Statement by the President on H.R. 1540

[xocet]

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
December 31, 2011
Statement by the President on H.R. 1540

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012." I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa'ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

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.

Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch's processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.

Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch's authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive's ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.

Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.

Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President's constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.

My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.

BARACK OBAMA


THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 31, 2011.


(http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540)

[ixion]

1. blah blah blah, on with the Police State.

Thanks a pantload, Obama.

[izquierdista]

22. You got it

Lots of words still don't justify killing teenagers.

[Donnachaidh]

71. *Change* we can believe in, right?

I thought Harry Reid was testicularly-challenged. Obama just took that title away for the next 1000 years.

[emilyg]

73. Correct. I won't bother

reading his statement.

[Fuddnik]

144. A signing apology? Fuck you!

You just formalized a police state.

You and your whole party just lost my vote....forever!

[patrice]

146. blah blah blah, on with the tyranny of those who have no responsibility to protect millions of lives

[ixion]

147. If you're somehow positing that people with no power (i.e. 'responsibility') are capable of tyranny,

I would re-check your work. There is a flaw in your premise.

People without power cannot exert will on people with power, because there is no power to drive the exertion. I fought for years against the Bush Doctrine, which the NDAA codifies. I'm not going to change my perspective simply because there's a guy with a 'D' in front of his name in the WH.

[patrice]

154. False dichotomy/zero-sum = with power:"with no power". Your self-characterization is somewhat in

error.

If you have "no power"/0 power, why do you bother to post here?

Is the DU just self-gratification? If so, why would anyone bother reading your posts if it's all just you getting high on yourself?

Do you deny any power motive whatsoever?

I doubt it.

[ixion]

157. power as motive? Hardly. I post to express my concern over the loss of civil liberties.

It really has nothing to do with my own 'power', as it were.

As I said: I didn't support trashing the Constitution and Bill of Rights when Bush was in office, nor do I support it when Obama is in office.

What does my pointing this out accomplish? Not much, if anything at all, save for evidence that I never supported endless war. That may be valuable when the US is held to account for the atrocities we inflict daily on people across the globe.

And there will be a bill to pay. There's always a bill. And the bill the US is racking up under the guise of "fighting terror" (while simultaneously inflicting terror on others) is going to be a big one. Obama was elected on a wave of anti-Bush sentiment, and rather than restore the Rule of Law, he has now codified the Bush Doctrine. That is the long and the short of it, and something that I will never endorse.

[LanternWaste]

169. If nothing else

"blah blah blah..." "Thanks a pantload...."

If nothing else, it appears the level of your discourse is rising above its' past, ever mindful of the relevant, ever careful of bias...

[Angry Dragon]

2. thanks

[demosincebirth]

3. Thanks for posting this.

[jaxx]

4. This part:

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.


Well said.

[rhett o rick]

7. Agree, but future presidents may not be so thoughtful. nm

[Ruby the Liberal]

80. Doesn't this have to be renewed annually?

[quakerboy]

131. "we are only continuing to enforce laws already on the books"

"A democrat put this law into place, all we are doing is renewing them".

Or more likely, never to be heard of again, until the history books make a side note that the law was first passed years before the tragic actions of president X in 20??

[24601]

143. Don't believe it does. Authorizations acts primarily couple with Appropriations laws to allocate

specifically where federal monies are to be spent. They tend also to have multiple provisions affecting the conduct of government that remain in affect until repealed.

[JDPriestly]

13. "my administration"

Obama seems to suggest that some other administration could authorize indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.

If so, he should not have signed the bill even if he does think that it merely ratifies the existing vague laws.

It was not wise to sign this bill. Obama could have obtained amendments to it or forced Congress to pass it over his veto. That would have meant something. The signing statement is rather useless. In fact it is very troubling.

[colorado_ufo]

67. Exactly right.

Blah, blah, blah.

You signed it anyway.

[Fool Count]

70. Why detain, if he can just kill them without trial? Does he say anything about

extrajudicial killing of American citizens and whether he thinks it "complies with the Constitution"?

[jaxx]

104. That comment made me LOL.

There is something about the level of comedy around here when it comes to anything the President does that is just plain hilarious.

[Charlemagne]

105. well said

[DirkGently]

164. Bingo. And the logic that AUMF trumps constitutional rights is THE SAME.

Hard not to conclude that the President is deliberately holding on to that argument, illegally constructed by the Bush administration, when the administration's attitude on the extrajudical killing was that it didn't even have to confirm that it occurred.

So the argument that Americans have no Constitutional rights as long as the "war on terror" continues stands, unchallenged by this administration.

[Donnachaidh]

72. well, bless his heart

Too bad he couldn't stand up to make sure no FUTURE administration would have the right to do it either.

[dflprincess]

93. Yeah, and once upon a time he said he'd veto this bill.

He says a lot of stuff - the follow through is where he has problems.

[dixiegrrrrl]

101. Watch what they do, not what they say.

[dflprincess]

116. Exactly.

But hey! His campaign rhetoric has moved to left - pay no attention to what he's actually doing.

[Tx4obama]

132. Obama said he'd veto the bill IF the language was not changed, and

the language WAS changed. The 3rd Feinstein amendment that was voted on passed before the NDAA bill passed.

If folks are going to hold Obama to the words he says then it would be nice if they would refer to what he actually said.

