Obama Signing Statement: The NDAA Doesn’t Apply To US Citizens

[SunsetDreams]

Obama Signing Statement: The NDAA Doesn’t Apply To US Citizens
By Jason Easley

In his signing statement attached to the NDAA, President Obama made it clear that the language about detentions does not apply to US citizens.

*snip*

In summary and for the millionth time, the detention provisions do not apply to the NDAA. The law itself states that it does not apply to American citizens. Some people will still continue to feed their mistrust of government, but it is in black and white. It was written in the revised legislation.

The NDAA is a terrible law because it forbids the funding to close GITMO. It is a terrible law because the language of the bill contains a predisposition towards indefinite detentions. The language used is the right’s attempt to revive the policies of the war on terror. The NDAA is lousy because what it is advocating runs counter to who we are as a people and what this great nation stands for. The NDAA stinks for all of these reasons and many more, but it is NOT lousy because it allows for the detention of US citizens.

Those who believe that Obama should have vetoed the NDAA don’t seem to realize that what they are asking for is that the military go unfunded. The NDAA is a yearly funding measure, and as such could be amended when a new, and hopefully saner Congress is sworn into session to remove the war on terror language that this Congress foolishly in a bit of near election year pandering passed.

Yes, Obama signed the NDAA. Even if he would have vetoed it, an override would have been likely. His veto would have been nothing more than an empty symbolic gesture that would have caused more problems than it solved. The NDAA does a lot of things, but the one thing it does not do is authorize the detention of American citizens. As we head into to 2012, can we finally put this bogus piece of misinformation to bed?

more here: http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-ndaa-statement
___________________________________________

National Defense Authorization Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The National Defense Authorization Act is a United States federal law that has been enacted for each of the past 49 years to specify the budget and expenditures of the United States Department of Defense.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act

____________________________________________________

The military budget is that portion of the United States discretionary federal budget that is allocated to the Department of Defense, or more broadly, the portion of the budget that goes to any defense-related expenditures. This military budget pays the salaries, training, and health care of uniformed and civilian personnel, maintains arms, equipment and facilities, funds operations, and develops and buys new equipment. The budget funds all branches of the U.S. military: Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

_________________________________________________________________

I don't like some of the provisions in this bill, but I do realize that time was of the essence. This bill had to be signed before the new fiscal year. No matter where you stand on the issue of Military downsizing, or wars...I would hope that NO ONE would want our Military Personnel to go without pay. Like you and me, they have bills to pay and mouths to feed too. The Presidents hands were tied for that reason alone. What do you think the narrative would have been if he would have acted all principled and refused to sign the bill at all? Republicans: Democrats and President Obama don't care about our men and women who are protecting our Nations freedoms everyday...blah blah

These provisions were put into the bill BY REPUBLICANS (ie John McCain) to hamstring Obama for nothing but political pressure and pleasure. I say it is the Republicans who don't care about our men and women who are protecting our Nations freedoms everyday.

I say it is the Republicans who need to stop playing games with Bills and being Obstructionist for sheer political gain. It's time we stop letting them keep running the narrative.

[think]

1. Repealing the patriot act and declaring that NO PERSON should be detained

indefinitely without trial would be a nice start to help me be reassured that he is sincere about his position on civil and human rights.

[phantom power]

2. The way to stop it is to veto bills that have it.

The GOP isn't going to stop doing it, because it keeps working for them.

[comipinko]

3. Signing statements are meaningless.

He should have vetoed this, and the extension of the patriot act. All we have is Obama's word that HE will not use this provision. That seems a bit thin, to me.

[SunsetDreams]

15. So you think Obama in 2012 is going to...

So you think Obama in 2012 is going to detain American Citizens? You really believe that?

[comipinko]

20. That is not the point.

The point is that he CAN, as can his successors.

[SunsetDreams]

21. "The point is that he CAN, as can his successors"

His successors CAN, when this is an annual bill? It is certainly the point indeed. As YOU understand the bill, do you believe Obama will indefinitely detain American Citizens in 2012?

