.
.
.
Step 1: Put bad laws in the bill. Step 2: Make sure Obama gets the blame for what you did. Step 3: Profit!
There is lots, and I mean lots of discussion on the Intertubes today about President Obama’s signing of the NDAA. Many people are talking darkly about how this represents the end to our democracy. Manyhave been wondering what Obama is up to here. Well, lucky for us, he explained it. If we want to find out what he was thinking, or at least what he wants us to think he was thinking (which in this case I think amounts to the same thing), that’s the first place that we ought to go. (It’s the second place that future courts interpreting the law ought to go, the first of course being the text of the bill itself.)
My first really big success as a blogger — defined here as “Thom Hartmann cited me on his show,” among other things — came on Daily Kos, when I brought public attention to the 2006 NDAA which had language in there that did substantially weaken the prohibition on domestic use of military force in the Posse Comitatus and Insurrection Acts. In that time, I discovered that it’s true what they say: the NDAA truly is a must-pass bill. The only way I can imagine a President vetoing, and thus calling the demons of Hell (or at least that part of it run by the military-industrial complex) upon himself, is if a single provision included there is (1) horrible, (2) substantial, (3) new, (4) effective in forcing the President’s hand, and (5) likely to be sustained by the courts if challenged. Even then, it would be a nasty, nasty fight of a kind that a President seeking re-election would strain to avoid. Here, Obama seems to be convinced that the provisions he dislikes in Sections 1021-1029 — you know, the ones that end with American citizens being put into FEMA camps run by Sheriff Joe Arpaio — may be horrible and are certainly substantial, but are not new, not likely to force his hand, and (at least implicitly) not likely to survive a court challenge if a future President tries to do something terrible with them.
That’s about the best he can do here. Given his opposition, calling this “the Obama bill” or “Obama’s preference” or anything like that just makes his opposition more likely to pull the same sorts of stunts again and again, because then they get not only the policies they want but also make Obama, rather than themselves, pay the political price for them. And that is why, unhappy as I am with Obama’s positions on civil liberties, I reserve my anger for the mostly Republicans and also some Democrats (Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman, for example) who demand them. Someone has to pay for this sort of thing: and putting it on Obama’s tab just ensures that the people responsible will do worse.
So, without further ado: here’s what the President has to say about signing the NDAA.
Statement by the President on H.R. 1540
Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.
The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.
Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.
Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.
Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.
I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.
My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.
Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch’s processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.
Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.
Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch’s authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive’s ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.
Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.
Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.
My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.
The text of the NDAA itself, for those interested, can be found at this link. (Warning: PDF. If your computer chokes on it, just search “2012 NDAA text” and scroll to Section 1021.)
Why have indefinite detention of American citizens when said citizens, merely ACCUSED of a crime, can have a drone drop a bomb on them?
Gee, anon, are there any apparent limits to that sort of action? Does Obama claim the right to kill Americans with drones for jaywalking? Tell me more.
Are you saying that your opposition to such action is relative?
To throw such an absurd example as jaywalking into the debate strikes me as a tactic used by a person more interested in defending a party or person than in standing on principle.
In spite of your ridiculous jaywalking example, the fact remains that Barack Obama approved the assassination of an American citizen, and his 16-year-old son, simply for being accused of crimes.
No, I’m saying that *your* opposition to such action is *also* relative.
Say an American citizen is on a battlefield getting ready to launch a missile strike against American troops (or, if you must distinguish, civilians.) Do you think that it’s wrong, unconstitutional, etc. to kill him with a drone? How about with a sniper rifle?
If you’ll grant that that sort of violent action to save lives is appropriate, then the question becomes how far away from the prototypical justified attack you’re willing to go. Is it OK if they’re not on the battlefield, but still launching a strike? Is it OK if they’re on the battlefield, but only armed with a sniper rifle? Is it OK if they’re sending someone else out with instructions to kill, with missiles or sniper rifles?
Is it OK if they aren’t American citizens?
I think that the argument that they should first be tried in absentia prior to an such action has its appeal, but it runs into problems of “secret evidence” where I know that most of the military-industrial-political complex disagrees with me, so I’m not going to condemn Obama for a view that’s pervasive among American politicians.
What it strikes me as is your attempt to evade complicity in America’s sins. Give it up; you were born complicit wherever you were born, and certainly so in America. Someone killed someone to get you your relatively nice life. Deal with it.
It also strikes me, frankly, as American exceptionalism: you think that your precious American citizenship should act as a sort of immunity that protects you from actions far greater than those which would get a non-American-citizen killed. I think demanding “king’s ex” is offensive.
