Obama signs defense bill despite ‘reservations’
Julie Pace
Associated Press
12/31/2011
HONOLULU (AP) — President Barack Obama signed a wide-ranging defense bill into law Saturday despite having “serious reservations” about provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.
The bill also applies penalties against Iran’s central bank in an effort to hamper Tehran’s ability to fund its nuclear enrichment program. The Obama administration is looking to soften the impact of those penalties because of concerns that they could lead to a spike in global oil prices or cause economic hardship on U.S. allies that import petroleum from Iran.
In a statement accompanying his signature, the president chastised some lawmakers for what he contended was their attempts to use the bill to restrict the ability of counterterrorism officials to protect the country.
Administration officials said Obama was only signing the measure because Congress made minimally acceptable changes that no longer challenged the president’s terrorism-fighting ability.
“Moving forward, my administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded,” Obama said in the signing statement.
Signing statements allow presidents to raise constitutional objections to circumvent Congress’ intent. During his campaign for the White House, Obama criticized President George W. Bush’s use of signing statements and promised to make his application of the tool more transparent…
The article continues at Associated Press.
CAJ note: We wouldn’t sign a tax return if we had “reservations” about it, much less a document destroying the Bill of Rights. Just sayin’.
Update: Althouse: Obama’s position on the Guantanamo detainees will forever be to have no position.
…So, you don’t seem to have a plan to try the detainees, and you won’t reject the notion of military courts or embrace the lofty but impractical idea of civilian courts. You just reject a “rigid across-the-board requirement” of military courts. It’s fine to want to preserve the presidential discretion here, but it’s another example of Obama’s policy of no policy. He does not want to be pinned down about having to do anything at all, which makes it look like he’s going to hold the detainees without trial indefinitely — i.e., until the end of his presidency — and he wants to be able to do that without admitting that it’s an actual policy of his…
Update 2: via Judge Andrew Napolitano on Facebook. “Hope? Nope. Dope.”
Update 2: In 2012, Obama to press ahead without Congress
HONOLULU (AP) — Leaving behind a year of bruising legislative battles, President Barack Obama enters his fourth year in office having calculated that he no longer needs Congress to promote his agenda and may even benefit in his re-election campaign if lawmakers take little action in 2012.
Devoid of any major policy pushes, much of the year will instead focus on the biggest goal of all: winning a second term. The president will keep up a robust domestic travel schedule and aggressive campaign fundraising and use executive action to try to boost the economy…
…From the video: Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) told Congress recently that under the original wording of the National Defense Authorization Act, American citizens were excluded from the provision that allowed for detention. Once Obama’s officials saw the text though, says Levin, “the administration asked us to remove the language which says that US citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.”
Specifically, the section that Obama asked to be reworded was Section 1031 of the NDAA FY2012, which says that “any person who has committed a belligerent act” could be held indefinitely.
