

Obama Discreetly Signs NDAA on New Year's Eve - joshuahedlund
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/us/politics/obama-signs-military-spending-bill.html

======
brian_cloutier
" 'The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with
everything in it,' Mr. Obama said in a statement issued in Hawaii, where he is
on vacation. 'I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with
certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution
of suspected terrorists.' "

I don't think that saying you disapprove of something cuts you any slack when
just a few minutes later you sign it into law anyway. This is just as bad as
the people on Youtube who say "I don't own the rights to this video" and think
it exempts them from copyright infringement.

------
tzs
There's a lot of hysteria on the net over this bill. A pretty good and
reasonable examination of it was published at Lawfare:

The NDAA: The Good, the Bad, and the Laws of War–Part I:
[http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/the-ndaa-the-good-the-
bad...](http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/the-ndaa-the-good-the-bad-and-the-
laws-of-war-part-i/)

The NDAA: The Good, the Bad, and the Laws of War–Part II:
[http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/the-ndaa-the-good-the-
bad...](http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/the-ndaa-the-good-the-bad-and-the-
laws-of-war-part-ii/)

They also published an earlier look at it:

NDAA FAQ: A Guide for the Perplexed: [http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-
faq-a-guide-for-the-...](http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-
for-the-perplexed/)

------
ORioN63
"The president, for example, said that he would never authorize the indefinite
military detention of American citizens, because “doing so would break with
our most important traditions and values as a nation.”"

While I support Obama, it doesn't feel correct to sign a bill and to fix it
later(maybe). Especially since that bill can be used for such awful things,
like the ones cited above...

Also, it's kinda ridiculous, after saying a few months back, that he wouldn't
sign it.

------
DiabloD3
How can a President sign a bill that is clearly anti-Constitutional (in this
case, the Fifth Amendment) into law? Don't they even bother reading what
they're signing anymore?

Maybe the HN community should just start campaigning for Ron Paul. Who knows
whats next, have a startup, get foreign investor, go to jail forever?

~~~
tzs
Ron Paul voted for the AUMF bill, which was the bill that actually gave the
President that powers that NDAA is just reaffirming.

~~~
DiabloD3
Thats a mischaracterization of what AUMF did. Also, he believed the
intelligence coming out of the Department of Defense that Iraq had something
to do with 9/11...

Which we now know is false, Bush lied, and Saddam was terrified of the al-
Qaeda assassinating him and taking over Iraq and had never funded them or
associated with them, and the hijackers were almost all Iranians and Saudi
Arabians.

Ron Paul has voted against the illegal and immoral war effort since then.

Edit: BTW, if you're implying Ron Paul voted for wire tapping and Guantanamo
permanent detention and torture, the Bush administration tried to site AUMF
for permission for both of those, and was shot down twice. They were in the
wrong both times. Ron Paul did not support any such activities.

~~~
mikeash
"Also, he believed the intelligence coming out of the Department of Defense
that Iraq had something to do with 9/11..."

Really? If he's that catastrophically stupid, he shouldn't be allowed anywhere
near a position of power.

~~~
DiabloD3
AUMF was signed into law on September 18th, 7 days after 9/11. I don't think
anyone was expecting Bush to have lied out his ass the way he did, especially
after the worst attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor.

Bush used this opportunity to finish what his father started, and it cost
lives, money, and for the most part, the American way.

~~~
mikeash
Perhaps my memory is faulty, but I recall that it was by then already quite
clear that al Qaeda was behind the attack, and that al Qaeda and Iraq were far
from friendly.

~~~
DiabloD3
Slightly faulty.

Bush tried to make it sound like Saddam hired the al Qaeda, that they were
some sort of mercenaries for hire. If anything, they were murdering drug and
crime lords for violating the Muslim ethics code, which makes them sort of
anti-hero (and yes, I feel icky saying that). They wanted Saddam for the
reason that he was torturing Muslims to death for fun.

I'm completely for Saddam being dead, but the American people deserve better
than to be lied to, and so does Ron Paul.

~~~
mikeash
Bush may well have tried to make it sound like that (although I don't recall
that coming up until the runup to the invasion), but it was still clear that
Iraq and AQ were not buddies despite what may have been said otherwise.

------
mkramlich
nice spin in the submission title

