More

House, Senate Negotiators Agree On $662 Billion Defense Bill

DONNA CASSATA   12/12/11 09:05 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — House and Senate negotiators late Monday agreed to a sweeping $662 billion defense bill that requires military custody for terrorism suspects linked to al-Qaida, including those captured within the U.S., and indefinite detention without trial for some suspects.

President Barack Obama and his national security team had appealed to lawmakers for last-minute changes to the bill to give the executive branch greater flexibility on whether to treat suspected terrorists as prisoners of war or criminals. Facing a White House veto threat, leaders of the Armed Services Committees said they had added language on national security waivers and other slight revisions that they hoped would ensure administration support.

"We took significant steps to address the administration's concerns," Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state, the top Democrat on the House panel, told reporters at a news conference.

The White House had no immediate comment late Monday, and it was unclear whether it would hold firm on its veto threat.

Overall, the bill would authorize $662 billion for military personnel, weapons systems, national security programs in the Energy Department, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. Reflecting a period of austerity and a winding down of decade-old conflicts, the bill is $27 billion less than Obama requested and $43 billion less than Congress gave the Pentagon for the year before.

The legislation would impose tough new sanctions on Iran, targeting foreign financial institutions that do business with the Central Bank in Tehran. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Armed Services panel, said the negotiators made some changes to address concerns of the Treasury Department, but the legislation is "96 percent" of what the Senate had unanimously backed.

The lawmakers said they hoped the House and Senate could vote on the bill on Wednesday and send it to the president.

The issue of how to handle captured terrorist suspects has divided Obama's senior national security officials and Congress as well as Democrats and Republicans.

The administration insists that the military, law enforcement and intelligence officials need flexibility in prosecuting the war on terror. Obama points to his administration's successes in eliminating Osama bin Laden and radical Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Republicans counter that their efforts are necessary to respond to an evolving, post-Sept. 11 threat, and that Obama has failed to produce a consistent policy on handling terror suspects.

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, with an exemption for U.S. citizens.

Responding to appeals from Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and FBI Director Robert Mueller, the lawmakers added a provision 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. Originally that authority rested with the Defense secretary.

House and Senate negotiators dropped several of the provisions in the House bill that also had drawn a veto threat, including the requirement of military tribunals for all cases.

"After a decade of war against al-Qaida and its affiliates under the authorization for the use of force of Sept. 18, 2001, it is long past time provide a statutory basis relating to military detention under that authorization," Levin said in a statement.

The legislation would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. The lawmakers made no changes to that language.

The revisions weren't sufficient for at least one civil rights group.

"The so-called `changes' to the detainee provisions that came out to conference are cosmetic at best," said Raha Wala of Human Rights First. "They do little to fix the underlying problems with the bill. The president has no choice now but to veto, both for the sake of our national security and the rule of law."

The bill would go after foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran's central bank by barring them from opening or maintaining correspondent operations in the United States. It would apply to foreign central banks only for transactions that involve the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum products.

The petroleum penalties would only apply if the president, in six months, determines there is a sufficient alternative supply and if the country with jurisdiction over the financial institution has not significantly reduced its purchases of Iranian oil. It also allows the president to waive the penalties based on national security.

In a reflection of the uneasy relationship between the United States and Pakistan, the bill would freeze some $700 million in assistance until Pakistan comes up with a strategy to deal with improvised explosive devices.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — House and Senate negotiators late Monday agreed to a sweeping $662 billion defense bill that requires military custody for terrorism suspects linked to al-Qaida, including those cap...
WASHINGTON — House and Senate negotiators late Monday agreed to a sweeping $662 billion defense bill that requires military custody for terrorism suspects linked to al-Qaida, including those cap...
Filed by Adam Goldberg  |  Report Corrections
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,159
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (64 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
muck-raker
give me liberty or give me death
05:04 PM on 12/30/2011
Since all Americans have been at this place in time LET US review what was done to us the last time: At A congressional hearing examining the march to war in Iraq, Republican congressman Walter Jones posed "a very simple question" about the administration's manipulation of intelligence: "How could the professionals see what was happening and nobody speak out?"

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff, responded with an equally simple answer: "The vice president."

But the blame for Iraq does not end with Cheney, Bush, or Rumsfeld. Nor is it limited to the intelligence operatives who sat silent as the administration cherry-picked its case for war, or with those, like Colin Powell or Hans Blix, who, in the name of loyalty or statesmanship, did not give full throat to their misgivings. It is also shared by far too many in the Fourth Estate, most notably the New York Times' Judith Miller. But let us not forget that it lies, inescapably, with we the American people, who, in our fear and rage over the catastrophic events of September 11, 2001, allowed ourselves to be suckered into the most audacious bait and switch of all time.

for the readers here=THEY SUCKER punched us the last time...can they do it again?
YOU BETCHA: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
yomero
05:02 PM on 12/30/2011
This bill will end your rights when you disagree with the goverment........
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
muck-raker
give me liberty or give me death
04:55 PM on 12/30/2011
Sleepwalking into the Imperial Dark
What It Feels Like When a Superpower Runs Off the Tracks
by Tom Engelhardt
This can’t end well.

