You are hereBlogs / davidswanson's blog / Obama Opposed to Being Given Total War Power
Obama Opposed to Being Given Total War Power
The White House has put out a statement expressing its disapproval of various bits of H.R.1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Here's the most interesting, if not the most adamant, objection:
"Detainee Matters: The Administration strongly objects to section 1034 which, in purporting to affirm the conflict, would effectively recharacterize its scope and would risk creating confusion regarding applicable standards. At a minimum, this is an issue that merits more extensive consideration before possible inclusion."
And here's Section 1034:
"Congress affirms that--
(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;
(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note);
(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who--
(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or
(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and
(4) the President's authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities."
This is language that would allow presidents to make war almost anytime anywhere. Obama's disapproval raises some interesting questions:
Will the Democratic leadership whip hard against this language, and against the bill if it is left in? Has Obama told them to?
Will Obama veto the bill if it is passed including this biggest ever unconstitutional reshaping of government powers, a move he "strongly objects" to?
If he doesn't veto it, will he signing statement it away? And if he does that, what will be the legal status of a piece of legislation that unconstitutionally gives congressional powers to the executive, a piece of unconstitutional legislation that has been unconstitutionally erased by a signing statement?
Will Libya and dozens of other current military operations be legal because signing statements are unconstitutional or illegal because Section 1034 is unconstitutional?
Does it matter, since the wars roll along regardless and impeachment is reserved for sex?
And, last but not least, if a member of the White House Press Corpse ever asks about this during a press conference, what size cell will that lucky person be locked up in?
- davidswanson's blog
- Login or register to post comments
-
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
Obama Would Veto ‘Forever War’ Language in Defense Bill
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/obama-would-veto-forever-war-...
"The White House is threatening to veto the annual must-pass House Defense Authorization bill over language dramatically expanding the president's power to wage the war on terror indefinitely, among other provisions."
*****
What is this claim based on?
It seems to be based on the fact that someone at the Office of Management and Budget likes very long paragraphs, and thus the first sentence of this paragraph is in the same paragraph as the last one:
"Detainee Matters: The Administration strongly objects to section 1034
which, in purporting to affirm the conflict, would effectively
recharacterize its scope and would risk creating confusion regarding
applicable standards. At a minimum, this is an issue that merits more
extensive consideration before possible inclusion. The Administration
strongly objects to the provisions that limit the use of authorized funds to
transfer detainees and otherwise restrict detainee transfers and to the
provisions that would legislate Executive branch processes for periodic
review of detainee status and regarding prosecution of detainees. Although
the Administration opposes the release of detainees within the United
States, Section 1039 is a dangerous and unprecedented challenge to critical
Executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute
detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our
national security interests. It unnecessarily constrains our Nation's
counterterrorism efforts and would undermine our national security,
particularly where our Federal courts are the best - or even the only -
option for incapacitating dangerous terrorists. For decades, presidents of
both political parties - including Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W.
Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush - have leveraged the flexibility and
strength of our Federal courts to incapacitate dangerous terrorists and
gather critical intelligence. The prosecution of terrorists in Federal
court is an essential element of our counterterrorism efforts - a powerful
tool that must remain an available option. The certification requirement in
section 1040, restricting transfers to foreign countries, interferes with
the authority of the Executive branch to make important foreign policy and
national security determinations regarding whether and under what
circumstances such transfers should occur. The Administration must have the
ability to act swiftly and to have broad flexibility in conducting its
negotiations with foreign countries. Section 1036 undermines the system of
periodic review established by the President's March 7, 2011, Executive
Order by substituting a rigid system of review that could limit the advice
and expertise of critical intelligence and law enforcement professionals,
undermining the Executive branch's ability to ensure that these decisions
are informed by all available information and protect the full spectrum of
our national security interests. It also unnecessarily interferes with
DoD's ability to manage detention operations. Section 1042 is problematic
and unnecessary, as there already is robust coordination between the
Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, and the Intelligence
Community on terrorism-related cases, and this provision would undermine,
rather than enhance, this coordination by requiring institutions to assume
unfamiliar roles and could cause delays in taking into custody individuals
who pose imminent threats to the nation's safety. If the final bill
presented to the President includes these provisions that challenge critical
Executive branch authority, the President's senior advisors would recommend
a veto."
Does it make sense to read that as a veto threat over Section 1034?
Or is TPM going by something else?
--