InfoHedon

jonathan-cunningham:

rcabbasi:

jonathan-cunningham:

The Obama Administration asked the Armed Services Committee to ensure that the National Defense Authorization Act would allow for the indefinite detention of US citizens, then when national outrage arose he promised to veto the bill because of the very section he requested, according to Senator Carl Levin.

I’m not sure this commentary is entirely accurate. Yes, Obama promised to veto the bill in response to the very same section that contains a provision that he promoted. But that isn’t because of the outrage that has resulted from Section 1032’s obvious affront to American citizens’ Constitutional rights; the Obama administration instead protests the fact that it would restrict its powers too much. In other words, if the section were to be revised in looser terms but still containing the part that allows American citizens to be detained indefinitely without trial, it seems that the administration would have no issue with its passing, despite all this national outrage.

Thank you for the (depressing, sad, terrible) correction. I just don’t understand how anyone can vote for Obama in good conscience. 

I’m not so sure of that reading (note that I’m not voting for Obama either). The language in the press release looks to show concern over violations to citizens’ rights. But it does get confusing. The language then says that the administration doesn’t want to remove the language. Rather, it just wants to tweak it so it has a more defined procedure to follow. It doesn’t say what that procedure is. But if it still involves the military indefinitely detaining US citizens without trial, then it’s an abomination. The fact that the release is so vague on this point is extremely troubling. The relevant section of the press release is here: 

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.