Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Chris Hedges Responds to NDAA Defeat, "It is a black day for those who care about liberty" [View all]struggle4progress
(118,379 posts)42. Let's remember what Mr Obama said about NDAA 2012 on signing it:
... Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not "limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any "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." My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.
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. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.
I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa'ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540
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. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations.
I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa'ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
111 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Chris Hedges Responds to NDAA Defeat, "It is a black day for those who care about liberty" [View all]
Catherina
Jul 2013
OP
The Court turning a blind eye to this bad law is not the same as annulling it.
99th_Monkey
Jul 2013
#30
The loaded gun is the 2001 AUMF, which Congress should repeal or amend substantially nt
geek tragedy
Jul 2013
#101
right this is what we were all debating on here when it was first written.
limpyhobbler
Jul 2013
#79
Lol, there you go again. The president claims to have the right to order the killing of an
sabrina 1
Jul 2013
#71
No, it has not said any such thing. It defers to the AUMF by NOT being specific, and under the AUMF
sabrina 1
Jul 2013
#73
No, we do not agree. The NDAA does not forbid the executive branch from detaining
sabrina 1
Jul 2013
#75
Big brother will not tolerate the impertinence of anyone trying to halt the steady assault on our
indepat
Jul 2013
#8
Did not read this opinion, but just summed up my cynical take on what has been transpiring
indepat
Jul 2013
#21
The court ruled that the NDAA doesn't authorize the detention of American citizens.
geek tragedy
Jul 2013
#24
I had read that: sounds like big brother has been overstepping in its zeal not to be accused of
indepat
Jul 2013
#33
District judge agreed, but the 2nd circuit overruled district judge. HOWEVER
geek tragedy
Jul 2013
#20
Wrong. It says Americans can be classified as enemy combatants and detained indefinitely now.
Octafish
Jul 2013
#53
K&R. Bad news, but the ACLU will keep up the fight. Also, maybe another whistle-blower like Snowden
quinnox
Jul 2013
#26
And Yet, Many Reflexively Genuflect To Authority When The Exsanguination Of Democracy Is Exposed
cantbeserious
Jul 2013
#29
So, as I read the decision, citizens cannot challenge the NDAA language regarding
struggle4progress
Jul 2013
#35
The Conference Report on the Bill was over 1000 pages long, reflecting the length of the bill and
struggle4progress
Jul 2013
#82