Obama Will Not Veto Bill That Would Indefinitely Detain U.S. Citizens

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,127
3,031
258
Sunnydale
#1
Obama Drops Veto Threat Over Military Authorization Bill After Revisions


WASHINGTON — President Obama will not veto a military authorization bill that contains several disputed provisions about the treatment of terrorism prisoners, the White House announced Wednesday, signaling a likely end to a political battle over detainees and executive power.

The administration had threatened to veto versions of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 passed by the House and the Senate, arguing that provisions would open the door for the military to perform policing functions inside the United States, and that they would infringe on executive branch powers.

But the White House said in a statement that adjustments made by a House-Senate conference committee had sufficiently addressed its concerns.

“As a result of these changes, we have concluded that the language does not challenge or constrain the president’s ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people, and the president’s senior advisors will not recommend a veto,” it said.

Civil liberties groups still object to the revised bill. But other critics of earlier versions — notably, Representative Adam Smith of Washington State, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee — praised the changes and urged that the bill be passed. On Wednesday, the House approved the bill, 283 to 136; it goes to the Senate.

The administration and Congress have been wrestling for months over proposed rules and limits for handling terrorism cases.

The bill that emerged from the conference committee on Tuesday dropped a section from the House version that would have banned using civilian courts to prosecute Qaeda suspects. It also dropped a House-written provision enacting a new authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda and its allies.

But the bill includes a narrower provision, drafted by the Senate, authorizing the government to detain, without trial, suspected members of Al Qaeda or its allies — or those who “substantially supported” them — bolstering the authorization it enacted a decade ago against the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Another section would require officials to hold noncitizens suspected of being Qaeda operatives in military custody. The administration had focused its objections on that section, but the panel expanded the executive branch’s ability to make exceptions.

It also added language declaring that the new law would not restrict the existing authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in terrorism matters. Still, the bureau’s director, Robert S. Mueller III, testified on Wednesday that he remained concerned that it would introduce “uncertainty” about what should happen at the time of an arrest.

Another provision would require the attorney general to consult with military and intelligence agencies before charging a terrorism suspect in civilian court.

The bill also would require the defense secretary to certify, before transferring any Qaeda-related detainee to another country, that it has met certain security conditions — expanding a rule that currently applies only to prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. But the bill would also relax the certification requirements, which the Pentagon has said are too onerous to meet.
Section 1021 (c) still remains and states: "The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following: (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of hostilities authorized by the Authorization to Use Military Force."

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) warned the provisions “put every American at risk” of being sent to Guantanamo Bay. Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) said it violated the Constitution because U.S. citizens could be apprehended on U.S. soil and held without a trial.

FBI Director Robert Mueller said the provisions would disrupt, rather than strengthen, efforts to fight terrorism in the U.S.

[video=youtube;9ni-nPc6gT4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ni-nPc6gT4[/video]

Lindsey Graham very upset about the idea of Americans getting a fair trial.

"When they say I want my lawyer, you tell them shut up!" - Lindsey Graham
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,556
22,221
398
Northern California
#2
So these new provisions do apply to American citizens as well? If they do, so fucking unconstitutional.
 

mikeybot

SPANAKOPITA!!!
Jul 25, 2005
19,318
3,602
623
philly
#3
But...I thought only Republicans wanted to ignore the constitution?
 

Neckbeard

I'm Team Piggy!
Donator
Oct 26, 2011
24,929
15,342
303
#5
I was told that President Obama could ignore FISA and keep the PATRIOT Act and order assassinations of U.S. citizens because as a constitutional law scholar he could be trusted with that stuff.

So, barring War on Terror pretext and flimsy legal justifications of it, what does this really throw in the trash?

The First amendment. Wouldn't want any of that extremist terroristic hate speech. Also, freedom of association. Lots of FBI informants and military rats in militias and political groups already and this is an excuse to make it worse.
Second Amendment. Can't be armed. That is terroristic enemy combatant hate behavior.
Habeas Corpus
Posse Comitatus
Provisions against cruel and unusual punishment
Speedy trial with notification of charges and by a jury of your peers.

