Obama Signs Off on NDAA "With Serious Reservations"
Let the gnashing of teeth commence:
Two days before the deadline, President Obama signed a defense spending bill into law - while admitting he has "serious reservations with certain provisions" related to how suspected terrorists are held and questioned.
In a written statement, Mr. Obama makes clear he objects to sections in the National Defense Authorization Act that "regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists."
Despite his objections, Mr. Obama says he signed the measure, known by its initials NDAA, because it authorizes needed funding to defend the nation, support the military and renew "vital national security programs."
Among the provisions to which the president objects is a grant of permission for the indefinite military detention of terror suspects by the military.
Mr. Obama said he didn't ask for such authority and doesn't want it.
Flat out, the provisions suck, no matter what kind of rationalizations put on them. They codify measures put in place by the Bush administration that run counter not only to our Constitution, but to the notion of the rule of law since the Magna Carta.
It's all well and good that Obama says he won't use it with his signing statement (copy of statement in full at ThinkProgress) and the pragmatic side of me acknowledges that it would be a huge political minefield to send back the larger NDAA two days before the deadline (Obama hates the troops!) because of some discrete provisions that can be dealt with separately later. So I'm not going to join the crowd outraged by this move, as heinous as I think it is. Simply put, those provisions shouldn't have been in the NDAA to start with but the larger budgetary requirements made a whole lot of Democrats who have expressed dismay about those provisions go ahead and vote for it. I heard Debbie Wasserman Schultz on The Randi Rhodes Show using that exact calculus with guest host Nicole Sandler, but assuring Nicole that she was already planning on working with other Dems to repeal those provisions as soon as Congress reconvenes.
However, that's some really difficult toothpaste to squeeze back into the tube. For a measured, sensible look at both sides of the NDAA debate, see this two part essay here and here. Quote:
The New York Times editorial on the NDAA is, unfortunately, representative of many of the false alarms being sounded about the legislation. The Times complains that the NDAA “ban[s] . . . spending any money for civilian trials for any accused terrorist,” “strip[s] the F.B.I., federal prosecutors and federal courts of all or most of their power to arrest and prosecute terrorists,” and “give[s] future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial.”
If this were an accurate description of the final legislation, it would be even more extreme than the House-passed version, which the President’s senior advisers recommended that he veto. But the bill the President just signed does none of these things. (For a comprehensive run-down of what the bill includes, see this post from Bobby Chesney and Ben Wittes.) Yes, the House-passed bill would have comprehensively prohibited expenditures for criminal trials of terrorism suspects; but the Administration successfully insisted that the conferees strip that provision from the final bill. As for law enforcement authorities, the conferees added the provision quoted above, expressly confirming that “[n]othing in [section 1022] 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.” Therefore the bill cannot possibly be read to “strip the F.B.I., federal prosecutors and federal courts of all or most of their power to arrest and prosecute terrorists.”
And, as to lifetime detention of U.S. persons, the bill by its very terms (thanks to an amendment introduced by Senator Feinstein) confirms what would have been the proper reading anyway—namely, that its detention authorization provision (section 1021) does not “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.” For good measure, section 1022 also provides that its purported presumption of military detention “does not extend to citizens of the United States.” The NDAA therefore leaves open, and does not affect, the unresolved questions raised in the Padillaand al-Marri cases–i.e., whether the AUMF authorizes the long-term military detention of U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens who are apprehended in the United States. Those questions will not be raised as long as President Obama is in office, since “it is the firm position of the Obama Administration that suspected terrorists arrested inside the United States will—in keeping with long-standing tradition—be processed through our Article III courts, as they should be,” and that “when it comes to U.S. citizens involved in terrorist-related activity, whether they are captured overseas or at home, we will prosecute them in our criminal justice system.”
to show disrespect to President Obama by calling him by his last name or by Mr. Just my vent this morning of the new year.
Do not attribute any action to malice that can be explained by stupidity.
That sounds like something a good lil' Republican oath-swearing FOX head would say. An office title doesn't come with automatic respect. The holder has to EARN it.There hasn't been a President since Jimmy Carter who DESERVES respect...
It's just the way to identify him as concisely as possible. I rarely refer to any politicians by their title. I've never used "Speaker of the House Boehner" or "Minority Leader Pelosi". They're just "Boehner" and "Pelosi". In fact, I'm more troubled by the collective tendency to refer to Secretary of State Clinton as "Hillary" so as to distinguish her from her former president husband.
Ms. Belle:
Since these provisions are in a funding bill what does that mean about their duration?
The underlying bill has a limited duration 1 to 4 years depending on the types of funding so wouldn't these other provisions have a limited lifespan too?
RELEASE THE RED HERRINGS!
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
Personally, I show my disdain for those who don't, IMHO, deserve respect by simply not capitalizing their names. And I've never not capitalized the President's name.
Childish? Damn straight, but effective and efficient.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Aside (note): I don't capitalize "fastfeat," unless I start a sentence with it, because you have not. The same goes for some others at this site (ron, miss_kitty, nonny etc.). I assume that's how you wanted it. Call someone what they call themselves, or what they ask to be called.
So in case anyone thought I was being disrespectful, I wasn't.
That said, wasn't there a time when Obama wanted people to call him Barack?
far left loon >.<
how to capitalize my moniker all those years ago (seems there was some glitch at the time?), I probably would have...
