For example, FBI Director Robert Mueller has said the measure would inhibit his bureau's ability to persuade suspected terrorists to cooperate immediately and provide critical intelligence. He told Congress it wasn't clear how agents should operate if they arrest someone covered by the military custody requirement but the nearest military facility is hundreds of miles away.So... he is complaining that the FBI doesn't get the same powers the military does?
Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.The problem with this is that despite Obama's decision to interpret his way around enforcing this law, it's still on the books and can easily be brought fully to bear under a future administration. But this is, again, something to be laid at Congress's feet. Just like this provision here:
Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.If you're still mad about Guantanamo still being open, it's because of shitty under-the-radar legislation like this.
He signed it because if he didn't, defense spending including benefits to veterans and their families would not have been authorized. The sections of NDAA that many people here seem to have a problem with are sections that were added into the document by primarily Republican legislators and which the President adamantly opposes but was powerless to stop.He, uh, could have refused to sign it. He could have said "Fuck you, congressional republicans! Hey everybody, do you see what these people did? They tacked on some crazy shit that erodes the basic Constitutional right to due process onto a bill that's supposed to provide for veterans. Can you believe that your elected officials are that crass? I swore to protect the Constitution and I'm not signing that because the addendum should be reserved for oppressive dictatorships that we as freedom-lovers are supposed to hate. Pass a new bill without the fascism and I'll sign it."
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to 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.Page 265.
It is also worth emphasizing, however, that the Obama Administration, civil liberties and human rights organizations, and some members of Congress worked tirelessly and quite effectively to improve the final bill dramatically from the versions the Senate and (especially) the House had earlier passed. Because of those efforts, Subtitle D of the NDAA is not nearly as problematic as many critics have suggested. Indeed, the final bill actually contains a handful of provisions that improve upon current law, and one—which will be our focus here—that helps to resolve an important interpretive debate about whether the Executive’s detention authority under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) should be informed and limited by the laws of war. . . .These are real lawyers, doing actual legal analysis of the provisions in the bill, analysis that mirrors the analysis I provided up above.
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.”
ROMNEY: I am glad [detainees] are at Guantanamo. I don’t want them on our soil. I want them on Guantanamo, where they don’t get the access to lawyers they get when they’re on our soil. I don’t want them in our prisons, I want them there. Some people have said we ought to close Guantanamo. My view is we ought to double Guantanamo.There is very much an element of political calculation here. The calculation is this: Obama is trying to get reelected. He wants to close Guantanamo. Congress forbade that by a veto-proof majority. The leading candidate wants to make Guantanamo twice as large and torture detainees. So, the President makes a decision to push back in some areas and not push back in others, in order to assure that Romney doesn't get into the White House.
You might as well toss out a flag burning poll, showing for or against. Okay, so people think that but nobody actually cares enough to vote based on it.furiousxgeorge: This is exactly right. The defining issue for the 2012 election will be the economy.
“I think we can assume that 95 percent of the black men in that city [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”-- Dr. Ron Paul.
Bottom line: The Senate version of the NDAA is neutral regarding US citizens in the U.S., but certainly can be read to provide clearer statutory authority to encompass citizens abroadYou are playing a complete apologist on this and ignoring the critiques a great number of credible lawyers, politicians and NGOs who have serious concerns with this bill as signed into law
What this tells me is that the system is broken beyond repair--a president who must sign something though he doesn't want to and a congress that can force him to because, well, they put things in a bill that made him sign it rather than stand up on a priciple--but wait: isn't he a constitutional lawyer?What it should tell you is that Obama didn't really care about the issue very much, and wasn't willing to put up a fight. Remember Obama never even said publicly that he was opposed to it on anything other then that it reduced 'flexibility'. That's what's so annoying about Obama supporters in situations like this. They make arguments that Obama doesn't even bother with.
On one hand, I think Obama should have stepped up to the plate, and just vetoed the whole thing. For one, it would have forced Congress to reconvene from its recess, which would actually be a pretty big "Fuck You" to the legislature.They only passed it when he removed his veto threat.
No, you look like one for spouting off critical bullshit instead of putting yourself in his position.Put myself in his position? Seriously? The guy chose to run for president of the United States. It's not supposed to be an easy job. If we had known he was going to be such a pussy, we could have voted for someone else.
Really? Because guess what. Most Americans are fucking for this shit. Haven't you paid attention? He would have gotten slaughtered.You always say this shit, and then use it to justify whatever conservative position Obama holds. Why do you even pretend to be a liberal? 90% on of the time you post, you're defending conservative policies and positions.
