President Obama signs defense bill despite 'reservations'
http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Obama-signs-defense-bill-despite-reservations-2434733.phpPresident Barack Obama signed a wide-ranging defense bill into law Saturday despite having "serious reservations" about provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.
The bill also applies penalties against Iran's central bank in an effort to hamper Tehran's ability to fund its nuclear enrichment program. The Obama administration is looking to soften the impact of those penalties because of concerns that they could lead to a spike in global oil prices or cause economic hardship on U.S. allies that import petroleum from Iran.
In a statement accompanying his signature, the president chastised some lawmakers for what he contended was their attempts to use the bill to restrict the ability of counterterrorism officials to protect the country.
Administration officials said Obama was only signing the measure because Congress made minimally acceptable changes that no longer challenged the president's terrorism-fighting ability.
Obama Signs Defense Authorization Bill
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/12/31/396018/breaking-obama-signs-defense-authorization-bill/
(snip)
The AP has more from the signing statement: “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.”
Full text of the signing statement below:
Statement by the President on H.R. 1540
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)
Robb
(39,665 posts)...Anyone see wiggle room there? I don't.
ixion
(29,528 posts)
RUMMYisFROSTED
(30,749 posts)
GeorgeGist
(25,570 posts)Keep wiggling.
His "signing statement" is akin to crossing his fingers. I have to ask this question. Is there ANYTHING that disqualifies a person from being a Democrat? Does the term "Democrat" mean anything?
JackDragna
(3,378 posts)..they'll just let the military do it for them.
24601
(4,142 posts)pursuant to the executive's authorization.
ChadwickHenryWard
(862 posts)Laws stay on the books until changed. Unless there's a sunset on that provision, any subsequent administration could easily use that power to detain Americans without trial. I don't think Obama even interprets the bill as giving him that power, and even though he says he'll never use it, I still don't think he should be granted it in the first place.
Secondly, it's equally wrong for the government to make a foreigner disappear forever without any kind of legal redress. Even if it's true that the bill only grants the power to detain foreigners without trial (a reading with which I disagree) it's still wrong.
If we can take Obama at his word that he won't use the power (I hope we can) this might still end up seeing the inside of a courtroom. It really would just have been better not to pass the law at all.
mrarundale
(282 posts)yeah, that is what I thought, and it is totally possible that one of the morons on the right could end up in the WH. scary.
texshelters
(1,979 posts)I don't want Mitt, or Newt, or any of the other lunatics with this power any more than I want it nor should Obama have it.
It's insane. We are a fear based society and this will come back on all of us unless things change dramatically.
But yea, Obama's no Republican, or not like the current crop of psychotics.
Peace,
Tex Shelters
FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)What, exactly, on issues of the national security state make him any better than of the crazies in the GOP?
ChadwickHenryWard
(862 posts)I'm not sure I know the answer to that.
sendero
(28,552 posts).. like Obama stands behind clear and direct statement he makes. The record shows otherwise.
lib2DaBone
(8,124 posts)No.. no way. Mr Obama is playing the DEMS for suckers...
24601
(4,142 posts)some on DU are referring to Jews that are "supposed" to be liberals as opposed to those who have been cradle to grave conservatives. It is this implication that "Neo" Cons are therefore race or class traitors (or national traitors because of their support to Israel) that makes the "Neo" pejorative specifically and unnecessarily hurtful and trends to racist teminology. Accepted that some don't actually intend the slur but were mimicking what someolse said, in essence following the electronic mob - but would we accept that of it were derogatory terms about other minorities?
Is not the derivation of anyone's conservative or progressive views are not relevant when compared to the fact of what they believe.
"First, 'neo-conservative' is a codeword for Jewish. As antisemites did with big business moguls in the nineteenth century and Communist leaders in the twentieth, the trick here is to take all those involved in some aspect of public life and single out t" hose who are Jewish. The implication made is that this is a Jewish-led movement conducted not in the interests of all the, in this case, American people, but to the benefit of Jews, and in this case Israel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
Granted, not everyone agrees - shall we allow slurs on the same basis?
*Not Sarcasism*
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)Oh wait, no he's not.
webDude
(875 posts)Wiggle the s#$t out of that or keep burying your head in the sand.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)The LAW is now in place.
The extra constitutional powers of the Unitary Executive have NOW been signed into LAW.
...but he had "reservations",
so its ALL GOOD!
Zhade
(28,702 posts)"I never ran on a public option"
Sorry, not buying it. I don't trust his pretty words.
"That's why any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange: a one-stop shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, costs, and track records of a variety of plans, including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest, and choose what's best for your family."
