Obama should never have signed the NDAA into law, signing statements or not.

[mmonk]

The GOP candidates (except Ron Paul) strongly believe in expansion of executive branch powers including the right of assassination of US citizens without extablishment of guilt or innocence of unlawful activity through legal processes as well as using the military for things not designed for it by our constitution. Any future abuse of power in this regard this president owns some blame. All one has to see about their views can be seen in the article, "GOP hopefuls have broad views on executive power" by Charlie Savage. The Democrats and Republicans that created this bastardization of law of course also own any negative repercussions.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/01/01/1745347/use-lethal-force-on-citizens-ok.html#storylink=cpy

[bonnarati]

1. Recess Appointments

Will Obama do it or not?

[RC]

3. Of course not.

It would piss of the republicans.

[Robb]

67. Oops.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-obama-skirts-congress-again-to-fill-nlrb-posts-20120104,0,7957979.story

[TheWraith]

16. Actually the Dems did do it once or twice.

But in any event, refusing to recess wouldn't have prevented Alito, Roberts, or Gonzalez from taking office, since they were approved in confirmation votes.

[yourout]

27. Alito should have been fillibustered no matter the cost.

If the tables were turned no way in hell would a "Liberal" justice have been confirmed.

[Tx4obama]

18. There can NOT be any recess appointments made, because Congress is NOT in recess

The GOP has blocked (not agreed to) adjournment therefore they are not in recess.
The Senate has been having proforma sessions every three days.

The President can only make recess appointments when there is an official recess.

[roguevalley]

26. he doesnt want to look weak. like bill clinton who let a man be

Executed so he wouldn't look soft on crime. Both are acts of cowardice and put personal advancement first.

[MjolnirTime]

2. I'm sure defunding the troops would have went over great with voters.

[RC]

4. Somehow the wars would continue as usual.

There is always money for wars, no matter what.

[MjolnirTime]

6. Do you have a point?

[RC]

13. Yeah, and I made it.

What part of "There is always money for wars, no matter what." do you not get?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Defunding the troops ended the war in Vietnam.

That was when congress still had some courageous members. A quality sadly lacking in this one.

[former9thward]

23. No troops were defunded.

The Christmas bombing of North Vietnam in December, 1972 forced N.Vietnam to sign the peace accords in January, 1973. Troops were all out of the country by February, 1973. The only thing that was defunded was military support for the S.Vietnamese.

[Downtown Hound]

30. So now we get to pass all kinds of fascist, unconstitutional shit because to not do so

would be tantamount to not supporting the troops? Well now, ain't that just a peachy little excuse that the warmongers can now use anytime they want to pull some bullshit like this.

[SomethingFishy]

31. Brilliant.

Try reading the bill, many things could have been removed without "defunding the troops".

I love fucking people who stand up for something when they have no idea what it is.

[boxman15]

7. It would have left our troops without pay until Congress would override his veto

What good would come of that? The only thing a veto would do is piss off voters for not paying the troops and make a GOP White House able to abuse this provision and a conservative court to uphold it more likely.

Obama signing it and expressing his "reservations" in the statement gives the courts at least a year to strike it down an for the American people to pressure Congress to make sure nothing like this is in the 2013 NDAA.

Obama signing it and issuing that signing statement gives us the best possible opportunity to make sure nothing like this is there for a future administration to abuse.

A veto would have made a new and potentially scary administration very likely and would make indefinite detention for Americans much more likely.

[boxman15]

12. Isn't that what he did with the signing statement?

A veto would change nothing at all besides the odds of a Republican White House in 2012.

[Downtown Hound]

33. "Isn't that what he did with the signing statement?" Um, no. It's not.

The signing statement is just a bunch of words on paper that don't mean shit as far as the law goes. What he did with the signing statment was prove what a coward he really is and that all he's prepared to do to defend our rights is give token but empty lip service to them and then trample on them anyways.

And I think it's a gross overreation on your part to say that Obama vetoing this bill would lead to a Republican victory in 2012. People are hungry for leadership, and if Obama would step up to the plate, I think his approval would go up, not down. His signing of this bill is precisely why he's not very popular right now. People see him as weak and always taking the safe route. And with the signing of this bill, he has proven them right once again.

[boxman15]

38. I wish you were right.

I wish Obama had low approval ratings because people see him as being too moderate, too pragmatic, too weak, etc.