And Happy New Year's, Edwin.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
president obama has just shown how much he respects us all. I return in kind.
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them.
Mark Twain
My unofficial rule of thumb is, unless it's the headline of a news story, call him "President Obama" once, and then Obama for the rest of the story.
Also, I barely called Bush "President Bush". Make of it what you will.
...how much his poll numbers would have shot up if he had used his veto power?
What a maroon....
among the twelve people actually paying attention to this issue. Most people wouldn't give a rodent's rectum about it.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Which is very problematic.
far left loon >.<
of his signing statement?
A signing statement is an addendum the president writes up after signing a bill. Traditionally it is a clarification for the department(s) in charge of carrying out the provisions.
Bush was known for issuing signing statements at two to three times the rate of any prior president. In many cases, his signing statements were also known for causing the new law to have almost the opposite effect from its intent (and many were laws passed by the republican held house and senate).
“If pigs could vote,
the man with the slop bucket would be elected swineherd every time,
no matter how much slaughtering he did on the side.”
- Orson Scott Card
The LAW is the LAW .. until it is successfully challenged or appealed.
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
Eggggzackly.
Not only do I not buy any arguments for Obama signing this bill when he should have vetoed it-- none whatsoever-- president Newt/Mittens/Santorum certainly is not going to pay attention to any Obama signing statement.
America is returning to the Divine Right of Kings.
far left loon >.<
...I think the only significance Obama's signing statement really has is that he's making a feeble attempt to pass the buck and dodge responsibility for whatever might happen to ordinary Americans as a result of putting his signature on the bill and making it the law. When I read it, all I heard was "I'm not to blame...not my fault...I didn't have a choice...my hands are tied..." -- all of which is complete bollocks.
Never trust anyone who insists that patriotism requires you to blindfold yourself with the flag.
"The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents."
"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."
I swear. Orthopedic surgeons are going to be busy.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
basically "override" the relevant section of the bill? How does that work constitutionally?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
that are very happy to use this as a way to bash Obama and paint anyone who is still supporting him in the upcoming elections as a sell out (or worse).
I'm not one of them. And frankly, I'm a little tired of otherwise smart liberals that completely disregard the political environment we live in. It would be nice if Obama did what was morally right instead of politically correct, but the reality is the rest of the NDAA superseded the wrongness of those provisions.
I understand that politically, a veto of the NDAA was impossible. Those provisions are awful. Obama's signing statement assures us that he will not use (abuse?) these privileges, which is all well and good, but we can't be similarly assured that President Romney or Paul or Santorum will do the same.
They have to fund the military. HAVE to. The next course of action is for members of Congress to write legislation to obliterate those provisions. Feinstein is working on it in the Senate. I'm not sure who is doing it in the House.
Think about what happened under Bush.
Then consider the fact that he didn’t spew constant hard right crazy the way the current crop does.
Even if I were to disregard the realities under which he were operating, he the lesser of evils on the order of Son of Sam compared to a jaywalker.
“If pigs could vote,
the man with the slop bucket would be elected swineherd every time,
no matter how much slaughtering he did on the side.”
- Orson Scott Card
I didn’t see ixnay’s signature until after I posted
“If pigs could vote,
the man with the slop bucket would be elected swineherd every time,
no matter how much slaughtering he did on the side.”
- Orson Scott Card
You sound just like the Bush supporters who would react to every revelation of Bush's shredding of the Constitution with cries of "Bush derangement syndrome" and "you just want to bash him".
It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now.
And this:
...is the same cowardly cop-out used by the new Democratic Congress after 2006 to justify continued Iraq war funding.
but I believed they HAD to continue to fund the Iraq War.
Understand that paying service members is not the same as backing the war. Congress needed to look for a way to pull out and I hold them wholly responsible for their failures there. But I can and do make a distinction between that and fucking over the boots on the ground by withholding their paychecks. That's what the NDAA does.
So yes, these provisions suck ass. They are really no different than the m.o. under which we've been operating since the Bush administration, but it's wrong, wrong, WRONG to codify them now. Can you tell I feel strongly about it?
That said, today the money ran out. Checks would not be cut if he hadn't signed the bill. That would have been politically and economically untenable.
This is the ugliness of the sausage making in DC. Those provisions shouldn't have been in there, but it is easier to fix it now than to veto the bill and get a new bill in such a short period of time.
to justify similar approaches conducted by the Bush white house or the GOP house last decade?
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
If you do a search, I have consistently been in favor of funding the troops. There were liberals in the blogosphere saying that we should defund the troops to force Bush to pull them out, but I never thought it should be done.
I didn't want the troops there in the beginning, but once they were there, I didn't want them to be pawns in political gamesmanship.
As to the indefinite detention, I have no argument that it's horrible, unconstitutional and counter to everything that America once stood for. But I make a distinction between that and the larger NDAA.
you are for it, regardless of how many dangerous and flat out unconstitutional provisions they may have.
Wow.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
I don't think these provisions should have been in there in the first place.
But I don't think you should tell military members--and their families--that they should just suck it up and deal without pay. Again, don't use the troops as pawns for political games.
Those are your actual words, two posts up.
And why wouldn't they use the troops as pawns for political games? Given that you have basically stated you will agree to any law that does exactly that, it would be stupid for them not to oblige.