Abominable bill. It will never, ever be repealed either. So if you think President Obama is fine, just wait until we get a real freakshow who starts to use all of these "laws."
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#7
I don't like this one bit, but it's not unconstitutional. Of course the application of it to non-terror suspects could be unconstitutional. That's the problem with vague laws like this. As such, it will likely end up being stricken down.
 

CousinDave

Registered User
Dec 11, 2007
25,297
198
393
Ohio
#8
I'm for it so long as the next POTUS uses it against Eric Holder
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
18,065
5,476
838
Wilmington, NC
#9
Yes we can........keep Gitmo open and continue detaining terrorists and even throw a few Americans in there for good measure...

[yt]SsV2O4fCgjk[/yt]

It was either this video, or the pompous celebrity "Pledge" video (ya know, the one where Ashton Kutcher pledged to be honest :rolleyes:), or the kids singing that Obama song...but I posted that recently already.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,556
22,221
398
Northern California
#10
I don't like this one bit, but it's not unconstitutional. Of course the application of it to non-terror suspects could be unconstitutional. That's the problem with vague laws like this. As such, it will likely end up being stricken down.
If you put an American on domestic soil in jail and deny them the right to a trial or counsel, it absolutely is unconstitutional.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#11
If you put an American on domestic soil in jail and deny them the right to a trial or counsel, it absolutely is unconstitutional.
Not if they're enemy combatants. The problem with this law is that almost anyone could be classified as such, and that's where the constitutionality comes into question. I also don't trust this bunch to make those judgments one bit. The only good thing about this law is seeing the libtards try to defend Obama for signing it.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#12
I don't like this one bit, but it's not unconstitutional. Of course the application of it to non-terror suspects could be unconstitutional. That's the problem with vague laws like this. As such, it will likely end up being stricken down.
Fifth Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
"whaa" Let me read that again, I must have missed the part where it says "except for when the President decides you are an enemy combatant".

This literally throws out 100% of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. How in the FUCK can anyone argue that it is constitutional?
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#14
http://www.wackbag.com/showthread.php/140685-Senator-quot-Shut-up-you-don-t-get-a-lawyer

How did Obama signing a bill into law ignore the Constitution? :huh:

I'm guessing he's calling Boehner's bluff here.
United States Constitution
Article II
Section I
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The President has a duty to veto laws that are blatantly unconstitutional, or even those that he feels are unconstitutional. Seeing as he is a constitutional law scholar, it should be pretty obvious to him that this is a violation.
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
18,065
5,476
838
Wilmington, NC
#15
Lest we forget...

Cindy Sheehan Protests Gitmo in Cuba
January 7th, 2007

American "peace mom" Cindy Sheehan called for the closure of the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as she and other activists arrived here Saturday to draw attention to the nearly 400 terror suspects held at the remote site.

Sheehan is among 12 human rights and anti-war activists who will travel across this Caribbean island next week, arriving at the main gate of the Guantanamo base in eastern Cuba on Thursday - five years after the first prisoners were flown in.

"Anyone who knows me, knows that I am not afraid of anything," Sheehan said when asked about the possibility of U.S. sanctions for traveling to communist-run Cuba, which remains under an American trade embargo.

"What is more important is the inhumanity that my government is perpetrating at Guantanamo," she told reporters.

Sheehan, 49, of Vacaville, Calif., became an anti-war activist known as the "peace mom" after losing her 24-year-old son Casey in Iraq in April 2004.

She drew international attention after camping outside President Bush's Texas ranch to protest the war in Iraq, and has been arrested numerous times for trespassing.

Sheehan arrived in Havana early Saturday evening with trip organizer Medea Benjamin of the California nonprofit groups Global Exchange and CODEPINK: Women for Peace.

Benjamin said group members believed they were exempt from U.S. travel restrictions on Cuba because they were traveling as professional human rights activists who will attend a daylong international conference in the Cuban city of Guantanamo on Wednesday, the eve of their protest.

The U.S. military still holds about 395 men on suspicion of links to al-Qaida or the Taliban, including about 85 who have been cleared to be released or transferred to other countries.
What happened Cindy? Not in the headlines anymore, huh?

[yt]8USRg3h4AdE[/yt]

[yt]32ePb4X6JNQ[/yt]
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#16
"whaa" Let me read that again, I must have missed the part where it says "except for when the President decides you are an enemy combatant".

