TYT: NDAA & Obama: Defenders Are Wrong - Here's Why

[pokerfan]

President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act, a decision being defended by some partisan Democrats. The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks down specifics in the bill to refute the claims made by the defenders of Obama and the NDAA.

[SixthSense]

1. Cenk confirms my faith in him

smart guy doesn't fall for BS

[amyrose2712]

2. +1

[Atypical Liberal]

3. Another good Cenk piece.

Sadly, I think we are now just fucked. This legislation now allows anyone to be declared an enemy combatant.

I won't vote for Obama because of his not vetoing this bill.

He lost my support because of this bill.

[_ed_]

10. I'm almost there, too

His lack of a veto here and his claim to have the power to assassinate American citizens is just a bridge too far for me. I wonder what this place would look like if GW Bush did these things?

Civil liberties isn't tax policy or some regulation: they are our fundamental rights. I just can't support someone who does this.

[theaocp]

17. Nobody answers the what if W did this question.

Where's the apologies thread for the signing of this shite?

[NorthCarolina]

20. They can't answer that because their motives would

become obvious....if they aren't already obvious enough.

[FedUp_Queer]

4. I have to confess.

I just can't understand how anyone can defend this. How can anyone overlook this? Given this, and so many other things he has done to support the military industrial complex, how can anyone really say any Republican would be worse? I looked back over the law again (section 1022 of the conference report). People keep saying that there is an exemption for Citizens and LPRs. If you really read what it says, that is completely not true. First, section 1022 requires the military to hold people. The "exemption" is that the requirement does not apply to Citizens and LPRs. If the intent here was to truly exempt Citizens and LPRs, the "exemption" would have explicitly prohibited it. Here is what it says:

SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who is determined--

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1028.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

(Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/)

Here is what a true exemption would look like:

SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1021 who is determined--

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1021(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1028.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The President may waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the President submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.(My change) The military shall not detain any citizen of the United States under this section.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.(My change) The military shall not detain any Lawful Permanent Resident of the United States under this section.

Let's not even forget the issues of a war against a tactic or an endless war or detaining anyone indefinitely. All I can say is that history will remember Barack Obama as the president who signed indefinite detention of people including American Citizens into law. If a person who calls themselves a liberal can still vote for him after that, I'm baffled as to what a liberal even is.

[blackbart99]

5. Where did my country go.....

This sure as fuck is not it......................

[The Wielding Truth]

6. Another republican ramrodded law that we have to undo when we retake congress. It bothers me more

that Republicans don't mind laws that restrict their lives.

[Dragonfli]

7. It was bipartisan "ramrodded" and signed into law by a Democrat. Perhaps they are

Republicans in (D)rag?

They wear a nice Democratic dress and look pretty, but underneath they are what they are, Repugs pretending to be the opposite.
If that is the case then your post is correct and we will have to clean up after both types of Republican, up front honest ones as well as stealth lying ones in (D)rag.

[FedUp_Queer]

12. Funny...

Here is the law the Republicans "ramrodded" through...

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00230

Here are the "NOs" 6Ds, 6Rs, 1 I

Cardin (D-MD)
Coburn (R-OK)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Durbin (D-IL)
Franken (D-MN)
Harkin (D-IA)
Lee (R-UT)
Merkley (D-OR)
Paul (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Sanders (I-VT)
Wyden (D-OR)

House Vote (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml):

Ayes: 190R, 93D
Noes: 93D, 43R

No votes: 8R, 6D

So, the Republicans ramrodded this through with 93 Democratic votes. Funny...had the Democrats not voted for it, it would have failed.

So, let me get this straight: the bill passed ONLY with Democratic support in the House and with a huge majority in the Senate and a Democratic president signed it. Why exactly am I supposed to vote Democratic?

[Fokker Trip]

35. FedUp, you must stop posting these "fact" things. You're upsetting all sorts of folk.

[Veracious]

8. LOL Any Republican would have signed the NDAA

I LOVE how the chippy poster of this piece generalizes and picks at the edges, while the entire point of Cenk's effort is directed at policy, over politics. So No Obama Defenders are not wrong, but those who think any Republican wouldnt have signed this NDAA crap are.

[FedUp_Queer]

11. Talk about a red herring.

I don't think anybody is saying that a GOPer would not have signed it into law. However, the last I checked we have a "Democratic" president who said he would veto it. So...if he did what a Republican would have done, what does that make him?

[SaintPete]

13. Who cares?

Why should I care what some imaginary Republicans would have done?

I care about what Obama would do, and did do. It was in his power to stop this--he was not forced to act by congress.

Instead of fighting for civil liberties, Obama fights against them.

There was a time when even if Dem's stood for NOTHING else, they at least stood as opposition to the Republican agenda, but with that wall torn down, what is the value of such a party?

Why do the Dem's deserve YOUR vote?

[pokerfan]

15. I thought Obama was supposed to be better than the republicans

You know, "change" and all that stuff...

[Veracious]

25. President Obama IS better than ANY Republican.

Its one issue and Im not even sure its a real issue yet. But the poster premises his non vote on this NDAA, which is a joke..LOL nice try. I dont agree with the NDAA either but Im not about to let Republicans wreck havoc again. Republican polices have been tried and all of them have failed.

[pokerfan]

28. But on this issue he's no different

That's the point I think Cenk is making.