No, he killed them based on intelligence, including proud confessions, that at least the father had engaged in such crimes. He’s had a lot of other people killed too, for much less, as has every American President probably since Washington. So show some perspective, eh? Maybe Guy Fawkes can tell you about what was done to residents of this land that are to the death of this particular miscreant as the sun is to the firefly.
Yes, Diamond. Your party of choice was responsible for this. Should my Indian brothers, sisters and I just “deal with it”? What do you say Kemo Sabe? Should we?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Removal_Act
I could add more to the list that Duane has already started.
Anon is not trying to evade responsibility. You are by covering for your party’s leader and playing the whole “the other side is worse” card. Well just because Bush, Lincoln or whoever the fuck is in power signed into law does not make it right. The catchphrase “the devil made me do it” was funnier when Flip Wilson said it. That is why people like anon, Duane, Glenn Greenwald and myself are outraged and look beyond the rose colored partisan sunglasses and bullshit and call it for what it is. Outside of an animal mascot and names, there isn’t much of a difference between the two parties. So please spare me the whole “if you vote us Democrats back into power, we’ll do it right this time.” Sorry, bucko. Heard that song and dance way too many times before and I’m not falling for it. Nor are a lot of Americans who are changing their registrations to “Decline to State.”
Don’t even try to lump me in with your pathetic Obamapologist crap. Obviously, the fleecing of civil liberties must be OK as long as your favored leader is leading the charge. That’s why you won’t condemn your party’s leader who could have stood up and showed us that he had some convictions that were in line with what he was peddling on the campaign trail. This is why I did not vote for Obama and don’t hesitate for a second to tell his disillusioned followers “I TOLD YOU SO!!!!” I can’t wait until one of your kids get detained indefinitely without a trial so I can see your reaction. Bet you’d side with Obama on that one, eh Ivy League lawyer?
Duane is absolutely right about the Democratic Party. Your party of choice is not to be trusted and this is why I do not trust Democrats on any issue in any way, shape or form. I would dare say that Duane Roberts, the 2010 US Senate candidate for the Green Party (whose platform has NOTHING in common with the Republican Party) has more convictions and principles than any of the Democratic Party jokers that you supported locally in the last election. (By the way, ask your boy Kenny how it feels that cannabis, aka Prop 19, got more votes than him in his Congressional race against Congressman Cannabis) I’m damn proud to say that I casted a vote for him since he was one of four people in the last election that I could stomach. Your ignorance was already apparent to me since you assumed that I was an El Toro airport proponent. Guess that Ivy League education didn’t buy you any street smarts or sense. And now you assume that Duane Roberts is a Republican? What are you going to assume next? That Gabriel San Roman is a member of the Constitution Party?
Go sell your crap to the Northwood Night Stalker and the Lib OC. I’m sure they need more asslickers since his tongue has been firmly up the ass of Darth Agran for years even in the midst of his pay for play scheme with redevelopment agencies and the Not So Great Park. Issues that he won’t take him to task on but will stalk a benign politico like Dr. No instead of a real dangerous whackjob like Spanky (aka Don Wagner).
For someone that fancies himself as forward thinking, you rationale for NDAA and defense of Obama was some of the most backwards crap I have ever heard since the College Republicans on my campus were defending the actions of the Reagan Administration during Iran-Contra.
Hey Duane! Are you running for Senate against the other Democratic Party fossil and Drug Warrior Dianne Feinstein this time around? Let me know.
Actually, my opposition to such action is absolute. I oppose the dropping of bombs from drones to assassinate American citizens accused of crimes, and those who jaywalk.
You use the term battlefield. There IS NO BATTLEFIELD, because we have not had a constitutionally-mandated declaration of war. What, are you gonna tell me now that other Presidents have done it? Is that how you justify this shit?
And so I can’t grant that the assassination of al-Awlaki was appropriate at all. Quite the contrary, it was a violation of constitutional and judicial precedent. And you know it.
You sit there and justify this by pointing to the inappropriate killing of other peoples throughout American history? Really? That’s what adolescents do…”he did it tooooo!!!”
There is no “perspective” that justifies the assassination of al-Awlaki and his son.
Aren’t we supposed to be striving to be a better country? I’m not evading complicity in anything! All of these actions stain us all…they need to be condemned, not used as justifications for current and future wrongs.
GuyF, I believe that you’re familiar with the term “harm reduction,” right? Well, I believe in harm reduction. I’m not saying that the Democratic Party hasn’t done some rotten things, even during the time period (which, um, doesn’t include Wilson) that is relevant to our lives. What I’m saying is that we want the least harmful alternative right now, and the people that are pushing for the greatest reductions on civil liberties — the Cheneys of the world, of whom Romney and Santorum and Gingrich (but not Paul!) are included — are clearly more harmful than those like Obama who may acquiesce to them at some points but aren’t slavering for them.