[comipinko]

23. Right, it will be dealt with next year. Sure.....keep hoping.

Do you really think that this "nation of laws", should just TRUST in a man? any man? Is that not one of the things our constitutional republic was designed to prevent?? To sit back and say, well it's OK 'cause he said (in a NON-BINDING "signing statement" ) that he promises not to use that authority?? That is just a bit too ignorant of a position, for me.

[SunsetDreams]

24. You didn't specifically answer my question I see.

Do you think in 2012(this is an annually written bill) Obama will Indefinitely detain American Citizens?

[comipinko]

28. Again, that is not the point.

If this is a "Nation of Laws" as opposed to a nation of men, this is not acceptable, at all.I really find it hard to believe that antone calling themselves a Democrat could be OK with this. WE should not have to trust (A) (the) man. Is that not one of the things our constitutional republic was designed to address?? I think it was. Any Democrat, no, any AMERICAN that is OK with this, would seem to me to either be wearing rose-colored glasses, is un-informed , or just does not care.But since I do not know where you lie, I will attempt to answer your rather inane question: I do not know. He might. How would we know? His signing statement is not even binding on him.

[SunsetDreams]

29. LOL "antone calling themselves a Democrat could be OK with this"

That's another BS charge that SOME people make when someone disagrees with their opinion. I didn't question your political leanings, DO NOT question mine. Now that I realize, you are incapable of debating an issue without making that ludicrous charge...Have a nice day. I'll not be responding back to you.

[comipinko]

30. Again you avoid the point.

Debate?? seems you can only "echo...echo....echo..."

[Hell Hath No Fury]

33. I'll answer you -

Yes, I do believe Obama will indefinitely detain an American citizen if he is told it is "necessary" by the DOD/Pentagon. Despite his signing statement. He has already assassinated an American citizen without trial, Anwar al-Awlaki, He has already shown us what he is willing to do.

[SunsetDreams]

34. "He has already assassinated an American citizen without trial, Anwar al-Awlaki"

Awlaki in his own words watch:

Al-Awlaki: "Kill Americans" http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6512422n&tag=contentMain;contentBody

-----------------------------

Who was Anwar al-Awlaki?

Awlaki was near the top of the U.S. terror hit list, said CBS News Homeland Security correspondent Bob Orr, and his death is another major setback for al Qaeda.

As a charismatic speaker fluent in English, Awlaki was a leading propagandist and recruiter. His fiery sermons resonated with radicals in the U.S. and Britain, and his group, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), is actively recruiting Westerners with an online magazine called Inspire, with the latest edition coming out this week.

*snip*

He was also linked directly to two terror attacks on the U.S. in 2009. Email exchanges between Awlaki and accused Fort Hood shooter gunman Nidal Hasan confirm that the al Qaeda leader was the inspiration for the massacre at a Texas army base that left 13 people dead.

Awlaki was also at the center of a plot to bomb a U.S. airliner later the same year. Accused "Underwear Bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab trained at camps run by Awlaki's group, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Awlaki's group is also suspected in the 2010 "package plot," in which printers containing explosives being shipped via UPS and FedEx were intercepted on their way from Yemen to the U.S. , that were designed explode in mid-air.

More at link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/30/earlyshow/main20113773.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

-----------------------------------
You mean that Anwar al-Awlaki?

[comipinko]

35. Oh, so in your view, it's ok to trash the constitution if

you think the citizen involved is a "really bad guy". And is it you that gets to make that determination? Fuck, I hope not.

[SunsetDreams]

38. No where did I say that was my view lol

Here is my view: I don't believe he was an American Citizen. Sure, maybe he was in a brief stint coming back here for "school", after moving away with his family when he was a child back to Yemen. He then CHOSE to go back to Yemen. Technically he still had a Yemen/U.S. dual passport, but does that mean he was a U.S. Citizen? To me, he made his choice when he moved back to Yemen, and continued to promote the killing of REAL American Citizens. He can't hide under the cloak of a piece of paper. Wasn't it you that proported that signing a piece of paper was meaningless?

