para-para-parrotdies

I believe Adam Serwer from Mother Jones magazine does the best job of outlining what the NDAA does and doesn't do. The following are just the highlights that I picked out, not to be misleading but to clarify some of the misconceptions in this thread: http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/defense-bill-passed-so-what-does-it-do-ndaa

Nope. Completely relevant.

I predicted that Obama would veto the Senate bill, not the current Conference Report. Background on Changes in the NDAA: These changes in the Conference Report is why the Obama administration has removed the veto threat:

Letter from Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA) explaining and clarifying the revised provisions in the NDAA:

Saffire, have you had the chance to read the conference report for the NDAA? The Senate bill has been watered down considerably.

Or maybe it's because there have been adjustments made by a House-Senate conference committee and now there's a revised bill.

The 4-5 new songs are probably as follows: 1) Come to Your Senses 2) I Froze Up 3) Open the Floodgates 4) The Present Tense 5) Skirting on the Surface I think Thom mentioned that the band was rehearsing Come to Your Senses a while back (Rolling Stone interview?) and the last four songs were played in the Atoms for Peace tour. 2012 is probably too early for a new album but 2013 certainly seems possible.

You do realize virtually all of the critics are excluding Coldplay right?

Ed O'Brien: "We've been rehearsing about 4 or 5 new songs this week so we're going to try and take those on the road" The Present Tense??? :santa2:

It would definitely help to know your price range. The best budget turntable that I can think of at the moment is the Rega RP-1 (maybe the Pro-Ject Debut III?) and that runs over $445 retail price. ....and that's before making the recommended upgrades, like getting a different phono cartridge

Did you seriously buy it for resale value?

What? Glenn Greenwald is saying the bill's effects are being overstated. As I already stated a couple of times in this thread, the bill is merely affirming the powers granted by the AUMF and upheld by the courts. So no, I'm not on your side.

"To be perfectly honest, I just couldn’t get myself worked up over a bill that, with some exceptions, does little more than formally recognize and codify what our Government is already doing." - Glenn Greenwald

I'm glad you approve of my picks :thumbsup: BTW, I made some minor edits so there might be a few more tracks you like.

I'm sorry you feel that way. :( 2011 for me has been an incredible year for music, one of the best in recent memory. The only negative is that there is no clear-cut AOTY like in previous years.

Kiame, while I agree with you 100%, I think Saffire poses as a libertarian.

FTB performance of Supercollider: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11ITxvYk-DU]Supercollider - Radiohead Live From The basement 2011 [HQ] [NEW VIDEO] - YouTube[/ame]

Edited list: 1) PJ Harvey - Let England Shake 2) Machinedrum - Room(s) 3) Destroyer - Kaputt 4) Shlohmo - Bad Vibes 5) Björk - Biophilia 6) Balam Acab - Wander/Wonder 7) Kate Bush - 50 Words For Snow 8) Rustie - Glass Swords 9) Radiohead - The King of Limbs 10) Grouper - A I A 11) James Blake - James Blake 12) Kuedo - Severant 13) Nicola Roberts - Cinderella's Eyes :ninja: 14) AraabMUZIK - Electronic Dream 15) The Weeknd - House of Balloons 16) Yuck - Yuck 17) Nicolas Jaar - Space Is Only Noise 18) BNJMN - Black Square 19) Tim Hecker - Ravedeath, 1972 20) The Field - Looping State of Mind 21) SBTRKT - SBTRKT 22) Oneohtrix Point Never - Replica 23) Modeselektor - Monkeytown 24) Sepalcure - Sepalcure 25) Gil Scott-Heron/Jamie xx - We're New Here 10 Special Mentions (in alphabetical order): 25 albums that ultimately did not make the list (in alphabetical order):

My final list. FYI: I decided to limit my selections to 1 song per artist (not including collaborations) to increase awareness of some really great songs. Best Songs of 2011: 1) Radiohead - Bloom 2) Massive Attack vs. Burial - Paradise Circus 3) Björk - Cosmogony 4) xxxy - Ordinary Things 5) Lana Del Rey - Video Games 6) Fleet Foxes - Helplessness Blues 7) Balam Acab - Oh, Why 8) Gang Gang Dance - Glass Jar 9) M83 - Midnight City 10) Mazzy Star - Common Burn 11) Bon Iver - Holocene 12) James Blake - The Wilhelm Scream 13) Nicola Roberts - Lucky Day :ninja: 14) The Field - Then It's White 15) Cut Copy - Need You Now 16) Burial - Stolen Dog 17) Machinedrum - Come1 18) PJ Harvey - The Words That Maketh Murder 19) AraabMUZIK - Streetz Tonight 20) Jacques Greene - Another Girl 21) Jamie Woon - Night Air 22) Air France - It Feels Good to Be Around You 23) Kendrick Lamar - HiiiPower 24) St. Vincent - Surgeon 25) Four Tet/Burial/Thom Yorke - Mirror 26) Blawan - Getting Me Down 27) The Weeknd - Wicked Games 28) Wilco - One Sunday Morning 29) Nicki Minaj - Super Bass (ft. Ester Dean) 30) Girls - Vomit 31) Azealia Banks - 212 (ft. Lazy Jay) 32) Daphni - Ye Ye 33) The Dream - Fuck My Brains Out 34) Modeselektor - Shipwreck (ft. Thom Yorke) 35) Frank Ocean - Novacane 36) Jamie xx - Far Nearer 37) Katy B - Broken Record 38) Rustie - Ultra Thizz 39) Drake - Marvins Room 40) Four Tet - Locked 41) Deadboy - Wish U Were Here 42) Jonny Greenwood - また会いに来るからね 43) Gil Scott-Heron/Jamie xx - I'll Take Care Of U 44) Actress - Harrier ATTK 45) Grimes - Vanessa 46) Thom Yorke, Jonny Greenwood & DOOM - Retarded Fren 47) Grouper - Vapor Trails 48) Caribou - Little By Little Rmx 49) Atlas Sound - Mona Lisa 50) Bill Callahan - Riding for the Feeling 50 songs that ultimately did not make the list (in alphabetical order):

