White House issues statement saying it will not veto defense bill

[99th_Monkey]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-issues-statement-saying-it-will-not-veto-defense-bill/2011/12/14/gIQApu7PuO_story.html


Bye bye Ms American Pie

[Zhade]

1. Gee, I wish this was a surprise.

But his string of broken promises makes that impossible.

Definitely going to have no problem writing in a candidate now.

The future is dark when a Constitutional scholar does this shit.

[TheWraith]

4. Your rule-breaking third-party advocacy aside, you're still wrong.

If you had bothered to actually read the article instead of jerking your knee as fast as you could, you'd notice that the reason the veto threat was withdrawn was because Congress caved and changed the bill.

[bonnieS]

6. Supposedly

the changes are cosmetic and all the original bad and un Constituional policies remain.

[teddy51]

8. That's exactlly right, just ask Congress Woman Barbra Lee what she thinks of this

bill and the retired military people that sent her a letter opposing it.

[midnight]

25. I'm afraid your right...

[unkachuck]

34. "...all the original bad and un Constituional policies remain."

....and why are we paying taxes and supporting this government? To watch this crop of traitorous politicians shred our Constitution and destroy our liberties?

[Pab Sungenis]

9. It's not third party advocacy.

It's withholding a vote in the primary. And I'm tempted to do the same.

The only saving grace Barack Obama has right now is that his possible opponents are worse.

[a simple pattern]

22. I don't know about even that anymore.

How much faster could the country deteriorate? The agenda proceeds apace no matter who is wearing the empty suit.

[sabrina 1]

10. Not according to Barbara Lee, a woman whose word means something.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. That response broke no rules, but your response is a clear threat to the poster and is repugnant.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. There is no third party advocacy in that post

What a deplorable thing your post is. That is no way to represent any candidate at anytime. Nasty.

[Zhade]

52. "rule-breaking", LOL. Go ahead and alert, then.

For the record, this bill needs to be vetoed no matter what form it's presented in -- I support the rule of law, unlike Obama and Congress.

[fascisthunter]

2. If true, there go our rights

This is afront to our democracy.. sorry, but both parties are screwing us.

[a simple pattern]

21. This makes it officially no longer a democracy.

Nor even a legitimate government.

[24601]

31. Not suppposed to be a democracy but instead a constitutional republic

The constitution even guarentees (small r) republican governments in the states

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

43. And there's that 6th Amendment thingy.

[24601]

57. The 6th Amendment is limited to criminal prosecutions - it does not apply to non-criminal

activities/procedures such as civil proceedings or military detention of POWs, or since the end of WWII (officially in April 1952) POAUMFs.

[Octafish]

44. It's no longer been a democracy, unofficially, since Nov. 22, 1963.

Poppy brought it up at Gerald Ford's funeral and laughed about it:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Octafish/238

[DocMac]

3. The door to fear is wide open now. Sad. nt

[midnight]

26. I think the door is open to the rest waking up....

[truebrit71]

5. Gee, i am soooooooooo suprised...

...I mean the administration has had our backs on everything else right?

Next cave will be on the Payroll Tax Rollback with the Keystone XL amendment attached to it by the repukes...any takers that he'll veto that one too if it gets to his desk?

*crickets*

[99th_Monkey]

39. Yah! Someone quick, post that pic of Obama saying "I GOT THIS" ... puke ~nt

[dogknob]

7. That's it?

The link doesn't even have a story, just the headline.

???

I'm assuming it's the pick-me-up-on-the-street-if-i-signed-the-bradley-manning-petition bill, but NOTHING to accompany the headline?

[chowder66]

11. "White House says no veto of defense bill"...associated press article

If you google "White House says no veto of defense bill" there is an Associated Press article that gives more detail.



Here is the link:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFsyaljotNCsnPSzq9tjRtOkPKZg?docId=e3c1b02ccc1a42b78e94120a4a2f53a5

[99th_Monkey]

42. Thanks for the assist chowder

Talk about feeling caught in the middle,

middle of a nightmare,

where we need all the details,

nevermind that "the devil's in the details",

haven't u heard?

[sabrina 1]

13. Here's more:

Edit because link is not showing.

House and Senate negotiators announced late Monday that they had modified that provision. They added language that says nothing in the bill will affect “existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the FBI or any other domestic law enforcement agency” with regard to a captured suspect, “regardless of whether such … person is held in military custody.”

The bill also says the president can waive the provision based on national security.

