Obama Signs NDAA With ‘Serious Reservations’

By majestic on January 2, 2012 in News 49

480px-BarackObamaportrait While you were out partying on New Year’s Eve, President Obama signed away your civil liberties. Via the Washington Post:

HONOLULU — President Obama expressed misgivings about several provisions of a sweeping defense bill he signed into law on Saturday, pledging that his administration will use broad discretion in interpreting the measure’s legal requirements to ensure that U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism are not detained indefinitely by the military.

The $662 billion National Defense Authorization Act provides funding for 2012 at $27 billion less than Obama’s request and $43 billion less than Congress authorized in 2011.

The bill also contains several detainee provisions that civil liberties groups and human rights advocates have strongly opposed, arguing that they would allow the military greater authority to detain and interrogate U.S. citizens and non-citizens and deny them legal rights protected by the Constitution.

Obama initially had threatened to veto the legislation. In a signing statement released by the White House on Saturday, Obama said he still does not agree with everything contained in the legislation. But with military funding due to expire Monday, Obama said he signed the bill after Congress made last-minute revisions at the request of the White House before approving it two weeks ago.

In several cases, the president called those changes “minimally acceptable” and vowed to use discretion when applying the provisions.

“I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists,” Obama said. “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.”

The president said his administration would seek to repeal any provisions that are inconsistent with his values and added that he would “reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat.”…

Civil Liberties, Law, NDAA, Terrorism, War On Terror

Cee Lo’s Controversial New Year’s Eve Version Of ‘Imagine’

A Civics Test For Those Wishing To Be President

Airl

The bill will last, I’m assuming, longer than your presidency Mr. Obama, and when that happens you won’t be around to protect those you vouch for here.
DallasNothing

WOOO happy new year… Did this man do anything else he stated that he would? Why trust him, and Airl your right too. WheeeeeW =) Step by step…. We lose our freedom. Baby steps.
Haystack

Since the president utterly failed on this one, does anyone know the likelihood that this will eventually be overturned by the courts?
Haystack

You know, I expected that Obama would be disappointing, that his actual powers would be limited by the congress, special interests, etc…but I honestly thought that when it came to no-brainers like this one, he’d be sensible. The longer he’s in office, the better I feel about voting for Nader…
Johnmusgrave

He agreed to sign the bill after some last revisions. Right….. Meaning he is most likely leaving office with several hundred million dollars extra in his pocket. After he leaves office the NDAA will be revised again to go in tandem with SOPA ( Which of course he will sign into effect before leaving office …and another little bribe dosen’t hurt either). All that’s left is to declare Martial law. The best phrase, ““reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law
enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist
threat.” All that means is he gives absolute power to local law enforcement. Well I guess Arizona’s sheriff Joe Arpaio knew this was coming. No wonder he sat there and just laughed at all complaints and lawsuits.
Andrew

The Roberts Court? 0%.

The Law itself is corrupt now.
Haystack

I found this from Quora.com:

From NDAA 2012:http://www.govtrack.us/congress/…Sections 1031b1, 1031c2, and 1031e add up to define that a US citizen arrested overseas and merely suspected of terrorism may be detained indefinitely.From Wikipedia on Hamdi v. Rumsfeldhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ham…”The Court recognized the power of the government to detain enemy combatants, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial judge.”

It seems like the courts may reign this in a little, but the “ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before a judge part” might end up consisting of a farce.
truth hurts

i guess now it’s official… we’re all enemy combatants…
Andrew

“Your friend the baker was right,” said my colleague. “The
dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above
all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who
did not want to think anyway. I do not speak of your ‘little men,’ your
baker and so on; I speak of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind
you. Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never
had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental
things to think about—we were decent people—and kept us so busy with
continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by
the machinations of the ‘national enemies,’ without and within, that we
had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing,
little by little, all around us. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were
grateful. Who wants to think?

“To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice
it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of
political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to
develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained
or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the
whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole
thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no
‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw
it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn
growing. One day it is over his head.

“How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated
ordinary men? Frankly, I do not know. I do not see, even now. Many, many
times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice—‘Resist
the beginnings’ and ‘Consider the end.’ But one must foresee the end in
order to resist, or even see, the beginnings. One must foresee the end
clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or
even by extraordinary men? Things might have. And everyone counts on that might.

“Your ‘little men,’ your Nazi friends, were not against National
Socialism in principle. Men like me, who were, are the greater
offenders, not because we knew better (that would be too much to say) but because we sensed
better. Pastor Niemöller spoke for the thousands and thousands of men
like me when he spoke (too modestly of himself) and said that, when the
Nazis attacked the Communists, he was a little uneasy, but, after all,
he was not a Communist, and so he did nothing; and then they attacked
the Socialists, and he was a little uneasier, but, still, he was not a
Socialist, and he did nothing; and then the schools, the press, the
Jews, and so on, and he was always uneasier, but still he did nothing.
And then they attacked the Church, and he was a Churchman, and he did
something—but then it was too late.”

