Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Senator Sanders
The blame for this invasion of our privacy rests with members of congress who continue to vote for the Patriot Act
Exposed: A Spammer Fooled MSM & America with Edited NDAA Video
GD Star Rating
loading...
loading...
Exposed: A Spammer Fooled MSM & America with Edited NDAA Video was written by Sarah Jones for PoliticusUSA.
© PoliticusUSA, Dec. 20th, 2011. All Rights Reserved
Related Posts :
Fox News broke out the editing machine again today, and this time the victim was Howard Dean. On Fox and Fri ...
Bill O'Reilly slammed heckler Neil Munro and supported Obama for calling him out, but when Fox News pos ...
An edited video of Carl Levin claiming that Obama wanted the language in the NDAA caused outrage among m ...
Andrew Breitbart was on Michael Savage’s show today, where he claimed that his own edited video of Shirl ...
By Blogsdna
Enhanced Comments
PoliticusUSA
G+
FacebookLoading Facebook Comments ...
27 Responses to Exposed: A Spammer Fooled MSM & America with Edited NDAA Video
Public Service Advertisements
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 20th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
And the FEMA concentration camps for wayward republicans too! Oh yeah baby!
Republicans are idiots. And once again, this is going to be far dirtier than the Dems can deal with.
loading...
Reynardine
Dec. 20th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
I think in the next eleven months, we can expect a forgery a minute, and they’ll make it look like just a bunch of unrelated cranks.
loading...
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 20th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
I agree totally. This is all well planned out at many levels. The DNC needs to start hitting the tea thugs home newspapers soon
loading...
john R
Dec. 20th, 2011 at 10:35 pm
rove, rove, rove your vote into the main stream
dirtily, dirtily, dirtily, truth is but a dream
loading...
Michael Humphrey
Dec. 21st, 2011 at 8:12 pm
Good one John.
loading...
Say No to Corporate America
Dec. 23rd, 2011 at 6:15 am
READ IT!
Forget the propaganda, forget who said what,
READ THE BILL, READ THE LAW because THAT is what it is!!!
‘Three myths about the detention bill’;
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/
loading...
majii
Dec. 20th, 2011 at 7:21 pm
I never got my nose out of joint about this because, iirc, it was here at Politicucusa last week, that the scam was first exposed by revealing that the original video had been altered to represent something that had NEVER happened. Unfortunately, I’m still seeing some on the left who are still beating the debunked drum that PBO signed an NDAA bill that allows for Americans to be detained without due process of law. I’m beginning to think that some on the left are as lazy as the MSM and some others in the country.
loading...
Reynardine
Dec. 20th, 2011 at 8:14 pm
Well, basically, some on the left are firebaggers, PUMAs, and bigots.
loading...
crystalwolfakacaligrl
Dec. 21st, 2011 at 1:07 pm
It was on Prison plantet also,too! Alex Jones of course…
loading...
Churchlady
Dec. 21st, 2011 at 12:00 am
What shocks me is that yes, I expect this paranoia from the Right since they DO believe in concentration camps, re-education, and forced everything. It’s natural they’d anticipate it from the left progressives. Called “projection”. From “Jesus Camp” to “arrest all the judges” that is their meme – round ‘em up and hold ‘em.
In 1999-2000 the Y2K survivalists prowled their back 40 (acres or feet depending) waiting for the Black Helicopters that never came. Wal-Mart trucks did NOT carry “martial law – this road is closed” signs, not even in the discount aisle. White buses were – white buses, not UN forces sent to round up, well, see above.
What horrifies me is the slavering willingness of otherwise intelligent people to believe this crap about Carl Levin, Obama, and every other civil rights advocate. I KNOW horrible things have happened – I followed Judi Bari’s travails – but we’re talking about people for whom commitment to civil liberties is a core principle. What has happened to the left has ALWAYS been when the right is in power. So why this willingness to believe Obama is evil, that Carl Levin is evil, that Dianne Feinstein is evil – when the ABSOLUTE opposite is true? What are you getting out of your paranoia anyway, rabid progressives? WHAT? It’s NOT TRUE what you fear – so why do you prefer to fear it?