[comipinko]

41. "You don't believe he was an american citizen"

It is a FACT, no "belief" is needed. There in lies the problem with your inane post. And now you equate ones constitutional citizenship rights to a non-binding "signing statement"....You have really gone off the deep end now!!. What other parts of the constitution do you not "believe"??? Please be specific. ROFFLMFAO !!! Un-efin-believable!!

Vos postulo redeo ut schola !!

[SunsetDreams]

42. No I don't believe he was.

I could subscribe to the Tea Party News, and yet still hate their views.

I wouldn't be willing to uphold him as a way to back up my argument that Obama can, and has assassinated American Citizens.
Not a very good example.

[comipinko]

43. Do you belive water is wet? If you do not, does that make it not wet?

Sorry , but you are not the arbitor of who is a citizen. The constitution does that. Your "belief" is of no consequence.

vestri logic ut of a parulus

[SunsetDreams]

44. "Sorry , but you are not the arbitor of who is a citizen"

Neither are you. That's up to the courts to decide. As is the language of this bill.

[comipinko]

46. Bahhhhahahahhahahh!!!

parvulus, vestri visum es ultra causa

[SunsetDreams]

50. yeah it's just so funny har har

Nice subolesco

[comipinko]

51. Vestri latin est atrox !!

"Nice subolesco"??? redeo ut schola !!

[SunsetDreams]

53. LOL It's like a war of whatever now...How quaint and fun.

Meanwhile...oh hey look at the time.

[comipinko]

54. Bahahahahah !

trado, tunc discedo !



Don't open with "abyssus" if.................

[Hell Hath No Fury]

52. Yes, that guy.

An American citizen (whether you like it or not) guaranteed his day in court by the United States Constitution.

[SunsetDreams]

55. Thanks,

I do understand both sides of the debate here. I am hoping that the new bills being offered to correct the confusion are able to get enough support to pass.
Landry's H.R. 3676; Feinstein's S. 2003; and Garamendi's H.R. 3702

As for Al Awlaki, the American born, Yemen living Terrorist, we will have to disagree.

[think]

62. I don't believe Obama will detain any American citizens indefinitely in 2012. But then again

I also believed he'd never extend the patriot act either.

So much for my beliefs...

[phantom power]

4. Just remember: Obama's signing statement won't mean shit to any future administration.

In <= 5 years, Obama will be gone. NDAA will remain.

[boxman15]

5. Not in its current form it won't.

The NDAA is passed every year. This is an annual budget for the military. If the provision is not in future NDAAs, then it won't be there for future administrations. That's why it's on us to keep pressure on Congress.

[patrice]

6. McCain, Graham, and Levine want indefinite detention because they're afraid of the Occupations, PO

took this hit to prevent their veto-proof attempt to detain American citizens.

[SunsetDreams]

7. Exactly, it's all about Republican games

I for one, am tired of their games.

[patrice]

12. I wouldn't say "all", but certainly the huge majority of the lies and shit IS theirs, NOT ours.

[SunsetDreams]

18. agreed, thank you

[hifiguy]

11. I think there's a lot of truth in that.

Anyone think that if a Repuke was currently in office that the Occupiers wouldn't have been "disappeared?"

[patrice]

14. He could have vetoed, to cover his ass, and then let it all just go down, veto-proof, anyway and say

"It's not my fault. I did what I could to stop it and got over-ridden."

That would have been the politically safe thing to do.

But THIS guy doesn't play their way.

That's why they hate him.

[phleshdef]

57. Hehe. That wouldn't have been anywhere near politically safe.

He would have been vetoeing the funding of the military, including troops pay, troop equipment, veterans benefits and a lot of other stuff that you can't get away with vetoeing.

And when it came down to his argument over detainment versus funding the military, thats the fight Republicans want and they would have successfully beat him over the head with it.

[patrice]

58. True too. And the so-called "Left" would've been fine with all of that as proof of their own prowess

for their resumes and in their networks (ESPECIALLY in the gold mind known as Citizens United) = "Darn! he finally came across with something for us, but he pissed off a bunch of veterans and military doing it, proof that he's a duplicitous fuck and we should vote him out."

So whatever political benefit there was to vetoing a veto-proof NDAA would have gone to a group that repeatedly vows its intent not only not to vote for him but also to actively, and with, in some cases, somewhat less than full honesty, try to destroy him.

