An edited video of Carl Levin claiming that Obama wanted the language in the NDAA caused outrage among many Americans, but the full Levin video reveals the opposite.( Read more... )
Don't quite buy it. Levin said what he said. It wasn't taken out of context.
Sure it was. Levin also said that the bill, as it stood, had exceptions for US citizens and residents, which you can take to mean 1032 but I'm not so sure. More specifically however, he also stated that it neither limited nor expanded existing authority under AUMF; a quick review of the November version of the Senate bill proves that to be an explicitly stated intent of the bill, as does a review of the SASC's November 15 press release. In that context, stating that the administration requested language to be removed is taken in a different light; without that context, it sounds as if that specific language excepting US citizens and residents had been the only thing standing between the average American resident and permanent detention.
The language of the final bill is still terrible, and the AUMF is still terrible. It's just that I'm not convinced it's the addition or subtraction of that language that makes it less or more terrible.
Sorry, I think we're not focusing on the same things in the article. :) Your addressing the final bill -- and I don't really disagree with you on that.
What I disagree with in the article is suggestion that the Obama Administration wasn't asking for US citizens to be exempted despite Levin stating otherwise.
Ftr, I was addressing the Nov. 15 version, which was not the final bill and which did not have the exception in the language of 1031. I think it is debatable that Levin is discussing 1032 in the section quoted where you think he is, as he stated that the arknistration wanted that cut entirely, and the language that states the bill neither omits nor expands AUMF authority was in both the original Senate version as well as the final. My contention is that the short video is still misleading because it leaves out the context of the language of AUMF expansion as well as the discussion and comments Levin made regarding the administration's concerns wrt detainees being required to be put in military detention etc.
Comments 14
Reply
Sure it was. Levin also said that the bill, as it stood, had exceptions for US citizens and residents, which you can take to mean 1032 but I'm not so sure. More specifically however, he also stated that it neither limited nor expanded existing authority under AUMF; a quick review of the November version of the Senate bill proves that to be an explicitly stated intent of the bill, as does a review of the SASC's November 15 press release. In that context, stating that the administration requested language to be removed is taken in a different light; without that context, it sounds as if that specific language excepting US citizens and residents had been the only thing standing between the average American resident and permanent detention.
The language of the final bill is still terrible, and the AUMF is still terrible. It's just that I'm not convinced it's the addition or subtraction of that language that makes it less or more terrible.
Reply
What I disagree with in the article is suggestion that the Obama Administration wasn't asking for US citizens to be exempted despite Levin stating otherwise.
Reply
Please pardon the typos, I am on my phone.
Reply
Leave a comment