On New Year’s Eve, President Barack Obama signed the $662 billion National Defense Authorization Act, which funds the Defense Department and other national security programs. The bill had became the focus of fierce debate over the past few months after Congress included provisions that mandated that suspected terrorist be detained and adjudicated by the military (see this month’s issue of International Debates). Critics of the bill argued that the language would grant the military the power to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens accused of terrorism, while supporters countered that it merely streamlined and codified existing policies.

Although Obama had originally threatened to veto the bill if the detainee provisions weren’t removed, he backed off after Congress added compromise language stating that the bill does not alter the president’s existing authorities and allows the president to grant a waiver that would permit a terrorist suspect arrested on U.S. soil to be tried in civilian court. In addition, when he signed the bill, he released a statement that set out his interpretation of the law.

“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,” Obama said in the statement. “In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”

The statement proceeded to outline, section by section, how the Executive Branch would implement the law. It continued: “I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation.”

In conclusion, Obama pledged to work to repeal the sections of the law he considers objectionable. Of course, as long as the language is not rescinded, future presidents could interpret it differently, perhaps making greater use of military detentions.