This literally throws out 100% of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. How in the FUCK can anyone argue that it is constitutional?
We've been over this before. The president has broad authority to conduct wars.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#18
Does he also have the authority to suspend the 6th amendment?
The Sixth Amendment deals with criminal cases. Enemy combatants aren't criminals, they're enemies in a war. This particular law might very well be unconstitutional, but the idea of enemy combatants not being afforded the same protections as a burglar isn't unconstitutional on its face.
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,556
22,221
398
Northern California
#19
The Sixth Amendment deals with criminal cases. Enemy combatants aren't criminals, they're enemies in a war. This particular law might very well be unconstitutional, but the idea of enemy combatants not being afforded the same protections as a burglar isn't unconstitutional on its face.
What about Americans on domestic soil? When does the guy in Idaho with 40 firearms become labeled as a terrorist, or perhaps someone who is vocal against the government?
 

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,556
22,221
398
Northern California
#21
Makes sense to want a healthy dose of crazy after being exposed to my intelligent and relevant posts.

Remember this little statement from Homeland Security 2 years ago?

Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists,” it says. “DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities
How much violence has been caused by right-wing extremist, especially compared to Muslim extremist?

Anyway, all that is beyond the point. This is unconstitutional if used against American citizens. I for one don't feel like giving the government this power and hoping they don't abuse it.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#22
The Sixth Amendment deals with criminal cases. Enemy combatants aren't criminals, they're enemies in a war. This particular law might very well be unconstitutional, but the idea of enemy combatants not being afforded the same protections as a burglar isn't unconstitutional on its face.
How does the government go about proving that an American citizen arrested on American soil is an enemy combatant? Remember that whole "innocent until PROVEN guilty" thing? If they don't have to PROVE that you committed the alleged offense, then what good is a constitution?
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#23
How does the government go about proving that an American citizen arrested on American soil is an enemy combatant?
There are specific criteria as to what constitutes an enemy combatant. Those criteria should have been included in this bill to avoid any confusion. They weren't, and that is a problem.

Remember that whole "innocent until PROVEN guilty" thing?
This isn't a criminal matter. Would you have preferred to attempt capturing Osama bin Laden and bringing him here for a show trial? Or should we have just sent in the SEAL Team and killed him like we did? The concept is the same here. If, and only if, the person being targeted is an enemy combatant, then he should be treated like any other. When you engage in war against the United States, you lose your protections as a citizen. It's not that hard to understand.

And the comparisons to domestic terrorists don't hold up either. An enemy combatant is siding with a foreign power that isn't part of an organized army of a recognized state. That's what defines an enemy combatant. Domestic terrorism isn't war, it's a crime. Domestic terrorists receive the same protections as any other criminal.
 

Falldog

Wackbag's Best Conservative
Donator
May 16, 2007
19,284
6,869
568
Nothern VA
#24
I am absolutely shocked to see Don not only defending Obama, but shitting on the Constitution too.
 

Josh_R

Registered User
Jan 29, 2005
5,847
458
578
Akron, Ohio
#25
There are specific criteria as to what constitutes an enemy combatant. Those criteria should have been included in this bill to avoid any confusion. They weren't, and that is a problem.



This isn't a criminal matter. Would you have preferred to attempt capturing Osama bin Laden and bringing him here for a show trial? Or should we have just sent in the SEAL Team and killed him like we did? The concept is the same here. If, and only if, the person being targeted is an enemy combatant, then he should be treated like any other. When you engage in war against the United States, you lose your protections as a citizen. It's not that hard to understand.

And the comparisons to domestic terrorists don't hold up either. An enemy combatant is siding with a foreign power that isn't part of an organized army of a recognized state. That's what defines an enemy combatant. Domestic terrorism isn't war, it's a crime. Domestic terrorists receive the same protections as any other criminal.
Is OBL an American citizen? Was OBL in America when the crime was committed? The criteria for what is an enemy combatant is pretty low, something like "substantially supporting a terrorist organization". I don't think it would be too hard to "prove" that a person had done just that. How about unknowingly donating to an organization that funnels money to AQ? See ya in Gitmo or sometime in the next decade when we declare and end to the war on terror.