Many Democrats and personal-rights groups have blatantly expressed their disapproval of this bill, foreshadowing potential future conflict over the provisions of this bill. What do you think signing this bill will do Obama's reputation and chances for re-election? Do you think this bill will stay intact much longer, or will there be further negotiations or discussions held to amend or overturn the bill? Was this an act of desperation or did Obama perhaps do the right thing?
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Obama signs defense authorization bill
On Saturday, December 31st, 2011, Obama signed the defense authorization bill despite having some "reservations." Originally, the White House threatened to veto the bill due to the language requiring mandatory military custody for al-Qaeda suspects, even those captured in the US. However, after a compromise that included some changes in the language involving detainees, Obama lifted his veto threat. "Ultimately, I signed this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people," says President Obama.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Honestly, Obama, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, probably only agreed to this bill because we're still "at war with terror". That silly little metaphorical label that former president George W. Bush gave this war we have against terrorism. We're still "at war with terror" so Congress and the Executive branches are all still super enthusiastic about catching terrorist.
Will this bill stay? No. Until we've had our fill chasing terrorists around the globe (which doesn't seem likely for a while) the US probably will pass more bills that infringe upon our personal rights, and they can get away with it because we're still technically at war.
Obama not vetoing this bill and giving it the "ok" instead means that we're still at war and we still have to give up some civil liberties. Check the history textbooks or wikipedia, whenever there is a war, civil liberties are sacrificed until the war is over. Usually at that point civil liberties return and less invasiveness from the government is apparent.
We can't say right now whether or not Obama did the right thing or not passing this bill. Its too early to tell. Who knows, maybe this bill will save lives in the future.
I agree with Calvin that it is too early to tell if this was the right move for Obama to do. However, I believe that this bill will stay for at least a couple of years because we are still "at war with terror" and in past examples such as the Patriot Act (which congress approved a four year extension in May); the government has a hard time to relinquish their power gained in war time.
I think that this bill was necessary to sign at this time. As for the terrorists issue, everyone seems to be saying things like we shouldnt be "chasing them around the world" . I'd just like to ask, if 9/11 had happened and the government hadn't gone after people who want to hurt others for any reason (much as the police with murderers), how would you react if the government had done nothing? Sure they may not go about it in a way you would like, but this idea of not going after them at any level is ridiculous.
Post a Comment