More

Carl Levin, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman, Rebuts White House On Detainee Policy

Carl Levin White House Detainee Policy

By DONNA CASSATA   11/18/11 03:17 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON -- The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Friday faulted the White House and fellow Democrats for mischaracterizing provisions in the defense bill dealing with the handling of suspected terrorists.

In lengthy speeches on the Senate floor, Democrat Carl Levin delivered a point-by-point rebuttal of both the White House's critique of the detainee policy and criticism leveled by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who leads the Senate Intelligence Committee. His comments came a day after the White House threatened to veto the legislation over its requirement to hold captured terrorism suspects in military custody and language limiting the administration's authority to transfer detainees.

"The words in the committee bill are clear," Levin said. "But they should not be exaggerated or misinterpreted."

On Thursday, the White House Office of Management and Budget issued a statement saying it supported the broader defense bill but could not accept any legislation that "challenges or constrains the president's authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation."

Feinstein, one of several Democrats who object to the provisions, said they would impose unnecessary limits on the commander in chief's authority.

A major point of contention is the provision requiring military custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates and involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. The administration argues that military custody, rather than civilian, would hamper the FBI and other law enforcement agencies seeking intelligence from suspected terrorists.

Levin repeatedly argued that the administration attacks ignore one element of the provision. He also insisted that the committee revised the bill to address administration demands.

"In fact, it does not mandate military custody and it does not tie the administration's hands, because it includes a national security waiver which allows suspects to be held in civilian custody," Levin said.

Administration officials pointed out that counterterrorism requires split-second decisions that leave no time for worrying about waivers. The administration also insists that lawmakers are trying to limit the military, law enforcement and intelligence agents after they've succeeded in killing Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki, delivering two body blows to al-Qaida.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Friday faulted the White House and fellow Democrats for mischaracterizing provisions in the defense bill dealing with the handling ...
WASHINGTON -- The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Friday faulted the White House and fellow Democrats for mischaracterizing provisions in the defense bill dealing with the handling ...
Filed by Paige Lavender  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 133
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mrhandyman3105
Independent Voting Democrat This Year
08:34 PM on 11/19/2011
If I'm not mistaken, those provisions were added by the Republicans in order to hamper Obama in his attempts to transfer any detainees to the U.S. mainland and to eventually close Guantanamo as he originally wanted.
07:21 PM on 11/19/2011
Obama wants to again keep up with Bush on being a rotten President.
07:10 PM on 11/19/2011
Generally, I agree with Levin. But this piece is so badly researched that I have no idea which side is up.

However I am annoyed that Democratic Senators and Congressional reps find it so easy to oppose the Democratic President. Very few of them go out of their way to provide the President support. It is constant opposition from Republicans and attention seeking Democrats.

Why are they not falling in line? I thought the Administration was broadly following the Democratic platform. Dems in Congress always make it harder than necessary for Democratic Presidents to govern. There is too much positioning and jokeying by Dems who feel they should be running the country. But if they cannot show the qualities of a good follower, they should never be allowed to lead.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Graywolf48
If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu
08:36 AM on 11/20/2011
Maybe the Democrats in Congress are not falling in lock-step behind the president because he has undermined them on so many occasions? Health care and the public option, Bush tax cut extension, debt ceiling debate, etc. The president has an early and long history of not supporting the party rank and file and enabling Blue Dogs and Republicans both to the frustration of progressive party leaders. I remember both Pelosi and Reid begging the WH for support and leadership to overcome GOP obstruction and they got nothing. Obama has made fools of congressional Democrats far too often. He cannot be trusted as he will undermine Democratic congressional support to achieve "bipartisanship". He caves when his party wants to fight. Given this president's legislative history before and after entering the WH, your words, "if they cannot show the qualities of a good follower, they should never be allowed to lead." apply more to Obama than the Congressional leadership.
09:32 AM on 11/20/2011
Further: are you going to get what you are looking for out of Romney or Gingrich or Paul? who? It is a CHOICE.
09:29 AM on 11/20/2011
You have done what liberals so often do: make YOUR position the Party's position. The Dems, nor Obama, ever established the public option as their policy. But now you make the false assumption that it was Democratic policy for the Administration taking power in 2009. It never was part of the Democratic platform and as it turned out the President did not have an extra vote to spare. If he pressed his luck and went for the public option there would be no healthcare reform. He judged it right and got a win for Progressives to build on.

Remember Medicare was initially called "the Widows and Orphans fund". Obama is "before his time" and has done an excellent job of leadership as he has in foreign affairs.
05:48 PM on 11/19/2011
I wonder whether everyone agrees with you on those smart points. I do. Obama deserves an A grade on foreign and a B+ on domestic policies. He'd have also an A grade on domestic policies. However, GOP/Tea Community stand in the way.
02:21 PM on 11/19/2011
I have to agree with the WH on this one.
photo
Peter Combs
Amused by the illogical..no, NOT a Republican
01:56 PM on 11/19/2011
Its woulkd appear Mr. Obama is taking a few pages from Bush's Game Book..good for him, he's been smartening up.
07:11 PM on 11/19/2011
If he is doing that he is dumbing down.
photo
nixthetrix
aiming for the center , being pushed to the left
01:31 PM on 11/19/2011
One thing that distiguishes the democrats from the republicans is that they actually debate with each other over the language in bills . They do this out in the open and on the floor .
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
goleafsgo
A Lie stands on one leg, Truth on two.
03:49 PM on 11/19/2011
Thanks for pointing that out, nix.   Teapublicans (I call them this because the Tea Party seems to be calling all the shots at the moment) are not used to  this kind of behaviour.  LOL!
Fanned and faved
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
inLA
11:34 AM on 11/19/2011
We don't get to what provision in question until paragraph SIX?