Umbrella is easily one of the best songs in the 2000s.

The Feinstein Amendment, which passed 99-1 (even Rand Paul voted for it), "clarifies that the controversial section of the bill (Section 1031) that suggests individuals apprehended in the U.S. who are suspected of terrorism ought to be detained by the military, would in no way pertain to U.S. citizens, lawful resident aliens or anyone captured or arrested in the U.S." (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/196719-senate-clears-detainee-compromise-clearing-way-for-passage-of-defense-authorization). Section 1032(b)(1) says the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. Section 1032(b)(2) says the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States. So I'm really confused.... what are you worried about?

One example is the Chesney post mentioned in your Salon article (the Harvard JD, now a professor of law at UT) who works in conjunction with the Brookings Institution. Others who have spoken about the bill include Senators Levin (http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/speeches/speech/levin-floor-statement-on-detainee-provisions-of-ndaa), Graham (already mentioned), Rubio (http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/fighting-for-florida?ID=a95aa173-c008-4248-8f23-bc3723b7fc8f) and others I have not listed. I also previously linked to the Justice Department's interpretation as well as the Director of National Intelligence's personal letter. Andrew McCarthy, former Assistant United States attorney, also says Rand Paul is overstating facts and the NDAA reaffirms what the Constitution has always provided: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/284698/rand-paul-libertarian-extremist-andrew-c-mccarthy?pg=2 The reason I haven't responded to the "McCain/Paul exchange" is I don't exactly understand what you want me to address. In your first video, Rand Paul asks McCain if it's possible an American citizen declared an enemy combatant and then be sent to Guantanamo to be held indefinitely. McCain responds that if the person presents a reasonable threat, then yes, its possible. And as I've already pointed out numerous times now, American citizens can be held as an enemy combatant. That's currently the law of the land. In the second video, Paul gives his reasons why he opposes the bill. McCain then says he understands Paul is entitled to the opinion of the bill and then goes on to say 27% of released detainess again join enemy combatant forces. So what exactly is it that you want me to respond to? Why McCain didn't issue a "Rand Paul, you're an idiot" or "Rand Paul, you're a liar" type of statement? How should I know? I'm not McCain and to speculate into his mindset would be pure speculation. But if you're taking the lack of direct response as proof McCain is in agreement with Paul, then you're making an "absence of evidence" logical fallacy. I maintain you are overstating the facts. It's like Chesney says: "implying that the standard is so broad that anybody could be at risk, that the government has discretion to label people detainable, that, I think, is nonsense... There’s some overstatement here." (http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/dec/04/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-defense-department-budget-changes-de/) PolitiFact even goes on to say Ron Paul's claims are "mostly false."

I read this article yesterday and I'm glad you posted it. Mainly for this portion: I think the statement above reflects what's going on. Just like I can quote + link to a ton of experts who say the effects of the bill are overstated, you can quote + link to a bunch of experts who say that's not the case. I certainly don't think you and I are being misleading with our posts, nor do I think that's our intention. The only consensus among experts (and my reason for opposing the bill) is that Section 1032, the detention mandate, would be needlessly detrimental in counterterrorism efforts - it eliminates the flexibility often required for these matters. In the long-run, do I think this bill will matter? No, because all the signs on the Hill points to President Obama vetoing the bill for being too restrictive.

Are we watching the same video? Or did you link the wrong video? ....because she just reiterated everything that I've already stated. For example, at the 1:40 mark she talks about the provision (section 1032) which mandates military detention. And here's what I said about it, something you dismissed as my "weird interpretation": At the 2:24 mark, she talks about the military's poor record of trying these cases. And here's what I said about the matter: At the 3:42 mark, she talks about why the White House is threatening a veto on this bill. And here's what I said about the matter: Now I imagine you're going to point out the 1:11 mark where she says "The terms in the bill are so vague that it can really be applied to anyone the U.S. deems is an enemy." And once again, here's the post where I quoted Senator Graham: