iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama Signs Defense Bill Despite 'Serious Reservations'

Barack Obama Defense Bill

First Posted: 12/31/11 03:25 PM ET Updated: 12/31/11 06:22 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- Indefinite military detention of Americans became the law of the land Saturday, as President Barack Obama signed a defense bill that codified that authority, even as he said he would not use it.

The National Defense Authorization Act states how the military is to be funded, but also includes a number of controversial provisions on arresting and holding suspected terrorists, which at first drove Obama to threaten a veto.

He retreated from that threat after Congress added provisions that took the ultimate authority to detain suspects from the military's hands and gave it to the president. Congress also clarified that civilian law enforcement agencies -- such as the FBI -- would still have authority to investigate terrorism and added a provision that asserts nothing in the detention measures changes current law regarding U.S. citizens.

Still, the signing on New Year's Eve as few people were paying attention angered civil liberties advocates, who argue that the law for the first time spells out certain measures that have not actually been tested all the way to the Supreme Court, including the possibility of detaining citizens in military custody without trial for as long as there is a war on terror.

"President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield," Romero added. "The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress or internationally.”

The administration was especially sensitive about the law and about reaction to the president signing it. In addition to enacting the measure while few people were paying attention -- and many opponents still had hopes the president would veto the bill -- the White House added a signing statement specifying that the Obama administration would not detain Americans without trial. The White House also sent out a notice to its online community highlighting Obama's complaints with the law, in a tacit admission that many of the president's more ardent supporters despise the detention provisions.

"I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists," Obama said in the signing statement.

Presidents issue such statements when they feel a law conflicts with the executive's constitutional powers. Obama criticized them during the Bush administration, but has found the practice useful on a handful of occasions.

In this case, Obama argued that the changes Congress made to the bill affirm only authorities that the Bush and Obama administrations have already claimed in fighting terrorism. But he noted that the codification of those powers in law was unnecessary and perhaps harmful. And he insisted he would not use the powers to detain citizens without trial.

"I want to clarify that my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama wrote. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My administration will interpret section 1021 [of the bill] in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law."

Civil liberties advocates like Romero pointed out that once the provisions are law, however, they will be available to a President Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney or any future president, who could choose to use the powers granted more aggressively.

"We are incredibly disappointed that President Obama signed this new law even though his administration had already claimed overly broad detention authority in court," said Romero. "Any hope that the Obama administration would roll back the constitutional excesses of George Bush in the war on terror was extinguished today."

Because of the provisions specifying that the new legislation does not change current law, the new law leaves the authority it grants open to interpretation and to the possibility -- albeit in very difficult circumstances -- of someone challenging a detention through the courts.

"Thankfully, we have three branches of government, and the final word belongs to the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the scope of detention authority," Romero said. "But Congress and the president also have a role to play in cleaning up the mess they have created, because no American citizen or anyone else should live in fear of this or any future president misusing the NDAA's detention authority."

Obama also said he will not abide by the law's requirement to detain terror suspects using the military.

"I reject any approach that would mandate military custody where law enforcement provides the best method of incapacitating a terrorist threat," Obama said. "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."

Finally, he rejected a number of other provisions, saying the White House is concerned they interfere with the president's constitutional powers and ability to fight terrorism.

"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," Obama warned.

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Indefinite military detention of Americans became the law of the land Saturday, as President Barack Obama signed a defense bill that codified that authority, even as he said he would not...
WASHINGTON -- Indefinite military detention of Americans became the law of the land Saturday, as President Barack Obama signed a defense bill that codified that authority, even as he said he would not...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 37,478
  • 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 »  (620 total)
08:50 PM on 02/05/2012
How do I make people more aware of this bill? alot of citizens don't even know it has been signed or what it truly means. what can people like me do to try and prevent this from happening and make people aware??
photo
Splevich
Nothing...is what it seems to be!
09:54 PM on 01/25/2012
I hope people don't forget this when it comes time for the election!
photo
Splevich
Nothing...is what it seems to be!
09:51 PM on 01/25/2012
"And he insisted he would not use the powers to detain citizens without trial"

Oh really? And didn't he first insist he would veto this Bill?
Anyone who still believes anything this man says is either a fool or insane or both!
11:42 PM on 01/23/2012
War on terror thread of 1Jan12:

Obama did not even bother with a cover something like -- "Well, y'all
aren't reading this bill right; it's only to be used in extreme emergencies . .
. "

Nope, and to paraphrase his written signing statement -- "this law is a bad
idea; it subverts the Constitution; I will not use it under any
circumstances . . ."

Presidential signing statements attempt to tease out more power from a law
than is there in fact. But Barack used his to say the law mindlessly puts
too much power in the hands of one man; and, that he would not accept it.
Fact is, all he had to do was veto openly, or, pocket it. No call for
pathetic groveling.

