teases: on • reblogs: on
Lijit Search

ShortFormBlog

Read a little. Learn a lot. • Ask Us Stuff! • FAQ • Archive • Timeline

Tagged: national defense authorization act

Our best freaking stuff right now:

February 28, 2012
21:59 • 1 year ago

President Obama exempts US citizens from indefinite detainment

Tags: civil liberties detainment Guantanamo Bay indefinite detainment military detention national defense National Defense Authorization Act national security ndaa obama patriot act president obama terrorism war on terror

  • then On the last day of 2011, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act which, amongst other things, allowed for the indefinite detention of US citizens suspected of terrorism.
  • now Obama signed a policy directive today that exempts US citizens from that provision in the bill (Section 1022, if you’re keeping track). Here’s the fact sheet released by the White House. source

» Some nuance: Although the language in the bill as signed did permit for US citizens to be indefinitely detained, it did not mandate this. Obama actually said at the time that he wouldn’t implement the law such that US citizens would face this possibility, so his signing today of this directive is in line with what he’d pledged. Our take: While this development will surely please Obama’s base, we’re scratching our heads as to why the White House announced it on the day of what’s become the most important primary in the Republican nominating contest so far (Michigan). It’ll likely get completely lost in the news cycle amidst all the primary coverage, which would seem to blunt its political utility. Color us baffled.

Read ShortFormBlog • Follow

January 1, 2012
19:33 • 1 year ago
Tags: gop ndaa national defense authorization act republicans ndaa republicans ndaa signing

On the NDAA's passage, we recommend you read this comment by Reddit user Mauve_Cubedweller, because it makes a point that you might've missed the first time you read that the NDAA got passed.

This is pretty basic political maneuvering and the biggest problem is that it almost always works because most people either don’t know or don’t care how their political system actually functions. The President was saddled with a lose-lose situation where he either seriously harmed American defense policy (political suicide), or passed offensive legislation knowing that it would cost him political capital. To all of you here lamenting that you ever voted for this ‘corporate shill’, congratulations: you are the result the Republicans were hoping for. They get the law they want, they get the weakened Presidential candidate they want. And many of you just don’t seem to see that. You don’t have to like your country’s two-party system, but it pays to be able to understand it so that you can recognize when it’s being used like this.

Much longer comment at the link, but the overall point Mauve_Cubedweller suggests: Republicans played a very clever political game, and made it look like Obama was at fault for the most controversial passages in a very large defense authorization bill, to the point that any softening of the passages didn’t matter, because, ultimately, he signed the bill. Do you buy this explanation?

December 31, 2011
16:25 • 1 year ago
Tags: ndaa national defense authorization act obama obama ndaa indefinite detention human rights
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.
Barack Obama • Speaking specifically about the indefinite detention rules in the National Defense Authorization Act, which were changed specifically to prevent the indefinite detainment of U.S. citizens or legal U.S. residents suspected of terrorism, before the law was passed by Congress. “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,” he also noted. The president is fighting two schools of thought on the matter — a number of human rights activists are worried about the ramifications of what they see as unconstitutional, while law enforcement and intelligence officials say the changes will greatly complicate their job. Obama goes far enough as to call the passage where the controversial language is included “unnecessary.”
15:43 • 1 year ago
Tags: Obama ndaa national defense authorization act ndaa signing president indefinite detention

Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act today. Here's part of his reasoning why:

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world. (read more here)

Do you guys buy his explanation? Did Obama have to sign this bill the way it was presented to him?

December 27, 2011
23:14 • 1 year ago
Tags: libertarian montana montana recalls National Defense Authorization Act ndaa the oath keepers the oath keepers stewart rhodes
These politicians from both parties betrayed our trust, and violated the oath they took to defend the Constitution. It’s not about the left or right, it’s about our Bill of Rights. Without the Bill of Rights, there is no America. It is the Crown Jewel of our Constitution, and the high-water mark of Western Civilization.
Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes • Discussing his plan to force a recall of elected Montana officials who supported the National Defense Authorization Act, an act which has proven quite controversial among some parts of the population — leading even to extreme interpretations of the law (think “FEMA death camps,” the dumbest internet rumor since the last time the comedian Sinbad “died” at the hands of Wikipedia). Rhodes, who leads the somewhat hard-line libertarian group, is certainly not afraid of the Alex Jones crowd. But that said, this whole thing is certainly worth keeping an eye on: Rhodes plans to use an interpretation of Montana law that allows for recalls “on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses.” Just nine states allow for that type of recall. (Thanks to Michael Cote for the tip-off on this one)  source (via • follow)
December 14, 2011
17:09 • 1 year ago

More thoughts on the NDAA

Tags: ndaa national defense authorization act ndaa details

thenoobyorker says: My understanding was that they modified it enough to satisfy some of the president’s wants while giving it the authority needed to pass congress. It just seems like a another compromise in order to pass.

» SFB says: That’s what it seems like to us, too. Just enough compromise so that something gets passed, but not enough so that it makes the changes toothless. Will be curious to see some deeper analysis. — Ernie @ SFB

Follow us on Facebook:
16:56 • 1 year ago
Tags: ndaa national defense authorization act white house white house ndaa obama

More details on the final NDAA bill

The administration cited several revisions to the final bill’s detainee sections.

