White House Says No Veto Of Defense Bill

[brentspeak]

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/14/white_house_says_no_veto_of_defense_bill/

Wednesday, Dec 14, 2011 2:54 AM Eastern Standard Time

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House on Wednesday abandoned its threat that President Barack Obama would veto a defense bill over provisions on how to handle suspected terrorists as Congress raced to finish the legislation.

Press secretary Jay Carney said last-minute changes that Obama and his national security team sought produced legislation that “does not challenge the president’s ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the American people.”

Based on the modifications, “the president’s senior advisers will not recommend a veto,” the White House said.

The statement came just moments after the House wrapped up debate on the $662 billion bill that would authorize money for military personnel, weapons systems, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and national security programs in the Energy Department in the budget year that began Oct. 1.

Translation: The White House was actually never going to veto the bill, and the "modifications" are cosmetic. Business -- and B.S. -- as usual.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

1. No veto??? Well this is a surprise.

[TDale313]

5. Not surprising...

but still disgusting and heartbreaking. Also seems to confirm that that the veto threat was always about the fact that the bill could be read as limiting the White House's power, not concerns over the constitutionality or human rights implications of this bill.

[Justice wanted]

8. agree... unfortunately.

[suffragette]

2. Further in the article

The legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation’s borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention.
~~~
In a reflection of the uncertainty, House members offered differing interpretations of the military custody and indefinite detention provisions and what would happen if the bill became law.

“The provisions do not extend new authority to detain U.S. citizens,” House Armed Services Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., said during debate.

But Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the bill would turn “the military into a domestic police force.”


Looks like it still has the same issues to me and agree with your assessment.

[Autumn]

3. No a bit surprised on that,

I agree Business -- and B.S. -- as usual.

[TheWraith]

4. Even when Obama wins a staredown, he just can't win with some people.

So he threatens to veto, gets the bill changed, but some people "just know" that that's not really good enough.

I'm sure that if he actually vetoed it, you'd still find a way to blame him for doing something horrible.

[Richard Charnin]

6. The legislation also would deny...

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/14/white_house_says_no_veto_of_defense_bill/

"The legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation’s borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention".

[msongs]

11. the issue is the content of the bill not Obama's political gamesmanship nt

[markpkessinger]

12. From the article...

House and Senate negotiators announced late Monday that they had modified that provision. They added language that says nothing in the bill will affect “existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the FBI or any other domestic law enforcement agency” with regard to a captured suspect, “regardless of whether such … person is held in military custody.”

The bill also says the president can waive the provision based on national security.

(Emphasis added).

The problem with something like this isn't necessarily a fear that President Obama is planning to abuse it. It's the precedent that is set with respect to future presidents. Do you really want a future GOP Pres. to have that much unchecked power at his/her disposal?

[stillwaiting]

14. Your point is THE point.

It's such a damn shame that it even has to be made.

This bill fundamentally changes America, and what it means to be an American citizen.

[Aerows]

17. That's my problem with it, too

Obama may not abuse it, but somebody like Newt Gingrich got in, with his tantrum throwing ways, he'd do it purely for retaliation.

If this isn't wide open to abuse, then I don't know what you consider wide open to abuse.

[AtomicKitten]

7. The House hasn't voted yet on this proposed legislation

which has probably mutated several times. Now I understand some folks here are anxious to get their outrage on, but nobody can state with certainty what exactly is in the bill at this point because it is still a work in progress.

[One of the 99]

9. Well said AC! nt

[AtomicKitten]

29. Hello there. Welcome to DU.

[Aerows]

23. When we are even THINKING

of passing legislation that allows Americans on American soil to be indefinitely detained without trial, it's time to get our outrage on. I don't give a damn if Jesus Christ came down and suggested it. It's against the principles of our nation and our Constitution.