I think this may have more to do with cognitive dissonance from your part, than with those "otherwise smart liberals" you find so disagreeable.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
I'm tired of arguing with you.
My grandfather was the Inspector General of the Air Force. I have a deep respect ingrained in me for the sacrifice of the troops. We ask them to risk their lives and limbs. We ask their families to sacrifice greatly. The very least we owe them is to make sure they get paid.
All these other calculations make me ill. Until you've walked in my shoes, to know what my family has gone through, your accusations of "cognitive dissonance" ring hollow.
You want to wail and gnash, be my guest. Obama is horrible. Don't vote for him. I'm sure that President Romney or Paul will be MUCH better for all of us.
bringing grandpa out because you ran out of logical arguments, nice!
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
I imagine you are tired of arguing with ixnay. You know, deep down, you would not be defending this were it a Republican president signing this bill, regardless of your father's occupation.
far left loon >.<
Don't aggravate an admin on this site.
And don't tell me what I'd do or not do if a Republican president did this. I am capable of saying how I feel and have responded. Your inserting yourself with your comments is unwelcome.
Because you are incapable of nuance and choose to ignore the many, many times I've said I don't like this bill, I'll repeat it using small words. I DON'T LIKE THIS BILL.
I'm just not going to join the wailing masses over Obama. My focus is directed towards Congress. YMMV.
Sorry. I didn't mean to aggravate you so.
Please understand emotions run high on this kind of thing outside the USA, too. Because of your constant political battles within the USA, the rest of us (rest of the planet) suffer also.
We've watched as extraordinary rendition and lifetime imprisonment on Guantanamo came to be. Everyone expected Dems would do something about that when Obama was elected and they took both houses, but not really: just more of the same. Now these extraordinary powers are becoming further entrenched and put into American law because you have to fund your troops. The rest of the planet is getting a little nervous. Can you understand that?
Who is going to stop it? The Dems aren't doing it. The Reps won't do it. What's the end game? Is America to be our master: ruler of the world? We should all just bow down and be satisfied with that? Don't say a word because it's not our business to interfere in your politics.
far left loon >.<
Didn't you just tell him not to make assumptions on what you think?
But you ARE excusing Obama's role in it. And thus, pushback. To paraphrase a blogger by the name of Jonathan Ivan....
Obama is held back by Congress like my friends make me drink on weekends.
Funding paychecks is on a different planet from funding an occupation.
But Obama supporters keep telling us that it's CONGRESS that writes the laws and it's CONGRESS that allocates funding and you don't want him to be a DICTATOR now do you?
So Congress is back to being a powerless branch of government when it's held by Democrats and the White House was held by Republicans?
Aside from Congress having the power of the purse, the Constitution explicitly says that armies may be funded for no more than two years at a time. To keep military adventurism in check. Like, oh, say, a war of choice on the other side of the planet.
This has been debunked at least twice already, but apologia like this needs to be nipped in the bud. Obama could have vetoed the bill and dared Republicans to cut money "for the troops" at Christmastime. It would never happen. Secondly, why didn't Obama issue a clear veto threat over a month ago as this was working it's way through the Senate - as he has over F-22 funding and increased oversight of the CIA.
But, once again, Obama waits until the last minute, and just has to cave to Republicans again to preserve the latest hostage. But what happens when you keep giving into the demands of the hostage takers?
I have a pretty good idea just how strongly you feel about it.
"It would be nice if Obama did what was morally right instead of politically correct.." "Nice" is an understatement of the year...and we're only on day ONE! As I see it, if the Republicans take back power in November we're totally f#cked. If Obama is re-elected we're just completely f#ucked.The man had so much potential to help right the wrongs of the previous administration and put America back on course to sanity. He's proven too weak (or incompetent) to fight back effectively.
BTW, I don't view those voting for him as "sell-outs". They just want 4 more years. I don't.
You seem to want years and generations of republican rule. I don't!
Nicole,
If President Obama had shown some backbone and actually vetoed the bill, he would have given cover to Democrats in the Senate and Speaker of the House Boehner (sorry, I prefer to use their titles, old school am I) to pass a military spending bill that didn't include all of these onerous provisions. But, we are talking about President Obama who has never stood up to the Freshmen 60 and has instead tried to be their friend. Say all the bad things you want about former President Clinton, but he was never afraid of using the power of the Veto. Hell, even former President G. W. Bush used the Veto on a bill that Republicans wanted signed into law.
Also, let me make it very clear: I won't be voting FOR President Obama this November, I will be voting AGAINST his opponent just as I did in 2008. I would rather vote for someone than against their opponent.
Election 2012: Be Educated! Be Active! Vote!
www.PhoenixJustice.com
And to my memory, I have NEVER voted for a president, but rather against his opponent.
I didn't support Obama until he was the winner of the primary. The last Democratic candidate I was unreservedly for was Howard Dean and you know what happened to him.
Howard Dean would have been a candidate I could for, but alas, the media didn't want Dr. Dean and they kept replaying his enthusiastic yell as a "scream of desperation". Democrats could easily have rallied around Dr. Dean, instead, we got Senator John Kerry as our nominee.
