Will The Republicans Support This?

[Howey]

After all the hoopla over the NDAA two recent developments haven't been mentioned on here. I wonder why?

First: The President issues an (PDF)Executive Order to ensure Americans cannot and will not be held indefinitely; contrary to what his detractors thought.

Second: Since the above is only good for while the President is in office, Democrats in Congress want to make the provision permanent:

A pair of lawmakers on Thursday offered a bill that would repeal laws that allow the indefinite detention of Americans and others by the military without trial.

The power of military authorities to arrest and jail people as long as they want stems from Congress' 2001 joint resolution authorizing the use of military force against terrorists, but was explicitly codified into law last year after President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act on New Year's Eve. While allowing military detention of anyone, the act mandated that certain terrorist suspects had to be held by the armed forces.

Civil libertarians on the left and right were sharply critical of the law, even though the president promised not to grab Americans.

Obama set out policy rules last month making good on that pledge, specifying that U.S. citizens and numerous other categories of suspected terrorists would not be clapped into the military system, which somewhat mollified critics.

But many pointed out that those rules are only good as long as Obama is president, prompting Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) to offer their bill Thursday.

"On the books, we have a law that gives the executive branch the power to indefinitely detain people here in the U.S., even U.S. citizens, and we believe we should take that off the books," Smith said at a Capitol Hill news conference. "Even though you can make an argument that this executive will not exercise that authority, has not exercised that authority, we don't believe we can afford to allow that kind of power to reside in the executive branch."

"That policy won't tie the hands of future administrations," said Udall. "I continue to believe that the NDAA detention provisions weaken our national security and our constitutional protections."

Certainly, this bill will pass both houses unanimously and be signed by the President post-haste.

[ekg]

Certainly, this bill will pass both houses unanimously and be signed by the President post-haste.

why would it? They can't complain if it passes. How can any of the 'deal with' or 'agree with' the immoral evil president? wouldn't that make them also immoral and evil?

I hope this does pass.. Obama taking that kind of power is insane, almost as insane as Holder announcing a plan to kill any American any where if they are part of a terrorist movement because they do not deserve 'due process'.. that's scary as hell.

yes, I was for the killing of Al Awlaki.  . but that was a single,talked about,debated and highly covered single instance. I do not want a policy put in place where that kind of transparency is taken out of the equation..

Anyone who cares about this issue at all understands that what matters first is the legal rationale for the administration's drone-strike policy. We need to know what the legal arguments are for such proclamations by the executive branch that, for example, the due process clause of the Constitution does not guarantee "judicial process" when a citizen's life is on the line. What Holder delivered instead was what we already know -- the political rationale for the "targeted killing" program. The New York Times told us that years ago.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/eric-holder-explains-when-drones-can-kill-americans-abroad/254168/