He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't, so he went with the percentages since certain PROFESSIONAL LeftRight factions have made it quite clear that it won't do any good to do anything for them, they're against him no matter what he does.

[yodermon]

8. the "REQUIREMENT" to detain does not apply to US citizens. The OPTION to detain DOES in fact remain,

and is there is court precedent for that OPTION, in Padilla & Hamdi.

For the NDAA to *truly* "not apply" to US citizens, the language should have read "US citizens MAY NOT be detained without trial", IOW, the law *could* have been written to override the padilla/Hamdi precedents, but it wasn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28prisoner%29#District_Court_for_South_Carolina

[SunsetDreams]

10. "The Option to Detain does in fact remain" Where is that stated?

You said it in fact remains, where does it say that? Is this just inserting lines that do not exist, or did I miss where it said that in the bill?

[yodermon]

22. It's implied. The bill does not override the precedent set by the Padilla case.

On September 9, 2005, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit ruled that President Bush had the authority to detain Padilla without charges

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28prisoner%29#District_Court_for_South_Carolina

If a Padilla-style case were to happen again today, after the passage of NDAA, nothing in the NDAA can absolutely prevent, by power of law, Padilla's detention without charges.

The NDAA says "you are NOT REQUIRED to hold US citizens indefinitely without charges".
The NDAA does NOT say "you are PROHIBITED from holding US citizens indefinitely without charges."

these linguistic legal distinctions MATTER. A lot.

[phleshdef]

26. You can not be required to do something that you are still prohibited from doing.

You could pass a law that only says that I am not required to go outside my house and shoot random strangers in the face. That would not, by implication, overrule all the other laws that say I am prohibited from doing that. And thats exactly your argument. I don't buy it.

I agree that we need a more official re-recognition of our constitutional rights in this area because various laws and court decisions over the past decade have muddled it enough that we need to clear it up once and for all. But this NDAA is NOT the culprit. We pass an NDAA every year. All this one does is maintain the same muddled mess thats been maintained for 10 years now. And considering that it had the support of a vast, veto-proof majority, we shouldn't expect Congress to sort it out anytime soon. Its gotta come down to the courts. The Supreme Court needs to issue the right judgement, one that clearly restores Constitutional credibility to our national defense practices.

[yodermon]

31. shooting random strangers in the face is illegal by statute.

detention of us citizens without trial is not illegal by statute, per the Padilla case.

On September 9, 2005, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit ruled that President Bush had the authority to detain Padilla without charges

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28prisoner%29#District_Court_for_South_Carolina

obviously this is abhorrent, and when/if it's challenged in the supreme court, so much the better, but as of now the NDAA doesn't prohibit it. It would have been a simple matter to write the law to prohibit it, but they didn't.

[phleshdef]

37. The previous NDAA didn't prohibit it either, nor the one before that or the one before that.

Yes, I know all about the Padilla case. As I just said in the post you responded to, the muddled legal mess created over the past decade needs to be cleaned up and this NDAA doesn't do that.

But this NDAA is also not the source of the problem, by a longshot. In practicality, this NDAA is inconsequential to the problem either way. Until if/when the Supreme Court puts a stop to it, future Presidents could always claim this power using the same argument that Bush used.

[eomer]

25. It is stated in the text of Section 1021.

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF
THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the authority of the
President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40;
50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces
of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section
is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,
or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported
al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged
in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,
including any person who has committed a belligerent act or
has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
forces.
(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a
person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may
include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until
the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for
Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009
(title XVIII of Public Law 111–84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent
tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country
of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit
or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United
States.
(f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS.—The Secretary
of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application
of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘‘covered persons’’
for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf

From my reading of the signing statement, the President apparently interprets Section 1021 as codifying an already existing authority for the military to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely. So paragraph (e), which has been subject to much debate, does not prevent that authority to detain because the authority to detain already exists (according to the President).

Because his interpretation is that this authority already existed and now was codified by this new law, he makes a pledge in the signing statement to not use this authority that he has, when he says:

Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.

