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. These are di
by ewillbefull 14y 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 14y agoThis 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 14y agoIn 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 14y agoHow would you know if its a "substantial and positive step" if you are not familiar with everything in the bill?
- azernik 14y agoBecause 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 14y agoUnder 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.