Remember 41% of Americans self-ID as Conservative, 36% ID as Moderate, 22% ID as liberal. -- Ironmouth
But since the majority of people are this dumb, and since huge amounts of veterans benefits and other important part of government activity, lawmakers will not reverse these odious provisions. They will not, because a majority of Americans do not support their repeal. So, is it worth allowing the people who will make things worse, such as Mitt "double Guantanamo" Romney in charge:Crap like this is why it would be hilarious of Ron Paul wins the republican nomination. So much for these arguments.
Having said that, a US citizen, who committed a terrorist attack on US soil is in military custody. His name is Nidal Malik Hasan. He is a military officer who shot persons on a military base and is therefore in custody under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.I thought he was brain dead, but apparently he's regained consciousness. He was a member of the military, so obviously military courts have jurisdiction. It's the same reason Bradley Manning is under military detention, or any random soldier who breaks the law.
The entire premise is that there would be a political price to pay for the decision because of the opposition to it, if that was the case it would have been kept out of the campaign. Obama has no problem doing that, he did it with the switch on his gay marriage position.I'm pretty sure Ironmouth made the same arguments about DADT and defending DOMA back before Obama did anything about them.
Well, he's probably as racist as any of us. You'd have to ask him. I see a lot of people saying that, but the only evidence they produce are some newsletters from the eighties that he didn't author, and has repeatedly disavowed.That's baloney.
That's baloney.The thing about Ron Paul being a racist: How many of the people bringing up this racism stuff hold Hillary responsible for all the race baiting her campaign did during the 2008 primary? Remember Mark Penn's "Did he ever sell cocaine" bit?
The only evidence that Ron Paul didn't author them is that he now says he didn't.
He did not previously disavow them or say that he didn't author them, when their absurdly toxic content was publicly brought to his attention in interviews back in the 1990s. He instead defended them, and made not one indication at all that he might not have been the author.
Padilla allegedly received training in Pakistan, and had all but renounced his citizenship but was sent back to commit terrorist acts. As far as a citizen can be an enemy combatant, Padilla pretty much fits the definition.First of all what does "all but" mean in reference to renouncing his citizenship? You either do or you don't. People like McVeigh considered themselves patriots, but McVeigh killed a lot of people.
Remember the guy that flew his cessna into the BoA building in Tampa in 2002? Even though that guy had expressed support for Bin Laden, nobody ever tried to claim he was any kind of enemy combatant (of course he died in the crash).
There has to be a certain point at which you really are an enemy combatant even if you were born in the US.
In the end though, breaking corporate dominance just isn't a pragmatic goal. Obama would lose the election if he suddenly got tough on corporations, and then we would have Romney and everything would be worse. So what part of this system is there for the Occupiers to engage with?Exactly! We need to give up without even trying! That's the spirit!
It's not about Obama. It's about who comes after. It has a 99.99% chance of being a Republican in the next election. 92% chance if Obama wins a second term (pulling these odds out of my ass, if you were curious). Do you want that Republican to be someone like Romney, or someone like Bachmann? If Obama loses the next election, you might get Romney for now, but who do you think will come after that? An Obama loss will affirm the Repub base and their perverse tactics. An Obama win will give them pause, at least beneath all their public bluster. After that, Repubs will run someone more centrist (which will probably shift a little further right by the time the next, next election comes around) and sane. That will be okay, though obviously not preferred. Because after that, and possibly after two terms of that, we will likely get a milquetoast Repub and an acceptable Dem. And both of them will be more centrist. That's when we start working on moving the dialog back to the Left. Then, it's about persisting in moving the conversation further Left, and maybe following up two terms of an acceptable Dem with another Dem, acceptable or not.Oh please. There is no way you can know any of this. What is it about politics that makes people think they're nostradamous? you can't predict the future. The system is much too complex. Who would have predicted, in 2004 that the democrats would crush bush in congressional races in two years, and that we would have a black, democratic president in 2008?
After that, Repubs will run someone more centrist (which will probably shift a little further right by the time the next, next election comes around) and sane.Comments like this, you realize that candidates are chosen via primaries, like we're seeing now? There is no way to predict exactly how people are going to vote in them, especially years out. It's certainly not as simple as "we lost last time, lets elect a moderate." It's all about whatever the individual voters are thinking about, how hard-core they're feeling, and so on.
Exactly. Obama's signing statement, or good intentions, or whatever holds him back from exercising the worst aspects of this will no longer be a restraint, the day he leaves office. Which is precisely why people should be terrified that Obama made the decision to sign NDAA into law in the first place.Exactly. The real issues here are the precedents being set.
