#Obama signs HR 1540 (aka the #NDAA for 2012) into law on New Year's Eve

Well, I was about a week off. Instead of signing HR 1540 (aka the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012) on Christmas, as I expected, he signed it on New Year's Eve while everyone was gearing up (or already taking part in) their New Year celebrations. What's even better is that he included one of those signing statements which I'm pretty sure he said he would not do.

Of course none of those concerns comes close to those I have about HR 1540, itself. Mainly, I'll cite a couple points from the USA Today article screencapped above. First:

President Obama ended 2011 by signing a major defense bill, despite what he called "serious reservations" about provisions regarding interrogations of terrorist suspects, sanctions against Iran, and relations with Russia.

"Serious reservations" would seem to suggest he should veto the damn thing. Instead, he signs it and adds on a signing statement that says he's not going to follow parts of the law that he feels will stop him from doing his job as president. That's wonderfully vague and also seems like an abuse of power. Doesn't he know how checks and balances work? A president really has one thing he can do to "check and balance" the Legislative Branch of the USG, and that is veto bills. Instead, as Bush did before him, he cherry picks the parts of the laws he likes, allowing him to effectively have a sort of kingly power.

Here's a bit more from that USA Today article, this bit is quoted from an AP report:

The administration also pushed Congress to change a provision that would have denied U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism the right to trial and could have subjected them to indefinite detention. Lawmakers eventually dropped the military custody requirement for U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.

Now this part really bugs me because it is actually a form of bigotry--in the Declaration of Independence we put forth the idea that all people are entitled to certain human rights. Not just American citizens, but all humans. HR 1540 essentially says that non-Americans aren't entitled to the same human rights as Americans, in a way, saying that non-Americans aren't human. We say in our DoI that all humans are entitled to these rights, so if we don't guaranty them for all humans, aren't we saying that some humans aren't human?

The AP report goes on to include a quote from Obama:

"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation." ...

The depressing thing is that Obama has already done the "without trial" thing by ordering a drone strike on American-born Islamist Anwar al-Awlaki. Al-Awlaki may have said bad things and may have want to kill Americans, but he was an American and didn't actually kill any Americans before he, himself, was killed in an American drone strike in Yemen last year. He got no trial, got no lawyer, did not have his rights read to him before his arrest, he wasn't arrested, but he did get sentenced to death by the Commander-in-Chief, aka, President Obama.

What good are rules if you're just going to ignore them? What good are laws if you're just going to violate them? Is our entire concept of freedom and justice in America just an illusion that can be tossed aside when our leaders feel like it?

Happy New Year!

Hey, didn't #Obama say something about NOT using signing statements like this?

Contrary to what some celebrity-types think, I don't think it's a good idea to blindly support a leader just because you voted for him. I mean, what if the guy blatantly goes against what he said he'd do? Like how Obama is issuing these signing statements like the NYTimes reported:



Obama says he'll enforce the parts of the new budget bill he thinks don't infringe on his powers as president. This sounds like a case of "new boss, same as the old boss" to me. Especially since Obama said during his campaign that he wouldn't use signing statements to dodge the will of Congress. And it looks like this won't be the only instance of him issuing a signing statement to get around the will of Congress. The screencap below comes from a recent post on talkingpointsmemo.com:



So, yeah, Holder says Obama will be signing the already controversial NDAA of 2012 into law but will tack on a signing statement to make it less objectionable to him. So we're basically watching Godzilla and King Ghidora trying to decide who should destroy Tokyo. Not only does the NDAA seem to violate the US Constitution, but Obama tweaking it at his whim is dictatorial regardless of the ends he uses to justify said tweaking. Hell, if Obama and Bush can decide to not follow laws they decide are unjust, then why can't everyone?

Obama (O-bomb-a?) OKs the sale of bunker-buster bombs to Israel #SIGH #WTFObama?

From a 9/23/11 article at Ynetnews.com:

'Obama sold special bombs to Israel'
New report claims US secretly approved transfer of 'bunker buster' bombs that could be used in attack against Iran just months after Barack Obama took office, even though Bush administration had previously blocked deal

Well, at least we're not going to war against Iran ourselves.  And I suppose using bunker-busters against Iran is better than using them against Palestinians.  Regardless, I'm getting tired of this whole "war" thing.  Remember the 90s?  There was almost no war that we were directly involved in.  Our economy was booming and the worst thing going on was Monicagate.  Seems like war doesn't always help the economy.  Maybe, once again, we should give peace a chance? ;)

Still, I'll never understand the whole Israel thing. I'm not against the country existing, but I'm just completely confused at how it's policy of occupation and continuous need for support from the US is acceptable to so many.  I mean, how long have they been a country?  Can they not stand on their own by now? And what the hell are they doing with Palestine? What's their goal?

