Reply #6: Here's what the White House said in a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee

[boxman15]

"Broadly speaking, the detention provisions in this bill micromanage the work of our experienced counter-terrorism professionals, including our military commanders, intelligence professionals, seasoned counter-terrorism prosecutors, or other operatives in the field. Any bill that challenges or constrains the president's critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the nation would prompt the president's senior advisers to recommend a veto."

I'm glad the president wants to veto the legislation and has called it "harmful and counterproductive", but it's for the wrong reasons. It's not because locking up Americans indefinitely at will is flat-out wrong, no. They're against it because it would stretch our top military brass too thin. It would require too much micromanagement and work.

The prevailing attitude in Washington must be this: "It'll be easier to lock terrorists up this way. What could go wrong?" Under a sane administration (like this one), sure. I can (somewhat) see that attitude, but under an insane administration (like a Perry or Bachmann)? This bill authorizes the executive branch to be able to indefinitely lock up a person for being suspicious. And that is extremely dangerous.

Maybe the President also believes it's wrong because of its inherent unconstitutionality and danger. I sure hope so, but he needs to come out and say it. I know Obama wouldn't lock up just anybody, but a nutjob GOP president just might.