical thinker of the events as they played could realize there is a strict division of power that is peppered liberally by agendas and egos in Congress.

[sabrina 1]

190. This would have been a great post to have a real discussion of these issues had

you left out the snide suggestions such as 'But I guess you were absent or on vacation for that. No, I was not absent, I was very much involved and paying attention. A better way to know that, would have been to ask. Can't say I was during the Clinton era as that was before I became deeply involved in politics.

But this is what kills any kind of real discussion here lately, the need to trash those who have a different view and as a result, nothing much is accomplished as no one wants to be involved in an atmosphere that is so umpleasant.

As far as your points regarding why certain things cannot get done you seem to have answered them all for me. I would love to have that discussion without the vitriol and need to put down others who disagree. But as a lot of people have said, that seems impossible anymore here.

[vaberella]

196. I didn't think it was continuing since you claim adamantly that Dem majorities can do alot.

Can't go further than that because history has proven otherwise, many a time.

From what I can see it's hardly trashing. I just felt you tuned out when you made that statement. Much like when people tell me that 70-80% of America is liberal. This is hardly the truth considering how many Republicans are in Congress currently.

Maybe you can have that discussion with some one else. I've said this all before and many times on DU. It just seems to fall on deaf ears and I'm left to hear the same overused arguments. "He had a Dem congress why didn't he get the PO-- because he killed it. He had a Dem congress why didn't he close Gitmo - because he didn't want it. He had a Dem congress... and on and on it goes."

When it can be clearly seen that the President's failure to the American people is nothing like Congress and they are the ones that really matter to our livelihood.

[Capn Sunshine]

123. Democrats DON'T control the Senate, they have a small majority

Not large enough to overcome the fillibuster rule. That is not control.

Not for nothing, but not voting is not going to help this situation.

[sabrina 1]

126. Was that post meant for me?

Not for nothing, but not voting is not going to help this situation.

Did I say something about 'not voting' anywhere, ever or were you thinking of someone else?

As for the Senate majority, it's odd that Republicans in the minority have more power than Democrats in the majority. I mean if Dems are losing, that means Republicans in the minority are winning. Why is that?

[Capn Sunshine]

139. It was a general statement of phiolosophy not directed at you

sorry that you took umbrage. I like you. Really.

[sabrina 1]

145. No umbrage, just checking!

[Tx4obama]

191. It takes 60 'yes' votes to invoke cloture on a bill - we do NOT have 60 dems in the Senate n/t

[Mr.Liberty]

32. The level of disdain for Civil Liberties/Rights here is stunning

Didn't use to be this way...

[AnotherMcIntosh]

45. Agreed. Amazingly so.

[Major Hogwash]

61. Hahahaha!!!

Yes, it's amazing!!

[sabrina 1]

70. Yes, I am stunned at the disregard on a Democratic forum

for Civil Rights. When did this happen? Airc, these issues were of paramount importance to Democrats during the Bush years. I like to think they still are and that this thread does not represent Democrats' views on Civil rights.

[Bobbie Jo]

170. No, you're confusing your "disdains" here...

The "disdain" you see is directed at this "poster's" continuous misinformation campaign.

Apparently you've adopted the OP's go-to strawman form of response. It's incredibly weak when s/he does it too.

[sabrina 1]

198. What I see in the OP are links to very credible Liberal Organizations that at one time

here on DU, especially when they were going after Bush, were considered to be the most credible organizations willing to fight the very same issues they are now addressing. What I also see is a total flip flop not only on multiple now, liberal organizations, progressive writers, even progressive politicians who have not change one iota in their positions on these issues, but who are now, somehow, 'misinformation'.

Someone should do a study on this phenomena. I imagine when we someday have another Republican in office, all these progressives will still be saying the same things they are saying now, but will be pulled out quickly from under the bus.

[RZM]

37. At least Obama likes puppies . . .

OR DOES HE!?!?!

[WI_DEM]

38. that bad Obama!!--another BBI thread to the garbage

[snooper2]

40. Still waiting for that new record....you really suck at meeting dates

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. Bob Fitrakis, Green Party candidate? What a surprise

http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=301484346540419&id=215450305143824

Amazing that someone who hopes to run against a Democrat finds something to criticise Obama about, isn't it?

