Yeah that article doesn't go much into the fact that Republican Congressman used Indefinite Detention as a "poison pill" to dare him to Veto the Defense bill. In an election year. Yes Obama caved, but there is still the implementation of the law to consider. Just because the Government can do something doesn't mean it will.

That's exactly what it means. Whether Obama uses it or not, it's there for future administrations that most assuredly will.

This may become Obama's legacy. 

This was a trap set deliberately for the President.  If he didn't sign it, he hates the troops.  If he line-item vetoes that provision, they undoubtedly have some patsy waiting in the wings to prove he's soft on terrorism and can't keep Americans safe.  A lot of my lefty friends are falling for this obvious sabotage job, not realizing how they've been manipulated by the so-called incompetent GOP congress.  It reeks of Karl Rove's deft hand. This provision would never be upheld by the courts but it served its purpose--to divide Obama's base. 

Obama is truly pathetic sometimes. A President should get on TV and explain this in plain language to the American people: they're trying to blackmail me into allowing American citizens to be locked up without a key. I am vetoing. If you support this assault on your freedom, by all means, vote for the other people, the ones who would try to have this debate in secret, as a political tactic

Poor guy is just too much of a wimp to ever call them on it

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry Woodward 

 

That's exactly what it means.

bullshit....that's the little 'Ron Paul' demon child in you talking.

the Obama signing statement....

Senator Carl Levin says the Obama administration asked lawmakers to remove language from the NDAA that would have protected American citizens from indefinite detention:

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

This was a trap set deliberately for the President.  If he didn't sign it, he hates the troops.  If he line-item vetoes that provision, they undoubtedly have some patsy waiting in the wings to prove he's soft on terrorism and can't keep Americans safe.  A lot of my lefty friends are falling for this obvious sabotage job, not realizing how they've been manipulated by the so-called incompetent GOP congress.  It reeks of Karl Rove's deft hand. This provision would never be upheld by the courts but it served its purpose--to divide Obama's base. 

please allow me to repeat it.....

"This was a trap set deliberately for the President.  If he didn't sign it, he hates the troops."
 

the GOP is going to pull out all the stops in attacking Obama this coming year. This will include pushing any and all legislation that will paint him in a bad light.

The thing is, it hasn't really even started yet... the GOP is gonna get so much more vicious.

Yeah seriously, if he's caving at this point, how much longer before he's considered as about as effective as a 21st century answer to Jimmy Carter?

That's the idea.  It's all theatrics, though. 

It's theatrics on both sides. If what Carl Levin said is true, that the administration was pushing for indefinite detentions behind the scenes, then all these "It's a trap!" claims are complete bullshit. If the President cares so much about our rights, why does he claim the power to assassinate American citizens?

This looks absolutely insane from here. I can't even work out how this isn't some kind of hideous satire.

When the media interprets every moment exactly the way the corporate sock-puppet think tanks tell them to and Obama's coverage is therefore 60% negative, it wouldn't matter if Obama line-item vetoed it with a press conference and a ticker-tape parade, they would still drag out some monster from behind the curtain and tell America how Obama let it get away. 

VTRan is exactly right.  Don't underestimate these clowns.  They have their marching orders.  And would welcome anything that would distract from the fact that they will raise taxes on anyone but their masters in the financial services industry--because that's exactly what they're doing. 

Also, notice how it's not "Congress passes indefinite detention into law"?  They have enough votes to override his veto.  They deliberately stuck this on him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

Also, notice how it's not "Congress passes indefinite detention into law"?  They have enough votes to override his veto.  They deliberately stuck this on him.

A thousand times this.  It passed 93-7 in the Senate.  A veto would've been a worthless symbolic gesture, and Obama wouldn't have been able to issue the signing statement for how his Administration will enforce the bill when the veto was overturned.  I'm much more disappointed with all the Senate Democrats who voted 'Yea' on this bill than I am Obama for signing it into law (though I am still pretty disappointed that he did).  Even Al Franken was a 'Yea' vote.

Never mind. Not worth it. Fish gonna swim, bears gonna eat, yt gonna believe what she does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

That's the idea.  It's all theatrics, though. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

When the media interprets every moment exactly the way the corporate sock-puppet think tanks tell them to and Obama's coverage is therefore 60% negative, it wouldn't matter if Obama line-item vetoed it with a press conference and a ticker-tape parade, they would still drag out some monster from behind the curtain and tell America how Obama let it get away. 

 

VTRan is exactly right.  Don't underestimate these clowns.  They have their marching orders.  And would welcome anything that would distract from the fact that they will raise taxes on anyone but their masters in the financial services industry--because that's exactly what they're doing. 