Don’t call me Kemo Sabe, tonto. (I’m presuming that you know that much Spanish and understand why I’m not capitalizing that.) But yes, my brother in legalization efforts, you too are complicit as an American in the bad aspects America’s foreign policy, and disavowing it does you no good. Reducing the harm is what does good. Now, I can tell you what I’m doing within my left wing of the Democratic Party. It may not work, but it’s the best I can come up with. What are you doing from your outside perch? Is it working? I never promise that the Democratic Party will “do it right”; to me, the first and most important characteristic of the Democratic Party is that we, and not Libertarians or Greens or anyone else, can actually keep Republicans out of power. “Harm reduction,” remember?
I realize that you aren’t familiar with much of my writing, but I’ve criticized Obama and other Democrats plenty over civil liberties issues and was poking around trying to stir up at least a symbolic primary challenge (there was no realistic way of moving him out of office) as late as last summer, when after the Occupy movement started he began to tack left a little. Your criticism would apply to lots of Dems — just not, in general, to me. I do recognize that some fights are just not as important as people think, and I’ve given an explanation (which you’ve denounced without apparently understanding) as to why this particular NDAA fight is among them. Sometimes Greenwald is wrong.
My kids don’t yet have citizenship (and the two back in Pilipinas probably never will), so they have no protection either way, but thanks for wishing indefinite detention on them. Big of you.
Guy, as much as I enjoy much of your writing, and I do, sometimes you ruin it by pulling assertions out of your ass. So let’s review some:
Did I ever say that the Democratic Party should be “trusted”? No, you boob. I work within the party; I know better than you how it should not be “trusted.” Worked with, reformed, preferred, changed for the better, sure. “Trusted”? You’re debating against someone else, not me.
I like most of the Green Party platform and in a proportional representation system I might well vote Green. In a first-past-the-post system, I don’t unless no Dem is running; then I do. (Well, maybe P&F. I still don’t get why they haven’t merged.) This is because voting Green does not keep Republicans out of office, and therefore does not reduce harm.
I didn’t “assume” that you were an El Toro airport proponent, I asked if you were because I was trying to understand where the hell you were coming from. Look it up.
“Assumed that Duane Roberts was a Republican”? For god’s sake, man, don’t embarrass yourself. Quote where I made such an “assumption” and I’ll print it out and mail it to you with money attached.
I’m happier here than I would be with LibOC, thanks.
As for my “rationale for the NDAA” — actually, not FOR it, but saying that I think that Obama is correct that the sections in question, which I’d strike out if I could (as would he), just aren’t that much of a change from current law and so aren’t the hill to die on — you didn’t even make an argument, for Fawkes sake! Don’t claim credit for saying that it was “backwards crap” when you can’t even show that you understood a word of that signing statement! Argue with me, sure, but argument is more than invective; consult with Monty Python.
Happy New Year to you also.
Yeah, this is the same “stop whining, stop complaining” response to criticism from the left (blacks, in particular) that Mr. Obama tried to shove down our throats.
The establishment would love it if we all just did that.
Keep whining and complaining. Just know your facts, have some perspective, and don’t let yourself be used by those who want to harm our civil liberties much worse than anything Obama would accept.
You got a problem with that?
Yes, I do have a problem with your relativistic “much worse” evaluation of these issues.
Well, what are we arguing about, then? The factual issue of whether it is much worse? Or the values issue of whether it matters whether it is much worse vs. only slightly worse, in influencing one’s vote?
We’re not arguing…I understand where you’re coming from.
Sorry, but the old “Republicans-made-him-do-it” excuse, invoked as a rationalization to justify support of a Democratic politician’s indefensible behavior, just doesn’t work with me. The Democrats historically have always been at the forefront of enacting repressive legislation that undermines civil liberties and quashes dissent. In the 20th Century, every Democratic president, from Woodrow Wilson to Bill Clinton, aggressively supported efforts to build a much bigger and better police state.
The Espionage Act of 1917, the House Un-American Activities Committee, the McCarran Internal Security Act, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Department of Homeland Security, Extraordinary Rendition–not to mention other “anti-terrorism” laws and police state apparatus–were all backed lock, stock and barrel by Democrats. In many circumstances, the Republicans only played the role of “follow the leader.” Why? Because the Democrats were the ones leading the charge!