"An examination of approximately 200 newspaper articles from the campaign, as well as debate transcripts and public speeches shows that Obama spoke remarkably infrequently about creating a government-run insurance program. Indeed, when he initially outlined his health care proposals during a speech before the University of Iowa on March 29, 2007, he described setting up a system that resembles the current Senate compromise - in which private insurers would operate in a non-profit entity that was regulated heavily by a government entity."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/22/did-obama-campaign-on-the_n_401204.html
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)as they expire with the administration and the next one gets the actual written law to follow, not some suggestion for the former occupant.
Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #3)
Tesha This message was self-deleted by its author.
alp227
(33,283 posts)"George W. Bush's use of signing statements was and is controversial, both for the number of times employed (estimated at over 750 opinions) and for the apparent attempt to nullify legal restrictions on his actions through claims made in the statements — for example, his signing statement attached to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Some opponents have said that he in effect uses signing statements as a line-item veto; the Supreme Court had previously ruled such vetoes as unconstitutional in the 1998 case, Clinton v. City of New York.[14]"
(...)
The signing statement associated with the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody attracted controversy:
"The executive branch shall construe... the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power...."
--So bush actually used SS to defend torture while Obama used SS against indef detention.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)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.
I keep hearing the Charlie Brown adults: "Waah-waah, waah-WAAH-wah..."
sigh...
Zhade
(28,702 posts)Just look at all that coveting of power. No president should have that kind of power.
Justice wanted
(2,657 posts)got signed. 2) Nice signing statement HOWEVER signing statements mean nothing. It is the Law that is binding and gives authority. Obama May keep to his word BUT what about the next office holder. What IF Gods forbid something happens to Obama tomorrow. Will Joe Biden Honor the signing statement? In my opinion signing statements are just fluff pieces.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)
Justice wanted
(2,657 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)The Iran sanctions are IN the NDAA bill.
NDAA = the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
Justice wanted
(2,657 posts)it more interesting that those two items are in the same bill.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)Is that he signed it on New Years Eve...bury the lead much? Also, the congress presented it to him on December 21, so he had until today to sign it or it became law without his signature. It took him 10 days to look at a bill that he says he won't enforce major parts of.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)and to carefully compose his signing statement.
FedUp_Queer
(975 posts)He knew what was in this bill months ago. The conference report only had minor changes. He did this on New Years Eve to bury the lead, plain and simple. All I can say is that I am glad I will not have blood on my hands from voting for this man again. (Ok...cue the "jury" for the hurt feelings.)
Charlemagne
(576 posts)But I agree with your post. Good point on why he chose new years. Hadnt thought of that.
Bucky
(55,334 posts)"...so long as it happens to be me who's president. And I sincerely hope future presidents also refrain from destroying liberty now that we no longer believe in limited government."
--slight paraphrase of Barack Obama
Dreamer Tatum
(10,996 posts)
zeemike
(18,998 posts)By signing it and promising not to do it all he realy did was establish that the governemnt had the power TO do it.
This should creat a revolution....but it won't because we have been slowly conditioned over the years to take it up the ass and now we think it is not so bad really...and sometimes they give us a reach around...
williesgirl
(4,033 posts)
yardwork
(69,364 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Occulus
(20,599 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Satan Sandwich. It goes great with a side of peas!
lib2DaBone
(8,124 posts)WHY IN THE HELL would you sign it?
SammyWinstonJack
(44,316 posts)unkachuck
(6,295 posts)....it seems like Obama just legalized the use of martial law for the next puke administration....
....if this is correct, I can no longer support Obama....
mrarundale
(282 posts)I'd say authorizing the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens goes a little past breaking "values and traditions".....
“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.”
Zhade
(28,702 posts)In other words, it's clearly his view that the bill allows it.
lovuian
(19,362 posts)but he did it anyway
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Hoar_Krulak_letter_to_Obama_re_NDAA.pdf
Unfortunately actions speak louder than words
he signed it
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Is a wretched choice given to the president 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...
"Section 1021 affirms the executive branch's authority to detain persons [...] and is unnecessary.
"Section 1022 [...] is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States.
"Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch's processes for reviewing the status of detainees.
"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. "
Skittles
(171,717 posts)
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)From Politicususa ...
Article here: http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-ndaa-statement
p.s. It's a really 'good read'
agentS
(1,325 posts)If I recall correctly, there is a bill that has been filed in the House by a Rethug, which would codify into law clear terms regarding no detention of citizens by the military. It came up in a few articles a month back.
OF course, this means we're relying on the HOUSE to fix a mess it started. For some reason, I doubt that we can count on them.
Gee, I wonder what that reason would be...
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)He now has given you reservations!
Now get out there and work for him! Or it's you who will be blamed when he loses!
Zhade
(28,702 posts)I've heard this "fix it later" schtick before.
Robb
(39,665 posts)He threatened a veto over three issues. So you even know what they were? Or are you just parroting?