Happy New Year

[dflprincess]

162. The ACLU remains against this bill

and I have way more faith in their opinion than any weasel words Obama spouted

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/president-obama-signs-indefinite-detention-law

President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) today, allowing indefinite detention to be codified into law. As you know, the White House had threatened to veto an earlier version of the NDAA but reversed course shortly before Congress voted on the final bill. While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had “serious reservations” about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use it and would not affect how the law is interpreted by subsequent administrations.

The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.

Under the Bush administration, similar claims of worldwide detention authority were used to hold even a U.S. citizen detained on U.S. soil in military custody, and many in Congress now assert that the NDAA should be used in the same way again. The ACLU believes that any military detention of American citizens or others within the United States is unconstitutional and illegal, including under the NDAA. In addition, the breadth of the NDAA’s detention authority violates international law because it is not limited to people captured in the context of an actual armed conflict as required by the laws of war.

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. Thankfully we have three branches of government, and the final word on the scope of detention authority belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority. But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA’s detention authority.

The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.

P.S. Happy New Year to you as well

[rhett o rick]

5. I find this terribly disturbing.

This is clearly codifying previous interpretations that have allowed the arrest and torture of Jose Padilla. The President in the above statement states this clearly. On the good side he says he will not use this horrible violation of our Constitution. "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. " This leaves it open for future presidents to arrest and detain American citizens w/o due process.

I didnt expect this legislation to fix the existing court interpretations that allow the arrest and indefinite detention of American citizens w/o due process, but I had hoped it wouldnt codify such.

Bravo for the Pres for his "signing statement" above but it still is a bad day for Democracy.

[boppers]

12. "existing court interpretations that allow the arrest and indefinite detention of American citizens"

...."w/o due process"

To what are you referring?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld

Says the exact opposite.

[Robb]

24. Ssh. Hamdi is inconvenient to the narrative.

Worse still it's a higher court than Padilla.

[rhett o rick]

41. I dont find these words very reassuring.

"The Court recognized the power of the government to detain enemy combatants, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial judge."

That has a hole in it big enough to drive an aircraft carrier. Who gets to choose the impartial judge?

And after almost 10 years the courts are not very anxious to overturn Pres Bush's decision to arrest and detain Jose Padilla.

[boppers]

94. Padilla got his due process, trial, and sentence.

It took a while, but that abuse of power is part of what created the current framework (along with Hamdi).

[rhett o rick]

98. What framework? He was still arrested and detained illegally. That still needs to be

settled by the courts, I hope.

[boppers]

102. Okay, lets discuss this.

1. How was he arrested illegally?
2. How was he detained illegally?

As to the latter, he was in legal limbo for 4 years, which is about what any US citizen can possibly face before trial.

Example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Mitnick

So, for the former, how was Padilla arrested illegally?

[rhett o rick]

151. I am sorry but your point is lost on me. Are you suggesting that what happened to Padilla

was standard procedure, or acceptable procedure?

[rhett o rick]

152. So you are ok with the courts decision that our liberty is protected by

an "impartial" judge?

[limpyhobbler]

74. In hamdi v. rumsfeld the court required due process. That's why Bush admin set up the tribunals.

Normal standards of evidence and proof are not required at the tribunals. It's not a regular trial.
That is what makes the hamdi case notable.
That and also hamdi was a US citizen.

So Bush and Obama use Hamdi v. Rumsfeld to

1) demonstrate that they can hold citizens without trial. Note that has just been one interpretation, notably held by president's Bush&Obama. But since section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA "codifies established authorities", supporters of unlimited detention now have the force of law on their side. Obama says he would never use this authority, but personally I don't care about that, since that is worthless.

and 2) demonstrate that courts are not required, only military tribunals.

[boppers]

88. Then, the point being made needs to reflect that.

Due process is required. Period.

I would, however, also quibble with "indefinite" detention.

The duration of detention is defined by specific parameters.

It has been defined, and thus, is not "indefinite", nor is it "unlimited".

[limpyhobbler]

103. what should they call it then?

Due process is required. Period.

The minimum of "due process" is:
A decision by a secretive military tribunal where normal standards of evidence and proof do not apply,
where there is no presumption of innocence, there may in fact be a presumption of guilt, and where the right to defend oneself is significantly less than it would be in a normal court, as there may be no opportunity to subpoena witnesses and evidence. A defense attorney may be required but the accused does not have a right to "an attorney of their choosing" as they would in a civilian court. They get whatever lawyer the tribunal appoints.

Do you find this to be a good standard for American citizens accused of supporting a terrorist organization?

I would, however, also quibble with "indefinite" detention.
The duration of detention is defined by specific parameters.
It has been defined, and thus, is not "indefinite", nor is it "unlimited".

What is the limit? Do you mean until the end of hostilities authorized by the AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists)? Seems like that could go on for a long time. The end of that authorization is undefined, no? What would be a better way to describe this type of detention besides "indefinite detention"?

[Charlemagne]

107. Damn, well stated

[boppers]

120. Well put.

"Do you find this to be a good standard for American citizens accused of supporting a terrorist organization?"

No.

A crappy system, however, does not mean an absence of system. Claiming a total lack of a system makes the claimants look foolish.

'What would be a better way to describe this type of detention besides "indefinite detention"? '

"Detention until the war ends"
"Detention while you are still dangerous"

I don't know the best way to spin it.

[rhett o rick]

161. In Hamdi the court said it was ok to skip due process if ok via an

"impartial" judge. Sounds pretty loose to me.

[truedelphi]

18. Cannot agree with the "Bravo" part.

Somewhere the Democratic Presidents who didn't believe in signing statements but who did believe in Executive Orders are spinning in their graves so fast, it could be causing a tsunami somewhere!