Let’s just take the example of closing Guantanamo, Duane. Who was trying to close it and who was trying to keep it open. There are recorded votes, public statements, etc., to help you check who was on which side. Do you even care what the truth is here, or are you really asserting that Woodrow Wilson is relevant to the discussion? You sound like those idiots who say that today’s Republican Party must be the party of civil rights because Lincoln was a Republican — 150 years ago.
I’ll debate the contents of this bill with you as much as you’d like, but if you’re just interested in dissociating yourself from the Democratic Party so that in your mind you can somehow evade moral culpability, there’s no point in that. Of course, by strengthening the party and personnel of Dick Cheney, in what is essentially a zero-sum game, you’re actually a hell of a lot more culpable than I am.
I’ll look forward to continuing this discussion if you wish.
Greg Diamond wrote:
> Let’s just take the example of closing Guantanamo, Duane. Who
> was trying to close it and who was trying to keep it open.
> There are recorded votes, public statements, etc., to help you
> check who was on which side.
So what if Guantanamo Bay is shut down? It’s a fact that the Obama administration still maintains detention centers in other parts of the world where hundreds of non-citizens are being held without criminal charges. Almost every month, the foreign press reports about efforts to free people who have been “indefinitely detained” at the Bagram military base in Afghanistan. In July 2011, the Nation, a left-liberal rag, broke the story that the CIA has a “secret prison” in Somalia.
> Do you even care what the truth is here, or are you really asserting
> that Woodrow Wilson is relevant to the discussion? You sound like
> those idiots who say that today’s Republican Party must be the party
> of civil rights because Lincoln was a Republican — 150 years ago.
I’m not limiting myself to Woodrow Wilson. If you carefully examine what I wrote, I said every Democratic president–from Wilson to Clinton–aggressively supported efforts to build a much bigger and better police state. Of course, I realize the degrees in which they did this varied from administration to administration. But Obama’s record on civil liberties isn’t abysmal because the “Republicans-made-him-do-it”; it’s abysmal because the Democrats have always been this way.
> I’ll debate the contents of this bill with you as much as you’d like,
> but if you’re just interested in dissociating yourself from the
> Democratic Party so that in your mind you can somehow evade
> moral culpability, there’s no point in that. Of course, by strengthening
> the party and personnel of Dick Cheney, in what is essentially a
> zero-sum game, you’re actually a hell of a lot more culpable
> than I am.
Given that I stopped throwing away my votes on Democrats or Republicans long ago, I don’t know exactly know how I can be “morally culpable” for anything they do. However, I do get the impression you may construe my sole criticism of the Democrats as letting the Republicans off the hook. No, I think they’re assholes, too. And I know that in regards to passing legislation, it takes “two to tango.”
But I can’t help but find some degree of amusement of how people really believe the Democrats are better than the Republicans on matters pertaining to civil liberties. They’re not. In many circumstances, they’re much worse. The historical record offers many examples of this. One really doesn’t have to go that far back in time to see this. Does the nickname “Slick Willie” come to mind?
> I’ll look forward to continuing this discussion if you wish.
Maybe you should wait for the article I intend to post here.
“Maybe you should wait for the article I intend to post here.”
Oh hell yeah! Welcome back, Duane!
“So what if Guantanamo Bay is shut down?”
Duane, look at the graphic up at the top that led me to write this piece. Do you see where it says “Campaigned on Closing Guantanamo Bay”? That’s why I talked about Guantanamo Bay. You say “so what?” Well, OK, if it had criticized him for Bagram I’d have to have said something different — or just conceded the point — but it didn’t. Do you see how this works?
Every President, period, has tried to build a bigger and better police state, because of the institutional pressures to do so that have little to do with who occupies the Oval Office. If Ron Paul gets elected, there will still be a bigger and better police state in four years. (Of course, that could come from a military coup, I guess.) It will be less bad under Obama than under Romney, who is slavering for more police statism. You disagree?
Either a Democrat or a Republican — not Paul, by the way — will be President next year (assuming that the Mayans allow it.) It won’t be a Green, it won’t be a Libertarian. If you don’t want to help pick which one, that’s on you — but don’t take credit for it, because you’re just refusing to take part in harm reduction. Which side’s Supreme Court Justices voted the right way on the “indefinite detention” cases last decade? (Note that Stevens and Souter had already moved to “caucus with Democrats.”) Who do you want appointing the next Justice? That’s very much related to civil liberties — and staying out of it because no one’s perfect enough for you is making a choice to give half a vote to the worse side.
I (and this is not sarcastic) look forward to your article.
Greg Diamond wrote:
> “So what if Guantanamo Bay is shut down?”
