Quote:
Originally Posted by BFT3K
Accompanying the President?s signature was a signing statement which was intended to clarify some of his perspectives on the NDAA?s most controversial language. The statement read in part, ?my administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American Citizens.? However, what is important to keep in mind here is that the statement refers only to what this administration pledges, not to the intentions or requirements of future administrations.
Are the GOP presidential candidates promising to strike this new controversial passage, should they wind up winning anytime in the future?
|
People are such suckers. If he was actually serious about that, HE WOULD HAVE HAD IT PUT IN THE LAW ITSELF!!!
A "statement" attached to the bill is meaningless, legally. It's simply something that his supporters can point to and say, "See? He signed it, but he doesn't really MEAN it!"
He can use the act anytime he wants, may be using it right now... some "statement" doesn't stop him in any way. Are you really this blinded by partisan politics?
.