[rhett o rick]

42. I understand. It is a small victory. At least he says he wont arrest and detain American citizens

w/o due process. Of course he can easily change that at any time.

[peacetalksforall]

84. "At least" doesn't mean anything. "At least" is forever - unless there is a chance in

the Supreme Court.

[rhett o rick]

100. I agree it isnt much. But unlike a lot of other things, he did speak out. Whether he sticks to it

is another matter.

[discocrisco01]

6. Veto

He should have vetoed the law and sent it to back to Congress to tell Congress that they rewrite the law and not include the provisions.

[rhett o rick]

8. Agree. But his own party was against him. nm

[gateley]

60. I know. This is not the bill Obama would have written. Shameful that he didn't have

support he needed. As always, provisions in it that ARE needed. I don't know what I would have done in his position.

I'm thankful for his statement.

[freshwest]

109. Just think with a GOP majority what the next bill will look like.

Things will get worse before they get better.

[truedelphi]

19. + 1. n/t

[cstanleytech]

21. Its less than a year till the elections so do you really think it wise to make it easier for the GOP

by letting them run a "President Obama sided with the terrorists" campaign? Because if he had vetoed it I can almost guarantee you thats what in all likelihood such a campaign (with pictures of the twin towers) would have happened if he had vetoed it if we go by their history of swiftboating.

[truedelphi]

25. So by your reasoning, we elect A Democat to serve as the President but he must

Continually collude with the Republican way of thinking in order to not have to suffer the barbs and misfortunes of being called out by the Republicans?

So, what then, pray tell, is the value of having a Democratic President?

[RC]

36. You raise an excellent point

He should have vetoed the bill, with a list of unconstitutional provisions it contains. Let Congress try again.
But then, who do "We the people..." have in our Federal Government that is still serving us, the people?

[cstanleytech]

40. If so many democrats in the senate and congress hadnt supported it he probably could have.

[RC]

45. That is why the President has veto power over Congress.

[cstanleytech]

51. Not an infinite version though as

Congress can override a veto and once they do that it becomes law with or without the presidents signature.
While it might not have happened in this case there is always the risk it could or at the very least the infighting it would have caused among the dems could have severely weakened them and the president further come election time and frankly the thought of any of the republicans running winning the whitehouse scares the living hell out of me.

[RC]

54. So a Congress of right leaning (D)'s & (R)'s does not scare you?

The effect is the same. And with no presidential check to balance the Congress? That scares the hell out of me.

[cstanleytech]

82. No it doesnt scare me......concern, yes but hopefully we can fix the problem eventually.

Now what would scare me is the republican retaking the whitehouse because right now thats all thats stopping them from dismantling social security, medicare and other social programs.

[Tx4obama]

134. Please see comment #133 n/t

[cstanleytech]

37. Its an issue of pragmatism or can you honestly say that if he had vetoed it that

it wouldnt have been wielded like a club during the campaign?
As for what the value is, right now the value is hes trying to keep things from getting worse in the nation than what the republicans made when they were in charge or do you think Romney or Newt would be a better option?

[truedelphi]

56. The problem with your argument is that

It isn't one.

There are many excellent choices in the nation. W edon't need a pragmatic "Democrat" whose biggest distinguishing mark from the Republicans is that we have Food Stamps.

We need new contenders.

Study up on the implications of March 15th 1968. (The day LBJ said he would not seek re-eclection.)

Before that date, Eugene McCarthy was a nobody. And RFK had no leg to stand on. Once the resignation happened, the field was open.

After that date, it took the collusionary powers of Richard M Daley and his police force to keep democracy from happening in the election of 1968.

But in the end, the people won. When Nixon resigned in August of 1984, it was because the nation as a whole had caught on to what the people in the streets of Chicago Aug 1968 had been trying to say before they got their heads bashed in.

[cstanleytech]

113. Well your entitled to that opinion of course however I dont believe

its likely to happen any time soon with the current congress in charge.

Oh and btw Nixon resigned in August of 1974 not 1984.

[treestar]

106. No, they are hopelessly idealistic and everything is a battle to the brink

and everything is black and white either pure idealism or we are all going down. And I bet they didn't read the OP or anything that was intended to inform them further on the subject.

This is a good, neutral piece:
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/

We were supposed to go into default rather than allow a compromise with Republicans. No matter how harsh that would be for our country, we have to do it on principle. It's always a matter of life and death. Now we have to have a crisis in the military. Because disaster will bring down the corporatists, or Wall Street, or something.

[Charlemagne]

108. Ive seen Op-Eds on Faux News

That said it was a bad idea. These are the same people that would lynch you before rather than say hello.

Now, it may just be because it is a democrat that was signing the bill, im sure if a republican was signing it there would be no problem.

But at least there was the discussion that this is unconstitutional and potentially very, very dangerous.


All Obama has to do is hammer in those points over and over. They can say that he doesnt support the troops but if he points out that the bill would allow a president to lock you up indefinitely with no legal protection, I would think at least the independents would listen.

[dflprincess]

118. He took an oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution

There is not a subclause in the oath that says that should only be done when it's "pragmatic".

[truedelphi]

121. Sadly we live in an age of pragmatic politicans, though

This is certainly an era where statesmen and stateswomen are needed.

[cstanleytech]

125. And he is doing so because SCOTUS so far has

(wrongly imo) ruled that the detention laws as applied to those who arent US citizens are legal.