>
> Duane, look at the graphic up at the top
> that led me to write this piece. Do you see
> where it says “Campaigned on Closing
> Guantanamo Bay”? That’s why I talked
> about Guantanamo Bay. You say “so what?”
> Well, OK, if it had criticized him for
> Bagram I’d have to have said something
> different—or just conceded the point-
> but it didn’t. Do you see how this works?
No, I don’t. The point I was trying to make is that shutting down Guantanamo Bay isn’t as significant as you make it out to be. So what if it’s closed? The Obama administration still operates prisons in Afghanistan, Somalia, and elsewhere on the planet where hundreds of non-citizens have been “indefinitely detained,” sometimes for years.
The debate about “Gitmo” is smoke and mirrors. It diverts attention away from the fact alleged “terrorists” are no longer being warehoused off the coast of Florida; they are now being sent to CIA-operated dungeons in remote parts of the world where they have little if any contact with lawyers, journalists, and human rights advocates.
> Every President, period, has tried to
> build a bigger and better police state,
> because of the institutional pressures
> to do so that have little to do with who
> occupies the Oval Office. If Ron Paul
> gets elected, there will still be a bigger
> and better police state in four years.
> (Of course, that could come from a
> military coup, I guess.) It will be less
> bad under Obama than under Romney, who
> is slavering for more police statism.
> You disagree?
Although I don’t necessarily disagree with your assertion that “every president, period, has tried to build a bigger and better police state, because of the institutional pressures,” the premise that things “will be less bad under Obama than under Romney” doesn’t hold much water with me.
The idea Democrats are “less bad” than Republicans is subjective and is based on assumptions that are most likely inaccurate and erroneous. Do you care to elaborate what set of criteria you use to make this determination? Is it based on a small handful of issues you’ve cherry picked?
> Either a Democrat or a Republican — not Paul,
> by the way — will be President next year
> (assuming that the Mayans allow it.) It
> won’t be a Green, it won’t be a Libertarian.
> If you don’t want to help pick which one,
> that’s on you — but don’t take credit for
> it, because you’re just refusing to take
> part in harm reduction.
Harm reduction? The historical record is replete with examples where the Democrats, much like their Republican brethren, have pursued domestic and foreign policies that only benefit the interests of the rich and have harmed the well-being of millions of ordinary people.
Democratic President Lyndon Baines Johnson, the so-called “lesser evil” in the 1964 election, substantially escalated the Vietnam War on a phony pretext, eventually causing the deaths of more than 54,000 U.S. troops and upwards of 3 million people throughout Southeast Asia.
Democratic President Bill Clinton pushed for the deregulation of the financial services industry and repeal of the Glass-Steagal act, which was partly to blame for creating a massive real estate bubble that burst and has caused hundreds of thousands of home foreclosures in this country.
I can go on and on and on …
> Which side’s Supreme Court Justices voted the
> right way on the “indefinite detention” cases
> last decade? (Note that Stevens and Souter
> had already moved to “caucus with Democrats.”)
> Who do you want appointing the next Justice?
> That’s very much related to civil liberties—
> and staying out of it because no one’s
> perfect enough for you is making a choice
> to give half a vote to the worse side.
This is complete and utter nonsense. You’re sidestepping the fact Obama could have made this issue a moot point in any future U.S. Supreme Court hearing by vetoing any legislation sent to him making “indefinite detention” the law of the land. Now that he’s approved of this incredibly crappy law, you’re using this “Republicans-are-worse” bullshit to justify his indefensible behavior.
There is little evidence to suggest Democrats select “better” judges than Republicans. It’s a fact that Democratic President John F. Kennedy appointed white supremacists to the federal judiciary during his term in office. In 1986, the Democratic-controlled Senate, with little debate, voted 98-0 to confirm Justice Antonin Scalia to the U.S. Supreme Court, despite considerable public opposition.
Ironically, some of the most “progressive” court rulings have come from judges appointed by Republicans. Harry Blackmun, the U.S. Supreme Court Justice who penned Roe vs Wade was appointed to that body by Republican President Richard Nixon. In 2003, Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, wrote the landmark ruling which invalidated anti-sodomy laws, making same-sex sexual activity legal.
These things aren’t as black and white as you think ….
Closing Gitmo isn’t as significant as I made it to be? Duane, I’m not the one who made up that graphic supposedly showing Obama’s hypocrisy. If your criticism is directed at whoever did so, it is well-taken.
