Breaking News: Obama to sign NDAA bill BUT also will issue a signing statement

[DisgustipatedinCA]

28. here are a few specifics

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/did-congress-just-endorse-rendition-americans

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/opinion/guantanamo-forever.html?_r=4&scp=1&sq=Guantanamo%20forever&st=cse

...and you know I could show you 20 more. Just as I could show you 20 articles where people are arguing that nothing new is in the provisions r.e. indefinite detention. And then I could show you the astute analysis that says the thing that's new is that this is being hard-codified into law, whereas it was in a murky legal are before--unsettled law. And we could both look at McCain's statement that he interprets the language to mean Americans can be held indefinitely. Here's what we also know: this WILL be litigated, and it WILL be pushed to the point of having to be court-tested. When a law like this gets passed, those whose actions are governed by that law will often try to see how far they can go. Get a republican administration in office, and it's guaranteed (not that I have much faith in this administration on these matters).

As I recall, the other poster said this law gives the president too much power. I think there's more than ample evidence to support the other poster's opinion. I'm not trying to win an argument with you, because I already understand you're not ever to be swayed on certain issues. I'm trying to make you see that you're not going to be able to "section 1021" this out of existence by proving that some certain combination of words exists at some certain place in some certain document. You can't find a thing that's going to prove you're entirely right. I can't either. Refer to previous comment about litigation--it's going to happen, and this won't be settled for a long, long time. It's a mess, and hell yes it's too much power to put into the hands of the president.