Skip to main content

http://thinkprogress.org/...

"The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it."

"... my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded."

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ehrenfeucht games

    the Clear Light is the consciousness of the quantum vacuum

    by Sharkmeister on Sat Dec 31, 2011 at 06:46:19 PM PST

  •  1984 (9+ / 0-)

    "My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens."

    Heh. This is one for the rubes.

    So Obama will not authorize detention that is indefinite AND by the military AND of an American citizen AND without trial.

    So, according to this statement, indefinite detention of an American citizen, without trial, so long as the military isn't holding you, is OK. Sounds like a job for the CIA then, eh?

    If you aren't an American citizen, indefinite detention by the military, without trial, is OK.

    According to this statement, if you are an American citizen and you are granted a trial, indefinite detention by the military is OK. What happens if you are found not guilty at trial? Well... according to this statement, the President could continue to detain you. After all, you got your trial. (If the President's lawyers wanted to be clear, they could have said something about "conviction after trial". And you can bet his lawyers knew exactly what they were leaving out.

    And oh yeah... I assume Obama has reserved the right to execute citizens by drone without any kind reasonably transparent due process.
    Reply · Like · Unfollow Post · 2 seconds

    Was never very good at math. Oddly, though, I can count by twos if I start at the number 1.

    by Mike Stark on Sat Dec 31, 2011 at 07:09:36 PM PST

    •  Possible (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sharkmeister

      Unlikely, though.

      Democrats must
      Earn the trust
      Of the 99% --
      That's our intent!

      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinksy OCcupy!

      by Seneca Doane on Sat Dec 31, 2011 at 07:27:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Unlikely as that may be (6+ / 0-)

        my point is that the lawyers knew what they were leaving out.  The statement has effectively changed nothing.

        The trial could be secret.  The accused could be tried in abstentia.  

        Really, it's the 1984 aspect of this that galls me.  It would have been fairly simple for a competent lawyer to write a statement that unequivocally makes it clear that the Executive (not just "my administration") believes they have sworn an oath and owe a duty to the Constitution - particularly the Bill of Rights - that precludes execution of certain sections of the NDAA.

        This statement seems tailored to deceive.  They seem to be whispering sweet nothings to the cute little civil libertarians tilting against their windmill in the hopes that we'll still love them when they need us.

        In the meantime, they are interpreting laws in secret, killing American citizens without any sort of due process (assuming you believe the killed deserve such niceties as something akin to an indictment, a chance to turn themselves in, the right to see and challenge the evidence that was used to justify their death warrant, etc.), and, in the case of the Uyghers (if I'm not mistaken) they did exactly what I laid out above - kept them in cages, even after they had been found to be innocent.

        Given the track record, I'm not as sanguine as you seem to be.

        Was never very good at math. Oddly, though, I can count by twos if I start at the number 1.

        by Mike Stark on Sat Dec 31, 2011 at 07:45:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I acknowledge I may be a fooled innocent... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lujane

          I was cheered up and heartened to read the story and parts of the signing statement, hoping it meant our Prez was predisposed to honor the Constitution he has sworn to defend.

          I recognize that I could be mistaken.  

          Ironically, to the extent that Obama is evil, he is potentially far more dangerous than  "W" or Alberto Gonzalez.  There seems no doubt they were comfortable ignoring the Constitution while Obama at least maintains an appearance of honoring it.

          the Clear Light is the consciousness of the quantum vacuum

          by Sharkmeister on Sat Dec 31, 2011 at 07:56:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Orwellian Logic (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sharkmeister

            If the president was predisposed to honor the constitution he has sworn to defend, HE WOULD HAVE VETOED THE NDAA. Good god I am sick of the Obama defenders and their rationalizations for every wrong he commits.

            Bottom line, he didn't veto the bill. He added a toothless signing statement that does nothing more than display his alleged angst over portions of the bill. Big deal. Can we trust him to be more benevolent in the use of these newly legislated powers than every Republican candidate, save possibly Ron Paul? Sure.

            But sooner or later we will have someone even worse than Obama as president. Do we want them to have this power? I don't think so.