“While we remain concerned about the uncertainty that this law will create for our counterterrorism professionals, the most recent changes give the president additional discretion in determining how the law will be implemented, consistent with our values and the rule of law, which are at the heart of our country’s strength,” Carney said.

Unitary Executive will take care of it. This is not the change we had hoped for.

[a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/12/14/white_house_says_no_veto_of_defense_bill/"]White House Says No Veto Of Defense Bill[/a]

[sabrina 1]

15. I do have a link in the above post, but it is not showing as a link.

Trying again:

"http://www.salon.com/2011/12/14/white_house_says_no_veto_of_defense_bill/"

No, it's not turning into a link.

[Kaleko]

23. Is this the salient point...

under discussion here?

From the Salon article you linked to:

"The legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation’s borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention."

What I've read about the WH refusing to veto the bill is fraught with contradictions and contingencies that are confusing to me.

[sabrina 1]

24. It's very confusing. But what is NOT is that only seven Senators voted against the original version

of the bill. Somewhere there is a list of those Senators who clearly have no regard for the people's Constitutional rights.

As for the statement from the WH Press Secretary, seems like he's trying to straddle the fence between telling those who care about the Constitution, that the bill has been amended, while assuring those who do not that regardless of what is in that part of the bill, once the Unitary Executive, whoever he or she may be, makes a decision to hold anyone for whatever reason he or she sees fit, they can rest assured, he still has those King-like powers.

If I'm wrong, I wish someone would clarify it but that's how I read it.

[Kaleko]

30. Many thanks for your input.

I know I can rely on you to ferret out the truth of this matter too. You always do.

[sabrina 1]

37. In a way, the outrage over this is a bit mis-directed though.

I think that no matter what Congress passes, it doesn't matter so long as we continue to give the powers of a king to the POTUS.

Far worse than detention without charges, indefinitely, is what has already happened, a US President ordering the assassination of US citizens without charges and trials, including an American teenager. I suppose we should be thankful 'for small mercies'. At lease those who end up detained indefinitely without charges, will still be alive, if you can call it that.

So does this bill really matter? Why do we need it? Congress has no power since the Patriot Act. When a president can order the killing of a US citizen and there is barely a peep from either party or their followers about it, we have already crossed a line that there may be no coming back from without some pretty drastic measures.

Thank you Kaleko, as always.

[99th_Monkey]

40. That got my attn too ... not sure of the answer either.

the first link was from some obscure Houston Texas newspaper, and IT was that way too,
so I googled the headline, which sent me to the Post's link, which ALSO only had text of
headline for "story".

[marias23]

12. Where to Live ? Seriously

Anybody have any ideas what country could be safe haven? At 69, I don't know how much more I can live with.

[Claude_balloune]

59. Bouvet Island in the South Atlantic is now quite safe. AND remote.

Why not move to Bouvet island? Wimp. So far, the only torture reported on Bouvet Island has been about Orcas tossing seals around before they ate them
(The slapping around appears to "soften up" the flesh)
But on a more personal note- How many times have you been waterboarded by your fascist overlords?
Just what is it you cannot live with?
- The constant beating with rubber hoses?
- The frequent "good cop-bad cop" interrogations that you are subjected to?
- Or the incessant phone static caused by the authorities, as they attempt to prove your traitorous activities?

I suggest you move to Canada. To a log cabin in the woods, which is where I issue these missives from.
But! Be warned.
Read on - if you dare.
See our modern waterboarding facility!
We are now perusing a contract with the Canadian government to train diplomats in waterboarding resistance .. When and if they get kidnapped. the government will not be so anxious to pay any ransom.
NGOs are welcome to enroll here. But we do not supply their favorite Pinoqachole. And don't expect the government to fund their waterboarding acclimatization LOL!

[vi5]

14. Wow, what a surprise....

Yeah. Not really. Be great to see the spin on this one from the usual suspects.

[ixion]

16. And thus the assembly of the Great American Police State continues

Unabated by the 'change'.

[markpkessinger]

17. And that's why I posted this over a week ago, when several threads insisted the Prez would veto...

...http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2420961&mesg_id=2420961

[midnight]

27. Thank you....

[joshcryer]

29. Not the same bill.

[Poll_Blind]

19. Also covered by CNN: White House drops veto threat on defense bill

Washington (CNN) -- The White House lifted a veto threat against a giant $662 billion defense authorization bill on Wednesday after legislators made changes in language involving detainees.