The vast majority of those who do not support him don't because they see him as too liberal, too partisan, and too powerful. I don't care how out of touch or ridiculous those thoughts might be, but it's true. I guarantee very few know what the 2012 NDAA says. You and I are in the minority when it comes to staying informed, and as much as it sucks, it's true, and it makes things more difficult.

You know what they would hear, though? American Crossroads-esque ads accusing him of being against paying troops and with good evidence. The average voter is uninformed and would probably switch sides to the GOP. And for no good reason since this thing would be law anyway.

[Downtown Hound]

59. You know, I've heard all this shit before

That's why the Democrats had to support the Iraq War, because the average American is too uninformed and would view them as unpatriotic. That's why we couldn't have a public health care option, because most Americans wouldn't support it (actually, a majority of them do). Thta's why we can't have gay marriage, because Americans would never go along with it.

You know what? It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now. It's just lame and cowardly excuses for a lame and cowardly president that has never stuck his neck out on anything. And we're all going to pay for it one day.

[PurityOfEssence]

15. A "real" leader would raise, and possibly go "all-in"

I'm sick of the apologists sniveling the he can only do the meek and passive enabling that he does. If he had stuck his neck out--for fucking ONCE--and made a stink about forthcoming legislation or made specific requests or demands, it might have stuck. Forget that, though; it's much more important for him and his supporters for him to be "the coolest guy in the room". Besides all that, he LIKES the imperial control, and people are shockingly idiotic in their continual belief that he's anything but a rather right-leaning corporatist.

It is jaw-droppingly incomprehensible that people still see him as some champion of the little guy and anything approaching a true leader; it's beyond mere hero-worship: it's some kind of religion. Nothing but apologies and chickenshit justifications abound, and we're somehow supposed to watch our lives, our children's futures and the biosphere itself take a nosedive just so he can be lauded as some transcendent super-genius and his most ardent pom-pom flailers won't have to have their fragile and selfish egos confronted with the reality of their egregious mistake.

The whole display is disgusting.

[Oilwellian]

17. I could not have said it better

Fascism is so alive and well in America. I just never dreamed I'd see Democrats cheer it on.

[sad sally]

24. Good point, especially since the signing statement hands detainee status to the Sec of Defense.

Part of the signing statement said:

Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch’s processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.
---
Because this provision is prospective, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to determine the extent, if any, to which such procedures will be applied to detainees for whom status determinations have already been made prior to the date of the enactment of this Act.
####
So, we trust that the current and future Defense Secs. will make correct determinations? Ask those Afghans that have been held without any due process if they trust the signing statement.
####

(CBS News) Updated 11/15/11

KABUL, Afghanistan - The former prisoner of the American military in his native Afghanistan entered the office leaning on a crutch. He said he had trouble walking after spending a year confined to a 35-square-foot jail cell at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, about an hour's drive north of the capital, Kabul.

He agreed to speak with us only if we kept his identity hidden. We agreed to call him just "Mohammed."

"Our cells were like cages," Mohammed spoke in Dari through a translator. "We couldn't see anything outside."

The cage-like cells for some Bagram detainees were part of a $60 million renovation in 2009. Mohammed, who was detained that June, believes disgruntled neighbors tipped U.S. troops about him following a land dispute. His family did not learn for six months why he had disappeared.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57323856/bagram-the-other-guantanamo/?du

[Downtown Hound]

29. Wow. I think I need a cigarette after reading your post.

Well done, and couldn't have said it better myself.

[boxman15]

40. That is fucking bullshit.

I have yet to hear anything out of anyone that gives a good reason why Obama should have vetoed it. All I have seen are these emoprogs, for lack of a better term, who are just as bad as those who dare not criticize Obama freaking out and complaining that Obama did not issue a veto that would be largely symbolic and do absolutely NOTHING except essentially hand the GOP the White House in 2012. (And don't give me this Obama is no different than a Republican bullshit. That kind of mindset gave us the disastrous Bush presidency. But I guess he's no different than Al Gore, right?)

I am not saying this out of blind allegiance to Barack Obama. I think he's been way too pragmatic far too often when he could be more assertive and commanding as commander-in-chief. He has more influence than he thinks he does. His promotion of indefinite detention on non-Americans is deeply disappointing. I could go on, but I doubt you'll believe me anyway.