[AtomicKitten]

24. No flies on you. Why wait for the facts?

[Aerows]

25. I'm going to be alarmed

Any time a bill comes forward that says that American citizens can be indefinitely detained without trial, period. The question is, why aren't you alarmed? Obama isn't always going to be President. What if the election gets flubbed and we get some nutty Republican? Do you want Newt Gingrich with this kind of power? I sure as hell don't.

[AtomicKitten]

26. Again you are jumping the gun, but have at.

[Aerows]

27. It's not jumping the gun whatsoever

To be concerned that our lawmakers are even discussing this. This isn't about Obama, or any other politician. This is about the fact that our vaunted Congress has gotten to the point where they think it's fine to ignore the Constitution just because it might become politically inconvenient to give people trials.

That doesn't worry you one bit, and doesn't concern you that the entire tone in Washington has become the opposite of what our nation was founded upon?

[AtomicKitten]

28. Don't project your hypervigilence on me.

This is about waiting for actual evidence - as in this proposed legislation hasn't passed the House yet, will probably go back to the Senate and back to the House and so on, and has almost certainly gone through and will go through mutations along the way - before blowing a head gasket.

Now you are perfectly free to dissolve into a puddle over this prematurely, hey mazel tov - knock yourself out, but don't project your hysteria on others with ridiculous personal inferences.

[Aerows]

30. I'll continue to be vigilent

and speak up. We're here to discuss politics. This is politics. You disagree, that's fine, but let's not pretend that there aren't plenty of others that aren't just as concerned. You aren't, I get that.

[noise]

31. If the "war on terror" is as serious as a bunch of fearmongering politicians claim it to be

then why on earth do they pretend Iraq was a "good faith diversion?" If they truly believed their fearmongering claims they would not pretend that the Iraq invasion/occupation was anything but an outrage which severely compromised the war on terror.

You are right. Anyone paying attention should be extremely concerned.

[AtomicKitten]

40. Sections 1031 and 1032 explicitly exclude American citizens and Green Card holders.

As it stands today: http://pastebin.com/qN51iztQ

[Aerows]

41. No, what it says is...

They aren't *REQUIRED* to be detained by the military. It does not say that they *cannot* be detained. That's a very important point here.

Any person that meets the criteria of "terrorist" or "suspected of terrorism" can be detained. In other words, they can be detained without trial indefinitely, and/or transported to any country. That's a very lovely little provision in there, too.

Here's the part you referred to:

(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.

Oh, and I forgot - WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) ( describes what a terrorist is)

[AtomicKitten]

42. The Constitution still stands regardless, but these statutes

explicitly exclude American citizens and those with Green cards. It was what Obama demanded and what he got. Norm Goldman is going off on this tonight on 960 Green here in SF. He is railing against the irresponsible leftwing blogosphere fueling outrage with horseshit. In other words, you and they've got it all wrong.

Rage on.

[Aerows]

43. The AP reported this today.

I guess the AP reported it all wrong today, too. I suppose they are the leftwing blogosphere, too, along with several politicians and officials who have spoken out about it.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFsyaljotNCsnPSzq9tjRtOkPKZg?docId=e3c1b02ccc1a42b78e94120a4a2f53a5

"The legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention."

It does not say that citizens are exempted. It says that citizens are not REQUIRED to be detained.

[AtomicKitten]

45. Read it again. It reflects the exemptions I already posted.

//"Specifically, the bill would require that the military take custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates and who is involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. There is an exemption for U.S. citizens."//

[Robb]

10. I think you've rather lost the plot.

Obama to sign defense bill, after detainee changes

The White House announced today that President Obama will sign a once-disputed defense authorization bill because authors have removed language that would have restricted the administration's handling of high-value terrorist detainees.

An initial version of the defense bill would have required military custody of terrorist suspects linked to al Qaeda; the administration -- which had threatened to veto the defense bill -- wants to reserve the right for civilian trials of accused terrorists.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/12/obama-to-sign-defense-bill-after-detainee-changes/1

[redqueen]

13. Thanks. (nt)

[Aerows]

15. It gives the president discretion

Meaning he can pick and choose who gets civilian trials.

