The White House has now signaled that President Obama will not veto the National Defense Authorization Act. The original threat to veto had nothing to do with expanded powers to detain Americans. The President actually wanted additional powers for the executive branch and held out for the change in language to the bill. Apparently, he is now content with the current bill.
Here's Politico on the President's decision to threaten veto in the first place:
The conference-approved bill contains new language seeking to make clear that the FBI's authority to question and detain suspected terrorists is not impacted by the bill's requirement that foreigners who attack the U.S. be placed in military custody absent a waiver. The conferenced legislation moves that waiver authority from the Secretary of Defense to the president.
"There is two or three provisions to make it 100 percent clear that there is not interference with the FBI or other civilian law enforcement," Levin said.
Here's the White House's statement on the change made in the bill that satisfied the President, via the New York Times:
“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,” it said.
The ACLU says this about the Defense Authorization Act:
Congress will soon be voting on the National Defense Authorization Act. The bill currently has dangerous provisions attached that would authorize the president to send the military literally anywhere in the world to detain civilians - even American citizens in the United States itself - without charge or trial.
The Armed Services Committee put out this report on the Act, and detailed its rather juicy, and sometime frightening components. I'm guessing the ACLU had an issue with this expansion of powers:
DETAINEES—The FY12 NDAA includes critical provisions to clarify and reaffirm the military’s responsibility and authority to detain al Qaeda terrorists. Ten years after September 11, 2001, the extremist and terrorist threat against the United States and our allies continues to evolve. As we begin drawing down forces in Afghanistan, and conscious of the rise of rise of al Qaeda affiliates in places like Yemen, the FY12 NDAA recognizes that the war against terrorism and violent extremism is broader than operations in any one country. The bill strengthens policies and procedures used to detain, interrogate, and prosecute al Qaeda, the Taliban, affiliated groups, and those who substantially support them.
We see what militarization of local police has done to the OWS movement. Can anyone now deny that the violence directed towards occupiers and protesters is not have something of a chilling effect, for now, on the movement growing?
What effect this bill will do on the level of fear that everyday civilians have in terms of expressing dissent remains to be seen. It is important that the public mass some sort of protest and dissent to the escalation of the erosion of civil liberties in this country; sooner would be better than later. OWS could have taken on the issue of the Defense Authorization Act and helped raise awareness and educate folks. OWS might rethink its strategy and begin responding more to immediate threats to civil liberties through legislation such as The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), HR 3261, rather than keeping its message so broad. It could become more effective that way and might actually win some battles. It does mean taking on the political class much more directly...both parties.