Hacker News Reader

Comment by wycats | Hacker News Reader

It's worth noting that Obama, upon signing, issued a signing statement that said that he was against the indefinite detention provision, and importantly, that he would not indefinitely hold Americans without trial:

"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."

View on HN

"Niemand hat die Absicht, eine Mauer zu errichten." (Nobody has the intension to build a wall) - Walter Ulbricht

Less than two months after that statement was made the work on the wall that separated Germany for decades started.

Never should a citizen have to trust a representative. The moment you have to democracy becomes impossible.

Yeah, great. Even if you believe him, that might mean as little as a year. What about the next administration? What about the administration after that?

Laws last much longer than the administrations under which they are born.

But remember this was just one provision of a larger bill, and I don't think line-by-line veto is possible anymore.

Then you veto the entire bill - explaining why.

Your explanation will be edited down to two-second soundbites by the media that manage to miss your point entirely. The opposition will completely ignore your argument completely and repeatedly tell the party faithful that you vetoed the bill that would have given the hard-working American servicemen and women their deserved salaries.

(If you're really lucky, you'll be accused of "flip-flopping"--because Real Men stake out a position of being Pro-X or Anti-Y and never, ever budge.)

There is no such thing as a nuanced opinion in Washington politics today.

He would have, but this bill included the funding for salaries of military personnel. He actually said, at the time that he signed it, that Congress had forced his hand.

Edit: OK I don't really know if he would have. But he did say that.

It doesn't matter. You don't dismantle the Bill of Rights just because you have to delay the military salaries for one month, until Congress rewrites the bill.

The problem with Obama is that Congress knows he's, for lack of a better word, a coward. So they know that they can push his hand how much they want, because he won't do anything dramatic to react and fight back. That's why Obama has kept losing all his negotiations or he always "compromised" for the other side's sake.

So bottomline, he should've taken a stand and vetoed it, and let that be a lesson for Congress for next time. But he didn't do that. And if you're going to say "but Congress would've passed it anyway with 2/3 of the vote" - well then, even more of a reason to veto it and show his supporters that at least tried to stop it, but Congress was solely at fault for passing it. Since he didn't, Obama doesn't get to have any excuses in this case.

You are being played. The Obama administration requested the indefinite detention provisions. What Obama actually means, albeit couched in very clever legalese, is that his problems with these "regulations" is that they even exist at all. He would rather his ability to prosecute the "war on terror" be completely unchecked.

"The Obama administration requested the indefinite detention provisions."

[citation needed]

3rd Paragraph http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/...

Skip to about 0:25 where the fun stuff starts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHaJrnlqCgo

The clip at 0:25 he's referring to is Senator Carl Levin (Democrat from Michigan and Chairman of the Armed Services Committee) speaking in front of the Senate, as broadcast by C-SPAN. So it seems to be quite credible.

Thanks scott_w.

thank you.

He still should have vetoed it. Once Congress knew he was willing to go that far, Congress would have been up against the wall and had to drop it in order for the paychecks to continue.

It's extremely likely, given the criticality of the legislation to the military, that his veto would have been overridden by Congress. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to pick your fights.

Then again, I'm extremely angry at him about this, too, so... Yeah, whatever. Heh. Though really I'm angry about the overall civil liberties history of the administration. This is just the proverbial straw.

"It's extremely likely, given the criticality of the legislation to the military, that his veto would have been overridden by Congress. "

Maybe. Or they could drop the problematic bit and redo it. Either way, the paychecks would go out.

You have to understand that the system isn't that simple. Bills do not exist in a vacuum. You cannot view these things as independent and completely unrelated to everything else going around it.

Yes, the President could veto the bill but then the next few months becomes about him veto-ing a military appropriations bill. He would then need to explain to the American public why the freedoms it eroded were unacceptable and that their loved ones serving this country couldn't buy milk for a month. It would consume a significant amount of time and resources.

Like shadowfiend, I'm not defending the decision to make civil liberties a lower priority than other issues (I am vehemently against that), but if you want to be someone that is more than a whiner then you need to first understand and then work to change it.

> You have to understand that the system isn't that simple.

No, see, you are the one failing to understand. We understand what you are saying. We still disagree with it. At some point, someone has to stand up and say "No, this is wrong."

Someone has to call out Congress and the President for using the military's pay check to erode our rights. The President could have done this. He didn't. He elected to accept the measure, despite disagreeing with it.

"He would then need to explain to the American public why the freedoms it eroded were unacceptable"

Why is this a bad thing?

It's a good thing if the public understands. If they don't, you're hosed, because the bill passes anyway (there were 2/3s margins in both houses of Congress) and you get a Republican president, who is highly likely not to apply the already sad principles set forth in the signing statement.

"Yes, the President could veto the bill but then the next few months becomes about him veto-ing a military appropriations bill. He would then need to explain to the American public why the freedoms it eroded were unacceptable and that their loved ones serving this country couldn't buy milk for a month. It would consume a significant amount of time and resources."