In particular, the legislators added language to make clear that nothing in the bill requiring military custody of al Qaeda suspects would interfere with the ability of civilian law enforcement to carry out terrorism investigations and interrogations in the United States.

A statement by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the changes mean that President Obama's advisers will not recommend a veto. The measure is expected to come up for votes in the House and Senate this week.

PB

[colorado_ufo]

47. Soooo . . . will there be waterboarding franchises in the future?

Create employment, healthy competition, go public on the stock market, capitalism at work?

". . . that nothing in the bill requiring military custody of al Qaeda suspects would interfere with the ability of civilian law enforcement to carry out terrorism investigations and interrogations in the United States. "

[Claude_balloune]

58. Waterboarding franchises now available!

Yup! Where have you been?
The franchises have been offered since last October!

Website now under development:

WATERBOARDING! Get in on the ground floor!
(sorry, the basement is already full)

We are now hiring QUALIFIED ex-CIA operatives. Salary TBD.
As well as franchise details- coming soon!

[emcguffie]

20. But it remains very confusing what precisely it means

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFsyaljotNCsnPSzq9tjRtOkPKZg?docId=e3c1b02ccc1a42b78e94120a4a2f53a5

In this article, there are several directly contradictory statements:

White House says no veto of defense bill

By DONNA CASSATA, Associated Press – 2 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House on Wednesday abandoned its threat that President Barack Obama would veto a defense bill over provisions on how to handle suspected terrorists as Congress raced to finish the legislation.

Press secretary Jay Carney said last-minute changes that Obama and his national security team sought produced legislation that "does not challenge the president's ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the American people."

....

The legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention.

....

In a reflection of the uncertainty, House members offered differing interpretations of the military custody and indefinite detention provisions and what would happen if the bill became law.

"The provisions do not extend new authority to detain U.S. citizens," House Armed Services Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., said during debate.

But Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the bill would turn "the military into a domestic police force."

(more at link)

[midnight]

28. It sure does....

[colorado_ufo]

48. "The provisions do not extend new authority to detain U.S. citizens," House Armed Services Chairman

For the time being.

[cstanleytech]

33. Any bets on which way scotus is likely to weigh in on this?

[emcguffie]

35. I haven't got a clue.

I wish someone who did would answer you.

This is almost as depressing as when the Supremes stopped the recount in 2000. I can't believe our Congress has done this, and our President is going along with them. It is utterly inconceivable.

[Vattel]

41. SCOTUS punted on the issue of indefinite detention in earlier cases.

So what it will say about that is unclear. SCOTUS has asserted the right of citizen-detainees to habeas corpus and a whittled down version of due process. From Hamdi v Rumsfeld:

"We therefore hold that a citizen-detainee seeking to challenge his classification as an enemy combatant must receive notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government's factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker. . . . These essential constitutional promises may not be eroded."

[dennis4868]

36. From the Huffington Post article

"Specifically, the bill would require that the military take custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates and who is involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. There is an exemption for U.S. citizens."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/14/national-defense-authorization-act-ndaa-obama-detainee-policy_n_1147878.html

And a letter from Senator Bennet:

Military no longer authorized to indefinitely detain US citizens under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
I got this from my Senator,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the provisions addressing detainee matters in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012, S. 1867. I appreciate hearing from you.

As you may know, the Senate recently debated several NDAA provisions addressing detainee matters. One provision, Section 1031 of the bill, attempts to codify the President’s authority to detain members of al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States. As requested by the Obama Administration, Section 1031 contains a provision explicitly clarifying that it does not expand the President’s existing authority to detain. A second provision, Section 1032, requires military custody of al-Qaeda members who attack or make plans to attack the United States. It is important to point out that, under this provision, the Executive Branch has the flexibility to keep a covered detainee in civilian custody, pursuant to a national security determination, or to transfer a military detainee for trial in the civilian courts. The bill also includes provisions relating to the transfer of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.

Many had concerns that the detainee provisions in the NDAA amounted to a major shift in U.S. policy. Some news reports characterized the provisions of the bill as potentially allowing the indefinite detention of any U.S. citizen for any reason. Let me clearly state that the bill does not authorize any such action. In fact, by codifying the specific authority of the President, Congress has reengaged on a very important national security issue and attempted to clarify what the President can and cannot do. This is a noteworthy departure from prior post-9/11 Congress which have not come to consensus on a detainee legal framework.

