More

National Defense Authorization Act: Obama Personally Reaching Out To Lawmakers Over Detainee Provision

Ndaa National Defense Authorization Act Obama Deta

DONNA CASSATA   12/ 9/11 04:50 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama and his national security team are appealing to lawmakers for last-minute changes to a sweeping defense bill that requires military custody for terrorism suspects linked to al-Qaida, including those captured within the U.S.

The legislation is caught in an escalating dispute between the White House and Congress over the politically charged issue of whether to treat suspected terrorists as prisoners of war or criminals.

The president led a full-court press this week that included Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and FBI Director Robert Mueller asking for revisions to the bill as House and Senate negotiators move swiftly to complete a final version. The White House already had threatened a veto if the bill isn't changed, saying it could not accept legislation that "challenges or constrains the president's authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation."

Obama spoke to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich. Clinton and Panetta also spoke to Levin, and Mueller has met with Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, administration and congressional officials said Friday.

They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private conservations.

The administration insists that the military, law enforcement and intelligence agents need flexibility in prosecuting the war on terror. Obama points to his administration's successes in eliminating Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida figure Anwar al-Awlaki. Republicans counter that their efforts are necessary to respond to an evolving, post-Sept. 11 threat, and that Obama has failed to produce a consistent policy on handling terror suspects.

The Senate bill would require that the military take 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, with an exemption for U.S. citizens. The bill does allow the executive branch to waive the military's authority based on national security and hold a suspect in civilian custody, but the administration argues that is insufficient.

"We want to work with the Senate to ensure our counterterrorism professionals have the tools and flexibility they need to keep America safe," National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said Friday.

As negotiators have raced to finish the bill by early next week, administration officials have offered various changes to the provisions but have had little success in convincing lawmakers. One potential change was to limit the cases in which the military custody provision would apply.

The legislation also would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. The Obama administration also opposes that change.

In a letter to Levin on Friday, Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., pleaded with him to consider changes in the bill, warning it could undermine national security and have a chilling effect on Americans' constitutional rights. Udall singled out the provision on indefinite detention without trial.

"Congress should endeavor to stand firm in defending that which our enemies seek to destroy rather than enacting legislation that weakens constitutional protections and limits the ability of our government to use all of the tools at their disposal to fight and defeat our enemies," wrote the senator, a member of the Armed Services Committee.

The administration also is seeking changes to potential sanctions on Iran, penalties that the Senate passed on a 100-0 vote last week.

The bill would go after foreign financial institutions that do business with Iran's central bank by barring them from opening or maintaining correspondent operations in the United States. It would apply to foreign central banks only for transactions that involve the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum products.

The petroleum penalties would only apply if the president, in six months, determines there is a sufficient alternative supply and if the country with jurisdiction over the financial institution has not significantly reduced its purchases of Iranian oil. It also allows the president to waive the penalties based on national security.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, in a Dec. 1 letter to senators, said the administration opposed the measure in its current form because it would undermine its effort to bring international pressure on Iran. He also warned that the penalties could actually boost oil prices and benefit Iran financially.

"Iran's greatest economic resource is its oil exports," Geithner wrote. "Sales of crude oil line the regime's pockets, sustain its human rights abuses and feed its nuclear ambitions like no other sector of the Iranian economy."

The administration is seeking both substantive and technical changes, including delaying implementation of all the penalties for six months.

Overall, the bill would authorize $662 billion for military personnel, weapons systems, national security programs in the Energy Department, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. Reflecting a period of austerity and a winding down of decade-old conflicts, the bill is $27 billion less than Obama requested and $43 billion less than Congress gave the Pentagon for the year before.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama and his national security team are appealing to lawmakers for last-minute changes to a sweeping defense bill that requires military custody for terrorism susp...
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama and his national security team are appealing to lawmakers for last-minute changes to a sweeping defense bill that requires military custody for terrorism susp...
Filed by Luke Johnson  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 91
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
intellifran
insert clever line here...
09:35 AM on 01/12/2012
I don't see why there is a battle over classification. Our laws and Geneva Conventions already define the status of the prisoner. If they are fighting overseas they are an unlawful combantant and not a POW. If they are caught in the US, they are neither. They are criminals subjected the criminal justice system. There is your distinction. You need nothing else.
10:08 AM on 12/19/2011
This bill passed the senate 97-3 and Obama signed it and he never asked for the part about holding US citizens to be removed he asked that it stay in and the amendment to exempt US citizens not be included because it would hamper the ability of our military to fight terrorism.

Why do I think if Bush had done this it would be front page stuff all over Huffington Post?