I know the lure of myth. I once found absolute proof of what had happened to a WW II plane that crashed into the Monongahela River that had been the source of folklore ever since. I discovered the photos of it being pulled out (it’s supposed to still be there complete with – fill in the blank – gold bouillon or something). Telling this to professional historians was not on. The information was TOTALLY rejected because it would have killed the legend. So even professional historians did not want to know. The stuff of folklore is mighty and powerful.
But this is NUTS. This is ulcer-provoking, Xanax inducing, and anti-democratic. Believing the worst about your nation under an administration that is seeking to UNDO the paranoid style of RW politics is just zany. GIVE IT UP. The Defense Reauthorization bill does NOT bring the government crashing down on us.
So my one big question – what the HELL are you all doing giving aid and comfort to Michelle Bachmann’s wackiness and delusions? You’re making her look justified! Just remember – this goes far enough, you AND she will be sharing a padded room together. Seriously – you want that to be how you end your days?
loading...
Linda1961
Dec. 20th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
Our media is lazy and disgraceful. Why didn’t any of the “journalists” check out the video?
loading...
DannyEastVillage
Dec. 20th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
the MSM no longer employes journalists.
loading...
Churchlady
Dec. 21st, 2011 at 12:05 am
Why did they not just read the damned bill – the final version, not the previous one. Any sophomore can do it, and it becomes instantly clear that the rotten language of the first versions is GONE. It’s not that hard – in fact it’s easy. Just find the engrossed version of S.1867 (last version) and scroll down to sections 1031-1034. You can find the bill on Thomas.loc.gov the Library of Congress online search engine for federal legislation. Between that and the WHOLE video, this should NOT be an issue, especially for intelligent progressives.
Unless, of course, you like sitting around the campfire telling ghost stories. ‘Cause that’s all this is.
loading...
Say No to Corporate America
Dec. 23rd, 2011 at 6:34 am
Deny this, Obama Says -
“In our Constitutional system, prolonged detention should not be the decision of any one man. If and when we determine that the United States must hold individuals to keep them from carrying out an act of war, we will do so within a system that involves judicial and congressional oversight. So going forward, my administration will work with Congress to develop an appropriate legal regime so that our efforts are consistent with our values and our Constitution”–
Obama’s “prolonged detention” could NEVER fit in to OUR Constitutional system… it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, period. WTF?! preventative. Any kind of “legal regime” that is “appropriate” for prolonged detention is more appropriate for a totalitarian regime. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbslm1h8xjI
READ THE LAW!! Forget the propaganda, who said what, Obama wanted PREVENTATIVE prolonged detention YEARS ago,
THESE are the FACTS!!
UNCONSTITUTIONAL NDAA
= US citizen imprisonment
+ Internment camps hiring
+ OWS labeled a “terror threat” by the law
+ National Guard survey Asking if They Would “Use Lethal Force Against the American People if ordered to do so” (confirmed by multiple sources)
= WAKE UP WAKE UP WAKE UP! – WHILE YOU STILL CAN!
http://saynotocorporateamerica.blogspot.com/2011/12/your-allotted-amount-of-freedom-has.html <– Sources for all in the 3 posts about NDAA
loading...
Kevin L Kalmes
Dec. 20th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
“The mainstream media even fell for it, calling NDAA “Obama’s detention bill” and claiming the President demanded the right to detain us all, citing the spammer’s video. The American people then went into a near meltdown of hysteria. Now the President and his children are getting death threats over it, a wily spammer is much richer, the media got their clicks and the nation is none the wiser.”
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you!
loading...
Allan
Dec. 20th, 2011 at 10:25 pm
Thanks, Sarah. I appreciate the link! This unstable man was provoked by a blog post claiming that our president is guilty of treason. The words we choose have consequences.
loading...
