Skip to main content

View Diary: President Obama signs Defense Authorization Bill and issues signing statement (312 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks for STILL not answering my question (0+ / 0-)

    What part of my civil liberties have I given up with the signing of this law?

    Be specific.

    Furthermore, if your comment was at all in relation to the signing of this bill into law, then why are you posting in this article at all?

    cheers,

    Mitch Gore

    Want to end too big to fail banks? Then move your money and they will no longer be too big.

    by Lestatdelc on Sat Dec 31, 2011 at 04:53:24 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I demand you answer my question!!! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SJerseyIndy, pot, SpecialKinFlag

      Why do leprechauns hide a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow?

      Be specific.

      Last time,

      I never said in this post that you have given up civil liberties with the signing of this law, so why the fuck are you asking me that?

      However, other people have suggested that it is a violation of our 5th amendment rights. Particularly Section 1021, which Obama himself felt he needed to address in his signing statement.

      I am pretty sure this is the key phrase that people are concerned with from section 1021.

      Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

      I find it odd that Pr. Obama would feel the need to say this

      Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.

      If people were not concerned about it. Not just bloggers either, people like the constitutional lawyers at the ACLU. Here is the quote from Wikipedia

      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," under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of hostilities." 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."[11] An amendment to the Act that would have explicitly forbidden the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens was rejected.[12]
      Addressing previous conflict with the Obama Administration regarding the wording of the Senate text, the Senate-House compromise text also affirms that nothing in the Act "is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authority for Use of Military Force."
      This section of the bill directly defies the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

      People as diverse as Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul were concerned about this, and judging by your reading comprehension capabilities, or lack thereof, sorry but your inability to comprehend what you read and understand the basic gist of a conversation pisses me off. I don't trust that you would be capable of reading this bill and making a determination of whether or not it violates our civil rights. I trust more the ACLU and even the Editorial of the NYTImes.

      OK, I have had enough of you and your inability to understand a comment thread. Good night.

      "... the Professional Left, that is simultaneously totally irrelevant and ruining everything" (Glenn Greenwald)

      by ranger995 on Sat Dec 31, 2011 at 05:17:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wasn't "demanding" anything. (0+ / 0-)

        You could have dodged the question again if you wanted.

        This bill actually narrows the powers as authorized under the 2001 AUMF (albeit slightly) given that the 2001 AUMF authorizes the POTUS to use any means necessary (up to and including killing) of anyone, anywhere, anytime on the say so of the POTUS alone, if he/she believes the target to be connected to those responsible for 9/11.

        cheers,

        Mitch Gore

        Want to end too big to fail banks? Then move your money and they will no longer be too big.

        by Lestatdelc on Sat Dec 31, 2011 at 05:44:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for not answering the question. (4+ / 0-)

          Why do leprechauns hide a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow?

          Be specific.

          "... the Professional Left, that is simultaneously totally irrelevant and ruining everything" (Glenn Greenwald)

          by ranger995 on Sat Dec 31, 2011 at 05:54:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I do not believe leprechauns exist (0+ / 0-)

            So what motivations such mythical creature have, I do not know.

            Your point?

            cheers,

            Mitch Gore

            Want to end too big to fail banks? Then move your money and they will no longer be too big.

            by Lestatdelc on Sat Dec 31, 2011 at 05:59:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You are dodging the question (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SJerseyIndy, pot, SpecialKinFlag

              Why do leprechauns hide a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow?

              Be specific.

              FYI -- My point is that me demanding you answer a question that is not related to anything, is exactly what you were doing.

              I can't believe you couldn't even figure that out.

              Also, this law does not at all in any way narrow any powers provided in the 2001 law, it explicitly states that. This law, actually, it a little difficult to understand because there are some inconsistencies in it and weird clauses. That's why I am not 100% sure myself it is violating our constitutional rights, but I have to say that when so many constitutional scholars are very concerned about it, and the president himself even shows some concern, there may be cause for concern.

              I certainly trust that way more than some dude who can't even figure out what I was saying in my initial comment even though I spelled it out explicitly over and over. It's funny that Anton Bursch seemed to understand it and he commented accordingly.

              "... the Professional Left, that is simultaneously totally irrelevant and ruining everything" (Glenn Greenwald)

              by ranger995 on Sat Dec 31, 2011 at 06:38:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Didn't dodge anything (0+ / 0-)

                I directly answered your leprechaun question. I said I don't know why said mythical creatures bury pots of gold.

                "Also, this law does not at all in any way narrow any powers provided in the 2001 law, it explicitly states that."

                Actually, as Benjamin Wittes noted over on the Lawfare blog's NDAA FAQ (a blog which focuses specifically on national security law issues) the actual effect of this law does:

                That claim of authority is based on the Authorization for Use of Military Force (“AUMF”) passed by Congress shortly after the September 11 attacks, as informed by the law of war.  The Bush Administration previously claimed very similar authority, albeit invoking not just the AUMF but also the inherent power of the President under Article II of the Constitution. In any event, such claims have been subjected to judicial challenge repeatedly, most commonly in the context of the Guantanamo detainee habeas litigation. As we explain below, the courts have had a decidedly mixed reaction in the pair of cases involving persons captured within the United States, but as for persons captured abroad, they have largely endorsed the government’s position.  The D.C. Circuit, in fact, has tentatively adopted a definition of the class detainable under the AUMF that is, if anything, broader than what the administration seeks. While the administration–and now Congress–would detain only on the basis of “substantial support,” the D.C. Circuit has articulated a standard which would permit detention of those who “purposefully and materially support” the enemy, even if not substantially.

                In light of all this, a law that writes the administration’s successful litigating position into statute cannot reasonably be said to expand the government’s detention authority. In fact, to the extent that the new statutory language will preempt the arguably broader D.C. Circuit definition, it may actually narrow it–if only very slightly.

                cheers,

                Mitch Gore

                Want to end too big to fail banks? Then move your money and they will no longer be too big.

                by Lestatdelc on Sat Dec 31, 2011 at 09:20:47 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Unfortunately, the ACLU says the opposite. That (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  pot, SpecialKinFlag

                  means you have to pick either Lawfare or the ACLU so which one do you trust?

                  There is no saving throw against stupid.

                  by Throw The Bums Out on Sun Jan 01, 2012 at 12:24:42 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Actually the ACLU said nothing substantive (0+ / 0-)

                    about the final bill that was signed. It was all rhetorical hand-waving because the NDAA doesn't actually grant anymore authority than what existing law already was (which I have said elsewhere, and which the ACLU has correct) grants way too much power to the executive branch. But that is the core issue of the 2001 AUMF, not the NDAA.

                    cheers,

                    Mitch Gore

                    Want to end too big to fail banks? Then move your money and they will no longer be too big.

                    by Lestatdelc on Sun Jan 01, 2012 at 04:52:26 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site