• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Obama Signs Defense Authorization Bill

bikerdruid

Philosopher
B
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
7,361
Location
North Peace Bioregion of theGreat Boreal Forest
another step towards a police state.

http://nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/obama-signs-defense-authorization-bill-20111231
President Obama signed on Saturday the defense authorization bill, formally ending weeks of heated debate in Congress and intense lobbying by the administration to strip controversial provisions requiring the transfer of some terror suspects to military custody.

"I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists," Obama said in a statement accompanying his signature.
 
bikerdruid said:
"I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists," Obama said in a statement accompanying his signature.[/I]
Click to expand...

The DoJ can simply not transfer citizens and resident aliens to military custody. What, short of a bill of attainder, can congress do about it?
 
leftysergeant said:
The DoJ can simply not transfer citizens and resident aliens to military custody. What, short of a bill of attainder, can congress do about it?
Click to expand...

That's fine as long as you have a president like Barack Obama who won't use this authority. What happens when a Republican gains the office? I'm not comfortable with a "benign dictator" style of government. I don't think he should have signed this bill, even though it doesn't do exactly what the critics say it does. It's still a crappy bill.
 
Now a private in the army can sexually assault your girlfriend in a bar, and then declare you an enemy combatant which will cost you $500K in legal fees.
 
Unabogie said:
Er....no.
Click to expand...

He's parodying* someone elses objections to this.


*and, if memory serves, his parody is word for word. So it's really more of a quote. Without the quotes. Isn't that plagiarism? Thankfully it was done before SOPA was passed, otherwise Wildcat could go to jail for up to five years for a copyright violation on teh interwebs.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Now a private in the army can sexually assault your girlfriend in a bar, and then declare you an enemy combatant which will cost you $500K in legal fees.
Click to expand...

If you are an enemy combatant you can settle the matter with lethal force which I think we can all agree is preferable to lawyers.
 
gumboot said:
What authority?
Click to expand...

Here's what the President said on this.

President Obama said:
Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are "captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force." This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa'ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat.
Click to expand...

This codifies into law something that I believe is a terrible idea. I think we should be using civilian courts and in fact Bush did this quite often. It's become a political football, and now the law. I do not approve of this.

It does nothing remotely like what the critics claim it does.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

The same bill, more or less, is passed every single year.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but this one added this section about mandating military custody.
 
So he vetoes the authorization bill. Soldiers don't get paid and the logistics system stalls as he tries to draw down troops.

Sounds like he has the choice of being bitten by a rattlesnake or a water moccasin.

But there will not be military personnel raiding homes of terrorism suspects, and the DoJ does not have to just turn peope over to the military without going through their own procedures. Lawyers will be involved.

Appeals can be ram-rodded through the system right up to the Supreme Court. Is there a law that says that the DoJ cannot file a noli prosequi at this point?
 
Unabogie said:
This codifies into law something that I believe is a terrible idea. I think we should be using civilian courts and in fact Bush did this quite often.
Click to expand...
Define "quite often". Bear in mind this applies only to those covered by the AUMF, not terrorists in general.
 
Unabogie said:
That's fine as long as you have a president like Barack Obama who won't use this authority. What happens when a Republican gains the office?
Click to expand...


While I agree that what I have seen so far makes me think this is indeed a "crappy bill" as you put it and invasive of civil liberties, I am curious why you are so sure that President Obama wouldn't use this authority, as opposed to whomever comes next?

It can't be the way the administration closed Gitmo, or the way the detainees there have been released or sent into civil trials. Because that didn't happen.

It can't be the way he ended the Bush policies on the FHSA courts and wiretaps, because his administration actually expanded that program.

It can't be the way drone strikes were curtailed. they expanded.

Similarly, it can't be the way rendition was ended.

It can't be the way he sought explicit Congressional authorization for the use of the miltary in a foreign country like Libya and his "dot the i's" approach to the War Powers Act. Again, same thing.

It can't be the way he's curtailed the federal government's war on drugs.

It can't be the dramatic increase in responsiveness to FOIA rewquests, as the opposite has happened.

Civil liberties was the one area I held out any hope for some level of change from the past administration, but I cannot think of any decisions related to the war or terror, police powers, or civil liberties in general that would make me trust this President over any other one that will follow.

Especially since the provision at issue -- the one he is reluctantly signing off on despite huige misgivings, etc. -- is being reported as being requested originally by the Administration.

"Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) told Congress recently that under the original wording of the National Defense Authorization Act, American citizens were excluded from the provision that allowed for detention. Once Obama’s officials saw the text though, says Levin, “the administration asked us to remove the language which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.”

Specifically, the section that Obama asked to be reworded was Section 1031 of the NDAA FY2012, which says that “any person who has committed a belligerent act” could be held indefinitely." http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...t-insisted-the-language-was-included-in-bill/


So . . . what seems to make anyone confident that this President, as opposed to any other, is above using this provision?
 
Last edited:
...says Levin, “the administration asked us to remove the language which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.”



And in point of fact, that was not done... American citizens are still 'subject' to the act, it is just now optional to detain them indefinitely, instead of required.
 
This is why we need a Democratic Congress that will eliminate the poor provisions in 2013.
 
leftysergeant said:
So he vetoes the authorization bill. Soldiers don't get paid and the logistics system stalls as he tries to draw down troops.

Sounds like he has the choice of being bitten by a rattlesnake or a water moccasin.

But there will not be military personnel raiding homes of terrorism suspects, and the DoJ does not have to just turn peope over to the military without going through their own procedures. Lawyers will be involved.

Appeals can be ram-rodded through the system right up to the Supreme Court. Is there a law that says that the DoJ cannot file a noli prosequi at this point?
Click to expand...
Nolle prosequi is something that a prosecutor does to drop formal charges at or before trial.

If someone is 'being held indefinitely in military custody', they could be in legal limbo for years, with no arraignment, or sentence to appeal or 'ram-rod'.

And *bureaucrats* will be involved, which is where much of the concern should lie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom