The bad thing about piggybacking off of someone else's ill-conceived comment is that the shit winds up on you, too, as evinced by the tweets listed afterwards in this Chirpstory. Seriously, Chirpstory is a wonderful tool for saving and showcasing shit like this for all to see, for whatever the Internet defines as posterity.*
Everyone and their dog already knows the specifics about the National Defense Authorization Act and how the boogeyman threat of the president having unlimited powers to detain U.S. citizens without so much as a "hey, wait a sec" was thoroughly debunked. Yet this guy, who evidently has a hard-on for attacking the president for not paying more attention to him and his fellow Cocktail Liberals and attendant emoprogs is still swinging for the fences over this bill. Obama won't risk what political capital he has to veto the NDAA, so guys like Greenwald and anyone else they can scare with their brand of hysteria are effectively stomping their feet like a bunch of five-year-olds in a supermarket aisle deprived of their choice of cereal.
You have to wonder what's it to Greenwald, et al. to attempt to bring the president to heel over NDAA, besides exercising their right to chastise Obama for not being a good Magic Negro™ by closely adhering to the Professional Left's wishlist of "Things That Obama Should Have Done Within 90 Days of Being In Office". I understand the frustration that many liberals have with President Obama, but the last thing that's needed during an election year is a long line of sour faces who've sworn off voting for Obama because he chose to exercise a great degree of pragmatism in an increasingly hostile legislative environment, instead of throwing caution to the wind and indulging in ramming through bills and public policy, consequences be damned.
Here's a president who stepped back and allowed the Tea Party to swiftly become irrelevant, the GOP to implode and the blame for the vast majority of our current economic ills to fall on conservative measures and policy, all the while taking care of terrorist boogeyman Osama bin Laden, promoting policies that actually produce jobs instead of generating more tax cuts and successfully withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. And Greenwald, et al. are not satisfied with this man's performance so far.
As a reminder concerning the NDAA:
(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.
And here is President Obama's signing statement concerning NDAA (H.R. 1540) sections 1021 and 1022:
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.
I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, 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. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.
My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.
