NDAA Reconsidered

[I B Hankering]

Law's detainee language unites left, right

WASHINGTON, Jan. 26 (UPI) -- Lawmakers say a bipartisan effort in the U.S. Congress is trying to change language on detaining U.S. citizens that President Obama signed into law last month.

The lawmakers say they, have concerns the bill's language could be interpreted to allow a president to hold a U.S. citizen without charge, The Hill reported. Obama, when he signed the National Defense Authorization Act in December included a signing statement saying he had "serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists."

"Any statute that could possibly be interpreted to allow a president to detain American citizens without charge or trial is incredibly alarming," said Rep. Jeff Landry, R-La., a freshman lawmaker and member of the Tea Party Caucus who has introduced a bill in the House to clarify the law.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/...#ixzz1kbq6ndsN

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Law's detainee language unites left, right

WASHINGTON, Jan. 26 (UPI) -- Lawmakers say a bipartisan effort in the U.S. Congress is trying to change language on detaining U.S. citizens that President Obama signed into law last month.

The lawmakers say they, have concerns the bill's language could be interpreted to allow a president to hold a U.S. citizen without charge, The Hill reported.

As they should.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

"Any statute that could possibly be interpreted to allow a president to detain American citizens without charge or trial is incredibly alarming," said Rep. Jeff Landry, R-La., a freshman lawmaker and member of the Tea Party Caucus who has introduced a bill in the House to clarify the law.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/...#ixzz1kbq6ndsN

As it should be.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Obama, when he signed the National Defense Authorization Act in December included a signing statement saying he had "serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists."

Then he should have vetoed it, and not passed the buck to the judiciary. He is supposed to be the check on the balance of Congress' folly, but he didn't have the guts for it. It won't play well for him in the general election having the Congress check their own balance. That is provided the general press don't bury the re-evaluation by Congress.

[CuteOldGuy]

President Obama demanded the clause and got it. Some in Congress tried to strike the language before it was passed, and it was soundly defeated. Sen. Lindsay Graham spoke with excitement about how suspected "terrorists" would be denied a lawyer. They all KNEW what was in the bill when they passed it overwhelmingly. Now they have been found out, and some are acting shocked, SHOCKED that the language was in there,

I hope they do repeal it, but if they do, they will try again. We have to replace those people, there are no two ways about it. They must all be voted out.

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

President Obama demanded the clause and got it. Some in Congress tried to strike the language before it was passed, and it was soundly defeated. Sen. Lindsay Graham spoke with excitement about how suspected "terrorists" would be denied a lawyer. They all KNEW what was in the bill when they passed it overwhelmingly. Now they have been found out, and some are acting shocked, SHOCKED that the language was in there,

I hope they do repeal it, but if they do, they will try again. We have to replace those people, there are no two ways about it. They must all be voted out.

I thought that Obama was against the offensive clause. In fact, I thought he had it modified to some extent, and signed the Act while holding his nose and saying the [obscene] powers would never be abused while he was the POTUS.

[CuteOldGuy]

According to Sen. Charles Schumer, the POTUS demanded the clause be included. He could have, and should have demanded Congress pass the bill without that section. He didn't.