Oakland's hospital is filling with their victims.

11/5/2011 12:04:08 AM

lock

11/5/2011 1:04:48 AM

[Edited on November 5, 2011 at 5:27 AM. Reason : .]

11/5/2011 5:22:47 AM

ha. I guess this could be put in here:


Smithfield, NC cops are too broke to respond to 911 calls.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/01/smithfield-north-carolina-police-gas-money_n_1069470.html


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/11/smithfield-n-c-police-to-cut-back-on-911-responses-cites-budget-woes/

[Edited on November 7, 2011 at 8:32 PM. Reason : ]

11/7/2011 8:30:48 PM

COINTELPRO

11/7/2011 10:23:22 PM

11/28/2011 11:35:16 PM

nice

11/28/2011 11:43:36 PM

11/29/2011 12:26:49 AM

I hate to say it, but tension is building.


People getting arrested for having overweight kids

People getting arrested for porn on their computer

People losing their jobs for not reporting a crime.

People losing their jobs for backing a person.

People being charged for the death of sick people.

The loss of the Bill of Rights.

The loss of education and teachers rights to teach.

The loss of parent's ability to parent their own children.

Banks owning everything, not paying taxes.

People suffering needlessly.

Society depressing.

Internet Censorship.

Loss of privacy and anonymity in society.

Continuation of a failed drug war.

Continuation of war propaganda against Iran, China, and Pakistan.



Worst part about it is I think America will go down without a fight.
Too weak and too uneducated.

11/29/2011 12:55:59 AM

Quote :

"100-2 middle school hoops blowout may have repercussions By Cameron Smith There are routs, there are blowouts, and then there are epic one-sided losses that would make the likes of Woody Hayes blush. The 100-2 victory by Pikeville (Ky.) Independent Middle School against Kimper (Ky.) Elementary and Middle School at the Pike County Preseason Tournament falls squarely in the last category. Now, the school district's superintendent and school board are allegedly considering canceling the team's entire season because of a perceived lack of sportsmanship shown in the 98-point drubbing. http://rivals.yahoo.com/highschool/blog/prep_rally/post/100-2-middle-school-hoops-blowout-may-have-reper?urn=highschool-wp9112 "

11/29/2011 1:10:47 AM

It's ok guys, because the man the GOP wanted in the Presidency wants to just take the police out of the equation and let the military arrest us on American soil!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/11/28/1040549/-Arrest-McCain-and-Levin-Now-Senate-to-Vote-on-Military-Detention-of-Americans-?via=recent

(and since some of you won't go to Kos)

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being/

(and since some of you won't go to the ACLU site)

http://conservativebyte.com/2011/11/senate-moves-to-allow-military-to-arrest-americans-without-charge-or-trial/

Quote :

"The Senate is set to vote on a bill today that would define the whole of the United States as a “battlefield” and allow the U.S. Military to arrest American citizens in their own back yard without charge or trial. “The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself,” writes Chris Anders of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office."

11/29/2011 7:49:47 AM

Sorry for the double post but I should probably say the names of the two dicks responsible for this bill. John McCain (R-crazy land) and Carl Levin (D-ouchebag).

Fucktardity is bipartisan.

11/29/2011 8:25:50 AM

^^ Based on that, I the US is trying to have more in common with some of its friends (China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Pakistan, etc).

11/29/2011 9:24:24 AM

Police are tattooing protesters for easier identification later.
http://www.salon.com/2011/11/30/occupy_protesters_branded_with_uv_ink/

11/30/2011 8:09:03 PM

^^^^methinks it would be overturned on Fourth Amendment grounds

11/30/2011 9:03:57 PM

The absolute soonest it could be overturned judicially would be ten years probably. Even a fiercely partisan issue like obamacare will take 3 years to overturn, and the majority of politicians won't even oppose this law.

11/30/2011 10:38:46 PM

I think I've seen this script before. People get rounded up and put into makeshift internment camps in Brooklyn, and then Denzel Washington comes in and arrests Bruce Willis

12/1/2011 2:12:27 AM

passed

12/1/2011 8:43:53 PM

haha. wow. At least Obama has said that he would Veto this bill. But Jesus, it shouldn't have even gotten this far. This is the kind of shit that happened in South America in the 80s.

12/1/2011 10:40:51 PM

Assuming this is the right bill (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s1867/show) it looks like we have 97 senators that need to be removed from office.

12/1/2011 11:05:06 PM

it's pretty fucking impressive that this do-nothing congress is so johnny-on-the-spot when it comes to pushing bills through that trample on civil liberties.

12/1/2011 11:38:50 PM

A bill to authorize military and energy department construction projects? I mean I'm against military spending and all but I don't see how it's especially egregious.