Time to Get Pissed About the USG Again: Scahill Reveals Secret Prisons in Somalia

In case you missed it, back on July 13, 2011 DemocracyNow reported:

Jeremy Scahill Reveals CIA Facility, Prison in Somalia as U.S. Expands Covert Ops in Stricken Nation

In a new investigative report published by The Nation magazine, independent journalist and Democracy Now! correspondent Jeremy Scahill reveals the CIA is using a secret facility in Somalia for counterterrorism as well as an underground prison in the Somali capital of Mogadishu. Scahill says the CIA is training a new Somali force to conduct operations in the areas controlled by the militant group, Al Shabab, and in Mogadishu. While a U.S. official told The Nation that the CIA does not run the prison, he acknowledged the CIA pays the salaries of Somali agents.

Seems like the only change Obama has brought to the United States Government is skin color.  Read the rest at DemocracyNow.org.

Bush on waterboarding: ‘Damn right’ (ThePete on Bush: is THIS enough to bring warcrimes charges??)

First off, kudos to CNN for screwing up the title of the book they’re reporting on—the article (see screencap above) refers to the book “Turning Points.” Too bad the book in the photo to the right is called “Decision Points.”  WELL DONE, CNN!

That media criticism aside, here’s what Bush is quoted as saying in the article about waterboarding:

“There were two that I felt went too far, even if they were legal. I directed the CIA not to use them. Another technique was waterboarding, a process of simulated drowning. No doubt the procedure was tough, but medical experts assured the CIA that it did no lasting harm.”

So he admits it. Waterboarding was a warcrime in World War II—we executed Japanese soldiers for doing it to our guys. When did it stop being a warcrime?

And since when do we let torturers get away with it?

#WTFObama: #DontBelieveTheHype: US Mil "withdrawal" from Iraq just a rebranding--56k will stay.

US Withdraws Last Combat Brigade from Iraq, But 56,000 Troops Remain

The US has officially withdrawn its last designated combat brigade from Iraq, two weeks ahead of a deadline for the withdrawal of some 14,000 troops. In a surprise announcement, the Pentagon said the last combat brigade crossed over into Kuwait earlier today. Although the withdrawal has been hailed as a major milestone in the Iraq war and an end to combat operations, most of the remaining 56,000 US troops are still trained in combat and will continue to carry out armed attacks. The Obama administration also plans to double its private military force in Iraq to an estimated 7,000 contractors. According to the New York Times, the bulk of the private military force will be deployed at five compounds across Iraq, where they’ll perform duties including operating drones, deploying reaction forces and operating radars to detect militant attacks. In an interview on Democracy Now! earlier this month, independent journalist Jeremy Scahill said the Obama administration’s withdrawal plan amounts to a rebranded occupation.

Jeremy Scahill: “What is essentially unfolding here is a downsized and rebranded occupation, Obama-style, that is going to necessitate a surge in private forces. The State Department is asking for MRAP vehicles, armored vehicles, for Black Hawk helicopters and for these paramilitary forces. So, yes, you can say that officially combat has ended, but in reality you’re continuing it through the back door by bringing in these paramilitary forces and classifying them as diplomatic security, which was Bush’s game from the very beginning.”

via democracynow.org

Sadly, this is what I was expecting.  I’m sure anyone paying attention isn’t surprised by the fact that we’re leaving a huge stack of troops behind.  What’s next from the O-man? A giant “Mission Accomplished” banner and an aircraft-carrier-based photo-op?

#WTFObama: Indirect Ban Limits Abortions by Women in High-Risk Insurance Pools

Gotta love this kind of shit—the USG decides it’s OK to allow insurance companies the ability to deny certain people with certain types of pre-existing conditions.  For a black man, Obama really doesn’t seem to get how economics and race work.

stephanieleroy:

Obama bans abortion for women in high-risk insurance pools

welcometomanhood:

goodreasonnews:

whyinthehell:

“We need you to act immediately to undo a disturbing decision from the Obama administration. Remember all the hard work you and other ACLU activists did to defeat Rep. Stupak’s draconian abortion coverage ban during the health care debate?

Well now, the White House has decided to voluntarily impose the ban for all women in the newly-created high risk insurance pools. What is disappointing is that there is nothing in the law that requires the Obama administration to impose this broad and highly restrictive abortion ban. It doesn’t allow states to choose to cover abortion and it doesn’t even give women the option to buy abortion coverage using their own money.”

Ask President Obama WHY his administration is restricting coverage for vulnerable women.

So, once again, it’s OK to kill people in other countries to protect our freedom, in general, but killing unborn babies is NOT OK in order to protect our individual freedom.

Face-palm.