“Yes,” I said.

“You see,” my colleague went on, “one doesn’t see exactly where or
how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse
than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the
next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others,
when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You
don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of
your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of
doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that
restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

“Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing
as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general
community, ‘everyone’ is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees
none. You know, in France or Italy there would be slogans against the
government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great
cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in
your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of
whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not
so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’

“And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this,
and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you
know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even
surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime,
the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you
as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends,
who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have.

“But your friends are fewer now. Some have drifted off somewhere or
submerged themselves in their work. You no longer see as many as you did
at meetings or gatherings. Informal groups become smaller; attendance
drops off in little organizations, and the organizations themselves
wither. Now, in small gatherings of your oldest friends, you feel that
you are talking to yourselves, that you are isolated from the reality of
things. This weakens your confidence still further and serves as a
further deterrent to—to what? It is clearer all the time that, if you
are going to do anything, you must make an occasion to do it, and then you are obviously a troublemaker. So you wait, and you wait.

“But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s
the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come
immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would
have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews
in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the
windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it
happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them
imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next.
Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a
stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.

“And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of
them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too
heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more
than a baby, saying ‘Jewish swine,’ collapses it all at once, and you
see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely
under your nose. The world you live in—your nation, your people—is not
the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all
untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the
mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the
spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of
identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of
hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it
themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you
live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The
system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in
order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way.

“You have gone almost all the way yourself. Life is a continuing
process, a flow, not a succession of acts and events at all. It has
flowed to a new level, carrying you with it, without any effort on your
part. On this new level you live, you have been living more comfortably
every day, with new morals, new principles. You have accepted things you
would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things that your
father, even in Germany, could not have imagined.

“Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what
you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven’t done (for that was
all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing). You remember
those early meetings of your department in the university when, if one
had stood, others would have stood, perhaps, but no one stood. A small
matter, a matter of hiring this man or that, and you hired this one
rather than that. You remember everything now, and your heart breaks.
Too late. You are compromised beyond repair.

“What then? You must then shoot yourself. A few did. Or ‘adjust’ your
principles. Many tried, and some, I suppose, succeeded; not I, however.
Or learn to live the rest of your life with your shame. This last is
the nearest there is, under the circumstances, to heroism: shame. Many
Germans became this poor kind of hero, many more, I think, than the
world knows or cares to know.”

- Milton Mayer, “They Thought They Were Free”
Anarchy Pony

Give it a few more years and yes, we probably will be considered enemy combatants just for coming to websites like Disinfo.
http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

I’m screwing you guys over… BUT I WON’T LIKE IT!
Heath

Generally when I have “serious reservations” about something I “don’t do it”.
Guest

for the love of god, has anyone here even read the bill!? I have and it doesn’t mention anything about indefinite suspension, it’s the left wing media that portrays it with indefinite suspension!
Heath

We won’t hold your illiteracy against you..
Arthur Brennan

Andrew, Thank you so much. This is such a great reminder of the need to stand up even when there is no support for the obvious truth.
Pingback: Can Undercover Investigators Legally Be Indefinitely Detained or Assassinated? | Disinformation
Arthur Brennan

Dear Guest, I read the “bill” (now the law), and parsed it out. Here’s what I posted elsewhere earlier today. I agree with you that it does not say the words “indefinite suspension.” At least I don’t remember those words. Actually, you’re the first person I’ve ever heard use those words and I’m trying to think of how they might relate to anything having to do with what we’re talking about, unless you mean indefinite detention. ”Indefinite detention without access to the courts” is the heart of this new law and there is a reason why those plain words are never used. Perhaps your own reading of the law shows why the plain words are never used.

Many Americans are concerned about the recent amendment to the NDAA bill that was signed into law by President Obama. We should be. This assault on our rights is very difficult to read and understand. The difficulty probably has more to do with sloppy drafting than intentional misrepresentation. Anyway, I decided to do a sort of John Yoo interpretation of the thing and write it out in one paragraph of plain language. Here it is.

“Congress agrees with the President’s claim that he can order the forceable seizure, transportation and endless military imprisonment of any American citizen without legal proof and without access to the courts. The President’s chosen Americans can be imprisoned in the US or any other country or corporation the President chooses.”