[gateley]

62. You are right. We have to deal with the reality of the situation. nt

[quakerboy]

138. And by going along with it, they will not run ridiculously false ads against the president?

And they will not accuse him of siding with teh enemy?

They do not need facts to make up shit. They do not even need a kernel of truth to swiftboat anyone who doesn't tow the corporate line. They will do it regardless of what we do or do not do.

[LanternWaste]

170. For many people, personal and ethical convictions outweigh political conveniences

For many people, personal and ethical convictions outweigh political conveniences. We call them, 'people of integrity'.

However, I do realize the great inconvenience personal convictions and integrity may make for the party machine...

[cstanleytech]

173. Integrity..........in politics? Since when?

[Tx4obama]

133. Ah, but you're forgetting this important point ...

SNIP

Even if he would have vetoed it, an override would have been likely. His veto would have been nothing more than an empty symbolic gesture that would have caused more problems than it solved.

SNIP

Full article here: http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-ndaa-statement

[TBF]

140. Expediency over constitution - got it.

That may be your preference but it's not mine.

[RC]

141. By signing it, Obama goes along with it.

Where is Obama's bully pulpit? Where are the Rights of the American People?
How does this affect the so-called fight against terrorism, except to codify our terrorist acts against other countries, as somehow being OK?
Look at the history of the middle East and the United States roll in it. We are doing it to ourselves as justification to keep doing it. Do you not see this as wrong?

Forget who is doing it and look at what is being done.
Why is it OK when 'we' (Dems, US, Obama)does it, but wrong when 'they' (anyone else)does it? That is what you are justifying.

[stockholmer]

9. ask Anwar al -Awlaki's 16 year old (& a US citizen) son,murdered in separate drone attack on Obama's

orders, how much 'constitutional protections' and 'rule of law' there is. No due process, not indictments, no direct evidence given. http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_year_old_son/



The US is soon utterly lost to a thuggish, corporate police state run by puppet Democratic and Republicans for their bankster masters.

[Robb]

26. Just giving the man what he wants.

Anwar al Awlaki's son hoped 'to attain martyrdom as my father attained it'

[truedelphi]

27. That young man's death resonates with me the same way

That the photo of the girl being burned with napalm did.

This young guy could have been at any one of our Ivy League colleges next fall.

He could have been anyone of us.

These days, I feel so hopeless.

[Tx4obama]

47. I think perhaps some research is in order so that you'll have the facts.

The son was not like 'anyone of us'.

He was raised under his father's ideology of hate for The USA and of Jihad.

His father moved him overseas when he was like 5 years old - he did not grow up as an American.

If he had not been hanging out with terrorists at the time the drone targeted one of the top terrorists, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[truedelphi]

53. By that logic, my very good friend in the seventies, KW,

Should have been a pariah to all of us peace niks. Her dad was a war contractor, and she was in his presence, and the presence of all his war loving friends, until she was able to move away from home at the age of nineteen and attend college.


Kids in their teens need to be able to grow up and live their lives, and not have their lives ended on account of the father's sins.

BTW, for your information, I am not a LOCK STEP person with a LOCK STEP brain, so you will find it a rare day when your "research" convinces" me of anything.

[Tx4obama]

57. I was suggesting that YOU go and do some research.

I wasn't saying you should rely on my research

But here's some of 'mine'

The drone was targeting an Egyptian man named al Bana.
---
And regarding al-Awlaki and his son ...

Anwar al-Awlaki

SNIP

In "44 Ways to Support Jihad," another sermon posted on his blog in February 2009, al-Awlaki encouraged others to "fight jihad", and explained how to give money to the mujahideen or their families after they've died. Al-Awlaki's sermon also encouraged others to conduct weapons training, and raise children "on the love of Jihad". Also that month, he wrote: "I pray that Allah destroys America and all its allies." He wrote as well: "We will implement the rule of Allah on Earth by the tip of the sword, whether the masses like it or not." On July 14, he criticized armies of Muslim countries that assist the U.S. military, saying, "the blame should be placed on the soldier who is willing to follow orders ... who sells his religion for a few dollars."In a sermon on his blog on July 15, 2009, entitled "Fighting Against Government Armies in the Muslim World," al-Awlaki wrote, "Blessed are those who fight against American soldiers, and blessed are those shuhada (martyrs) who are killed by them."
SNIP
http://www.aabout.biz/2011/09/anwar-al-awlaki.html
---

Did you catch that? " ... raise children "on the love of Jihad."

He and his SON can not be compared to a average American father and son.
al-Awlaki's son had lived in Yemen since 2002 - he was NOT raised like an American,
The son was raised 'on the love of Jihad'.

Some folks have said that the 'son' was targeted - that is not true, it was an Egyptian named al Bana that was the target.
The son was killed in the drone attack that killed al Bana.
There is no evidence that the 'son' was innocent or evidence that he was a member of Al Qaeda.
But considering the son has lived with his TERRORIST father in Yemen since 2002, and his father believe everyone should raise their children 'on the love of Jihad' --- there is NO logical way to say that the 'son' was a peace loving American citizen.
And the 'son' was not some innocent bystander that some criminal grabbed as a hostage, the son went there were the Al Qaeda members were on the night of the drone attack on his own free will, even the family said the son went to Shabwa from Sana after he heard about the attack on his father.

[stockholmer]

63. research says...... extrajudicial murder

sorry, I am not going to give up my core humanity on this one, and the son certainly did not commit offenses worth of death. Are you really ready to roll down the 'pre-emptive strike' pathway laid out by the butcher W. Bush?