Election 2012: Be Educated! Be Active! Vote!
www.PhoenixJustice.com
a discrepancy in your Boolean algebra but I have to say that the set of "otherwise smart liberals" is for the most part a null set.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
And frankly, I'm a little tired of otherwise smart liberals that completely disregard the political environment we live in. It would be nice if Obama did what was morally right instead of politically correct, but the reality is the rest of the NDAA superseded the wrongness of those provisions.
Thanks for clearly spelling out your agenda. I wasn't 100% sure before.
far left loon >.<
Particularly with the a priori idea that something is or is not morally correct. Morality doesn't enter in to it. The Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of those provisions and that only if they are not reversed through legislation before a test case ever reaches SCOTUS. Political expediency or even necessity might be at play here but certainly not political correctness. Political correctness is as vague a concept as was ever invented. It can only apply within whatever camp it is considered correct. In the opposite camp what is considered correct is generally the opposite as well..
Hasa Diga Eebowai
What???
far left loon >.<
This isn't about one man. Obama is an adult perfectly capable of defending himself. He makes his own choices. It is glaringly apparent he chooses his political career and goals over doing what is right for the peope that elected him. That is not bashing him that is just telling the truth, simple facts about how he governs. Your personal defense of his actions is deafening.
If you don't agree with something don't try to defend take a principled stand. To do otherwise is exactly what the neocons and Bush did to the American people and your constant request to examine the nuance is making me nauseous.
And as Greenwald has already demonstrated, Obama - like Bush - claims he already has these powers under the AUMF from 10 years ago.
He's not the be-all and end-all of constitutional knowledge.
I find his arguments to be full of straw men and omissions.
But hey, he gets the hits, so I guess it works for him.
that "Glennzilla's" straw men. Not.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
Glennzilla
Seriously?
far left loon >.<
He has supporters who call him that, too.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Oh, I see. So I should assume it was used in a purely friendly manner. Is that correct?
far left loon >.<
,
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
....but you knew that already.
Not even Karoli's fusion-powered apology machine will get you out of this one. As fiver correctly pointed out at the time:
This is only confusing for those who wish to sow confusion.
This bill authorizes indefinite military detention of anyone labeled an "associated force", including American citizens on American soil if TPTB so choose.
I know it's the in thing to bash Obama
It's not "the in thing," it's called he is granting himself some rather extraordinary powers.
far left loon >.<
Such people can and absolutely will excuse any outrage against the country and the constitution, as is fully on display in Nicole's post.
People who dare to criticize the Inner Party members are: deranged, crazy, haters, bashers and so on. But since they can't honestly reason their way out of a wet paper bag, all they're left with is Social Dominance techniques.
Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit atrocities.
with those provisions in it.
Once again Harry 'inert object' Reid set the President up with the choice between a turd sandwich and a fecal fajita. Nice going Congressional Dems. They couldn't play a game of poker with a 12 year old and win.
Obama knew the bill was coming in that form and didn't say VETO to the present wording before he got it.
They could have gotten it cleaned up. That would have meant getting into a fight with the bullies. WTF?
But who else we gonna vote for? Ron Paul, Mittens, Newt? They know it.
Wall Street is just a parasite on the actual labor and investments of average Americans.
Banks play with futures, debt paper, complex financial instruments, and other peoples incomes.
Sell 'em short & help 'em crash - Tear 'em apart & sell the pieces
Just hold your nose this one more time...
far left loon >.<
there is the risk of missing the forest from the trees.
Because when it comes down to it, this law is a constitutional train wreck at best and it was passed almost unanimously by BOTH republicans and democrats.
That is a fact which is harder to spin for the democrats in this site.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
I've tried to explain and even link to the calculus being made by Democrats.
These provisions should have never been included. If they were a separate piece of legislation, there's no way they would have gotten the same votes, but because they attached it to funding the troops, it became impossible to NOT vote for it.
it is gonna be harder for you guys to spin this one.
Good luck!
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
Indeed. Don't believe your eyes... etc., etc.
far left loon >.<
If only they put the same effort in defending my rights, as they seem to put in pretending to be the victims when they get caught trashing them.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
I'm with you, here, ixnay. You're making sense.
far left loon >.<
I wish I could say it is surreal to see democrats defending the same shit they considered "unacceptable" when big bad Bush was doing 'em. But it is not, the kabuki bullshit is way too obvious by now.
In the end, most Democrats are just Republicans with different wedge issues, and vice versa. Bleg...
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
He could simply have vetoed it and let the entire govt take the heat.
They deserve it.
Furthermore .. Obama had a whole month to raise objections to the bill as it passed through the Senate and then the House and then back to both of them for reconciliation.
And he DID object to another part of the bill (as the Levin clip shows) but obviously not to these parts.
So I conclude Obama's reservations about signing this bill into law are just so much BS for political cover.
He had plenty of time to object as the bill was being passed and he chose not to.
HE let it come down to "the last two days" then he cried crocodile tears as he signed it.
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
... there is no reason for him to veto it. It's what he wanted and what he received.
The ONLY thing he objects to are any limitations on his executive power to dispose of people he doesn't like in any manner of his own choosing. This, of course, will also apply to his GOP successor. But there's no reason to veto that language, since he can do whatever he wants anyway. It's not like there is anyone left in the USG who can check his dictatorial powers.
Barack Obama has always asserted his power to kill and imprison Americans for any reason at all, without any legal process--even their teenage children. All NDAA does now is codify his unconstitutional (and thusly illegal) power grab.