 

Also, notice how it's not "Congress passes indefinite detention into law"?  They have enough votes to override his veto.  They deliberately stuck this on him.

You can only view this as one of two ways. Obama supports it or he is an ineffective leader and cannot control his party.. neither makes him a good President. Since he didn't close gitmo, hasn't abolished the Patriot Act (signed the extention though) and made it legal for the President to assassinate US citizens without due process.. I'm inclined to believe he just doesn't give a damn about the constitution or US citizens rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaieke 

You can only view this as one of two ways. Obama supports it or he is an ineffective leader and cannot control his party.. neither makes him a good President. Since he didn't close gitmo, hasn't abolished the Patriot Act (signed the extention though) and made it legal for the President to assassinate US citizens without due process.. I'm inclined to believe he just doesn't give a damn about the constitution or US citizens rights.

 

typical binary thinking of classic right-wing authoritarianism....

it can only be one way or the other, never any shades of gray in this ideology

John Dean has a great 3 part series on this way of thinking as it relates to recent US politics

part 1 http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070905.html

part 2 http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070921.html 

part 3 http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070925.html

edit to add- John Dean wrote a great book called "Conservatives Without Conscience" ...it's like a freakin' road map for the modern GOP

Quote:

Originally Posted by VTRan 

typical binary thinking of classic right-wing authoritarianism....

it can only be one way or the other, never any shades of gray in this ideology

 

John Dean has a great 3 part series on this way of thinking as it relates to recent US politics

part 1 http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070905.html

part 2 http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070921.html 

part 3 http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070925.html

 

edit to add- John Dean wrote a great book called "Conservatives Without Conscience" ...it's like a freakin' road map for the modern GOP

LOL spoken like a true apologist. If this were Bush you'd be picketing the White House and demanding impeachment but because DEMOCRATS were for it... Try growing some convictions and sticking with them, you'd be surprised what it will do for your character.

I'm sure Obama was just leadin from behind on this one. Don't worry guys, he's playing chess! he sacrified a little but if you reelect him then he can be free to fix all those things he lacked the balls to do in his first 4 years.... yeah... that's it ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaieke 

 Try growing some convictions and sticking with them, you'd be surprised what it will do for your character.

 

Yes, you too could have the same scorched-Earth, scares-children, pro-rape personality of our very own Snaieke.

Hate to say it but Snaieke has a point, there's far too much equivocation going on in this thread. Obama's still obviously the only sane choice regardless of who ends up running against him, but the argument that he was "backed into a corner" on this is fucking weak sauce. If he's going to be nailed by the right-controlled media no matter what he does, why not, y'know, do the right thing and line-item veto this horrible provision? Going along with it is indeed cowardly, and we should acknowledge that, regardless of Obama's successes or failures in other areas.

Doesn't change the fact that Snaieke is the last guy on Earth with any right to wag fingers at people for mindlessly supporting a candidate. But still.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snaieke 

 

You can only view this as one of two ways. Obama supports it or he is an ineffective leader and cannot control his party.

Sigh... you're right. You're wrong about so many, many other things, but on this, you're right.
 

Basically, what Prankster said.

Poison pill or not, stuff like that shouldn't be law in western countries. I'm looking at you too, Australia. It flies in the face of our values in ways as fundamental as human sacrifice. This is where the line should be drawn. And you know what the worse thing about it is? That, save for Ron Paul who's disqualified as a viable president for a myriad other reasons, every other alternative would have done the same. Just a bit more enthusiastically. Everyone, the Congress, the Senate, the White House, should hang their heads in fucking shame. This is the kind of stuff one should be prepared to cause a constitutional crisis over. "Scorched earth" is nothing. This is "Nuke the earth until it turns to fucking glass" time.

And I fully expect the rest of the west to follow your glorious lead. What a bunch of fat, frightened pigs we've turned out to be in our time of trouble. 

Because line item vetoes are unconstitutional?

So is detaining US Citizens for nothing.

I hate it too but you can't be naive about politics.  If Obama vetoed a defense bill, it would be over for him and that much easier for a chicken hawk to get into office and make this provision look like the Halcyon days.  You seem to forget that only about 30% of the people bother to vote at all, and those that do are usually either disinformed by Fox and CNN or ill informed at best.  The details would not even be mentioned on most people's news.  This can't be disguised as anything but what it is: a trap for Obama. 

And isn't there an amendment in there that says it doesn't apply to US citizens? 

And when that provision of NDAA goes to the Supreme Court (which it doubtless will), it will likely be struck down.  But saying that the President should use a power that it has been made explicit that he does not have to remove it is stupid.

Unfortunately, no. There are amendments that say that it does not expand the scope of powers granted in the 2001 AUMF, but there is no explicit 'does not apply to United States Citizens' clause.  The problem is the 2001 AUMF is pretty fucking vague about what powers it grants, and who they apply to:  'That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.'

Can't say I understand enough about this to tell what's true and what's not, but for what it's worth, this article paints a slightly different picture of the NDAA. 

Why does it matter if it does not apply to US citizens, even if it is true. Me travelling in the US and getting picked up for some reason and then disappearing without any trial whatsoever for years is somehow OK?

I think while Obama may - on some abstract, intellectual level - be dismayed at the bill he signed into law, the guy is a fucking HAWK and I think he's mostly alright with it. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios 

Why does it matter if it does not apply to US citizens, even if it is true. Me travelling in the US and getting picked up for some reason and then disappearing without any trial whatsoever for years is somehow OK?

No, but you've been running that risk for nearly 11 years now as it is.  NDAA didn't change anything in that regard.  In fact, if that Lawfare post that Grace linked is right (and I'm inclined to believe it is.  I'm pretty sure two Fellows from the Brookings Institute know their shit when it comes to the legalese), you're actually a little better off, now, since you'll have the right to contest the government's factual basis for believing you are subject to detention.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackyShimSham 

I think while Obama may - on some abstract, intellectual level - be dismayed at the bill he signed into law, the guy is a fucking HAWK and I think he's mostly alright with it. 

IMO, there should be a distinction drawn between a 'smart' hawk and a 'GOP/neocon' hawk with regards to the use of military force.

from a NYT article....

I don't know why many thought that Obama was some sort of 'dove' with regards to using the military...unless, you're projecting your own peaceful desires onto Obama OR you could be getting your info from FoxNews.

another thing.....

Does anyone think that the GW Bush admin. would have bothered to include a signing statement like the one Obama included in this bill?

If anything, Cheney would have demanded that Dubya sign the bill in blood. (it couldn't have been Cheney's blood, seeing as all of his blood has been replaced with oil)

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

I hate it too but you can't be naive about politics.  If Obama vetoed a defense bill, it would be over for him and that much easier for a chicken hawk to get into office and make this provision look like the Halcyon days.  You seem to forget that only about 30% of the people bother to vote at all, and those that do are usually either disinformed by Fox and CNN or ill informed at best.  The details would not even be mentioned on most people's news.  This can't be disguised as anything but what it is: a trap for Obama. 

 

And isn't there an amendment in there that says it doesn't apply to US citizens? 

 

 

I believe that amendment is good for Obama's presidency only. Phew! 

I didn't know line-item vetoes were unconstitutional. in my defense, I'm Canadian. But you have to admit, Obama rolled over on this like a chump; there must have been SOMETHING he could have done. I certainly don't buy the argument that he would have been instantly finished, and that his hand was therefore forced. If Fox News and the rest of the propaganda gang is so all-powerful that the president who got Bin Laden and Quaddafi hasn't earned any leeway on military matters whatsoever, then it seems like he's doomed anyway, so again, why not do the right thing? The idea that his presidency hinges on going along with this VERY BAD provision is pretty dubious, to me.

(And if this provision actually improves things, as some are arguing, why is Obama making such a show of being reluctant and opposing it?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

(And if this provision actually improves things, as some are arguing, why is Obama making such a show of being reluctant and opposing it?)

I'm pretty sure that the provision that he and domestic law enforcement and the military are all opposed to is the military detention requirement for those who are 'subject to detention' who are found within the United States (and the 'softening of the language' that ultimately led to it not being vetoed was to make it the President's call on whether to use military detention in those cases, which pisses me off because that smacks of Bush II era expansion of Executive Power), which interferes with already effective law enforcement measures against domestic terrorism.  He's only vaguely disapproving of the other detention stuff purely because it's redundant, since those detention powers were taken as given with the 2001 AUMF, and have gone largely supported judicially in cases where the detainees were captured outside the US.

Everybody else is freaking out because there is no explicit exclusion from military detention for US Citizens, and when that amendment was proposed it was shot down, and ultimately they settled on a weak sauce 'we're not making a call on whether it applies to citizens' amendment, and the legality/constitutionality of detention of US citizens has thus far gone undecided in the courts, because it's only come up twice, and the circumstances were weird both times (per Grace's link).

Quote:

Originally Posted by VTRan 

another thing.....

 

Does anyone think that the GW Bush admin. would have bothered to include a signing statement like the one Obama included in this bill?

