|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
Botto 82 
Group: Members
Posts: 6293
Joined: Jan. 2005
|
 |
Posted on: Jan. 05 2012,9:11 am |
|
   |
Obama Signs Defense Bill Despite 'Serious Reservations'
WASHINGTON -- Indefinite military detention of Americans became the law of the land Saturday, as President Barack Obama signed a defense bill that codified that authority, even as he said he would not use it.
The National Defense Authorization Act states how the military is to be funded, but also includes a number of controversial provisions on arresting and holding suspected terrorists, which at first drove Obama to threaten a veto.
He retreated from that threat after Congress added provisions that took the ultimate authority to detain suspects from the military's hands and gave it to the president. Congress also clarified that civilian law enforcement agencies -- such as the FBI -- would still have authority to investigate terrorism and added a provision that asserts nothing in the detention measures changes current law regarding U.S. citizens.
Still, the signing on New Year's Eve as few people were paying attention angered civil liberties advocates, who argue that the law for the first time spells out certain measures that have not actually been tested all the way to the Supreme Court, including the possibility of detaining citizens in military custody without trial for as long as there is a war on terror.
"President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
"The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield," Romero added. "The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress or internationally.”
The administration was especially sensitive about the law and about reaction to the president signing it. In addition to enacting the measure while few people were paying attention -- and many opponents still had hopes the president would veto the bill -- the White House added a signing statement specifying that the Obama administration would not detain Americans without trial. The White House also sent out a notice to its online community highlighting Obama's complaints with the law, in a tacit admission that many of the president's more ardent supporters despise the detention provisions.
"I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists," Obama said in the signing statement.
Presidents issue such statements when they feel a law conflicts with the executive's constitutional powers. Obama criticized them during the Bush administration, but has found the practice useful on a handful of occasions.
In this case, Obama argued that the changes Congress made to the bill affirm only authorities that the Bush and Obama administrations have already claimed in fighting terrorism. But he noted that the codification of those powers in law was unnecessary and perhaps harmful. And he insisted he would not use the powers to detain citizens without trial.
"I want to clarify that my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama wrote. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My administration will interpret section 1021 [of the bill] in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law."
Civil liberties advocates like Romero pointed out that once the provisions are law, however, they will be available to a President Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney or any future president, who could choose to use the powers granted more aggressively.
"We are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court," said Romero. "Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today."
Because of the provisions specifying that the new legislation does not change current law, the new law leaves the authority it grants open to interpretation and to the possibility -- albeit in very difficult circumstances -- of someone challenging a detention through the courts.
"Thankfully, we have three branches of government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority," Romero said. "But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created, because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA's detention authority."
Obama also said he will not abide by the law's requirement to detain terror suspects using the military.
"I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat," Obama said. "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."
Finally, he rejected a number of other provisions, saying the White House is concerned they interfere with the president's constitutional powers and ability to fight terrorism.
"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," Obama warned.
HuffPo Article
--------------
Dear future generations: Please accept our apologies. We were rolling drunk on petroleum.
- Kurt Vonnegut
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
grassman
Group: Members
Posts: 3858
Joined: Mar. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 05 2012,9:25 am |
|
 |
The terrorists are slowly turning the U.S. into their own play ground. We are losing our rights as we speak. The U.S. is becoming what we have been fighting against.  See what happens when you do not control WHO comes into your country. 
--------------
git er done!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
Expatriate
Group: Members
Posts: 16604
Joined: Oct. 2004
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 05 2012,11:38 am |
|
|
QUOTE Guantánamo Forever?
By CHARLES C. KRULAK and JOSEPH P. HOAR
"IN his inaugural address, President Obama called on us to “reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” We agree. Now, to protect both, he must veto the National Defense Authorization Act that Congress is expected to pass this week.
This budget bill — which can be vetoed without cutting financing for our troops — is both misguided and unnecessary: the president already has the power and flexibility to effectively fight terrorism.