[SidDithers]

43. Shocked. Shocked, I am....

Sid

[Bluenorthwest]

162. I wonder if it would shock you, Sid to know that Greens were part of the coallition with

which we here in Oregon won delegates for the President? Some of them went under the name 'Green Dogs' and they worked and the whole thing. CA went to Clinton. We went for the President, my precinct in the 90% range. Without the Greens, who knows?
When the Obamas were in town, they went to get ice cream (no surprise there) and we all saw the woman we made First Lady spot a guy in a Green Party tee shirt and head directly to him, hand out and smile on her face. She did well that day, it was her instinct to reach out. I really liked that. Why? I'm in the entertainment industry, and in my life, for decades, the people I can persuade to mark ballots for Democrats who are not already doing so are ALWAYS to the left, they are Greens if they are anything. To win their support is how I win more for our Party. In 2000 it was hell on ice to do so. In 04, such things were fantasias. In 08, the OFA really knew how and what to do, and it was easier than any election in my adult life to win the Greens and the Jaded, those who think it is a futile thing, and so often do not participate.
In 2010, when much of the country ordered a cuppa the wrong Tea, and many areas saw low Democratic turn out, we here elected Democrats again, and our turn out was a record for midterms. So. Is it good to win elections, again and again? Was Mrs O wrong to speak kindly to a Green?
I see many people who snark and hark and bluster, yet when I ask them how they did in 2010, they fall oddly silent. So those who lose elections do not get my ear in terms of style and form. We win. There is nothing we need to change. Those in States that elect the GOP, they need to change. And if 'snark and remark' is not winning for them, I suggest they start trying new things.
Reality is this: we need to get more ballots marked for Democrats in all districts, in all contests. To do that, some will need persuasion, and some will in fact ask campaigners to address the concerns of the ACLU or Human Rights Watch. They can, they will, and around here, lots of people are members of those organizations, many more follow and respect them. None of them know ANY DU poster, they do not care if this OP annoys you, or if someone's links annoy others.
Any so called Democrat who does not seek first last and only to learn how to persuade others to join us for elections is not doing their only duty. I imagine some in this thread knocking on doors or placing phone calls. If a citizen has qualms regrading these issues, I wonder if some are prepared with anything other than a one line comment or wise crack. I wonder if they are ready to face those questions and answer them in the respectful, complete ways that are required in electioneering.
Most of my precinct, most of my city, and much of my district will know of and hold questions regarding all that is addressed in this OP. Many of them will already hold the nose or just mark the X. Some will need persuasion. I can persuade them, frequently, often, and in large groups at times. I say it is our goal to persuade others to elect Democrats, and I say that our own jollies and desire to crack wise are often counter to that goal.
Lots of DUers look as those of us who win and make progress and whine that we are not cheering enough. Sorry, we are winded from all that winning, all those Democrats we get into office who then listen to us. We are not wandering unrepresented, we did not put GOP candidates in office. Many districts did. Many States did.
So you know....if you want to see us win, us Democrats, I recommend honed skills and great humility. I 'unrec' snarking and sarcastic comments toward any issue any potential Democrat might speak. Any issue they see as important IS important if we want that ballot for our own candidates.
A thread like this could teach people how to address the issues. Or they could instead simply crack wise and look cool to their social circles. I'd rather win elections than get laughs or look cool. I suggest others should do the same. I'm sick of the Tea and GOP they elect using those sarcastic and strident methods.
Of course, soon the OFA people will get the nastiness in check. It is not helpful to our goals in election season.
Walking my districts since age 8, Sid. So coming after those who know what they are doing with piles of snark is an interesting choice, although not one I see as leading us to any form of majority.
What if you walk a precinct, and 80% of the homes sound like the OP here? That's my reality. This is not Atlanta. I see too many in this thread who hear counter points and whine rather than address the actual points. It is superior to address the points. It is the way to win.
I'm not willing to see a repeat of 2010 just to indulge the needs of a segment of people who do the sarcasm and claim it is 'for the President'. It is not for him. It is not for the Party. It is done for personal jollies. Snark is not persuasion. Politics is persuasion. The President, he's nice to all comers. So is his wife. She reaches out to Greens, while some spit on the ground at the mention of them, 'for the President'. They reach out, the 'supporters' spit on the ground. Whose method wins? Which method is the method of the President?

[muriel_volestrangler]

168. "President Barack Obama has signed a death knell for the Bill of Rights" is not "reaching out"

It's partisan hyperbole, and there is no requirement for such hyperbole to be met with 'reaching out'. If you think that Obama would reply to it with "oh, you make a fair point, maybe I am destroying the whole basis of the USA", then you're in an alternate reality.

"What if you walk a precinct, and 80% of the homes sound like the OP here? That's my reality." Really? 80% of the homes think Obama is killing the Bill of Rights?

[sabrina 1]

89. Do you know anything about Bob Fitrakis?

[muriel_volestrangler]

109. He's a journalist and PolSci lecturer who stood for the Green Party for Governor of Ohio in 2006

http://www.bobforohio.com/about/

so his commitment to the Green Party has lasted some years.

[onenote]

42. Reallly? How does legislation override the constitution?

Legislation can comport with the Constitution or it can violate it and our system of government provides a means for the courts to decide which is the case. But I'm not clear on how signing a bill that violates the constitution is a "death knell" for the Constitution. If that was the case the Constitution would have died a long long time ago since a lot of bills have been enacted and signed that subsequently were found to be unconstitutional.

Heck, the fact that we have three branches of government and that the ultimate fate of the NDAA provisions will rest in the hands of the courts is acknowledged by the ACLU piece you link, even if you chose to highlight a ridiculously hyperbolic statement in your subject line.

But no one is surprised that you'd do that, so points to you for being predictable.

[BumRushDaShow]

46. Yawn.

[GeorgeGist]

47. The oath of office is merely symbolic ...

it's not meant to be taken literally.

[Kingofalldems]

49. Another hit piece on the President

[Cali_Democrat]

51. I don't think the ACLU is against Obama

I sincerely think they're trying to stand up for Americans' civil liberties in this case.

[Kingofalldems]

62. Wasn't referring to the ACLU

[MineralMan]

50. Emergency! Everybody to get from street!

It was exaggeration, I know,
From the very minute I saw the OP.
Just a passing glance,
So I took a chance,
And found just the crap I expected...

[MineralMan]

56. To assist you in your endless search for anti-Obama

articles to post on DU, I offer the following link:

http://www.antiobama.net/anti-obama-websites.html

You'll find just tons of websites where you can locate other anti-Obama articles. That way, you won't have to copy and paste articles from last year to maintain your self-imposed quota. Good hunting!

[sabrina 1]

72. Anything to say about the actual topic of the OP?

Or are Civil Liberties no longer a matter of importance to the Dem Party? I doubt that considering the number of Democrats who have expressed outrage over this bill. But you have not addressed the actual content of the bill so I am interested in your views of the continuation of the destruction of Civil Rights in this country.

[MineralMan]

77. The ACLU one has been posted multiple times. I've commented in previous threads.

The first one is way overstated. How's that?

I rarely comment on any of the copy and paste posts from this poster. Since BBI doesn't bother to comment on what is copied and pasted, why should I?

[sabrina 1]

83. Well you are in the thread so I assumed you do comment

on posts from this poster. My mistake I guess.

How is the first one overstated? Just saying so doesn't make it so. And when all over the country, and now in fact the world, this bill is receiving major criticism from people who are and always have been viewed by the 'left' as extremely credible people on Constitutional Matters.

It will continue to be debated, so turning a blind eye to it is not going to make it go away. If you can defend it, then do so. So far I have read everything I could from both sides and still have not found a credible argument in support of it.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

110. Regardless of that link, do you have any link or links to pro-Constitution web sites?

Here's a couple:
http://www.aclu.org
http://www.commondreams.org
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002192234

[Wind Dancer]

63. K & R!

I'm assuming many of the above posters are fine with Obama's decision which is truly shocking on a Democratic message board. Why keep attacking the messenger while ignoring the implications of NDAA.

