Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: White House issues statement saying it will not veto defense bill [View all]emcguffie
(1,924 posts)20. But it remains very confusing what precisely it means
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFsyaljotNCsnPSzq9tjRtOkPKZg?docId=e3c1b02ccc1a42b78e94120a4a2f53a5
In this article, there are several directly contradictory statements:
White House says no veto of defense bill
By DONNA CASSATA, Associated Press 2 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) The White House on Wednesday abandoned its threat that President Barack Obama would veto a defense bill over provisions on how to handle suspected terrorists as Congress raced to finish the legislation.
Press secretary Jay Carney said last-minute changes that Obama and his national security team sought produced legislation that "does not challenge the president's ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the American people."
....
The legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention.
....
In a reflection of the uncertainty, House members offered differing interpretations of the military custody and indefinite detention provisions and what would happen if the bill became law.
"The provisions do not extend new authority to detain U.S. citizens," House Armed Services Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., said during debate.
But Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the bill would turn "the military into a domestic police force."
(more at link)
In this article, there are several directly contradictory statements:
White House says no veto of defense bill
By DONNA CASSATA, Associated Press 2 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) The White House on Wednesday abandoned its threat that President Barack Obama would veto a defense bill over provisions on how to handle suspected terrorists as Congress raced to finish the legislation.
Press secretary Jay Carney said last-minute changes that Obama and his national security team sought produced legislation that "does not challenge the president's ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the American people."
....
The legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention.
....
In a reflection of the uncertainty, House members offered differing interpretations of the military custody and indefinite detention provisions and what would happen if the bill became law.
"The provisions do not extend new authority to detain U.S. citizens," House Armed Services Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., said during debate.
But Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the bill would turn "the military into a domestic police force."
(more at link)
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
62 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
White House issues statement saying it will not veto defense bill [View all]
99th_Monkey
Dec 2011
OP
That's exactlly right, just ask Congress Woman Barbra Lee what she thinks of this
teddy51
Dec 2011
#8
That response broke no rules, but your response is a clear threat to the poster and is repugnant.
Warren Stupidity
Dec 2011
#18
The 6th Amendment is limited to criminal prosecutions - it does not apply to non-criminal
24601
Dec 2011
#57
Yah! Someone quick, post that pic of Obama saying "I GOT THIS" ... puke ~nt
99th_Monkey
Dec 2011
#39
It's very confusing. But what is NOT is that only seven Senators voted against the original version
sabrina 1
Dec 2011
#24
And that's why I posted this over a week ago, when several threads insisted the Prez would veto...
markpkessinger
Dec 2011
#17
"The provisions do not extend new authority to detain U.S. citizens," House Armed Services Chairman
colorado_ufo
Dec 2011
#48