NDAA Bill Signed



“Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.”

right

He also said he has great reservations about signing it into law. But does it anyway...hmm.
 
loyolabenson said:
“My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” Obama said in the signing statement. “Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.”
Click to expand...


First, talk is cheap. Pols lie. He lies.

Second, his administration may be shown the door soon, and certainly in a few years. Not only is his talk cheap, but it is meaningless.
 
6274635m6b4.jpg
 
Did anyone bother to read the article? Feels awful knee-jerky around here.

From TFA:
The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.
Click to expand...
Not that I care to waste time defending the Obama admin or this bill, but let's be honest at least.
 
I'm sure it's no accident that he signed it on New Year's Eve while everyone is preoccupied with getting fucked up.
 
Pseudo Nym said:
Did anyone bother to read the article? Feels awful knee-jerky around here.

From TFA:
Not that I care to waste time defending the Obama admin or this bill, but let's be honest at least.
Click to expand...
I have an open mind to anything. Let's be honest, we have to actually see the bill and what amendments were added before we come to conclusions on either side of the fence.
 
loyolabenson said:
I have an open mind to anything. Let's be honest, we have to actually see the bill and what amendments were added before we come to conclusions on either side of the fence.
Click to expand...

Help yourself. It's a little long, though. The part that seems to have people riled up is section 1021, which is short enough to quote in full:

H.R. 1540 said:
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
​
(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
​
(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.

(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be ‘covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).
Click to expand...
 
Something else this very bill did was place many further sanctions on Iran...

Worse yet, Obama signed this bill at about the same time Iran begged to get everyone back to the bargaining table on their nuclear talks.

Awfully co-inky-dinky, wouldn't you say?

Here's how I see it going down...

A. US puts troops all around Iran and pressures them from every angle.
B. Iran holds military drills and proclaims that if we have any further sanctions, they'll close the strait of Hormuz.
C. US Military says we'll combat them if they try.
D. Iran, feeling like we called their bluff, says: "Hey, come back and talk more, it's cool, no really!"
E. Without any time to lose, Obama signs the only bill on his desk that really does call their bluff and puts the sanctions on Iran.

Now Iran has to close the strait. If they don't they look like cowards and liars. If they do they start war against us while we've got them surrounded.

Dudes, this is it. Place your bets.
 
I'm still trying to decide if he's a worse president than Nixon. He's working real hard at it now and getting pretty close.
 
Pseudo Nym said:
Did anyone bother to read the article? Feels awful knee-jerky around here.

From TFA:
Not that I care to waste time defending the Obama admin or this bill, but let's be honest at least.
Click to expand...

They dropped the REQUIREMENT for terrorism suspects to be held by the military, not the authorization allowing the military to indefinitely hold US citizens without trial. Well, not indefinitely, but just until the end of hostilities, so until say 2080 or so.

That's the worst part. Obama didn't even care about the whole indefinite detention without trial thing. He only cared about being able to overrule the new law, and be able to choose whether the person is to be prosecuted under military or civilian law.
 
Kiopa_Matt said:
They dropped the REQUIREMENT for terrorism suspects to be held by the military, not the authorization allowing the military to indefinitely hold US citizens without trial.
Click to expand...

So but this bill doesn't seem to change anything with regard to US citizens? It's explicitly stated in subsection(e) from section 1021:

(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.
Click to expand...
There seems to be some debate over whether indefinite detention of US citizens is already lawful (under the AUMF), but the version of the NDAA that was just passed doesn't appear to change anything in that regard either way.

I'm happy to be wrong, but please source your claims.
 
lukep said:
Something else this very bill did was place many further sanctions on Iran...

Worse yet, Obama signed this bill at about the same time Iran begged to get everyone back to the bargaining table on their nuclear talks.

Awfully co-inky-dinky, wouldn't you say?

Here's how I see it going down...

A. US puts troops all around Iran and pressures them from every angle.
B. Iran holds military drills and proclaims that if we have any further sanctions, they'll close the strait of Hormuz.
C. US Military says we'll combat them if they try.
D. Iran, feeling like we called their bluff, says: "Hey, come back and talk more, it's cool, no really!"
E. Without any time to lose, Obama signs the only bill on his desk that really does call their bluff and puts the sanctions on Iran.

Now Iran has to close the strait. If they don't they look like cowards and liars. If they do they start war against us while we've got them surrounded.

Dudes, this is it. Place your bets.
Click to expand...

It'll depend if the EU carries through with banning oil imports. The UK's position is clear but many of the other member states are on long term credit agreements with Iran and so not keen on the deal. (cough cough umm Greece).

This won't happen unless Nukes are praded down the high street of Tehran, trust me. Even if the EU wasn't gutless thanks to the fine economic position the EU governments have created they won't risk oil prices making the situation worse - infact Iran will probably always have a customer even without China.

Trust me principles will be out the window.

The other aspect which makes this interesting (if thats the right terminology) is the massive internal struggle going on in Iran itself. Iran isn't as good as China when it comes to suppression of dissent.

Sharia law and a dictator I'm sure are a great political system, but there seems to be a slight bit of unrest in the area and I'd bet a good percentage of the Iranian people (from my experience) are smart enough to know who's really fucking them over here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom