(UPDATE x 2) “My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens”

Via ThinkProgress, the full text of the president’s signing statement on NDAA addresses both of everyone’s favorite sections:

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. 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.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. While section 1022 is unnecessary and has the potential to create uncertainty, I have signed the bill because I believe that this section can be interpreted and applied in a manner that avoids undue harm to our current operations. (Emphasis mine)

As I keep saying, this entire episode has been about Congress, not the president, playing warmonger. The Cheneyites on the Senate Armed Services Committee wanted to make the black site system permanent; the president has fought them. That is the full story of the real NDAA — the National Defense Authorization Act, a routine spending bill that has been passed forty-eight years in a row. So can the truth make front pages now?

UPDATE: Of course not! The ACLU won’t give up:

We are extremely disappointed that President Obama signed this bill even though his administration is already claiming overly-broad detention authority in court. Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back those claims dimmed today.

See, I told you they’d shift the goalposts to declare NDAA is still the end of freedom because it’s not called the No Indefinite Detentions Act. In fact, that’s what Jason Leopold and Marcy Wheeler are tweeting right now.

UPDATE 2: Wheeler on Twitter

My new observation is that O didn’t even forswear indefinite detention as a whole. That’s HIS words, not mine.

When Angry Black Lady asked her to clarify, she tweeted:

Very simpl. O could have said, “my Admin will not authorize the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens”

Um, isn’t that what he JUST SAID?

Wheeler also has a reaction post up and it’s a mind-boggling mess.

About Matt Osborne

Veteran blogging the culture wars from Alabama. Video journalist, mash-up artist, aspiring novelist, and metalhead. Expect bunnies, geekery, dark humor, and snarky empirical analysis to annoy idealists of all stripes. You can follow me on Twitter, but be ready 'cause it might get loud.
This entry was posted in Civil Liberties, guantanamo, Military Commissions, Obama's Wars. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://twitter.com/Emilia1956 Emilia1956

    I read the kerfuffle between Wheeler and Imani. Before I met and married my British lawyer husband, I was engaged to a kinda Republican lawyer guy from Alabama. You’d think I’d have learned. My gist is … if you ain’t a lawyer, don’t argue the law with one of them. I can argue most anything with the husband and the same with the ex-boyfriend, but I don’t touch legal matters. Imani made Wheeler look increasingly idiotic. 

    Truth is, a lot of these people out there on the Left limb about to jump into neocon land, just want to hate on the President as much as the RWNJs do, and for the same reason, really.

    I’m tired of them, to be honest. I don’t suffer fools gladly.

  • Anonymous

    Oh my god, reading the recent tweets at Imani’s page… WTF.

    Obama derangement syndrome is truly an ugly sight to behold.

  • Anonymous

    My understanding of MW’s position, going by Twitter, is that it comes down to the inclusion/exclusion of the word ‘military.’ That admittedly seems minor, but this IS the law, and much has turned over a single word.

    But – unpacking this a bit – “no military indefinite civilian detention” only has wiggle room if there are non-military systems of indefinite detention established. If there are any, they shouldn’t be in this bill since it goes out of its way to clarify that these provisions shouldn’t apply to U.S. citizens. So they would be pre-existing systems of civilian indefinite detention, outside the military system. If there are any such systems, then this bill doesn’t change them – and if there aren’t any such systems, then this bill doesn’t add any. (Disclaimer: not a lawyer, though I have taken a business law course so I’ve learnt how finicky the law can be.)

    To be sure, indefinite detention of non-U.S. citizens IS a stated factor in the Administration’s handling of terrorism suspects – Obama said as much as early as mid-2009 when he mentioned it in a speech, and I agree with Serwer and Cesca’s reads that that form of indefinite detention is in the bill. Indefinite detention of anyone, citizen or no, is bad to my way of thinking – I’m a non-citizen, after all, and for the “Hitler mustache” series alone I could be convicted of war crimes against image editing software.

    So those provisions of the bill are bad. I realize that contractors and troops not getting paid is also bad, but given the choice between codifying indefinite detention and checks bouncing for a few months, I’ll choose the latter.

    Bad as the bill is – and those provisions make it bad, to my thinking – it’s not as bad as it’s been made out to be. I didn’t cheer when the signing statement was announced since I didn’t know what was in it, but now that I know, it’s pretty much exactly what I wanted the Administration to say. It makes a bad bill better (though still bad. I keep repeating this in case anyone gets the mistake impression I’m popping off confetti over this.)

    This signing statement, to me, is a good thing, and a stark contrast to Bush going “yeah, that whole no-torture thing? Not feeling that,” with the most odious signing statement he made (that I know of – isolating the worst part of the Bush years is like trying to pluck one germ out of a plague victim.) I’m glad he made it, though again, wish this bill did not exist and that it wasn’t passing.

    I’m also the last person on Earth to get into nun rape, since I started off Political Gunpowder with six strips about baby rape. I think rape is a subject you can only joke about if you’re not actually making a joke about rape – my bit was about canned politician responses to an absurd question, and Louis CK’s famous bit is about making a logical leap from one position to its total inverse in the space of five seconds. Even then, I know I’m probably going to cross someone’s line. We all do that – what’s important is how we handle it, and MW and GG did not handle it at all well. There’s a difference between “you are too forgiving of a politician and should hold them to a tougher standard,” and “you’re just fine with nun rape, aren’t you?”

  • http://twitter.com/Norbrookc Norbrook

    My own tweet to Marcy was along the lines of “Why don’t you actually read the bill and the statement?”   She’s one of those “my mind is made up, stop confusing me with facts!” people. 

  • Pingback: miknhgvfrfgjihjhdytt

  • Pingback: kojnuhyfvrtyghjokjytdre

  • Pingback: buy cheap twitter followers

  • Pingback: ppi complaints ombudsman

  • Pingback: karmaloop

  • Pingback: I thought about this

  • Pingback: purchase twitter followers

  • Pingback: Wall Fountain in English Iron

  • Pingback: Get ranked in Page 1 VERY FAST : Guaranteed

  • Pingback: house for sale in Seattle

  • Pingback: Cheap link pyramids

  • Pingback: buy twitter followers cheap

  • Pingback: pjugytdybygdytukjgfjhdtjhk