3 ms·
An NDAA passes regularly to fund the armed forces, including benefits for veterans etc. Every President in recent memory signed a bunch of them. That's not comp
by pekk 14y ago
An NDAA passes regularly to fund the armed forces, including benefits for veterans etc. Every President in recent memory signed a bunch of them. That's not comparable to CISPA
- pyre 14y agoI think it's reference to to the bill that allowed gitmo-like 'hold indefinitely' powers to happen to US citizens on US soil.
- rayiner 14y agoSame bill. Also, the brouhaha over that bill is over how it might be interpreted in a parallel universe where Hamdi v. Rumsfeld doesn't exist.
- GHFigs 14y agoMost people seem to not understand that that's the same bill. The NDAA is an annual bill specifying the defense budget. The indefinite detention provisions that upset so many people are attached to that bill. As the President cannot veto part of a bill, vetoing the NDAA over those provisions would literally mean vetoing the entire defense budget.
- homosaur 14y agoThat's fine. Veto the budget. Send them back to the drawing board. That would have been the best outcome.
- GHFigs 14y agoI definitely understand that view, but on that drawing board are the words "two-thirds majority". It comes down to a choice between an impotent veto and an impotent signing statement.
- Vivtek 14y agoThen choose the impotent veto and stand on the side of justice. I don't see that as a problem.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]