Yesterday, President Barack Obama addressed the nation briefly. Here are my thoughts and the video of that address, or, if you prefer, you can read the complete transcript. In addition, I have some research on the NDAA.
I think he gave too much credit to Republicans, who gave in, because not to do so would have been political suicide.
I am pleased that Obama intends to do what he can in 2012 to help the economy by executive order, rather than trying to negotiate with Republicans, who have repeatedly shown their willingness to sabotage America to hurt Obama.
I am disappointed that, at the last moment, Obama signed the Defense Budget, that contains the infamous NDAA. However, it does contain an amendment that it cannot affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States. The Non-Detention Act of 1971 does not permit the indefinite detention of US citizens. Realistically a veto would have done no good, as the margins by which the measure passed both houses is sufficient to override the veto. Congressional Democrats lack the stomach for a hostage situation involving defunding the entire military in an election year, and they believe the amendment noted above removes threat of indefinite detention of US citizens.
From the signing statement:
…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…
Inserted from <The Whitehouse>
This makes it clear that Obama sees it the same way.
12 Responses to “Obama’s New Year Message and the NDAA”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Last I checked, the United states Constitution prevents the indefinite detention without due process of American citizens.
Someone should invite the Rushpubliscums to some classes on the Bill of Rights.. It’ll be a change for Junket John Boehner, who reads little besides the jokes printed on cocktail napkins.
They believe in the Bill of Rights, but for them only.
It’s a very controversial issue and one that even with the amendment appears to contradict itself unnecessarily and confuses me entirely – what does it mean? – Sanders who I respect gave as one of his reasons for not signing the bill was because of the unlimited detention that it “states”, not to mention the fact that with the wars “winding down” the budget doesn’t – which in itself is objectionable – when the hawks would take money from the entitlement programs! Feinstein – seems to indicate that the bill with the amendment changes nothing in regard to detention! WTF! – Why was it modified then and amended – and is the amendment arbitrary – can the amendment be dropped by a republihawk dictator? So many questions —– My mind is not put at ease!
Lee, this is the Defense Budget. All budget bills have to begin in the House. Republicans there wrote the provisions to which we object in section 1022. Senate Democrats tried to strip those provisions, but Republicans blocked debate on an amendment to do so. Then Senate Democrats insisted they would not bring the bill to the floor without the amendment in 1021 and Obama said he would veto it if it did no include the 1021 language. What this does is it codifies practices that the Supreme Court has already deemed legal, while guaranteeing that US citizens are exempt. Nobody can say what a Republican might do in the future. They believe in the theory of the Unitary Executive (whatever the President does is legal), but they only believe it when a Republican is President.
Maybe at the beginning of the next new Congress, the republicans can read the Bill of Rights at the beginning.
Reading the Constitution didn’t keep them from ignoring it.
I eish Obama had vetoed it and sent it back to Congress without having only issued a signing statement…
So do I, Jack, but his veto would have been overridden, because he would have had to veto the entire Defense budget to do it.
From the signing statement — “. . .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…”
So “my Administration” is a scary way to phrase things. Does this signing statement bind all subsequent administrations? Just by its name, I think not, and that is reason for concern in my view. It would appear to leave the door unlocked for any future administrations to formulate their own interpretations, and in the case of a Republican/Teabagger administration, that is a “go straight to jail and do not collect $200” interpretation.
Is this a tactic for the rest of this year with the hopes that Mr Obama wins a 2nd term with a handy majority in Congress sufficient to repeal the Act? What were Democrats thinking when they signed this piece of legislation, leaving what was it, 11 votes against it that included Bernie Sanders? It seems there are a lot of politicians that are afraid of the big bad Republican/Teabagger wolf.
Lynn, it would be illegal to interpret it differently. See my reply to Lee.
I was thinking similarly to Lynn. Using such specific language often means other options will be available to successive administrations. It also bothers me that Obama specified the “military detention” of American citizens. Does that mean it could be open to Federal or other non-military detention? Language can be very tricky and, unfortunately, these days we must be ready for some joker(s) to turn meaning inside out. Remember the Supremes’ Citizen United case!
I don’t think so, Caity. Accusations have been flying right and left that Obama wants to detain Americans indefinitely. Obama’s specific language serves to refute those accusations, even though section 1021 forbids it anyway.