Obama Signs Defense Authorization Bill, Despite Having Serious Reservations

President Obama has signed the controversial Defense authorization bill even though he says he had “serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists,”.

Strange that he would be more concerned about the parts of the bill relating to terrorist treatment than the part about indefinitely detaining U.S. citizens. Oh but don’t be worried King..err, I mean President Obama also said “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.”

We can definitely trust the President to keep his word even though he issued a signing statement in regards to the bill after candidate Obama once promised to never use them, right? According to candidate Obama, signing statements were an effort on the behalf of former President Dubya Bush to accumulate more power. Wonder how candidate Obama would describe President Obama’s current actions.

Below you can read Obama’s latest circumvention of the constitution that he brags about having taught for 10 years.

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540:

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. 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. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, 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. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

Section 1022 seeks to require military custody for a narrow category of non-citizen detainees who are “captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This section is ill-conceived and will do nothing to improve the security of the United States. The executive branch already has the authority to detain in military custody those members of al-Qa’ida who are captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the AUMF, and as Commander in Chief I have directed the military to do so where appropriate. I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat. 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.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

Sections 1023-1025 needlessly interfere with the executive branch’s processes for reviewing the status of detainees. Going forward, consistent with congressional intent as detailed in the Conference Report, my Administration will interpret section 1024 as granting the Secretary of Defense broad discretion to determine what detainee status determinations in Afghanistan are subject to the requirements of this section.

Sections 1026-1028 continue unwise funding restrictions that curtail options available to the executive branch. Section 1027 renews the bar against using appropriated funds for fiscal year 2012 to transfer Guantanamo detainees into the United States for any purpose. I continue to oppose this provision, which intrudes upon critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists in Federal court. Those prosecutions are a legitimate, effective, and powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation. Removing that tool from the executive branch does not serve our national security. Moreover, this intrusion would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles.

Section 1028 modifies but fundamentally maintains unwarranted restrictions on the executive branch’s authority to transfer detainees to a foreign country. This hinders the executive’s ability to carry out its military, national security, and foreign relations activities and like section 1027, would, under certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers. In the event that the statutory restrictions in sections 1027 and 1028 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will interpret them to avoid the constitutional conflict.

Section 1029 requires that the Attorney General consult with the Director of National Intelligence and Secretary of Defense prior to filing criminal charges against or seeking an indictment of certain individuals. I sign this based on the understanding that apart from detainees held by the military outside of the United States under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, the provision applies only to those individuals who have been determined to be covered persons under section 1022 before the Justice Department files charges or seeks an indictment. Notwithstanding that limitation, this provision represents an intrusion into the functions and prerogatives of the Department of Justice and offends the longstanding legal tradition that decisions regarding criminal prosecutions should be vested with the Attorney General free from outside interference. Moreover, section 1029 could impede flexibility and hinder exigent operational judgments in a manner that damages our security. My Administration will interpret and implement section 1029 in a manner that preserves the operational flexibility of our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, limits delays in the investigative process, ensures that critical executive branch functions are not inhibited, and preserves the integrity and independence of the Department of Justice.

Other provisions in this bill above could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers. Section 1244 requires the President to submit a report to the Congress 60 days prior to sharing any U.S. classified ballistic missile defense information with Russia. Section 1244 further specifies that this report include a detailed description of the classified information to be provided. While my Administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my Administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications. Other sections pose similar problems. Sections 1231, 1240, 1241, and 1242 could be read to require the disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications and national security secrets; and sections 1235, 1242, and 1245 would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with foreign governments. Like section 1244, should any application of these provisions conflict with my constitutional authorities, I will treat the provisions as non-binding.

My Administration has worked tirelessly to reform or remove the provisions described above in order to facilitate the enactment of this vital legislation, but certain provisions remain concerning. 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.

THE WHITE HOUSE, December 31, 2011.


One-in-three vets polled say Iraq, Afghan wars were not worth fighting…

One in three U.S. veterans of the post-9/11 military polled believes that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not worth fighting, and a majority think that America should be focusing more on domestic issues and less on foreign affairs according to an opinion survey released Wednesday.

Nearly 4,500 U.S. troops have died in Iraq and about 1,700 in Afghanistan. The costs of both wars combined has topped $1 trillion.

The survey also showed that post-9/11 veterans are more likely than Americans as a whole to call themselves Republicans and to disapprove of President Barack Obama’s performance as commander in chief. They also are more likely to have no religious affiliation than earlier generations of veterans.

The Pew Research Center conducted two surveys and polled two groups between late July and mid-September. The first group was made up of 1,853 veterans, including 712 who had served in the military after 9/11 but are no longer on active duty. Of the 712 post-9/11 veterans, 336 served in Iraq or Afghanistan. The second group was made up of 2,003 adults who had not served in the military.

Nearly half of post-9/11 veterans said deployments strained their relationship with their spouses, and a similar number reported problems with their children. On the other hand, 60 percent said they and their families benefited financially from having served in combat.

Asked for a single word to describe their experiences, the war veterans offered a mixed picture: “rewarding,” “nightmare,” “life-changing,” “eye-opening,” “interesting,” “lousy” and “hot.”

