MR. KOJO NNAMDIWelcome back. It's Your Turn. You can join the conversation by calling 800-433-8850. We're starting with Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at Brookings Institution and a co-founder of the Lawfare blog. Benjamin Wittes, thank you for joining us.

MR. BENJAMIN WITTESThanks for having me.

NNAMDIFor years now, you have been in favor of Congress passing detention legislation. Why?

WITTESWell, I thought it was a important thing for a long time that Congress actually be involved in and implicated in the detention policy that we are actually conducting and have been conducting since the time of the Sept. 11 attacks. And it always struck me as a strange anomaly that these detention practices and the law of detention had kind of grown up absent the involvement of the legislature, which, you know, we typically think of in this country as being responsible for making the law.

WITTESSo I do think it's a positive thing that Congress has decided at, you know, very long last to involve itself in some of these decisions in the current round of legislation.

NNAMDIYesterday, we had a conversation here about the legislation involving whatever limits can be placed on the government in terms of detaining suspected terrorist, either here or at Guantanamo, and included among those would be U.S. citizens who could be detained, it would appear, indefinitely here in the United States. The Obama administration, for reasons that we went into yesterday, was thinking about vetoing that legislation and has now decided that it will not veto it. Why?

WITTESWell, it's -- that's correct. I mean, the administration had -- and, you know, just to be clear when I say that I support, in general, the idea of detention framework legislation, there were many, many aspects of this legislation that I did not support, and for -- many of the same reasons that the administration was threatening a veto.

WITTESThe administration took the view and -- rightly, in my opinion, that there were provisions of this bill that would have bravely interfered with the way the FBI traditionally has for, you know, many years now conducted counterterrorism operations. And they were very concerned about the operational impact on executive flexibility and the context of very important crisis, kind of, counterterrorism operations.

WITTESAnd in the conference committee that produced the final bill, the administration, I think, was very involved in softening some of those provisions and making them more flexible in the circumstances that they were really worried about. And so, for example, there was this provision that would have required military detention in certain categories of cases, and that provision has been softened very substantially. There are...

NNAMDIWell, allow me to cut to the chase because I think the concerns of human rights activists is that what this legislation will now do is allow the government to detain any American for an undisclosed and indefinite period of time on American soil without ever having to charge that individual or reveal why that individual is being detained. Does the legislation now allow the government to do that?

WITTESI don't believe so. No. And I actually don't think that there was -- I mean, I think that was always a significant overstatement of what the legislation did. The legislation, you know, does not substantially change the parameters of the government's detention authority at all. What it really does is it codifies the positions that the administration has been taking as to what its detention authorities are under the law that has existed since about a week after the 9/11 attacks.

WITTESThe administration has claimed the authority to hold people under the laws of war. And the bill largely takes, in fact, only really takes the administration's litigating positions which the courts have largely accepted. And it makes them statutory law. Now, there has been a question for a long time now as to whether that body of law does or doesn't apply to U.S. citizens. And the bill actually does its best, you know, sort of less effectively than I supposed it could have to not change the status quo on that question. And so...

NNAMDIWell, allow me to put the question the opposite. Well, what restrictions would there be on the government detaining a U.S. citizen for an indefinite period of time without bringing charges against that individual or revealing why he is being detained, he or she?

WITTESWell -- so you should ask that question about current law as well. What, you know, before this bill went into effect, there is an open question of U.S. constitutional and statutory law as to whether the government can do that and under what circumstances the government can do that. And that exact issue came up in, you know, in the Padilla case, which went, you know, which was kicked around the U.S. court system for a very long time. And that was, you know -- so that question exists today.

WITTESAnd under this law, it continues to exist in more or less the same form than it has. And so I actually think the question of the applicability to citizens has gotten, sort of, more attention in the public than it is -- than the role that it actually plays or the magnitude of the change that this legislation would actually affect. I think that question is probably would be litigated in almost the same way absent this legislation as it would under this legislation.

WITTESNow, with one additional point on that, you know, this -- the administration has no desire to detain U.S. citizens outside of the criminal justice system, and it has made clear that it is not doing that. So, you know, it is sort of a hypothetical problem if you have an administration that wanted to detain U.S. nationals, which this administration does not, and which even the last administration, which took more aggressive positions about detention, you know, backed off of that in a...

NNAMDIBottom line, though, what's the takeaway from this legislation in addition to, I guess, complete confusion?

WITTESWell, the -- I mean, in my view, the takeaway is some positive elements, which is to say that it begins the process of writing into U.S. statutory law the framework of detention operations that we're engaged in...

NNAMDIOK.

WITTES...some significant negative elements, significant restrictions on the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo, which are in current law and should be removed -- and this bill writes them into law again -- and then significant modeled elements, you know, which, you know, will probably not have as big an impact as some of the things that -- you know, as the role that they've played in the debates, but are not, you know, not wonderful either.

NNAMDIWell, we put a link to your Lawfare blog. So if people want to read more about this, they can go to our website, kojoshow.org. Benjamin Wittes, thank you for joining us.

WITTESThanks for having me.

NNAMDIBenjamin Wittes is a senior fellow at Brookings and a co-founder of the Lawfare blog. It's really Your Turn, so you can call us at 800-433-8850. I bet you've heard about this issue, and that is Lowe's Improvement having advertising on the reality television show "All-American Muslim," and then pulling that advertising as a result from -- as a result of pressure from a Florida-based Christian religious group that objected to the characterization of Muslims on that broadcast as not being violent people.

NNAMDIWell, joining us now to talk about this is Saqib Ali, who did represent Montgomery County in the Maryland House of Delegates until last year. Saqib Ali, thank you for joining us.

MR. SAQIB ALIHi, Kojo.

NNAMDISaqib, let's be honest. You're not a big reality television fan, are you? You've said you are not particularly impressed with what you saw on "All-American Muslim." So what was it about this incident that moved you to speak up?

ALIWell...

NNAMDIBy the way, the organization that I referred to is called the Florida Family Foundation.

ALIRight. To tell you the truth, I haven't actually watched the show myself. I've seen bits of it here and there, but that's not the point. The point is not whether I like the show or whether it's interesting. The point is that there's a show that depicts American Muslim people as regular people going about their daily lives. There are some people, this organization, the FFA...

NNAMDIWho feel that is a false depiction.

ALIYeah. They say basically that unless you're showing American Muslims as a threat to this country, as, you know, terrorists, then you're not showing the whole picture. So it's kind of a case where people are upset that there's not a depiction of Muslims as terrorists on TV, and somehow Muslims as regular people is upsetting to people. It's really crazy. It's outrageous. This group, FFA, also campaigns against depicting gays in popular culture. They want to get the show "Degrassi" canceled. So they are really...

NNAMDIWell, they were certainly able to persuade Lowe's to drop its advertising from the show, and I'd like to hear how our listeners feel about that. 800-433-8850, do you feel that one has to be a religious bigot to feel that any show that portrays Muslims as not being violent is somehow unrealistic about the portrayal? That's on the one hand. On the other hand, if you're a business and 12 percent of your consumers happen to be religious bigots and they threaten to boycott your show, and your profit margin is only 8 percent, should you cave in in order to maintain your profits?

NNAMDIIs that a good business decision, in your view? 800-433-8850 is the number to call. It's Your Turn. It's my understanding, Saqib Ali, that you are involved with a local protest against Lowe's this weekend.

ALIYes. There's a protest in Gaithersburg at the Lowe's store in Kentlands. And we are going to be protesting and picketing that store, and many people are going to be joining us, including the County Executive Ike Leggett, and Maryland has delegates -- Majority Leader Kumar Barve and lots of people with conscience. So if people are interested in joining, they should go to www.lowesboycott.com (sp?) to join an RSVP, and all the details are there.

