Obama Signs NDAA With ‘Serious Reservations’

480px-BarackObamaportraitWhile 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.”…

, , , ,

  • 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.

  • 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

      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…

      • 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*

        • emc_0

          Yeah, we should just do nothing and complain instead.

  • Haystack

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

    • 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. 

    • 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?

    • Nickparker

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

  • 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. 

  • 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…

    • Anarchy Pony

      Give it a few more years and yes, we probably will be considered enemy combatants just for coming to websites like Disinfo.

      • 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. 

    • Nunzio X

       But not of each other, my brother.

  • 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”

    • 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.

      • 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.

  • 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”. 

  • 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

      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.

      • Calypso_1

        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. 

        • Arthur Brennan

          I was and they are.  

      • 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

        • Calypso_1

          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.

        • 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

  • 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. 

  • 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 

  • 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

  • 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?

    • Andrew

      If he’s a hypocrite.

  • 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.

  • BobH137

    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.

    • Calypso_1

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

  • 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 ? 

  • Crazyxme

    which supreme court is this similar to ? 

  • PIss In Obama’s Ass

    Fuck you Obama

  • 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
  • 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.