• There Is No Such Thing As An 'Indefinite Detention Bill.'

    The disinformation campaign to cast the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) as the dawn of a new "Nazi America" age continues unabated on Twitter. More and more people are attempting to use the bill as pretext for scaring the living shit out of the Occupy Wall Street people into discouraging support of President Barack Obama, and as an excuse for not casting a vote in his favor. I hate playing "conspiracy theorist" here, but I have to wonder if this isn't just some campaign whipped up by a conservative think tank to harness waves of liberal outrage and indignation to batter Obama's reelection chances - in other words, let the indignation and moral outrage of liberals and the smooth second-guessing of the professional left do the GOP's heavy lifting for them.

    Milt Shook has a great article on his blog, the aptly named "Please Cut The Crap," that spells it all out for anyone who still has a hard time grasping the fact that, no, there isn't an "Indefinite Detention Bill" that locks up Americans indefinitely a la gulags and Nazi concentration camps:

    Here’s the language in section 1021 that has the pro lefties up in arms. It’s in the Conference Report. Follow along, please. Oddly (?), most pro left cite (1), but leave out (2)-(4). I know, that just seems so odd, doesn’t it?

    (c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

    (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

    (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111– 84)).

    (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

    (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

    Yes, I do admit section c) looks troubling, especially if you look at it all by itself. But as long as we have Obama (or Biden) in office, we have time to get rid of it, especially if we give them a Democratic Congress. But I would also note that the pro lefties also leave out sections b) d) and e). When you read them you’ll know why.

    (b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

    (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

    (2) A person who was a 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, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

    (d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

    (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

    Yes, you read that right. The so-called – the “Indefinite Detention Bill” that pro and emo lefties are trying to convince you will give the president the power to round us all up and detain us forever without a trial, not only doesn’t exist on its own, but the language is somewhat limiting, and specifically excludes US citizens or people who are in the United States legally. Section b) 2) does bother me, but I don’t think it’ll survive a court challenge because it’s too broad. What the hell is a “belligerent act,” for example? I once called a US Senator an asshole to his face; that was kind of belligerent.

    I will note, for the record, that the provision does fly in the face of the 14th Amendment, and I don't like it. But I don't see anything in it that isn't reversible, and certainly nothing that's worth putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work for, just as we're recovering from the worst recession in 80 years.

    Milt goes on to explain how the desire to trash can the entire bill has its own set of unwanted consequences:

    Obama doesn't have a line-item veto, so he can’t veto the “Indefinite Detention Bill” without vetoing the entire NDAA. Now, you may think that would be a good thing, but would it? It’s not just about the troops. What about all of those civilians who might lose their jobs for at least a month or two, while Obama and the teabagging GOP worked out a new NDAA without that little amendment, assuming they could do so? What do you think canceling all those defense contracts for a month or two would do to the unemployment rate? How about six months? What would happen to all of those small towns that depend on the military bases and contractors to support their small businesses? Do you imagine the GOP might be a bit energized after the unemployment rate suddenly rises to 10%?

    Those of you who claim “principle” when you discuss this need to stop. Many pros and emos claim Obama’s showing a “lack of principle” by signing this “Indefinite Detention Bill.” Forget the fact that you're claiming a lack of principle when you're lying to the public about a bill that doesn't exist. You’re actually advocating for an action that could put millions of people out of work for a few months, and forcing our troops to lose their meager pay for a few months for… what, exactly? What are your “principles” when you advocate for that, in order to kill an amendment that will probably ultimately have zero effect on anyone, and might even die in the courts?

    AND I BLAME THE REPUBLICANS FOR THIS, NOT OBAMA. They put it there, not him. Blaming this on Obama is kind of like blaming the company who put the olives in the jar because you didn't chew your olive responsibly. Just saying.

    In order to kill the above provisions, Obama has to kill the entire bill. That would be a politically stupid thing to do, and anyone with any common sense would understand that. The best way to handle this is to keep this provision in mind, give Obama a second term, and give him a Congress that will pass a repeal that he can sign. There you go; problem solved.

    Sorry, Milt. Some people who are emotionally charged over the NDAA right now are dead set on not giving President Obama a second term. The funny thing about these folks is if you ask them if or why they think the nation would be better off with an Republican administration, given that such a thing is the alternative at the moment, you'll only get silence. Or a regurgitation of "throw the bum(s) out. That's right - throw the bums out, but let's not give any thought to the new set of bums filling their spots.

    Personally speaking, I'm getting sick of these people. They'll risk handing the nation over on a silver platter to Republicans for the next generation over these lies. The Republicans aren't gonna stop them from believing a series of blatant lies and committing a terrible mistake that eventually works in the GOP's favor.

    Milt leaves a wonderful parting shot for common-variety chucklefuck and current pied-piper of professional leftist disinformation Glenn Greenwald:

    Look, folks, I don’t like this section of the bill much more than Greenwald does. On its face, without lying, it’s odious, especially if Obama is replaced by anyone in the current Republican field. The problem is, the bullshit braying being screeched by professional lefties like Glenn Greenwald actually helps make the possibility of a Republican president and a Republican Senate greater, not less likely. If you really want crap like this amendment repealed, you’ll need a Democratic House and Senate and a Democratic president. You’ll also need a Supreme Court appointed and approved by Democrats, because an entire court full of Scalia/Thomas/Alito clones will happily give a Republican president this power.

    I'm beginning to believe the professional lefties relish the advent of a solidly Republican executive, judicial and legislative power structure. When that happens, the professional left will no longer be obligated to do any heavy lifting. Instead, they can spend all of their time mouthing lofty platitudes about what they believe ought to happen without any responsibility for making any of that happen. And when they're called on such tripe, they can always take a cool, soothing dip into their own personal pool of perpetual underdogism and beautiful martyrdom, and point to the GOP as an insurmountable brick wall for any action they commit. And then it's back to the DC/LA/NYC cocktail parties and other venues of preening self-importance.

    I believe they'll piss themselves for the chance to usher in President Gingrich. There's a certain domestic abuse meme that comes into play, but I'm not gonna repeat it. You can see it, and somehow, it's terribly fitting.

    Seriously, read Mitt Shook's article on the whole thing. It's a damn-near work of art.

    See my previous posts on the National Defense Authorization Act by following the "NDAA" article tag.