WH deal: Nothing in the NDAA will be interpreted to "expand the authority" of the POTUS or military.

[TheWraith]

In case anyone's wondering about the exact details of the changes to the National Defense Authorization Act that the White House extracted over Obama's veto threat: The final passage bill will contain explicit language saying that nothing in the bill "is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authority for Use of Military Force." This means no strictures requiring terrorism suspects to be held in military custody instead of the civilian justice system as the Obama administration has been doing; no expanded authority for detentions; and no forced return to military tribunals.

Also, Section 1032 B 1 (of the House version, haven't checked the Senate version) explicitly states that military detention "does not extend to citizens of the United States." Section 1032 B 2 also states it "does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States."

[LiberalAndProud]

1. Yes but

I am outraged. I intend to stay that way.


You will find Ron Paul's people at the bottom of the controversy. I guarantee it.

[msanthrope]

3. Not only am I outraged, I'm gonna refuse to read the bill and

only listen to other outraged posters!!!

[TheWraith]

7. And, no doubt, carefully ignore the fact that there was no real chance of stopping this.

Let's be honest: the NDAA passed with 93 votes in the Senate. If Obama had followed through on the veto, it would have been overridden without difficulty.

[treestar]

9. And guess who would have gotten the heat for that?

And where is the outrage for that many Senate votes? That means most Democrats voted for it too.

[limpyhobbler]

8. Many liberals and progressives support civil liberties .

All these people have come out against the bill, I think.
Tom Harkin , Ron Wyden , and Bernie Sanders, many progressives in the House, Jerrold Nadler, Kucinich.

Also the ACLU.

I'm listening to news and opinion outlets like
Amy Goodman/democracy now, Young Turks, keith olbermann, Thom Hartmann, Rachel Maddow.

So I'm not sure why anyone would say Ron Paul is behind it all. That makes no sense at all.

[ixion]

2. key phrase "will be interpreted"

Which implies that all you need to do is change the interpretation at some point to expand said authority.

[TheWraith]

4. No. That's my phrasing in the headline, not the language in the bill.

The compromise language, which is actually in my post if you want to read down a little, clearly states that nothing in the NDAA will provide changed powers.

[Enrique]

5. link?

is this opinion based on knowledge, or based on affection for Obama?

And quoting the text of the legislation doesn't count as knowledge. Interpreting legislative language takes expertise.

[TheWraith]

6. Links.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:6:./temp/~c112sPJZXF:e581028:

And it's based on basic reading comprehension, something that's sorely lacking in all the "news" articles about this. Legislative language isn't magic.