Oh look! A youtube clip that's taken out of context to serve as "proof", when in fact it proves nothing!
How about instead we look what what Senator Levin actually had to
say earlier that same session. This is where he explains the changes that the Senate made to Section 1031 at the request of the President, which he states only gives the President power that already exists under the AUMF. He also explains that the Senate did not agree to remove the powers under section 1032, which would mandate permanent military custody of a suspected terrorist.
Now here's the Administration's explanation for what it asked for in a in regards to section 1031 this
statement on the same date as the senate session. (11/17/2011)
Section 1031 attempts to expressly codify the detention authority that exists under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) (the “AUMF”). The authorities granted by the AUMF, including the detention authority, are essential to our ability to protect the American people from the threat posed by al-Qa'ida and its associated forces, and have enabled us to confront the full range of threats this country faces from those organizations and individuals. Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk. After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country. While the current language minimizes many of those risks, future legislative action must ensure that the codification in statute of express military detention authority does not carry unintended consequences that could compromise our ability to protect the American people.
And here the Administration's ongoing objection in regard to mandating military custody of terrorists, also in said statment.
Rather than fix the fundamental defects of section 1032 or remove it entirely, as the Administration and the chairs of several congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters have advocated, the revised text merely directs the President to develop procedures to ensure the myriad problems that would result from such a requirement do not come to fruition. Requiring the President to devise such procedures concedes the substantial risks created by mandating military custody, without providing an adequate solution. As a result, it is likely that implementing such procedures would inject significant confusion into counterterrorism operations.
Now maybe I'm missing something, but I see nothing in this that "proves" that the President is not going to veto the current Defense Authorization bill as it stands.
"
- PeZook
-- Asuka
