Apparently I was born yesterday.

The basic gist of it seems to be that Congress passed a bill, and Obama signed a bill into law that allows indefinite detention of anyone the government labels as a turrist. But Obama put a signing statement on indicating that he didn't like the entire detaining US citizens without due process.

this doesn't make any sense to me

This isn't The Onion, but they could have done this article, Americans have been bad in 2011, so Obama takes away another right for Christmas. I mean, is this all a big joke that I was never let in on? Why would you sign something into law when you didn't agree with what it said and even taught constitutional law previously... ?

Really, someone just explain what I'm missing? Is he going to wait until the election and be like "surprise! jk, here are your rights back"?

Really guys, what's the deal?

1/5/2012 11:52:33 PM

Buy guns.

1/6/2012 12:05:01 AM

Apparently Obama REQUESTED the clause about detaining americans

1/6/2012 12:17:39 AM

Move away from large groups of people and stockpile provisions.

1/6/2012 12:20:22 AM

Speaking of the Onion:

Quote :

"I don't see why this even matters. Why would we need to detain American citizens indefinitely when we already have the authority to shoot missiles at them from drones?"

http://www.theonion.com/articles/president-signs-controversial-defense-bill,26928/


The signing statement is just Obama's way of pussying out of yet another issue. It's like saying, "I promise not to abuse these powers, but I want them anyway just in case I change my mind."

[Edited on January 6, 2012 at 12:23 AM. Reason : ]

1/6/2012 12:22:01 AM

Minimize your interactions with government agencies make all transactions in cash.

1/6/2012 12:23:24 AM

^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lolnRc1_3Hk


Using cash is "suspicious behavior" according to the Department of Homeland Security.

1/6/2012 12:24:53 AM

uh oh, I think we need to indefinitely detain smc

1/6/2012 12:57:03 AM

This is classic Barrack. Two-faced bullshitter who is itching to turn your rights into his dinner. And the tyrannical fools who voted for this bill should be voted out of office.

1/6/2012 8:37:23 AM

If the bill hadn't passed, the DoD would have ground to a halt because its authorization for actions would have ceased; he sent out that signing statement to indicate how he intends to use his new-found powers, but that could easily be disregarded by the next Rethugnican in the White House.

1/6/2012 8:53:46 AM

Quote :

"he sent out that signing statement to indicate how he intends to use his new-found powers"

and how long until he changes his mind?

1/6/2012 8:56:11 AM

mcdanger, pryderi, str8foolish, and shrike are conspicuously absent ITT.

1/6/2012 9:03:09 AM

^
pryderi is the only one of those who is a unilateral obama supporter. not fair to lump the rest in.

1/6/2012 9:07:29 AM

true, but pryderi isnt the only one in that bunch that would defend this-

[Edited on January 6, 2012 at 9:10 AM. Reason : -]

1/6/2012 9:10:20 AM

Quote :

"he sent out that signing statement to indicate how he intends to use his new-found powers, but that could easily be disregarded by the next Rethugnican in the White House."

Just to be clear here, it is ONLY the GOP that would misuse this power. Not the president who has conducted more drone strikes in Pakistan in 2 years than GWB did in 8 or the President who has already authorized the extra-judicial killings of American Citizens abroad.


Don't get me wrong, it isn't Barack Obama that I'm suspicious of, it is unchecked power.

1/6/2012 9:11:54 AM

Quote :

"but that could easily be disregarded by the next Rethugnican in the White House."

keep making yourself look more and more like Sarah Palin by using the term "Rethugnican."

1/6/2012 10:18:24 AM

Quote :

"If the bill hadn't passed, the DoD would have ground to a halt because its authorization for actions would have ceased; he sent out that signing statement to indicate how he intends to use his new-found powers, but that could easily be disregarded by the next Rethugnican in the White House."

I guarantee you that if the president had vetoed the bill and sent it back saying he won't sign it until the clause was removed, the DoD would have continued as is without any disruptions in service. Never mind that all congress would have to do is remove the clause and re-vote, in an absolute worse case scenario where your congress really thought it was vital to allow indefinite detention of american citizens, they could have simply overrode the veto. I'm really kind of getting sick of hearing this excuse from our representatives. We don't need to pass every bad law ever dreamed up because someone attached it to a good law. Vote no until the law is proper. Veto until the law is proper.

1/6/2012 10:37:03 AM

But if they did that how would we ever make it to 40,000 new laws per year?

1/6/2012 10:39:09 AM

line item veto would have been good here.

1/6/2012 11:03:24 AM

Quote :

"If the bill hadn't passed, the DoD would have ground to a halt because its authorization for actions would have ceased; he sent out that signing statement to indicate how he intends to use his new-found powers"

God damn it, no choice but to give myself more power. What's a president to do?? I just keep getting cornered into these situations.


I think I understand the reason politically. Will Romney use this against him in the election? QED.

1/6/2012 11:10:17 AM

Quote :

"mcdanger, pryderi, str8foolish, and shrike are conspicuously absent ITT."

