Obama signs defense bill, with "reservations"

President Obama arrives in Hawaii in this Dec. 23 file photo

/ MANDEL NGAN

HONOLULU -- Two days before the deadline, President Obama signed a defense spending bill into law - while admitting he has "serious reservations with certain provisions" related to how suspected terrorists are held and questioned.

In a written statement, Mr. Obama makes clear he objects to sections in the National Defense Authorization Act that "regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists."

Despite his objections, Mr. Obama says he signed the measure, known by its initials NDAA, because it authorizes needed funding to defend the nation, support the military and renew "vital national security programs."

Among the provisions to which the president objects is a grant of permission for the indefinite military detention of terror suspects by the military.

Mr. Obama said he didn't ask for such authority and doesn't want it.

"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."

Mr. Obama says his administration will interpret that provision "in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law."

Further, Mr. Obama bluntly rejects authorization in the bill requiring military custody for some foreign detainees captured on a field of battle.

In his statement, Mr. Obama calls that provision "ill-conceived" and says it will "do nothing to improve the security of the United States."

Mr. Obama says he rejects "any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat."

He says he signed the bill in the belief he can circumvent this and other provisions to which he objects.

That very much includes provisions that forbid the government from transferring detainees from the facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the U.S.

Mr. Obama had made it a top campaign pledge to shut down the prison, known as Gitmo, believing that it gave al Qaeda and other terror groups a rallying cry with which to recruit supporters to use against the United States.

But Congress continues to block his decision to close Gitmo and move the terror suspects held there to a maximum security facility in Illinois.

Another provision would block the government from transferring Gitmo detainees to other countries.

Mr. Obama uses his "signing statement" to serve notice on Congress that in the event the provisions on detainees at Guantanamo breach his constitutional powers as Commander-in-Chief, "my administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict." That's a fancy, highly-legalistic way of saying - he'll do things the way he thinks is right.

Overall, the measure affirms and supports Mr. Obama's policy decision on Iraq and Afghanistan - and that's why he is signing the measure into law. - after originally issuing a veto threat because of the aforementioned difficulties.

As a candidate, Mr. Obama was critical of President George W. Bush for using "signing statements" as a way of seeking to circumvent the will of Congress. Mr. Obama said at the time that Pres Bush should have vetoed the bills and insisted on getting them re-written and re-enacted to his likening.

As he discovered since taking office, that's not always possible.

A signing statement has no force of law. If Mr. Obama violates any of the provisions in the bill, Congress could challenge the White House in court, which would have the final say in any dispute.

[JewelieDee]

Here's the best link, but I doubt you'll believe it. But that's okay because it's good little people like you who believe whatever the media and our government hand out that will be GUARDING the prisoners. Good Germans a lot like you guarded the concentration camps in Germany. If that sounds harsh, I hope it wakes you up! If I am a nut, then so be it. The people who warned the German people were also called nuts. I'll take it as a compliment! Thank you!
http://www.prisonplanet.com/conspiracy-theory-with-jesse-ventura-fema-camps-police-state.html

[seraph714]

CHRIST Ahnsahnghong who is the SAVIOR of the AGE of the HOLY SPIRIT came IN THE FLESH in 1918 in the REPUBLIC OF KOREA according to the all of PROPHECIES in the BIBLE.
U CAN CHECK OUT HERE : http://english.watv.org Or Call 201-951-1540 (US)
http://alpha.fdu.edu/wfdu/wfdufm/home.html New Songs Radio 89.1
Sundays, 9:00 PM to 12:00 Midnight Eastern Time

Christ Ahnsahnghong is testified to whole nations. And they are flying 2 South Korea 2 meet God. After going back, they are preaching this Good News which let us be the true children of God and escape from all of disasters, in the name of Christ Ahnsahnghong. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPKZ78cIH8c

Father God Christ Ahnsahnghong restored the Truth of Life, the Passover of the New Covenant which was established by Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago but was abolished by the Constantine, the emperor of Roman, the Council of Nicaea in 325.

