Ummm.....why should Obama even have to pledge to exempt US citizens from indefinite detention

[Cali_Democrat]

if the NDAA bill rules it out anyways? Wanna know why Obama issued this pledge as he signed the bill into law? Because the bill DOES NOT rule out indefinite detention of US citizens as many folks have claimed.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-01/obama-signs-defense-spending-law-with-own-interpretations.html

Regarding a section on the executive branch’s authority to detain suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens captured on the battlefield, Obama said he wanted “to clarify that my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.”

Here's Obama's official statement: http://www.democraticunderground.com/101414264

Notice how Obama stresses that HIS administration will not authorize the indefinite detention of US citizens without trial. What about a future administration? What will stop a future administration from using the NDAA to justify indefinite detention of US citizens?

This is what people need to understand. The NDAA will indeed allow future administrations to indefinitely detain US citizens and it's Obama's signature that will allow it.

[TheWraith]

1. Because most people don't know that, obviously.

Primarily since a lot of media-driven horseshit has been spread around saying it DOES enable that.

[ProSense]

2. Because

"Ummm.....why should Obama even have to pledge to exempt US citizens from indefinite detention"

...some Senators insist the current law allows it.

<...>

But Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, said citizen terrorism suspects should retain their “fundamental civil liberties” in order to protect the founding principles of the United States.

“I think at a bare minimum, that means we will not allow U.S. military personnel to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens, regardless of what label we happen to apply to them,” he said.

Before voting to leave current law unchanged, the Senate rejected, 55 to 45, a proposal by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, to instead say that Americans are exempt from detention under the 2001 authorization to use military force.

The uncertainty over the current law added confusion. Some, like Mr. Graham and Mr. Levin, insisted that the Supreme Court had already approved holding Americans as enemy combatants, even people arrested inside the United States. Others, like Senators Feinstein and Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, insisted that it had not done so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/us/senate-declines-to-resolve-issue-of-american-qaeda-suspects-arrested-in-us.html?_r=1

A snip from the decision: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100299985#post3

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100299985

[TheKentuckian]

12. There is little sense in pretending this isn't up to interpretation, at the least.

When the people the actually write the legislation have the kind of difference in interpretation they clearly do then it is about crazy to tell people they are definitively off base to be concerned and that Obama only made a signing statement to further clairify.

The position that concern is irrational is obviously in error. You may well reasonably disagree with the interpretation of others but to categorically deny others doesn't pass any muster. Clearly, there are educated folks that see these provisions differently and again if the framers are giving very different views then you had better at least consider that your perception may not be the way the law works in practice.

How do you so easily disregard the opinions of some of those most a part of writing the provisions?
Pretending this deal even approaches airtight is absurd. You are arguing with the authors and trusting the integrity of the judiciary, a group who you would maintain are otherwise intolerable and are reason #1 why the President must be re-elected so he can work toward fixing decades of stacking and corporate capture.

The law is shoddily constructed and uses other bad law to self justify, it should not have been passed and it should have been vetoed, those who did so clearly know better and promise the usual "we'll fix it later" bullshit and a figleaf of a promise to behave. All in a discussion about acting unconstituionally, in any event. Exempting Americans (on American soil) still leaves bad law and there is no lack of debate from about any quarter if it even mitigates the horrible provisions that much.

[just1voice]

3. Exactly. It's pitiful that the U.S. has come to this

Other terms I'd use to describe it are horrifying, immoral and psychotic.

[woo me with science]

14. Horrifying and immoral, definitely,

but not psychotic. There was nothing disconnected from reality about this. It was deliberate, which is even more appalling.

The occupation just became even more urgent, for the sake of liberty and humanity.

[Robb]

4. Same reason he had to release his birth certificate.

[got root]

5. Good question, it would have sounded better, too if he expressed that it was FORBIDDEN by this bill

and not OPTIONAL.

[phleshdef]

6. It doesn't matter because the courts already told the country this was okay years ago.

This law is irrelevant on this matter. Future administrations could always fall back on the Padilla case and the 2001 AUMF and do whatever the hell they wanted.

The only thing that will guarantee this won't happen is for the court to reverse itself or Congress to pass a powerful law forbidding it and maybe even a little bit of both. Since neither looks to be happening anytime soon, the only other option is to elect a President that won't take advantage of it.

[got root]

8. It matters if it helps wake people up...

not to mention that they are codifying it into law now.

[phleshdef]

11. They could "codify" banning all guns into law. It would still be irrelevant without changing...

...the constitution. The same goes for anything the constitution is specific about in terms of rights. Freedom of speech, religion, to bear arms, right to a fair trial, etc.

This "codifying" argument is really a bunch of symbolic obsessive nonsense, in my opinion.

I believe the constitution grants us the same rights it always has in regard to habeus corpus and related issues. We have a Supreme Court and a handful of defense related bills that stand in contradiction with the constitution. The constitution should take precedence. And if/when it doesn't, then we may have an opportunity to bring it back to the courts. If/when that does happen, then we can only hope that the court gets its right. But in order to do that, we have to put a stop to its right wing slant and we can't do that unless we keep someone we can trust to appoint reasonable appointees in the Whitehouse.

[Octafish]

7. So Jebthro Bush doesn't have to.

And it's looking like that tragic day will be sooner, rather than later.

[FarLeftFist]

9. Isn't his administration also looking for a repeal of said provision?

Also, he could just be stating it for the folks who mis-interpret the bill.

[rhett o rick]

10. What is it to be repealed and where did you hear he was looking to do it? nm

[limpyhobbler]

13. you're 100% right. Obama knows there is a problem [with the NDAA] or he wouldn't have to clarify.

Last edited Sat Jan 14, 2012, 01:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Similarly Feinstein knows there is a problem or she wouldn't have introduced that Due Process Guarantee Act.

Of course it may just be that the problem they actually perceive is that so many people in the progressive wing of the party will just not shut up and stop whining about it.


I think it's fair to say that most activists who associate with the democratic party have already made their minds up about NDAA. Some people see a serious civil liberties issue and others don't. Not too many people are going to be changing their minds on the subject. Nobody is convincing anybody.

Democrats who supported NDAA 2012 should expect primary challenges and/or just a less enthusiastic base. There's no way around that. The elected national Democrats have knowingly chosen to sacrifice a certain amount of support on the left, in exchange for ____? for what?

[treestar]

15. because a bunch of people are out there loudly claiming that the bill

provides for that?

He's being considerate of them, rather than just saying that it's fucking retarded to think that.