Not to defend Bush either, again the vote was 97-3. Any of you defending either party after that is delusional.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
intellifran
insert clever line here...
09:41 AM on 01/12/2012
You are incorrect on your last statements. It was all over HP. That was in the news when it first happened. Jon Stewart did a bit on it as well. The president issued a statement saying he did not agree with the one portion and his administration would not exercise those powers. Of course only an idiot would believe that.
04:10 PM on 12/12/2011
I denounce "THE WAR ON TERROR!" because THE WAR ON OUR FREEDOM IS WAY MORE TERRORIZING.
12:11 AM on 12/10/2011
to be truthful ...beastiality & sodomy [more the beastiality!) are now legal in our military...my real concern centers on the beastiality issue.

Can we really rely on the USA officer corps to enforce this??

What about complaints raised by our Muslim allies (eg---sheep are regularly imported from NZ/AUS &slaughtered IN THE STREETS during Eid--what if one of our soldiers has a relationship" with a sheep that is about to be slaughtered for Eid (FYI--I lived in Kuwait for "16 months---so Ive seen sheep slaughtered in the streets and flies hovering over their carcasses & blood in 110 degree temps!!)??

What do our soldiers and diplomats do??? Do they request asylum for hte sheep?? We could go one to other animals...but sheep are probably key here!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PatrickforO
America needs a Labor Party
11:25 PM on 12/09/2011
What will we do when they begin to come at night and our neighbors start disappearing?
layman
Live and Let Live !
06:58 PM on 12/09/2011
Mr. President never fought with this much enthusasm before in the past 3 long years when he just caved with easy ????
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
photo
Always For Real
Klaatu barada nikto
05:44 PM on 12/09/2011
Arguing about the wording of this bill is an example of our politicians addressing the pace America should take towards Fascism.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MGLLC
Truth is stranger than fiction
06:21 PM on 12/09/2011
Exactly. A military police state is being established, there is no other term for it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sock Monkey
Deceive. Inveigle. Obfuscate. The DC mantra.
04:48 PM on 12/09/2011
Meh.

Between Homeland Security and the Patriot Act they already have the power to hold you indefinitely.

This is just a elementary school playground duel over who's " BALL " it actually is.
06:10 PM on 12/09/2011
this is more like taking out their junk and slapping us in the face with it.

at some point you have to take a stand.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dmbraddy
panderingpoliticians.com
04:31 PM on 12/09/2011
"Obama has failed to produce a consistent policy on handling terror suspects."

That's rich. It was congressional interference that prevented President Obama from moving Guantanamo prisoners to U.S. federal prisons where adjudication would have moved more swiftly and allowed the president to keep his promise to the American people to close the Guantanamo Bay prison. Congress made a hash of things and now want to blame the president.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kimberlee Sullivan
12:41 AM on 12/12/2011
I suspect that Republicans are doing something to undermine the President, they have more than proven that they don't give a damn what they do to us, as long as they make Obama a one-term President!

I am really getting frustrated, because I've been telling my friends and family, write, call, email, whatever your senators, representatives and at least try to do something, but they're just like, "I'm just sick of the whole of government, they're all the same..Uh, no they're not, and I am not going to just roll over and let them eradicate the bill of rights, without at least questioning my reps and elected officials! "they have too much to worry about now, well don't we all, but what good will solving any of those troubles be, if you wind up being detained indefinitely, I feel as though I've been sucked into a Kafka novel, "The Trial to be exact!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
emmanuel kalu
commonsense
03:42 PM on 12/09/2011
we as a nation and as the president has pointed out can't continue to hold people forever. this is another over reaching attempt by republicans congress to curtail the president power and invade one area the president has being able to be very effective due to the lack of the republicans do nothing congress. what republican want is the ability to continue to block this president on everything, while they do nothing about anything. how can this nation believe in holding people with no trail forever. lets forget the cost of that, but the human rights of it. i really hope the president veto this bill and let the people know why he did it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kimberlee Sullivan
12:42 AM on 12/12/2011
You can go to the WH site and sign the petition for him to veto the bill, which I think he will anyway!
06:19 PM on 12/13/2011
dude the same people your trying to protect by the want of this bill to being vetod, wanted us dead. and your speaking of human rights, ok someone who tried to kill your kids or your mom dad etc, in a way such as having them burned alive and a building collapsed on them, what about that person, would you fight for their human rights, i think most of you human rights people are just softies and will talk a big game but when it comes to pullin the trigger you rather shake hands and forget they will cut your thraot as soon as you turn your back, screw them they dont care about you y should we them, problem olved kill the ones who done us wrong tax their oil rebuild there country with there money our man power jobs money they quit tryin to bully us cuz they know were not playin.
03:29 PM on 12/09/2011
This article is intended to blind you! The NDAA is taking away american citizens civil rights and liberties at the request of Barack Obama. Please don't be naive and assume he's fighting for your rights! He requested that the language that the original writers of the NDAA was removed! The same legislation that exempted American citizens from this law! Please stand up and don't let the media or the news tell you otherwise. Don't take this article as the truth read something else, all this is is an attempt to cover up the fact that while we go about our lives the government has been deciding to take away our civil liberties. You can bet once this goes through we won't be hearing from any occupy protestors anymore.... Please people... Please think for yourselves and stop letting your party dictate what's right and wrong.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
emmanuel kalu
commonsense
03:43 PM on 12/09/2011
that is not what the president is asking for. the congress want to hold people in military court, which we know doesn't offer you the rights.
03:53 PM on 12/09/2011
Let me guess you read the article and failed to read anything else written about the NDAA? The original piece of legislation penned by the two senators EXCLUDED american citizens, the Obama administration said they would veto it if that exemption was not taken out. They then came back to the administration with two sections 1031 and 1032, 1031 did not exclude american citizens, but 1032 did. And guess what? The administration told congress to remove that piece of legislation (1032) as well. I don't understand why everyone is so eager to believe in Obama. Is it cause nobody wants to admit they were wrong?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Pooter1
02:24 AM on 12/11/2011
Actually Obama's veto threat is because anyone in military custody WILL have more 'rights' than if they were in custody by civilian law enforcement.

