Senate clears detainee compromise setting stage for Defense authorization passage

[ProSense]

Source: The Hill

The Senate on Thursday night overwhelmingly cleared an eleventh hour compromise on the terrorist detainee provision of the defense authorization bill clearing the way for passage and possibly dodging a veto from the White House.

The compromise amendment from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), cleared 99-1, clarifies that the controversial section of the bill that suggests individuals apprehended in the U.S. who are suspected of terrorism ought to be detained by the military, would in no way pertain to U.S. citizens, lawful resident aliens or anyone captured or arrested in the U.S.

It is still unclear clear whether the change will satisfy the White House, which has threatened to veto the Defense bill over the detainee provisions early last month.

The Obama administration expressed its opposition to the use of military detention within the United States, but also had concerns over tying the hands of law enforcement officials by mandating military custody and prosecution of al Qaeda members. The administration also opposes restrictions on transferring Guantanamo detainees.


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/196719-senate-clears-detainee-compromise-clearing-way-for-passage-of-defense-authorization

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Obama already claims the right to execute anyone, anytime, anywhere

based on his judgement alone. How will this bill change that?

[Tx4obama]

3. Your statement is false. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Then what gave Obama the right to execute al-awlaki? nt

[msongs]

6. women and kids killed by US drones are not real people, therefore not "executed". nt

[Tx4obama]

2. Yep, I knew Feinstein's amendment would come to the rescue :)

Edited to add

Kyl (R-AZ) was the one 'no' vote.

[stockholmer]

9. it did not 'come to the rescue', military detention of US citizens is allowed under it

[Tx4obama]

5. Final vote has been taken and The DoDA Act bill S. 1867 has passed.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_112_1.htm

[stockholmer]

10. here are the 7 (yes only 7) US Senators to vote against this horrid bill

Coburn (R-OK)
Harkin (D-IA)
Lee (R-UT)
Merkley (D-OR)
Paul (R-KY)
Sanders (I-VT)
Wyden (D-OR)

[SnoopDog]

7. The text for the amendment is not available...

So what exactly does it say? How do we know it is protecting the rights of Americans?

I look forward to reading it..

[stockholmer]

8. very misleading article, the new Feinstein Amendment does NOT ban US citizen miltary detention

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/01/military-detention-us-citizens_n_1124534.html?1322789098

Senate Kills Effort To Ban Indefinite Military Detentions Of U.S. Citizens


snip

The provision in the National Defense Authorization Act aimed to codify a string of court cases and current anti-terrorism practices involved in the capture and treatment of terrorism suspects. It initially opened what opponents saw as the prospect of letting the military haul away any citizen about whom it had suspicions.

The new amendment specifies that the current practices may not change, although it also says explicitly that the military can pursue Americans at home.

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States," says the compromise amendment, which passed 99 to 1.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) was the lone opponent.

The passage may head off a showdown with the White House, which had threatened to veto the entire bill on the grounds that the section on detentions tied the hands of counterterrorism officials in law enforcement and the military.

[Tx4obama]

11. The HuffPo headline you posted was the one they put up yesterday...

that is the headline they used when they posted their article regarding the Udall amendment that was rejected.

They need a new person over there writing and updating their Senate floor articles.

[stockholmer]

13. no, you are wrong, what part of 'the NEW Feinstein amendement' (S. Amdt 1456) do you not understand?

This is a new article.


The new amendment specifies that the current practices may not change, although it also says explicitly that the military can pursue Americans at home.

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States," says the compromise amendment, which passed 99 to 1.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) was the lone opponent.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/01/military-detention-us-citizens_n_1124534.html?1322789098

First Posted: 12/ 1/11 08:24 PM ET Updated: 12/ 1/11 08:56 PM ET

[Tx4obama]

14. I was talking about the HEADLINE. It is the same one.

I didn't say the 'article' was the same, only the headline is the same.
That is all I was trying to say.

[stockholmer]

16. ok, sorry for the confusion, I thought you meant the whole article was wrong (I have no idea what

yesterday's HuffPo headlines were). I assumed they didn't change them after initial post or 'borrow' them for new articles.

