Hacker News Reader

Comment by sp332 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com