I’m happy to ask you to look at the lineup of Supreme Court Justices in Hamden, Boumedienne, Hamdi, etc.and see how they voted. Which were the liberal/moderates (remember that both Stevens and Souter had in effect switched to the liberal camp) and which were championing totalitarian Cheneyesque notions? No difference? You see no difference between living in a country where these were how the decisions came down versus one where Scalia’s views reigned?
You can always come up with facile and specious counterexamples, especially if you reach far enough back in history so that you get to pre-Civil Rights era Democrats (when Republican federal judges in the South did indeed do the heavy lifting), but it our time there is simply no comparison. Willful blindness is inexcusable. Convenient and comfortable, yes, but still inexcusable.
Greg Diamond wrote:
> I’m happy to ask you to look at the lineup
> of Supreme Court Justices in Hamden,
> Boumedienne, Hamdi, etc.and see how
> they voted. Which were the
> liberal/moderates (remember that both
> Stevens and Souter had in effect
> switched to the liberal camp) and
> which were championing totalitarian
> Cheneyesque notions? No difference?
> You see no difference between living
> in a country where these were how
> the decisions came down versus one
> where Scalia’s views reigned?
I’m fully aware of what Justice Antonin Scalia stands for.
But as I already mentioned, in 1986, the Democratic-controlled Senate, with little debate, voted 98-0 to confirm Scalia to the U.S. Supreme Court, despite considerable public opposition.
So when you use a right-wing ideologue like him as a scare tactic to argue that we must vote “Democrat” to ensure we don’t get anymore Justices like Scalia on that body, I laugh.
THE DEMOCRATS HELPED PUT SCALIA ON THE SUPREME COURT.
> You can always come up with facile and specious
> counterexamples, especially if you reach far enough
> back in history so that you get to pre-Civil Rights era
> Democrats (when Republican federal judges in the
> South did indeed do the heavy lifting), but it our time there
> is simply no comparison.
Well, I was using President Kennedy’s appointments of white supremacists to the federal judiciary as an example that the Democrats don’t always select “good” judges. I’m sure that Kennedy did this to appease segregationists who wielded a considerable amount of influence within the party then.
But do the Democrats still frequently ally themselves with racist bigots of various stripes when it is politically convenient for them to do so? You bet they do. For an excellent example of this, just look at what has been going on in Arizona during the past couple of years over issues pertaining to “illegal immigration.”
The only reason why Republican Sheriff Joe Arpaio had been able to terrorize immigrant communities in Maricopa County was because former Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano, a close political ally of his, aggressively lobbied the Bush administration to allow his deputies to enforce immigration law.
In fact, 287(g), the provision which gives police the ability to enforce immigration law providing they meet certain requirements, originated with the Clinton administration. Then-Attorney General Janet Reno asked that it be included in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1996, which “Slick Willie” signed into law.
> Willful blindness is inexcusable. Convenient and
> comfortable, yes, but still inexcusable.
You fail to understand that U.S. Supreme Court Justices, like everybody else, don’t live in a vacuum. They are greatly influenced by social, political conditions that exist in the real world. Although you will have ideologues like Antonin Scalia serving on that body now and then, most have views and opinions which aren’t as rigid or inflexible.
How the Court rules on any given case depends primarily on how much political power affected groups wield. I doubt Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, would have ended up writing the landmark 2003 ruling invalidating anti-sodomy laws if it wasn’t for the fact gays and lesbians had so much influence at the time it was handed down.
The reason why this gays and lesbians scored this monumental victory (which opened the door to same-sex marriage, incidentally) had nothing to do with stacking the U.S. Supreme Court full of Democratic appointees. It had everything to do with spending decades building a mass movement from the ground up over a long period of time.
I pretty much could care less who is in the White House nominating Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. What’s more important is what is going on outside on the streets. It’s people who are picketing, protesting, marching, and raising consciousness, engaging in those kinds of actions, which, in the long run, will influence the way they rule in future cases.
By the way, Greg, I don’t think you’ve answered the question I posed to you in a previous comment inquiring as to what set of criteria you use to determine that the Democrats are “less bad” than the Republicans. Or did you do so already?
If you’re only response is to yell “Supreme Court, Supreme Court,” understand that scare tactic just doesn’t work with me. Although you’ll deny it, some of the most “progressive” court rulings have come from Republican-appointed judges, for reasons which I’ve already stated.
Does that mean future presidents, Democratic or Republican, will nominate “good” judges to the U.S. Supreme Court? No. But as the 1986 Antonin Scalia confirmation has shown, the Democrats, for the most part, won’t stop incredibly bad ones from being seated.