One provision would authorize the military to indefinitely detain without charge people suspected of involvement with terrorism, including United States citizens apprehended on American soil. Due process would be a thing of the past. Some claim that this provision would merely codify existing practice. Current law empowers the military to detain people caught on the battlefield, but this provision would expand the battlefield to include the United States — and hand Osama bin Laden an unearned victory long after his well-earned demise.
A 2nd provision would mandate military custody for most terrorism suspects. It would force on the military responsibilities it hasn’t sought. This would violate not only the spirit of the post-Reconstruction act limiting the use of the armed forces for domestic law enforcement but also our trust with service members, who enlist believing that they will never be asked to turn their weapons on fellow Americans. It would sideline the work of the F.B.I. and local law enforcement agencies in domestic counterterrorism. These agencies have collected invaluable intelligence because the criminal justice system — unlike indefinite military detention — gives suspects incentives to cooperate.
Mandatory military custody would reduce, if not eliminate, the role of federal courts in terrorism cases. Since 9/11, the shaky, untested military commissions have convicted only six people on terror-related charges, compared with more than 400 in the civilian courts.
A third provision would further extend a ban on transfers from Guantánamo, ensuring that this morally and financially expensive symbol of detainee abuse will remain open well into the future. Not only would this bolster Al Qaeda’s recruiting efforts, it also would make it nearly impossible to transfer 88 men (of the 171 held there) who have been cleared for release. We should be moving to shut Guantánamo, not extend it.
Having served various administrations, we know that politicians of both parties love this country and want to keep it safe. But right now some in Congress are all too willing to undermine our ideals in the name of fighting terrorism. They should remember that American ideals are assets, not liabilities."
Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar are retired four-star Marine generals.
Obama’s failure to Veto this is more kowtowing to the rightwing!
signed
#4103912
FEMA Camp 0731-A
--------------
History is no more than the lies agreed upon by the victors.
~NAPOLEON BONAPARTE
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
Rosalind_Swenson
Group: Members
Posts: 1527
Joined: May 2011
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 09 2012,8:39 am |
|
|
Now they are working on the Enemy Expatriation Act. It would give them the power to strip citizenship of anyone who "supports hostilities against the US" .
--------------
And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
MADDOG
Group: Moderator
Posts: 7821
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 09 2012,2:28 pm |
|
|
I haven't read much into this yet. Before international terrorism, our country mostly knew when we were at war and with who. Now the term 'war' is an indeterminate factor. Our Constitution is clear on treason and defined during times of war. QUOTE any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution. HR 3166 states QUOTE To add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality. I don't see adding this to the Immigration and Nationality Act as sidestepping the Constitution. Rather, they should amend the Constitution to include (or terrorist acts) to Article 3. Instead of stripping citizenship, they could should be charged with treason.
--------------
Actually my wife is especially happy when my google check arrives each month. Thanks to douchbags like you, I get paid just for getting you worked up. -Liberal
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
Botto 82
Group: Members
Posts: 6293
Joined: Jan. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 09 2012,4:09 pm |
|
|
And the libbies fall silent...
Attached Image
--------------
Dear future generations: Please accept our apologies. We were rolling drunk on petroleum.
- Kurt Vonnegut
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
alcitizens
Albert Lea
Group: Members
Posts: 3664
Joined: Jul. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 09 2012,9:29 pm |
|
|
The White House had lifted a veto threat against the bill after legislators made changes in language involving detainees.
"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," the president said Saturday.
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12...OLITICS
Attached Image
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
Rosalind_Swenson
Group: Members
Posts: 1527
Joined: May 2011
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 04 2012,11:04 am |
|
|
I stand corrected from what I said about you not mentioning this Al. You've never mentioned it when we talk about the group of people suing Obama over this though, or how that fact is barely mentioned in mainstream news. Or what the ACLU and every other human rights and Constitution loving organizations have to say about this.
--------------
And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