I am saying this as a long-term thinker. But Obama signing this NDAA is the smart thing to do in the long-term Instead of vetoing it and handing 2012 to the GOP, who would be more than happy to abuse their power and fill the judiciary with those that agree, we now have at least 1-5 years to try to get this atrocious provision out of next year's NDAA by pressuring Congress and/or by having the courts strike it down.

I have yet to see ONE post on this website slamming Carl Levin, John McCain, or the other 91 Senators who supported this or the 86% of House members who voted for this like they have slammed Obama, which makes no fucking sense at all. Get Congress to change this thing, and they will. It's easier to have a boogeyman, I guess.

I'm sorry for the angry tone, but you implying I'm simply making excuses for the president is asinine and I'm sick of people who only assume I think the way I do out of blind allegiance to somebody or out of fear of being let down. It is absolute bullshit.

[MNBrewer]

47. The idea that vetoing the bill would have HANDED 2012 to the Republicans is a pretty tenuous one

[proverbialwisdom]

50. This action BY CONGRESS is inexplicable and unforgivable, no? What's the hidden backstory here?

There always is a backstory, hidden or otherwise, correct? I wish we were privy.

EXCERPT: "I have yet to see ONE post on this website slamming Carl Levin, John McCain, or the other 91 Senators who supported this or the 86% of House members who voted for this like they have slammed Obama, which makes no fucking sense at all. Get Congress to change this thing, and they will. It's easier to have a boogeyman, I guess."

[Downtown Hound]

60. As MNBrewer pointed out

You have basically stated it as fact that Obama vetoing the bill would hand the presidency to the GOP in 2012. You have absolutely NO evidence to back that up. It's just your fears, and your making excuses for Obama's cowardice. If Americans are as uninformed as you say they are, then what makes you so sure they would even give a shit if Obama vetoed the bill, and what makes you so sure they would even remember it eleven months from now?

[A Simple Game]

43. Very well said. n/t

[Downtown Hound]

34. I for one refuse to be held hostage by this fascist crap that we always have to appear to support

the troops. Aren't they supposed to protect our rights? And now, what you're saying is that we have to give our rights up so as to not appear to not support them?

At some point, these lies have to end. Somebody needs to take a stand. And it's becomming quite apparent that Obama isn't willing to take a stand on anything.

[boxman15]

41. Why would letting troops go without pay until Congress overrides a symbolic veto do any good?

Congratulations for making very little sense and just venting without thinking.

Would you want a far-right fascist White House in 2012 in exchange for a symbolic veto? I don't.

[A Simple Game]

44. The Republicans are coming, the Republicans are coming!!!

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!

It's starting to sound like a broken record.

[MNBrewer]

49. Do you REALLY think the troops would have gone without pay?

[Downtown Hound]

61. Again, you state it as fact that a veto would hand the presidency to the GOP

and you accuse me of making very little sense. That is a HUGE stretch, and it's really just you covering your ass and Obama's.

[sabrina 1]

58. No, it wouldn't. Bush pulled this garbage also.

Back then the 'left' took more trouble to check the veracity of his claims. But amnesia has set in since then.

The troops are never the reason of these policies, but they are convenient scapegoat. All this concern for the troops, until they come home. I thought we got over accepting these stupid excuses for every wrong act Bush perpetrated against this country's Constitution. I thought we had successfully debunked his false claims, always shamefully using the troops.

[neverforget]

14. I wonder what kind of other vile shit will be stuffed in a future Defense bill that

won't be vetoed because "we're at war" and "support the troops"? Why didn't Obama veto it and negotiate with Congress a comprise? If he was so opposed to it, why didn't he veto it?

[Tx4obama]

19. Even if Pres Obama would have vetoed it, an override by Congress would have been likely

Please read the ARTICLE from Politicususa here: http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-ndaa-statement

[mmonk]

25. Force their hand.

It's easy. My governor has been vetoing our Republican legislature's bills. Some are overridden and some are not.

[MNBrewer]

51. Not likely at all.

Obama signaled that he would sign the bill so Democrats voted for it. Had he stuck to his guns, they would have voted against it. Hence, no 2/3's majority to override.

[unkachuck]

28. I'm sorry to say....

....the signing of the NDAA will be to Obama as the IWR vote was to Hillary....an unacceptable hurdle that many voters can't make....