[brucearnold]

Obama has filed his NDAA Signing Statement. Here is mine:

Americans must not be distracted by Corporate Fascist Puppet Barack Obama saying "my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens" in his signing statement for the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (H.R.1540). Presidential "signing statements" are political propaganda with no Constitutional basis. A President who breaches a signing statement covenant faces no more consequences than any other corrupt politician who renegs on a promise. By signing NDAA and attempting to give its unconstitutional provisions the force of law, Barack Hussein Obama became complicit with all of the bought-and-paid-for U.S. Senators and Representatives who voted for this bill, and along with them should be charged with Seditious Conspiracy under U.S. Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 115 Section 2384. Unless and until these vermin are arrested, charged and removed from office, I will no longer consider the government they infest to be legitimate. Nor will I respect any ruling to the contrary from a judicial system that grants rights of citizenship to corporate entities that treat settlements and penalties for criminal conduct as costs of doing business with no concerns about incarceration or execution to deter their illegal, immoral or unethical conduct.

IronBoltBruce via VVV PR

[myth1958]

Mark Knoller gives us a tour of both the unconstitutional bill in question and the serious doubts about it from the guy who'll have to put it in action: President Obama. Mr. Obama said he didn't ask for such authority and doesn't want it, declaring that the provisions he disagrees with he will attempt to stop or stall. This may mean a showdown with Congress (and the courts) at some point - but Obama appears willing to face that when it comes. I agree with his thinking and applaud his forthright opposition to the extra-legal tonics the GOP is bent on forcing us to swallow in the name of national defense. There are plenty of tools we as a nation can use to combat our enemies already on hand. We don't win by descending to the same level as Iran or China to battle terrorists (or opposition to state policies) that this bill encourages. It won't last under the glare of federal courts, who should rightfully cast down any unconstitutional aspects within. We'll be watching, Mr. President, to see how you handle this situation. Don't disappoint us, Sir. You are better than the Right wing thugs who came up with this - and who will undoubtedly scream when you fluster their plans to turn us into a police state under their control. A little constitutional showdown wouldn't hurt if it brought this dark bill into the light for further scrutiny, revealing who was behind it and who stood up against it when it counted. Let them eat cake - but not our civil rights.

[MiddleWay]

Wow . . . people are not paying attention.

The Obama administration pushed for the indefinite detention provisions to apply to US citizens.

Don't believe me? How about Sen Levin (D), chairman of the Armed Services Committee? To quote Sen Carl Levin (D), speaking during debate on the NDAA on the Senate floor, "[The administration] asked us to remove the language which says US citizens in lawful residence would not be subject to this section. Is the Senator familiar with the fact that it was the administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee, and that we removed it at the request of the administration, that said this determination would not apply to US citizens in lawful residence."

Here is a link to the Feministing website (not a right wing website) with the video and discussion:
http://feministing.com/2012/01/04/why-the-hell-did-obama-push-for-indefinite-detention-of-us-citizens/

Of course, given that Pres Obama said he didn't support it during his signing statement, I can understand everyone's confusion.

[tsigili]

That just means it wasn't something he asked for, so it couldn't possibly be worthy of passage.

Obama is a dictator, after all.

[MiddleWay]

Wow . . . people are not paying attention.

The Obama administration pushed for the indefinite detention provisions to apply to US citizens.

Don't believe me? How about Sen Levin (D), chairman of the Armed Services Committee? To quote Sen Carl Levin (D), speaking during debate on the NDAA on the Senate floor, "[The administration] asked us to remove the language which says US citizens in lawful residence would not be subject to this section. Is the Senator familiar with the fact that it was the administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee, and that we removed it at the request of the administration, that said this determination would not apply to US citizens in lawful residence."

Here is a link to the Feministing website (not a right wing website) with the video and discussion:
http://feministing.com/2012/01/04/why-the-hell-did-obama-push-for-indefinite-detention-of-us-citizens/

Of course, given that Pres Obama said he didn't support it during his signing statement, I can understand everyone's confusion.

[nancy_naive]

One thing to remember -- the thing passed a Republican controlled House with the only votes against overwhelmly cast by Democrats, led by Kucinich, and the Senate resistance was also Democrats.

The GOP supported this NDAA 2012 with nearly 99% for.

[nancy_naive]

Ayes -- 190 (R) 93 (D)
Noes -- 43 (R) 92 (D),

And the two MOST vocal opponents Bachmann, and Paul -- No shows.

[MiddleWay]

Wow . . . people are not paying attention.

The Obama administration pushed for the indefinite detention provisions to apply to US citizens.