Ok, I'll bite. First off, this thing was passed with 88 votes in the Senate and 283 in the House. 5 votes shy of a veto proof majority. So this wasn't exactly a unilateral power grab by the President. Congress wrote and passed it with strong bipartisan support.

Secondly, the whole thing was a giant political maneuver to piss off Obama and enrage his base (mission accomplished). The provisions were written by John McCain, Lindsey Graham (remember those guys?), and other mostly Republican legislatures. They knew it would never pass on it's own, so they attached it to something important, like say, the bill that authorizes our entire military budget and funds important services like the VA. A bill that is almost sure to pass mostly unchallenged, and is unlikely to be veto'd by any sitting President.

So once again, the GOP took advantage of the public's ignorance of the American political process to stick the President in a lose-lose situation. Either he hurts our defense policy or passes offensive legislation. It's the same game they've been playing since Obama took office, and it's an easy one to win when you're willing to piss on your principles in order to win a political battle.

1/6/2012 11:12:20 AM

so, you are saying there's zero Obama could have done. just fuck the Constitution and be done with it. got it

[Edited on January 6, 2012 at 11:16 AM. Reason : ]

1/6/2012 11:15:59 AM

He could have vetoed it, made a big stink about why it was being vetoed and sent it back. He chose not too. Instead he continues to allow and often causes the continuing erosion of liberty.

1/6/2012 11:19:50 AM

^^^ Oh, give me a fucking break. The White House originally threatened to veto this bill because they believed that they already have the authority to do everything codified in the bill, and that codifying it would be a political liability. The White House dropped it's veto threat after the Senate-House compromise bill removed all limitations to the President's power to detain "terrorists".

Shrike, I know that you can be a real partisan douche, but try to read between the lines on this one instead of reflexively blaming Republicans and repeating bullshit talking points from DailyKos.

[Edited on January 6, 2012 at 11:41 AM. Reason : 2]

1/6/2012 11:39:05 AM

Quote :

"Ok, I'll bite."

but maybe you shouldnt have-

1/6/2012 12:39:38 PM

Quote :

"Ok, I'll bite. First off, this thing was passed with 88 votes in the Senate and 283 in the House. 5 votes shy of a veto proof majority. So this wasn't exactly a unilateral power grab by the President. Congress wrote and passed it with strong bipartisan support. "

Just for the record...

I mean, I'm only saying...

The problem with the bill has nothing to do with how many politicians support it or how many of (our apparently 2) parties are behind it. The problem with the bill, as it appears to me, is that it takes away our... you know... right to trial.

I guess I've just gone crazy.

Quote :

"So once again, the GOP took advantage of the public's ignorance of the American political process to stick the President in a lose-lose situation. Either he hurts our defense policy or passes offensive legislation. It's the same game they've been playing since Obama took office, and it's an easy one to win when you're willing to piss on your principles in order to win a political battle."

Oh absolutely, just look at the expert opinion from:
(http://www.theonion.com/articles/president-signs-controversial-defense-bill,26928/)

Amanda Watson
Plumbing Drafter

Quote :

"Yes, but to be fair, he gave up because it was easier."

Oh, ok.

Never mind then.

1/6/2012 1:01:27 PM

Quote :

"And the tyrannical fools who voted for this bill should be voted out of office."

Wouldn't that be nearly all of them?

1/6/2012 4:43:37 PM

^

1/6/2012 4:45:25 PM

All but seven, I believe.

If 93% of congress votes on a bill one way, and the vast majority of Americans would prefer that they voted another......then I really don't know how we can even pretend to live in a democracy anymore.

1/6/2012 5:08:10 PM

^ vast majority? I don't think that the vast majority of people even know what the NDAA reauthorization bill is, or give a rat's ass about it either way.

1/6/2012 6:07:03 PM

Quote :

"Pursuant to the AUMF passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the NDAA text affirms the President's authority to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners," or anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]." The text also authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin," or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity." An amendment to the Act that would have explicitly forbidden the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens was rejected by the Senate. Addressing previous conflict with the Obama Administration regarding the wording of the Senate text, the Senate-House compromise text, in sub-section 1031(d), also affirms that nothing in the Act "is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." The final version of the bill also provides, in sub-section(e), that "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." As reflected in Senate debate over the bill, there is a great deal of controversy over the status of existing law. ... The Senate later adopted by a 98 to 1 vote a compromise amendment, based upon a proposal by Senator Dianne Feinstein, which preserves current law concerning U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens detained within the United States. Senator Feinstein has argued that current law does not allow the indefinite detention of American citizens, while the Obama Administration, Senators Carl Levin and John McCain have argued that it does."

1/6/2012 9:32:06 PM

Maybe you people should actually read the law as passed.

Reading the actual text of the act (page 265):

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or
has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
forces.

So this seems to me that the "belligerent act" would need to be something that provided aid in some form to the enemy forces. Also, further down in para (e):
(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.

So that to me states that this law can't override any current protections of US Citizens that are already in place.

1/7/2012 9:17:10 AM

^ Have you read the Patriot Act? It was also written specifically to give the Administration tools to fight terrorism. 9 times out of 10, it's used to snoop in on drug dealers.

You would have to be naive to not understand how this could be misused by future Administrations.