We have the additional problem that this can affect Americans on American soil. In this political climate, and heaven forbid we get a Republican in office, do you think they would hesitate to round up anyone that speaks up too loudly against that status quo? Republicans would be howling to round up every liberal in reach, since many of them are brain-washed into thinking that anyone who isn't a conservative is a terrorist.

This is a HORRIBLE bill. It's horrible under Obama, and it sure as hell will be put to horrible uses under Republicans.

[Robb]

16. The bill he threatened to veto said zero civilian trials.

Should we go back to that one?

[brentspeak]

18. Should he sign THIS one? n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Hence now we have elected kings

that is the power of a KING... not a democratically elected President, or worst, a dictator.

Just pointing this out.

From now on, until this goes into the dustbin of history, I know I will be voting for a KING, not a president.

[noise]

32. How dare you!

We simply don't have the luxury of questioning our leaders right now.

[Aerows]

21. This is no improvement

It still gives unchecked power to a president to indefinitely detain Americans on American soil with no trial. If you don't have a problem with that, I have to wonder what you would have a problem with.

All we need now is for an election to get screwed up, get some GOP idiot in there, and we would be screwed as a populace. If one person gets picked up off the streets and detained without trial, it can happen to any one of us.

That's not alarmist thinking, either. That has happened multiple times throughout history and it never worked out well for the people. See: Soviet Union. See: Nazi Germany. See: Any number of banana republics.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. See the US. and one Mr. Padilla

If that one is not enough to wake people up, nothing will.

[Robb]

35. No. It does not give that power.

It simply does not take it away. And had it tried, the USSC would have to step in. Rumsfeld v Hamsi, or whatever it was (I'm on a phone and am going on memory) established this.

And yes, I'm on record here opposing it then. But why do you think this particular
Bill is the time to sneak in a battle with the Supremes on this? Why not a standalone bill for the President to sign?

[Aerows]

39. From the AP article

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFsyaljotNCsnPSzq9tjRtOkPKZg?docId=e3c1b02ccc1a42b78e94120a4a2f53a5

"The legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention."

They aren't the only news agency reporting this. Are you suggesting that the AP is completely wrong, not to mention other politicians and officials that have spoken out against this bill?

[Robb]

46. "The provisions do not extend new authority to detain U.S. citizens."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=143691455
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/15/us-usa-defense-idUSTRE7BD26A20111215

[Union Scribe]

33. So you trust a future Repub president with this power? nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

47. If President Obama is willing to do so, shouldn't that be good enough for us?

[Autumn]

19. I want to watch what Rep.Barbra Lee said about it

after dinner, if she is concerned that makes me concerned. This type of bill should never be supported by a Democratic President.

[Aerows]

22. Correction

This type of bill should never be supported by an AMERICAN president. This opens the door for Americans to be picked up off the street and indefinitely detained, which is what I THOUGHT our nation was against as part of our bedrock.

[Number23]

36. Bring back unrec! Bring back unrec!

[noise]

37. Totally

Indefinite detention is safe, effective and legal.

We should get rid of all courts (civilian and military) and implement across the board secret panels.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

38. WTF Obama- hope my ass

I never expected You to be perfect- nor incredibly liberal- but this????? I commen you on what you have done right- props where props are due- but allowing something as AntiAmerican as this go through is simply adhorrent and it will be difficult for me to sing your praises- you are lucky everyone else in the running are even greater buffoons.

[rasputin1952]

44. Incredible....

or perhaps reprehensible would be a better word.

[urantia1]

48. If you think American is still a free country

then you are not paying attention..we are in a race to the bottom folks

[slay]

49. White House says NO to wanting my vote

or anyone's who has really been paying attention. i mean come on honestly - would we be OK with this if George Bush were doing it? Hell no! And it makes it no less right that a Dem is doing it - in fact it makes it worse. For the thousandth time I've said this under Obama - This is NOT what I voted for! If I had wanted a republican acting president, I would have voted for one! The apologists need to wake up and see what the rest of us see - Obama's all talk, and he always caves. Stop letting his pretty words fool you - instead look at his actions.