emeraldrafael said:
You'll have to forgive me if Im skeptical about this. Congress has already seen how negatively this has been viewed, and if any of them have any sense in their skulls or desire to have a job the next time a vote comes up, they'll hope Obama does in fact Veto it (which he said he will).
and as to anon, they become more and more of a joke, and now they're just trying to save face after picking fights they had no business in.
He is going to veto it.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps1867s_20111117.pdf
"While there are many areas of agreement with the Committee, the Administration would have serious concerns with provisions that would: (1) constrain the ability of the Armed Forces to carry out their missions; (2) impede the Secretary of Defense's ability to make and implement decisions that eliminate unnecessary overhead or programs to ensure scarce resources are directed to the highest priorities for the warfighter; or (3) depart from the decisions reflected in the President's FY 2012 Budget Request. The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress to address these and other concerns, a number of which are outlined in more detail below."
"These problems are all the more acute because the section defines the category of individuals who would be subject to mandatory military custody by substituting new and untested legislative criteria for the criteria the Executive and Judicial branches are currently using for detention under the AUMF in both habeas litigation and military operations. Such confusion threatens our ability to act swiftly and decisively to capture, detain, and interrogate terrorism suspects, and could disrupt the collection of vital intelligence about threats to the American people."
"The certification and waiver, required by section 1033 before a detainee may be transferred from Guantánamo Bay to a foreign country, continue to hinder the Executive branch's ability to exercise its military, national security, and foreign relations activities. While these provisions may be intended to be somewhat less restrictive than the analogous provisions in current law, they continue to pose unnecessary obstacles, effectively blocking transfers that would advance our national security interests, and would, in certain circumstances, violate constitutional separation of powers principles."
"Broadly speaking, the detention provisions in this bill micromanage the work of our experienced counterterrorism professionals, including our military commanders, intelligence professionals, seasoned counterterrorism prosecutors, or other operatives in the field. These professionals have successfully led a Government-wide effort to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qa'ida and its affiliates and adherents over two consecutive Administrations. The Administration believes strongly that it would be a mistake for Congress to overrule or limit the tactical flexibility of our Nation's counterterrorism professionals."
To me the White house doesn't like it because it's gonna make it waaaaay harder and possibly illegal to treat these terrorism suspects the way we do now and as fast as we do it.
Basically, you can perform and extraordinary rendition on an "enemy combatant". "Enemy combatants" aren't subject to the Geneva Convention. The White House seems to think this bill would give anyone detained a "P.O.W." status rather than "enemy combatant" status. You definitely cannot ship a P.O.W. to some "interrogation" facility in somewhereistan.
