Earlier in the legislative process for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), several libertarian bloggers argued that the NDAA would be unconstitutionally harmful to civil liberties and should be vetoed. Obama said he would veto it. That forced the House and Senate to negotiate a compromise in conference over what revisions would make the bill safe from a veto. But the White House’s veto threat suddenly seemed too good to be true for some critics.
The debate devolved into the conspiracy theory that Obama would never veto the NDAA bill because he secretly didn’t want to, despite his words to the contrary. When the White House later announced that the president would not veto the version of the NDAA which emerged from conference, the same critics proclaimed this decision was proof of Obama’s sellout and treachery all along. But this notion of selling out depended on the conference report remaining largely unchanged from the version that the White House had said it would veto.
In reality, the conference report was substantially revised and made veto unworthy. It’s really not that complicated — the original bill (particularly the House version) sucked, Obama threatened to kill it if the horrible provisions survived, Congress revised it, and Obama agreed to the revised version. Much like any negotiation.
I will admit that I have not lived and breathed the negotiations of the NDAA. A good resource for intelligent, reasonable discussion of the NDAA, including the text of the statute, can be found at http://www.lawfareblog.com I think you will find that while the final version of the bill (the conference report) still remains ambiguous in important respects and could be improved, the areas that presented the most troubling, veto-worthy provisions have either been eliminated, rendered harmless or made consistent with preexisting law. That is how the lawmaking process should work, particularly with a divided Congress.
Thanks for posting this. It’s really disheartening how many people seem unaware that the NDAA was amended from the form it was originally passed – and how many people seem to be knowingly promoting a misleading understanding. I’ve been sharing links to the Lawfare Blog with as many people as I can.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/12/14/false-ndaa-rumors-spread-through-social-networks-obama-did-not-sign-the-bill/
Actually, this language does not make the bill substantially better. Please check out the bi-partisan letter and clarifications from Rep. Justin Amash. Before anyone points out that he’s a Republican, the letter was co-signed by a number of Dems., notably Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers.
http://amash.house.gov/press-release/amash-stop-indefinite-detention-americans
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Famash.house.gov%2Fsites%2Famash.house.gov%2Ffiles%2FNDAAdearcolleague.pdf&h=gAQFLYnnzAQErLNr8Bf4bx8s5-uAx0WtnMeAbU1hfU6KvTg
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Famash.house.gov%2Fsites%2Famash.house.gov%2Ffiles%2F121411NDAAFactSheet.pdf&h=MAQGjSEfiAQEecgCdby0DGNnbDC2gyBcAAvn1IN_RyLwBeA
I just posted 2 comments saying how disappointed I was in this president but after reading this I don’t know who to rely on to get accurate information. I guess even so called truth tellers can’t be trusted. Thanks for posting this, this needs to be spread there’s alot of misinformed ppl out there
I guess all the low-information liberals will dial it back now? No?
The bottom line is that the bill still violates constitutional rights. It codifies indefinite detention without trial, on the president’s say-so.
If you seriously think Obama is an improvement in the area of civil liberties, you aren’t paying attention. At least read Glenn Greenwald, if you do not already.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/14/aclu-deputy-legal-director-ndaa-still-awful-despite-changes/
You’re not gonna get any love for GG here, just saying
That’s just because he’s a loathsome, perpetually negative, hypocritical, presumptuous, grandstanding Cato Institute Libertarian who loves the sound of his own voice more than anything else on earth.
Other than that, he’s not a bad guy.
I would rather squeeze a lemon in my eyes then read one paragraph by that charlatan poseur. Unless it is some guide on what caftan to wear while swanning about in Brazil.
Now toddle along and tell Greenwald that you showed ‘em at ABL. Maybe you will jump the line to get housing in his colon.
The revision looks, to me, like a small improvement over the House version. The revision does not comply with strict civil liberty standards.
There is a lot of ‘awfulizing’ going on regarding terrorists. I think that the legal system is fully capable of dealing with actual terrorists. We do not need draconian methods. People do tend to panic.
1) I’m pretty sure libertarians, whether they cloak themselves with guise of “progressive” or not, will never like ANYTHING Obama signs.
2) You want better laws? THEN ELECT A BETTER CONGRESS. durr.
I am NOT a “libertarian.” They support capitalism and deregulation (you know, just like your precious Democratic Party) and I do not.
But seeing how libertarian candidates are lucky if they even manage to get elected to local water boards, it makes the anti-libertarian sentiment that’s popped up on the liberal/ersatz-leftist blogosphere all the more stupid and hypocritical.
So should we be worried or not?
I’m confused with this bill.
I’m not worried. Remember, it hasn’t gotten to the Senate yet. I’m sure Reid will insist on getting rid of the offending provisions still in the bill before the Senate will even look at it. This is just another artificial controversy whipped up by the far-Left loonies like Greenwald and Hamsher.
“far-Left loonies”
Funny, you sound like a Republican teabagger.
You seem to be under the mis-impression that all the words you see on your computer screen are directed at you. Let me assure you that no one here knows you exist, or cares what you think, and no one here wrote any comment with the intent of describing your beliefs.
Aw, looks like I struck a nerve. Too bad.
And hey, you and the rest of your ersatz-leftist ilk are the ones denouncing every (left-of-center) person who dares to say a less-than-positive word about Obama and the pro-capitalist Democratic Party and seeing them as one and the same, so excuse me for giving my rebuttal to that.
I don’t know. I’m still wondering why the President stopped threatening the veto.
I mean, indefinite suspension is still there…
Is it possible for you to have a discussion on NDAA without resorting to attacking Glenn Greenwald, as if that has anything to do with the particulars of the act and its provisions?
To support this bill or its signing is to support the indefinite detention of prisoners against all international law and precedent. It is to support the perpetuation of unending war, via endorsement of the AUMF (notwithstanding the reports the Iraq War is now “over”).
It is to turn a blind eye to a multitude of reports, from the NY Times and Washington Post, to a host of human rights and UN agencies, that torture still continues or is sanctioned by the Obama administration.
No doubt you will have some clever crack to make about all this, or some taunt over one of your twitter adversaries, or some resort to asshat this or asshat that.
I imagine, however, that somewhere there exists a shred of decency within you, that knows wrong when you see it, and believes that in the long, long fight for human rights and freedom, a government that puts people in prison on trumped-up charges, backed by testimony wrought via torture, and announces they can never be released, even if a court finds them releasable (ask Shaker Aamer, who never did anything to anyone, but remains, per the Obama Administration, in solitary confinement, even as the UK has asked for him to be released)… that such crimes cannot be countenanced.
The U.S. government continues, via its Army Field Manual (and its Appendix M), to hold prisoners in long-term isolation, with sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation, subjected, too, to manipulation of fears and phobias, and the involuntary use of drugs upon them (unless those drugs cause “long-term damage” — and I guess LSD isn’t known to do that, or demerol, or BZ). In other words, the Obama administration continues the Bush administration policy of cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of the very prisoners it says it cannot release. (And let us not forget that at Bagram, Afghanistan, the Obama administration made it clear that indefinite detention would be practiced there.)
You claim to have a lot to say about politics, and while it’s possible you really are some kind of performance comedian, it would be nice to see someone who claims they seriously read up on the matters of the day would actually speak to the torture and indefinite detention issues.
Or is it just more fun to put down Glenn Greenwald and sundry others?
I dunno… Is it possible for you syphocants to not read everything he writes as gospel and develop some independent thought? Is it possible for you to stop being his lemmings? No? Well back to the mocking…
He is all about the anti obama narrative and I don’t trust anything that comes out of that cesspool of misinformation called salon.com. Especially Glenn greenwald.
Oh, and has he done his usual update? The one where he tries to cover his shit so that you all can swoon over his integrity?
Evidently, your attention span is no longer than one (brief) introductory paragraph.
Btw, Greenwald, with whom I’ve recently shared some differences over his refusal to write about Appendix M or the Army Field Manual, or own up to his non-critical stance towards the latter in the past, would be amused to see me listed among his “syphocants.”
Thanks for making my point for me.
I’m not a fan of Glenn Greenwald (or Firedoglake, or that matter) at all. Not every person who dares criticize Obamessiah is on his side. Greenwald himself was cheerleading Obama in ’08 and I bet come next year, he’ll be telling everyone that we must support Obama because’s the lesser of two evils.
Jeff Kaye is absolutely right. And if this had been done under the Bush administration, the other commenters here would rightly be screaming about what an outrage it is.
As much as Angry Buppie Lady and other contributors keep denying it, the Democratic Party is pro-capitalist, pro-war, anti-liberty, and as much as part of the white power structure as the GOP.
You should explain this to Carl Levin
http://youtu.be/MSgZUT8X5tI
And to Bernie Sanders
http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=4e84d833-0f2b-480e-a564-36e84f29b729
“This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges. While we must aggressively pursue international terrorists and all of those who would do us harm, we must do it in a way that protects the Constitution and the civil liberties which make us proud to be Americans.”
Also, ABL and the rest of you need to get some new talking points. Not every person who doesn’t blindly support Obama or disagrees with you can possibly be racists, white males, or “firebaggers.”
You people are no different than pro-Bush Republicans circa 2003.
He was caught misrepresenting what President Obama had said in a 60 minutes interview
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/12/fraudster-glenn-greenwalds-trouble-with.html