Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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