Skip to main content

View Diary: Can the US Government be Trusted as Judge and Jury in NDAA Indefinite Detention of U.S. Citizens? (39 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  He could have vetoed (4+ / 0-)

    and didn't.

     His name is on this puppy now.

    I didn't abandon the fight, I abandoned the Party that abandoned the fight...

    by Jazzenterprises on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 01:36:58 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Along with the signing statement (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Southside, stonedoubt

      limiting his support for the bill, including expressing his non-support of these provisions.

      And yes, he could have vetoed the bill - which is mostly a positive step for LGBT military, and which provides some needed items in the defense bill.  He could have left our troops and former troops without any money or support for as long as it took to get another bill passed.  He could have risked a veto override, which the bill had enough supporters to obtain IIRC.

      Or he could do what he did.  Nothing's great in this country right now - this bill is one of those not great things with few useful alternatives.

      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

      by Phoenix Rising on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 01:58:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Signing statements don't mean shit (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpunk

        Swing and a miss.

        You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

        by Johnny Q on Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 04:25:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  what exactly (0+ / 0-)

          would have been the result? Do you think the result would be that there would be no indefinite detention? That law was already passed as I indicated above. NDAA does not expand it. What good reason would he have to veto the bill?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site