NDAA

happy new year, obama signed it into law.

 

It's okay, Obama used a signing statement (which is okay because he isn't Bush) to say that he wasn't going to detain Americans (though he didn't mention that there'd be no recourse for any detained Americans if he changed his mind). So as long as Obama is president, which will be at least through next year, we won't have to worry about knowing about any presidential abuses of this law. I bet a Mitt Romney or a Newt Gingrich or a Rick Perry or a Rick Santorum would never abuse a law like this. And it has to be reapproved periodically, and congress almost never acts like a rubber stamp when it comes to laws like this.

He had to sign it as is though. There was no way he could pick and win a rhetorical fight with congress and their 10% approval rating. Especially not over a matter as trivial as indefinite detention. And never you mind that Obama already believes he has the right to detain Americans indefinitely if he thinks that they're terrorists and this new law vaguely broadens the scope of who legally qualifies as a terrorist in the GWOT.


Imagine this scenario playing out with Bush instead of Obama and try to picture the folks defending it under Obama defending it under Bush.

 

The law d0esnt give Obama any powers that did not already exist. The added language of the bill that samcol misrepresented also takes the ultimate authority to detain alleged terrorists out of the hands of the military and puts in the hands of the DoJ, where it belongs, IMO.

The signing statement gives him the (self-declared) authority to have the flexibility to try alleged terrorists, particularly citizens, in civilian courts rather than military tribunals, a position that the Republicans have consistently and repeatedly opposed.

I would have defended Bush if he had sought the same flexibility with the expressed interest to treat alleged terrorists (citizens or not) as criminals rather than military (enemy) combatants.

 

The law does codify powers that previously weren't codified, though. If it wasn't anything new, they wouldn't have done it.

How menaningful do you think the sentiment expressed by the signing statement will be when a republican is in office? This bill passed with bipartisan support and an amendment expressly forbidding the detainment of Americans was defeated with the help of democrats. It is dishonest to imply that only republicans support keeping terrorists out of civilian courts.

And I was't concerned with signing statements when it comes to defending Obama vs Bush. Because we all know that with Bush, signing statements are an affront to the constitution while with Obama, they are a necessary part of the executive process. Especially when Obama can't help but be outmaneuvered by one of the most despised congresses in history.

 

I agree it codifies the powers that previously were not, although for the most part, they were affirmed by Court decisions. But as I said, the added provision to take the ultimate authority regarding detainees away from the military and give to the DoJ was a plus and the signing statement affirms the right to use the civil court system rather than military tribunals.

And you are correct about not just Republicans being against trying terrorists in civilian courts. Obama does not have much support on this among Democrats, which makes the signing statement more important.

I dont particularly like signing statements and would have preferred a veto. But, IMO, the result of a veto, given the veto-proof number of supporters in Congress, would have been another protracted battle with the public (that supports use of torture, targeting Americans in foreign countries supporting terrorists, ...) probably coming down on the side of Congress and being as tough as possible on terrorists.

Until Congress repeals the 2001 AUMF, presidents will have excessive power over the treatment of alleged terrorists and until we treat terrorism as a criminal matter, particularly when citizens are involved, and not a military action, rights will be abused.

 

i found this a useful read: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/

 

I agree it is a good analysis with the caveat that I dont think it takes the signing statement into consideration.

As far as vetoes, you gotta know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. And when y0u have a veto proof majority against you and a public that wants to be as tough on terrorist as possible regardless of rights, it is time to get the best deal you can with the added language, fold and add the signing statement.

Where I've been disappointed, angry, frustrated with Obama was when he folded when there was near unanimous Republican opposition, but no veto proof majority and the public generally on his side -- on issues like the debt debacle, extending Bush tax cuts for the top bracket again, the recent payroll deduction bill, etc.