AP sources: Obama makes push to change terror bill

[The Northerner]

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama and his national security team are appealing to lawmakers for last-minute changes to a sweeping defense bill that requires military custody for terrorism suspects linked to al-Qaida, including those captured within the U.S.

The legislation is caught in an escalating dispute between the White House and Congress over the politically charged issue of whether to treat suspected terrorists as prisoners of war or criminals.

The president led a full-court press this week that included Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and FBI Director Robert Mueller asking for revisions to the bill as House and Senate negotiators move swiftly to complete a final version. The White House already had threatened a veto if the bill isn't changed, saying it could not accept legislation that "challenges or constrains the president's authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation."

Obama spoke to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich. Clinton and Panetta also spoke to Levin, and Mueller has met with Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, administration and congressional officials said on Friday.

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/AP-sources-Obama-makes-push-to-change-terror-bill-2391732.php

[gratuitous]

1. Note to our governing overlords

You do not swear an oath to "protect the nation." You swear an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Without the Constitution, there is no nation to protect. One more gentle reminder from

Your friendly neighborhood
gratuitous

[tblue]

2. He wants all that power for himself. I'm not kidding.

That's his objection, that he wouldn't be the sole decider. I can't stomach much more of this. Obama won't always be president and one day a Republican will have this power that he wants to sign into law. Shame on him. Yes, all I want is a pony!!!!!

[kenny blankenship]

3. You may as well wish for a unicorn.

Go for broke, since you're not getting a unicorn, or a pony, or a President who respects the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.

My unicorn, that I wish for, will have its own rainbow that follows wherever it goes. Even Gitmo.

[gateley]

5. I'm thinking Hillary is encouraging this. She's much more of

a hawk, IMO. Just my conjecture.

Obama has listened to the "experts" to his detriment, I think. Geithner, the Generals on Afghanistan (rather than listening to Biden who advised against the escalation), etc.

He should listen more to his gut. I think he's basically a good guy but isn't confident enough to buck those who are supposed to know it all.

[EFerrari]

10. This article is also misleading. That part of the bill applies

not only to AQ but to ANYONE the government designates and Obama has already claimed that he doesn't have to disclose his evidence or reasoning in any court when he makes that designation.

[Vincardog]

11. Obama's assertion is complete and utter BULLSHIT. Check the Constitution.

[EFerrari]

13. Of course it is but no one will stop him. nt

[Vincardog]

4. It is clear He should veto this because it is unconstitutional but he is threatening to veto it

because it places too many limits on his power. What complete and udder BULLSHIT.
I did not like it when Vice president Cheney claimed the power and I do not like it any more now.
I do not concede my constitutional rights just because "my" party is in power.

[tosh]

7. +1.

[Eddie Haskell]

8. Well said.

People over party.

[Mojorabbit]

14. One of the big selling points for me was that he was a constitutional scholar. Ah well. nt

[woo me with science]

24. It is disturbing as hell. nt

[Blue_In_AK]

32. Yes, that bothers me, as well.

At first I was cheered by the thought that he might veto this monstrosity, thinking that maybe the "constitutional scholar" part of him had kicked in. But knowing that he doesn't like it because it limits his power makes me feel kind of sick.

[Solly Mack]

6. K&R

[Warren DeMontague]

9. Wow. If only it involved teens getting contraception or cancer patients being able to smoke pot

there's no WAY he would let it pass!

[ProSense]

12. Behind Closed Doors: Congress Trying to Force Indefinite Detention Bill on Americans

Behind Closed Doors: Congress Trying to Force Indefinite Detention Bill on Americans (ACLU)

<...>

What happens next? First, there will be a more formal House-Senate conference in the next few days to put an official stamp of approval on what the Big Four wrote in secret. And then the bills will be on the floors of the House and Senate by early next week.

Their plan is to move very, very fast. Congress certainly has earned a reputation for being slow, but the plan for the NDAA is to jam it through the House and Senate with as little debate as possible. But you can help stop them.

Amazingly, as soon as a week from today, a final bill could be passed by Congress and headed to President Obama's desk. His White House has repeatedly threatened to veto the NDAA if these dangerous provisions stay in the bill.

