Muslim convert, proud liberal, die-hard Obama supporter. I post about politics, news, foreign affairs, and Islam.
Please consider donating to the Obama 2012 campaign through the Musims for Obama grassroots fundraising page. You don't need to be a Muslim, just someone who wants to re-elect President Obama. Thanks for your consideration.
The following are the key sections of the NDAA. I have added emphasis.
SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.
SEC. 1022. MILITARY CUSTODY FOR FOREIGN AL-QAEDA TERRORISTS.
The AUMF in question is the one governing the war in Afghanistan, and allows the military to take prisoners of war there, which is consistent with the laws of war. As shown by the bolded text, it specifically exempts not only U.S. citizens, but anybody who is captured or arrested in the U.S.
You can read a statement from the lead negotiator for the House Democrats, the statement from the White House, or this article.
* If the link has expired, go to thomas.loc.gov and search on H.R. 1540.
Note: This post was updated on December 31, 2011, to reflect the final text of the law as signed by President Obama.
In his signing statement, President Obama says the following (emphasis added):
Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that 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. 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.
Just in case the law itself is not clear enough.
Over the last couple of years, I've noticed a pattern among some on the left. They:
It's one thing to be against the undue power of corporations or the rich, it's something else entirely to be willing to screw over the poor (by opposing bills that would help them) because you don't feel they "punish" corporations or the rich enough.
ETA 10/11: Can we add to this people who are more concerned with "punishing" Wall Street through the Occupy Wall Street protests than about helping the unemployed through the American Jobs Act? I think we can.
Everyone here knows that small businesses are where most new jobs begin. And you know that while corporate profits have come roaring back, smaller companies haven’t. So for everyone who speaks so passionately about making life easier for “job creators,” this plan is for you.
President Obama delivered this passage from his address to Congress while looking straight at Republican senators and reps. They justify their tax cuts for the rich as helping "job creators". Obama turned that right back around on them by proposing tax incentives that benefit only small businesses and middle class and the working poor.
The difference between the parties and their policies is pretty clear here.
And another twist:
Turning job-seekers into job-creators: Through innovative use of Federal unemployment insurance funds, all 50 states will have the flexibility to support long-term unemployed workers who create their own jobs by starting their own companies. A few states already have these self-employment assistance (SEA) programs, many of which have been remarkably successful. For example, SEA allowed two unemployed software developers to co-found a new mobile advertising company in 2009 – and today that company has raised $6.5 million in venture capital, employs 28 workers, and plans to hire many more.
Once upon a time, the Republican party supported entrepreneurship. That they're opposing the American Jobs Act and the measures within it shows just how far they've gone in their ideology.
The Act requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing the U.S. into imminent or ongoing "hostilities". It also requires him to end operations within 60 to 90 days unless Congress gives him the authority to continue, or extends the deadline. In the Libya case, the 90-day period will end Sunday.Until now, every president, beginning with Nixon himself, has argued that the Act is unconstitutional because it infringes on the president’s authority as "Commander-in-Chief". At the same time, however, they have been careful to comply with the Act’s notice requirement - as Obama did two days after deploying U.S. forces over Libya.
At other times, presidents either received authorisation to take military action, as George W. Bush did in 2002 before invading Iraq several months later, or construed the appropriation of money by Congress for purposes of conducting operations as an implicit authorisation, as Bill Clinton did in the case of the 1999 Kosovo War.
When specific authorisation was not forthcoming - as when Ronald Reagan sent military advisers to El Salvador in 1982, when U.S. naval vessels provided served as escorts for Kuwaiti oil tankers during the Iran-Iraq War, or, most recently, during the Kosovo War against Serbia - lawmakers sued the government to enforce the Act’s terms.
In each case, however, the courts ducked the issue on procedural, rather than constitutional grounds, which is likely to be the fate of a new lawsuit filed this week by a bipartisan group of ten congressmen - led by Democrat Dennis Kucinich and Republican Walter Jones - asking the courts to force Obama to withdraw U.S. military forces from the Libyan operation because he did not comply with the Act.