[Charlemagne]

110. My real name

Is the exact same as a convicted IRA terrorist who is legally forbidden to enter both the UK and the US. These laws that are 'shoot first ask questions never' really bother me. What is my method of recourse if I am obtained (Im not IRA nor do I support their cause).

All it takes is one of my students to get mad and make a phone call to the feds saying that I am some unamerican so and so. Suddenly I find myself on the receiving end of Obamas signing statement.

[truedelphi]

122. You say:

Suddenly I find myself on the receiving end of Obama's signing statement.

And I guess we can add, so are we all.

Do all the people of Obama signing off on this detention provision not remember that Rumsfeld wanted "Religious Deviants" and environmentalists to be declared terrorists?

[Tx4obama]

31. Anwar al -Awlaki's 16 year old son was NOT the target of that drone, A TERRORIST WAS

Morale of the story: If you don't want to die in a drone attack then do not HANG AROUND with al Qaeda terrorists!

[RC]

38. Don't you just love the lengths the Obama excusers go to justify our atrocities?

I wonder it the kid even knew he was hanging around with any terrorists? More than likely he thought they were defending their country from foreign terrorists.

[Tx4obama]

46. Yes, he did know they were his father's terrorists buddies

he traveled from the town he was living in to the town/place the terrorists were meeting, the drone attacked one of the top terrorists after everyone left the building the meeting was being held in. If hadn't been hanging around the terrorists at the time of the drone strike he would still be alive. He was NOT the target of the drone the terrorists were.

What is amazing is the lengths that some folks go to in order to bash our President and the people that support him, while at the same time defending folks that hang out with al Qaeda terrorists. How sad.

[RC]

52. What are WE doing "fighting terrorism" in other countries? If you look at the history, the

terrorist are usually our own doing in some way, because WE have a long history of meddling in the internal affairs of other countries - In most cases, we were NOT invited. We just showed up.
We need to tend to the problems in THIS country before it collapses into 3rd world status.

[OKDem08]

129. Standing Ovation

you are dealing w/someone not to be reasoned with...

[Charlemagne]

112. RC makes a good point

about fighting terrorist we create. But it isnt even about that.


Its about the assassination of an American citizen without due process of any sort. That is troubling. I dont give a shit who his buddies were or who he is hanging around with.


The republicans said Obama was friends with terrorists right? William Aires (or whatever his name is). Would they be justified in the same sort of action. I mean, he did hang out with a guy who planted a bomb in federal buildings.

[Tx4obama]

117. The 16 year old son was NOT assassinated and he was NOT the target of the drone.

Assassination and Collateral Damage are two totally different things.

[Charlemagne]

119. but his dad was

[cstanleytech]

126. His dad was also posting video online advocating for jihad if I recall

and furthermore (assuming the intelligence people got it right this time and didnt drop the ball again) he was working with bin ladens people, so ya while a day in court for treason would have been nice to have with him I dont see him turning himself in if he was working with bin ladens people, do you?

[Charlemagne]

128. "I dont see him turning himself in if he was working with bin ladens people, do you?"

The constitution is clear on this.

[cstanleytech]

130. Well feel free to update us when the SCOTUS

makes its ruling on the constitutionality of it.

[stockholmer]

64. "do not HANG AROUND with al Qaeda terrorists!" unless of course they are Libyan 'freedom fighters'

[Tx4obama]

86. Sorry, in my opinion, your statement is so ridiculous that I'm not even going to address it. n/t

[Charlemagne]

111. He never got a trial

So we dont know if he was or wasnt.


Innocent until proven guilty is sort of a big deal. or at least it was.

[OKNancy]

10. I think it sounds reasonable and prudent

and reassuring. Sometimes you DO have to put trust in people and I think that the President will abide by the words in the statement.

[bowens43]

14. to put trust in any politician is a mistake

This president has gone back on his word repeatidly.

[truedelphi]

23. I feel the same way. And politicians are more "politicians" than

Statemen these days. Very hard to trust any elected officials.

[ixion]

15. Eliminating Posse Comitatus and Habeus Corpus is prudent and reasonable? Uhm, no, it isn't.

It is extremism, and antithetical to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[truedelphi]

28. Over and over again, Obama shows us that he is a

Politician first and a statesman, well, very rarely.

[Magoo48]

55. Agreed....and once you give "it" up you're not gonna get it back.

[Charlemagne]

114. Dateline, 2008

"Upon learning that Obama was friends with terrorist william aires, he was arrested and held indefinitely in Guantanamo Bay.

President Bush quoted saying, "Well, he was clearly a threat to the US. Obama should have picked better friends. It is my dudty to protect this country and he was a threat."

John McCain is now running unopposed for the presidency."


Thats what could have happened if this was signed a few years back.

[webDude]

16. Well then, you will agree to be the first when he, or another President, do not?

Do you have any sense of history or is this just "Operation Mockingbird"?

[OKNancy]

20. LOL - yes I'm a super-duper agent here to

influence everyone on DU. I read the whole signing statement without prejudice. I believe others should do the same.

[ixion]

32. The signing statement is posturing. The legislation is what matters.

[Igel]

69. Not true.

It can be in some cases. Often the president will have a written record of his interpretation that will help the courts come to a conclusion about what the legislation actually means. (For those judges that try to figure out Congress's intent, instead of what a lawyer wants the language, 5 or 50 years later, to have always meant.)