But should it really come to that? Congress itself should come to its senses and ditch the indefinite detention provisions. And just as importantly, Congress should listen to you and every other American on what we all as Americans want for our country. Secret deals for indefinite military detention without charge or trial? Tell Congress we are better than that. It's not who we are as Americans, and it is not the country or the world we want to pass on to our children and grandchildren.

[inna]

17. wow, scary read. thank you for the link(s). nt

[rhett o rick]

18. Does the President want this or not?

in this article it says: "The president isn't the one asking for this legislation – in fact, the White House has repeatedly threatened to veto the bill over its concern for indefinite detention provisions. And, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the FBI and the head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA are harmful and counterproductive."

http://www.aclu.org/indefinite-detention-endless-worldwide-war-and-2012-national-defense-authorization-act

And yet in this article: "The White House already had threatened a veto if the bill isn't changed, saying it could not accept legislation that "challenges or constrains the president's authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation."

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/AP-sources-Obama-makes-push-to-change-terror-bill-2391732.php#ixzz1g9Fxiqp5

[inna]

19. he objects to a thoroughly monstrous bill on the grounds that it doesn't give him

enough power.

it's almost like... out-Republicaning the Republicans?... :shrug:

[ProSense]

20. Wrong

"he objects to a thoroughly monstrous bill on the grounds that it doesn't give him enough power."

The President's statement is extremely clear despite the attempts to parse his words.

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY: S. 1867 – National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2012 (PDF)

Detainee Matters: The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about many of the detainee provisions in the bill. In their current form, some of these provisions disrupt the Executive branch's ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted restrictions on the U.S. Government's ability to aggressively combat international terrorism; other provisions inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military's operations and detention practices.

Section 1031 attempts to expressly codify the detention authority that exists under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) (the “AUMF”). The authorities granted by the AUMF, including the detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect the American people from the threat posed by al-Qa'ida and its associated forces, and have enabled us to confront the full range of threats this country faces from those organizations and individuals. Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk. After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country. While the current language minimizes many of those risks, future legislative action must ensure that the codification in statute of express military detention authority does not carry unintended consequences that could compromise our ability to protect the American people.

The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects. This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President's authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals. Moreover, applying this military custody requirement to individuals inside the United States, as some Members of Congress have suggested is their intention, would raise serious and unsettled legal questions and would be inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets. We have spent ten years since September 11, 2001, breaking down the walls between intelligence, military, and law enforcement professionals; Congress should not now rebuild those walls and unnecessarily make the job of preventing terrorist attacks more difficult. Specifically, the provision would limit the flexibility of our national security professionals to choose, based on the evidence and the facts and circumstances of each case, which tool for incapacitating dangerous terrorists best serves our national security interests. The waiver provision fails to address these concerns, particularly in time-sensitive operations in which law enforcement personnel have traditionally played the leading role. These problems are all the more acute because the section defines the category of individuals who would be subject to mandatory military custody by substituting new and untested legislative criteria for the criteria the Executive and Judicial branches are currently using for detention under the AUMF in both habeas litigation and military operations. Such confusion threatens our ability to act swiftly and decisively to capture, detain, and interrogate terrorism suspects, and could disrupt the collection of vital intelligence about threats to the American people.

Rather than fix the fundamental defects of section 1032 or remove it entirely, as the Administration and the chairs of several congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters have advocated, the revised text merely directs the President to develop procedures to ensure the myriad problems that would result from such a requirement do not come to fruition. Requiring the President to devise such procedures concedes the substantial risks created by mandating military custody, without providing an adequate solution. As a result, it is likely that implementing such procedures would inject significant confusion into counterterrorism operations.

<...>

The strange thing is that people seemed to be more interested in spinning the President's reason for vetoing the bill, and not the fact that Congress is getting ready to pass it.

[rhett o rick]

22. I hope to hell he is wrong, but cant see it. I have read and reread what you provided but

only see the administrations objection to who would have custody of terrorist suspects. I would very much like to understand that the President wants to uphold the Constitution and not allow citizen to be arrested and held without due process. Please elaborate.