What's really perverse is that he killed the bill's first version and
insisted that only the president (not Congress or the military) could implement
it. Next, he gets the bill re-written so he's The Man. Now, he weasels
about, lamenting the very powers that he himself insisted the bill must
grant to him alone.

I think we've only two realistic options to consider in evaluating our
president's actions:

1) He is daft and mindlessly parrots nonsense, or,

2) perhaps someone has impressed on him that his own "best interests"
require signing into law what he himself characterizes as a Machiavellian
assault on our civil liberties.

Either way, it's not a good day for America. Nope, not at all good.
photo
itiswhatitmaybe
My micro-bio is NOT empty, it's contemplating.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Calilover Calilover
tolerate tolerance
12:30 PM on 01/06/2012
This will be used AGAINST AMERICANS

AS WE ALREADY KNOW WHAT OBAMA HAS DONE TO AMERICANS WHO HE HAS A "PROBLEM "WITH
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Calilover Calilover
tolerate tolerance
12:29 PM on 01/06/2012
nov 19 2008

obama swore that he would never......

"no end runs around congress"
08:58 PM on 01/11/2012
He should be in professional football, the best I 've seen yet, in running the end around......
photo
itiswhatitmaybe
My micro-bio is NOT empty, it's contemplating.
03:47 PM on 01/05/2012
In light of this administrations repeal of the people's Constitution and Bill of Rights by signing NDAA into law, President Obama has lost all credibility. I hate to say it, but he has deceived the American people in a massive way with his New Years Eve signing of this legislation. This has been ignored by the mainstream media.

Don’t be fooled, the INDEFINITE DETENTION provisions in NDAA are a neo-cons wet-dream.

Below is really good segment with Cenk on The Young Turks discussing key provisions in NDAA, sec. 1021 and sec. 1022. Below that is an excellent breakdown of sec. 1021.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gstBozWfhQ&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ&feature=plcp
http://www.naturalnews.com/034538_NDAA_American_citizens_indefinite_detainment.html

Also google the following along with "NDAA":

ACLU
Human Rights Watch
National Lawyers Guild
Justia
The Guardian
Salon
Business Insider
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Calilover Calilover
tolerate tolerance
12:29 PM on 01/06/2012
not one leftist challenged you
07:24 PM on 01/09/2012
This is not a provision supported by leftists. Its not a provision supported by anyone that isn't already protected by political power. Any hope that the American government is still a Democratic Republic ended on 12-31-2011. Welcome to the United States of Capitalist Tyranny where anyone who doesn't conform to the new model of "proper citizenship" can and most likely will be detained for the rest of their lives.
09:04 PM on 01/11/2012
If you talk to anyone of them, they would swear that this was all the right telling lies about what really happened , and about what he really signed.They say that this all about the right , brainwashing there own and in the process , trying to brainwash the left.....sic !
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:32 PM on 01/05/2012
If they are us citizens on the battle field and not in US uniform who cares. They are traitors and if found on the battle field let the Military take care of them...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:17 AM on 01/06/2012
Lindsay Graham says America is the battlefield. We're all at risk under your premise.
If a citizen commits treason, then we have constitutional provisions for that which don't include the military. Why would you want to militarize our country?
photo
trvcampbe
War is misery for the poor and profit for the rich
12:36 AM on 01/21/2012
Fear mongering has allowed them to pass laws never thought possible.
You have a better chance of being struck by lightning about 50 times than being a victim of this
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2010/01/odds_of_dying_in_terrorist_attack_on_airline_1_in_25_million_struck_by_lightning_1_in_500000.php
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
amodeous2
Get to your point & move along
09:28 AM on 01/08/2012
Do yourself a favor and look up the federal Gov's definition of terrorist, as it has recently been redefined to include christians who speak against abortion or same sex marriage or relations, Anyone who speaks a dissenting opinion of said gov. including the Occupy movement.
photo
trvcampbe
War is misery for the poor and profit for the rich
12:33 AM on 01/21/2012
Got links for those?
12:19 PM on 01/05/2012
First off, this was McCain's baby, not Obama's. He had to sign the blasted thing as his veto wuldve been meanngless. Thus, knowing that it would pass regardless, he made sure that certain provisions were taken away from the Armed Forces and given to the President instead, thus decreasing the risk of a police state. HOWEVER, the Constitution of the United States was violated, regardless. How was this even passed? did we the People get a vote? We have given our rights away as a nation and laws are created and passed and we are simply TOLD about them. Our founding fathers are no doubt rolling over in their graves, wondering what the heck they fought for. We need to take our power back from this government that has gotten WAY to big and remind these jackals who the heck they work for.
01:39 PM on 01/05/2012
Regardless of whose 'baby' this was. Obama signed it, he owns it and thank you for at least admitting that he violated our Constitution. We are no longer a Government of the people, by the people, for the people. I think Lincoln was the last guy in government to believe that one!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Scheherazade Brown
06:02 AM on 01/07/2012
well put, and for all these issues, I am glad that our president did this. He took complete control and can bring it back to the people just like he does all else. I totally support our president of the united states of america, barack obama....go 2012!!!!!!WOO HOO
12:09 AM on 01/08/2012
hey Brown, He took control allright, soon his socialist agenda, will put it to the people!!! 2012, the year of NOBAMA !!!
12:14 PM on 01/08/2012
Lets be clear, Obama is the worst thing to happen to this country and needs to go asap! NOBAMA 2012!!!
08:32 AM on 01/05/2012
I used to respect Ariana Huffington, now, you seem to have sold out to the highest bidder. Your blog has become like the news that you used to expose. Very Sad for everyone
12:11 AM on 01/08/2012
sharrifbey, I commend . Arianna, finally , both sides of the issue are heard! Too bad you don't like it , but that;s what freedom of speech is all about.
06:36 AM on 01/05/2012
Unacceptable.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:36 AM on 01/05/2012
Ah! This is where RuPaulines and woowoos are hiding, on this thread.

