Obama Will Not Veto Defense Authorization

I said this about the detainee provisions in the conference Defense Authorization bill.

It seems to me the language does enough to avoid a veto from the cowardly Obama, but still does terrible damage to both the clarity of national security roles and overall investigative expertise.

And I was absolutely correct: Obama’s aides have announced he will not veto the bill.

Update: Here’s the specific language of the capitulation.

We have been clear that “any bill that challenges or constrains the President’s critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the Nation would prompt the President’s senior advisers to recommend a veto.”  After intensive engagement by senior administration officials and the President himself, the Administration has succeeded in prompting the authors of the detainee provisions to make several important changes, including the removal of problematic provisions. While we remain concerned about the uncertainty that this law will create for our counterterrorism professionals, the most recent changes give the President additional discretion in determining how the law will be implemented, consistent with our values and the rule of law, which are at the heart of our country’s strength. This legislation authorizes critical funding for military personnel overseas, and its passage sends an important signal that Congress supports our efforts as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan lead while ensuring that our military can meet the challenges of the 21st century.

As a result of these changes, we have concluded that the language does not challenge or constrain the President’s ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people, and the President’s senior advisors will not recommend a veto.  However, if in the process of implementing this law we determine that it will negatively impact our counterterrorism professionals and undercut our commitment to the rule of law, we expect that the authors of these provisions will work quickly and tirelessly to correct these problems.

Update: Here’s the roll call. the Dems split right down the middle, 93-93, which leads me to suspect Pelosi told Boehner the Republicans had to come up with the bulk of the yes votes, which might be why the House leadership had to stall on the vote for a period.

Tweet about this on Twitter2Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook30Google+0Email to someone

9 Responses to Obama Will Not Veto Defense Authorization

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9

Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel @dpleasant 81. That might be counted as my 5th computer.
3hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @dpleasant Right--the first computer I USED (very different question, no?) was an Apple II, I think.
3hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @dpleasant Well, I was suckled on them so don't actually know, but I also drew pretty pictures on them. No. Not that old.
3hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel I was suckled on punch cards. #firstcomputer
3hreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @AdamWeinstein: Fuck this guy. Fuck Florida. Fuck everything. http://t.co/hT31XD27I6
4hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @isamuel @copiesofcopies @OrinKerr I agree. Theres significant nuance here. Frankly, I think WAY too much. 4th+5th Amendments mean something
4hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @billmon1 After first implicating the woman who accepted the video fr cops and then killing hotel security in process.
4hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @billmon1 A cover up of cover up! But yes. It is rather remarkable they still haven't solved 2rd worst terror attack since 9/11, in't it?
4hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @LOLGOP Cleaned out uncle's basement last year, who did comms for space program. Really hit home that Apollo didn't even have an iPhone.
4hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @billmon1 I really have to write the "summary for sports people" of the anthrax "Investigation" don't I?
4hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @normative Still haven't forgotten oddly timed ones in 2005-06, including IIRC 2/24/06.
5hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @normative I double checked it. It's not yet rolling off the tongue, in part bc I had long confusion abt Feb opinions.
5hreplyretweetfavorite
December 2011
S M T W T F S
« Nov   Jan »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031