One of the few times I've been proud of my NY dem senators.

And you all should be, too, of "teabagger" Rand Paul.

the potus can already shoot yoou in hte head, so this is small news

Obama is a traitor who should be tried for treason. He swore to uphold the constitution and the re-did the "patriot act". And yea that act is the most unpatriotic thing in history. Fucking treasonous traitors. NFW will anyone who approved that shit get my vote. It would be less suicidal to write in jack the ripper.

True, #2. The real debate here is if it's the right of Congress to rape the Constitution, or the President, when it comes to citizen's rights.

the only way the politicians will get the message is with a bloody revolution, otherwise our rights will continously and steadily be eroded.

Be careful, Truth. Echelon is watching YOU.

#4 no its not the right of the potus or congress and doing so is criminal. Thats why they take an oath of office to uphold the constitution. So working directly against it with attempt after attempt - thats fucking contempt for the USA.

Sadly - that's most of our represnetatives who claim to represent the people while working to extort the remaining wealth of the USA while destroying it in the process. OBAMANATION is just like getting BUSHWACKED.

Reitze, are you saying that Bush and Obama both have no respect for the Constitution and freedom? That's not allowed on here! If a Democrat wants to assassinate and imprison citizens, then it's a-ok! Danni, Doc, and company told me so!

"If a Democrat wants to assassinate and imprison citizens, then it's a-ok! Danni, Doc, and company told me so!"

I bet Danni and Doc would both have a problem with this. I don't think that it's necessarily a contradiction to have a problem with this law and not have a problem with the assassination of Awlaki.

well it is a contradiction nonetheless. and mores the pity

inalienable rights are inalienable, or so it is written

regardless of their supposed crime

but i suppose we can trust the potus to not abuse his power hahahaha

We'd only know if Danni and Doc had a problem with this if they had the guts to post something. This is afterall, an Obama issue; not Bush.

They were against this last week IIRC when the thread was posted then

Were a Republican the president, the same people whining about this decision would be applauding it. After all, no "patriot" has a reason to be afraid. Right?

.
.......how long did you think it would take for American Exceptionalism to start applying to American citizens.?..........

Yeah I guess my stab at them was unfair, I looked through my other thread and they seem against it. I'm just still POed at them about the cluster bomb deal. Anything to protect the president.

They were against this last week IIRC when the thread was posted then

#12 | Posted by truthhurts

If you say so. Just seems funny how Danni, Doc and Corky will rush to Obama's defense but so far have ignored this latest threa.....fiasco.

You really don't pay much attention to this site, other than as a skulking snark, do you, Wussy? I've objected to the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, no-US trials for terrorists, all this detention crap. Try and maintain decent speed, kiddo.

This story was posted, what, not quite an hour ago? Have you ever considered not all of us need to extract the cheese from our ears, shovel our way to the bus stop, hop the tram marked "Edge of the World," transfer at Station 666, trudge to the iron gates of The Plant, take our ticket from the column marked "Wage Slave/Corporate Shill," and be there in time to smooch the boss's arse?

This legislation is odious.

I don't think it'll be hard to come up with the info on who voted how on this one. Final tally was 38-60 (Menendez was allowed to change his vote to one favoring Udall's amendment).

Here, Wussy (as they've probably watching your cubicle pretty closely for any sign of untoward fucking up):

NAYs ---60
Alexander (R-TN)
Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lee (R-UT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Moran (R-KS)
Nelson (D-NE)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting - 2
Begich (D-AK)
Murkowski (R-AK)

If a Democrat wants to assassinate and imprison citizens, then it's a-ok! Danni, Doc, and company told me so!
#8 | Posted by adammm

One more moron for the Looney Bin, Klown Kar Express!

I don't think that it's necessarily a contradiction to have a problem with this law and not have a problem with the assassination of Awlaki.

