HuffPost commenters are freaking the fuck out right now on the NDAA page.

[boxman15]

And it wasn't that way before they changed the headline on the front page from "Obama signs NDAA despite serious reservations" to the more hyperbolic and unsubstantiated "OBAMA SIGNS BILL ALLOWING FOR INDEFINITE DETENTION OF AMERICANS."

I commented and expressed my opinion that the provision is way too vague and leaves too much wiggle room for future presidents to potentially do such a thing, but it does not technically allow for it and the Obama administration will not do such a thing. I went on to say that this is only a provision of the entire defense budget for the entire year (the NDAA passes every single year), and had he not signed it, our troops would not be paid or properly protected, among other things. And it would be for nothing since it would become law anyway once Congress comes back in session and overrides his veto.

I again expressed how I do not like this provision, but it can be removed in next year's budget rather easily if the Obama administration and the American people, more importantly, pressure their congressmen. We cannot have this provision in, regardless of whether it allows for indefinite detention of citizens or not, for a future administration.

I was instantly flamed for being naive and misinformed and was compared to a Nazi. It's amazing how few people actually read articles or bills and instead just read headlines and freak out.

[Tx4obama]

1. Here's a link to a GREAT ARTICLE you can give to them ...

Best ARTICLE I've seen today regarding NDAA: http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-ndaa-statement

[Scuba]

15. Thanks, hadn't seen that. n/t

[Fire Walk With Me]

2. ...

[Major Hogwash]

3. Wow, that is crazy.

That's wild that a Congressman would say something like that on Twitter.

[Fire Walk With Me]

5. The NDAA is unconscionable. I'm glad this senator gets it.

Remember that those who voted FOR the NDAA have been found to have accepted PAC monies to so do. Anonymous assembled and posted these data. Just tonight as part of #Op Hiroshima, they have dox'd all of the NDAA senators.

Things are polarizing. Huffpost and everyone else SHOULD be screaming about this.

[boxman15]

9. I'm with you about the provision being unconscionable.

I just don't get the gigantic freakout directed solely at Obama. It doesn't matter if Obama signed it or not, it has WAY more than enough support to pass. So, Obama did the smart thing and signed it and issued a signing statement, giving us at least a year to get this thing out of it before a wingnut gets in the WH.

Had he vetoed it, it would be law anyway and the "OBAMA DOESN'T WANT TO PAY THE TROOPS!!" meme would probably sway enough uninformed voters to the right. This would lead to a conservative judicial branch and Supreme Court that would uphold any abuses of this provision that would be likely to happen under a wingnut presidency.

[Major Hogwash]

11. The Huff-Po blog is run by a bunch of rightwing asshats.

I thought everyone knew that here already.

[limpyhobbler]

4. "if the Obama administration and the American people, more importantly, pressure their congressmen."

I again expressed how I do not like this provision, but it can be removed in next year's budget rather easily if the Obama administration and the American people, more importantly, pressure their congressmen.

What can we do to put pressure on them?

[Fire Walk With Me]

6. Jan. 17, #Occupy Congress. 1,000,000 are invited.

[boxman15]

7. Write, call, email, attend the Occupy Congress event, VOTE, do anything in your power and ability.

That kind of attitude is what allows things like this to take place. No one cares, so they can put this in.

[limpyhobbler]

8. Are you suggesting I VOTE against people who supported these provisions in the NDAA?

[boxman15]

10. Yes. If possible.

Get out to primaries and try to get true progressives in place of Democrats who voted for this. If not, it will be a "lesser of two evils" vote for Congress.

[limpyhobbler]

12. yeah that sounds about right

[bowens43]

14. pressure them and you may very well just disappear...

thanks Obama

[bhikkhu]

13. Yes, a great waste and misdirection of energy

...as if the last ten years had not happened, and if we all pretend it didn't happen (and perhaps get rid of Obama in the next election) then all will be fine again.

A better perspective - the NDAA authorizes only what the 2001 AUMF already authorized. Ending the war is the solution to civil rights concerns about military detentions.

[Bonobo]

16. I have not seen one coherent answer to this.

Some claim that the act does not extend to US citizens and legal residents, but it is clear from the language that the "exemption", as you mention, says only that detention is not "required".

It DOES NOT SAY that it is not allowed.

The claim that this says that it does not shane existing US law is ridiculous of course since if that were true there would be no point in the legislate in the first place.

Furthermore, Obama's signing statements are not binding on future US Presidents, so it is of little comfort and he should NOT have signed.

For me, it is another in a long list of unacceptable actions.

[boxman15]

18. You're right. It leaves way too much wiggle room for future presidents.

However, it's not all doom and gloom right now. Obama signing and issuing a signing statement was smart because it leaves us at least a year to get this provision out for 2013's NDAA by really pressuring Congress.

Had he vetoed it, he'd be open to attacks by the right saying "HE DOESN'T WANT TO PAY OUR TROOPS!!!!", which would probably sway enough uninformed independents to the GOP. That's when I'd be scared, because not only is a GOP president more likely to use/abuse this provision, the courts and Supreme Court will be very solidly Republican and would likely allow it to take place.

Let's keep pressure on Congress. If there's no funding for such a thing in 2013's NDAA, it will not happen.

[madrchsod]

17. huffington has thee worse headlines on the net

i`m sure they have unpaid interns writing these headlines.