[stockholmer]

12. dupe

[SnoopDog]

15. Where's the text to the actual amendment...?

[Tx4obama]

17. Some info

It's Amendment S.Amdt. 1456

Here's a link to a page that has a link within the chart

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_112_1.htm

p.s. When you click on the words S.Amdt. 1456 it doesn't show up yet, looks like no one has posted it yet.

[SnoopDog]

19. Exactly my point my friend... we have no idea what the amendment says...

So how can we form an opinion on it...

[doublethink]

20. You're correct ...

Senate Kills Effort To Ban Indefinite Military Detentions Of U.S. Citizens


... The overall Defense bill passed Thursday night 93-7, but it will now have to be meshed with a differing version in the House. As part of the detention compromise, Feinstein extracted a promise from Senate leaders that they would insist on the Senate's new language remaining in the final product. It could change, however.

The American Civil Liberties Union found the compromise troubling, and said the president should still veto the bill because even with the no-change language, the measure sets in stone the military's ability to operate inside the U.S. borders.

"The bill is an historic threat to American citizens and others because it expands and makes permanent the authority of the president to order the military to imprison without charge or trial American citizens," said ACLU senior legislative counsel Christopher Anders in a statement.

"The final amendment to preserve current detention restrictions could turn out to be meaningless and Sens. Levin and Graham made clear that they believe this power to use the military against American citizens will not be affected by the new language," Anders said. "This bill puts military detention authority on steroids and makes it permanent. If it becomes law, American citizens and others are at real risk of being locked away by the military without charge or trial." -snip-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/01/military-detention-us-citizens_n_1124534.html?1322789098


note: Seems this is going to end up in the Supreme Court at some point .... which I am not comfortable with in it's current makeup. So who knows. Peace.

[stockholmer]

18. Thomas still has not posted it, but here is link to access it

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00215

[ProSense]

21. The

"very misleading article, the new Feinstein Amendment does NOT ban US citizen miltary detention"

...article paraphrases the quote your highlighted, but it basically makes the same point: The compromise was a clarification that the existing law stands.

ACLU statement

WASHINGTON - The Senate is poised to pass the National Defense Authorization Act, with an extraordinary expansion and statutory bolstering of authority for the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world. A last-minute amendment was negotiated between Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) that passed, but does not prohibit its application to American citizens or others in the United States.

Additional amendments offered by Sens. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Feinstein to strike and limit the detention power were defeated despite strong showings of support.

The Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the FBI, the Director of the CIA and the head of the Justice Department's National Security Division have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA are harmful and counterproductive to their work. The White House has issued a veto threat over the provisions.

"The bill is an historic threat to American citizens and others because it expands and makes permanent the authority of the president to order the military to imprison without charge or trial American citizens," said Christopher Anders, ACLU senior legislative counsel. "The final amendment to preserve current detention restrictions could turn out to be meaningless and Senators Levin and Graham made clear that they believe this power to use the military against American citizens will not be affected by the new language. This bill puts military detention authority on steroids and makes it permanent. If it becomes law, American citizens and others are at real risk of being locked away by the military without charge or trial.

"Given that the House version of the legislation is already very troubling, the final House-Senate negotiated bill will likely be even worse. Unless Congress somehow comes to its senses, President Obama should get his veto pen ready."

The Udall amendment and Feinstein's first amendment would have erased the ambiguity. The fact is that the existing law is being misinterpreted by some. NYT

<...>

But Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, said citizen terrorism suspects should retain their “fundamental civil liberties” in order to protect the founding principles of the United States.

“I think at a bare minimum, that means we will not allow U.S. military personnel to arrest and indefinitely detain U.S. citizens, regardless of what label we happen to apply to them,” he said.

Before voting to leave current law unchanged, the Senate rejected, 55 to 45, a proposal by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, to instead say that Americans are exempt from detention under the 2001 authorization to use military force.

The uncertainty over the current law added confusion. Some, like Mr. Graham and Mr. Levin, insisted that the Supreme Court had already approved holding Americans as enemy combatants, even people arrested inside the United States. Others, like Senators Feinstein and Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, insisted that it had not done so.

<...>

Bottom line is that the reason these amendments are even needed is because of the insistence of some Senators to interpret the law in broader terms when they have no justification, legal or otherwise, to strip Americans of their “fundamental civil liberties.”