In many other cases the signing statement says how the law will be implemented. In one * signing statement that required some dept. chief to sign to confirm the contents of a report, the statement pointed out that under one statute the phrase for affirming the report contents meant nothing more than certifying that his dept. really did produce the report. No big deal. But under a different statute, the phrase used meant that the signer had personally verified everything in the report, subject to perjury laws if he was wrong or failed to verify any. Since the report was a compendium of expenses of various kinds that would run to over 1000 pages, the second definition would be crazy to apply. You don't want an agency chief doing nothing all year long but verifying each numbers. * said he'd interpret the law to only mean the former, not the latter, definition. I like this kind of section in a signing statement. It's useful and transparent.

In other cases a signing statement nullifies or seems to nullify a provision, at least in principle. This takes three forms.

The first is actual nullification. The president says a bit of a bill violates the separation of powers principle behind our government or some other bit of the Constitution (textual or inferred) and then actually ignores that part of the bill. Since it's unclear who'd enforce the provision, it goes unimplemented. "You way I must eat chocolate meringue pie. I hate chocolate and meringue. Screw you."

The second form is weasely. He president claims that something already in place or some alternative actually satisfies the bill's text so he's implemented the law already, however ludicrous the claim. He actually ignores the law by insisting that something that doesn't satisfy the law actually does. Obama does this in the above signing statement. "Yes, I'm going to follow the requirement that I eat chocolate meringue pie, but I interpret 'chocolate' to be anything derived from a tropical seed, and "meringue" to be any kind of whipped light-colored topping. Here, have a cappucino, made with tropical coffee seeds and topped with whipped milk. Sorry, did I say 'cappucino'? I mean 'chocolate meringue pie'."

The third kind of nullification is fictive. The president argues that the bill violates the separation of powers or some Constitutional prerogative the president claims. Nobody can claim that he's ceded his authority at that point--he's rejected the usurpation, real or not, of his authority. *Then* the president goes right ahead and does what the law says, but now can always claim that he wasn't implementing an unconstitutional law but was just doing what he wanted. Often he "follows" the law more closely under this kind of legal but meaningless nullification then he does when he claims he's just "alternatively interpreting" the law. "I reject any legal requirement that I eat chocolate meringue pie as an imposition as a violation of constitutional powers. There, that's done. I have an important announcement next month." Next month: "I'd like to announce that in solidarity with the American Union of Custard Pie Producers, we will be serving chocolate meringue pie at every White House function."

When the bill's signed, the difference between the first and third way of "nullifying" a provision are indistinguishable. The verbiage and 'tude are the same. You have to bother to go back a year or two later to see if the "ignored" law was actually ignored or if it was just independently and voluntarily followed.

[ixion]

83. Yes, it true, I'm afraid.

It's a non-binding, both for Obama and for any subsequent administration.

It is the end of Posse Comitatus and Habeus Corpus, and a dark day for the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

[lamp_shade]

11. Well done. I anticipate repubs in congress will soon have their knickers all in a twist over this.

Teehee.

[Gringostan]

17. The truly horrifying question about our democracy

The truly horrifying question about our democracy, if it exists; where is the Democratic Party on crucial issues like this? If I take Obama at his word, and I’m not 100% certain I can, then why wasn’t there a gathering on the White House lawn with all the Democrats and the President saying they support the troops but will not sign a bill that contains this provision. Put the onus on the republicans, veto the bill and send it back.

[truedelphi]

30. You Are N-A-I-L-I-N-G

It exactly.

We as a nation watched Eisenhower send in Federal Troops to guarantee safety in terms of school desegregation in the SOuth.

We watched John F Kennedy stand up to the Genereals, all of whom thought they were running the nation in October '62 and tell them, "There is another way outside of nuclear war."

We watch this President take the easy way out again and again.

And as far as how people have "progressed" on their thinking - Should some politician let an ugly remark - either racist or homophobic - slip from their lips, and everyone on DU is ready to batter that person.

But when the rights of every single one of us, regardless of our skin colors, or our sexual orientation, our religious beliefs, our station in life, are knocked to the floor and swept away, I for one expect more from a President than a damn signing statement.

And should the Republicans get in, it will be people of color, and people of the Muslim faith, and people who are different in terms of gender orientation and sexual preference, who will be the first to feel the brunt of the provisions of the detention portion of this law.

[magical thyme]

29. so he has reservations because of restrictions on his options

"In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.....

....some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures."

I feel so much safer now:

"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....."

"under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention."

What about future administrations?

[boppers]

35. What about past administrations?

They tried to abuse this power, the Supreme Court said no, and now it's been written into law.

[cstanleytech]

49. They didnt always say no, check out Executive Order 9066

[boppers]

99. Stare decisis.

They didn't say no to miscegenation laws, suffrage laws, (etc.) until they struck them down, and it often takes a very, very, long time, and a huge cultural shift, to reverse past decisions.

Of course, in some situations, (Bowers v. Hardwick and Lawrence v. Texas), it's only 17 years or so, but a global pandemic (and resulting cultural exposure) kind of influenced that....

Plus, it's a bit challenging to be serious about defending precedent about oral sex when one participant is named... "Hardwick".

[cstanleytech]

127. Its even harder to defend

yourself involving a sex scandal if your last name is Weiner.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. As predicted the signing contests restrictions on the executive branch.

Neither the legislature nor the executive give a rats ass about the destruction of constitutional restraints protecting the rights of all people.

What a travesty.

[FarLeftFist]

34. This:

My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.


Is why we need to re-elect Obama in 2012.

