I don't know. I would assume you would know him better than I.
Sure. I'm on a first name basis with ol' Barry.
Why does President Obama want the authority to hold US citizens indefinitely?
Does he?
why does the right have this 'all or nothing' mentality.
Oh. You
know why. For the same reason they have this knack for taking words out of context and using sound bites to prove a point that doesn't exist. Remember, we talked about it on that secret section of the muche Mike doesn't have access to.
The simple fact is that Obama never wanted to include detention of American citizens in the bill. Regardless of what Levin said in lilBreitbart's blurb from CSpan.
It's very hard to the right to look at the "big picture" and make judgements when all they do is view things in black and white and cribbed thirty second sound bites. Of course, that's the only way they have to lie. Just ask lilBreitbart and bigBreitbart.
Here's an example:
Sound bite at @4.42:
(Carl Levin)...the Administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section...
The truth at @1.30: (Carl Levin) Administration officials reviewed the draft language for this provision and recommended additional changes. We were able to accommodate those recommendations, except for the Administration request that the provision apply only to detainees captured overseas and there's a good reason for that. Even here, the difference is modest,
because the provision already excludes all U.S. citizens.
It also excludes lawful residents of U.S., except to extent permitted by the constitution. The only covered persons left are those who are illegally in this country or on a tourists/short-term basis.
Contrary to some press statements, the detainee provisions in our bill do not include new authority for the permanent detention of suspected terrorists. Rather, the bill uses language provided by the Administration to codify existing authority that has been upheld in federal courts.
Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? (At least to us
)
lilBreitbart's favorite, the Daily Kos, did the same as I and looked even
further.
I know you all saw the diary the other day with the video of Levin saying that Obama had specifically requested the language precluding the provisions applying to U.S. citizens be struck from the bill. But that video isn't but one minute or so of Levin, taken from a 10-hour floor debate session. And Levin said a damn sight more than just Obama requested they strike that language.
It's very important to remember that the detainee provisions are several separate provisions of the bill; statements made for or against one don't necessarily apply to all. It's also helpful to know that the video in question is from November 17th; why it's suddenly all the rage right now, I don't know.
Circle Jerk of Attribution(*) strikes again, I guess. But I do know that anytime one is presented with a one-minute sliver of video as "proof" of anything, one should do a little more digging.
In this case, there's a lot of digging to be had, starting back in mid-November, when the Administration released this statement in response to the original detainee provisions of the FY 2012 Budget, as drafted by Congress:
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.
So we have Obama on record as opposing the indefinite military detention of American Citizens; he advocated for the removal of that section outright. He also supported DiFi's amendment to limit the detention to people apprehended "abroad.(**)" According to DiFi (Dec 6 or 7 session, I forget), this kerfuffle was partly behind Obama's veto threat, in response to the Armed Services Committee not adopting his request for the "abroad" language in section 1032. Which is why she offered her amendment.
* This is the funniest thing I ever read!
And there we have the classic internet Circle Jerk of Attribution™, where a single source for a story is reinforced by a second source citing that original single source as a source.
I have written on this topic of poorly-sourced, sensationalist stories before, noting how even respected bloggers can be sucked into the Circle Jerk of Attribution™ based on the flimsiest of sources and end up promoting highly-charged stories that may not be true.
Certainly, we can question why the Obama administration has not leaned on these local governments to back off OWS protesters. That's a legitimate discussion and there is plenty of room to criticize the administration's laissez-faire attitude toward the violence and destruction being wreaked on protesters by militarized police forces.
But as of this writing, not one other news outlet has confirmed Ellis' story, And neither has Ellis, despite his claims to be searching for confirmation.
A strict rule at Daily Kos is that we don't traffic in conspiracy theories. In fact, many posters have been banned from here for doing so. The diaries on Mr. Ellis' claim, and many of the comments contained within those diaries, read like a freerepublic post on how Obama is busy building FEMA camps to house Tea Party members after Holder confiscates their guns.
**Hah! I'm right again!
