Signing statements = the moral equivalent of crossing your fingers while make a promise.

No, signing statements are a clear indication of a lack of character. Doesn't matter which prezinut made it, doesn't matter intent. If the law is bad, veto it and live with the consequences of the veto override vote.

Take a stand.

MANHATTAN (CN) - A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction (Courthouse News, Alan Klasfeld) late Wednesday to block provisions of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that would allow the military to indefinitely detain anyone it accuses of knowingly or unknowingly supporting terrorism.
Signed by President Barack Obama on New Year's Eve, the 565-page NDAA contains a short paragraph, in statute 1021, letting the military detain anyone it suspects "substantially supported" al-Qaida, the Taliban or "associated forces." The indefinite detention would supposedly last until "the end of hostilities."
In a 68-page ruling blocking this statute, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest agreed that the statute failed to "pass constitutional muster" because its broad language could be used to quash political dissent.
"There is a strong public interest in protecting rights guaranteed by the First Amendment," Forrest wrote. "There is also a strong public interest in ensuring that due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment are protected by ensuring that ordinary citizens are able to understand the scope of conduct that could subject them to indefinite military detention."

Excellent start.

On December 31 and after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 into law, President Obama issued a statement on it addressing "certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of terrorism suspects". In the statement Obama maintains that "the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF". The statement also maintains that the "Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens", and that it "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". Referring to the applicability of civilian versus military detention, the statement argued that "the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa'ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost."[49]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't President Obama also isssue a signing statement on that regarding its constitutionality?

Is that an "I don't know?"

Never did like signing statements. And in case the worst happens, do you trust Rmoney with this law?


Good for the court. Enforce the Constitution.

"Here, the uncontradicted testimony at the evidentiary hearing was that the plaintiffs have in fact lost certain First Amendment freedoms as a result of the enactment of § 1021," Forrest wrote.

The Government (all defendants in this action) did not call any witnesses, submit any documentary evidence, or file any declarations in connection with its opposition to plaintiffs’ motion (for preliminary injunction).

CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, plaintiffs' motion forpreliminary injunction is GRANTED; enforcement of § 1021 of the NDAA is preliminarily enjoined pending further order of this Court or amendments to the statute rendering this Opinion & Order moot.

And amendments rendering it moot is the most likely outcome.

Opinion and Order also available at Jack's.

You think this Congress is capable of doing anything of the sort at present? I don't.

It does, however, contain the budget and expenditures for the DOD. *Perhaps* that might get them off their collective butts to rectify the act.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but didn't President Obama also isssue a signing statement on that regarding its constitutionality?

Bottom line: The President has—rightly in my view—read this law virtually out of existence. This is not a breach of faith with Congress, which in negotiations with the administration, so watered the provision down that, as signed, it reasonably lends itself to this reading. In fact, the provision—as Bobby has shown in earlier posts—would actually bear a more aggressive reading than President Obama has given it here.

Here’s what Obama has done:

First, he has read his authority to waive the provision very broadly. He has both made clear that officials have the authority to waive it at any time with respect to individual detainees and has prospectively waived it himself with respect to several whole categories of suspects. Some of these categories are quite broad—including, for example, any situation in which transferring someone to military custody might impair efforts to secure his cooperation or garner his confession. Offhand, it’s actually a little hard for me to imagine too many cases that wouldn’t fit comfortably within at least one of the preemptive waivers the president has already issued. I suspect that isn’t an accident.

Second, Obama has set up a process for determining whether transfer to the military is required that will all-but-guarantee that it never is. Here’s how it works: Section 1022 only covers a narrow range of people to begin with, so if there’s probable cause to believe that someone arrested is covered and not subject to any of the blanket waivers, the attorney general—in consultation with other senior national security officials—then has to determine whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the person is covered by 1022. If there isn’t clear and convincing evidence, there’s no transfer. If the officials discover that one of the waivers applies after all, there’s no transfer. And if they feel like issuing a new waiver just to make sure, there’s no transfer. If, for some reason, there is a transfer, the FBI has to make sure that it doesn’t interfere with any ongoing interrogation or compromise any investigation, and if there’s any chance of either, the transfer has to wait. And the procedures are clear that an “interrogation” here is not limited to a single session but, rather, “extends until the interrogating agency or agencies determine that all necessary intelligence gathering efforts have been exhausted.” The procedures further make clear that the agency with custody of a suspect—presumably the bureau—shall operate normally in accordance with standard procedures until a transfer is required and can be effectuated without harm. They also reiterate that the FBI remains the lead agency with respect to investigating terrorist threats inside the United States.

Get it?

Put simply, policy under Section 1022 is no different than policy before it. The FBI has custody of people it arrests domestically unless and until the Justice Department feels like yielding custody to the military—which, under this administration, it never will.

The presidential directive issued today is explicitly required by the NDAA, which states that the president must issue procedures for section 1022’s implementation within 60 days of the NDAA’s enactment. But while the new directive adheres strictly to the NDAA’s timeline, it otherwise ignores much of the NDAA’s purpose and intent.

The goal of the NDAA’s detention provisions, stated clearly by many of the law’s congressional supporters, was to limit executive discretion, dramatically restrict reliance on civilian justice options, and ensure that terrorism cases are handled by the military. Yet as the law’s provisions were negotiated over the course of 2011, their mandatory nature was weakened. What was left, when the law finally passed in mid-December, was a presumption of military custody for certain non-citizen terrorism suspects.

The new directive takes what the law framed as an exception to this presumption and makes it the rule, effectively turning the presumption on its head. Taking advantage of section 1022’s national security waiver provision, the new directive sets out a number of broad and flexible categories of suspects who are supposed to remain in the civilian justice system.

According to the directive, non-citizen suspects who fall within any of seven categories will not be subject to military custody, as the president has prospectively certified that keeping them in civilian custody serves US national security interests. Among the protected categories are:

Actually, the judge just blocked § 1021 of the Act, apparently the Constitutionally offensive part.