Whoever comes after Obama may end up abusing this legislation, sure. Sucks to be whoever gets caught up in that. But this kind of legislation are details that don't matter in the overall cultural movement that we need to be concerned about. If the culture can shift enough that this kind of legislation becomes unacceptable, then, whether this legislation gets annulled in the next twenty years or not, this is more important than the legislation itself.Well, but whether or not Obama gets re-elected is kind of irrelevant. Whoever is president in 2012 will either be someone who meekly acquiesces to this or supports it, unless Ron Paul ends up being the nominee (which, while he might win Iowa, is still pretty unlikely)
Okay, let's be blunt: It's a given that this law will provide the necessary legal insurance for leaders to violate your rights and my rights and the civil rights of generations of Americans and non-Americans to come. If it had reached the desk of a Constitutional scholar with any bottle, it would have never been signed.Why assume that because someone is a "constitutional scholar" they actually care about civil liberties, etc. Just like people who support civil rights need to understand the constitution to argue for them, people who oppose civil rights need their own scholars in order to argue against them. I'm sure John Yoo is pretty well versed in the constitution.
You know, I think one very likely truth about this law is that the Occupy movement scared them into it.The law specifically refers to Al Quaeda, Though. Not just any 'terrorist'. They can't just call you a 'terrorist' and lock you up, and it doesn't even matter if they call you a terrorist or not. They have to call you a member of al-quaeda or an affiliated group.
Congress knows that hellacious domestic unrest is coming. ... All they have to do is CALL you a terrorist, and terrorism is anything they define it to be, and you're gone. It's right there, in black and white.
With our absolute refusal to deal with our debt problem, we're headed down the same path as Greece.Why compare us to Greece and not Japan? Japan has a much, much higher debt/GDP ratio then Greece ever did.
Letters? Email? Protests?Democracy means voting. Not writing letters, certainly not sending emails, voting. If you're not willing to pull support for a candidate over something, then they have no reason not to do it, regardless of how much spam they have to delete.
Insufficient? Well, democracy is hard. And it takes a lot of hard work. And a lot of compromised decisions.
If Democrats don't vote for Obama, my earlier crack about President Santorum using this to lock up Dan Savage seems, at this moment in time, about as likely as any other outcome.Seems like it would be hard for people to buy Dan Savage as an Al-quaeda sleeper. And I said, the law only applies to AQ, not 'terrorists' in general.
That being said, it sure would be nice to transition from simple criticism into something that is actually actionable in a plausible fashion.No, there's a fundamental misunderstanding. This isn't some kind of team game. We volunteered for Obama to fix the banking system and his position on civil liberties (and to a close 3rd, healthcare). On the two points he has utterly failed (and arguably healthcare was a wash).
The actual language of the law is explicitly and exclusively members of al-Qaeda, but y'know, why offer an informed reaction? Nobody else is.Al Qaeda isn't an organization with an acting chair, it's a loose group of organizations with a couple central figureheads. There's no Al Qaeda phone directory. It's pretty easy to accuse anyone of being part of Al Qaeda if you don't have to provide proof in a court of law.
...A bill requires two passes through Congress for a veto to be overridden. it has to be passed the first time, vetoed, and then passed through Congress again, with the President's objections having been considered.posted by AndrewKemendo at 4:28 AM on January 3 [7 favorites]
here is what Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution says about vetoes:Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.Obama, instead of vetoing this atrocious law and requiring the bill to be forced through with his "Objections," simply signed the bill into law and made an unconstitutional signing statement in an attempt to excuse his actions. if he had vetoed it, he could easily have made a statement to the people that could have prevented the bill from being passed at all, and pushed for, say, another defense budget bill to be passed - one that did not strip us of rights that we've held as totally inviolable for the last 234 years.
this is not "clever political manuevering by the Republicans." Obama chose to pass this affront to our human rights, of his own will. in fact, the Obama administration reportedly [1] pushed for the bill to allow for indefinite detention of Americans.
The thing about Ron Paul being a racist: How many of the people bringing up this racism stuff hold Hillary responsible for all the race baiting her campaign did during the 2008 primary?(1) No, the thing about Ron Paul being a racist is that Ron Paul is a racist.
the support for Obama was largely a reaction an hilariously absurd alternative. They couldn't continue with Bush the Lesser, even though the electorate would prefer it, because of the constitutional requirements.Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but if not, this seems like a weird assertion. Bush's approval rating was in more or less constant decline ever since his artificial huge spike at 9/11, and by 2008 only about 30% of the electorate approved of him.
« Older When Australia and India take the field today, the... | Top artists reveal how to find... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Of course it's on Reddit so you know it could all be backmasked commentary about My Little Pony.
posted by beaucoupkevin at 11:32 AM on January 2 [44 favorites]