The above quote shows clearly that President Obama is doing the same thing that every president for the last 40 years has done. He followed the requirement of the War Powers Act to notify Congress within 48 hours. He has been waiting for Congress to authorize continuation. Despite having nearly THREE MONTHS to vote on the matter, they have failed to do so. It's not up to him to force them to vote, it's up to them to do their fucking jobs. Especially if they really are that outraged, you would think they could find time to hold the vote. That they can fail to hold the vote and then attack POTUS is ridiculous and disgusting.
They need to just hold the damn vote. If they want the mission in Libya to continue, they should vote to continue authorization. If they want the U.S. to end its role, they should vote to deny authorization. Why the hell are some members of Congress (including some moronic Democrats like Dennis Kucinich) filing suit instead of doing the obvious thing and holding a vote? Why is no one pointing out how absurd and ludicrous this is?
What's even more stupid is that the entire linked article fails to even once discuss the law as it applies to U.N. resolutions and this is a case where the U.S. is providing support to military operations ordered and authorized by the U.N. Many have argued convincingly[1] that Congress does not need to provide authorization through the War Powers Act in such a case. Whether or not one accepts this argument, Congress appears to be trying to wreck a U.N. authorized military operation because they can't get their act together! Many Republicans hate the U.N. so maybe they want to do this, but why are Democrats going along and promoting false GOP narratives? Talk about an epic failure.
And there's still more stupidity. The whole discussion about Libya makes it sound like the U.S.A.F. is out there bombing Libya by itself with no authorization. In fact, the U.S. got out of bombing and handed command to NATO over two months ago! This is the point the White House is trying to make, that the U.S. isn't even actively involved in combat (the linked article critiques this claim but I don't find their view entirely convincing[2]). But people on both the right and the left are trying to depict this as "Obama's illegal war" for some bizarre reason, reality be damned.
Because of the U.N. resolution, and because the U.S. isn't actually engaged in combat, I don't feel that Congress needs to authorize it further. But since many members of Congress clearly do feel this - then HOLD THE DAMN VOTE!!
Also, liberals, please stop bleating "I agree that Obama should have gone to Congress". He did. Congress failed to do their part by voting. Why are we letting the GOP entangle POTUS in this web of deceit and stupidity and not defending him and pointing out reality?
[1] http://jenkinsear.com/2011/03/19/a-legal-war-the-united-nations-participation...
[2] For a good legal defense of this interpretation of "hostilities", see http://roadkillrefugee.posterous.com/obamas-decision-on-war-powers-and-libya-...
This passage is taken from Slavery by Another Name, a book I recently finished reading. John Davis, the African-American man described above, was arrested, found guilty (the specific charge isn't recorded and may never have been formally agreed), and leased to a white plantation owner for a year of hard labor. The book describes in harrowing detail how this system of neo-slavery was built and maintained in the post-Civil War South, and only ended during World War Two.
Obama would end tax breaks for households earning more than $250,000 a year, trim Pentagon spending, lift a cap on the amount of income that is assessed for Social Security, and save on Medicare and Medicaid through alterations to healthcare delivery, administration officials said.
And yet some on the left continue to claim POTUS "is not a progressive". I do not think that word means what you think it means.
We all have a lot to learn from these heroes of our time, the multi-generational, ecumenical, multi-cultural participants in the civil resistance of Egypt.
Now is not the hour to tell them what they must do or what solution they can or cannot accept.
Now is the hour to listen, look, learn from and study their moves, and apply them to our own lands and struggles.
In the end, the round table named Tahrir, or Liberation, is not a video game. And we, looking in from the outside, are not the players. It is a moment of history that belongs to the Egyptian civil resistance and to them only, one that we all can and should embrace and emulate. But let’s not get confused: They are the protagonists of history, and the rest of us are, at best, merely their students.
We all have our own ideas and concerns but now is the time to support the Egyptian people in what THEY want. Because that's what democracy really means. They decide, not us.
So if you're raining on their parade or saying they shouldn't be celebrating because of whatever reason, STFU.
The whole post (written yesterday before today's events were known) is worth reading.