I thought that after Ron Paul's third place finish, all Rupaulines went underground, preparing for race wars, or just hiding from Mossad and black UN helicopters.
photo
itiswhatitmaybe
My micro-bio is NOT empty, it's contemplating.
09:15 PM on 01/04/2012
OWS and the backlash against NDAA is a result of perceived betrayal by our leaders. Is it any wonder that people feel that way? For eight years we were subjected to an administra­tion which embraced destructiv­e policies. We found a light in President Obama that served as a beacon which would relieve us of our collective misery. Sweeping change, transparen­cy, and accountabi­lity in government would finally be achieved so that Washington would finally do good work for the people instead for the entrenched lobbyists.

What happened? The perpetrato­rs of massive financial fraud which lead to one of the worst economic implosions in our nation’s history are allowed to skate and the people have their Constituti­on and Bill of Rights repealed. This will fester like the cancerous sore in the souls of ALL Americans.

Accountabi­lity, justice, and freedom are real tangible things. They cannot be swept under the rug. The people are starting to recognize just how corrupt our system is and there is no chance they will buy-off on the excuses anymore. The time has come. Action needs to be taken in our higher levels of government­. If none is taken there, it WILL go into the streets. That’s the American way. Our founding principles are deeply rooted in this spirit and it is what made this country great; and it will again if need be.
11:25 PM on 01/04/2012
Under legislativ­­e review as of 12/16/2011­­: (i.e., initial deliberati­­on stage)

Not widely publicized (AGAIN, grrr) but up for consideration is the Feinstein Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011 (HR3702/S.­­2003):
http://www­­.govtrack­.­us/data/­us­/bills.­tex­t/112/­s/s2­003is­.pdf

Status: http://www­­.govtrack­.­us/congr­es­s/bill.­xpd­?bill=­h112­-3702 ,submitted for a vote in the Senate in January of 2012. (Scheduled date TBD)

It is suggested that all who read this reply make this factoid go viral, get involved, and be proactive to DEMAND from your representatives that this Bill be expedited into law.
03:00 PM on 01/21/2012
"Not widely publicized (AGAIN, grrr) but up for considerat­ion is the Feinstein Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011 (HR3702/S.­­­2003):" i could be mistaken but didn't she vote in favor of ndaa even after they killed her amendment to protect citizens?
06:27 PM on 01/21/2012
Yes, Ms Feinstein voted Yes on HR1540. But she also authored S.2003 immediately following her vote. This may indicate political encouragement (read: coercion?) from elements controlling both parties to pass HR1540.

S2003 may be her effort to put things right. However. sadly given the suppressive elements I mentioned earlier and the LACK of media coverage, HR3702/S.­­­2003 will probably go by the wayside without the constituency (i.e., we the people) taking action.
10:39 AM on 01/05/2012
Hope & Change
12:16 AM on 01/08/2012
Spoken like a true patriot is for you ---------itiswhatitmaybe
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
phoo-doo
06:53 PM on 01/04/2012
It seems that Obama is completely determined to make it so that even if people are forced to vote for him, they will have to do so holding their nose, and hating themselves for doing it. "I do so with serious reservations." Does he really think that anyone wants a President so gutless that everything they do, they do with regret?

Well, he has just given voters a choice-vote for him, with serious reservations (it seems he is banking on voters being as gutless as him) or else say screw you man, and walk away. That seems to be the only two choices, because he obviously has no intention to do anything to make people want to vote for him.

It can be his new campaign slogan-Vote for Obama, With Serious Reservations!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hontas Farmer
Stargazer
07:49 PM on 01/04/2012
You do. Vote Libertarian, vote out all those who supported this law from either party in congress, vote for Ron Paul.

4 years of him would at least teach the political class that they are not irreplaceable.