Everybody knew back then Scalia was an ideologue. There was public opposition to his nomination from several different organizations and groups. Yet Senate Democrats, with little debate, voted unanimously to confirm him to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Duane, in 1986 Dems were focusing their aim at denying Rehnquist the Chief Justice position. The overwhelming custom in those pre-Bork times was to defer to the President’s choice of SC appointments (though of course there were exceptions.) Scalia passed unanimously because (1) he was a brilliant jurist, (2) people didn’t think he was as bad as he turned out to be, (3) they didn’t want to detract from the battle over the Chief Justice slot, and (4) that’s just the way things were done then.
What’s interesting and sad is that you read so much into a 25-year-old vote, using it to justify you’re choosing a clearly more dangerous path today. That speaks ill of your motives. You’re not being evil, you’re just grasping at any means of showing that you’re not complicit, and it barely matters to you how much sense it makes. Any port in a storm.
I think we should be able to allow ourselves AT LEAST another half a year to be free to bitch about stuff Obama does that we disapprove of, without having to worry that we’re helping the Republicans.
I am glad he made that signing statement. It’s pretty much what I wanted him to do, once I saw that he was pretty much stuck with signing the bill. I’m more mad at the Democrats like Dick Durbin who sent it to him with the poison in it.
Well the interesting thing about the signing statement is it’s strong assertion, regardless of what the law says, of executive privilege. Now, didn’t Democrats just spend 8 years bitching and moaning about the “Imperial Presidency” that Bush presided over, often using signing statements to assert the same kind of executive privilege?
Bush was using signing statements to say that he didn’t have to follow the law regardless of what Congress did. Obama is using this signing statement to say that he disagrees with the asserted attempted expansion of Presidential power in this law and is signing it only because he thinks that it is actually nothing new and (to the extent new) nothing enforceable.
There’s no question that some sort of executive privilege exists. But what Obama did with this statement is to undercut the Imperial Presidency.
You know perfectly well that most Presidents have occasionally used signing statements for what they considered extreme situations just like this. We bitched and moaned about Bush because in his utter contempt for the legislative branch he used signing statements habitually.
I know we both love Greenwald, but his knee-jerk looking for double standards everywhere has its limitations.
Sorry guys, but this signing statement, at least in part, still says “I reserve the right to….”
“My administration will interpret and implement…”
That is the essence of the Imperial Presidency. I don’t care if you think it’s to do something good or not.
If the Administration believes that the “asserted expansion of Presidential power” is somehow illegal or unconstitutional, why don’t they sue to overturn the law in Court?
I’ll answer that…it’s because Presidents now believe they can undercut Congressional authority simply by issuing signing statements and asserting executive privilege. Just because you think that, in this case, it’s to do something good, it doesn’t make the practice any less alarming.
No, that is not the “essence of the Imperial Presidency.” You’re reacting to form; the Imperial Presidency is about content. It’s like you’re saying that someone is terrible because he intends to stick a knife into someone’s body without informing us that he is a surgeon. The problem is Presidents using signing statements to arrogate rights to themselves, not to disavow them!
The NDAA is an all-or-nothing proposition; veto it or not. Sometimes there is bad, but bad that is outweighed by the good. No one can sue over it right now because there’s no active case or controversy for standing.
Greg Diamond,
Guess again fool. Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, author and Middle East expert Chris Hedges is suing Obama over NDAA.
And it’s so pathetic how you attempt to re-interpret reality as you shill for Obama. Guess what fool, Senator Leahy admitted that Obama would not sign the bill until the provision allowing the indefinite detention of Americans was included! So keep shilling, sir. Everyone see’s you for the useful idiot that you are.
Is Hedges even a lawyer? Is there any reason to think that that he has a case? I’m a legal expert; who do you think is better positioned to judge a statute?
Your last paragraph is technically correct in a misleading way. It’s because of some other aspect of the provision. I leave you to do the research to figure out why.
And you really shouldn’t call people idiots and fools. It’s not nice — and when you’re coming from a position of ignorance yourself, it’s downright embarrassing.
I’m glad you lefties are all ignoring the promise Obama made to NOT use signing statements while he villified Bush for doing so on the campaign. But that was so three+ years ago, and who cares when a President lies, right? Oh wait, the left likes to blame Bush for lying about every three seconds, but when their dear leader does it – nothing to see here. Please hold your nose (because it’s a conservative blog) and read/listen to the link below, and then rationalize away his words as I suspect many of you will try to do.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/22/obama-to-add-signing-statement-to-defense-authorization-opposing-mccain-levin-amendment/
I wrote on these very pages that this is one case where Obama should issue a RARE signing statement. And I wrote a letter to Obama asking him to issue a signing statement if he really felt he had to sign the bill. And then he did exactly what I’d suggested. So of course I’m not complaining.