Or are you thinking this is the bill about detaining non-US Al Qaeda suspects found in the US in military custody instead of civilian custody? If so I'm glad to see people finally considering the possibility that maybe it's the moral thing to do to not treat non-Americans like rightless animals.

[Edited on December 2, 2011 at 8:54 AM. Reason : .]

12/2/2011 8:48:49 AM

no, its the one that allows the military to indefinitely detain anyone engated in "hostilities" toward the US, until the end of such "hostilities" (of which, many of these same politicians have outright said, or implied that the "war on terror" will be ongoing indefinitely).

and to transfer these detainees to the custody of "any foreign country or entity"

[Edited on December 2, 2011 at 9:21 AM. Reason : .]

12/2/2011 9:21:27 AM

^^ are you intentionally being obtuse or did you not read what was posted above?

12/2/2011 9:41:00 AM

Could you post the actual language from the bill in question instead of links to and quotes of commentary on it?

I know the standard here is "if a head is screaming he must be telling the truth" but just this once let's try primary sources. The Kos link just restates (and itself links) the ACLU, and the ACLU fails to actually quote the bill's language too. Just post the language in question, that's all I'm asking.

[Edited on December 2, 2011 at 9:48 AM. Reason : .]

12/2/2011 9:45:30 AM

you seem like a smart guy, i'm sure you can find it through the link a few posts above.

The actual wording in the bill seems intentionally vague so it can, in essence, be all encompassing.

and how can you critique the bill if you havent even read it yourself?

[Edited on December 2, 2011 at 9:59 AM. Reason : t]

12/2/2011 9:59:00 AM

^^I think this is it

Quote :

" Subtitle D--Detainee Matters SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE. (a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war. (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any per son 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. (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. (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) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2). SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY. (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War- (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war. (2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined-- (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners. (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033. (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States. (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens- (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- 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. (c) Implementation Procedures- (1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section. (2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows: (A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made. (B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States. (C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session. (D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country. (E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished. (d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112gLi2gh:e462417:

for the entire bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1867:


You can see in section 1032 where the bill explicitly says that US citizens are exempt. However, there has been some argument that it doesn't apply to the section 1031 above. I think amendments have been proposed which add the same wording (exempting US citizens) into section 1031 just so there is no doubt, but those amendments weren't included/passed. I'm not a lawyer so I'm unsure, but am willing to side with the ACLU on this one.


____
edit:

Im reading and rereading it and it seems like its just an affirmation of powers that are already on the book? I hate when congress does shit like that. Can anyone confirm that this is the section that is getting so much heat?

[Edited on December 2, 2011 at 10:12 AM. Reason : .]

12/2/2011 10:08:02 AM

This is from Lindsey Graham, it's in the ACLU article. Graham is one of the bill's sponsors.

Quote :

"“1031, the statement of authority to detain, does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland.”"

The Amendment which would have remove the indefinite detention portion was the Udall Amendment. It failed 38-60

[Edited on December 2, 2011 at 10:13 AM. Reason : .]

12/2/2011 10:12:36 AM

I haven't "critiqued" it, you and timswar have. So I'm guessing you've actually read it, so you probably know where the language in question can be found.

I'm trying to read it, and asking people who have already read it (you two) to show me the text, rather than wade through a web of blogs to find it.

I mean, you did read it yourself, right? So just copy and paste the relevant language here.

12/2/2011 10:13:58 AM

timswar that's more commentary, I asked for actual bill language.


edit: thanks Terd

[Edited on December 2, 2011 at 10:14 AM. Reason : .]

12/2/2011 10:14:36 AM

Well, since you're bound and determined to continue being obtuse here.

Quote :

"SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE. (a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war. (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*. (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. (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) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2)."

*. Note the "or". The two statements aren't connected. Even if they were any activity that involves dissent can be categorized under that.
** Welcome to indefinite detentions if you criticize the government!

Graham's statement wasn't commentary, it was defense of the bill by a bill sponsor. If you can't tell the difference between the two then its no wonder media companies seem to be controlling our political narrative.

[Edited on December 2, 2011 at 10:23 AM. Reason : .]

12/2/2011 10:20:53 AM

I trust the ACLU 99% of the time and they're likely right on this but excuse me if I have outrage fatigue when it comes to CONGRESS IS TAKIN AWAY ARE RIGHTS hysteria.

It says military detention "requirement" does not apply to US citizens. Does that mean it's optional? I don't think so unless explicitly stated, since US citizens have rights protecting them from that in the first place. Still, like I said, I do trust the ACLU on these things most of the time.

12/2/2011 10:21:25 AM

timswar I'm not being deliberately obtuse, but I suspect you're being genuinely obtuse, the part in question is pretty clearly the wording of the exemption for US citizens in section 3032, and whether that section applies to section 3031, as TerdFergusson posted

[Edited on December 2, 2011 at 10:24 AM. Reason : .]