So he signed it because that's what he wanted and nothing else.
Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit atrocities.
it became impossible to NOT vote for it.
I disagree. There's no reason Obama can't get on TV and explain why he is vetoing. He has that power. We're talking about the rights of men back to the Magna Carta, not defunding NPR.
far left loon >.<
Strongly disagree.
far left loon >.<
...of Carl Levin on the subject of "serious reservations"
copy/paste:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_e...
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
...even though I've linked the entire thing in the past showing that it's a Breitbarted video clip.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
You can get your Bart Simpson on and repeat that it's a doctored clip 500 times a day, but that wont affect the accuracy of the clip. The part of the bill that Obama was objecting to was any limitation on him getting his Unitary Executive on.
Ooh, I can't wait!
This will be just all the legislation that scaled back the excesses of the Patriot Act.
...you like the way Rand Paul votes better than Obama.
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
By pure coincidence back in the 90s I ended up joining forces with the local "Patriot" group against the repressive local govt that insisted on violating our freedom to assemble in public places. We wanted to gather, share food, hang out, drum etc in a public area; they wanted to distribute literature. The local govt wanted us all to stop. So we joined forces and I got to know some of them rather well.
Sadly a lot of their most paranoid fears about the way the Federal govt was evolving have just about come true.
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
when people confuse voting for legislation with executing legislation. Obama doesn't vote.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Yes he does.
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
Merry Christmas.
Sure .. there are plenty of votes in the Congress to override his veto .. or at least there were when this heinous bill was passed ..
However .. on the one hand vetoing it *could* make some of those Congress critters think twice and force them to re-write this detention section or remove it entirely .. on the other hand if Congress did in fact override his veto it would place the responsibilty squarely on Congressional shoulders ..
And Obama *could* have come out of this looking strong and acting like a civil libertarian ..
But NOOooooooo ..
Once again Obama wimps out ..
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
over the holidays. Money "ran out" today.
Checks wouldn't have gone out to the military members and that would have been used against him.
It sucks, but there it is.
And if they did .. all the better .. let them share the anger the rest of us feel at this dysfunctional govt ..
Maybe they'd all come home and help us defend the Constitution here on American soil ..
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
Obama had plenty of time to object to parts of the bill while it was being debated in the Senate.
We've all seen the clip where Sen Levin tells us Obama objected to not being The Decider as to where an enemy combatant would be tried, and the Senate changed the bill so the President would be The Decider.
So we KNOW Obama had plenty of time to object to these parts of the bill and ASK that they be CHANGED.
But we have yet to hear ANYONE say (as Levin did about Who Is The Decider) that Obama objected to other parts of the bill and had his objections overruled.
And until someone comes forward on the record and states that Obama objected at that time about these other parts of the bill, then all his reservations about signing the final bill into law appear to be fabricated.
Fake.
Phoney.
Crocodile tears.
He didn't have only 2 days. He had over a month and he chose to do nothing.
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
Oh, my. That's why you think it just had to be done ASAP?
far left loon >.<
And then there would be the endless rounds of outraged Republicans out there for three solid weeks pointing fingers at Obama for not only leaving the troops without funds, but also thousands of small businesses who survive on defense contracts. Most of those small businesses don't make weapons. Some large ones do. But the small ones do things like make a widget, or provide IT support, or other contractual needs.
And those businesses employ thousands, maybe even millions. So Obama vetoes it and the unemployment rate instantly goes up (because contracts are paid monthly and if no payment, no payroll, no business, no cushion), and that spirals into another economic dip which beyond the politics means more people go without than already are.
Then, after posturing and making sure the whole country knows that all that happened because Obama hates the troops, Congress would override the veto, leaving that language intact and the official record would only show that it was vetoed with objections, but also that the majority of the President's own party couldn't get his back on the veto enough to prevent the override.
And you know why they couldn't? Because *they* support the troops.
See how that works?
it's not that they can't understand it. It's that they don't want too. It's the only rational explanation. ODS in full bloom.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Yep. People tend to become dug-in when they are emotionally invested in an opinion - mostly conservatives, but everyone is somewhat prone to it. And then there is "group think" that is also at play here. They both result in stove-piped thinking and limitation of critical thinking - they no longer want to think anything other than what they have concluded, so they simply don't.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
i must admit it:
i am emotionally invested in the federal govt passing laws that allow for the indefinite detention of american citicens. maybe obama will never, ever, never use indef det (although i don't know how anyone could take that claim seriously). but what about the next GOP thuggy? what about the next terrorist attack when the govt-corp needs a scapegoat? who will be locked up? will we know? how much police state is too much?
and, when people look back to see just how and why this happened, they will see obama's signature on this bill.
Funny how Obama had no Concerns over "hostages" when it came to issuing clear veto threats over F-22 funding and any increase in Congressional oversight of the CIA.
But more to the point - who do you guys think you're kidding here?
1. Obama says he will veto any bill that authorizes indefinite detention of Americans
2. Asks if the GOP really plans on holding up paychecks for the troops. In an election year.
Not to sound conspiratorial, but it seems to be -always- a last-minute scenario lately. Something that the democrats had to sign immediately, or people get hurt.
They were making pizza a vegetable. That used up some of the time this fall.
far left loon >.<
Wasn't this you upthread?
Like giving him a pass because he let hostages get taken? Again? Funny how often that happens.
As opposed to, you know, loudly telling Americans in a prime time address that he will NOT sign a bill that authorizes indefinite detentions of Americans, and on the Republicans head be it if they try and hold up paychecks for the military.
well, yes, given that he swore a solemn oath to uphold and defend the constitution as a requirement of his holding office under the constitution ... and there are no exceptions for anticipating that the congress will continue to violate their oaths of office by overriding a presidential veto, or even for the financial needs of our service men and women
http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/NDAA
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
Thank you for this link!
For me this i the last straw. When obama signed this bill he signed the end to his presidency. I will not vote for any congressman senator or president that takes from the people the most basic of our civil rights. I hope all of you reading this will do the same. Your freedom depends upon your vote in 2012. Do not vote against your constitutional rights.
...Obama signed the Patriot act?
...or extrajudicially assassinated Anwar al Awlaki?
...or signed the FISA act?
(good morning)...better late than never I guess.
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
a glutton for punishment. What does what you just said have to do with this topic? It's about NDAA.
and do yourself a favor, read the whole thread. That way, you won't look so inept.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
I think Milquetoast is correct here. He's merely pointing out a long chain of events leading to this Supreme Unitary Executive we see unfolding before us.
Cheney is getting a boner somewhere.
far left loon >.<
Where were you?
...telling people that Obama is a cruel joke.
I was unhappy with Obama as a Senator from Illinois and never voted for him in the first place.
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
what does this have to do with this topic? if you fling enough shit at the wall, sooner or later, you'll be wearing it.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
wearing it like Chester the Molester wears his overcoat.
you can polish a turd all day, at the end of a day, all you have is a shiny turd.
that sums you up .
What is your conceptual, continuity?
respect the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta, or anything that doesn't advance their personal agendas and profit.
I agree with you there.
However, that definitely means not electing another republican, or allowing another republican to be elected to office, because republicans will take from the people the most basic of our civil rights, and they have said so repeatedly. That leaves Obama and the Dems. Our choice is simple.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Because Dems aren't violating your rights when they vote for telecom immunity and indefinite military detention?
Again- and I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself.
A) Where are this epidemic of American combatants, that the American justice system is just so powerless against, that traditional, constitutional, AMERICAN means MUST be circumvented in order to imprison or kill them?
B) If "the president already had that power", like many have suggested, great, take it out of the bill! It's unnecessary, right? Oh, that's right, the president both claimed to simultaneously have and want that power.
For example, the US is gearing up for a war on Iran. Given the complete global disaster that will cause, many Americans will come out against that war. All of those people will be deemed to be "materially supporting associated causes."
And there you go.
Remember, this government finds that gun-toting Tea Bircher militia-types are not terrorists, but Quaker pacifists opposed to our various military misadventures ARE.
Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit atrocities.
We are terribly sorry that someone slipped a provision in this bill to steal your babies and use their blood as salad dressing. . . but there is very importaint funding for critical programs in it that nobody can vote against. We'll save your babies when it is more politically and procedurally convenient.
Thank you. . have a nice holiday
Nice summation.
far left loon >.<
death panels and the like. But we are better than Teabaggers on our side of town.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
You should try putting me on ignore.
far left loon >.<
Really, Edwin, as someone who does little more but follow around commenters with whom he disagrees and just calls them names and accuses them of having positions that you can't prove they do have, you shouldn't be giving advice on that.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Ricky knows very well I have him on ignore.
And I don't exactly follow people around to disagree with them. I go in all the threads just like you do. I agree with some and disagree with others. I think if you look over this very thread you'll see I've done exactly that, here, even with the words, "agree" and "disagree". Isn't that what comments sections are for?
Should I weigh in on every comment? Should I let those I agree with know every time?
far left loon >.<
Yes. . yes. . I know. . . being polite in my rhetoric is much more importaint than being outraged over our rights being stolen. Thanks for clearing up the priorities. . . .
. . . . but I stand by my rhetoric. Death panels was stupid exaggeration. Throwing American citizens into indefinate prison without a trial is truly outrageous and needs no exageration. To say it is necessary to allow this obscene outrage because someone was allowed to mix it all up into budgetary and procedural considerations is an even bigger outrage to me. If they believe the budget and their precious parlementary procedures are too importaint to stop this. . . then I don't think the idea that they would also allow the theft of babys blood for salad dressing under the same pretense is that much of an exageration.
Sorry to offend your rhetorical sensibilities. . . . .
I know we voted for a bill that technically gives a portion of our National Parks to Koch Industries, but it was attached to an extension of Veteran's Benefits, and, oh my god, it was going to run out in 2 days!
Did you not want Veterans' benefits to be extended? What are you, some sort of unpatriotic monster?
Why not just tell them that he would veto the bill if it contained the bits relating to indefinite detention? Kick it back to be redone without the offending bits, under the [valid] excuse that it is an assault of the founding principles of the country, freedom, etc? Make it clear that if the funding doesn't go through for the military, it is the fault of the people who tried to add the "freedom destroying" provisions of the bill, and force them to justify why they think the government should have those powers, and why they think it is worth risking the delay of funding for the military over. This is something that could have been brought up long before it got to this point.
