Obama signs defense bill despite 'reservations'

[Fire Walk With Me]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_DEFENSE_BILL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Dec 31, 3:42 PM EST

HONOLULU (AP) -- President 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.

[Hawkowl]

1. Whatever

His reservations aren't worth a bucket of horse piss.

[rhett o rick]

3. As I understand, he was upset because of restrictions on how he could

fight terrorism, not that he was worried that our Constitutional rights were being trampled on.

[johnnie]

6. Your "understanding" is misunderstood.

"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. "

[rhett o rick]

11. I appreciate having since read that section.

This is what bothered me: ", 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. "

But I do stand corrected.

[rhett o rick]

2. Sad day for Democracy. One of many. nm

[ixion]

4. Indeed. One of many.

And we're pretty much out of democracy at this point.

[johnnie]

7. Heh..

And we were a democracy when?

[rhett o rick]

12. I believe things are getting worse, do you agree? nm

[johnnie]

14. No

I think we hear about more things faster and in more depth these days thru the internet and mega media. I also think a lot of people became more filled in during the bush administration, mainly due to the internet as to what goes on in our government. I find it hard to think that today is worse than say the days before the Civil Rights act was passed. I'm also sure that Native Americans would have something to say about how people were treated in this country at one time as apposed to now.

And just a quick thought, look into Tricky Dick tapping John Lennon's phone back in the 70s, that wasn't too cool. This shit has gone on since the dawn of man and will probably never go away. I'm not happy with it, but I also realize that today is no worse than it ever was.

[rhett o rick]

15. So we should just roll with the Patriot Act? nm

[johnnie]

16. "Roll with"?

And we have the say-so how?

[bigwillq]

22. ....

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. I wish his reservations would translate into the courage to tell the defense lobbyists to F* off. nt

[orpupilofnature57]

9. Your absolutely Correct !! Ike had the courage 50 yrs ago

[Sarah Ibarruri]

10. EXCELLENT!!! nt

[Fire Walk With Me]

17. ...

[orpupilofnature57]

8. His reservations are our Prosperity & Freedom ,Not what WE

sent him there for.

[ddickey]

13. If he had reservations, he shouldn't have signed it.

This isn't leading; it's following. But I guess when, in his victory speech, he said, "Change has come to America," he was issuing a warning.

[dennis4868]

18. his veto

would be overturned by congress easily.

I personally don't see anything wrong with the NDAA....it doesn't call for the indefinite detention of americans. So i'm fine with it.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

20. So you support the indefinite detention of non-citizens?

Wow, that is some seriously fucked-up banana republic shit you are peddling; it is thinking like yours that helps kills our Constitution and country. Disgusting.

[Kaleko]

21. Thanks for admitting this:

"I personally don't see anything wrong with the NDAA....it doesn't call for the indefinite detention of americans. So i'm fine with it.

Unfortunately for you, the NDAA uses weasel words. It states that the law does not REQUIRE American citizens and legal residents to be indefinitely detained without a trial following the mere accusation of working for a "terrorist group"-- whatever may be deemed as such. This means that it is ALLOWED but not required by law, presumably to gain retroactive immunity for already having violated an American citizen in this manner (see Jose Padilla)!

So, you are not safe, dennis4868. Nor are your fellow supporters of the NDAA, or their children and grandchildren. No one is safe from the US police state anymore, not even the members of Congress who voted for the damned thing. The battlefield in America's phony war on terror no longer has legal boundaries. Anybody can be snatched and tortured indefinitely according to this law.

Now to the contempt you have expressed for the basic rights of non-Americans. Clearly, you are not alone. Your casually dismissive attitude is shared by millions who couldn't care less about the atrocities perpetrated on people from other nations caught in the dragnet of Homeland Security. There will be massive repercussions, I can guarantee you this. The backlash has already hit the US tourist industry. Hard. Google the latest statistics on the drop-off in international tourism to the US. And that's just one aspect of the world of hurt that is coming to a hamlet near you, exactly at a time when you can least afford it.

[Fire Walk With Me]

19. ...

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. Hey, President Obama.

How about you act on those reservations occasionally? It ain't that tough to veto stupid shit.