So he objected to the detention provisions, but he's going to sign the defense bill anyway

[bigtree]

In a statement, press secretary Jay Carney said the new bill "does not challenge the president's ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the American people."

"While we remain concerned about the uncertainty that this law will create for our counterterrorism professionals, the most recent changes give the president additional discretion in determining how the law will be implemented, consistent with our values and the rule of law, which are at the heart of our country's strength," Carney said.
_____________________

I think the President figured his veto would be overridden and took the best deal he could on the revised Defense bill. That's my two cents. That's the typical story behind these bills signed with 'objections'. Presidents figure they've gotten the best they can get out of Congress and settle. He's probably right. They will likely have the opportunity to deal with these provisions at a later date, either in implementation or in an effort to repeal them separately from the weight of the overall defense legislation. At any rate, I don't see the point in hyperventilating on this. We lost this one (figures) and we'll move the fight to amend the provisions to the future.

[mike_c]

1. lame as it ever was....

Lame.

[Brickbat]

2. So, which will he be expecting to "work on" first, this or the health care plan?

[bigtree]

7. I see this President working on several issues and initiatives at once

. . . still limited by the actions of the legislature. He says he'll mitigate the effects of this legislation, work to remove or modify the provisions outside of the weight of the Defense bill and I believe him. Doesn't mean he'll be successful, but that's the point in moving forward. He apparently got the best he could out of this Congress.

[Autumn]

3. He could use the veto pen

He does not have to go with the best deal he can get on this. Fix it later isn't going to happen.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

4. That's pretty much how I figure it

I'm disappointed but, like with Gitmo, Congress- even a majority of Democrats- seems determined to keep Bush-era policies and practices from dramatically changing and by attaching this stuff to spending bills, they make it harder for President Obama to veto in the end. It would be better if he did a "pocket veto" on something like this or at least I hope he issues a signing statement expressing his objectives. Bummer.

[bigtree]

9. more than talk

. . . that's why Congress modified the bill to include the 'mushy' language. Not good enough, but, probably the best he could get. I'm not convinced a losing veto fight was the best route. I can't count votes from here, but the WH certainly can.

[ProSense]

6. "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011" The

current bill: National Defense Authorization Act for FY12

http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/senate-armed-services-committee-completes-conference-on-national-defense-authorization-act-for-fy12/?section=alltypes

The OP article is almost a year old.

[bigtree]

13. fucking kidding me

crap, well, it happens

[rasputin1952]

8. VETO this POS...

EOM

[dflprincess]

17. That would require he actually take a stand and follow through on something he said

This is why I don't trust his current campaign rhetoric.

[tammywammy]

10. This is referring to FY-2011 NOT the current defense bill. n/t

[bigtree]

14. thanks, I can't believe this came up when I searched

and that I didn't notice the difference

[no_hypocrisy]

11. And I wouldn't expect the Supreme Court to invaldiate this law as unconstitutional.

They have precendent on indefinite internment of American citizens during wartime (Koramatu).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

[hatrack]

12. Doubtless he'll be able to invoke a spirit of bipartisanship and collegiality . . .

[bigtree]

15. not likely this year

. . . not with his best foil in the upcoming election, the republican Congress.

[TheKentuckian]

16. This isn't an "Oh well...", what this does is kill our civil liberties and about a thousand years of

slow progress toward rule of law.

I consider those who voted for this pile of shit as traitors not only to America but to the sum of western civilization and that includes an Executive to complicit, cowardly, stupid, or evil to veto it.

They all ought to be expelled from office but since all the crooked fucks are pretty much on the same page in both parties and all three branches there is no mechinisim for correction.

May they all burn in Hell.

[villager]

18. Yup.

Yet I'm too sad at the death throes of the Republic -- during all the spiffy "hope and change" -- to even do a "thumbsup" smilie...

[xiamiam]

20. couldn't have said it better myself..wtf is happening in this country

oh, its our democratic constitional law professor president allowing the constitution be shredded

[Gidney N Cloyd]

19. I'm missing something here. Still.

Why do we need anything like this bill-- at this time-- for what reason-- that makes signing anything along the lines of it worth consideration? Is some old law expiring or something?

[xiamiam]

21. more of the same... coup being secured..nt