[woo me with science]

25. +1

[bvar22]

27. And if that were his objections,

why not just come out and say so
instead of giving us the now traditional ambiguous run around? :shrug:

I would be so easy for the President to simply say,
"I will NOT allow citizen to be arrested and held without due process."

Why won't he do that? :shrug:



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[rhett o rick]

31. I so agree. It would be simple to state what you are for or against. But we get rhetoric. nm

[Zhade]

34. Your post is transparently dishonest. RIGHT UNDER YOUR FIRST BOLDED TEXT...

...it mentions the objection IS BECAUSE IT CONSTRAINS THE PRESDENT'S POWER.

Your post is a baldfaced lie.

[sweetloukillbot]

29. As I read it he has several objections...

1) Congress setting stipulations on how the military can treat terror suspects.
2) The provision to turn civilian terror suspects over to the military.
3) Restrictions on how the military can release detainees from Guantanamo.
4) Restrictions on how the military can transfer detainees to prison in the US.

Why the fuck is everyone blaming the president?
Seems like Levin got all hawkish because of the underwear bomber who was arrested and Miranda'd before the military could interrogate him. (Remember the right wing going crazy over that?) So he wrote this piece of shit legislation to avoid that happening again.
And ever since I heard about this all I've heard is that Obama will veto because of this provision. Now the "black is white" newspeak people are trying to insist that despite him saying he's going to veto it, he's actually secretly planning to install it. Whatever. That's like the idiots on the right who bitch about the socialist health care program that requires people to buy insurance from private companies.

Frankly, the people I've heard bitching about this the most are crazy right-wing gun nuts who are jerking off waiting for the revolution and are terrified they'll be branded terrorists and shipped to FEMA camps via the NAFTA superhighway.
And since I know how stupid they are, I'll give the president the benefit of the doubt when he says he's going to veto the legislation.

Honestly I think the whole thing is political theater - the Dems vote to pass it so they seem strong on defense and fighting terror in an election year, then don't vote to override the veto - it's bullshit gamesmanship, but it prevents attack ads in 8 months.

[hulka38]

15. K&R

What is going on in America?

[inna]

16. i'm surprised Glenn Greenwald hasn't commented on this yet...

he's quite good at parsing the doublespeak... :shrug:


Pretty mind-blowing, anyway. Via link in post #12:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps1867s_20111117.pdf

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.

And get this - the quote/paragraph above is actually UNDERLINED in the original - I guess, for clarity, so there is no confusion as to... the direction/motivation from which the objection comes. Rights-shrights, how old-fashioned and outdated.



Scary stuff.

[slipslidingaway]

23. It would appear that the underlined portion from the WH is what they consider most important ...

thanks.

Greenwald link

Congress endorsing military detention, a new AUMF
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/01/congress_endorsing_military_detention_a_new_aumf/singleton/

A bit more at these links as well

The We-Are-At-War! mentality
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/03/the_we_are_at_war_mentality/singleton/


PolitiFact and the scam of neutral expertise
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/05/politifact_and_the_scam_of_neutral_expertise/singleton/

[inna]

26. Thank you! *Extremely* good analysis (Dec. 1 post), reading it now!

Glenn is a national treasure AFAIC; in fact I think I'm going to order his new book today, as a statement of support of true independent journalism. :)

Thanks for the link; exactly what I was looking for and not sure how I missed it before (maybe it has to do with the fact that lately Salon seems to crash my browser like no other site... for whatever reason. :shrug: )

[slipslidingaway]

30. You're welcome ...

his new book is on my wish list for the same reason :)

[Hotler]

21. I have no hope. I see no future. eom.

[bvar22]

28. Oh, I see a future.

Its the one outlined by PNAC (Project for a New American Century),
and it ain't pretty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

The "Project for a New American Century" reminds me of
"The 1000 Year Reich" in name, content, and Nationalistic Exceptionalism.

FYI, some of the supporters and signatories of PNAC
also founded the DLC and "The New Democrat" Movement.


I'm glad I'm old.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Blue_In_AK]

33. I'm glad I'm old, too, Bvar22,

but I fear for my children and grandchildren.