12/2/2011 10:22:48 AM

1032 only states that it is not required to hold US citizens indefinitely. Nowhere does it say that you cannot.

But hey, since you can't be bothered to click a few links.

Quote :

"(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens- (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- 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."

All that does is make it optional. The military MAY become active on US soil and detain you if they feel like it.

[Edited on December 2, 2011 at 10:26 AM. Reason : .]

12/2/2011 10:24:18 AM

Quote :

"I trust the ACLU 99% of the time"

ahahaha. well at least i know you arent mcdanger or shrike now.

congrats on being the liberal aaronburro!

[Edited on December 2, 2011 at 10:24 AM. Reason : or is that pryderi?]

12/2/2011 10:24:19 AM

Yes, i did read it, and I found it through the above link.

Quote :

"You can see in section 1032 where the bill explicitly says that US citizens are exempt"

applies to actually being held in military custody...From what I see this just means they have to be held civilian detainment...all the other provisions look like they still apply.

12/2/2011 10:24:33 AM

Quote :

"1032 only states that it is not required to hold US citizens indefinitely. Nowhere does it say that you cannot."

Good thing 1032 isn't the only law on the books that pertains to the rights of US citizens when it comes to criminal prosecution

Quote :

"From what I see this just means they have to be held civilian detainment...all the other provisions look like they still apply."

The military detainment provision is what everyone's upset about, what are these "other provisions" that I should be worried about in this bill that aren't military detainment?

Quote :

" ahahaha. well at least i know you arent mcdanger or shrike now. congrats on being the liberal aaronburro!"

Don't ever call me a liberal, please. And note how I'm nonetheless trying to engage in critical analysis despite already knowing the ACLU's stance on this, you wont see aaroburro doing anything like that.

[Edited on December 2, 2011 at 10:27 AM. Reason : .]

12/2/2011 10:25:20 AM

oh by all means! if you shun such a label i will GLADLY not call you by it,

although i would request you pointing me towards an example of your non-liberal participation in TSB?

and also please enlighten me as to why i should accept any critical analysis from someone already so obviously biased?

12/2/2011 10:29:31 AM

Quote :

"what are these "other provisions" that I should be worried about in this bill that aren't military detainment?"

are you intentionally being difficult? the effective indefinite detainment due to the perpituity of the war on terror is the huge part of this, not to mention the power to transfer detainees to whatever foreign entity they want to elude the reach of law.

Quote :

"Good thing 1032 isn't the only law on the books that pertains to the rights of US citizens when it comes to criminal prosecution"

so why even pass a law that so blatantly flies in the face of the constitution?

[Edited on December 2, 2011 at 10:32 AM. Reason : .]

12/2/2011 10:30:58 AM

I actively advocate Socialism. Liberals are just Capitalists-lite. I critique liberals from the left, not from the right, I know that's unfathomable to you but please try to understand.

Quote :

" and also please enlighten me as to why i should accept any critical analysis from someone already so obviously biased?"

You don't have to accept it, just read it, and evaluate the statements critically to reach your own conclusions. That's how critical analysis works.

[Edited on December 2, 2011 at 10:39 AM. Reason : .]

12/2/2011 10:39:23 AM

oh i understand and yes it is unfathomable to me-

i dont think we should be friends!

12/2/2011 10:44:42 AM

Quote :

"are you intentionally being difficult? "

No, I'm not, I'm trying to be nuanced and actually understand this bill deeply instead of just defaulting to outrage. If you read what I've written closely instead of being so aggressive about trying to make me out to be some kind of fascist, you might

Quote :

"the effective indefinite detainment due to the perpituity of the war on terror is the huge part of this, not to mention the power to transfer detainees to whatever foreign entity they want to elude the reach of law."

This depends entirely on the key point as to whether or not the exemption of US citizens in 1032 applies to 1031 and how the wording of "not required" squares against existing laws guaranteeing a right to a timely trial.

Quote :

" so why even pass a law that so blatantly flies in the face of the constitution?"

At least the on-the-face interpretation of the law applies only to non-US citizens. The US Constitution doesn't apply to non-US citizens. So no, this law does not blatantly fly in the face of the Constitution, unless you can show that the requirement not applying to US citizens somehow invalidates the other laws guaranteeing a speedy civilian trial for US citizens.


You should focus a little less on trying your hardest to be angry at me, or trying your hardest to prove me wrong regardless of what I'm saying, because it's not like I'm sauntering in here saying it's okay to indefinitely detain US citizens in military prisons. I am as much against what you think this bill authorizes as you are, I'm just not entirely sure that the bill in fact authorizes what you think it does.


[Edited on December 2, 2011 at 10:50 AM. Reason : .]

12/2/2011 10:45:18 AM

Quote :

"i dont think we should be friends!"

Considering you were rude to me from the first post despite me asking some pretty benign questions, I didn't expect that.


