Breaking News: Obama to sign NDAA bill BUT also will issue a signing statement

[Tx4obama]

Last edited Thu Dec 22, 2011, 05:27 AM - Edit history (1)

on the part he disagrees with.

It was just now breaking news on The Rachel Maddow Show.

[gateley]

1. Just heart that!

Do we know -- did he publicly mention -- the part/parts he's unhappy with?

[Ian David]

2. He's unhappy with the part that cancels Eureka and Warehouse 13. n/t

[think]

5. I hate to admit it but I love Warehouse 13. Obama signing this NDAA not so much..

[one_voice]

6. They cancelled Warehouse 13? n/t

[Autumn]

22. Oh my God, .They cancelled Warehouse 13?

Just curious, what the hell is Warehouse 13???

[one_voice]

25. It's a tv show..

http://www.syfy.com/warehouse13/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warehouse_13

[gateley]

7. Hysterical. nt

[aletier_v]

3. words speak louder than actions?

[Autumn]

4. Which part does he disagree with? Anyone know?

But I got to say hearing that he is using a signing statement tickles me pink.

[jtrockville]

8. Is this Obama's first signing statement?

I despised signing statements when Bush issued them. But Bush issued way more than any other President.

[Tx4obama]

10. I'm not positive but I think Rachel said Obama's had less than 10.

I didn't catch everything she said.

I'll have to try to find a video or watch it on the repeat show.

[gateley]

31. Yeah, and Bush had HUNDREDS. nt

[joshcryer]

36. Signing statements basically hold no weight.

[karynnj]

17. You should realize that that was a RW theme

There were two bills - Kerry was for the funding bill that paid for the supplemental budget and against the Republican one that added it to the deficit. Kerry explained this on the floor of the Senate.

[karynnj]

46. No - that is not what happened

Kerry was taking unvetted questions and took one from a a person who asked why he voted agaisnt funding the troops. He explained - in detail - that he had voted for an alternative that he and Biden sponsored that would have provided oversight and which would have been paid for by rolling back the tax cut on the wealthiest - then voted no on the version that passed - in protest over the way it added the cost to the debt. Then after another question, a second person asked the same question. Kerry then answered with the unfortunate shorthand after saying he had just answered that. What he was guilty of was simply not thinking what those words sound like out of context. (The fact is that NO ONE will ever avoid all instances like this - unfortunately, the media ignored Kerry's explanation and the fact that it was TWO DIFFERENT VERSIONS of the bill - and that Bush had said that he would veto the version Kerry supported - so each had two positions.)

Kerry has no tendency to "misremember" and there was "nuance" involved here. As to explaining after the fact - he gave a Senate speech before any votes were cast stating his position on how this should be funded - there was never any suggestion that he wanted to not fund the war at that time.

[cthulu2016]

11. Are future presidents free to disregard that signing statement?

[Bolo Boffin]

14. Of course they are.

But if President Obama's reelected, that will be five years of this statement being honored, and maybe by then we can get the AUMF repealed, and with it, the end of indefinite detention.

[bigtree]

12. well, it might matter in court, but not as much as congress' intent

. . . and it can be reversed or ignored by another president. Of course, no one expects for republican presidents to pay any attention to the law.

[NorthCarolina]

13. The parts he's unhappy with...BOO HOO

Crocodile tears...he's signing it, he therefore backs all of its provisions 100%.

[Demeter]

18. I agree

There's nothing wrong with a principled veto. There's a lot wrong with an unprincipled signing with attached "signing statement".

[Warren Stupidity]

15. My guess:

He will officially disregard parts that interfere in any way with executive authority as it exists in the New Regime.

[frazzled]

16. Executive authority, meaning

he reserves the right to call for a civilian trial in a court of law rather than automatic military detention ordered by Congress. I, frankly, like that authority. Congress does not have the Constitutional right to restrain the Executive Branch in this way to put things directly into the hands of the military. I wish people understood what is being argued here when appeals to executive authority are made in this context.

[bigtree]

23. problem they have

. . . is that you have to rely on how you believe this President will behave. A future president could decide under the objectionable status quo (mostly unaltered by the provisions) to opt for military detention or military tribunals as this President has advocated for a number of the prisoners along with the civilian trials he's advocated and tried to move to against Congress' roadblocks and refusals to fund the moves.