If he signed it because he didn't want to be accused of not funding the troops, then he is a coward. By that logic, if they had included a clause stating that law enforcement could round up and kill people with red hair, then I guess he'd be justified in signing that bill as well.
Why would he veto a power grab that originating with his own office?
One thing the GOP did do that Obama did not, is declare the entire US of A a "battlefield." Not one word of disapproval from the WH on that one either.
Just to be clear about this, declaring the US a "battlefield" literally means that all Americans and other residences are considered by the USG to be potential Enemies Of The State.
Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit atrocities.
... it was immaterial whether he requested it or not; the weak [official] excuses for not objecting to those provisions are easily debunked on the face of it. You don't even have to do any extra digging to see what a kabuki show it all is, which makes it that much more galling when nobody in the media says anything about it.
Sadly, he seems to be the lesser of two evils (no matter which one of the current Republican nominee bozos gets the nod). Too bad that doesn't excuse the damage Obama is doing to the country.
Although the "lesser of two evils" frame is fast losing its luster. When solid majorities of both parties, in all branches of government, are openly violating their own oaths of office, I don't see how that particular line even works anymore.
I don't know how much more evil a president can be when he does violence to the constitution, all of our rights and the rule of law more generally. Obama and the rest of the Inner Party has placed us all in very real danger. I simply cannot forgive that.
And I've been a register Dem for 35 years. Never once voted GOP or even Indie. Worked Dem campaigns in unpaid and professional capacities.
But I won't give the Dems the time of day anymore. They have truly earned my eternal enmity at this point
Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit atrocities.
You're basing your comments on an edited video. He did NOT ask for any expansions of executive powers.
it doesn't fit into their slanted view.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
then slant it sideways for full effect, it will fit. Ah now see how BS can walk. Long live the emperor. I wonder if he will invite me to the WH someday to confer?
More bashing - nothing to offer about the issue - pure hyperbole - excellent example of bashing there SE. ...and insulting too - bonus bashing points.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
you don't look stupid.
"The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents."
"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."
C'mon. you can't be stupid all of your life. Who do you think put those provisions in the bill?
Until you can comprehend such issues, I suggest you be quiet. Your ignorance used to be entertaining. Comical even. Kinda like the village idiot court jester.
Now, you've out done yourself, will wonders never cease...........
focus, focus, focus......atta boy!
You're just way too easy to eviscerate. That's why I was nice here.
And what's with this sexual fantasy you have? Gettin lonely in that cave? You should do something about that.
Go hire pro or something. It's so easy, even a Caveman can do it.
LOL!
here stevee stevee stevee....
.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Just curious.
In any case, your complaint is moot. POTUS has expressed precisely ZERO disaffection with all of the most odious aspects of this bill. Well, except for the part that he sees as a constraint on his power. That was his entire problem with the bill.
Declaring the entire US and its population a battlefield? No problem.
Putting anyone at all, for any reason at all, in prison for eternity without any legal process? No problem.
He says in his "signing statement," which is really more of a press release to cover his hide in an election year than anything else, that he won't use this power. Great. Given his track record thus far, believing that seems a tad silly.
The bottom line to all this is painfully simple:
1) 86 Senators violated their oath of office by shredding the Bill of Rights en toto.
2) Only 80 Dems in the House respected their oath. All the others violated theirs.
3) POTUS violated his oath of office in signing this crap, since it is plainly and obviously illegal.
As it stands right now, both the Dems and GOP are actively subverting the US Constitution. Adding in the oft-overlooked State Secrets Act, Americans are now subject to arrest and effective disappearance solely on the basis of a vague accusation, since no case need be made by The State. If The State doesn't have to admit they have you, then family members have no standing in court. No one can sue. No one can pursue legal means to even find out the fate of their loved ones. This is a very big deal
I understand that most Americans are very ignorant about how our client states in Latin America behaved during the Cold War, so let me refresh you on one little thing:
On September 11, 1973, Augusto Pinochet led a coup d'etat in Chile, in which he declared the entire country a "battlefield" and subjected thousands to disappearance and an early death on pretty much the same basis as our current regime is now doing. All over Central and South America, similar juntas passed similar policies, all with largely the same results. So there is a large body of historical evidence to suggest these policies will lead to some very nasty results.
What both parties just did was pass a set of policies typical of fascist dictatorships. Maybe Obama won't use those powers. Maybe he will. We can certainly expect one of his successors to. So whether he uses them or not, he just gave a huge wet kiss to a Dictator-Yet-To-Be-Determined.
This is where we all are now. The real meaning of the policies being put in place now are not lost on those of us with some historical perspective. I know people who have lived under such regimes in Chile, Peru and even East Germany. Do you have any idea what they're telling me these days?
Mostly, it boils down to this: "If you can leave, do so now. You may not survive the next regime."
If you are capable of grasping that, then you should be able to understand why the sort of rationalization I'm seeing from certain loyalist quarters rings horribly hollow. Even painfully sycophantic.
This isn't going to be dealt with by people like DiFi or anyone else in the Senate. Neither will it be dealt with in the House. Nor with the WH demand the USG actually adhere to the constitution.
You may think all this is fine now, but Obama won't be president forever. When he is replaced with a Mitt or a Jeb, you will change your tune in a hurry, because you will be on the shitlist along with a lot of other people. You may find you can't travel freely. You may find that some of your friends have disappeared. You may find yourself in that position yourself one day. Your children could spend the rest of their lives trying to figure out why you abandoned them... not that you actually did, of course.
