Miltary this close to treating US as war zone

[Augustine2004]

No I haven't, but I have heard you will believe just about any conspiracy theory out there...

LJ

You can check history and see for yourself whether the SCOTUS have often interpreted the Constitution out of shape. I think it was a Supreme had a notion that the Constitution was a living thing that needed to change with the times.

[Augustine2004]

Eric Peters' take: http://epautos.com/2011/11/30/senate...ite-detention/

[Epoetker]

Volokh commenters' take:

I have read the bill itself in what I hope is a careful, lawyerly way, and I assure you it says just what the alarmists claim it says. In plain English, anyone who the President determines to be a supporter of al-Qaeda or the Taliban can be held in military custody without trial until the cessation of hostilities, whenever that may be.

In my long-winded post above I discuss the claim that this bill doesn’t change anything. That claim is true in the limited sense that this is the exact thing we did to Jose Padilla, but the Supreme Court never got around to making a final determination in the Padilla case. And this bill would represent Congressional ratification of the idea that the Padilla military confinement was appropriate and that there can be as many more Padillas as the President deems appropriate.

Short answer: even without this bill, yes, the President could technically still pull another Jose Padilla, assuming he’s willing to face the prospect of egg on his face before the Supreme Court. But it’s one thing for the President to assert that power, and another thing for Congress to pass a law agreeing that it’s perfectly legal.

It's not so much the end of the world as the Obama administration trying to cover its bases for any present, past, or future actions. There are all sorts of legal or quasi-legal things a President can do, and the best way to ensure they're not done is not electing a narcissistic sociopath and his party in the first place.

[Jaecp]

Well,

This looks like one of those times where the plain text of the bill doesn't give full weight to what they can do.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/15325...spending_bill/

link

“The Supreme Court has ruled that citizens can be held,” Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, who helped craft the provision, said moments before voting on the amendment to remove the language. “We can and must deal with the Al Queda threat.”

“These provisions could well represent a threat to our constitutional liberties,” countered Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colorado, whose amendment failed 37-61. “What is not clear is what we do with someone arrested in his home because of suspected terrorist ties. These detainee provisions would authorize that person’s indefinite detention, but it misses a critical point. How do we know that a citizen has committed these crimes unless they are tried and convicted? Do we really want to open the door to domestic military police powers and possibly deny U.S. citizens their due process rights?”

© source where applicable

[seanD]

At best, the Dems are all jumping on board because this is an election ploy to make Obama look good when he vetoes it. I can imagine necons like McCain supporting a bill like this because they're militaristic psychopaths, but I honestly can't imagine the number of Dems seriously supporting this bill with the intention to give the president and the military this type of power. It has to be an election ploy.

[Augustine2004]

Judge Andrew Napolitano makes it clear why we should be alarmed, IMO:
http://townhall.com/columnists/judge...oms/page/full/

[joel]

If anyone hasn't heard, the bill passed the Senate 93 to 7 (Rand Paul was one of the 7).
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00218

93 out of 100 senators are tyrants.

The Whitehouse has been talking about veto, but if it passes the House by 2/3 (and there's a good chance of that), then that overrides any Presidential veto.
(Plus, it would be a bit hypocritical since they Whitehouse has argued for months that it is authorized to assasinate U.S. citizens.)

Write your representatives here:
https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/not-afraid/
Tell your senators what you think of them and your House representative to vote 'nay'.

[Pilgrim]

I take back my skepticism. I was wronger than I could have imagined. I can only hope Obama follows through with the veto.

[Augustine2004]

I take back my skepticism. I was wronger than I could have imagined. I can only hope Obama follows through with the veto.

But 93/100 would override.

[seanD]

And yet this is getting zero MSM attention. Zilch.

[Augustine2004]

We dodged a bullet there

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...tops-bill.html

Still many bullets out there, though.

[Pilgrim]

And yet this is getting zero MSM attention. Zilch.

Really? Because I read it from the AP in several papers and saw it on CNN and HLN? Maybe you're just not looking hard enough?

[seanD]

Really? Because I read it from the AP in several papers and saw it on CNN and HLN? Maybe you're just not looking hard enough?

In glancing. Compare it to something like say... Herman Cain's female rendezvous activities or Weiner's penis shot... where we were inundated with news and commentaries everyday all night and day. And yes, I missed it, but no surprise. In fact, go around and randomly ask about ten people on the streets if they've heard of bill and see the answers that you get.

[Pilgrim]

That says less about the news media than it does about the audience I think.

[seanD]

That says less about the news media than it does about the audience I think.

Equal IMO. Most of us already know that the audience is like children when it comes to pertinent information -- no argument there -- but that still doesn't excuse how the news media is treating this subject, and the priorities they follow.