Saffire

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKaBSp18u2c]Hitler hears about the eurozone downgrade - YouTube[/ame] Lulz.

Right, and that point is when the rants become physical assaults. Mature people who have intelligence and self-esteem can sit through the insane rantings of anyone. "You" could "get" anybody you disagreed with for "disturbing the peace" and "public recklessness". They are catch-all charges designed to enable police to arrest anybody the State is afraid of.

I hear this "he's powerless to act!" line a lot here in America, in reference to Mr Obama. It's nonsense. Presidents and prime ministers have the power to lead the country and get things done. Just a cursory glance at history shows this. For instance, Julia Gillard got the idiotic "carbon tax" passed even though it was unpopular both in her own party and overall - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/8644592/Julia-Gillards-popularity-slumps-amid-carbon-tax-plans.html Obama invaded Libya and expanded the war in Afghanistan even though most Americans were against these things. The corporate and bank bailouts occurred in the US even though over 80% of Americans were solidly against them, and were screaming for them to not go through. If you think presidents and prime ministers are too weak to accomplish big things, you're being fooled by statist propaganda. Because if anything, presidents and politicians have way TOO MUCH power.

Thanks Nick, for that very reasonable, well considered analysis. Here's more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-horrifying-ndaa-and-jon-stewarts-save-2011-12 This is what we're scared of, Parrotdies. And while you might be content with National Review's analysis of the bill, we're not. Because we can see this is the same National Review that was a cheerleader for countless wars, an apologist for torture, and an advocate for the PATRIOT act. Here's Senator Merkley correcting Senator Graham on the floor: Here's Jon Stewart's segment on the bill: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-december-7-2011/arrested-development And now, Parrotdies, it looks like not only do you think I'm "overstating the facts", but also several respected senators from both parties, several respected journalists (both on the left and the right), the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and many others.

This is what I'm worried about, Parrotdies: Anyway, as far as I understand it, it's still possible that American citizens can be held in military custody - the amendment just keeps it from being a requirement. Either way, I'm with Glenn Greenwald and the ACLU on this - it's a dangerous clarification of a bad law. It's also intentionally vague as to who "associated forces" are. But as I've said earlier, you're welcome to have faith in Carl Levin and Lindsey Graham and National Review, lol. But I don't trust my civil liberties to these people.

Just so we clarify this for the people still reading: I'm worried that this bill poses a threat to Americans' civil liberties by clarifying and codifying the effective elimination of the 6th Amendment (the right to a fair trial). The groups that agree with me are senators, the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, a former Reagan administration official, a judge, and many reputable journalists. Parrotdies isn't worried. The people that agree with him are a law professor, Senators Levin, Graham, Rubio, a writer for the National Review (a magazine that cheerleads for waterboarding and Guantanamo Bay) and the Justice Department itself. Now ask yourself: who do you trust more to safeguard your civil liberties? The people on my list, or the people on Parrotdies list? Chesney also says this: Oops.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,802051,00.html Anxious Greeks Emptying their Bank Accounts http://www.businessinsider.com/program-1033-military-equipment-police-2011-12 The Pentagon is Offering Free Military Hardware To Every Police Department In The US

Actually I don't ever recall you quoting and linking to "a ton of experts who say the effects of this bill are overstated". Whereas I quoted and linked to a former Reagan administration official, the ACLU, Human Rights Watch, Rand Paul AND John McCain (co sponsor of the bill), and many reputable journalists. What you keep talking about (some vague thing about the executive branch losing power to the military) has nothing to do with the purpose of this thread or my dissatisfaction with the bill. So no, I don't think we're on equal footing on this. Parrotdies, first you said I was "overstating the facts". Then you ignored my numerous requests that you address the McCain/Paul exchange, which I think is very important to understanding the content of the bill - after all, it's a senator speaking about the bill he wrote! And now you appear to be backtracking, saying we've both got a solid case. So which is it? Am I a fearmonger who's overstating the facts (along with all those other people I quoted)? Or is my position a reasonable one? Thanks for pointing this out, MrLick. History shows this is certainly the case.

She's saying something vastly different from what you're saying. She's agreeing with me that this bill is potentially a massive infringement on Americans' civil liberties, while you're saying it's nothing new. In your previous posts, you've said that I'm "overstating the facts", and Reilly accused me of fear-mongering. But I don't think either of these are fair accusations, because a lot of legal experts take my side in this. I'll try to explain why later in this post. Well you have to be clear what you're talking about. When you say "poor record of trying cases", and "jeopardize national security by restricting flexibility in our fight against Al Qaeda", you don't really get your point across well (at least not in my opinion). Earlier in the post you referenced, you said this: So clearly your concerns aren't with civil liberties, but with the efficacy of the government. Government efficacy isn't what we're debating here. My point of contention is the civil liberties aspect, and it's also the ACLU's point of contention. So I'm not alone in this. Please don't act like your view on this bill is the only valid view, because that would be misleading. And I know it's not your intent to mislead the readers of this forum, is it Parrotdies? Okay, so you quote Graham in an effort to show that this (indefinite detention without a trial) was somehow already the law. Which means (oddly enough) this whole part of the NDAA we're debating was redundant, but nevermind that point. http://www.salon.com/2011/12/05/politifact_and_the_scam_of_neutral_expertise/singleton/ You see, Parrotdies, there is a very important clarification of the law that's happening with the passage of this bill. This is what you're overlooking.