Sure, but running against Congress is often a very good thing. Especially when their approval ratings are so low. And much of Obama's putative 'base' would have preferred he veto it.

Obama could probably make the case by going on Fox and asking if he should have the power to send Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity to prison without a trial for an indefinite amount of time. "Stop me before I send Glenn Beck to Gitmo".

What hammerdr said. But in addition, I'll add: if Congress can override the veto (this bill passed both houses of Congress with greater than 2/3s of the vote, so it's unlikely they couldn't), then they most likely will.

Obama the candidate opposed the use of signing statements.

http://technorati.com/politics/article/signing-statements-re...

It's important to note that Obama makes clear in both his campaign assertion and his official memo that he does not consider signing statements to be problematic in and of themselves. Rather, he argues, their use should be limited in scope and reach, clearly stating that President Bush went overboard.

From Politifact's extensive discussion: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/pr...

Politifact consulted 5 experts, 4 of whom (at the time of consultation) felt he has kept his promise. Politifact itself has currently rated the promise as "compromise", meaning partial fulfillment.

Politifact isn't exactly the beacon of truth it purports to be either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politifact - the SNL business was particularly odd

I agree that they've made errors, but they seem deserving of their fairly good reputation (not as high as, say, NYT).

I would imagine the same people and groups that have problems with Politifact also have problems with NYT much like the other side has problems with the WSJ and Fox News.

Sometimes I really wished they had elected that guy instead of the other Obama.

The signing is pure politics. He has to pick his battles and by making a point on civil liberties and playing up to the libertarian crowd he is not going to win a vote. He is more likely going to "make a point" on social issues aka health care, welfare and so on - things that play well with his electorate.

"playing up to the libertarian crowd is not going to win a vote"

It sells music: http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/30/news/kelly_clarkson_ron_paul...

It does, but Obama's focus has been on social issues i.e. pushing for the healthcare bill at all cost but at the same time supporting the post 911 security machinery and paying only lipservice to civil liberties. Just imagine the outcry a Bush/Cheney government would have drawn by signing a "no trial for Americans" act and adding a "but I won't eat the cookie, promiiiiiise" reservation.

This is even worse: all I hear is that it is a virtue to apply "our most important traditions and values as a nation" when speaking of first-class beings (citizens of our great nation), but we are not bound by anything to extend the same courtesy to others. Embarrassing, humiliating, and sad.

Because tyranny has never been delivered by leaders speaking soothing reassurances.

The apparent mindset that the grandparent manifests is antithetical to the very principles that USA is founded upon. This is not a nation of personality cults; our system is based on checks and balances. (That was the whole point!)

The fact that he signed it and issued that anti-American --- see above -- statement makes the act even more repugnant.

It kind of says everything is fine, for now. It's disappointing and scary he signed it - like I said a couple days ago, very bad legislation is contagious and some idiot will propose a similar provision elsewhere.

And, since this stupid idea is the law now, consider very carefully who you vote for. Whoever sits in the oval office after your next presidential election will have much more power than usual.

Then he should send a powerful signal, rally his base and do something right for a change:

Not sign the fucking document.

Stop listening to Barack Obama talk. Obama talks likes FDR, but Obama's actions have way way to the right. Obama's not way right like Cheney but he is closing in on Reagan. Obama invaded more countries than Reagan, Reagan cut taxes more than Obama. Obama has kept extending Dubya tax cuts. Obama and Mittens borrowed ObamaCare from Bob Dole. Reagan never executed American citizens without trial. Actually, Obama's a bit right of Reagan now.

You may trust him, but, being signed into law, such provisions requires you to trust each and every successor of his until a contrary provision becomes law.

The Act is called "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012". Is this something that is passed every year? Could the indefinite detention clauses be removed in the 2013 "version" ?

Certainly they could. How often does government give up a power like that though?

Another possibility is that if used, the law could (and likely will) be challenged on constitutional grounds.

"We have always been at war with Eastasia."

It's worth noting that indefinite detention is legal now, regardless of what Obama says his administration will do.

As a citizen of a country very strongly allied with the US, but not an American citizen myself, that statement scares me.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/trust-me-is-no...

"Trust me" is not enough of a safeguard, says Amnesty International, as President Obama signs the NDAA into law

This holds especially true with Obama given how he's almost complete reversed his positions on law-and-order type of issues after he was elected.

> It's worth noting that Obama, upon signing, issued a signing statement...

He originally promised not to sign it at all.

Obama has no cred.

He threatened to veto it because it threatened his power. The Obama administration claimed that the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists Act of 2001 already gave him the authority to detain citizens, and that the original act confused that (by requiring military custody). There is a section that says that the requirement for military custody does not apply to US citizens, but that does not mean that US citizens cannot be detained by the President in civilian custody. This is the section that a lot of people are getting hung up on and saying, "Well, it says right here that US citizens can't be detained." No, it says that US citizens aren't required to be held in mandatory military custody.

How exactly is that note worthy?

I can't make out if you mean noteworthy or note worthy?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com