#9 | Posted by pragmatist at 2011-11-29 08:25 PM

Bottom line on the Udall Admentment (which the Obama Administration supported:

Voting in favor - 4% of R's and 70% D's

Voting against - 96% of R's and 30% D's

Today the Senate rejected an amendment to the 2012 defense authorization bill that would have removed a controversial provision authorizing indefinite military detention of terrorism suspects.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you read the amendment it sounds like it just gives Obama the authority to make his recommendations and then congress the ability to review them. (which will split down partisan lines regardless of what he proposes)

it just gives Obama the authority

explains

Voting against - 96% of R's

perhaps the water is getting a bit warm froggies? Don't worry they won't boil you. They promise!

Last May the House approved its version of the defense authorization bill, which includes language defining the entire world as the battlefield in the war against Al Qaeda and requiring military detention of "foreign terrorists."

Might as well declare the whole Universe as a battlefield.

So now instead of the rest of the world getting the same rights as Americans when we say We hold these Truths to be Self-evident that all Men are created Equal what we will really mean is the WE will have the same rights as the rest of the world now...which are apparently none.

Congress should go home. They just fuck up everything they touch.

"I'm very, very, concerned about having U.S. citizens sent to Guantanamo Bay for indefinite detention," said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the Senate's most conservative members.

Now he is concerned? They should have shut that place down years ago.

the only way the politicians will get the message is with a bloody revolution, otherwise our rights will continously and steadily be eroded.

#5 | Posted by truthhurts at 2011-11-29 07:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Timothy McVeigh "...had hoped that this would inspire a revolution against the government. He saw himself as like a modern revolutionary, firing that all-important first shot in his mind, but nobody followed suit, thank heavens."

"I'm very, very, concerned about having U.S. citizens sent to Guantanamo Bay for indefinite detention," said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the Senate's most conservative members.
Now he is concerned? They should have shut that place down years ago.

#26 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2011-11-30 02:29 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

They, meaning the Senate? Or, "they" meaning some in the Executive Branch? Or, "they" meaning just "they" - some amorphous blob within the govt.

I think Paul has always been against GITMO. Where's the love DB?

#19 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Too lazy to check, but I wonder which folks who voted against the amendment are up for re-election in 2012?

There is an effort by the ruling elite to control the citizens of this country. Party need not apply. If one is foolish enough to get caught up in the R's vs D's bullshit they are bound to get buried as they divide and conquer "the people".

They, meaning the Senate? Or, "they" meaning some in the Executive Branch? Or, "they" meaning just "they" - some amorphous blob within the govt.

I think Paul has always been against GITMO. Where's the love DB?

#28 | Posted by somoco

maybe you are confusing Rand with Ron?

"They" meaning Congress. specifically the Senate. Did I not mention Congress should just go home as everything they touch they just fuck up? The Executive Branch would have and did support the closure of Gitmo. Congress made it impossible to close it.

Rand Paul has clearly said we should not close down Gitmo until we decide what to do with the prisoners.

"Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution," said Dr. Paul. "These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies."

Those are his words.

So you tell me where on Earth would they stand before a military tribunal besides GIMO? To me this means he supported the concept of GITMO. Either that or he has no clue what he is talking about. If he is against the US people scooping up people from around the globe and holding them in indefinite detention then he should be all for closing the only US detention center that is designed for that very purpose.

GIMO=GITMO... of course.

It's not enough just to be alleged to be a terrorist," Paul said, echoing the views of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Rand Paul-communist.

The Right

Libertarians would often be labeled as communists by those on the right.

Donner I think the problem is that we have what are in essence enemy combatants in a prison camp that we dont know what to do with. If this was fifty years ago we would have just shot them but now we cant deal with them. Have the tibunals and send them home or dispose of them.

The real problem with both the left and the right is the errosion of the meaning of being a citizen. The left wants to take freedoms away from citizens and give freedoms to people who are not citizens while those on the right want to take freedom away from citizens to protect them from those who are not citizens.

Didn't this thing also state that, Senior Executive members of the cabinet could remove/transfer anyone by signing off on a transfer to Fed Juristiction?

I see the same sanctimonious a---s here who would be the first to bitch out the government if something would happen to them, or theirs, due to any act of terrorism on our soil/their property!

Let's rescind ALL those laws, go back to, 'the way it was', and find out, OK? Then, if something happens that's detrimental to YOU - don't point your finger (either one)!

Exactly which one of these Laws has caused you harm? If you're living right and within the current laws, NONE of them!

