KEITH OLBERMANN: Despite the best efforts of the Bush Administration, the courts upheld the rights of habeas corpus for American Citizens — even for those accused of being terrorists.
In our number-one story — the National Defense Authorization Act once again seeks to revoke this right. And even though it is now an Obama administration, it seems likely that the bill will be signed.
Two weeks ago, we told you about the National Defense Authorization Act and the provisions that allowed for an indefinite detention of an American citizen without charges or trial, a bill that the president threatened to veto at that time. Monday, the House and Senate Armed — House and Senate Armed Services Committees came to agreement on a final version of the bill and confidence was high that they'd made the changes necessary to get the president's signature.
(Excerpt from video clip) CARL LEVIN: I just can't imagine that the president would veto this bill.
(Excerpt from video clip) JOHN McCAIN: Any rational observance of this legislation, clearly is not anything that could damage America's national security.
OLBERMANN: While it doesn't damage America's national security, it does all but destroy habeas corpus as the provisions for indefinite detention of American citizens still exists.
In a statement, Senate Chairman Carl Levin explained the changes in the bill: "We've changed the waiver provision so that waiver authority now rests with the president, rather than the secretary of defense and we have changed language that protects interrogations to make clear that it is civilian interrogation, generally, that is protected from interruption and not just a single interrogation session."
So, the military can still indefinitely detain someone, but the president can issue a waiver stopping them if he wishes. And it is civilian force, like the FBI, which has the authority to investigate and interrogate suspects being indefinitely detained. Both stipulations said to have been added at the request of the president.
Joining me, once again, on this is Raha Wala, the Advocacy Counsel for Human Rights First. Thanks again for your time on this.
RAHA WALA: Thanks for having me again.
OLBERMANN: Am I reading this right — the only change of note is the president can overrule indefinite detention, not the secretary of defense?
WALA: Well, here's the thing — there's some tinkering with language, here, some wordsmithing there, but really, the only change is that the bill has become more confusing and more likely to undermine national security.
At the end of the day, the bill still has the same problem as it had before. It allows the codification of the authority for the military to hold individuals indefinitely, without trial, and it requires the military to hold a large category of foreign terrorism suspects without — without any due process, really. So I — I appreciate what Senators Levin and McCain are saying about this bill but, at the end of the day, it's essentially the same bill and the president's — is going to have to veto it.
OLBERMANN: Right. Is he likely to? He threatened to veto the earlier version. Do we have any read yet, on whether or not — supposedly this was the change he wanted and — and he might sign this one?
WALA: Well, I — I think that's a little bit of wishful thinking on the part of Senator Levin that you — you played that clip at the top, there. Certainly, the president is discussing this bill right now with his advisers. They're taking a hard look at the language in the bill. But as early as this — I'm sorry — as late as this past weekend, you had the president's top counter-terrorism adviser blasting this bill for being — for being overly-burdensome on the executive branch and really over-militarizing our law enforcement functions.
So — so, at the end of the day, a decision will be made and it will be made soon. But we're calling on everyone to — to contact the president and tell him that he needs to stands up for his promise and veto this bill.
OLBERMANN: Where — where is the support coming from? We know who the — the individuals are but the Democratic support for this — Levin, in particular, who seemed to have always been a strong advocate for — for the rights of individuals — even accused individuals in this country — where - where — why is he standing in this position and being so bloody obstinate about it?
WALA: Obstinate's really a good word for that. I mean, I think that Senator Levin has — has really dug his heels in here. And he's — he's struck what he sees as a bipartisan compromise. He's brought along a few members of his party, as well, and he's sticking to his deal.
And right now, it's — it's essentially the president's prerogative to — to stand up against Senator Levin, a chairman of a very powerful committee, and say that he's not gonna stand for this. And the president would be standing with the FBI director, with the director of the CIA, with the director of National Intelligence, with the secretary of defense, who have all expressed a lot of concerns about this bill and it's not just, you know — the human rights and civil liberties communities — though those concerns are very serious. So, the president has solid footing to veto this bill.
OLBERMANN: Are these overlapping concerns? I mean, we've seen Mr. Panetta turn into, virtually, a right-wing hawk since he became Secretary of Defense. Is there — is there some indication that — that they're — they're just as concerned with the — the status of habeas corpus as — as we might be?
WALA: Well, I think so. At the end of the day, you know, counter-terrorism officials, folks in the military understand very well that security and liberty are not mutually-exclusive concepts and that we need to promote both as complementary — complementary ideals. So, I think that the secretary of defense has — has realized that in order for our — our troops on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq — to deal with terrorism suspects, they need solid footing here and they can't be undermined by political meddling, which is, quite frankly, what is going on with — with this bill.
OLBERMANN: If the president, God forbid, signs the thing as it stands now, is there recourse at that point? Would there be a court case? Would the ACLU come riding in, or — what happens then?
WALA: I mean, I — I think that there will be, you know, one case after another, really litigating this stuff — and that's all the more reason why the president should veto this bill.
There is no need, ten years after 9/11, to be re-litigating these issues. We've decided that we're a nation built on the rule of law and we can't move forward with a piece of legislation that essentially guts the Constitution. So, the president's going to have to — to veto this bill.
OLBERMANN: To say nothing of the fact that the president and — and his Justice Department have done magnificently well prosecuting terrorists under civilian law. It's not as if there was some sort of hole in the net that had developed in the last few years, to our — to our eyes, in any event.
Raha Wala, the Advocacy Counsel for Human Rights First. Once again, thanks for your insight on this.
WALA: Thank you.
