iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

White House Threatens Veto Of Indefinite Detention Bill

President Obama

First Posted: 12/02/11 05:25 PM ET Updated: 12/03/11 10:06 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- Accusing the Senate of "political micromanagement" of national security, the White House Friday stood by its threat to veto a defense bill over controversial military detention provisions.

The National Defense Authorization Act passed Thursday by the Senate contains a section that spells out the military's power to detain Americans indefinitely without trial and mandates military detention for some terrorism suspects.

The White House warned last month that senior advisers would recommend a veto, saying the detainee provisions could restrict the ability of law enforcement to combat terrorism and "make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult."

It also contended that rather than clarifying the rules, the bill was adding uncertainty to the difficult legal landscape around detentions. Civil libertarians and many senators opposed to the detainee section charged that the bill was trampling Americans' basic rights to due process.

The Senate sought to soothe the objections Thursday night by adding an amendment that says the provision will not affect current law on detainees.

It won almost unanimous passage in the Senate, but the compromise was not sufficient for the White House.

"Republican and Democratic administrations ... have said that the language in this bill would jeopardize our national security by restricting flexibility in our fight against al Qaeda," spokesman Jay Carney said in his daily briefing Friday. "By ignoring these nonpartisan recommendations -- including the recommendations of the secretary of defense, the director of the FBI, the director of national Intelligence and the attorney general -- the Senate has unfortunately engaged in a little political micromanagement at the expense of sensible national security policies.

"So our position has not changed," Carney added. "Any bill that challenges or constrains the president's critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation would prompt his senior advisers to recommend a veto."

A former Bush administration official echoed Carney.

"I sympathize with what the sponsors are trying to do," said John Bellinger, a partner at the law firm Arnold & Porter who served as legal adviser to the State Department and the National Security Council. "But these provisions go far beyond anything the Bush administration either did, or would have tolerated."

Bellinger was referring specifically to the two sections in the bill that mandate military detention and heavily restrict where and how terrorism detainees must be imprisoned, as well as rules for moving them.

"Those are the kind of micromanagement of the president's military and law enforcement authority that the Bush administration opposed adamantly ... particularly when it came to prosecuting the war with al Qaeda," Bellinger said.

Bellinger also warned that the detainee provision could threaten the ability of U.S. officials to get cooperation from allies who are likely to object to indefinite detentions, and could therefore be unwilling to provide information that leads to people being captured.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee who managed the bill, was traveling and could not be reached for comment.

MIchael McAuliff covers Congress and politics for The Huffington Post. Talk to him on Facebook.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Accusing the Senate of "political micromanagement" of national security, the White House Friday stood by its threat to veto a defense bill over controversial military detention provision...
WASHINGTON -- Accusing the Senate of "political micromanagement" of national security, the White House Friday stood by its threat to veto a defense bill over controversial military detention provision...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 4,471
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (90 total)
  1 of 4  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
Carolab 01:19 AM on 12/03/2011
Because only the president should have the authority to suspend posse comitatus. Now, if Obama comes forward and vetoes this, everyone gets the "idea" that he's on our side. YET: Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it simply requires that any orders to do so must  Read More...
02:51 AM on 01/03/2012
Obama is speaking with forked tongue. He threaten to veto if he did not get everything he wanted in the bill. Senator Reed and the democrats in the senate handed Obama the final version that includes the detention of the americans indefinitely without trial. Obama was pleased with the bill, signed it and then pretended he didn't like it and had some reservation about it. He is playing game with the democrats hoping he can fool them this time as he has done before with some many empty promises.
09:22 AM on 12/14/2011
America sucks.
02:10 AM on 01/03/2012
Obama sucks.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dogspeed
Your mico-bio is empty.
08:47 AM on 12/12/2011
Looks like Obama is the one that called for the language to hold Americans indefinitely. Who woulda thunk?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PLiKvSz_wX8