They cause us all harm douchebag. If you cant understand that you probably never will.

BTW Dogen, just to educate YOU. Antiwar.com, a website many people view and enjoy regularly, including myself was subject to sneak and peek and wiretapping, so yes it does effect us all. If you dont think that has an effect on investigative journalism you are a moron. If that doesnt have an effect on the information you have to understand what is happening you are a drooling moron.

Look at the wikileaks case, manning has been subjected to indefinite detention in solitary confinement because of supposed treason charges. Charges perhaps not directly related to this law, but related in the sense that they are related to the police state being created in this country where national security is used to hide all sorts of crimes. Wikileaks released proof positive of crimes committed by this country, of course nothing is done against those in power. But again, keep thinking thishas no effect on you if that helps you sleep at night.

Not sure how you came up with the 70%/30% number for Dermalshits Doc but 25 for and 24 against looks more like a 50/50 split in my book.

But I'll accept 95.2% rounded up to your 96% for the rebumblecans.

Sounds good, if the president signs, he can proclaim members of the opposition party to be "terrorists" based on "secret evidence". Off they go....start with Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, O'Reilly etc. etc. They root against our president and give comfort to the enemy.

People here on the right should be A.O.K. with that right(support our president!!1!!1!)? Alwaki and his 16 year old (American citizen) son were assassinated based on this level of evidence. We already apply this standard to Americans overseas, why not in the homeland? When the republican party takes control, then they get to kill or imprison whomever they want based on the same standard.

After all, do you want the terrorists to win? They are probably planning to blow up a mall somewhere in Middle America right this minute. Do you want the blood of innocent children on you hands if we don't pass this law?

Too lazy to check, but I wonder which folks who voted against the amendment are up for re-election in 2012?

These are the Democrats that voted against Mark Udall's amendment. The * are those up for re-election in 2012.

D Mark Warner VA
D James Webb VA*
D Sheldon Whitehouse RI*
D Deborah Stabenow MI
D Charles Schumer NY
D Mark Pryor AR
D John Reed RI
D Barbara Mikulski MD
D Clarence Nelson FL*
D Harry Reid NV
D Timothy Johnson SD
D John Kerry MA
D Herbert Kohl WI*
D Mary Landrieu LA
R Mike Lee UT
D Carl Levin MI
D Daniel Inouye HI
D Kay Hagan NC
D Kent Conrad ND
D Christopher Coons DE
D Thomas Carper DE*
D Robert Casey PA*
D Michael Bennet CO
D Richard Blumenthal CT
D Daniel Akaka HI*

If you write them letters make sure you use US postage. Not sure they would take a Canadian serious. Maybe learn to brew better beer first, that might help.

You're welcome.

What amazes me is that more Republican's didn't vote for this. It seems to be the Republican way of the past decade or so thus it fits right in. Was it because Obama is President? Either way I don't care on the why - I am glad it didn't pass.

"These are the Democrats that voted against Mark Udall's amendment. The * are those up for re-election in 2012."

And the Republican list?

And the Republican list?

Must be 35 of them?

You'll have to type louder.

No, Eh?

I'm here. Took a little break. Only 4 repubs voted for Udall's amendment so I didn't see the need to make a list. Shoot them all as far as I'm concerned.
For:
R James DeMint
R Dean Heller*
R Rand Paul
R Olympia Snowe*

Against:
R Andrew Alexander TN
R Kelly Ayotte NH
R John Barrasso WY
R Roy Blunt MO
R John Boozman AR
R Scott Brown MA*
R Richard Burr NC
R Clarence Chambliss GA
R Daniel Coats IN
R Thomas Coburn OK
R William Cochran MS
R Susan Collins ME
R Robert Corker TN*
R John Cornyn TX
R Michael Crapo ID
R Michael Enzi WY
R Lindsey Graham SC
R Charles Grassley IA
D Kay Hagan NC
R Orrin Hatch UT*
R John Hoeven ND
R Kathyrn Hutchison TX*
R James Inhofe OK
R Johnny Isakson GA
R Mike Johanns NE
R Ron Johnson WI
R Mark Kirk IL
R Jon Kyl AZ
R Mike Lee UT
R Richard Lugar IN*
R John McCain AZ
R Addison McConnell KY
R Jerry Moran KS
D Clarence Nelson FL
R Robert Portman OH
R James Risch ID
R Charles Roberts KS
R Marco Rubio FL
R Jefferson Sessions AL
R Richard Shelby AL
R John Thune SD
R Patrick Toomey PA
R David Vitter LA
R Roger Wicker MS*

That about rounds it out. Doesn't say much for the mind set of today's Congress.

