Three reasons to vote for Obama even though he signed NDAA

[frazzled]

15. A couple of points

In addition to the excellent summary of information you provide.

(1) It should also be noted (it seems to go without saying, but I think people forget this) that the NDAA was not just about this one issue. It was a huge, 565-page, $662 billion bill, created annually, that "authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counter-terrorism initiatives within the U.S. and abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide."

The consequences of vetoing it (which the president threatened to do, and for that reason did get a quasi-concession, though clearly not enough to avoid him issuing a stern signing statement) were fairly enormous: all US Defense operations, including soldiers' pay, and intelligence operations, would grind to a halt.

This is not to condone its contentious provision about detention, which has been discussed ad infinitum here. But to remind people what the stakes were. The amended language and the signing statement have given me, personally, assurance that this administration, at least, will not detain an American citizen in this country without charges or trial, or indefinitely under its watch. A new NDAA will have to be written and voted on before the current term of this administration ends--that is, for 2013. This is not, de facto, a permanent provision. I think people are best advised to move on to assuring that this language is taken out of the next NDAA.

(2) This is perhaps an aside that will be scorned. But I feel compelled to comment. It amazes me sometimes how a number of people here (and I don't know that they are coterminous with those who sincerely are alarmed at the NDAA provision, though certain well-discussed bloggers that have created contention on this board lately do fit in this double category) can speak highly of a candidate like Ron Paul for his stances on drugs or war, while completely ignoring his absolutely horrific stances on issues like economics, on totally gutting social programs like Medicare, Medicaid and SS, on race, on sexual orientation, etc. And yet this one single issue, they claim, makes them turn virulently on a president who has accomplished a broad range of progressive moves in these other areas. That, to me, speaks of another agenda. And it makes no sense.

You are right to explain to these people (though it will certainly fall on deaf ears) why they should support this president, despite the NDAA issue.