http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-ndaa-section-1031-citizen-imprisonment-law-before-dec-13
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbrett480
07:49 PM on 12/09/2011
If a terrorist is captured overseas by the US military, what's wrong with holding them in accordance with military law? This is a war on terrorism, not a prosecution on terrorism.
04:52 PM on 12/07/2011
Has it occurred to anyone else here that the government may be deliberately provoking us? That they actually WANT us to pitch a b*tch in the streets?
I mean...when you look at the big picture since 9/11 the government has been eroding our Constitutional freedoms under the Patriot Act, and other acts...given the banks our money (TARP) in the biggest heist in history...and the banks foreclosed on our homes based on fraudulent mortgages, notwithstanding (the bank's fraud...not the mortgagee's)...and the corporations that received HUGE tax breaks refused to create jobs in the USA and instead outsourced jobs...and then expects us to watch a sitcom about it...and NOW THIS!
When they have FEMA prisons across the nation that sit empty but are fully staffed...I don't think I am out of line by suspecting that the government is patting its foot, looking at its watch and waiting...waiting...still waiting...for the excuse that an insurrection would give them.
05:47 PM on 12/13/2011
Read the Georgia Guide-Stones that lie on the 33rd Parallel. Listen to the talk from Bill Gates on CO2 and pay close attention to what he says a solution is. These are ideological designs from certain secret societies. Look into the number 33 and its relation to many symbols and how it is affiliated to the dollar bill.
09:39 PM on 12/13/2011
SecretSniffer...when I first ready your reply I said to myself..."Huh?" But then I steadfastly googled your references...and I must admit that I learned a lot. Thank you.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:37 PM on 12/05/2011
At first I thought, "Oh, Obama's opposing this, good." Then I read the fine print: they don't like how the bill's language restricts where they can and cannot detain those marked as terrorists or military combatants (i.e. you and me!). THEY WANT THE BILL TO GIVE THEM MORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWER! So expect the bill to be re-worded in their favor and for it to pass. Don't expect the bill's language suspending the Bill of Rights to be changed or challanged by this Administration!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jimm Milenski
10:37 AM on 12/06/2011
That damned fine print again. I too thought that one of our politicians had read the Constitution that they swore to uphold so help them God.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ProfessorDuh
05:45 AM on 12/05/2011
This public stripping of Americans' constitutional rights, greeted with a studied silence by the corporate media, shows that the corporate media is now ready to accept and effectively legitimize any outrage, any unconstitutional horror. The fascists have nearly everything in place for a checkmate.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
new beginning
Practice random acts of kindness-change the world
09:22 PM on 12/20/2011
Certainly this is an outrage.

As is our engagement in Libya - without benefit of congressional approval approved by law - and our random drone attacks on foreign countries which go on routinely without oversight or scrutiny or explanation...
12:29 AM on 12/05/2011
Wht doesn't the Huff Post have guidelines for blogging? If I am to read this kind of ammature
12:14 AM on 12/05/2011
Micheal McAuluff, I defy you to find the provision that allows for the detention of Americans. How much money were you paid, and who paid you to print this?
It is a direct fabrication.
Iceneedle
Techie and educator
10:33 AM on 12/06/2011
This is the provision-
The second provision “would create a federal statute saying the government has the legal authority to keep people suspected of terrorism in military custody, indefinitely and without trial. It contains no exception for American citizens.”
There is no exception.
08:20 PM on 12/06/2011
It isn't written that way, and you would know it if you had read the provisions, particularly b)
I do not want to keep dealing with this Read the document.
The fact is, it contains a provision for the periodic review of detainees. All of this hype about being swept up by the military forever, for no reason is BS.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dogspeed
Your mico-bio is empty.
09:08 AM on 12/12/2011
Delusion is a bad thing. Get help.
10:09 PM on 12/04/2011
Wow! Gosh, isn't Obama GREAT! Some of his staff MAY RECOMMEND to veto an anti-due process bill because it would somehow encroach on unconstitutional executive powers he has already claimed for himself! Shucks, I'm glad we have someone soooooo progressive in the White House I can trust to assassinate fellow citizens! Plus, he's super cute!

http://jeffstilley.wordpress.com/2011/12/01/battlefield-earth/
07:10 PM on 12/04/2011
Veterans, please join me in a reaffirmation of our Oath of Enlistment and a statement in defense of our Constitution.