I am a veteran and a retired judge. I know something but not everything about statutory interpretation. I have also been an advocate and know a little about how to play on that one-way street. For an American imprisoned under this act it really doesn’t matter what any real judge thinks about this law because under this law the imprisoned American has no access to the courts anyway. It’s a kind of a snake eating its tail sort of thing. I’d really appreciate a persuasive rebuttal to my interpretation of this mess written in plain language.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Craig-Williams/1790763922 Craig Williams

The language it uses is designed to prevent challenge by the courts by creating a loop-hole for itself. It makes the statement that it should not be ‘construed’ to affect existing law. The logic of the authors is that since it does not cause existing laws to go outside constitutional restraints, there should be no reason to challenge existing laws for going outside constitutional restraints. This of course is a smokescreen. This new law in essence creates a whole new judicial system which has never been specifically restrained by our constitution since it is our existing constitution never before restricted something which never before existed.They would argue that we do not have the ability to challenge this new judicial system with the means afforded to us for challenging our existing laws and that this new judicial system is not subject to those challenges.Feel empowered?
Pacwoob

Can anyone provide a link to the text of the pertinent ammendments, or citations by which to look them up?
Pacwoob

Self answering: 112th congress h.r. 1540. sections 1022 – 1034.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:7:./temp/~c112w7r3a1::
Rooti

Obama is either a Neocon or has fallen under the influence of the Neocons, it is that simple. Wake up people and stop playing the Democrat/Republican game.
Anonacon

And you really think voting for Nader will help things. you really think voting for ANYONE including ron paul is really going to help things?

Oh god. Americans are so gullible and stupid. And because of that the rest of the world is going to suffer big time!!

*laughs* people still think voting matters *laughts*
Anonacon

And you really think voting for Nader will help things. you really think voting for ANYONE including ron paul is really going to help things?

Oh god. Americans are so gullible and stupid. And because of that the rest of the world is going to suffer big time!!

*laughs* people still think voting matters *laughts*
Nunzio X

But not of each other, my brother.
Jarel

NDAA Should go hand in hand with this new bill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzpr7bL1Iw4
Anonymous

Yeah, we should just do nothing and complain instead.
Henryblanco

We all were probably considered enemy combatants the very first time we posted comments on Disinformation. Now they can officially choose who needs to be rounded up for ‘re -education’ . Plus the NDAA was most likely written using Black’s law dictionary. So we are all fucked for sure.
Anarchy Pony

See you at the black site.
Anarchy Pony

See you at the black site.
Nickparker

I would guess the chances would be slim and none. And slim has already packed his bags and left town
Nickparker

I would guess the chances would be slim and none. And slim has already packed his bags and left town
http://hormeticminds.blogspot.com/ Chaorder Gradient

Intense. I rarely stop to read such long comments, but luckily I saw that it was Andrew that posted it, so i gave it a read. Was well worth it.
Anonymous

If you are indeed a retired judge I would have loved to have been on your docket as your statuatory interpretation skills are well suited for appellate review.
Okarin

people’s attention span isn’t long enough to keep the “serious reservation” honest
guest

wheres your source? In the final version of the bill, it clearly states indefinite detention does NOT include US citizens. And the Feinstein amendment states that Section 1031 does NOT change ‘current existing law’.
And on top of that, indefinite detention of american citizens is
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Even if this law said it was ok, which it doesn’t, and
an american citizen found themselves in that position, there is no way
in hell the supreme court would uphold it. Not to mention the public
outcry if such a thing were happening would be huge, and I’m inclined to
think the government seeks complacency a lot more than rage. And what
could they do? declare hundreds or thousands or more citizens as
terrorists? whats there motivation? who are you worried about being
detained? you really think military personnel would have no trouble
detaining large amounts of american people indefinitely for trivial or
no charges? You think the people wouldn’t revolt? Perhaps you are right
and this is there ultimate goal, but this law wouldn’t accomplish that
goal. imo, this whole thing is just sensationalized absurdity.http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/defense-bill-passed-so-what-does-it-do-ndaa
Irish Potato Gun

So will Ron Paul be free to in definitely jail Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, and Obama for their treason when he gets elected?
Irish Potato Gun

So will Ron Paul be free to in definitely jail Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, and Obama for their treason when he gets elected?
Anonymous

tread lightly, you dare not suggest that the fear bubble be broken. someone might come around huffing and puffing – blustering about dialectics, herrings and ending every post with a qoute from a founding father of the holy land.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1694753313 Bob Hicks

As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression.
In both instances, there’s a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged,
and it is in such twilight that we must be aware of change in the air, however slight,
lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.
Anonymous

At night make me one with the darkness.
In the morning make me one with the light.
Andrew

If he’s a hypocrite.
Crazyxme

which supreme court is this similar to ?
PIss In Obama’s Ass

Fuck you Obama
Arthur Brennan

Dear Guest, I think you have to reread Sec. 1021 and then do your statutory interpretation. This law was passed for a reason. Perhaps you should keep that in mind as you consider the writing. As for your predictions about public outcry, don’t count on it. Peace, Art
Arthur Brennan

I was and they are.
Prince1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZJ6F9q5Rys
howiebledsoe

Ah…. boiling a frog.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=508194588 Gregory Walker

There are two things people like to ignore about this law: First, had he not signed this law when he did all military spending would have ground to a halt two days later, and many programs such as Guantanamo Prison would lost their mandate and ceased to function.

Second, and more importantly, there were enough votes in the House and Senate to override any Presidential Veto, meaning his signature was merely procedural.
- Andrew
  
  Third, and most importantly, the Obama administration were the ones who requested the removal of the language from Section 1031 that would’ve protected Americans from indefinite detention.