To repeat, Bush did it hundreds of times. He had no respect for the law. Obama did it just this once (I think) because this particular law is very troubling. Same as most other Presidents have. Did you think we expected the amazing Obama to be the first to NEVER use one?
Didn’t realize he’d specifically promised never to do that. Oh well, add that to the list of things he promised that he either couldn’t do or changed his mind for one reason or another.
Nice to see Newbie joining anon in winnowing out alleged liberal “hypocrisy.”
Until Reagan, only 75 Presidential signing statements had ever been issued, most of them rhetorical, laudatory flourishes. This signing statement does not fall into that category. The dramatic increase in the use of signing statements, particularly those with phrases like “My administration will interpret and implement…” is DIRECTLY related to the rise in Executive power over the last few decades. To sit around and dissect the FREQUENCY with which each of these Presidents issues these statements misses the bigger picture.
I read it was his 20th time Vern. I know of many other instances where he used the signing statement. And if you criticized Bush for using signing statements (I didn’t have the pleasure of knowing you back then) and don’t criticize Obama, yes I believe you’re a hypocrite. Kind of like Harry Reid and a plethora of Democrats are rabid hypocrites for previously using gimmicks to keep the Senate in session to prevent Bush from making recess appointments yet now sanctioning Obama’s unconstitutional actions of appointing another czar and NLRB members while the Senate was in session using those same gimmicks. Hypocrisy on both sides is easy to find. However, using the Constitution as toilet paper is rather scary to me.
And, like anon, you’re reacting to form rather than content.
Like using a knife to cut into a body for surgery, using a signing statement is OK if you’re not doing harm with it. In this case, he’s using it to clarify the law and to reject some assertions of power, not to claim the right to exercise unrestricted powers. You do understand the difference, right?
Greg, I didn’t say that Obama is trying to exercise “unrestricted powers.” You use the phrase “clarify the law” as if “My Administration will interpret and implement…” is somehow less than the assertion of power over Congress that it clearly is. This is nothing less than an extra-Constitutional assertion of executive privilege.
You seem to be comfortable with that power grab. I’m not. We’ll have to agree to disagree.
Well, it is very idealistic to expect President Obama to voluntarily shrink his executive power to a size it hasn’t been in decades. Possibly unreasonable?
And if a “signing statement” was ever justified, it was with this NDAA. Agree to disagree. And not especially heartily, either.
I understand that you have no intention of addressing the real question – and that is the proverbial – was he lying then or is he lying now? That goes along with the shocking and disconcerting lack of respect our President has for the Constitution. The lefties I know always talk about living under a Republican dictator – well, it’s Obama who has lied his way to the top, and now advocates using unprecedented executive authority to circumvent Congress in a blatant violation of separation of powers. At least he’s showing his real agenda before the election (as opposed to his usual tactic of pushing all big decisions off until after the election).
“Unprecedented” is an inaccurate term. Does Vern need to reprise his highlighting of Bush’s use of signing statements. Or would you like to research that on your own?
Were you decrying THOSE power grabs? For someone as unobjectively partisan as you, I somehow doubt it.
Wait … are you mad that he signed this liberty-abridging bill (which was backed mostly by Republicans?)
Or that he has said that he won’t use some of the powers they want to allow him to use?
It’s hard to tell what your big complaint is. That second one sure isn’t a violation of the Constitution, and I doubt you have a problem with the first one.
LOL, there are lots of times I ask Newbie a difficult question that he never bothers coming back to answer.
I bet you this is one of those times.
Did he really promise never to use signing statements, or was it a promise never to use signing statements to grab power unconstitutionally? I’m seriously asking here. If the latter, I don’t think he was lying then or now.
You say “lack of respect for the Constitution” and “lied his way to the top” as if I should know what you’re talking about. I can’t read your hallucinating mind.
“Blatant violation of separation of powers”? You think that the definition of “recess” is clear? And you think that refusing to approve someone — anyone — who can head the consumer agency or run the Labor Board isn’t a blatant violation of separation of powers, which is all that calls forth such an aggressive reply?
Looks like his real agenda is consumer protection. I agree that I’m glad that he’s showing it now.
Anon,
You may try and put perfume on a pig all you want….It still smells like a pig…
Obama lied…He said he would veto NDAA..yet he lied and signed it into law…That is his crime Anon.
He is not the savior you claimed him to be..instead…He is your destroyer..Now wake up..Put your big girl panties on Anon and join the movement to recall NDAA and Obama..
A mind is a terrible thing to illegally detain.:)