Comments on: NDAA signing statement: “Does not apply to US citizens.”

By: itzac

itzac — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 19:34:41 +0000

ChrisG, there’s an important supreme court decision, the name of which I cannot currently recall, that grants to all persons legally within the United States the full protections of the bill of rights. At least insofar as those rights are protected at all.

By: ChrisG

ChrisG — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 21:17:01 +0000

Well I DO believe in universal, single payer, health care. And rational taxation policies.

I guess I AM a threat! 😀

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:54:14 +0000

ChrisG: Yeah, sorry, tough break. There is a certain chance that you are a terrorist, you see.

By: Nemo

Nemo — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 17:50:47 +0000

Most rights in the Constitution aren’t limited to U.S. citizens, but extend to all “persons”. That specifically includes the 4th and 5th amendments, the ones the provisions of this bill violate.

By: ChrisG

ChrisG — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:30:34 +0000

So, the rest of us who aren’t UnitedStatesian citizens can now officially be made to “disappear” willy-nilly, at the whim of some slack-jawed yokel with a badge. Good to know. Now there’s even less chance that I’ll travel down to North America’s basement for either fun or profit.

By: Niam Krawt

Niam Krawt — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:27:57 +0000

sqlrob/Trebuchet: No, signing statements are not legally binding, only comments by the signer. Yes, a future administration could decide to go another route (if the NDAA even allows what everyone fears).

Ing: Obama threatened to veto the bill, but backed off when he got the benefits extension he wanted in December. More election year politics.

The signed version of the bill was changed from an earlier version that contained language appearing to allow detention of US citizens under counterterrorism rules of war. The signed version is still a bit ambiguous about this, but not as bad as the earlier version.

I can understand the need to balance individual rights with protection of the US as a whole, but in my opinion this bill just continues the erosion of freedoms started during the Bush era.

By: Paul Hunter

Paul Hunter — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 15:45:19 +0000

Obama is morally inept at times.
The only reason he gets ways with it is that the republicans are falling all over themselves making him look better than they are.

By: We Are Ing

We Are Ing — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 15:26:21 +0000

I hate this bullshit. Isn’t Obama aware that if he has concerns about a bill he can not sign it? Send it back to be fixed?

By: Trebuchet

Trebuchet — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 15:24:32 +0000

And President Gingrich (or Perry, or Bachmann, or whomever) will be sure to abide by the intent of that signing statement, right? Didn’t think so.

By: sqlrob

sqlrob — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 14:23:46 +0000

Are signing statements even binding?

I wish Obama (or any president for that matter) would get the balls to start using the Veto when there’s a disagreement.