The above sentence wouldn't be necessary (or would be worded differently) if the President thought he didn't have that authority. He thinks he has it and is pledging not to use it. Of course, he can change his mind anytime he wants to and future Presidents are not bound by this pledge.

[gratuitous]

9. Will he be here all week? Should I try the veal? I will definitely tip the waitress

But I don't think stand-up is really a career option at this point.

Yeah, the Republicans are playing games. Capitulation isn't the way to stop the game-playing. And saying you had your fingers crossed when you signed the bill into law doesn't make the letter of the law go away. It isn't the President's job, it isn't Congress' job, it isn't the Supreme Court's job, to protect the United States. Their job is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, for without the Constitution, there is no United States to protect.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

13. So the choice is give up our Constitionally guaranteed rights --

or let the military go unfunded.

I say let them go unfunded.

O should have vetoed the bill and told the country why this was an unacceptable bill and let the Congress attempt an override.

But he didn't do that because he WANTED it, he wanted everything the bill was going to give him. He has no "serious reservations" about it -- that is nothing but talk supposed to absolve him with his supporters. His signing statement is also a cheap stunt to give the appearance that the Constitutional scholar really gives a shit.

It is about as worthless as the paper it was printed on. And he knows it. And it's a shame you don't.

[Spazito]

16. This is quite fascinating...

If the Bill is not challenged in the courts re the sections covered in the President's signing statement then the signing statement lays out the interpretation to be used by those who actually implement the policies in question and negates the unconstitutional portions of those sections.

If the Bill is challenged in the courts, the signing statement will NOT be taken into consideration by the courts given the precedent of Hamdi v Rumsfeld and, without the signing statement being taken into consideration, the portions of the bill in contention will be found to be unconstitutional for the same reasons the court used in it's decision re Hamdi v Rumsfeld.

If a future President ignores the signing statement, instructs his Administration to act in accordance with the sections of the bill and the worst case scenario depicted by some re the indefinite military detention without trial of an American citizen occurs, like in the case of Hamdi, it WILL be challenged in the courts as being unconstitutional.

Edited to add "occurs"

[frylock]

17. i, for one, welcome our new insect overlords

[comipinko]

32. Surprisingly, you seem to be one of many here who hold that view. SAD.

[frylock]

45. uh yeah, that was called sarcasm

[comipinko]

47. I know your comment was, sadly, mine was not.

[frylock]

56. sad indeed

peace

[PurityOfEssence]

61. Thanks, Kent

Our President's ass-covering as he sells us down the river is as tiresome as it is repetitive.

He's so much more concerned with going with the flow and being considered a legendary leader for the ages than he ever is for actually leading or standing up for anything. What--if anything--does he believe in, and for what will he actually stand up, risk something and stick fast?

I do like the recess appointments, though, but if Congress is technically in session, he's got some problems.

[EFerrari]

19. That entry at Politicus is so garbled, it makes no sense whatsoever.

It says indefinite detention doesn't apply to American citizens but, the president issued a signing statement to make sure it wouldn't apply to American citizens. It says that its application to American citizens is misinformation when that post itself misrepresents the revised legislation. It is littered with Bingo entries, too. What a mess that is.

Maybe the geniuses at Politicus should spend five minutes reading what every civil liberties and human rights organization says about NDAA and Obama's signing statement BEFORE putting out garbled misinformation themselves.

[Edweird]

27. Implying signing statements are binding....

[Zorra]

36. I disagree. We should never willingly give up our liberty because bullies give us ultimatums,

no matter what extenuating circumstances exist.

[99Forever]

39. Is this another of those WE'LL FIX IT LATER thingies?

That freakin' pile is gettin' purdy damn tall!

[comipinko]

48. Trust him!!

All you need is trust!!!!!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. Sure. We can trust the polticians and military to do the right thing.

Like they did in the "the gulf of Tonkin" incident and when they locked up thousands of Japanese-Americans.

[comipinko]

49. Those things never happened.

I do not "believe" , so it did not happen.

[ddeclue]

59. that and $1.25 will get you a cup of coffee...

It is insane not to veto this.

[SunsetDreams]

60. .