....most of my friends will not support the destruction of the Constitution and civil liberties in the name of Party loyalty....things will just have to get worse before they get better....

[SomethingFishy]

32. Man, forget it... you'll never get through.

You are talking to people who support the bill even though they have no idea what is in it. There is no reasoning with that.

[TheKentuckian]

35. Worse, it will be supported no matter what is in it and anything except going off the

establishment reservation and rightly standing up for Skip Gates will have support that is dug in deeper than an Alabama tick.

It doesn't matter jn the least what is passed or pushed or ignored or set back or lied about or abused.

Like the shrub 28%ers their only line is the worst their imaginations can conjure that the opposition might sink too, only being more accurate in their assesments but operating from the same simple motive-fear. Thinking dominated by fear, even well justified fear, is prone to being dominated by serious errors and some risk of delusion.

We are being driven by reaction and defined by the worst of what we oppose, that means systemic failure is avoidable only be pure, dumb luck. We are incapable of correction by definition in the current mode of operation. In fact, it is our destiny to become worse than what we started out against and worse only contained by how far the enemy is willing to go. I submit that they have no useful basement and refuse to tolerate much less accept such depths as a yardstick for those who I endorse.

[Remember Me]

36. I agree

No American should ever have signed something of that type. I'm numb -- can't even be heartbroken or outraged. Way past that: numb at what my country has become.

[Avalux]

37. I disagree. Vetoing would have been political suicide.

That bill had military benefit funding attached; a no win for Obama. Congress would have over-ridden a veto anyway.

All things considered, he did the only thing he could have done, which was still a horrible choice, but the better of two horrible choices.

[stevenleser]

39. Vetoing would have been a huge gift to whoever the Repug nominee will be, that's for sure.

Yes, voting to not fund the troops makes 70% of the American people think you are a jerk. It's baffling why some of the commenters here don't seem to get that.

[A Simple Game]

46. So instead of just caving to a Republican house of representatives,

we are also now caving to an unnamed future Presidential nominee?

Well that's an improvement!!

[stevenleser]

48. Actually it's caving to the will of the governed.

Since that is who would be upset and doing the voting.

You remember that "consent of the governed" stuff, right?

[MNBrewer]

52. When did the governed weigh in on this?

[stevenleser]

56. You mean like everytime defunding the troops gets brought up, or election time? Besides those times?

Or are you going to tell me that Bush got 50% of the vote again in 2004 because so much of the country is anti-war?

[MNBrewer]

57. People who are anti-war should STFU because the hysterical majority can be stampeded into war?

The governed have NEVER ever weighed in on "defunding the troops". You can be certain that paychecks would have gone to each and every active duty service member. Spin all you want.

[stevenleser]

62. Where do you get all the hay for the straw men you constantly erect? No one said that.

If you want to try to change the populaces view on war and general aggressiveness, go ahead. I'll probably even try and help.

Beating up Obama is not going to do that. That is not going to change how people view this at all. That is where you and various others go wrong.

[MNBrewer]

66. Your straw man is that Obama's veto would have "handed" the 2012 election to the GOP

That's not demonstrably true, and only tenuously supportable. Like the idea that the troops would have gone unpaid, too.

Had Obama ever REALLY intended to veto the bill it wouldn't have passed with the majorities it had. Had Obama not telegraphed his intent to cave on vetoing the bill, the Democrats (mostly) would have fallen in line and voted no. It still probably would have passed without a veto-proof majority, but would have been vetoed.

[A Simple Game]

54. Wow, that spin must have made you dizzy. n/t

[stevenleser]

55. No spin, it is what I have been saying all along. Read my first post in this thread.

Not sure why you didnt get it then.

[A Simple Game]

63. So it's not spin because you say it?

I did read your first post, I responded to it, remember.

May be hard to tell because your posts are so busy. Ego problem?

[stevenleser]

64. It's not spin at the third or fourth comment if you have been saying it all along...

do try and keep up.

[A Simple Game]

65. You either don't know the definition of spin or

you really think just because you say it it isn't spin.

In the first case this may help.

Spin--Slang . a particular viewpoint or bias, especially in the media; slant: They tried to put a favorable spin on the news coverage of the controversial speech.

If it is the second case, I just feel sorry for you.

[paulk]

42. he did the politically expedient thing

it's kind of his calling card...

[MNBrewer]

53. +1

[Ichingcarpenter]

45. hope