This bill is dangerous for a number of reasons. It contains a new AUMF, which would replace the already expansive 2001 AUMF and give the President virtually unfettered authority to wage war in the name of fighting terrorism. It also would make the closing of Guantanamo impossible by making permanent the temporary ban on transfers and greatly expand the role of the military in fighting domestic terrorism. (I'll delve a bit into the details of the bill tomorrow if this bill is on the rec list -- hint, hint.)

The ACLU quoted the reasons for the President's objections:

“The Administration strongly objects to section 1034 [the worldwide war provision] which, in purporting to affirm the conflict, would effectively recharacterize its scope and would risk creating confusion regarding applicable standards. At a minimum, this is an issue that merits more extensive consideration before possible inclusion...” On the NDAA’s troubling transfer restriction language, the administration said: “…Section 1039 is a dangerous and unprecedented challenge to critical Executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests. It unnecessarily constrains our Nation's counterterrorism efforts and would undermine our national security, particularly where our Federal courts are the best - or even the only - option for incapacitating dangerous terrorists…If the final bill presented to the president includes these provisions that challenge critical executive branch authority, the president's senior advisors would recommend a veto.”

Along with many others, I've been extremely critical of the President's counterterrorism policy, but this is nothing but positive. The objection to the new AUMF is especially notable because it represents the rare occasion when a President is declining, or trying to decline, power Congress is trying to give him. Let's hope the President stays strong. It's sad that a victory would be preventing the GWOT from getting even more terrible, but such is the world we live in.

The ACLU:

President Obama and his administration have to be commended for taking such a tough stance on issues of fundamental importance to the rule of law and our democracy. The new White House statement should make us all work even harder to convince Congress to take out these dangerous provisions.

UDDATE: A few things about the bill: The New AUMF is extraordinary not only because of what it would do but because of where it is: tucked inside a larger bill. A declaration of forever war inside a "detainee" bill.

It's being tucked away in the chairman's mark of a national defense authorization act as section 1034 of the bill," Anders [of the ACLU] says. "There's never been in AUMF or a declaration of war that's been tucked into another bill, these are monumental decisions the country makes."

Republicans insist the War provision would do nothing new. But (disclosure: I work for this organization):

[T]hen why is the new bill necessary? The AUMF of 2001 already provides that. The only possible justification for proposing a new AUMF is to expand the “war on terror” to be just that – not only a war against the groups and individuals related to the September 11 attacks, but a “war” on terrorism more broadly – wherever it is found and regardless of how “terrorism” is defined. McKeon recently gave us a hint of where he thinks a new war could reach, saying that “the threats posed by al-Qaeda cells in Yemen and Africa underscore the evolving and continuing nature of the terrorist threat to the United States.”

Although the war provision is perhaps the most striking, others are arguably as dangerous. On detention:

Though the language differences are subtle, the McKeon legislation makes clear that the president would have the authority to detain “belligerents” – including but not limited to those currently defined by the Obama administration as detainable. That means that McKeon and his co-sponsors are contemplating the use of military force against some broader category of undefined “belligerents” somewhere in the world who are not now detainable in our current state of war, but would be under an expanded one.

Also, it would greatly militarize domestic counterterrorism as it decreases the role of law enforcement. Suspects, even American citizens, would be immediately placed in military custody. Which would mean an end to federal trials for terrrorism suspects. And let's say a Muslim is pulled over for a traffic violation and his name shows up on a watch list. Into military custody he goes. What, if any, court review he would receive is unclear.

It requires that all suspects be held by the military (unless the Defense Secretary grants a waiver), and either tried by military commission or held indefinitely. This provision alone diminishes the authority of law enforcement agencies integral to our anti-terror efforts, obstructs the counterterrorism operations of officials who have a record of successful intelligence gathering, overburdens the military with responsibilities it does not want, and limits the president’s options in defending America’s national security interests. Dozens of federal agencies with critical expertise would be prevented from participating in a review of whether suspects posed a threat to national security.