I happen to believe you are correct about the intentions of this President in signing this bill. He's trying to desperately hold on to the last threads of authority to carry out the different initiatives he's made to transfer prisoners out of Gitmo. That's not to say that his prescription for doing that is some ideal, but he's definitely trying to preserve what little assumed authority he has to make any of that happen by agreeing to this legislation from a Congress which has been almost unanimously hostile to those intentions.

[frazzled]

26. Personally, I think ...

they feel that there is a huge Constitutional error in this bill, and that in the long run it cannot stand judicial scrutiny. They feel safe for the time being knowing that they themselves now have the ability to forestall its worst provisions, because the president has leeway (and will sign a statement of interpretation and intention on how it will be enforced, or rather not enforced). Their short-term alternative was to have no funding for a huge swath of the government.

Also, if I am correct, the National Defense Authorization Act must be enacted each year, to specify the budget and expenditures of the Department of Defense. It is wholly possible that the Defense Authorization Act of 2013 may contain no such provision. So it won't be an issue for the next president, whoever it is. I could be wrong in that the provision stays while the budget specifications change: but it is always possible to change the offending provision (just as it was added), either legislatively or through the courts.

That's why I'm not too worried about it for the moment; it's in relatively sane hands. We are right to worry about the future, but we must remember that no law is eternal and every law is open to radical change. The Supreme Court did not let Bush get away with revocation of habeas corpus, and I don't think they will let any president in the future.

It's a bad precedent, but it is not a judicial precedent, and thus far easier to change. I hope I'm making sense and not excuses.

[gateley]

32. I think you're making great sense and helped me understand it better. You should do this

as an OP -- especially when we learn WHAT the statement will be.

[sabrina 1]

37. It is in the hands of someone who used his authority to order the killing of two

US Citizens without even charging them. Detaining them indefinitely would have been better than that, at least there would have been hope that someday when we get a government that actually respects the rule of law and restores it, they might get a fair trial and might even have been found to be 'not guilty'. But they are dead so we will never know.

So, I do not feel safe at all. He should veto it as so many people have asked him to do. That would take real leadership though. A signing statement means nothing. It's an acknowledgement though that he knows he should not be signing away our Constitutional Rights, which in some ways is even more disturbing.

We have a Constitution for a reason. The FFs trusted NO ONE, including themselves as Thomas Jefferson said, with the kind of power entrusted to the POTUS. Now, we are giving presidents the powers of a king.

These powers will go to a Republican president also. HE had a chance to prevent that, just one more disappointment, although to be honest, I don't expect much anymore.

[Warren Stupidity]

44. and the issue cuts both ways

the signing order will reject congressional interference - claiming the unfettered power of the executive to decide to provide due process and rule of law as clearly defined in the constitution, or to not provide due process and rule of law, as the executive sees fit. This power allegedly derives from the war time authority of the executive during a point in time in our history when, conveniently, the alleged state of war is permanent and its scope is global.

What will not be addressed is the fact that we have discarded much of the bill of rights over the last three decades, at an accelerating pace since 2001, to the point where there is a growing consensus that we are in a New Regime, and that the Republic, the constitutional representative democracy founded in 1789, has been discarded.

[dreamnightwind]

19. That seems like a cop-out to me

This bill needed to be vetoed, it gives powers to the POTUS that go well beyond what should exist in a free society. I guess we have free enterprise as opposed to free citizens.

[Tx4obama]

24. No it does NOT do that.

It states in either Section 1021 or 1022 that there is no additional new powers given to the Executive branch.

And in Section 1021 clause (e) it says that NOTHING in that section changes 'current law'.

If you think 'YOUR' statement is still correct than please provide specifics of what you're referring to, thank you

[DisgustipatedinCA]

28. here are a few specifics

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/did-congress-just-endorse-rendition-americans

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/opinion/guantanamo-forever.html?_r=4&scp=1&sq=Guantanamo%20forever&st=cse

...and you know I could show you 20 more. Just as I could show you 20 articles where people are arguing that nothing new is in the provisions r.e. indefinite detention. And then I could show you the astute analysis that says the thing that's new is that this is being hard-codified into law, whereas it was in a murky legal are before--unsettled law. And we could both look at McCain's statement that he interprets the language to mean Americans can be held indefinitely. Here's what we also know: this WILL be litigated, and it WILL be pushed to the point of having to be court-tested. When a law like this gets passed, those whose actions are governed by that law will often try to see how far they can go. Get a republican administration in office, and it's guaranteed (not that I have much faith in this administration on these matters).

