4 ms·

The president threatened to veto the National Defense Authorization Act as well, yet he still signed it into law with the objectionable clauses. The administrat

The president threatened to veto the National Defense Authorization Act as well, yet he still signed it into law with the objectionable clauses. The administration simply added a signing statement that the President wouldn't use the more dangerous powers to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens, which were granted by that legislation. I'm glad to hear this veto threat, but I hope our President has the sense this time to realize that signed laws can be used or abused by any future President. We cannot predict how laws will be used. Software patents are a classic example.

ewillbefull 15y ago
> The president threatened to veto the National Defense Authorization Act as well, yet he still signed it into law with the objectionable clauses. These are disjunctive. The President threatened a veto of the NDAA over very specific provisions that he disagreed with, which _were_ removed eventually. In addition, the NDAA did not authorize anything habeas corpus related that the Supreme Court hadn't already ruled AUMF did. (See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld) I would rather see a more pointed example of blatant disregard of a veto threat before I cast judgement on the credibility of this one.
- mncolinlee 15y ago
  This doesn't invalidate anything I said. The sections which were removed were designed to compel the executive branch to take certain actions. The Obama administration believed Congress should not have the power to compel the President to take action. Instead, the administration is only allowed to indefinitely detain citizens without trial in the final bill's section 1021. Unlike section 1021, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld only applies to citizens arrested overseas like Hamdi (in a literal battlefield) so long as they may contest their designation as an "enemy combatant". A veto threat is not a veto promise. Just because most Americans oppose a certain provision doesn't mean the veto threat is conditioned on removing that same provision. The proof is in the handling of the NDAA bill text.
  - azernik 15y ago
    In that case, the sections the Administration objected to (and got removed) were about compelling the executive branch to act; in this case, the ones cited in the veto threat (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-obama-administrations-threatens-to-veto-cispa-20120425,0,1194826.story http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-obama-a...) are about the precisely the privacy concerns you're worried about. Though I'm not familiar enough with the bill to know if everything objectionable in CISPA is in fact objected to in the memo, it's definitely a substantial and positive step.
    - dfc 15y ago
      How would you know if its a "substantial and positive step" if you are not familiar with everything in the bill?
      - azernik 15y ago
        Because the changes mentioned in the memo cite the specific parts of the bill to which they would apply. For example: In addition, H.R. 3523 would inappropriately shield companies from any suits where a company's actions are based on cyber threat information identified, obtained, or shared under this bill, regardless of whether that action otherwise violated Federal criminal law or results in damage or loss of life. This broad liability protection not only removes a strong incentive to improving cybersecurity, it also potentially undermines our Nation's economic, national security, and public safety interests. I don't need to know everything about the bill to know that liability protection that broad is a Bad Thing, and that attempts to strip it out are both substantial and positive.
        tptacek 15y ago
        Under what law would an email provider be exposed to liability should they opt to share information about email accounts, or even the contents of email messages, in the course of responding to a network security incident? Hint: the Federal law that attempts to establish that email stored at a provider is even "private" to begin with carves out a broad exception for exactly this kind of sharing, with no limitations on how that information is stored or relayed.
newhouseb 15y ago
As I understand it, the NDAA is an annual act specifying the DoD's budget, so bad things would happend (TM) if he had vetoed it outright because there was a reasonable expectation that the DoD would have a budget by a certain date. There aren't the same expectations around CISPA, so a veto may be more realistic. I don't mean to excuse or justify any acts on behalf of the president, just to point out that the surrounding circumstances are a lot different.
- jonhohle 15y ago
  They probably shouldn't couple too unrelated things then.
  - newhouseb 15y ago
    Yeah, I really wish there was a test that either the founding fathers provided in the constitution or the supreme court found in court precedent to determine if two components of a bill belong together or separately (maybe if both clauses could be witheld without the support of the other). There is way too much political gamesmanship around packaging bills together in our system today.
    - btilly 15y ago
      I would personally support a Constitutional amendment putting an upper limit on the length of any bill passed by Congress.
      - freehunter 15y ago
        Cain was roundly mocked for suggesting that. I think the better way of saying it (this is my opinion) would be "I'd support a length limit on the clauses in a bill". The problem with legalese in bills is, Congress has to specifically outline every use case of every law. If it's not clear in the law, a judge can overthrow it. What was that case the other week where the judge threw out part of a law saying "if Congress wanted this to be part of the law, they should have specifically stated that"? This is why bills have to be long. I would personally support a Constitutional amendment putting an upper limit on the amount of attachments placed in any bill passed by Congress.