The WH response states how it fears military custody could open up a legal mess that could restrict the "flexibilty" (which after going on an on about the importance of "easy transfer"of detainees internationally obviously is rendition) currently uses and needs.

The legal questions that WH is probably worried about is that a person in military custody could possibily be considered a POW, therefore subject to the Geneva Convention. And though allowed by the Convention, it make rendition a complicated process, only allowed under very specific conditions. Whereas rendition for anyone in civilian custody has no restrictions other than those the gov imposes on itself.

The though the WH makes clear it feels that “military custody” is “inconsistent with the fundamental American principal that the military does not patrol out streets’, nowhere in their response does the WH state how it feels that ‘detaining American citizens, not charged with a crime and denied redress, is inconsistent with the fundamental American principal of due process”.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MGLLC
Truth is stranger than fiction
06:17 PM on 12/09/2011
Fan #1 & favored. you are absolutely right! I cannot believe the people who still think we have all our civil rights including habeas corpus, a right of man since 1215. Habeas corpus, the right to be charged or released if arrested was ended under bush while most Americans slept. The bill passed by the senate last week establishes a military police state. I understand from friends that MSM has done a total blackout on the story. I cannot stand to hear such ardent and obvious propaganda, so stopped looking at cable TV news long ago. Welcome to HP.
photo
jwmmjjj
Neither Liberal nor Conservative
02:36 PM on 12/09/2011
It's time to sharpen the veto pen! Maybe that will wake up both Dems and t-pubs to change the bill before it goes to the Pres.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MGLLC
Truth is stranger than fiction
06:18 PM on 12/09/2011
It passed the senate 93%. If it passes the house by equal fevor, it will be veto proof.
02:33 PM on 12/09/2011
The idea that a bill of this nature could have even been brought to the floor, yet alone passed in the house is a travesty on the American people and the Constitution of the United States of America. It should be vetoed, the bill should be shredded, and the authors of the bill should be impeached and jailed for treason.
photo
wvmarv
Union Today, Union Tomorrow, Union Forever
03:21 PM on 12/09/2011
Absolutely
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kimberlee Sullivan
12:48 AM on 12/12/2011
Indeed, and one of those responsible is Lindsey Graham, and oh how I would love for him to be called on his horrifying behavior!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MGLLC
Truth is stranger than fiction
06:20 PM on 12/09/2011
You mean the senate? It will pass the house, too. If the percentage of yeas is as high as in the senate, it will be veto proof.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kimberlee Sullivan
12:51 AM on 12/12/2011
I believe that they said that it is veto-proof, but he can still veto it to let the American People know that he does not agree with it, along with all of the intelligence and military agencies, who the senators apparently don't think they fully understand how to track down, question, and detain actual terrorists!

This makes no sense!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
champa10
Lady With A Voice
01:50 PM on 12/09/2011
President Obama...we like your tougher stance. Please keep it up. Kick butt and don't back down. We want a leader who knows how to kick butt and take names.
02:40 PM on 12/09/2011
Who are you talking about
Not Obama for sure
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
champa10
Lady With A Voice
03:37 PM on 12/09/2011
IMO and my stance, YES! You don't have to agree as I am sure you have your own stand. , But my statement is not up for debate...it is my own expression. Nuf Said!!