Sure. I'm on a first name basis with ol' Barry.
Does he?
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:
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.
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.
**Hah! I'm right again!
Hah! Not even close!
I read the Daily Kos article you linked with interest since a couple days ago I was reading both an article in the National Review and one from Talking Points Memo about the bill and it was interesting at the differing takes they had on it. The TPM article just addressed the detainee issues that the administration originally threatened a veto over with no mention of the US citizens provision. It looks like the Daily Kos is trying to deliberately mix those issues to obfuscate the administration’s fingerprints.
It does so by linking the administration’s statement about military detention, which the administration opposed in the language of the bill as it made the military detention mandatory. The administration wanted the flexibility to use either civilian or military systems for detainees.
This was the administration response:
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.From this, the Daily Kos exclaims, “So we have Obama on record as opposing the indefinite military detention of American Citizens; he advocated for the removal of that section outright.”
The administration said nothing about US citizens. The administration wanted to remove the mandatory military detention section, as they had said in the White House response to the bill that I have already linked in this thread.
I will say one think for the White House; they are being much more clear and honest about what they want then the Daily Kos, or you for that matter, is.
But the best part was at the end, where they quote Levin’s comment that I first directed you to:
Is the Senator familiar with the fact that the language which precluded the application of section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved in the Armed Services committee and the Administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section? Is the Senator familiar with the fact that it was the administration that asked us to remove the very language -- which we had in the bill which passed the committee, and that we removed it at the request of the administration -- that would have said that this determination would not apply to U.S. citizens and lawful residents?The Kos writer’s response to that?
“So 1031 is all about codifying and clarifying the already existing detainee provisions as defined by the AUMF, but not fundamentally changing any of them. Apparently, those provisions already exclude U.S. citizens.” Weak!
The AUMF doesn’t address US citizens. That was not even on the radar at the time that was passed.
But here is the best part:
“So why would Obama object to the redundancy of specifying in section 1031 that section 1031 does not apply to U.S. citizens? Why would he request that language be excised, as Levin says? IANAL and I can't claim to know what is in Obama's head. “In other words, like you, the writer just trusts Obama and doesn’t worry his silly head over such details. At least Kos addressed this issue though and tried to provide a phony cover story for the administration. That was better than the TPM effort.