ewillbefull 15y ago

> The president threatened to veto the National Defense Authorization Act as well, yet he still signed it into law with the objectionable clauses. These are disjunctive. The President threatened a veto of the NDAA over very specific provisions that he disagreed with, which _were_ removed eventually. In addition, the NDAA did not authorize anything habeas corpus related that the Supreme Court hadn't already ruled AUMF did. (See Hamdi v. Rumsfeld) I would rather see a more pointed example of blatant disregard of a veto threat before I cast judgement on the credibility of this one.

mncolinlee 15y ago
This doesn't invalidate anything I said. The sections which were removed were designed to compel the executive branch to take certain actions. The Obama administration believed Congress should not have the power to compel the President to take action. Instead, the administration is only allowed to indefinitely detain citizens without trial in the final bill's section 1021. Unlike section 1021, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld only applies to citizens arrested overseas like Hamdi (in a literal battlefield) so long as they may contest their designation as an "enemy combatant". A veto threat is not a veto promise. Just because most Americans oppose a certain provision doesn't mean the veto threat is conditioned on removing that same provision. The proof is in the handling of the NDAA bill text.
- azernik 15y ago
  In that case, the sections the Administration objected to (and got removed) were about compelling the executive branch to act; in this case, the ones cited in the veto threat (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-obama-administrations-threatens-to-veto-cispa-20120425,0,1194826.story http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-obama-a...) are about the precisely the privacy concerns you're worried about. Though I'm not familiar enough with the bill to know if everything objectionable in CISPA is in fact objected to in the memo, it's definitely a substantial and positive step.
  - dfc 15y ago
    How would you know if its a "substantial and positive step" if you are not familiar with everything in the bill?
    - azernik 15y ago
      Because the changes mentioned in the memo cite the specific parts of the bill to which they would apply. For example: In addition, H.R. 3523 would inappropriately shield companies from any suits where a company's actions are based on cyber threat information identified, obtained, or shared under this bill, regardless of whether that action otherwise violated Federal criminal law or results in damage or loss of life. This broad liability protection not only removes a strong incentive to improving cybersecurity, it also potentially undermines our Nation's economic, national security, and public safety interests. I don't need to know everything about the bill to know that liability protection that broad is a Bad Thing, and that attempts to strip it out are both substantial and positive.
      - tptacek 15y ago
        Under what law would an email provider be exposed to liability should they opt to share information about email accounts, or even the contents of email messages, in the course of responding to a network security incident? Hint: the Federal law that attempts to establish that email stored at a provider is even "private" to begin with carves out a broad exception for exactly this kind of sharing, with no limitations on how that information is stored or relayed.

newhouseb 15y ago

As I understand it, the NDAA is an annual act specifying the DoD's budget, so bad things would happend (TM) if he had vetoed it outright because there was a reasonable expectation that the DoD would have a budget by a certain date. There aren't the same expectations around CISPA, so a veto may be more realistic. I don't mean to excuse or justify any acts on behalf of the president, just to point out that the surrounding circumstances are a lot different.

jonhohle 15y ago
They probably shouldn't couple too unrelated things then.
- newhouseb 15y ago
  Yeah, I really wish there was a test that either the founding fathers provided in the constitution or the supreme court found in court precedent to determine if two components of a bill belong together or separately (maybe if both clauses could be witheld without the support of the other). There is way too much political gamesmanship around packaging bills together in our system today.
  - btilly 15y ago
    I would personally support a Constitutional amendment putting an upper limit on the length of any bill passed by Congress.
    - freehunter 15y ago
      Cain was roundly mocked for suggesting that. I think the better way of saying it (this is my opinion) would be "I'd support a length limit on the clauses in a bill". The problem with legalese in bills is, Congress has to specifically outline every use case of every law. If it's not clear in the law, a judge can overthrow it. What was that case the other week where the judge threw out part of a law saying "if Congress wanted this to be part of the law, they should have specifically stated that"? This is why bills have to be long. I would personally support a Constitutional amendment putting an upper limit on the amount of attachments placed in any bill passed by Congress.