"According to the wording of section 1021, anybody suspected of terrorism or performing a “belligerent act” against the United States would be subject to detention without trial for an indeterminate amount of time; these suspects would be classified as enemy combatants, who have no rights to a lawyer, open trial, or to confront their accuser. As there is not set definition as to what constitutes a “belligerent act”, this classification is open to terrible abuse by an immoral political actor.

snip

"Our founders decided that the government should not have the right to simply declare someone guilty and punish them accordingly; instead, the accused are given a trial where the final decision on guilt is left to a jury of citizens. The amended NDAA gives the government the powers of judge, jury, and executioner over anybody suspected of terrorism or providing help to terrorists; the massive expansion in the power of the military over civilian matters is a large and dangerous step towards a police state."

If this happened under George Bush's watch, the screams would be deafening.

[bvar22]

177. The same crowd was parading around DU with Andrew Sullivan on their shoulders yesterday.

That should tell you something.




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]

[Beacool]

210. Yep, you said it.

Exchange the name "Bush" for "Obama" and people here would be hollering like banshees.

Ahhhh, the hypocrisy of the left..........

[Octafish]

68. Thank you for a most important post, Better Believe It. Really love the concentrated attacks, too.

They have to attack you because they can't defend Obama's record on Civil Rights.

PS: As an alumnus of Wayne State University, I'm proud to write that I've known Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman for more than 30 years -- almost as long as I've been a card-carrying member (on and off, as circumstances permit) of the ACLU. Their records as defenders of the Bill of Rights speak for themselves.

[Better Believe It]

167. Thank you for your comments. They are most appreciated.

Most progressives don't attack organizations like the ACLU.

In fact, I don't think that any true progressives attack defenders of our Bill of Rights.

[fascisthunter]

69. This Country has some very Weak People in it

all like good little Germans... question nothing and just go along with it all. Nuts is more like it.

[grantcart]

71. Apocalyptic hyperbole is the haven for those that don't have the facts to win a reasoned argument.

Here are some headlines you can use in the future;


"Bill of Rights no longer exists"

"All Americans now exist in a virtual slavery"

"Obama has denounced Bill of Rights as 'icky'"

[sabrina 1]

74. But you still haven't addressed the point we are at now, the point Bush brought this

country to, and how this bill fixes the Bush era shredding of Constitutional rights, or did you support Bush's policies and if so, based on what?

[grantcart]

80. I don't have time for anything that starts out as

"President Barack Obama has signed a death knell for the Bill of Rights."

2012's Civil Liberties Apocalypse Has Already Happened.



If they had a strong argument they wouldn't be so desperate in their language.

If I received a paper that started like this from one of my college students I would have returned it unread as well.



Somehow I believe that if it was really the end of the Bill of Rights then the ABA would have had something to say about it.

Now if the poster wants to advance a sensible argument with non hysterical language that is another matter.

It is impossible for legislation to eliminate the Bill of Rights as the Constitution has a higher authority than a piece of legislation.

If the bill doesn't pass constitutional muster it will be struck down. Now if you think that the Court has decided incorrectly on
legislation that you think that is unconstitutional then you COULD say that the SC has shredded the Bill of Rights but none of that actually has happened.

Either they have a very poor argument or they have expressed it poorly. In either case I don't have time to bother with it.

[sabrina 1]

82. Well, tell all that to those who have been

tortured and languishing in our Gulag in Guantanamo for nearly ten years. That piece of legislation that made that possible? Republicans excused it at the time and called OUR objections to it, 'hyperbole' and told us 'if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about'. The point of electing Democrats was to start the process of restoring the rule of law in this country.

Can you explain how this bill even begins to address the shredding of the Constitution by the Bush administration?

[grantcart]

85. Unfortunately I can't. Free discussion is no longer possible because the Bill of Rights is dead.

[sabrina 1]

87. In a way you are more correct than you realize.

Many of the victims of Bush policies have tried to be heard in this country, but have been refused a hearing because, they are told, of 'national security'.