Cha
Dec. 20th, 2011 at 11:59 pm
The corporatemediawhore$$$ are stupid, lazy, rw water jackals..not surprised they ran Huffin and puffin with it.
So is this guy Jules Manson going to be held accountable for this vicious bloody facebook babble? Will the SS find the rock the spammers are living under?
Is Manson aware he has a fucking shitata all over his face?
loading...
Trillian Dent
Dec. 21st, 2011 at 1:24 am
I wrote about this on the 14th, after being sick of it since the 6th, when I actually read what was passed by the Senate. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=2056038340337 What I learned about “alternate media” and US citizens recently
loading...
TixWoo
Dec. 21st, 2011 at 6:59 am
Wow you have to admit thats pretty slick dude. Wow.
www.Complete-Anon.tk
loading...
Epixislost
Dec. 21st, 2011 at 11:05 am
I’m curious if anyone has seen this clip from 2009? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P9zRBGPR8o It’s from the Rachel Maddow show, and highlights a speech Obama made about Indefinite detention in 2009. Definitely gave me pause, wondering how this slipped by the public amid this recent altered clip, although it did seem to have some traffic the past few days. Almost makes the fake clip seem plausible, which in itself is a scary idea.
While the spammer clip is ridiculous (and I admit, I haven’t seen it, but heard it referenced) the NDAA is still slated to pass. It still allows for indefinite detention of “terrorists” which while pretty specifically outlined, includes anyone who substantially “supported” al-Qaeda or the Taliban, or “associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the united states or it’s coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”
This codifies the indefinite detention practices implied in the AUMF. Legitimizes them. Allows detention until the “end of hostilities.”Allows anyone who “supported . . . associated forces that are engaged in hostilities.” What’s a hostility to a congress or President 5 years from now? 10? 30? Would Occupy protesters, activists, even the tea party fall into the category of “terrorism?” If this seems far fetched, and I know how easy it is to want to believe that government will do the right thing, this is what I saw yesterday: http://younisd.tumblr.com/post/14526341752/fbi-says-activists-who-investigate-factory-farms-can-be
The fact that there can be any possible interpretation or wiggle room on indefinite detention (which I feel these provisions have) should be appalling to every American. Congress, Republican AND Democrat voted to pass the bill with the provision included. IMHO, if Obama passes it, and I believe he will, it’s a failure of Congress and the President, and opens the door to the very real possibility of some scary business in America.
loading...
Ray
Dec. 21st, 2011 at 1:02 pm
If Obama is against detaining American citizens, he can prove it by vetoing this bill. If he does that, he deserves a huge apology. But if he signs it, he has no right to complain about what people say about him. If he acts accordingly, it’s not a lie, it’s a prediction.
loading...
Sarah Jones
Dec. 21st, 2011 at 1:29 pm
Ray, everyone has a right to their opinion, but let me share with you a few quibbles I have with your comment. You are falsely equating signing something with asking for it and authoring it. You are ignoring the veto-proof majority NDAA got. And you are ignoring that Obama expressly, in writing, as a matter of public record, asked for that SPECIFIC LANGUAGE to be changed. These are empirical facts and not subject to your opinion of them.
For you to claim that you can blame him after all of that is simply mind-boggling. Yes, you can, if you don’t care about reality and you’re not really interested in solving the problem. If you are interested in solving the problem, you would want to know who was really pushing for that language in the first place.
If you insist on blaming someone in spite of the empirical evidence to the contrary, it smacks of having an agenda or being obtusely paranoid. Now, if you had said that you were really concerned about the general move toward militarization of police in this country and that NDAA concerned you for this reason, it would not smack of an agenda. If you had said that you were writing Levin and McCain as the authors of the bill, and were super pissed at them, then it would not smack of an agenda. If you brought up Feinstein’s amendment or the earlier Udall amendment, that would have been pertinent.
But when you only hold the person who on record disagreed with the language accountable for it, well, it simply doesn’t make any sense at all unless you truly don’t understand how government works, in which case many of our readers work in govt and would be happy to explain the legislative process to you and what a veto-proof majority means. There is no shame in not knowing these things, but there is shame in knowing them and pretending they don’t matter.
loading...