The report’s key findings were:

  • Half of post-9/11 veterans say the war in Afghanistan has been worth fighting, while about 44 percent view the conflict in Iraq the same way. Only one-third (34 percent) say that both wars have been worth fighting and 33 percent say that neither war has been worth the cost.
  • Forty-four percent of post-9/11 veterans report that they have had difficulties readjusting to civilian life, and 37 percent say that — whether or not they have been diagnosed – they have suffered from post-traumatic stress.
  • Eighty-four percent of these modern-era veterans say the general American public has little or no understanding of the problems they face, with 71 percent of the public agreeing.
  • Overall, 16 percent of post-9/11 veterans report they were seriously injured while serving in the military, and most of the injuries were combat-related. Forty-seven percent say they know and have served with someone who was killed while in the military.
  • Many Americans agree that since the terror attacks in the U.S., the military and their families have made more sacrifices than the general public. But even among this group, only 26 percent say this gap is “unfair,” while 70 percent say that it’s “just part of being in the military”.
  • A vast majority expressed pride in the troops and three-quarters say they thanked someone in the military. But a 45 percent plurality say neither of the post-9/11 wars has been worth the cost and only a quarter say they are following news of the wars closely. Half of the public said the wars have made little difference in their lives.
  • About half (51 percent) of post-9/11 veterans say that the use of military force to fight terrorism creates hatred that breeds more terrorism; 40 percent say it is the best way to defeat terrorism. These views are nearly identical to those of the general public.
  • When asked about the draft, both veterans and the public agreed: The nation should not bring back the military draft, which was ended in 1973. Among post-9/11 veterans, 82 percent said they’re against reinstating the draft, compared with 66 percent of pre-9/11 era veterans and 74 percent of the general public.


Sen. Joe Lieberman says U.S. should cut Social Security to fund war on terror…

Via ThinkProgress.org:


Screw old people we got brown people to kill.

Congress to extend Patriot Act…

The “Patriot Act”, passed a month after the September 11th terror attacks on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, has been a controversial issue often criticized by civil libertarian members of both the Republican and Democratic parties as an assault on American rights and freedoms. Congress has reached a deal to extend three key parts of the bill that were soon set to expire and progressives can forget about their bi-partisan happy president doing anything about it.

The three parts being extended are the lone wolf, roving wiretaps and  business records or “tangible things” provisions. The lone wolf provision allows for a change to the definition of an agent of a foreign power under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). FISA is a special framework for gathering foreign intelligence in the U.S. It has always been limited to persons with links to foreign governments. Under lone wolf FISA can be used against people who do not have ties to any foreign group. Roving wiretaps allow law enforcement to expand warrants to cover all means of communication, i.e. pay phones, without authorities having to go back to a judge for permission or identifying the intended target by name. The business records or “tangible things” provision also known as Section 215 allows investigators to obtain an order from the FISA court permitting them to compel the production of any tangible item deemed relevant to an investigation. Any record or other thing that can be tied to a suspected agent of a foreign power or someone in contact with them is considered to be “presumptively relevant.” Judges have no discretion to deny these type of requests. The records don’t even have to belong to anyone who is thought to be guilty of anything.

Obama’s handling of the “War on Terror” would make Bush proud…

When it comes to the “War on Terror” the new boss sure does look a lot like the old boss, but I guess at this point if you’ve been paying attention the current administration’s latest move shouldn’t come as a surprise. When he was running for office President Obama often chastised the former administration for violating many of the laws that make this country great while trying to fight terrorism, but time and time again Obama has actually adopted many of Bush’s policies.

After being criticized by republicans alongside a public outcry for terror suspects being given their Miranda Rights when arrested, Obama has decided that the best thing to do is to not stand firm on his belief in our judicial system but to find a way to continue the last administration’s tendency to ignore our laws whenever they saw fit. The 1966 Miranda law ruling was made to ensure that criminal suspects where advised of their rights, while a 1984 amendment to that ruling gave authorities the ability to question suspects for a limited time before giving them their Miranda warnings if there was an immediate threat to public safety at the time. Obama has decided that a terror suspect, U.S. citizen or not, falls into a different category than other criminal suspects and therefore can be held longer than others without being given their Miranda rights. The administrations justification for this is that terror suspects should always be considered an immediate threat no matter the situation. This decision comes on the heels of the administration’s revelation that it will be continuing our former commander-in-chief’s policies of indefinite detention as well the use of military tribunals to prosecute suspects instead of civilian courts. The irony of it all is that the Bush administration did not try all suspects in military tribunals nor did they deny all suspects their Miranda warnings but did in fact try numerous terror suspects in civilian courts with no outcry whats-so-ever.

The inevitable argument of “why should we give rights to terrorists anyway” will surely rear it’s head. The problem with this argument comes down to what one defines as terrorism. If someone planted a bomb along a parade route which could have potentially killed or injured dozens of people, one would consider that terrorism, right? Well that’s exactly what happened in Spokane, Washington, yet the man who stands accused has been indicted in a civilian court and is facing life in prison. How about a group of nine people planning to kill a police officer so they could then attack and kill more cops as well as innocent people at the officers funeral? That’s what happened in Michigan but these terrorist plotters actually ended up being RELEASED! It seems that the definition of terror all boils down to if you happen to be Muslim or not whether you’re acts of terrorism result in your rights being taken away.