1/7/2012 7:34:56 PM

Quote :

"So this seems to me that the "belligerent act" would need to be something that provided aid in some form to the enemy forces."

to you, sure. but all they have to do is say you committed a belligerent act and then they don't even have to give you a trial. what are you going to do, challenge it in court? Oh, right, you don't get a trial!

1/7/2012 8:00:47 PM

^ this made me lol

what's sad is what I'm laughing at.

1/7/2012 10:18:48 PM

Quote :

"(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."

That's Section 1021.



Section 1022 says:

Quote :

"All persons arrested and detained according to the provisions of section 1021, including those detained on U.S. soil, whether detained indefinitely or not, are required to be held by the United States Armed Forces. The law affords the option to have U.S. citizens detained by the armed forces but this requirement does not extend to them, as with foreign persons. Lawful resident aliens may or may not be required to be detained by the Armed Forces, "on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012#Requirement_for_military_custody:_Section_1022

As in, they can choose to detain you if they want to. They're just not REQUIRED to detain you, but they can if they fucking feel like it. Obama claimed that he won't use his powers for that in his signing statement (oh, how merciful of you, Obama) but any future administration could easily abuse that power.




This law is a fucking disaster. No two ways about it. Here's the ACLU page on it:

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/detention

http://www.aclu.org/theworldisnotabattlefield/

1/7/2012 11:49:24 PM

and speaking of the patriot act:

1/7/2012 11:51:58 PM

Quote :

"Obama claimed that he won't use his powers for that in his signing statement (oh, how merciful of you, Obama) but any future administration could easily abuse that power."

I'm pretty sure that even for Obama this is non-binding.

In reality, lots of people think the signing statement ITSELF is unconstitutional, so really, who gives a fuck? And then there's the matter of whether or not the wording of the statement binds him to not exercise these powers in the first place. Even if it, somehow, beyond all reason, obligate him to not use these powers, maybe he'd just get out a fresh piece of paper and issue himself the power back.

This claim that the Obama administration won't use the powers is the dumbest point on Earth. On just about every argumentative level it's meaningless.

1/8/2012 12:26:51 AM

obama is worse than w in every single way, but atleast hes not palin i guess.

1/8/2012 12:47:04 AM

I know it gives the military the ability to arrest and detain civilians. Watch out bitches, I'm coming for you!

[Edited on January 8, 2012 at 12:50 AM. Reason : ya]

1/8/2012 12:49:29 AM

With Palin, at lest, she could have destroyed the country fast enough to have a correction happen speedily.

I can't help but wonder if we're doing a disservice by trying to vote for people we see as better, because maybe it just delays the collapse, which makes it all worse.

In certain ways, the boom of SUVs and absence-only education could have been ways to subversively suck the world dry so that the developing world will still be developing in the middle of peak oil. See, the hard right, Red America, GW Bush, dumb fuck America might have actually had it figured out.

Again, looking at the NDAA, a part of me refuses to believe that any rational group of humans would have passed this flaming ball of crap. Maybe they know something I don't!

1/8/2012 12:52:58 AM

You have glimpsed the inside of my mind. Don't be afraid. Do not look away.

1/8/2012 1:28:53 AM

absence-only education

1/8/2012 12:48:30 PM

^ this

1/9/2012 9:48:07 AM

Is that like where you can only advance to the next grade if you skip all your classes?

1/10/2012 10:26:44 AM

the only way to win is not to play at all!

1/11/2012 1:51:35 PM

Bump

5/18/2012 1:06:44 PM

This first article smells a bit fishy to me.

On Obama's NDAA reservations...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57350621-503544/obama-signs-defense-bill-with-reservations/

Spot on.

Three Myths about the Detention Bill
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/

There are many out there who feel that this bill was designed to empower those who wish to squash the growing unrest (poverty, inequality) and activist movements (occupy, etc) in America. I am one of those people.

5/18/2012 1:36:20 PM

Anyone following the most recent developments?

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/228293-house-backs-indefinite-detention-on-us-soil

Apparently the House GOP (and a select few Dems) voted down an amendment to NDAA that would have "fixed" the indefinite detention part of the bill (but instead passed some bill that was allegedly a smoke screen?)


Its also worth surfing over to Heritage to read this gold mine:

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/16/smith-amash-detainee-amendment-is-dangerous-policy/

[Edited on May 18, 2012 at 2:30 PM. Reason : lol republicans]

5/18/2012 2:29:54 PM

^

Quote :

"In summary, last year’s NDAA detainee provisions do not create or expand the government’s ability to detain U.S. citizens. In no way does the NDAA negatively impact or change the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. Instead, section 1021 strengthens the military’s authority to detain individuals who are members of or substantially supporting al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces."

For one, the wording "associated forces" is flatly wrong. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are proper nouns and have a definable network. Nothing under discussion is limited to those networks. Instead, legislation only (only ever) address terrorism networks in the general sense.

Next, this assumes a false dichotomy where the set of people suspected of involvement in terrorism networks has absolutely no overlap with the set of people who are US citizens. Obviously that's a dumb assumption.

5/18/2012 3:03:36 PM