I still can't figure out why 2/3's of Congress would think the citizens of America would approve this blatant disregard of the 5th Amendment. Do they really believe we have that much confidence in them that they wont fuck this up? Really?

I am glad it didn't pass.

#44 | POSTED BY GALAXIEPETE

GalaxiePete, it did pass. Mark Udall's amendment to exclude Americans is what didn't pass.

Ted, don't know where you got that list of dems from. Chuck Schumer voted in favor of Udall's amendemnt.

Also not sure where you got the list. Only two Republicans voted for the Udall amendment to exclude U.S. Citizens:

Kirk (R-IL)
Paul (R-KY)

36 Dems voted to exclude U.S. Citizens (including Sanders (I))
44 Republicans voted to include U.S. Citizens.

What does it tell you about Obama if vetoes this bill, then continues to indefinitely detain dudes at GITMO?

Grow some balls Obama; pardon them all. Why are you indefinitely detaining prisoners?

Political Translation: There are really bad people out there who we don't know what to do with and we have reason to be scared of, but we don't have the political balls to actually afford them due process because we're not sure we can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is even worse when you consider the fact that our justice system probably won't be able to assess this law properly as any challenge will be swatted down by the evidence and proceedings being secret.

I'm willing to bet we'll never see a SCOTUS challenge.

"proceedings being secret"

Yet we all had due process before the 14th amendment. Maybe we just need to re enforced the original & ratified 13th amendment to get rid of the American lawyers in our country's public office that seemed to be licensed to practice here for England since War of 1812 as I currently understand it:>)

The Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment
To The Constitution For The United States

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

.... How Much More O-B-V-I-O-U-S Does "GOVT CRIMINALITY" Have to Be to The US Public?

**** These US Senators have PROVEN themselves to be the ARCH ENEMIES of American Freedom and Democracy!!!

[WASHINGTON, DC] - Durbin spoke on the floor of the United States Senate in opposition to a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act that could threaten anti-terrorism efforts as well as the Constitution.

The Truth About the National Defense Authorization Act
By: poorrichard

Every year we pass a National Defense Authorization Act. Each year, it has something hidden in it, secret tax breaks for big party contributors, pork barrel projects but this year we have gone too far. This year’s bill officially recreates the equivalent of the East German or North Korean police state here at home, as usual, “to protect us from terrorism.”

Here, Senator Rand Paul makes it clear as day as does Senator John McCain. It is quite obvious, John McCain has totally broken with reality. Problem is, he stands here with the majority. What does this tell you?

Here's the link where I found those votes.

Anyone who still believes that the United States Federal Government is a friend of "The People" needs to have their head examined. Lamp post surrounding the US Capital building need to be decorated for the holiday season in order to bring about a little holiday cheer.

Grow some balls Obama; pardon them all. Why are you indefinitely detaining prisoners?

#53 | Posted by BloodSacrafice

Congress is who needs to grow some balls.

Pardoning them all is obviously not the answer either.

EXECUTIVE ORDER -- REVIEW AND DISPOSITION OF INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT THE GUANTÁNAMO BAY NAVAL BASE AND CLOSURE OF DETENTION FACILITIES

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to effect the appropriate disposition of individuals currently detained by the Department of Defense at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base (Guantánamo) and promptly to close detention facilities at Guantánamo, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice, I hereby order as follows:

Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantánamo. The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guantánamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.

Hi Tedly, you have the number right, but that vote was for Rand Paul's amendment 1064. There's a tiny note to the right of the s number.

Thanks Yav. I've been scratching my head all afternoon on this one. I would think Doc would have guessed my error and compensated his numbers in advance of my calling him on his math. Just can't trust old libs ;)