Talk about burying the lede.
photo
ruthtruth
seeker of truth, willing to listen
08:39 AM on 11/19/2011
Leave well enough alone. The President has been doing a great job at protection the country, getting the bad guys and his decisions have been right on. Why change something that obviously works.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dennidus1680
09:22 AM on 11/19/2011
Because they want him to be a one term president or they want to rein in some of his extracurricular activities started by Bush and maintained by Obama.
photo
Peter Combs
Amused by the illogical..no, NOT a Republican
01:58 PM on 11/19/2011
The methodologys set in place by Bush, while they are controversal, are very effective as Mr. Obama has learned over the last year in particular. He is wise to try and keep them in place.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sammi 56
03:11 PM on 11/19/2011
A one term Pres.is the goal.
01:48 AM on 11/19/2011
Obama is right he is the commander and chief, and is has been doing
a good job he got Osama we are leaving Iraq he was right about Libya and
Egypt ! The best commander and chief since the Truman .
03:49 AM on 11/19/2011
Truman dropped two A-bombs Joined the UN created Israel and a little problem called Korea! Good comparison.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SamBaby
Life is Sweet!
10:03 AM on 11/19/2011
It ended the war!
07:15 PM on 11/19/2011
Truman created Korea> Korea existed before the United States. Pick up a history book.
06:11 PM on 11/19/2011
people like you helped to turn a grim Orwellian prophecy of 1984 into reality
01:40 AM on 11/19/2011
WTF is this story about? What does it mean to say "civilian custody" vs "military custody"? On the surface, this may seem obvious, but the confusion arises because of Guantanamo vs Baghran. It almost seems to me that a line of BS is being promulgated to confuse us.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SamBaby
Life is Sweet!
10:08 AM on 11/19/2011
"Civilian custody" means the FBI is in charge.
"Military custody" means the CIA is in charge.
I'm with President. Questions not torture.
photo
Peter Combs
Amused by the illogical..no, NOT a Republican
02:02 PM on 11/19/2011
The CIA has done a better job over the last 10 years gathering actionable INTEL than the FBI...90% of the data compilled since 911 was collected by the CIA and NSA..Without which the killing of Bin Lauden would not have happened.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LickMyDecalsOffBaby
SafeAsMilk
12:54 AM on 11/19/2011
It's great to see a party in charge whose members don't goose step in unison with the president.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sammi 56
03:16 PM on 11/19/2011
You mean like the reuplicans do?
11:59 PM on 11/18/2011
Democrats running against obama.... It is happening more and more and we will see that happen a lot for any democrat looking to get elected in 2012.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wonderYrednow
¿Y read backwards?
01:27 AM on 11/19/2011
1 d 1 0 t !
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
goleafsgo
A Lie stands on one leg, Truth on two.
11:02 AM on 11/19/2011
Ditto!
Faved
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bldr1bob
08:00 AM on 11/19/2011
Levin called bs on Obama's "threatened veto". Feinstein will do whatever she's told, she's made a career of doing just that. Funny when the facts get in the way.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:53 PM on 11/18/2011
The execution of Anwar al-Awlaki was disgraceful. He was an American citizen who was not convicted or even charged with any crime punishable by death. There has been exactly ZERO evidence available that he planned, carried out or materially contributed to any terror attack. He talked anti-American, but this is no crime, certainly not one punishable by extrajudicial execution.

And more disgraceful? The extrajudicial execution of his 16-year old son on Obama's orders.

I voted for Obama. I would have never stood for such a dangerous executive power grab from Bush. Why are my fellow liberals applauding Obama for it?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:41 AM on 11/19/2011
It's a shame Obama was awarded the same prize as Mother Theresa.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mustardhead98
Professional Fine Artist
09:06 AM on 11/19/2011
Unbelievable eh! He should be handing that award back in shame....but he never will....we all know that............
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wonderYrednow
¿Y read backwards?
01:31 AM on 11/19/2011
The term collateral damage comes to mind.... though I recall Shooter Cheney and his neocons making up the case for war in Iraq and that little exercise resulted in more then 4,600 American deaths.

If you were plotting to kill my fellow citizens, I would do what was required to protect them, even if that meant you early departure. If there were family members in your vicinity, that is part of the toll you would pay for your plot coming to my attention.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:32 AM on 11/19/2011
1. "The term collateral damage comes to mind"
Al-Awlaki's 16 year-old son (who was born in Denver) was targeted by a drone attack 2 weeks after his father was killed in one. The government refuses to say who the target of that attack was supposed to be.

2. "If you were plotting to kill my fellow citizens...blablabla"
As far as I can tell, this has no relevance to al-Awlaki's due-process-free execution. Is it from another case?

3. So a death panel operating out of the White House — that meets in total secrecy, with no known law or rules governing what it can do or how it operates — is empowered to place American citizens on a list to be killed with no judicial review or even charges. I wonder what contortions must be made to square that fact with this:

“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law”
--U.S. Constitution, 5th Amendment.
11:01 PM on 11/18/2011
The military are there own government with their own laws. They cannot be allowed to govern over terrorist. That is why we have NSA, CIA and FBI. Obama is correct. The governement has to always be in charge or we would be at constant war to pay their salaries.