5 ms·
It's worth noting that Obama, upon signing, issued a signing statement that said that he was against the indefinite detention provision, and importantly, that h
by wycats 15y ago
It's worth noting that Obama, upon signing, issued a signing statement that said that he was against the indefinite detention provision, and importantly, that he would not indefinitely hold Americans without trial:
"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."
- ninjac0der 15y agoHow exactly is that note worthy?
- troels 15y agoI can't make out if you mean noteworthy or note worthy?
- jonhendry 15y agoYeah, great. Even if you believe him, that might mean as little as a year. What about the next administration? What about the administration after that? Laws last much longer than the administrations under which they are born.
- yuhong 15y agoBut remember this was just one provision of a larger bill, and I don't think line-by-line veto is possible anymore.
- oconnor0 15y agoThen you veto the entire bill - explaining why.
- sp332 15y agoHe would have, but this bill included the funding for salaries of military personnel. He actually said, at the time that he signed it, that Congress had forced his hand. Edit: OK I don't really know if he would have. But he did say that.
- jonhendry 15y agoHe still should have vetoed it. Once Congress knew he was willing to go that far, Congress would have been up against the wall and had to drop it in order for the paychecks to continue.
- shadowfiend 15y agoIt's extremely likely, given the criticality of the legislation to the military, that his veto would have been overridden by Congress. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to pick your fights. Then again, I'm extremely angry at him about this, too, so... Yeah, whatever. Heh. Though really I'm angry about the overall civil liberties history of the administration. This is just the proverbial straw.
- jonhendry 15y ago"It's extremely likely, given the criticality of the legislation to the military, that his veto would have been overridden by Congress. " Maybe. Or they could drop the problematic bit and redo it. Either way, the paychecks would go out.
- hammerdr 15y agoYou have to understand that the system isn't that simple. Bills do not exist in a vacuum. You cannot view these things as independent and completely unrelated to everything else going around it. Yes, the President could veto the bill but then the next few months becomes about him veto-ing a military appropriations bill. He would then need to explain to the American public why the freedoms it eroded were unacceptable and that their loved ones serving this country couldn't buy milk for a month. It would consume a significant amount of time and resources. Like shadowfiend, I'm not defending the decision to make civil liberties a lower priority than other issues (I am vehemently against that), but if you want to be someone that is more than a whiner then you need to first understand and then work to change it.
- OstiaAntica 15y agoObama the candidate opposed the use of signing statements. http://technorati.com/politics/article/signing-statements-redux/ http://technorati.com/politics/article/signing-statements-re...
- aamar 15y agoIt's important to note that Obama makes clear in both his campaign assertion and his official memo that he does not consider signing statements to be problematic in and of themselves. Rather, he argues, their use should be limited in scope and reach, clearly stating that President Bush went overboard. From Politifact's extensive discussion: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/516/no-signing-statements-nullify-instruction-congress/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/pr... Politifact consulted 5 experts, 4 of whom (at the time of consultation) felt he has kept his promise. Politifact itself has currently rated the promise as "compromise", meaning partial fulfillment.
- protomyth 15y agoPolitifact isn't exactly the beacon of truth it purports to be either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politifact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politifact - the SNL business was particularly odd
- aamar 15y agoI agree that they've made errors, but they seem deserving of their fairly good reputation (not as high as, say, NYT).
- protomyth 15y agoI would imagine the same people and groups that have problems with Politifact also have problems with NYT much like the other side has problems with the WSJ and Fox News.
- tomjen3 15y ago
- ams6110 15y agoBecause tyranny has never been delivered by leaders speaking soothing reassurances.
- eternalban 15y agoThe apparent mindset that the grandparent manifests is antithetical to the very principles that USA is founded upon. This is not a nation of personality cults; our system is based on checks and balances. (That was the whole point!) The fact that he signed it and issued that anti-American --- see above -- statement makes the act even more repugnant.
- rbanffy 15y agoIt kind of says everything is fine, for now. It's disappointing and scary he signed it - like I said a couple days ago, very bad legislation is contagious and some idiot will propose a similar provision elsewhere. And, since this stupid idea is the law now, consider very carefully who you vote for. Whoever sits in the oval office after your next presidential election will have much more power than usual.
- sp332 15y ago"We have always been at war with Eastasia."
- DasIch 15y ago"Niemand hat die Absicht, eine Mauer zu errichten." (Nobody has the intension to build a wall) - Walter Ulbricht Less than two months after that statement was made the work on the wall that separated Germany for decades started. Never should a citizen have to trust a representative. The moment you have to democracy becomes impossible.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- tomjen3 15y agoThen he should send a powerful signal, rally his base and do something right for a change: Not sign the fucking document.
- blago 15y agoThis is even worse: all I hear is that it is a virtue to apply "our most important traditions and values as a nation" when speaking of first-class beings (citizens of our great nation), but we are not bound by anything to extend the same courtesy to others. Embarrassing, humiliating, and sad.
- rbanffy 15y agoYou may trust him, but, being signed into law, such provisions requires you to trust each and every successor of his until a contrary provision becomes law.
- abjr 15y agoThe Act is called "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012". Is this something that is passed every year? Could the indefinite detention clauses be removed in the 2013 "version" ?
- ams6110 15y agoCertainly they could. How often does government give up a power like that though? Another possibility is that if used, the law could (and likely will) be challenged on constitutional grounds.
- zotz 15y ago> It's worth noting that Obama, upon signing, issued a signing statement... He originally promised not to sign it at all. Obama has no cred.
- muraiki 15y agoHe threatened to veto it because it threatened his power. The Obama administration claimed that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists Act of 2001 already gave him the authority to detain citizens, and that the original act confused that (by requiring military custody). There is a section that says that the requirement for military custody does not apply to US citizens, but that does not mean that US citizens cannot be detained by the President in civilian custody. This is the section that a lot of people are getting hung up on and saying, "Well, it says right here that US citizens can't be detained." No, it says that US citizens aren't required to be held in mandatory military custody.
- ori_b 15y agoIt's worth noting that indefinite detention is legal now, regardless of what Obama says his administration will do.
- vacri 15y agoAs a citizen of a country very strongly allied with the US, but not an American citizen myself, that statement scares me.
- Adam503 15y agoStop listening to Barack Obama talk. Obama talks likes FDR, but Obama's actions have way way to the right. Obama's not way right like Cheney but he is closing in on Reagan. Obama invaded more countries than Reagan, Reagan cut taxes more than Obama. Obama has kept extending Dubya tax cuts. Obama and Mittens borrowed ObamaCare from Bob Dole. Reagan never executed American citizens without trial. Actually, Obama's a bit right of Reagan now.
- gorbachev 15y agohttp://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/trust-me-is-not-enough-of-a-safeguard-says-amnesty-international-as-president-obama-signs-the-ndaa-i http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/trust-me-is-no... "Trust me" is not enough of a safeguard, says Amnesty International, as President Obama signs the NDAA into law This holds especially true with Obama given how he's almost complete reversed his positions on law-and-order type of issues after he was elected.