Here's Human Rights Watch's Counterterrorism expert on the bill, and she clarifies what all the stink is about with regard to this bill. Hint: it's exactly the opposite of what Parrotdies was claiming. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN-6Bmw_UIA]"Shut Up. You Don't Get a Lawyer!": The Defense Authorization Act Guts Civil Liberties - YouTube[/ame]

Bradley Manning was in the military, so he basically signed away his rights when he joined. This bill affects civilians and foreigners alike.

Right, I don't disagree with anything you just said. The problem libertarians have with this bill is who gets to decide who an "enemy combatant" is, and when this "war" ends. It's incredibly vague. Also, please don't ignore that exchange between Rand Paul and John McCain - I think it's very important. I think it clearly shows that both senators have a different understanding of the bill than you do.

For those of you who are willing to look at both sides of the interpretation of the bill, here's a quote from Lindsey Graham (Republican senator from South Carolina who voted for the bill): http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/02/the-terrorists-have-won/ And here's another quote from Graham: So no, Reilly and Parrotdies. I don't think it's very fair of you guys to accuse me of "overstating the facts" here. Or of "fear mongering".

Apparently very few people, Crests. :P

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEMDX2iuHyI]Paul Craig Roberts: We have a republican party that is a Gestapo party - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKaTxjxnYfE]Sen. Rand Paul on Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano - 11/29/11 - YouTube[/ame] BTW, thanks for the support, MrLick.

Okay, it's nice that you have these opinions. A lot of people have a low opinion of me on this forum, and I feel like I try to counterbalance that by contributing thoughtful posts and bringing interesting news stories to your attention. But please read my posts carefully. Notice that Parrotdies has never spoken to the content of my posts. He's never responded to the simple points that I made about many journalists, reputable news sources, and even senators themselves who believe this bill is a massive infringement on Americans' civil liberties. He's never explained why John McCain didn't clarify the bill to Rand Paul. I think it would be fantastic news if indeed this bill didn't make it possible to send American citizens (or anyone!) off to Guantanamo Bay without a fair trial. But John McCain, the co-sponsor of the bill, seems to think that it does. And I trust the co-sponsor of the bill's interpretation any day over the Justice Department's interpretation. I even explained why in my previous post: the Justice Department doesn't have a very good track record on sticking up for Americans' rights or looking out for their interests. Also, in that link I posted it points out that the government already has all the prosecutorial "tools" it needs to fight terrorism. There's no need for more. Parrotdies is entitled to his opinion about the contents of the bill. But bills are interpretive. In fact, they are often times intentionally vague, so they can be stretched in the future. I'm sure Parrotdies, who has clearly learned to read legalese, would agree with me on this point. Finally, Parrotdies didn't reveal his opinion about the bill until this most-recent post. Instead, he started by presenting what he thought was my (and a thousand other peoples') incorrect interpretation of the bill. He wasn't being constructive at all. Rather than start off attacking my position and opinion on the bill, he could have said, "I think the bill means something different, and here's why..." and then linked to some sources. But I won't let this get me riled up. I'm sure Parrotdies is a very pleasant person in real life. I just vehemently disagree with him that the executive branch of our government needs even more power than it already has to prosecute terrorists. I also disagree with him about the interpretation of the bill (as does John McCain, the cosponsor of the bill, and Rand Paul, an intelligent Senator from Kentucky).

And then here you sort of seem to be supporting the content of the bill... Again, you seem to be trying to bait me in a frivolous argument over nothing. If you're against the bill, why are you trying to minimize its effect? Are you just doing this to confuse people? Show off your ability to interpret "legalese"?

I'm not arguing that - John McCain is! Take a look at the video. If it's true that Rand Paul mischaracterized the content of the bill, why does McCain not point that out? Does McCain, the co-sponsor of the bill, not know what's in it? Is he not a good advocate for his own pieces of legislation? http://www.fox19.com/story/16169862/reality-check-did-the-us-senate-just-give-away-your-right-to-due-process Your argument about the Justice Department is a bit funny, especially given the "Fast and Furious" scandal they're facing now... I'm not so sure they have Americans' best interests at heart.

You're really stretching the language of this bill in order to make me look bad. That's really petty, man. The bill clearly doesn't say what you claim it says, and if it did, the senators in the videos I've linked to are clearly not discussing the same bill you are. "False flag agents"? Where did you hear this? Do you have ANY sources who agree with your weird interpretation of this bill? This is low, even for you.

Did you read the whole thing? If so, you would have noticed this: Also, you would have seen the exchange between Rand Paul and John McCain, which I posted at the start of this thread. Here's another video of Mr Paul speaking on the bill: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpfS62zrmAQ]Rand Paul and John McCain S. 1867 - YouTube[/ame]

Doesn't matter, it'll apply to all states if Obama signs it into law.

Funny you don't hear anything about this on FOX, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, etc... Almost like they don't want you to notice.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8932687/Portugal-raids-pension-funds-to-meet-deficit-targets.html There goes the Portuguese retirements!

Kyle Bass, hedge fund manager Discussing gold and the upcoming "apocalypse". (His word, not mine.) "The bottom line is, we either take a lot of pain now, or apocalyptic pain later." "I think [the government will] just continue to print money, actually."