            •  What nonsense (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sharkmeister

              Signing a veto-proof bill that doesn’t substantively expand the government’s detention authority, doesn’t authorize detention of citizens, doesn’t really mandate the military detention of other terrorist suspects, and doesn’t do more to prevent the closure of Gitmo than does current law, while you blithely ignoring the powers ceded to the POTUS under the 2001 AUMF that Ron Paul voted for, means President Obama violated his oath of office?

              That's some mighty "rationalization" you got going on yourself.

              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 06:44:57 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No bill is veto proof. That's a misnomer. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sharkmeister

                The President can sign or veto a bill.

                If the President vetos a bill, that bill can be overridden by Congress or not.

                But the bill cannot be made veto proof. There is no way for Congress to prevent the President from vetoing the bill.

                I understand the the phrase is commonly used, but it is quite innacurate.

                "If I can't dance, then I don't want to be in your revolution"--Emma Goldman

                by ehrenfeucht games on Sun Jan 01, 2012 at 10:24:48 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Pedantic blather (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sharkmeister

                  While technically true, your point is worthless to the functional and political reality that it simply would have been overridden by Congress.

                  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 01:39:14 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You don't know that. What is very clear that... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Sharkmeister

                    ...in fact Congress did not override any veto, so taking about overriding vetos is just silly.

                    Best to save that rhetoric for when Congress actually overrides a veto.

                    "If I can't dance, then I don't want to be in your revolution"--Emma Goldman

                    by ehrenfeucht games on Sun Jan 01, 2012 at 02:02:23 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No, every political observer save you (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Sharkmeister

                      who has a clue about the political landscape knows that it simply would have been overridden had Obama vetoed this must-pass bill (which is what the detention language was forced into it by the GOP controlled House).

                      If you want to continue to make pointless pedantic masturbatory observations about vetoes in the face political reality, be my guest.

                      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 03:29:14 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The Buck doesn't stop at Congress, unless the... (0+ / 0-)

                        ...Buck actually gets passed back to Congress.

                        Saying that something is "must pass" is simply saying that you support the bill.

                        If you are opposed to the bill, then it is hardly "must pass" legislation.

                        It's more like a "must defeat" bill.

                        Do you have any idea what could be done with all that money?

                        "If I can't dance, then I don't want to be in your revolution"--Emma Goldman

                        by ehrenfeucht games on Sun Jan 01, 2012 at 04:04:28 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

          •  You were cheered and heartened by this? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sharkmeister

            Perhaps I misunderstood your diary, then.

            I assumed that the diary was an expression of opposition to the signing into law of the NDAA.

            "If I can't dance, then I don't want to be in your revolution"--Emma Goldman

            by ehrenfeucht games on Sun Jan 01, 2012 at 05:27:15 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  The signing statement isn't legislation (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sharkmeister, Lujane

          It's a guide to later interpretation.  Your gloss on it is possible, but flies in the face of how people normally talk.  Of course, Scalia has done as much before....

          Democrats must
          Earn the trust
          Of the 99% --
          That's our intent!

          "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back." -- Saul Alinksy OCcupy!

          by Seneca Doane on Sat Dec 31, 2011 at 09:20:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  So much for "Constitutional Scholar." (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sharkmeister

      Guess you don't have to believe in what you study.

  •  Signing statement.. (6+ / 0-)

    "Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe."

    i.e. the office of the POTUS wants NO limitations.. they wont use them but hey we want all power.. Sure he indicates he will self impose limits.. but what if Bachman was POTUS.. would she or would all  socialists become  terrorists? This is the one of most short sighted  laws ever.

    This is sick..

    "Obama, the change that leads to indefinite detention and the abrogation of the Constitution! Yes He Can!"

    by hangingchad on Sat Dec 31, 2011 at 08:33:08 PM PST

  •  Treason (5+ / 0-)

    Obama's lack of foresight in that he fails to realize what the next administration could do with these powers is the final straw.

    He, and everyone else that voted down the Bill of Rights, deserves a primary.  They're not fit to govern.

    •  What blather (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      leftreborn, Mrick, Sharkmeister

      Treason is a clearly defined crime under the constitution. Signing this into law is not only NOT a crime under our laws, but not even in the same universe as "treason".

      Your comment is about as dumb as something I would expect from a tea-party Ron Paul cultist.

      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 11:22:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  What is the point of tho diary? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sharkmeister

    There has been a front page article on this up for hours.

    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 10:41:27 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site