HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » White House threatens vet...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 02:51 PM

 

White House threatens veto of defense bill

Source: Politico

The White House is threatening a veto of a major defense bill currently on the Senate floor if the measure is not changed, an official statement said Thursday.

The statement on the National Defense Authorization Act (posted here) lists a number of objections to the legislation, including language which limits transfers of prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, authorizations for various weapons programs not requested by the Pentagon, restrictions on U.S. force realignment in Japan, and limits on military use of alternative fuels.

The statement says President Barack Obama's senior advisers would recommend a veto of the bill if passed "in its current form."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/11/white-house-threatens-veto-of-defense-bill-150656.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

29 replies, 5084 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 29 replies Author Time Post
Reply White House threatens veto of defense bill (Original post)
Comrade_McKenzie Nov 2012 OP
MrDiaz Nov 2012 #1
patrice Nov 2012 #3
MrDiaz Nov 2012 #13
patrice Nov 2012 #4
MrDiaz Nov 2012 #12
Bandit Nov 2012 #19
24601 Nov 2012 #21
MrDiaz Nov 2012 #26
24601 Nov 2012 #28
patrice Nov 2012 #5
patrice Nov 2012 #7
MrDiaz Nov 2012 #14
patrice Nov 2012 #2
patrice Nov 2012 #6
MrDiaz Nov 2012 #11
loyalkydem Nov 2012 #8
patrice Nov 2012 #9
RepublicansRZombies Nov 2012 #10
AAO Nov 2012 #18
democrattotheend Nov 2012 #15
woo me with science Nov 2012 #27
Fearless Nov 2012 #16
Maineman Nov 2012 #17
freshwest Nov 2012 #20
L0oniX Nov 2012 #24
freshwest Nov 2012 #25
Bohunk68 Nov 2012 #22
L0oniX Nov 2012 #23
24601 Dec 2012 #29

Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:07 PM

1. that's what

 

they said about the NDAA as well regarding the incarcerations of american citizens without trial... We all know how that went. We were blatantly LIED to. But it doesn't matter i guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrDiaz (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:14 PM

3. So you're an authority on the legal issues surrounding what began in 2002 with the AUMF &

because you are an authority on all of those minute legal details, we can accept your OPINION that PO has lied to us, right? Or that NONE of any of that matters? Which is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:07 PM

13. when did I say

 

I was the authority on anything... and you need not accept ANYONES opinion, an opinion is just that an opinion... You get way too defensive my friend...LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrDiaz (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:20 PM

4. I wonder if you'd care to tell us your opinion of Rand Paul's oath of allegiance to the NRA to

force the Senate into interfering with any UN treaties that seek to control the flow of American weapons into unstable 3rd-world countries around Earth, e.g. Libya, and thus to affect the conditions influencing what happens to *O*U*R* soldiers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #4)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:06 PM

12. I do not know of Rand Paul's

 

allegiance or what he specifically said on this issue, but i do not believe that any foreign document should supersede this nations constitution. Is that wrong in your eyes? Do you believe that a foreign document should be able to supersede our own constitution?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrDiaz (Reply #12)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:41 PM

19. Where does it say in the Constitution that we have the right to sell arms around the world?

I would think the world definitely has a say in how the world is armed and how those arms might be used.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bandit (Reply #19)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:13 PM

21. Article I of the Constisution gives Congress explicit powers governing the military. Most of

arms sales are done pursuant to Department of Defense foreign military sales. Whether it's good policy is a valid question. The Constitutionality hasn't really been in doubt. It also can be Constitutinally permitted via treaty-making powers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 24601 (Reply #21)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 07:20 AM

26. does the gun giving

 

have any thing to do with foreign policy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrDiaz (Reply #26)

Fri Nov 30, 2012, 09:11 PM

28. You'd have to ask the administration the "why" as to whether it's foreign policy or the higher-

level national security policy - but the question was whether it's constitutional - in that respect, Congress has authorized it and the Executive Branch implements it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrDiaz (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:24 PM

5. DO we really "all know how" concretely & precisely "that went"? Why don't you fill us in on the

detailed facts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrDiaz (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:42 PM

7. BTW, what's up with that Reply title:? You afraid to put something more searchable in there? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #7)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:08 PM

14. why

 

would i be afraid of a search?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:08 PM

2. Wondering here about the specific traits of those limitations on prisoner transfers & their legal

consequences.

Time to get the NDAA 2012 Presidential signing statement out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #2)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:29 PM

6. NDAA 2012 Presidential Signing Statement link:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #6)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:03 PM

11. I am referring to this.

 

"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."


He was referring to the fact that a suspected terrorist by definition in the bill it self can be an american citizen. And because of this bill an american citizen can be held and detained indefinitely, without trial, although that is actually unconstitutional.

A judge then put a ban on the administration from using this on any american citizen, and the Obama administration immediatly appealed it, and got it overturned by another judge. This is what i was referring to.

But I do appreciate all of your interest on my post, I didn't mean to offend you, this was one of the few things the Obama Administration has done that really goes against what I believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 03:49 PM

8. I'm noticing

that the white house is issuing more veto threats. Good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalkydem (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 04:05 PM

9. Now we're going to see who's actually going to back PO on those & who's just feinting with

the political hope that those vetoes don't actually succeed, a.k.a. base-building FOR WHOMEVER for the SOLE sake of base-building and NOTHING else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:02 PM

10. authorizations for various weapons programs not requested by the Pentagon

 

what's up with that?

I would like to know what these various weapons programs are?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RepublicansRZombies (Reply #10)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:37 PM

18. It said in the article

 

The weapons programs which the White House is objecting to include F/A-18E/F Navy Fighters and upgrades to the M-1 Abrams tank. The administration also opposes a provision that would block funding for the MEADS missile defense system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:43 PM

15. Would this be his first veto?

I don't recall the president vetoing anything yet. He probably hasn't had to since Democrats have controlled the Senate for his entire presidency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 05:52 PM

16. Politico needs spell check... otherwise...

Note the special interests of the Republican Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:16 PM

17. Numerous bad things (cited) in this bill. Yes, veto the damn thing, please!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 06:55 PM

20. There's a mandate to close what the GOP calls beachfront vacation property in Cuba.

Too bad, Beck, Rusb and all the rest of you guys shilling that closing that resort would be part of Obama's evil plan for the Mooslim takeover of the USA. You guys can STHU now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshwest (Reply #20)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:29 PM

24. ...not to mention the US Air Force golf course in the Bahamas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to L0oniX (Reply #24)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:41 PM

25. Weird, isn't it? I said give Gitmo to the Cubans... and the golf course to whoever...

May be naive, but I don't think we need all of that stuff.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:18 PM

22. A VETO???

Of a DOD funding bill? Yeahhhhhhh, Riiiiiiiight!! Believe it when it happens. Money talks, bullshit walks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Original post)

Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:28 PM

23. I'd feel safe if we only spent 4 times as much as Russia on our military....

which would be about 240 billion a year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade_McKenzie (Original post)

Sat Dec 1, 2012, 12:31 PM

29. The Senate voted to prohibit transferring Gitmo detainees to the US passed 5-41. As

reported from The Hill, here's the link to the story, which also the includes NDAA amendments passed in the Senate.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/270239-senate-votes-to-prohibit-gitmo-detainee-transfers-to-us

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread