Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed speculation Wednesday that President Barack Obama would issue a signing statement when he makes the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and its controversial detention provisions law.
“We made really substantial progress in moving from something that was really unacceptable to the administration to something with which we still have problems,” Holder said in response to a question from the Wall Street Journal’s Evan Perez. “But I think through these procedures, with these regulations we will be crafting, we can minimize the problems that will actually affect us in an operational way.”
Holder said the language of the NDAA had been moved in a “substantial way” from some of the original language which led the president to issue a veto threat.
“So we are in a better place, I think the regulations, procedures that will help, and we’ll also have a signing statement from the president” which will help clarify how they view the law, Holder said.
Ryan J. Reilly
Ryan J. Reilly is a D.C.-based reporter for TPM. Prior to joining TPM, he worked for a news website covering the Justice Department and was a researcher for Bloomberg News. His email address is ryan(at)talkingpointsmemo.com.
put me in JAIL for saying Obama is a FRAUD who has deceived America- not only by FORGING his birth certificate but by completely hiding & destroying his criminal past history- He even surrendered his LAW license to avoid investigation & even his kindergarten records are sealed- Have you ever wondered why? jusrt GOOGLE "LARRY SINCLAIR" to hear his old friend talk about their criminal past- Obama has tried to setup & smear Larry as a liar but somehow I believe Larry because a decent man would not spend millions in hiding his past history- we DO know that he went to Harvard but records from Columbia are missing and alotta other records are hidden-
I have a hard time understanding why US citizens being exempted even matters.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Where does it say that only US citizens have rights? ALL men, UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, LIFE LIBERTY, and PROPERTY, and permission to get rid of a government that would trample these rights. Seems real clear to me!
FreeInTX
True all men are born with the Right to Life Liberty and Happiness, BUT when some men decide to enter the United States of America with the sole intent of destroying the rights of it's citizens, they forfeit their Rights. To allow them to using our laws as a tool to destroy our sovereignty is Idiotic
American attitude needs to be “Love it or Leave it.” Would you let someone come into your home tell you what to do, smack you children, rape you wife and tell you to move out because they do not like you rules.
Tony RussomannoFreeInTX Unalieable rights can't be taken away unless the individual chooses to surrender them. These are declared in the Declaration of Independence. Are you suggesting this is incorrect? That those who CREATED America were incorrect? That unalieable rights are unAmerican? Unalieable means unalieable. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. So just so I understand your point. The Declaration of Independence is not American, but having an attitude of Love it or Leave it is really what America is about. I'm not sure whether I should laugh or cry.
Barack Obama will now be a (corrupt) one-term President after signing this act that includes the anti-Civil Liberties provision.
Here, Lawfare has a good FAQ on the bill here: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guid.... This should provide a better analysis than the inane, and oft-repeated here, "READ THE BILL" and incorrect assertion that it does not allow for the indefinite detention of citizens. It does slightly expand military detention authority, but leaves the citizen detention untouched. In other words, it can in the future allow for the indefinite detention of citizens, but it does not mandate it. That issue is still to be adjudicated. Some lawmakers would approve of such measures for terrorism suspects who are U.S. citizens (Graham, Sessions, McCain, etc. as purported in the Senate debates) and some would not, which is likely why the issue ultimately went unaddressed. Again, it is deplorable that the Senate did not adopt the Udall Amendment.
Schrodinger Cat Wittes & McChesney examine only part of the issue. I explain in some detail the implications of the bill -- and how it could indeed authorize the potential detention of U.S. citizens, and for even non-violent speech crimes, at that -- here: http://my.firedoglake.com/shahidbuttar/2011/12/23/.... Simply reading the bill isn't enough: you have to consider the surrounding context, and how multiple pieces of legislation fit together, to understand its full import.
@SchrodingerCat I have read the BS over at Law-FARE (warfare with law?) and while THEY, the bunch of idiot LIARS over at this non-sensisical site say it does not apply to US citizens, House members and Senators, including the sponsors of the bill, say otherwise! Are you going to believe a bunch of lawyers that talk about the need to restrict liberties for safety, or to the actual sponsors of the bill who discuss that the President SPECIFICALLY intended to include American citizens? Search "Carl Levin (sponsor of the bill) discusses Obama and NDAA" and listen to HIM tell you that this bill not only includes US citizens to be in the mix for full detention and torture, but that the President promised to veto it if it did NOT include US citizens!