Seriously, you guys are worse than liberals when it comes to freaking out at people who aren't as immediately outraged as you on a particular issue.

[Edited on December 2, 2011 at 10:49 AM. Reason : .]

12/2/2011 10:49:07 AM

At its worst, the exemption only applies to citizens being held in military custody and all other provisions, including indefinite detainment by civilian means still exist. At the very best, the bill is so ambiguous that it opens the door for citizens to be detained w/o being charged until the courts sorted it out.

Either way the results are in direct contradition to the constitution.

12/2/2011 10:51:29 AM

Quote :

"At its worst, the exemption only applies to citizens being held in military custody"

From what I see the law only refers to military custody. Keyword "from what I see" and I may have missed something so I'm 100% prepared to back down on this if someone posts language from bill authorizing indefinite civilian detainment.

Quote :

"and all other provisions, including indefinite detainment by civilian means still exist"

Well yeah but those have always been there, that's nothing new at all. US citizens have been indefinitely detained without trial in WWII, the Civil War, the war of 1812, probably in the revolutionary war (although I guess, technically, US citizens didn't exist then?). I'm totally against it, but this bill doesn't seem to be adding anything new.

Quote :

". At the very best, the bill is so ambiguous that it opens the door for citizens to be detained w/o being charged until the courts sorted it out. "

There are specific laws governing such detainments. We don't just have 1 law at a time in this country, writing a new one doesn't cancel the old ones.

Quote :

"Either way the results are in direct contradition to the constitution."

Well no, they only directly contradict the constitution if you pretend that "non-US citizens" equals "US citizens". The very fact that you admit it's ambiguous means you can't call it a direct contradition. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


Seriously folks, again, I am 100% against indefinite detainment for ANYBODY, US citizen or not, and think ALL trials should be public and civilian. I don't think the way to ensure those things happen is to twist and warp any and all ambiguity to reinforce a paranoia. Remember the fable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf? He was damn right about the wolf at the end, but because he was so sloppy and careless with his accusations in the past nobody listened. Be discerning and honest, simply being as outraged as possible will not make your assertions more credible. Dare to entertain nuance in your analyses.


[Edited on December 2, 2011 at 11:11 AM. Reason : .]

12/2/2011 11:09:23 AM

Quote :

"There are specific laws governing such detainments. We don't just have 1 law at a time in this country, writing a new one doesn't cancel the old ones."

exactly, so why even try to stick this in the bill?

Quote :

"The very fact that you admit it's ambiguous means you can't call it a direct contradition. You can't have your cake and eat it too."

i'm really not sure if you're being difficult on purpose, or just trolling...if a US citizen is held w/o charge while this issue is being sorted out in the courts because of its ambiguity, they are still being held w/o charge, which is a direct contradiction.

12/2/2011 11:22:21 AM

Here is an interesting take:

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/01/congress_endorsing_military_detention_a_new_aumf/singleton/

Quote :

"There are several very revealing aspects to all of this. First, the 9/11 attack happened more than a decade ago; Osama bin Laden is dead; the U.S. Government claims it has killed virtually all of Al Qaeda’s leadership and the group is “operationally ineffective” in the Afghan-Pakistan region; and many commentators insisted that these developments would mean that the War on Terror would finally begin to recede. And yet here we have the Congress, on a fully bipartisan basis, acting not only to re-affirm the war but to expand it even further: by formally declaring that the entire world (including the U.S.) is a battlefield and the war will essentially go on forever. Indeed, it seems clear that they are doing this precisely out of fear that the justifications they have long given for the War no longer exist and there is therefore a risk Americans will clamor for its end. This is Congress declaring: the War is more vibrant than ever and must be expanded further. For our political class and the private-sector that owns it, the War on Terror — Endless War — is an addiction: it is not a means to an end but the end itself (indeed, 2/3 of these war addicts in the Senate just rejected Rand Paul’s bill to repeal the 2003 Iraq AUMF even as they insist that the Iraq War has ended). This is the war-hungry U.S. Congress acting preemptively to ensure that there is no sense in the citizenry that the War on Terror — and especially all of the vast new powers it spawned — can start to wind down, let alone be reversed. "

I think this was probably the most likely goal of the affirmation

12/2/2011 2:53:29 PM

If they keep wanting more war so desperately, they might just get it.

**********************************************

A MESSAGE TO ANY POLICE OR MILITARY READING THIS:
Now is your opportunity to retire with honor. The next year, 2012, will force you to make very difficult decisions. You WILL be given orders to repress fundamental American rights. This isn't a threat, I do not condone violence and have no intention of participating. But domestic insurrection is coming. Anyone with eyes can see it.

**********************************************

[Edited on December 2, 2011 at 3:33 PM. Reason : .]

12/2/2011 3:25:32 PM