Nevertheless, I am concerned that the detainee provisions could raise questions regarding the process by which the Administration detains and prosecutes members of al-Qaeda who attempt to attack the U.S. For example, we must ensure that the military custody provisions do not hamper the Administration’s ability to prosecute a detainee in civilian courts if it determines that this is the most appropriate venue.

Senator Mark Udall from Colorado offered an amendment to the NDAA that would have removed the underlying provisions addressing detainee matters. Instead, it would have required full participation from the Administration and the Senate Armed Services, Judiciary, and Intelligence committees prior to legislation codifying detainee policies. Due to my concerns with the provisions, I supported Senator Udall’s amendment. Unfortunately, it was defeated by a vote of 38 to 60.

I also supported an amendment introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California to clarify that Section 1031 does not affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of U.S. citizens, lawful resident aliens of the U.S., or any other persons who are captured in the United States. Senator Feinstein’s amendment passed handily.

Given the complexity and importance of this issue, and the heated rhetoric and confusion about the actual wording of the detainee provisions, I invite you to read them for yourself. You can find them at page 426 of S. 1867, which you can access here: [link to thomas.loc.gov]

The overall bill, including the language of Senator Feinstein’s amendment, makes it abundantly clear that the detainee provisions do not affect existing law relating to the detention of U.S. citizens. In addition, I plan to work with the Administration to ensure that it has the flexibility to prosecute detainees in the most effective ways possible. In the end, I voted yes on the overall bill, which sets annual pay for our troops and provides the tools that keep them safe. The NDAA passed the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support (93 to 7) and must now be reconciled with the House version of the NDAA.

I value the input of fellow Coloradans in considering the wide variety of important issues and legislative initiatives that come before the Senate. I hope you will continue to inform me of your thoughts and concerns.

For more information about my priorities as a U.S. Senator, I invite you to visit my website at [link to bennet.senate.gov] Again, thank you for contacting me.

Sincerely,

Michael Bennet
United States Senator

[Zhade]

53. So it doesn't apply to US citizens -- unless the prez wants it to.

Considering this administraton already murdered a teenager overseas who had the misfortune of being related to a suspected -- never tried -- terrorist they also illegally assassinated, just how restrained will it feel by this bill?

Indefinite detention without trial was wrong under bush. It's just as wrong under Obama.

[karenbe111]

38. Third party not really third party, but second!

Rocky Anderson, former Mayor of Salt Lake City and a true progressive, has started the Justice Party and is running for President. He rightly claims that Republicans and Democrats are all of the same party...else none of the crap that has been foisted upon us, especially this past decade, could have been passed.

Check out Amy Goodman's interview with him on Democracy Now.
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/13/ex_salt_lake_mayor_rocky_anderson

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. Anderson is Nader-like clown with as many ex-wives as Gingrich

[brentspeak]

54. Anderson has been divorced two times -- several times fewer than Obama has broken campaign promises

[dmosh42]

46. Yeah, more campaign money!

[DeSwiss]

49. Oh, this is just wonderful!

Now ''Socialist Obama'' can drop his old ''bi-partisan-y act'' and go out and arrest, detain and torture at-will -- and without trial -- any Repuke Senator, any Repuke Congressperson, and any Teabagger that pisses him off. Halleluiah!

- Funny how they didn't see that coming......


{Above gif posted for the irony & sarcasm-impaired}

K&R





''Hey Boosh, how'm I doing?? You guys got plenty coke?''

[emilyg]

50. Hello Gitmo

[Jack Rabbit]

51. We will fight this. Civil disobedience is our weapon of choice.

I, for one, am 60 years old and living on disability. I have nothing to lose, now that I and the rest of us are about lose our rights as Americans. Go ahead and just throw me in the dungeon.

I am against imperialist wars and for universal health care and regulation of business. I believe government ownership of business is unnecessary at this point, but better than big business owning the government. If that is terrorism, than I am a terrorist.

K/R. For the record.

[LadyInAZ]

60. Right on!

I have been saying this for months... gov needs to take over... control assests... arrest 1% (against the american ppl)... run the co and return the jobs to the ppl... it was our tax dollars taken... used... and jobs never returned...

[katty]

55. of course not...and this is a democrat?

[thescreaminghead]

56. The true irony is this.

Any Congressman that signs the bill should be immediately arrested by the military for treason, because they just committed treason by signing an Unconstitutional bill. LULz

[katsung47]

61. If you don't speak out

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.

[99th_Monkey]

62. +1 nt