Superfluid
Dec. 21st, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Fact: The NDAA contains language for indefinite detention of citizens for providing “substantial support” for “hostile forces” — the definition of which is loosely-worded.
Fact: Obama will most likely sign the Bill into Law.
Fact: If he does, Obama is culpable in the enactment of a law codifying indefinite detention, without trial, of Citizens of the United States of America.
This isn’t a left-vs-right issue. Move past that antiquated paradigm and quit arguing with each other, or this country is doomed.
loading...
Superfluid
Dec. 21st, 2011 at 6:51 pm
And to those saying the wording has been changed, it has only been changed to say that the *requirement* to detain suspects does not extend to citizens. This is, obviously, not saying that citizens *cannot* be detained indefinitely. It just means that the *requirement* can be waived by the Executive.
loading...
Tim Walkins
Dec. 21st, 2011 at 7:49 pm
This bill is outrageous! So a spammer pinned the blame on Obama. That does nothing to change the content of the bill. Also, as soon as he signs it, he will share full responsibility for it. The more I read about it, the angrier I become.
Get them while you can: http://bit.ly/v7GDm6
This is the beginning of the storm and the clouds on the horizons are awful gray.
loading...
Anonymous Coward
Jan. 1st, 2012 at 4:42 am
The video is not edited.
The video you posted below is from a different session.
Original video and transcript from C-SPAN show the video was real: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SenateSession4951&start=16982. Start at 4 minutes 43 seconds.
loading...
Lorenzo B
Jan. 2nd, 2012 at 4:16 am
The issue right now is the interpretation of the word “requirement” in HR1540 Title X Subtitle D Sec.1022(a)(2)found here:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf#page=266
Two legal schools of thought currently exist on the subject.
For the position that US Citizen ARE subject to possible detention, quoting Constitutional and civil rights litigator Glenn Greenwald:
“The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention”
Greenwald states in the article,”The bill is purposely muddled on this issue which is what is enabling the falsehood.”
The full article is here: http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/singleton/#comments
For the position that US citizens are EXEMPT from the detention provisions, Benjamin Wittes (senior fellow in Governance Studies) & Robert Chesney (non-resident senior fellow in Governance Studies) at the Brookings Institute state:
“Section 1022 purports not merely to authorize but to require military custody for a subset of those who are subject to detention under Section 1021. In particular, it requires that the military hold “a covered person” pending disposition under the law of war if that person is “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 is participating in an attack against the United States or its coalition partners. The president is allowed to waive this requirement for national security reasons. The provision exempts U.S. citizens entirely, and it applies to lawful permanent resident aliens for conduct within the United States to whatever extent the Constitution permits. It requires the administration to promulgate procedures to make sure its requirements do not interfere with basic law enforcement functions in counterterrorism cases. And it insists that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.”
The Brookings article can be found here:
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/
Wittes and Chesney state in the article,”The NDAA for better or worse sets military detention as a quasi-default position for covered persons, and selecting a different option through either of these methods will be a visible, discrete act that can then become the basis for criticism.”
Now given the clear conflicting interpretation amongst “experts”, imagine the confusion for the lay people and the non-lawyer, working level law enforcement and military types that have to execute and interpret this law with a “minimum” understanding of the law.
Both parties agree that the Bill has obvious confusing wording elements. It is the mere possibility for misinterpretation and abuse by law enforcement as well ass current and future administrations (regardless of the Presidential Signing Statement), that is the disturbing part of the Bill’s passage.
Ultimately it comes down to how much research you do, what interpretation to which you subscribe, and how you think it may impact you and your actions going forward.
As a Flash update pro-con commentary from Lawfare: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/the-ndaa-the-good-the-bad-and-the-laws-of-war-part-i/.
Suggested viewing: Senate Session Nov 17,2011 http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SenateSession4951/start/16792/stop/17119”.
loading...