House Throws Defense Bill Into Hole

And you and I might be next, readers:

"House OK’s $642 billion defense bill; GOP provisions likely to be lost in Senate version" by Donna Cassata  |  Associated Press, May 19, 2012

WASHINGTON - Insisting they are stronger on defense than the president, Republicans crafted a bill that calls for construction of a missile defense site on the East Coast that the military opposes, bars reductions in the nation’s nuclear arsenal, and reaffirms the indefinite detention without trial of suspected terrorists, even US citizens captured on American soil.  

More: House Hacksaws Poor For Pentagon and Politics

The divisive GOP provisions will have a short shelf life....

Just Congress doing a little politicking.

The detention issue created an unusual political coalition in Congress, uniting Democrats and some Tea Party Republicans.  

We need more of that.

Conservatives fear the divisive policy established last year could result in unfettered power for the government and trample long-held constitutional rights. The policy, contained in the current defense law, was based on the post-Sept. 11 authorization for the use of military force that allows indefinite detention of enemy combatants. Several Democrats criticized the provision as an example of government overreach and an unnecessary obstacle to the Obama administration’s war against terrorism.  

Will we ever get past all the lies that underpin these horrific and horrendous atrocities?

The policy denies suspected terrorists, including US citizens seized within the nation’s borders, the right to trial and subjects them to the possibility they would be held indefinitely.

When Obama signed the bill on Dec. 31, he issued a statement saying he had serious reservations about provisions on the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Such signing statements are common and allow presidents to raise constitutional objections to circumvent Congress’s intent.

Signing statement means he already has all that power, as will the next dictator, 'er,  president.

--more--"