Is the American dream over?

1,339 posts in this topic

 

Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio voted against. Al Franken and Patrick Leahy voted for it. The vote was not along party lines.

 

Greenwald has a theory about how these votes scrape by the Democratic-controlled Senate with just enough support from Dems to pass, for what it's worth:

 

 

I’ve described this little scam before as “Villain Rotation”: “They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it.” This has happened with countless votes that are supposed manifestations of right-wing radicalism but that pass because an always-changing roster of Democrats ensure they have the support needed. So here is the Democratic Party — led by its senior progressive National Security expert, Carl Levin, and joined by just enough of its members — joining the GOP to ensure that this bill passes, and that the U.S. Government remains vested with War on Terror powers and even expands that war in some critical respects.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The warning siren is getting louder. When will the clean up begin? Me thinks the environmental and OWS crowd is howling up the wrong tree.

 

 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I put several quality unwanted items from my home remodel on CL with the comment "make me an offer". No reply.

 

I re-posted them in the FREE section. My inbox is flooded.

 

Things are worse than I thought. :unsure:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

these votes scrape by the Democratic-controlled Senate with just enough support from Dems to pass, for what it's worth:

 

This is area where i find Greenwald more than a bit disingenuous. He seems to imply that the Republicans are obviously the bad guys and for some reason the Democratic good guys take a hit for the team on a rotational basis in order to make necessary political gains on other issues. In general, i think most of the people in the Senate are very intelligent and mostly very moderate. I like and respect Carl Levin the co-sponsor of the bill.

 

Here is a link to the vote. There is very little opposition and of the 10 or so opposed, most are Republicans. It did not barely float through.

 

http://www.occupypolice.org/2011/12/03/a-public-list-of-the-senators-who-supported-the-freedom-striping-indefinite-detention-sections-of-the-2012-ndaa-ows-ocpo/

 

(aside - i signed up for twitter yesterday and it is totally awesome - link above comes from a twitter feed)

 

The most interesting question for me is - what is coming down the pike that this group sees and we don't?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This is area where i find Greenwald more than a bit disingenuous. He seems to imply that the Republicans are obviously the bad guys and for some reason the Democratic good guys take a hit for the team on a rotational basis in order to make necessary political gains on other issues.

No, he disapproves of this tactic used by the Democrats, because the party uses it to pretend publicly to its base that it supports or opposes certain legislation when, in fact, party members work behind the scenes to make sure unpalatable bills like this pass. That's pretty far from expressing admiration.

 

 

The most interesting question for me is - what is coming down the pike that this group sees and we don't?

 

Indeed.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not that he is expressing admiration, but rather that while the tactic may be repugnant, he refuses to acknowledge the reality.

 

It was not a handful of votes and this bill did not scrape by. The Democrats turned out in full force to support it and it passed with a resounding majority. For Greenwald to suggest otherwise is a distortion.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He says it all and he is in the business.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/05/george-soros-global-financial-system_n_1129210.html?icid=maing-

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Things are worse than I thought.

You should see the giving trees in our schools this year. No one is asking for toys anymore; just clothes and food. Kind of worries me.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think we've overlooked the real threat to the American dream...the Muppets!

 

I had heard this, too. You have to have some kind of huge mental dissociation problems not to twig that EVERY Christmas special on TV is about how the True Christmas Spirit isn't about buying stuff, interspersed with commercials for toys at Wal-Mart and weekend doorbusters at JC Penney. :rolleyes:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We’re quick to describe politicians whose views we find extreme or whose behavior seems odd as “crazy,” and perhaps anyone who runs for president in some sense is.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2011/12/is_newt_gingrich_nuts_consider_the_symptoms_.html

 

That must be the bottom of the barrel.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It's called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it." George Carlin

 

 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JS: What's the secret to your success?

GCarlin: Im never more than 100 feet from a joint even though I dont smoke anymore.

 

Word. Rest in Peace George.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Anybody following the National Defense Authorization Act with amendments which just passed through the Senate? It also referred to as McCain-Levin.

 

It seems to declare the scope of "the battlefield" as worldwide and allows indefinite detention of US citizens without charges.

 

Aaaaaand, drumroll . . . . . . Obama's going to sign it.

 

 

Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay. . . .

 

The law, contained in the defence authorisation bill that funds the US military, effectively extends the battlefield in the "war on terror" to the US and applies the established principle that combatants in any war are subject to military detention.

 

The legislation's supporters in Congress say it simply codifies existing practice, such as the indefinite detention of alleged terrorists at Guantánamo Bay. But the law's critics describe it as a draconian piece of legislation that extends the reach of detention without trial to include US citizens arrested in their own country.

 

"It's something so radical that it would have been considered crazy had it been pushed by the Bush administration," said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. "It establishes precisely the kind of system that the United States has consistently urged other countries not to adopt. At a time when the United States is urging Egypt, for example, to scrap its emergency law and military courts, this is not consistent."

At the New York Times, Andrew Rosenthal argued earlier this week that the civilian court system has been much more effective than the military courts at actually trying and imprisoning "terror" suspects.

 

 

[in the civilian system] Sentences are long, imprisonment conditions are tough, and recidivism rates are low. According to the Center on Law and Security, 87 percent of 204 people charged with serious Jihadist crimes since the Sept. 11 attacks were convicted and got an average sentence of 14 years.

 

So the federal prison system seems to work, efficiently. Guantanamo does not. Which makes it all the more ridiculous that the Senate and the House have passed a bill that would take most of the anti-terrorism effort out of the hands of federal authorities and turn it over to the military. A bill, by the way, that the F.B.I., the intelligence agencies, the Justice Department and the Pentagon believe will hinder anti-terrorism efforts.

 

I suppose the bill’s defenders would argue that, despite everything Scott’s article lays out, the military system is still better, because the president can hold prisoners at Guantanamo for as long as hostilities continue (meaning forever), without a pesky trial.

 

But there is a price to pay for the military system, quite literally. According to Scott Shane’s article, a federal maximum-security inmate costs $25,000 a year. At Guantanamo Bay, each detainee costs $800,000 a year.

I find this extremely troubling.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conquistador, you've touched on the biggest betrayal the Obama Administration has perpetrated on those who supported him for election in 2008.

 

Most of his supporters considered it a GIVEN, so obvious as to be unspoken, that he would steer a radically different course on foreign policy and the WOT than Bush did. Instead, he has not only continued the Bush policies, especially with regard to the "imperial Presidency," but has gradually expanded them.

 

This law only codifies a power that Obama had already assumed for himself as President.

 

I sincerely hope the Nobel Peace Prize committee is hanging their collective heads in shame.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cinzia, I am actually somewhat surprised he did sign this legislation, although any President would want greater power for the Executive Branch and I did think back in 2008 he wasn't going to fulfill liberals' dreams on national security issues.

 

We did need something codified on preventive detention, but this is draconian. I expect a court challenge forthwith.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now