NDAA 2013: White House and Senate fight over indefinite detention (WH will Veto)

Just hours before lawmakers in the US Senate overwhelming voted in favor of an amendment that will challenge controversial provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, the Obama administration cited seemingly unrelated sections of the annual Pentagon spending bill as the reasoning behind a planned veto.

Last year, staffers working directly under Pres. Barack Obama said they’d recommend the commander-in-chief reject the 2012 NDAA because of certain provisions that provided the Executive Branch the power to indefinitely hold any US citizen in military prison for mere suspicious of ties to terrorism. Despite his office’s assurance that the NDAA would not be authorized as written, Pres. Obama signed his name to the bill on December 31, 2011, all the while acknowledging that he had reservations about the sections that stripped away habeas corpus from US citizens. Even still, the White House has been adamantly fighting in federal appeals court for the right to continue having the ability, despite a district judge having already called that part of the act unconstitutional.

Now as next year’s bill is being scrutinized in Congress, lawmakers in the Senate this Thursday agreed to pass by a vote of 67 to 29 a measure sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) that applied civil liberty protections to US persons who could be detained under the current NDAA.

Link

reply to post by GrantedBail

Dianne Feinstein is a name coming up quite a bit lately in terms of things that don't make Obama's day. She was also the one left in the dark and publicly pissed to have been cut out of the loop on the Petraeus thing, among other matters... I can't help but wonder how much she's feeling like a woman politically scorned. It comes to mind especially because several folks predicted she would become a thorn in his side and in short order too. She just won a Senate term again...giving her 6 more years vs. his 4 and at an age which makes this her last in all likelihood. She's one to watch for doing unpredictable things and on this? Nice....It happened to be the right thing, too!

He can go ahead and veto. If he doesn't sign it, there won't be an NDAA at all. The 2012 version expires whether the 2013 version is signed or not.

Any president that signs this bill and condones the violation of the constitution is a traitor by treason bottom line!


"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."



Whats really sad is if he had sexual relations with his secretary stained dress and all he would be in a world of sh!#! If nobody is willing to impeach or prosecute this patsy for his war crimes and treason then i prey for a coup d'état. Just my 2 cents see ya at Gutanamo.

Originally posted by DarthFazer
Any president that signs this bill and condones the violation of the constitution is a traitor by treason bottom line!

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."



Whats really sad is if he had sexual relations with his secretary stained dress and all he would be in a world of sh!#! If nobody is willing to impeach or prosecute this patsy for his war crimes and treason then i prey for a coup d'état. Just my 2 cents see ya at Gutanamo.

edit on 2-12-2012 by DarthFazer because: (no reason given)

I agree with you 100% Clinton got caught for having an affair, and got impeached, I do not believe there is anything about that in the constitution, but what Obama did on Dec. 31, 2011, should have got him thrown into Gitmo, according to the 2012 NDAA. Pretty cut and dry if you ask me.