Three myths about the detention bill. Condemnation of President Obama is intense, and growing, as a result of his announced intent to sign into law the indefinite detention bill embedded in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
These denunciations come not only from the nation’s leading civil liberties and human rights groups, but also from the pro-Obama New York Times Editorial Page, which today has a scathing Editorial describing Obama’s stance as “a complete political cave-in, one that reinforces the impression of a fumbling presidency” and lamenting that “the bill has so many other objectionable aspects that we can’t go into them all,” as well as from vocal Obama supporters such as Andrew Sullivan, who wrote yesterday that this episode is “another sign that his campaign pledge to be vigilant about civil liberties in the war on terror was a lie.”
In damage control mode, White-House-allied groups are now trying to ride to the rescue with attacks on the ACLU and dismissive belittling of the bill’s dangers. Sen. Jeff Merkley - Why He Did Not Vote For S 1867. US Martial Law codified: Obama to sign NDAA officially announced - National Human Rights. Congress, President 'incapable of common sense judgment', 'helping terrorists' In a "beyond disappointing" decision by President Barack Obama in terms of violating human rights, the White House officially announced today that instead of vetoing the highly-disputed defense authorization as urged to do, the president will sign the bill that codifies martial law.
The authors removed language restricting the Obama administration's handling of high-value terrorist detainees, the reason the president had threatened to veto the bill. Raha Wala, advocacy counsel for Human Rights First, called Obama's decision "beyond disappointing. " "By failing to veto this bill, President Obama will be compromising on national security and the rule of law," Wala said. 1540. 112th Congress (2011 - 2012) - S.1867.