This is the future a lot of people are starting to perceive, even if you refuse to.
Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit atrocities.
Edited video! Edited video! Nevermind that no Obot has bothered to show where the video distorted events or if Levin was somehow taken out of context. Just like the wingers that moaned that the 'Collateral Murder' video was edited to make Americans look bad when it was cut down for length.
I would have more faith in Obama's intentions, had he not already ignored the constitutional rights of citizens through use of the Patriot Act, and drone strikes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-...
Where was the legal proceeding? Did I miss it?
I voted for Obama. I am as solid a democratic progressive voter as they come; that's why it pains me so much to see this happening. Signing statements are nice, but action is better. Nice that the justice dept is beginning to investigate police abuses after the #OWS encampments were swept away with brutal efficiency and coordination.
I have loved Obama's words, but his policy choices have disappointed and, in some cases, scared me.
A real sinister administration would have ordered local officials to leave #Occupy encampments alone and left them camp until their silly wagging fingers froze off.
But, of course, they couldn't stand to have the meme changed.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
for the war crimes we all know they committed, Republicans would not have dared to put these civili liberty assaults in this bill.
Then he could have concentrated the remainder of his term to solving the economic crisis by indicting, perp walking, and imprisoning bankers.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Nice to start the year with a good laugh.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
You noted yourself it is the New Year. My contract was not renewed. I am now free of my
"bot" bindings and able to exercise my conscience.
This comment will self actualize in five seconds.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
The ODS is so rampant, that it boggles the mind.
Then again, maybe they're on to something. Maybe, he is a Kenyan/Muslim/Marxist/ antichrist waiting for the Mayan calender to expire. So, who gives a shit?
On the bright side, we'll all be out of debt.
ahhhhh, the sunny side.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Those, like a degree in the Philosphy of Musicology with a Minor in Masculine Studies,
will follow you everywhere for all time. Even in Purgatory.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
I should have known. I expect those with a degree in mental Muscleology to be burdened with the debts as well. Especially, those with the tutors.
Where's Jack Lalane when ya need him?
What is your conceptual, continuity?
The president stated that he would not apply this to our citizens and that all deserved a trial. Didn't he authorize the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. Trust has been thown in the trash again. He has made it a sad day for our country. My reprsentatives Webb and Warner voted for this bill as well....no faith left in these people. I will vote against all who supported this no matter which side is running against them. Turnover is better than the status quo.
fluffyone
And what about a Canadian or an Englishman?
Fuck them? They should OBEY the USA.
American law overrides our Constitutional rights and Magna Carta heritage.
far left loon >.<
“when it comes to U.S. citizens involved in terrorist-related activity, whether they are captured overseas or at home, we will prosecute them in our criminal justice system.”
Obama is given every hall pass imaginable when it comes to this rubed ginned up War on terror or more bluntly "Man, how much money & political cool points can we make off this scam?" And yet, don't talk about it! Because Obama may not win the election. Cruise Missle Liberals need to leave the progressive community immediately. The democrats are being so forced to the right that we will be disgraced in future elections.
If it is always going to be about elections, then what is the damn point of saying you are for "the people" ? What is the damn point of you going along to get along,Nicole? What do you think you are going to get in the end out of this? That somehow the United States is going to follow procedure, increase Moral ethics & we will all do cartwheels in a bed of daffodils? Do you really think 11 dimensional chess is going to spring forth in this country under a foundation of corruption,ego,immorality,deception? I'd say you are gullible at best.
Here is a a hypothetical for you,Nicole: If we declare a war on Iran, the politicians and the wealthy will be on the ground in fatigues ready to fight for our country. If they say no to that, what more do you need to know? I thought it was our duty to fight for our country! Beltway Hucksterism is a fine thing to behold. And political writers always fall for the con.
...admit they do not expect the Obama administration to abuse these provisions. Indeed, the most compelling argument they have is the question :What will a President Romney or President Gingrich do with these powers? Yes, it's compelling and reasonable to ask those questions.
And this is why everything *is* about elections. Of course it is. It's also why the detention provisions in an otherwise routine defense spending bill have become the ideal wedge issue for the right. It's working just as they planned.
you make it sound so theoretical, like the govt didn't sign into law a bill that allows for this "compelling argument"
and why, pray tell, do people assume obama would not use all the powers he has at his disposal? lord knows anwar al-awlaki doesn't... errr didn't
... now that obama has signed indefinite detention into law, we MUST vote for him, because we wouldn't want a republican taking advantage of his violation of our rights
"The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents."
fuck it. read it if you want. don't believe if you want
I just wish some of these folks would do some fucking research and learn something instead of spewing regurgitated talking points as if they are facts.
Now, you're not stupid. So, why do you persist to spread that bullshit?
.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
into law, and it is not only a violation of his solemn oath of office, it is the opening of a door through which any president may pass until it is removed from the books ... that president could be a barack obama ... or a rick perry ... or a joe lieberman ... or a george bush
while you are willing to fudge on that fact, i am not ... period
That Obamabots like Karoli keep talking about the latter to try and misdirect people does nothing to change the fact that the bill authorizes the former.
Comments are closed on this entry