 

If anything, Cheney would have demanded that Dubya sign the bill in blood. (it couldn't have been Cheney's blood, seeing as all of his blood has been replaced with oil)

What would Satan have done? I mean, if you're setting the bar for Obama this low already...

He was pissed off.  We all share responsibility--this would not have happened if otherwise sensible people had shown up to vote in November 2010. 

This wouldn't have happened if Congress hadn't shat a brick and passed a bill that amounted to 'The President can do whatever he wants to fight terrorists' in 2001.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fafhrd 

This wouldn't have happened if Congress hadn't shat a brick and passed a bill that amounted to 'The President can do whatever he wants to fight terrorists' in 2001.

Fear will always be the current that drives the ocean of history.

ETA: Has anyone been able to come up with a theory as to why Obama keeps Guantanamo open to this day other than the fact he finds it kinda useful and has no problem with it?

In my inbox a minute ago...

The President can't appropriate money, only Congress can.  Congress would not fund the close of Guantanamo for the same reason it passed NDAA--to separate Obama from his base and get a Republican back in the White House. 

You know what tho yt - at a certain point sometimes you just have to do whats right - if that's no longer possible in this current system, you know what I reckon...

I know, I know - it's simplistic, and probably completely naive to look at things that way, but I'm tired of the grownup alternative of explaining to yourself over and over why the world has to be full of poisonous compromise where no one ever gets what they want and society runs on a giant hamster wheel to nowhere.

Sorry, I'll be more sensible next post, I just let my emotions get the better of me in political discussions sometimes. I'm a helluva lot better than I used to be but every now and then I revert to my old ways and want to scream.

No offense Rain Dog, but there's the world you want and the world you have. Things can never be as simplistic as "I think things should run better...like exactly how I want them to run." Because then we'd have nothing but chaos.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parker 

No offense Rain Dog, but there's the world you want and the world you have. Things can never be as simplistic as "I think things should run better...like exactly how I want them to run." Because then we'd have nothing but chaos.

Agreed, agreed, I was listening to my inner McCoy rather than my inner Spock. I've calmed now. Apologies.

Just take comfort in the fact that as bad as things are now, by and large they were much worse in the past and the future remains unwritten.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yt 

The President can't appropriate money, only Congress can.  Congress would not fund the close of Guantanamo for the same reason it passed NDAA--to separate Obama from his base and get a Republican back in the White House. 

My favourite part of the NDAA Signing Statement was Obama throwing Congress under the bus for that.  Too bad some people will continue to cite Guantanamo's continued operation as a failure of Obama and not congress.

Fafhrd, agree.  So true.

Rain Dog, I keep coming back to what Parker says and also that democracy requires participation by a somewhat educated constituency.  I keep coming back to that again and again.  I lived through the past 20 years as a somewhat politically conscious person and watched people fall asleep at the wheel, expecting cruise control to take over.  But something else took over -- the same thing that takes over in any system of government or non-government: those old bedfellows money and power.  And they will not let go without a massive, dirty fight.  Yeah, the USA's version of democracy needs a lot of work, but it won't come from the politicians and it won't come from the 1% or the corporate masters of the universe.  Think how long it took women to gain to the power to vote, think of how long it took to free the slaves or reach first steps on civil rights.  It's frustrating but you can't expect Obama to do it alone.  You only have to look back two years to see how a little propaganda in the right places, a few well funded PR operations and charter buses, backed by a 20-year coalescence of the corporate media, can yield an electoral tidal wave of corrupt sock puppets into congress when you have a disengaged and misinformed populace, a majority of whom don't exercise their hard-fought right to vote. 

I often wonder what would happen here if we had mandatory voting as in Australia. 

You'd get what we get here, a tonne of so-called "donkey votes" that consist of people voting for Hitler or Superman or the ever popular drawing a giant dick on the ballot sheet and handing that in.

But I do hear you yt - I let my frustrations get the better of me at times I'll admit, but I hear you - and Parker - and neither of you are wrong.

Cheers.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/how_obama_ignored_the_ndaas_military_custody_provision.php?ref=fpa

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

You'd get what we get here, a tonne of so-called "donkey votes" that consist of people voting for Hitler or Superman or the ever popular drawing a giant dick on the ballot sheet and handing that in.

 

But I do hear you yt - I let my frustrations get the better of me at times I'll admit, but I hear you - and Parker - and neither of you are wrong.

 

Cheers.

 

Holy shit, does that actually HAPPEN? Do people really not give a shit? You're there already, vote for SOMEONE for fuck's sake! 

Voter apathy gets my blood boiling. Already I'm hearing too many talks of "Well, Obama's gonna win ANYWAY, so why should I vote?"