[FedUp_Queer]

29. You're right.

Indefinite detention of American citizens is just "one issue." Its not as if this president hasn't come out in favor of indefinite detention for acquitted detainees, or has expanded Bagram, or expanded our cute drone wars, or asserted the government is immune from lawsuits from citizens who were the victims of warrantless wiretapping, or prosecuted more whistle blowers than any president, or asserted he has the authority to kill American citizens without trial, or granted BP a license to drill in the gulf after their destruction of the gulf, or continued every Bush policy in the CIA, or continued puking money at the pentagon. Its also not as if he said he'd VETO THIS BILL. But you're right, the disappearing of Americans at government whim is so minor in comparison with who sits on the supreme court (by the way, news flash, citizens united did not establish corporations as persons. That crap has been part of American law for 150 years.). But you're right, indefinite detention pales in comparison to the supreme court. After all, the Bill of Rights is just a goddam piece of paper.

[_ed_]

9. This is shameful and un-American

What political party should I belong to if I'm against this? This was as bipartisan as Washington ever gets, even with the fake veto threat.

[The Northerner]

14. K&R Would this have been acceptable under the Bush regime? n/t

[NorthCarolina]

16. K&R

[theaocp]

18. At least there's no "I H8 Cenk!" stuff going on here.

Either the truth hurts or my ignore list is paying off.

[NorthCarolina]

19. I think the idea on this one is to

simply hope it sinks....quickly. I don't use the "ignore" feature, and you're right...the thread is still pretty free of I H8 CENK posts.

[FedUp_Queer]

23. I'm kind of a Newbie or ignoramus to the I H8 Cenk meme.

However, I'm going to say it: I H8 Cenk I H8 Cenk I H8 Cenk I H8 Cenk I H8 Cenk I H8 Cenk I H8 Cenk I H8 Cenk I H8 Cenk I H8 Cenk I H8 Cenk.

Odd...that didn't change the language of the bill or the fact that Obama signed it.

[NorthCarolina]

24. Nope, you're right, it doesn't "really" change anything

BUT (yes everyone always has a big BUT) the fact of the matter is that TYT spoke openly against NDAA, as well as questioned Obama's bona fides as a Democrat for signing it. Therefore, for a special handful on this site, he immediately becomes a "Target" that must be put away before he can dispense any more "rational thought" to the masses. The attack takes the form of character assassination devoid of any reasoned argument, and you're a RW troll, or whack job if you disagree with their comments and posts. The attack consumes EVERYTHING on the boards for a while until either this special group tires of the attack, or finds another target. So far the Greenwald & TYT missions have been running strong for three or four days now with little sign of let up quite yet. Grab yourself some popcorn and sit back and enjoy the ride.

[LiberalLovinLug]

32. Yes, Cenk has become one of the dreaded MESSENGERS.

And there is a small band of messenger killers you have to watch out for on here.

[ejbr]

21. k & r !! n/t

[suzanner]

22. another step toward feudalism

I just wonder why Barrack thinks he's immune to being detained etc once he leaves office by the next ruthless president, should they be from the right wing and prove to be stark raving. From what I hear, right wingers claim Obama is the enemy. Sounds like job creation for to-rt-ure chamber construction workers, chains, whips, and sadists. I can't help think of Bradley Manning... and be upset.

[Bolo Boffin]

26. When we elected Barack Obama president, the job came with these powers already.

Blaming the President for this now seems rather silly to this DU member.

[FedUp_Queer]

30. What planet are you on?

You do know we didn't elect a dictator it king, right?

[Bolo Boffin]

31. I'm on the planet where the AUMF authorized all those powers before

Barack Obama was ever president.

What planet are you on?

[Bolo Boffin]

37. Actually it did.

Read the relevant parts of the NDAA. It's all predicated on the AUMF. 1021 even states clearly that it is only affirming the detention powers under the AUMF, not granting them.

The Supreme Court ruled in Hamdi that Bush's detention policies were justified by his powers as commander in chief under the AUMF. Obama shifted some things around when he got into office, but the powers were already there. His signing the NDAA didn't create any new detention power.

In other words, people, voting Obama into office was giving him those powers specifically right then and there. Getting excited now about U.S. detention policy can only mean you haven't been paying attention.

[MannyGoldstein]

38. NDAA suspends Habeas Corpus

In Hamdi, SCOTUS shut down Bush's suspension of Habeas Corpus because Congress had not approved it. NDAA gives tacit approval to suspending Habeas Corpus so SCOTUS can rule the other way next time.

Shame.

[Bolo Boffin]

39. I'm not sure I agree with your legal reading there, Manny.

The only mention I can find of habeas corpus in H.R. 1540 is a statement in 1024 saying that detainee status reviews don't have to be given to people for whom habeas corpus review is available in a Federal court.

That's not "tacit approval to suspending habeas corpus", whatever that's supposed to mean. It says habeas corpus is still available.

[Veracious]

27. mmhmm and Republican faries would run the Consumer Protection Agency

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101417298

Which Republican would appoint this office? I agree with your distain for NDAA authority, but these powers maybe constitutional, in war. Perhapes we could have 2 more Supreme Court judges who think coorporations are people?

[stonecutter357]

34. K&R...

[hourglass1]

36. he included a signing statement to reassure that:

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.


like rahm chirped, "where else they gonna go?"