Don't believe me? How about Sen Levin (D), chairman of the Armed Services Committee? To quote Sen Carl Levin (D), speaking during debate on the NDAA on the Senate floor, "[The administration] asked us to remove the language which says US citizens in lawful residence would not be subject to this section. Is the Senator familiar with the fact that it was the administration that asked us to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee, and that we removed it at the request of the administration, that said this determination would not apply to US citizens in lawful residence."

Here is a link to the Feministing website (not a right wing website) with the video and discussion:
http://feministing.com/2012/01/04/why-the-hell-did-obama-push-for-indefinite-detention-of-us-citizens/

Of course, given that Pres Obama said he didn't support it during his signing statement, I can understand everyone's confusion.

[TTrumpster]

In the year 1776 our Founding Fathers of the United States of America were political leaders and statesmen who participated in the American Revolution by signing the United States Declaration of Independence, taking part in the American Revolutionary War, establishing the United States Constitution.

They risked their lives for our freedom, our freedoms since have one by one been taken away from us as we sit by and let it happen. Government now tells us what we can eat, what medicines we can take, how we can live our lives and now they can detain you for life. When will the American people finally have had enough of this tyrannical oppressive Government?

Thomas Jefferson said it best. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Have we reached that point in America?

Welcome to the end of democracy in America compliments of Osama Bin Laden. He may have lost his life but he won the war. Our politicians are cowards; they have bowed to the will of terrorists. What a bunch weak minded fools we have running and ruining our freedom in America.

[nancy_naive]

I just don't understand the you Bagger's reverence for Thomas Jefferson.

He was an aggressive advocate for, and built, Virginia's public education system. He burned his Bible. He loved the French, and he had more than just a touch of jungle fever.

[myth1958]

Jefferson gets credit for stuff he supposedly stood for, but I don't believe he was one of our great leaders. Any guy who says All Men Are Created Equal yet treats half the population like cattle is a liar of the first order. A man who is synonymous with American freedom, yet owned human beings and slept with his chattel like some king ain't a good example for us in 2012. But I digress: the Founders were no better than men of today, some of whom wanted to see a new nation change the worst aspects of the one we left behind while others were quite willing to encompass the exclusionary policies they'd fought a revolution over (for instance - letting only 'White' landowners vote in the beginning). The first ten Amendments to the Constitution (known as the Bill of Rights) weren't even in the original document. Without those rapid changes, we wouldn't have freedom of speech, of religion, nor the right to bear arms. Seems to me a major oversight not to enshrine these basic rights in the original. In fitful starts and stops, we've lurched through two centuries and many wars to arrive at the present state of affairs. This America would not be recognizable to Jefferson, Washington or Adams: they would likely wonder how all the slaves got loose (and the women got looser), and why a Black man was sitting in the Oval Office. I prefer modern heroes who fight for the rights of all, not just the wealthy, 'White' landowners who were the big business of their day. Business can take care of itself just fine. It is the individual who needs help against forces beyond their power to challenge.

[griff713]

I think when this law becomes effective...... All the Church bells throughout the country should ring for 5 minutes, all flags should be lowered - as we remember the Death of Civil Rights in our country.

First it was the witches, then it was the communists, now it's the terrorists...... This country has
never learned a damned thing from history....

[katsung47]

First they massacred Branch Davidians in Waco Siege,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Davidian.

Then they created OKC bombing, tried to get a Patriot act,
and I didn't speak out because I didn't want to offend the Feds.

Then they created 911 attack to get the Patriot Act and war,
and I didn't speak out because I am not a muslim.

Now they come for US citizens with military Authorization Act,
and I didn't speak out because I am not a terrorist.

Then when they prison you as a terrorist,
and there is no law to protect you because you have given up all your civil rights already.

[katsung47]

1. A stealth raid on people.

The Act was proposed in later November, quickly passed by the Senata and the House during the Thanksgiving holiday and Christmas vacation. It was signed on New Years Eve. A military stealth attack on civil rights taking the advantage when people are in holiday mood.

2. So said mainstream media kept a tight mouth on this important issue. Blind the eyes of a lot of people.

3. Majority of law makers and the President passed the Act. It proves they don't represent the voice of the people. It also proves the elect system has been hijacked by the intelligence already. The so said representatives are not elected by the voters but selected by the rulers of this country

[r3al1tyhurts]

To be honest, I don't think passing this bill was ever Obama's idea. It doesn't really seem like he would actually be willing to violate the constitution.