Further, you comment, "In other words, it can in the future allow for indefinite detention of citizens, but it does not mandate it," IS RETARDED! Are you so dumb as to fail to understand that the government can NOT lawfully detain citizens and deny them a jury trial, let a lone mandate it, and the very issue is that they believe that they CAN do it, not must do it?
These people are TRAITORS and should be arrested, tried, convicted by a jury that they would not let us have, and then HUNG for their treason!
Obama is the traitor I voted for in 2008. Ron Paul is the patriot I will vote for in 2012.
Presidential "Signing Statements" are political propaganda pieces. They have no basis in the Constitution, and have NEVER carried any legal weight. They do not alter the terms or enforceability of the legislation they refer to in any way. But don't take my word for it, Sheeple. Do your own homework - for once - or pay a blood-sucking lawyer to do it for you.
Watchingfrogs Boil They may not have legal weight. but they do have weight in the real world if everybody goes along with them, as they started doing with Bush and apparently plan to continue doing with Obama. Now tell me this, Mr. Frog, who sees himself as being so high and mighty and above other animals like sheep - how are you going to stop them from treating these signing statements as law without blood-sucking lawyers, or blood-sucking judges or blood-sucking legislators on your side?
I think you miss the point: It's not what you say, but what you actuall do, that counts.
mattlove1Watchingfrogs Boil
A letter from a Federal Judge saying US Citizens are not exempt,was introduced and entered into the record right before the House voted on the bill. I saw it live on CSPAN, it wasn't second hand info, the ACLU agrees, they also introduced, a statement from a retired FBI director that says Citizens were not exempt and several other Legal people. These are the facts, Live introduced on the Floor of the House.
A Federal JUDGE said it does not exempt US Citizens, anyone that believes something else is sadly misinformed.
John Montgomery Can you give us the reference on what the judge said, and where? And from what does it not exempt us? From changes put in place by this act, or from language in preexisting law?
So help me understand where I'm missing this.<blockquote>Sec. 1031 (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.</blockquote>and later<blockquote>(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.— (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.</blockquote>Admittedly, this latter subsection (b) merely waives the requirement, and doesn't prohibit the practice. Still, this act is not yet constructed to add the offending feature to the body of law. I fail to see how this document adds any non-preexisting detention powers. If it has any dreadful features, it is only that it brings up the subject of existing draconia without rescinding them. What am I missing?
theJohn Montgomery Thank you for clarification.
rissmanpeughthe he is wrong go look at the ACLU and read what it actually says to a COURT.
the It was on CSPAN right before the bill was voted on go look there also the ACLU says citizen are not exempt you post words regular people don't understand because they are lawyer speak means absolutely nothing. I have seen the words I am not a lawyer, legal people say citizens are not exempt, and people that don't understand the words, posting them doesn't make lawyers and Federal Judge wrong.
John Montgomerythe Actual link please. The last thing ACLU has in the detention section of their website predates the conference report, and therefore simply doesn't apply to the final language of the bill. It also mentions nothing of a federal judge.
Also, which House vote are you talking about? There were many. Most of them were not on the final version of the bill.
the "The requirement" its not required which means in lawyer speak it can be permitted, please go look at what the ACLU says ! YOU ARE NOT A LAWYER !
Exactly John!!The military or arresting authority isn't "REQUIRED" to detain an American citizen indefinitely, but that same authority may still do so if they decide to. This provision does not exclude Americans, it includes them!
John Montgomerythe
John Montgomery As I wrote above, "Admittedly, this latter subsection (b) merely waives the requirement, and doesn't prohibit the practice." So you are not telling me anything I haven't already said. I can read. I don't have to be a lawyer to understand English.
I also send $13 a month to the ACLU. I hope you are also a supporter.
Finally, I apologize for the HTML tags I put in, hoping they would work here. They don't.
You should cancel you $13 (what a coincidence) a month to the criminal scumbag lawyers o ver at the ACLU!
What is the proper response to a cop, a DA, a Judge, a House member, a Senator, an AG, or even a President committing a crime? For the ACLU it is a civil suit that forces taxpayers to give them money for the actions of the criminals. For anyone with a sane mind, its arrest, trial, conviction, punishment. Ever hear the ACLU call for the arrest of a criminal politician? Look at Tony Balona in NYC and OccupyWallStreet. Have you heard the ACLU call for an indictment of the cop who ran up to 20 year old women and pepper sprayed them only to then run off and do it again later that day, to the same women?
Is the ACLU calling for the indictment of those involved in shipping in tons of Sinaloa coke and paying for it with fireams bought by US taxpayers, in an effort to demonize the 2nd amendment and gun shows? (Operation Fast and Furious) The ACLU sucks, but even a broken clock gets it right twice a day.
John Montgomery
theJohn Montgomery That's not the final version.
The final version does state explicitly that the NDAA gives no new authority to detain US citizens, lawful residents of the US, or anyone apprehended within the US regardless of citizenship.
sullivanstJohn Montgomery My point exactly. If we're in trouble, it's old trouble that we've been in since the AUMF that Kerry was for before he was against, and which contained language that Bush violated, requiring him to use force only after every effort had been made to achieve a solution peacefully. In fact, he declared that Saddam had kicked out the weapons inspectors, saying it on TV at the very same moment that CNN was showing the inspectors doing their work unmolested, in every single place they asked to see.
This Act is not the problem. That one in 2003 is the problem, and it all stems from the Bush Administration.
Carl Levin, the sponsor of the bill, has said OTHERWISE! Duh! sullivanst the John Montgomery
That it exempts the restrictions for the DHS and the President for if they decide to detain US citizens for reasons of National Security.
Again, even the sponsor of the Senate Bill said that it includes US citizens AND that the president himself promised to veto the bill if it did NOT include US citizens.the John Montgomery
MSM is not covering this story AT ALL. Everyone is dutifully distracted by the faux feud between the parties while their rights of American citizens are being taken away by nearly unanimous consent of both parties. I guess we deserve it since, as Americans, we weren’t vigilant. Too bad.
2jays If you want Americans to be vigilant, how about you set an example and read the bill?
sullivanst I have.
2jays Then why are you claiming it does things that its plain language clearly states that it does not do?
sullivanst You are mistaken.
2jays Nope, you just don't understand what you have read, apparently.
"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."
That's three categories of people whose rights are explicitly not taken away by the NDAA:
(1) US citizens;
(2) Lawful residents of the US; and
(3) Anyone captured or arrested in the US, regardless of citizenship
Plain language, with an unambiguous construction under well-defined rules for interpreting the law.
sullivanst2jays A Federal JUDGE said it does not exempt US Citizens, anyone that believes something else is sadly misinformed.
It reads: “Nothing IN THIS SECTION shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens”
See Glenn Greenwald’s article in Salon:
“Three myths about the detention bill”
Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_...
Also, you state that it’s “Plain language, with an unambiguous construction under well-defined rules for interpreting the law”. Of course you could interpret it that way if you didn’t study it; which you obviously haven’t.
2jays That piece contains at least three obvious attempts to mislead readers. Apparently they all worked on you. The first two involve highlighting small parts of sentences and analysing only the highlighted parts as if the important modifiers not highlighted did not exist. This is the third. Greenwald deliberately fails to inform his readers of the rules for interpreting legislation, even though he knows them perfectly well, because doing so would lessen the value of his click-bait. Glenn knows for sure that the phrase "captured or arrested in the United States" applies ONLY to "any other persons", because a modifier after a list is *ALWAYS* interpreted as applying only to the last member of the list, and because applying it to the whole list in this case would make the distinction between citizens, residents and other persons entirely redundant and permissible interpretation of a statute must give a meaning to every word wherever possible.
John Montgomery2jays I presume you're referring to the letter read into the record by Rep. Conyers. The letter was dated 12/9; the conference report was issued 12/12. You do the math. What's more, the argument in the letter makes no sense at all. It boils down to Sessions stating that because this bill doesn't change the law relating to detaining citizens, it changes the law relating to detaining citizens. That's facially ridiculous.
