Hacker News Reader

An NDAA passes regularly to fund the armed forces, including benefits for veterans etc. Every President in recent memory signed a bunch of them. That's not comparable to CISPA

View on HN

I think it's reference to to the bill that allowed gitmo-like 'hold indefinitely' powers to happen to US citizens on US soil.

Same bill.

Also, the brouhaha over that bill is over how it might be interpreted in a parallel universe where Hamdi v. Rumsfeld doesn't exist.

Most people seem to not understand that that's the same bill. The NDAA is an annual bill specifying the defense budget. The indefinite detention provisions that upset so many people are attached to that bill.

As the President cannot veto part of a bill, vetoing the NDAA over those provisions would literally mean vetoing the entire defense budget.

That's fine. Veto the budget. Send them back to the drawing board. That would have been the best outcome.

I definitely understand that view, but on that drawing board are the words "two-thirds majority". It comes down to a choice between an impotent veto and an impotent signing statement.

Then choose the impotent veto and stand on the side of justice. I don't see that as a problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com