[RC]

43. Obama signed this unconstitutional dreck, which is evidence he needs to be primaried.

[lamp_shade]

44. Yup. Looks like a few folks here didn't bother to read the whole thing.

[Charlemagne]

61. So he signs our warrants

and then tells us we better vote for him because if not, the next guy will execute the very warrants he signed?


Yeah, sounds like a damn good deal. What a savior he is!

[limpyhobbler]

68. sounds like extortion

or blackmail, I always get those two confused

[stockholmer]

75. "seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Admin"

So I guess the SEC and the CFTC (not that they do shite-fuck all anyway) are toast in 2013 if the president wins re-election?




More for the banksters means less for the world.

[Charlemagne]

79. "seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Admin"

Rock solid values like......ordering the assassination of an american citizen without any due process. That definitely hope and change.

[BenYehuda]

39. Obama ur not JFK, Clinton, FDR or anything of the above....

....loser.

[cstanleytech]

48. None of them have been perfect sadly.

Both JFK and Clinton cheated on their wives and FDR signed Executive Order 9066
Now I understand and even share in your disappointment in Obama signing it but do try please and look at the facts which are that his hands were largely tied due to some of the dems voting for it.
Could he have vetoed it? Yes
Should he? Not really sure.
There is the possibility that given how the voting went that his veto would have been overridden not to mention the huge risk in it being used against him in the election thereby possibly giving the presidency to the republicans but if we can keep him in office there is atleast some hope that in time he will be able to get congress and the senate to pass a clean bill that does away with the whole thing.

[James48]

50. A signing statement? A friggin signing statement?

You have to be kidding me!

"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. "

Yeh, and you think the next President it going to interpret the section the same way?

You know Mr. President, I don't think you ever read the part in the Constitution about a President being able to VETO something he fundamentally disagrees with.

Yes, - VETO.

It's one of those powers that comes with the office,Mr. President.

[IamK]

58. as long as he can still blow up middle eastern people with drones, he is good.....

[lib2DaBone]

59. Of COURSE he voted for it. He has to do what his masters on Wall Street tell him to do.

Please don't tell me to vote for Obama because he is the lesser of two evils.. he is not.

[TBF]

65. Should have been vetoed -

I don't agree with his decision on this.

[Pavlo]

76. This is not what I voted for

This is like republicans on steroids, only worse. make it stop>

[TBF]

81. I just said I disagreed with passing this legislation in it's present form -

I said nothing about elections.

[joshcryer]

95. Me either.

But at least the rhetoric is nice.

[TBF]

96. It's far deeper than one president -

rhetoric or not ...

We'll get there eventually, at least OWS has planted the seeds of worldwide change.

[joshcryer]

97. I was genuinely pissed that he threatened the veto and then pulled back.

The original veto threat was that he didn't believe the government should have to differ those powers (it wasn't over the indefinite detention language). It was a political ploy, once the "no new law" language was added he signed off on it and did a Bush-style signing statement. I hated it when Bush did those bullshit signing statements.

Should've just vetoed it but he's living in election mode.

[Tx4obama]

135. Please see comment #133 n/t

[Javaman]

66. wait till the spring when the real protests begin...

I wonder if he'll pay attention to that signing statement then.

[stockholmer]

78. where this is really gonna kick the US citizens in the teeth is under Jeb Bush in 2017 (or 2013, if

there is a brokered Republican convention and Jeb is annointed, then wins the general election- which is still a loooong shot). Then again, maybe I am giving Obama too much credit, as his 'left-cover' does lend to the possibilty of further present day tyranny. it is hard not to be cynical and untrusting of the US government, regardless of whether there is a 'D' or an 'R' behind the name of the POTUS.

Also, because it is now officially the New Year here in Sweden now (2AM), let me go on record officially with a prediction:

I see many, many on here who think that is Obama wins re-election (I would place him with 60% odds now against Romney, 90% against Newt or Paul) that this sets up Hillary Clinton for a great chance in 2016. This will never happen, for if Obama wins relection, I give the Democratic nominee about 10 to 20% chance in 2016, as the country will be in economic shambles by then. If Obama loses, then Hillary has a fighting chance. 2013 to 2017 is going be ugly, real ugly.

[Charlemagne]

77. were the

two patriot acts

the military commissions act

the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security

Armed Forces

Local law enforement

all not good enough?!?!

Why, if the crap mentioned above did such a good job, did we need this new piece of legislation? Yeah, it says that president isnt mandated to hold citizens indefinitely, but it doesnt say he cant if he wants to.

I really trust the president who, without any due process, ordered the assassination of an american citizen. Im sure he would never lock up an american citizen. Having them killed in a drone strike is ok. But locking them in GITMO is going too far.

[Tx4obama]

87. Click the link below if you want to read a GREAT article regarding Obama's signing statement & bill

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10164168

or here: http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-ndaa-statement

[just1voice]

89. So he won't detain and torture Americans but other administrations might, ahhh OK, sure.

So America's belief in justice and human rights are open for interpretation by different administrations, and if the next administration wants to let the torturers go then that's fine too apparently.

Pathetic.

[joshcryer]

91. BUT RON PAUL SAYS HE'S ANTI WAR.

HE'S THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN BE EXPECTED TO RAISE NATIONAL DIALOG!!!!!

[harun]

92. Should have been veto'd but had no doubt it wouldn't. Obama has governed the same as the

last administration on all issues of this sort without exception.

[Tx4obama]

136. Please see comment #133 on the current thread.

p.s. And also if Congress has over ridden Obama, then Obama wouldn't have even been able to issue a signing statement.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

115. "The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it."

