WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congress and the White House are headed for a showdown over a massive, $662 billion defense bill that would require the military to hold suspected terrorists linked to al-Qaida or its affiliates, even those captured on U.S. soil, and detain some indefinitely without trial.
The Senate voted 93-7 Thursday night for the legislation, which must be reconciled with a House-passed version in the closing days of the session. The White House has threatened a veto of the Senate bill over the policies on handling terror suspects and has criticized similar provisions in the House bill.
Overall, the bill would authorize money for military personnel, weapons systems, national security programs in the Energy Department, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. Reflecting a period of austerity and a winding down of decade-old conflicts, the bill is $27 billion less than President Barack Obama requested and $43 billion less than Congress gave the Pentagon this year.
In a resounding vote, the Senate unanimously backed an amendment to impose harsh sanctions on Iran as fears about Tehran developing a nuclear weapon outweighed concerns about driving up oil prices that would hit economically strapped Americans at the gas pump.
"Iran's actions are unacceptable and pose a danger to the United States and the entire world," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
In an escalating fight with the White House, the bill would ramp up the role of the military in handling terror suspects. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and FBI Director Robert Mueller both oppose the provisions as does the White House, which said it cannot accept any legislation that "challenges or constrains the president's authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation."
Late Thursday, a White House official said the veto threat still stands.
The bill would require military custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates and involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. American citizens would be exempt. The bill does allow the executive branch to waive the authority based on national security and hold a suspect in civilian custody.
The legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention.
The series of detention provisions challenges citizens' constitutional rights, tests the boundaries of executive and legislative branch authority and sets up a confrontation with the Democratic commander in chief. Civil rights groups fiercely oppose the bill.
"The bill is an historic threat to American citizens and others because it expands and makes permanent the authority of the president to order the military to imprison without charge or trial American citizens," said Christopher Anders, ACLU senior legislative counsel.
The bill reflects the politically charged dispute over whether to treat suspected terrorists as prisoners of war or criminals. The administration insists that the military, law enforcement and intelligence agents need flexibility in prosecuting the war on terror after they've succeeded in killing Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki.
Republicans counter that their efforts are necessary to respond to an evolving, post-Sept. 11 threat, and that Obama has failed to produce a consistent policy on handling terror suspects.
The House-passed bill would limit Obama's authority to transfer terrorist suspects from the U.S. naval facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to installations in the United States, even for trial. It also would make it difficult for the administration to move detainees to foreign countries.
On Iran, Sens. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., had widespread bipartisan support for their amendment, which would target foreign financial institutions that do business with the Central Bank, barring them from opening or maintaining correspondent operations in the United States. It would apply to foreign central banks only for transactions that involve the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum products.
The sanctions on petroleum would only apply if the president determines there is a sufficient alternative supply and if the country with jurisdiction over the financial institution has not significantly reduced its purchases of Iranian oil.
5 comments:
It's encouraging to hear that, while small, cuts are finally being made to the funding of Iraq and the process of winding down has been accepted. We have lost an entire decade due to the crippling financial drain of this war that should have ended long ago after the first "victory" was achieved. Hopefully this extends to a reevaluation of strategy ing Afghanistan where we could much more affective with a much smaller force.
The subject of detainment is such a sensitive one we will most likely never reach a uniform consensus. However, I personally agree that known affiliates of terrorist organizations should be held as long as necessary without trial or rights. It is true that we live in a different age where a nation's greatest any is not another nation but small groups of individuals both native and foreign. This type of conflict is constantly changing because the enemy has no territory to defend and is thus able to move about freely without fear of abandoning important lands. It is ridiculous that a known terrorist, whose objective is to kill Americans and would show no mercy, should be given the privilege of a trial. There have been several videos taken of captured journalists being executed by such individuals.
I believe that our nation's intelligence community knows what it is doing when they detain an individual. Our faith should be fully vested in the professionals who's job it is to find terrorists and stop plots.
Senate led by Harry Reid and the democrats had the guts to reduce the Defense bill $27B less than what the President requested. In fact, with upcoming peace dividends, we should cut it even more, perhaps around $550B and look for quicker savings from troops withdrawal from Europe, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Lastly, we should cut fraud, waste, abuses, and un-wanted military hardware procurement. If you are asking Obama to veto the Defense bill because of language in the bill, that should be the last thing we should worry about now. We should worry about our economy and ways to lower federal spending.
Uh... Yeah. i don't think I agree with our government. They should not be allowed to detain US citizens without a just cause. I think our Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves right now.
The fact remains that a veto is always possible when there are different parties in government. But, the senate does not need to impose an amendment with Iran into the bill. it basically adds an unnecessary amount of paper onto the bill. Last time I checked we have stopped all aid and sanctions to Iran, but having that into the bill is a threat to the passage. The bill would ensure that we are up to date with our defense with technology, information, and even plans but, it should not be threatened by our administration. I admit it that the administration should not even threaten it by a veto since it does not really matter, but it is just not important to even have that Iran text into it.
this seems to be an improvement upon the current system of justiice for accused terrorists under which there have been several scandals of abuse of power and under which there is no true publicity for accused terrorists sent overseas. however the legitimacy of a presidents actions in an absolute sense like this is ridiculous and the reason which they give, an increase in the price of oil and the lack of control over terrorism which has been excised, is also ridiculous. this all seems hyped up by the government who is, no doubt, almost in complete control of the price of oil in america. terrorism should be fought behind the scenes by a board of military personnel, not obama in his ivory tower of oil.
Post a Comment