Well I can understand why you feel that way, but I just wish there was some consistency with those who protested so violently and are so up in arms over this. I wonder how many of them actually felt the same way when Bush was trying to detain suspects in a markedly similar manner. In fact, for all of the problems surrounding Obama on domestic and foreign policies, his interpretation of who can be detained and arrested under AUMF, which this bill was meant to reaffirm, has essentially been the same as that of Bush. And so this law is basically saying Congress agrees with Ex President Bush. That’s it. That’s the whole purpose of it.
And I do not claim that is not an important and serious issue, something I tried to reiterate in previous debates on this. Shifting the balance of power on something this controversial is a potential big problem. But what we need is a true understanding of current law, interpretation of current law, reevaluation of interpretations and pressure on govt to reevaluate it as well. Insisting that Obama designed this as a sort of grand scheme to expand his power to lock up pro life protesters does not help. Oh yes, and let’s not forget that the provisions were initially created by members of Congress and passed Congress with enough of a majority that a pocket veto was Obama’s only option. And that vetoing this bill, which has the military budget contained in it, would have left our military and other employees without pay for at least several months, making it even less of an option.
I am not reading your posts as dismissing this, nor do I read this stupid, immoral law as an Obama power grab. Rather, I see this as a symptom of the big government inside the Beltway perspective that expanding government is always the answer regardless of the question. Except in cases of invasion or insurrection, as specified in the Constitution, our Congress should not attempt to work around habeus corpus. There simply is no time when an American citizen should be detained indefinitely without charge and without trial as permitted by the letter of this law. If a trial is awkward, that's unfortunate, but that is the only means that should permit our government to hold even a terrorist captured on the battlefield if that terrorist is a citizen. The rules for non-citizens can be different, but allowing indefinite detention of Americans crosses a line that should never be crossed.