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/reaffirmation-oath-enlistment-and-statement/9RCB1HTZ
02:01 PM on 12/04/2011
94% of Senators from BOTH the Democrat and Republican parties voted for the bill.

Only 7 Senators voted against the bill:
... 3 Democrats
... 3 Republicans
... 1 Independent

R-Rand Paul (KY)
R-Thomas Coburn (OK)
R-Mike Lee (UT)

D-Thomas Harken (IA)
D-Ron Wyden (OR)
D-Jeff Merkley (OR),

I-Bernard Sanders (VT) (one of 2 Independents in the Senate)
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
05:54 PM on 12/04/2011
It may be small comfort that 44 GOP voted for the worst amendment and ONLY 17 dems tit, but the Senate is sold out and the whole concept of the senate is bad from the beginning. It should be representative by population, like the house.
11:29 PM on 12/04/2011
THANK YOU for again showing everyone when people care more about their ideology than about the facts, or they are trying to misrepresent the facts, they resort to NAME-CALLING.

I don't know where you got your flawed data, but according to opencongress org (and 3 other websites) the official voting RECORD was,

Yes= 93 -- Democrat: 48; Republican: 44; Other: 1
No=7 -- Democrat: 3; Republican: 3; Other: 1
Abstained=0
11:42 PM on 12/04/2011
The House and Senate perform two VERY distinctly different and vital functions in our government's operations and designed-in protections. In addition to different functions, Senators originally weren't even elected by popular vote...they were elected by State Legislatures. Read your history. Understand what they do and why. Start with the simple overview at senate.gov.

In addition, if the Senate were apportioned by general population as is the House, it would be entirely redundant. All that effectively would do is expand the size of the House.

Genders said, "...and the whole concept of the senate is bad from the beginning. It should be representa­tive by population­, like the house."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Devontate
PrObama
01:44 PM on 12/04/2011
"The Senate sought to soothe the objections Thursday night by adding an amendment that says the provision will not affect current law on detainees."

If that's true, what is the purpose of the bill?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
02:47 PM on 12/04/2011
Exactly
F&F
06:08 PM on 12/04/2011
Can you imagine what it would be like to have the military operational on U.S. soil? Policing our streets? What a chill factor THAT would be. Just their presence would intimidate and cow people into not exercising their rights as free Americans.
If U.S. citizens think that they cannot be touched by this they are sadly mistaken. Scenario: You are an innocent bonafide citizen...you get caught up in a sweep...or are a victim of mistaken identity...or someone makes a false accusation. Then what do you do? You have no right to legal representation, no phone call, no due process...you are detained indefinitely in limbo. How the h*ll are you going to prove you are a citizen? You have now just disappeared...gone...
12:36 AM on 12/05/2011
Not possible. The end result will be that law enforcement will have military oversight, and they will be required to hand over suspected terrorists to the military. Obama has 30 days to outline the details of this.
With things heating up at the Boarder though, you might be SOL if you're here illegaly.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Devontate
PrObama
09:40 AM on 12/06/2011
Positively third world.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lloyd Cata
01:34 PM on 12/04/2011
This attempt to destroy the Bill of Rights is an insult to Liberty by this Congress...AND IT WILL NOT BE SOON FORGOTTEN!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sgillhoolley
Occupy the discussion.
12:57 PM on 12/04/2011
He should do more than threaten to veto. He should veto, no ifs ands or butts. Enough equivocating. Get it done.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ChasG
Unborn, unchanging, undying Universe
02:48 PM on 12/04/2011
Presidents cannot veto until presentment, which is after both the House and Senate have passed the same bill.