NNAMDILooks like a lot of people are interested in joining this conversation. 800-433-8850, how do you think protest of this sort affect companies? What is your understanding, Saqib Ali, about what Lowe's has said about this?

ALIWell, I mean, I just think it's -- certainly they have the right to do it, but it's a craven decision and it's wrong, and, quite frankly, I think it's a -- it's most likely a poor business decision as well. There have been reams and reams of articles written about this, mostly putting Lowe's in a very negative light. I can't imagine how that would have helped their bottom line at all. And I can't imagine that people would have been -- many people would have been -- stopped shopping at Lowe's because of the show. I mean, that just doesn't sound reasonable.

NNAMDIAnd the impression I get from Lowe's response since it decided to cancel its advertising on the show is that they're trying, well, not to say anything at all.

ALIThey're clammed up, absolutely. And it's just not -- it's not a smart strategy, PR-wise.

NNAMDIWell...

ALIEverybody -- there's a lot of people who are very upset, and clamming up and hoping it will blow over is not working.

NNAMDIWell, our audience isn't clamming up. We got one email from MThias (sp?) in Potomac, who says, "I'm an American Muslim. I've been in this country over 25 years, and I don't know any Muslims who abuse women and support terrorism in this country, as critics of the show claim. I think if anyone knows of any Muslims or others who abuse women or support terrorism, they should report it to the authorities, or they should be charged as an accomplice." Here's Hunter in Hagerstown, Md. Hunter, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

HUNTERHi, Kojo. My comment is, for one thing, that I think that the group saying that they're trying to stop the Islamization of America is really just a really thinly veiled excuse for racism. And I think it's similar to the same people that feel like this is a fight to save the soul of America, and that, you know, stopping the spread of Hispanic people into our country and stopping gay marriage is just, I think, for them, another very similar issue. And I think that it's very scary to me that these people are trying to stop America from growing. I think...

NNAMDIWell, it is their constitutional right to do that. But how do you feel about Lowe's response to that?

HUNTERWell, my feeling about Lowe's is that I'm not going to be shopping there anymore, and that I think there's also an issue of corporate social responsibility. And I think that corporations should really show, you know, they have beliefs, and, you know, dollars are votes, in my opinion. And they pulling their dollars from the TV show is, in my opinion, pulling their support from those Americans. And I think that they very -- that them doing that really does state that they don't support all Americans.

NNAMDIOK. Thank you very much for your call, Hunter. Here's Ali in Washington, D.C. Ali, your turn.

ALIHi. Good afternoon, Kojo. Thank you for taking my call. I want to make two comments. One, I'm attending the protest this weekend in Lowe's, in front of Lowe's store in Gaithersburg. And the reason I'm going is because I feel this decision by Lowe's sets a bad precedent for corporations that think that it's OK to give in to fearmongering or to fringe movements based on ethnic stereotypes.

ALIIt's Muslims today. It could be any minority group tomorrow. So this is not just an issue limited to the Muslim community. Two, I just want to emphasize that we're not protesting Lowe's if they had made a business decision to pull out this -- of the show. But every corporation has a right to advertise and use its advertising dollars where it wants.

ALIBut the reason that they gave specifically was in response to this Florida Family organization's appeal to them to pull out because of their -- what they perceive either an accurate depiction of peaceful American Muslims. So it's not a business decision. It is -- it's more of an ethnic stereotype...

NNAMDIAnd we got this email from Jennifer. "Co-workers and I were discussing Lowe's decision to pull their ads from the Muslim reality show, and all of us agreed we do not plan to spend our dollars at Lowe's directly because of this ugly choice. We also wonder if Lowe's had any issue with their ads appearing during shows like 'Mob Wives,' where families are shown teaching their children not to be a snitch when someone you know is doing something illegal and presumably harmful to society." Hadn't thought about that one, Jennifer, but thank you all for listening. I'm Kojo Nnamdi.