Obama Signs NDAA with Signing Statements

Obama signs defense bill despite 'reservations' via AP

"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."

No word on the official transcript of the statement but this is what's being reported.

His administration won't... so, in less than a year, the new administration is free to lock up Americans as they please. This bill just doesn't sit right with me at all.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by links234

So he'll shoot them with Hellfire missiles, but he won't lock them up for the duration of the conflict. That's reassuring.

(Of course, both courses of action are legal, and were legal before the 2012 NDAA. But I enjoy pointing out absurdities.)

reply to post by links234


That's a good little puppet. Sign in the legislation for future administrations to use, but then try to look like a good guy by assuring us that your administration won't use the power. What a joke.

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli


Montana has a head start
Get a rope.

John has outlived his purpose. Time to step down.

The Recall John McCain facebook page.

John McCain's treasonous voting record and recent co-sponsorship of the NDAA bill which allows for the indefinite detention of American citizens without due process has caused me to put up this page. It is time to put little Johnny out to pasture as he has totally forgotten who he works for and who pays his check.

Where does Johnny's loyalty lie? We all know it is not with his Constitutionally mandated constituency. Let us kick Johnny to the curb before he destroys any more of the Constitution.

No formal updates from the White House so until they say something I'm not listening to anything else/

Originally posted by links234
Obama signs defense bill despite 'reservations' via AP

"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said in the signing statement. "Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation."

Dam, he usually does the opposite of what he says he is going to do.

Its all bait and switch and we all need to remain focused on the governments posture, to ensure we have first strike capability before they make a move on us, which is truly what their goal is

Obama thinks most of the american people are going to buy in to his failed rhetoric due to election year, every move hes made since the beginning an attempt to point out what good hes done for the country when its all been a blatant lie due to his burning the constitution and theft from the beginning

Then we have lost. It is only a matter of time before this kills us all

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


I wasn't able to update my first post but the full statement can be read here.

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.

Double post.

What happened to the "Line Item Veto" powers that Bush got for presidents.

Washington couldn't just veto that one line?

Someone wants this.


David Grouchy

I have a question; Let's just say that Obama issues a presidential veto regarding this bill and then Congress overrides his veto, making the bill law despite his objections. Does the POTUS still have the ability to add signing statements to a law that was enacted by Congress via the overriding of a presidential veto? I mean, if Obama vetoes the bill, can he still add signing statements later?

I don't know all the rules but I think this may be Obama's only chance to lessen the effects of this law on American citizens and if it is, I support him for his efforts.

reply to post by davidgrouchy

Line item veto is unconstitutional according to the supreme court ruling in 1998, that authority was given to Clinton by republicans in 1995.

reply to post by Flatfish


The president can't veto the bill once he's signed it. His statements indicated that, under his administration, he wouldn't use the law to detain American citizens without due process. However, now that it's law, unless it's repealed it doesn't stop future presidents.

Posted earlier here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please add further comments to the ongoing discussion in the above linked thread.
Thanks

**Thread Closed**


for future reference:

We Have A New Search Engine--Please Use It!