But you can reach many of them in other countries where they are still attempting to get some justice for the wrongs done to them. But yes, the Bill of Rights has been seriously damaged and there ARE victims. Otoh, if being a Brit or French or Canadian, or worst of all in this country today, Muslim makes them lesser human beings therefore less entitled to justice, I suppose so long as some people believe that being American exempts them from such violations of their human rights, they will not get justice.

Until a bill like this comes along and puts Americans in the same danger all those other lesser beings know so well. Maybe in a perverse way this was necessary to awaken more of the American people to the fact that once you refuse basic human rights to anyone, everyone is in danger.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

86. "ABA would have had something to say about it"? Did the ABA speak up much about Bush torture?

At the very least, this would appear to violate the Fifth Amendment.

Did the ABA speak up much about Bush's wholesale spying upon all Americans with the willing assistance of most of the telecoms? At the very least, this would appear to violate the Fourth Amendment.

Although some members of the ABA have expressed concern about the loss of protected rights or the rights that were supposed to be protected under the Constitution, there's not been much noise from the ABA.

What have the ABA members been doing? For the most part, they've been focusing more time engaging in clock-watching and collecting billable hours. If you are a member of the ABA, you know that some ABA members find billable hours so important in their lives that they are willing to engage in double billing (i.e., separately billing two or more clients for the same hour of work), engaging in billing for unnecessary work, etc. For them, the billiable hour is much more important than the loss of even the fig leaf of the Constitution which is supposed to be respected by governmental officials to protect our civil rights.

If you really believe that the ABA as a collective body will speak up to object to the loss of civil rights, you should be able to provide links to ABA articles on their web site in which took the official position that they are opposed to the actions which have resulted in the loss of civil rights such as the ones identified above.

In the absence of such links, it would be fair to say that you may have a belief or gut-instinct but you don't have any factual support for your belief that "the ABA would have had something to say about it."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

78. Oh, that's OK. Somebody, sometime, if conditions to do are favorable, will fix it in the future.

Just trust that Father Knows Best....you dirty Hippie.

[JoePhilly]

79. Obama also plays Puppy Golf!!!!

YUP ... no one is reporting it yet, but some say he's playing a version of golf in which you kick puppies into holes like in golf ...

Some disturbing images of this ...

Here is a puppy that was just kicked from the Tee box ... some great distance here!!!



And here is one kicked from the fairway ... given his trajectory, he's clearly going to land gently on the green. Perhaps with some back spin.



And finally, this one is was just kicked across the green, and into the hole ... for a birdie!!

[sabrina 1]

90. Did someone accuse the President of cruelty to puppies?

Your post makes no sense. The puppies are cute, but what do they have to do with the issues raised in this OP?

[vaberella]

92. Obama was accused of cruelty to flies by PETA. n/t

[sabrina 1]

96. Flies are not puppies. The question was about cruelty to puppies.

[JoePhilly]

93. It reflects how Obama is killing not only the Bill of Rights .. but also the rights of cute puppies.

Of course, and hear me out ... it is possible that both claims are somewhat exaggerated ...

[sabrina 1]

97. Well, I would agree on the puppies, that certainly is hyperbolic and

not a particularly good deflection from the topic of the OP. But I can't think of a way to dismiss threats to our civil rights that has any kind of credibility.

I remember when Bush did these sorts of things how much outrage there was on the left. Was that just politically motivated and hyperbolic as charged by his supporters?

I mean the ACLU was still functioning when we on the left were screaming about his Civil Rights violations. Did that mean he was not a threat after all and the Right was Right and all we were doing was jumping up and down for no reason at all?

[JoePhilly]

101. So do you agree that Obama is killing the Bill of rights?

I don't.

Can you explain how Obama has killed the bill of rights? That is the OP's claim.

You say "I remember when Bush did these sorts of things" ... can you indicate which things specifically?

I mean, I know that the Tea Party folks think Obama is putting people into FEMA work camps ... which is idiotic ... ut you seem to be agreeing that Obama removed some other key freedoms ... what are those?

[sabrina 1]

103. Are you saying this legislation protects the Bill of Rights?

Did you read the ACLU's position on this? It's linked in the OP.

I agree with their position that this bill is a further threat to civil liberties and the Bill of Rights. When you lose Habeas Corpus, (thank you Bush) how, in your opinion, does that protect the Bill of Rights?

I am not interested in what the Tea Party has to say, about anything.

I AM however interested in credible Organizations such as the ACLU and Human Rights Organizations which have earned respect for the work they do to protect Human Rights each and every day.

[JoePhilly]

105. Yes .... did read ... and did not conclude "death" of

Bill of rights.

Which is what the op claims.

Habeas Corpus remains. It is still there.

[sabrina 1]

107. Chipping away at something eventually leads to its death.

Should we wait until that happens in your opinion, or speak up now before it is too late?

Habeas Corpus remains at the pleasure of the POTUS. That is not encouraging especially since we have seen the results of this policy already. All the president has to do is to declare someone an 'enemy combatant' and there is no Habeas Corpus for them. Including American Citizens. In fact they can even get the death penalty without charges and without trial. See Al Awlaki.

Do you not remember these discussions during the Bush years? Did something happen to reverse those laws? No, it did not. So, either those on the left who made such a big issue of this then, were just flailing around because the president was not a democrat, or they were right. Which is it?

[a simple pattern]

138. I predict that this question will go unanswered.

[girl gone mad]

94. k & r

You can hold your head high, Better Believe It. Others in this thread, not so much.

[dionysus]

98. poor fella. 4 mores years of increasingly desperately spamming smear pieces.

[sabrina 1]

104. The ACLU and Human Rights Watch is now Spam?

Anyone left on the 'left' that has not been thrown under the bus? The list is long and growing each day.

[dionysus]

113. no, these desperate threads are spam.

[sabrina 1]

118. Well, I can't think of anything more important to this country than the preservation of rights.

Last edited Sat Jan 21, 2012, 04:11 PM - Edit history (1)

Desperate is not good enough imo, when those rights are under assault and for a long time during the Bush years, every single democrat I encountered agreed. So what changed that? Since when should we not be outraged over the loss of rights that so many fought and died for throughout history? I guess I missed that memo.

[Number23]

108. Well he and his fans (who are posting more in this thread than the OP is) gotta have something to do

[gulliver]

122. He signed a knell? n/t

[CakeGrrl]

127. Obama-Biden 2012!!!

[cliffordu]

140. I love this president.

Your hatred of him is irrelevant.

Have you EVER posted a SINGLE positive OP about this democratically elected President??

[Tx4obama]

192. I'll wait with you to see if your question ever gets answered ...

I doubt it ever will be.

[cliffordu]

206. I'm thinking I'm on the ignore list with this poster -

Someone else might ask though!!

[woo me with science]

148. Kudos to the OP for an important post, and also to Sabrina

for her excellent work trying to elicit substance in this thread. I have posted more about this in Meta.

For here, I will repost the ACLU's report on core civil liberties in America over the past three years...even *before* the scandal of NDAA.

Every American needs to read it in its entirety, because it is chilling:

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/report-call-courage-reclaiming-our-liberties-ten-years-after-911

[just1voice]

154. Well said

I like DU because people discuss issues here despite the constant allowable ridicule, stalking and personal insults. I rec'd the post the other day about the Obama admin pipeline decision because I support the decision and I'm also rec'cing this post because indefinite detention is despicable and un-American.

I think a lot of people are still capable of rational thought and don't fall prey to those who choose to lower the intellectual level with irrational attacks.

[emilyg]

205. Thank you.

[Kablooie]

157. Isn't this sort of thing that gets decided by the Supreme Court?

I just hope by the time it gets there there will have been some more shifting of personnel.

Though the only justice that's over 75 is Ginsburg.

Why the heck don't Thomas and Scalia get old quicker?

[Octafish]

164. 5-4

Pruneface, Poppy and Smirko McCokespoon appointed most of the current crowd. They tap them young for a reason that became all too apparent in December 2000.

Anyone think the Iran-Contra cover up artiste John Roberts will side with the Civil Rights crowd?

[T S Justly]

172. K&R (nt)

[NYC Liberal]

197. How the fuck do you "sign" a knell? nt

[aikoaiko]

211. First they came for the 2nd Amendment and you did not speak....

Then they came for habeas corpus and only a few spoke

then they came for the rest.