Michael Ventura: It Came from the White House (Obama's support for the current form of NDAA)

[villager]

<snip>

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., noticed that to subject American citizens to arrest without warrant and to detain us without trial violates the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution. Feinstein proposed to specifically exempt American citizens from the NDAA's arrest policy. Her clarification of the NDAA passed the Senate by a vote of 98 to 1. That's as bipartisan as it gets, even in good times. In these times, passage of Feinstein's clarification was a miracle of agreement.

Yet in the NDAA's final version, as signed by President Obama, American citizens are not exempt. How did that happen?
As of this writing, you won't find the answer in The New York Times, The Washington Post, or Wikipedia. They mention Feinstein's NDAA amendment and that it was killed, but not who killed it. Peruse umpteen Google search pages, as I did for my last column, and you may find this item, which I quoted: "Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said during congressional hearings that Obama asked him to preserve language in the bill making Americans subject to indefinite detention."

That's from Courthouse News Service online on Jan. 17. An obscure source for such an important fact? I thought so. Still, I went with it in print because I discovered no other explanation for how Feinstein's amendment got killed. But I wasn't satisfied. Ready to eat my words if I had to, after my column was published, I went back on the hunt: Google page upon Google page upon Google page, with every keyword I could think of. I was slow to go for the obvious: a search for Sen. Carl Levin, whereupon, after a time, I found www.rt.com. It offered a TV clip from C-SPAN2 from Dec. 12, 2011.

There was Levin himself, in the Senate chamber, addressing an unnamed "senator from Illinois," who objected to the absence of Feinstein's amendment in the final House-Senate version of the NDAA. Levin's syntax was atrocious but his point was clear and he made it several times:

"The administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section. ... It was the administration that asked to remove the very language which we had in the bill which passed the committee – and then we removed it at the request of the administration – that would have said that this determination did not apply to U.S. citizens and lawful residents. ... It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language, the absence of which is now objected to."

There you have it. The Obama White House specifically asked that U.S. citizens be subject to arrest without warrant and detention without trial. In Obama's signing statement, there's vague folderol about the Consti-tution and our values, plus a promise that he won't arrest us without charge and detain us without trial. So why did he specifically ask for the power to do exactly that?
And why have major news organizations not questioned White House participation in this travesty? As of this writing, no one's asking Obama why he killed the Feinstein amendment.

When he signed the bill on New Year's Eve, The Washington Post online reported, "The president said his administration would seek to repeal any provisions that are inconsistent with his values." Actually, that's not what Obama said. In his signing statement, he said this: "I will exercise my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if [the bill's] procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable."

It doesn't sound like he's in a big hurry, does it? As of this writing, the White House hasn't made a peep about repealing anything. And why should it? Obama asked for the power to violate the Bill of Rights, and he got it. You can't blame this on those big, bad Republicans.

<snip>

http://www.austinchronicle.com/columns/2012-02-10/letters-at-3am-it-came-from-the-white-house/

[think]

1. This is deeply disturbing! The provision needs to be rescinded ASAP!

[Vincardog]

2. Please tell me again how voting for him is the best we can do?

[creeksneakers2]

3. This webpage says the video is a hoax

Last edited Sat Feb 11, 2012, 02:50 PM - Edit history (1)

It says the video was doctored.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/edited-ndaa-video

I'm working on this more and will edit in to this post what I find. I will also check courthouse news service.

ADDED:

Search is not available for non-subscribers at Courthouse News Service. However, there is a lively debate over the claim in the OP on the web. Much of it rests on interpretations of law and the bill itself. I found few who agree that the video of Levin, since removed by YouTube for copyright violations, was doctored. But many say the its taken out of context and that Levin made clear elsewhere in his floor remarks that day that Obama did not ask that the NDAA apply to US citizens or lawful entrants.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/11/1044215/-The-Rest-of-What-Levin-Said-on-NDAA-Provisions#comments

http://www.politicususa.com/en/edited-ndaa-video

http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-ndaa-statement

[Big Blue Marble]

5. What does it matter if the video is a hoax?

The amendment was killed and the President signed it.
It is now the law because he signed it.

[creeksneakers2]

7. There's lots of disagreement on what the law said

But more evidence is on the side that says American citizens and lawful residents are exempt from the law. I think the whole story is a hoax.

The amendment wasn't killed. Its still in the law.

From the Kos link:

" Levin, from that floor session November 17th, about three hours before the "proof" snippet (1:30:00 or so), agrees with her:

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."

[Bluenorthwest]

13. A law that does not communicate clearly to all what it means is not good law for that

reason alone, don't you think? Disagreement as to what the law really is? The one that just got made law? No agreement as to what it allows? Why do you think it is not clear? What is wrong with clarity and transparency?

[Jackpine Radical]

4. I'm waiting for the Usual Suspects to show up

& straighten out our thinking here.

[creeksneakers2]

9. Its a good thing

that everyone doesn't take everything on the Internet at face value.

[snot]

6. Thank you for your good work! We need to share what you've found,

far and wide!

As an aside, I hate to say it, but I can't help but notice, the media's response seems similar to the way they used to respond to Bush. He'd say some ridiculous or awful thing, and the media would instantly "translate" it into something cogent and defensible -- sometimes you'd hear them doing it live, split seconds after Bush's original utterance. And everyone would accept the "translation," because what he actually said was nonsensical or unthinkable.

Of course, conservative "journalists" often leap on things Obama says that are reasonable, and twist them into something ridiculous or awful. But in this case, it seems he was given the benefit of unwarranted doubt.

[Ian62]

8. Obama concerns on this

Obama was concerned that the first drafts of this bill might limit Executive power, not about the principles of indefinite detention of US citizens without trial or access to lawyers. He asked for some wording amendments that would not reduce Executive power.
The Executive already had the powers in NDAA, this just codified them.
The only real change is that the US military now has the power to operate and arrest citizens on US soil.

How much of a charge do u need to make up if it is not subject to a lawyer's defense, no publicity and no examination at a trial?

This is just plain wrong and all American's should be outraged.
And some are.
Got Dem's protesting outside Dem offices about this.

GOP won't repeal this outrage - they passed it in the first place. And Mittens confirmed he would sign. And McCain the co-author of NDAA endorsed Mittens.
So Obama MUST repeal it.
It is a vote winner and much could be made of it - if O repealed these powers (not just NDAA but parts of the Patriot Act as well - the Patriot Act was one of the most unpatriotic bills ever passed into law).

This is similar to the Aliens & Sedition Act of 1798. Anyone who disparaged the government could be locked up - indefinitely without trial.
Some Senator or Congressman challenged Adams about this, by calling him fat (which he was).
He was arrested and locked up.
He won re-election from his prison cell and the act was repealed.
It was blatantly wrong.

It is a patriots duty to question their government.

[CAPHAVOC]

10. Confusing

Can a citizen now be arrested and held without due process? How is that possible?

[grahamhgreen]

11. Yes, as well as assasinated....

[CAPHAVOC]

12. Things are worse than I thought.

[lark]

14. Obama once again doing the job for the real masters

sad