The bill dropped the word “requirement” from the section on the military detention of terror suspects, which was among the most contentious parts of the bill.

The legislation mandates military detention for al Qaeda terror suspects, while it grants a national security waiver for the executive branch.

The updated bill put the waiver in the president’s hands rather than the defense secretary, a change Levin said the president had asked for.

The conference bill was based on the Senate language, which was not as harsh as the House bill when it came to trying terror suspects in civilian courts.

The administration called the provision in the bill that established the authority for military detentions unnecessary, as it said this was already given to the executive branch after Sept. 11.

Looks like they did get some good changes on the bill. Still reading more, will see what else is out there.

16:24 • 1 year ago
Tags: ndaa national defense authorization act national security jay carney jay carney ndaa white house terrorism counterterrorism
While we remain concerned about the uncertainty that this law will create for our counter-terrorism professionals, the most recent changes give the President additional discretion in determining how the law will be implemented, consistent with our values and the rule of law, which are at the heart of our country’s strength.
White House spokesman Jay Carney • Regarding the White House’s decision not to veto the National Defense Authorization Act, which they changed their tune on after changes that make it so detainees would be allowed to go through civilian court. Carney emphasizes, however, that the broader bill is very important: ”This legislation authorizes critical funding for military personnel overseas,” he says, “and its passage sends an important signal that Congress supports our efforts as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan lead while ensuring that our military can meet the challenges of the 21st century.”
15:47 • 1 year ago

BREAKING: White House will NOT veto National Defense Authorization Act

Tags: ndaa national defense authorization act white house defense indefinite detention controversial

Disturbing news, as this is the bill which would allow for indefinite detention. More details here. EDIT: Jay Carney’s statement on the changes that allowed the bill to go through. EDIT 2: More details on the bill’s changes.

December 9, 2011
15:23 • 1 year ago
Tags: ndaa national defense authorization act obama indefinite detention detention guantanamo bay
squashed asks: As somebody who is always careful to do research before making accusations, I too am amazed at how little attention the National Defense Authorization Act has received. I fully understand that the act is not as bad as it could have been--though it still contains language that unambiguously permits indefinite detention without trial. It codifies and legalizes a lot of hazy detention policy without putting adequate limits on what the executive branch can do.

» SFB says: We’re with you in terms of it getting a lighter amount of coverage than it perhaps deserves. Don’t get us wrong. There is a big difference between no attention and not very much. We had intended on writing more about it later today or tomorrow (another reader had asked for a follow-up), but we admit that it just bugs us to say that the media is (or we are) completely ignoring something, when you can go as far as a Google News search and see that simply isn’t the case. It’s going to be interesting to see what Obama does with this — it runs directly counter to the very things he said he would do before he went into office. We certainly hope he doesn’t go for this. — Ernie @ SFB

Recent posts and stuff we dig:
15:02 • 1 year ago
Tags: uponadreamersedge National Defense Authorization Act ndaa rand paul obama
uponadreamersedge asks: It amazes me how I have not heard any protest against the National Defense Authorization Act from any news site/paper. People need to be informed of this act that will take away our freedom and rights. Please do what is right and inform the people

» SFB says: We covered it last week. A couple things actually. Based on articles written in the mainstream media. Rand Paul actually helped make it much less worse than it could’ve been, and we gave him a huge amount of credit for that. A number of outlets have come against it, including Bloomberg and Forbes. Please be careful not to make accusations without doing your research. — Ernie @ SFB

December 3, 2011
09:04 • 1 year ago
Tags: amendments defense bills detainees Guantanamo Bay libertarian National Defense Authorization Act rand paul voice vote
Suspicion of committing a crime should lead to your attempted prosecution. If the evidence does not support conviction, it would be against everything we believe in and fight for in America to still allow the government to imprison you at their whim. Tonight, a blow was struck to fight back against those who would take our liberty.
Sen. Rand Paul • In a statement about how he managed to kill an amendment that was likely to pass by voice vote — an amendment that would have clarified the ability for the U.S. government to hold detainees indefinitely while the War on Terror continued — by merely asking for a recorded vote on the matter. This was an awkward situation many in the Senate were trying to avoid, and as a result, the amendment lost resoundingly — with a 41-59 tally. If Paul hadn’t have spoken up, the bill would’ve received a voice vote and passed under the radar. Not bad,  Rand Paul. That’s a moment to put in the ‘ol resume. source (via • follow)
 

ShortFormBlog is the product of Ernie Smith, Seth Millstein, Chris Tognotti, Sami Main, Scott Craft, Matthew Keys, Julius the laid-off RSS robot, awesome links from awesome sources, a hacked version of Wordpress, Tumblr's Tumblarity, the letter Q, the number 13 and a series of tubes.

Copyright 2009-2013 Ernie Smith • Ask us stuff! • E-mail us • Follow us on Twitter • Follow us on Facebook

    TwitterCounter for @shortformblog   Real Time Web Analytics   Creative Commons License Real Time Web Analytics