But then, how often do empires end well, really? They live vampirically by feeding off others until, sooner or later, they begin to feed on themselves, to suck their own blood, to hollow themselves out. Sooner or later, they find themselves, as in our case, economically stressed and militarily extended in wars they can’t afford to win or lose.

Historians have certainly written about the dangers of overextended empires and of endless war as a way of life, but there’s something distant and abstract about the patterns of history. It’s quite another thing to take it in when you’re part of it; when, as they used to say in the overheated 1960s, you’re in the belly of the beast.

I don’t know what it felt like to be inside the Roman Empire in the long decades, even centuries, before it collapsed, or to experience the waning years of the Spanish empire, or the twilight of the Qing dynasty, or of Imperial Britain as the sun first began to set, or even of the Soviet Empire before the troops came slinking home from Afghanistan, but at some point it must have seemed at least a little like this -- truly strange, like watching a machine losing its parts
more:http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/04/19-7
photo
Djay0252
American First, Second, and ALWAYS
10:37 AM on 12/14/2011
Peace costs SO much less than war. I wish our government would work more to the goal of peace.
07:28 PM on 12/14/2011
I agree, but I can tell you why they won't. Because they won't MAKE any money...pure and simple. This is everything that is wrong with our country. The people in power want more, and more and more and they don't give a damn who it hurts or what it costs the public. Truth be told, it's our money that they spend on war, not theirs.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
muck-raker
give me liberty or give me death
04:44 PM on 12/30/2011
thank you for having your eyes wide open and not listening to the MIC. FF
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tampamurray
Raised Right
08:40 AM on 12/14/2011
So typical of this Administration ---- Armed Services Committees said they had added language on national security waivers" ----- endless formation of unnecessary committees, and an ever-abundant cache of "waivers." America .... are you listening?
06:47 AM on 12/14/2011
It says there are 2133 comments on this story. I hope that means there are also 2133 emails or letters to congressmen and the President objecting to this unconstitutional bill
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
l78lancer
Wisdom is the principal thing
01:48 AM on 12/14/2011
The state of our government is pretty sad when the big news is that congress worked together on something.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
l78lancer
Wisdom is the principal thing
01:46 AM on 12/14/2011
It really doesn't matter if the House and Senate worked together if it's not a good bill. If it's no good and the president signs it then it's just another useless piece of paper.
photo
corte33
Educator, Musician
01:07 AM on 12/14/2011
I understand the budget for Homeland Security is separate from the Defense budget? Why do we need $600 billion for more weapons? To deal with Iran? This is absurd. But, it's a jobs program. Cut defense and people lose their jobs.
10:47 PM on 12/13/2011
This is getting ugly.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ILoveGreatDanes
When the going gets tough, the tough take a nap.
08:12 PM on 12/13/2011
Come on Huff. Please don't start censoring comments now when the article is about restricting the freedoms of citizens. They're just trickling through.
photo
68Namvet
Sioux, French, German, Jew, American mutt
07:43 PM on 12/13/2011
What strikes me as absurd is the claim that the country is broke. Too broke for infrastructure builds. Too broke to provide adequate healthcare to it's citizens. Too broke to educate it's population. Too broke to continue Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid with substantial cuts. Too broke to provide proper care for veterans. Too broke to continue providing retirement and healthcare benefits to government employees and retired military. But, for war - we got money. All the money you want. No problem, no need to question why. No need to be attacked - we got money for preemptive war. So, as a single country we spend more than half of the worlds defense spending. So we spend more than the other top 5 countries combined. No problem. For war, and empire building, our funds are unlimited.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
muck-raker
give me liberty or give me death
04:47 PM on 12/30/2011
thank you for a great post...
06:37 PM on 12/13/2011
So Obama wants to veto this bill, NOT because it fundamenta­lly changes our country and our basic constituti­onal rights, but because it doesn't give him extra powers. What a fraud!
photo
68Namvet
Sioux, French, German, Jew, American mutt
07:33 PM on 12/13/2011
Perhaps you should reread the article. The President is not asking for "extra powers" but, is asking for a system that allows for some different approaches instead of a one size fits all..

Two items: "The legislation would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention" - and - "appealed to lawmakers for last-minute changes to the bill to give the executive branch greater flexibility on whether to treat suspected terrorists as prisoners of war or criminals."
12:00 AM on 12/14/2011
I read it again, and it is no less true, that Obama has no problem with the fact that this bill allows for indefinite detention of Americans without charging them for any crime; instead he has problems with the amount of power he can or cannot exercise over the provisions of this bill.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
whythismess
06:06 PM on 12/13/2011
"DEAR president,

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

signed, the constitution"

1 favorite

---------------------------

"bush sucks, its his and the teaprtys fault fault, obama 2012" =153 favorites.

nah, huffpo doesnt lean left or anything. lol.
06:02 PM on 12/13/2011
Does America need so much to defend its borders or, is this including all wars of aggression and other undercover acts of aggression ? Defending the borders by the way is a joke, they leak so, probably its only to pay for outlandish activities