Weaselly?

[Charlemagne]

123. Weaselly indeed

The fact that I tried to have gay sex with a guy in a Minneapolis airport does not mean I agree with homosexuality.......although I will still have sex with men."

-(fictional statement by)Sen Larry Craig


Just because Obama says he is against something, well you know.

[cheapdate]

124. To veto, or not to veto the appropriation bill funding our national defense

Is a wretched choice given to Obama by congress.

"The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. [...] I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions...

[snip]

"Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons [...] and is unnecessary.

[snip]

"Section 1022 [...] is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States.

[snip]

"Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch's processes for reviewing the status of detainees.

[snip]

"Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests.

[...]

"My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. My Administration will aggressively seek to mitigate those concerns through the design of implementation procedures and other authorities available to me as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future, and will seek the repeal of any provisions that undermine the policies and values that have guided my Administration throughout my time in office.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 31, 2011. "

[mike_c]

149. that's one of the greatest OPPORTUNITIES handed to the president in decades...

...and he blew it utterly. Defund the Pentagon if the war hawks and anti-civil libertarians insist on this sort of nonsense. Cut their appropriations off at the knees. The U.S., and certainly the rest of the world, would be a much better, safer place without the biggest nuclear bully on the block running amok all over the globe.

[cheapdate]

153. Good point...

but I don't believe there would have been nearly enough political or popular support for a veto. The ensuing political chaos may have led to unintended consequences, such as significantly empowering the right-wing, and ultimately moving the country in the OPPOSITE direction. I'm not sure that the time was right for vetoing the defense authorization bill, as deplorable as it was.

[fasttense]

137. And on a minor note.

"The Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD)."

Bye bye military healthcare.

[cheapdate]

155. Health care provisions are in Title VII of the bill.

I don't think that your conclusion is accurate. Browsing the provisions of "Title VII - Health Care Provisions", I didn't see anything to support that conclusion. To the contrary, most of what I saw was favorable to military personnel and their families, and to veterans.

[fredamae]

139. I don't see references to Sec 1031 & 1032

Which I believed to be the main two that are of concern to ordinary persons.

[limpyhobbler]

142. I think they got renumbered in the final version.

I thought
1031 became 1021 and
1032 became 1022.

They like to keep it interesting like that.

[fredamae]

145. Ahh, Thanks..That could be it as the

subject matter addressed was worded similarly-yes, they do and most of us (me) can't keep up on the "legalese" and process

[mike_c]

148. lame....

Ugh.

[DirkGently]

150. THIS is what supposedly makes it okay? He's griping it doesn't give ENOUGH power to the Executive.

Jesus.

[cstanleytech]

156. Yes but not in the same way Bush wanted more powers.

I'll repost the main section I mean


Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch's processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.

Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.


As you can see he doesnt want more Bush like powers it seems but rather he wants things like the freedom to bring them to the US itself and determine what the best legal way to deal with them is or atleast thats how I read it.

[DirkGently]

159. Nothing wrong with the sentiment. But he never says the law doesn't permit indefinite detention

of U.S. citizens. Although he is careful to say his administration won't.

[cstanleytech]

160. I thought he addressed that in the part where he said

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.

[DirkGently]

163. Not when it's argued AUMF allows indefinite detention, and summary execution, of American citizens.

Remember when we blew up the American overseas with a drone? No trial, no arrest. Dead, along with his kid. The justification, shouted loudly in this forum, was that AUMF trumps the Constitution.

It would have been the simplest thing in the world for the President to say that AUMF does NOT trump the Constitutional rights of Americans, but he did not, and the drone killing shows why. He is willing, in at least some cases, to take the view that AUMF does trump the Constitution.

While it's good to hear that this administration *will not* detain Americans in contravention of the Constitution, he did not say that it's because that's not authorized.

These vague references to existing law quite deliberately leave the "AUMF means no Bill of Rights if the government calls you a terrorist" door wide open.

[cstanleytech]

166. Perhaps I am mistaken will you quote please where it says in the AUMF

that they can hold a citizen for an indefinite detention?
Also, I am not seeing much in the way of "summary executions" going on other than the guy who was working for bin ladens people or are you claiming he wasnt posting videos advocating jihad on the internet and working with bin ladens people, you remember them right? They were the ones that rammed jets into the twin towers back in 2001 and killed thousands of men, women and children.
As for why he didnt say he wouldnt hold them it might be because they cant or have you found that quote yet that allows for it?

[humbled_opinion]

158. REALLY?

You won't detain American citizens? Really? no that's right no need to detain them when you can order drones to murder them from miles away. No need for detention when you can just call for execution or assasination. I am not fooled as many are. He hasn't changed anything that Bushco put in place, he just continues it on Patriot act, unlawful detention etc, but he spices it up with real nice word to make us think he cares. Oh well when the right regains power and the nut that gets put in charge decides to continue the Obama plan what kind of protest leverage will that leave to real anti-war and real civil liberties hawks?

[patrice]

167. Odd. There's nothing humble about your ability to predict "reality".

[humbled_opinion]

168. Do you deny that

Under this administration there have been captures and subsequent murders of terrorist suspects as well as heads of state not to mention a teenage pirate who was found later to have an unloaded weapon in his posession.... What gives?

[lovuian]

171. He is a CONSTITUtional Lawyer!!!

He knows what he has done

and forty retired military generals as well as the rest of the people of America knows
what they are doing

[Major Hogwash]

172. Come up to speed.

Those Generals were against a former version of this bill.