This just in.
President Obama plans to issue a signing statement which will clarify how the Administration views the law. From Talking Points Memo:
Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed speculation Wednesday that President Barack Obama would issue a signing statement when he makes the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and its controversial detention provisions law.
“We made really substantial progress in moving from something that was really unacceptable to the administration to something with which we still have problems,” Holder said in response to a question from the Wall Street Journal’s Evan Perez. “But I think through these procedures, with these regulations we will be crafting, we can minimize the problems that will actually affect us in an operational way.”
Holder said the language of the NDAA had been moved in a “substantial way” from some of the original language which led the president to issue a veto threat.
“So we are in a better place, I think the regulations, procedures that will help, and we’ll also have a signing statement from the president” which will help clarify how they view the law, Holder said.
Yes, but will he issue this statement before or after we’ve all been indefinitely detained indefinitely in a detention center as a result of this indefinite detention bill?
That’s what the people want to know.
RELATED POSTS:
- The NDAA is Not A Detention Bill by ABL
- NDAA Facepalm Induction by Matt Osborne
- ABL’s Blargh on the Veto Blargh by ABL
- #NDAA: A Perspective by rkref
- There’s No Such Thing As an ‘Indefinite Detention Bill’ and Other ProLeft Lies by Milt Shook (PCTC)
- NDAA FAQ: A Guide for the Perplexed by Benjamin Wittes (Lawfareblog)
- The Defense Bill Passed. Now What Does it Do? by Adam Serwer (Mother Jones)
- Why I Won’t Engage Glenn Greenwald by Benjamin Wittes (Lawfareblog)
- Exposed: A Spammer Fooled MSM & America with Edited NDAA [Carl Levin] Video by Sarah Jones (PoliticusUSA)
Until the signing statement comes out, GG will scream that this proves his point. Then after the signing statement GG will move the goalposts somewhere else.
And folks will “remind” everyone that then-candidate Obama swore he’d never issue signing statements.
Has GG ever taken back his “Carl Levin says the administration told him to put indefinite into this bill, here’s my carefully edited tape” statement?
Has Glenn Greenwald ever taken back anything? Ever?
Glenn Greenwald is a lot like Tim Tebow. Sure, he can make himself look good against a weak opponent like Bush, who would make any critic look good, but against a capable opponent like Obama, he’s really exposed.
Or take credit for this move, then move the goalpost in the same instance….
It will never be enough
What I think is important:
the content of the signing statement.
Yeah, I hoping to find some indication of what that might be by clicking through.
But not so much.
A few days ago I read on this site an Milt Shook article making the point that there is no “indefinite detention bill” but I see that phrase being used in this article. Which is it?
fa·ce·tious adj. f?-?s?-sh?s
Definition of FACETIOUS
1: joking or jesting often inappropriately : waggish
2: meant to be humorous or funny : not serious
Sorry, I read quickly and thought the ending question was serious. Should have known better and serves me right for scanning! Thanks.
A signing statement won’t cut it.
Are signing statements okay now? They were evil when Bush was President.
*facepalm* You can’t be serious, surely?
Signing statements, in an of themselves, are completely innocuous. It’s the content of the signing statements that matter.
Bush had a habit of using signing statements to further unconstitutional doctrines and improperly exert executive power into the rightful sphere of Congressional authority.
Yeah a signing statement, how Bush-like and perfect in it’s democratically limiting symmetry. As I’ve been saying, O and W, two warriors in a pod, only one is childish, repellant, and care-free the other is not, but the results are the same–continuous war. Hallelujah for that signing statement. Justice and liberty will sleep like a stress positioned, sleep deprived, naked, and indefinitely detained person of interest that must be incarcerated for everyone’s safety, just trust in O and whatever caveats he puts into his signing statement. Btw, give yourselves a hand people, were would we be without your tireless and unquestioning devotion, no matter the circumstance? Go team O! Yeah!!!!
Shove it. I don’t agree with Obama signing the bill, or taking the cheap way out with a signing statement, but you can take your self-righteous “I told you so, Obots” bullshit elsewhere.
This is a parody comment, right? Right? Sigh.
You don’t even know what’s in the signing statement, you tool.
And you seem to be under the twin delusions that 1) George Bush originated signing statements, and 2) is was their existence, as opposed to their content, that people objected to under Bush.
Why should anyone make the honest effort to understand things when simply parroting a Greenwald line is so much more satisfying to a poorly developed mind?
As for the dude’s “nom de blog”, well, I’m off to bleach my brain.
So true.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen people reply to a comment that disagrees with them with a naked cut and paste from Greenwald.
If you can’t even articulate your position, such that you need to repeat someone else’s words, then maybe you should consider the possibility that you don’t actually know what you’re talking about.
joe:
no thank you.
I am not buying what you are selling.
For my part, I can’t even figure out what you’re selling.
You seem to dislike…something. Could you explain? Or…say what it is?
I do not own that problem
Is this a ‘bot?
tossedgreensalad:
opinions expressed on this blog donnot require your approval.
never have never will
All right, Ms. ABL, here is Spencer from last year essentially because I just read it. Very revealing that he cites Eli Lake!! to say that the AUMF is like the Egyptian emergency law. If you don’t want to click on the link, he made the point better than I could that decisions made about the tradeoff between liberty and security will last a longer time than any particular war.
Yes, what is in the signing statement is important.
(I only read Greenwald when he gets linked to by someone else, and sometimes not even then. So much of it is what I already know at extreme lengths.)
I hate having to say that “someone else” is more than 1 person.