Sessions also acknowledges that the reason that there is any doubt over the question is that on the two times Bush's assertions of the right to detain indefinitely citizens or residents apprehended within the US were about to reach the SCOTUS, the Bush admin decided to move the cases to civilian court rather than avoid the serious risk of losing. Yet Sessions asserts, without explanation, that because Bush made a claim of authority, this bill "explicitly" validates that claim. It absolutely does not "explicitly" do so. That's also facially ridiculous.
For a little background, Sessions was appointed to the judiciary by Nixon, made Director of the FBI by Reagan and dismissed by Clinton after Reno announced he'd shown "serious deficiencies in judgement". His fathering abilities are also drawn into question by the way his son, the truly odious Pete Sessions, turned out.
John Montgomery2jays Correction: appointed by Ford, not Nixon.
2jays "MSM is not covering this story AT ALL" Not true...Rachel Maddow is on this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfiqTQS91Gs
I don't consider Rachel MSM. Good for her though. America needs more people like her so that she does represent the main-stream.
2jays This nation could actually do without her and people like her who only want to lick Keith Olberman's left testicle. We need people in the press/media/et cetera who do not make their political bias so blatantly obvious. It's called professionalism, journalists and anybody on a cable news channel should have it.
poagcg2jays I don't think she wants to lick his testicle. Admittedly that's just a hunch on my part. Regardless of how you feel about her on-air-poltics, the fact that she had a segment on NDAA when the whole of MSM neglected this story makes her a professional in my book; she should be commended for it. Speaking of which, I wonder if she took any heat from her bosses on MSNBC for doing this story?
While the changes from the conference committee were substantial, they hardly limit the ways in which the military detention authorities expanded by the NDAA could be abused in the future. The mere possibility of the politicization of such powers -- which has happened everywhere else they have been adopted -- should be enough to keep them from becoming law. The failure of our leaders in Congress and the White House to abide by their constitutional oaths, however, does create an opportunity for grassroots action: raise your voice both online (at http://bordc.org/ndaa/) and offline (at any of the dozens of events around the country posted at http://bordc.org/ndaa/map.php).
shahid.buttar Both links are expired. good to know about the group though
Obama on Presidential Signing Statements
I don't trust him as far as I could throw him!He hasn't done anything to inspire trust,quite the opposite,the list of broken promises is growing.Increase the capital gains and dividends taxes for higher-income taxpayers,Expand the child and dependent care credit,Create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners,End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000,Repeal the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes,Phase out exemptions and deductions for higher earners,my personal beef,Sign the Employee Free Choice Act, making it easier for workers to unionize,Develop an alternative to President Bush's Military Commissions Act on handling detainees,Close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center.The list goes on.Now He's signing my constitutional rights away,He's scarier than Bush.
Catie Mccarthy don't be silly.
"silly"? Talk about out of touch...
eannieCatie Mccarthy That's not silly, that's stupid.
BUCK MCKEON is the PUNK REPUBLICAN who proposed the DETAINEE SECURITY ACT which scrapped THE BILL OF RIGHTS. THIS COWARDLY PUSS WANTED TO PULL SOMETHING REAL CHICKENSH-T THEN SKULK OFF INTO RETIREMENT. Her company, COUNTRYWIDE, was part of the $700 BILLION BAILOUT. S/he has a vested interest in putting us in prison if we try to investigate her involvment in THE LARGEST RIPOFF OF ANY PEOPLE IN HISTORY. AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE DETAINEE SECURITY ACT IS FOR. They'll MAKE US DISAPPEAR if we try to bring the government (i.e. the "jewish" bankers who control our government) to justice for their TREASON. Anybody who's familiar with the NAZIFICATION OF GERMANY can see it's now happening in AMERICA. If you're not familiar, read THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH. REAL CHRISTIANS and REAL AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES need to bombard this DISGRACEFUL HOMO with emails and faxes (Fax: 661-274-8744). Also, we need to get some pictures of this guy being SODOMIZED BY THE "JEWS" who (mis)run America. To be published worldwide. PATRIOTS, DO YOUR DUTY. http://mckeon.house.gov/
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like