As I recall, the other poster said this law gives the president too much power. I think there's more than ample evidence to support the other poster's opinion. I'm not trying to win an argument with you, because I already understand you're not ever to be swayed on certain issues. I'm trying to make you see that you're not going to be able to "section 1021" this out of existence by proving that some certain combination of words exists at some certain place in some certain document. You can't find a thing that's going to prove you're entirely right. I can't either. Refer to previous comment about litigation--it's going to happen, and this won't be settled for a long, long time. It's a mess, and hell yes it's too much power to put into the hands of the president.

[Tx4obama]

29. Like I said in my previous comment

the BILL does NOT give the president any 'additional powers' that he does not have currently.

And 'Clause (e)' was added to Section 1021 due to the Feinstein amendment and that clearly states that nothing in the section changes 'current law'

And Section 1022 states that US citizens are exempt from indefinite detention by the 'military'.

I gave you the specific Sections numbers to the bill in question so that you can look in the bill and can read the exact language of Sections 1021 and 1022.

You on the other hand sent me a link to an OP-Ed that that has it's Title written as a question, and the other link only to me to a log in page.

Yes, there are tons of 'articles' out there that all have differing 'opinions' and even some are filled with mistakes - and tons of folks all around the internet stating what they believe, but the text in the actual bill is what should be read instead of what other people say

Anyway, we can agree to disagree - all I wanted to do originally was to let you know that 'the bill' does not give 'The President' any 'additional' powers.

Ciao

[TheKentuckian]

20. He owns it

[Logical]

21. This is GREAT news and Obama deserves props for this!!!

[MadHound]

27. "I won't use this now codified presidential power,

I'll just leave it on the books for the next president to use."

I guess it just isn't bipartisan enough for Obama to veto a POS attack on the civil liberties of this country.

[Tx4obama]

30. Why is it that folks want to use the bill to change 'current law'?

and have the bill do something it is not supposed to do?

Like I said in a previous comment on this thread....

The BILL does NOT give the president any 'additional powers' that he does not have currently.

And 'Clause (e)' was added to Section 1021 due to the Feinstein amendment and that clearly states that nothing in the section changes 'current law'

And Section 1022 states that US citizens are exempt from indefinite detention by the 'military'.


I think if folks want 'current law' changed in regards to executive power then that's fine, but it shouldn't be done via the NDAA bill (in a section that pertains to the 'military' and not The President), it should be done by introducing a separate bill amending the current law wherever that law might be.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

33. Codified. It's the same term you ignored from me above.

Then again. I'm still aware that you won't be receptive to hearing other views on this subject.

But hope springs eternal, at least on a part-time basis. These powers have been claimed, and they've been used. They were on shaky legal footing--law that hadn't been settled. Now the powers are codified into law. There is an actual and meaningful difference between those two states.

[MFrohike]

34. Relevant sections are 1031 and 1032

1031 exempts citizens from the provisions of its section. 1032 exempts citizens from required detention. There is no cross-reference between the two sections. On its face, 1032 does not require detention of citizens but does not explicitly prohibit it, either.

[Tx4obama]

35. The numbers of those two sections are 'now' 1021 and 1022

After The House passed the bill and voted on the conference report the numbers changed, so 1021 and 1022 are the section numbers in the final bill that is being sent to President Obama.

[MFrohike]

39. I see

I was working with the senate version, so my mistake.

[Tx4obama]

40. That's okay - for a couple days I was telling folks the wrong numbers too

then someone explained to me why the numbers changed

[MadHound]

45. It codifies the Bush powers of being able to indefinitely detain "enemy combatants"

Why do people continue to deny this?

[Tx4obama]

41. Maddow: Breaking news segment video regarding NDAA bill & Obama's Signing Statement - VIDEO LINK

Rachel Maddow: Breaking news segment regarding NDAA bill & Obama's Signing Statement

VIDEO here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#45759918

[piratefish08]

42. if the bill is so super extra double good, as clearly explained here on DU

then why does it need a signing statement?

[Tx4obama]

43. It has nothing to do with being clear or not.

Presidents issue signing statements when there's something in the bill they disagree with.

We haven't heard yet what Obama's signing statement will be in regards to.

I added a VIDEO link in the OP, what Rachel says in the video is all we know so far.