Senate passes defense bill with detainee policy compromise (93-7)

[Tx4obama]

Source: CNN

Washington (CNN) -- The Senate on Thursday passed a giant defense bill that includes a new policy for detaining and trying suspected al Qaeda terrorists -- a policy that attracted controversy during the debate and may draw a presidential veto. The defense authorization bill passed by a vote of 93-7.

SNIP

Senators ultimately reached an agreement to amend the bill to make clear it's not the bill's intent to allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and others legally residing in the country.

"It would provide the assurance that we are not adversely affecting the rights of American citizens in this language," Levin said while expressing support for the compromise.

"It supports present law," Feinstein added.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/01/politics/senate-detainee-policy/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

---

Roll call here for the vote on the FINAL BILL: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00218

The SEVEN NAYS

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


p.s. Before the final vote on the BILL, the 3rd Feinstein amendment passed 99-1 which amended the detention language. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) was the one 'no' vote.
Roll call for the Feinstein amendment which passed here: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00215

[bluestateguy]

1. The most militant teabaggers and a couple of liberals

Maybe Wyden is the only sort of moderate in that group.

nt

[freshwest]

2. Glad to see the Feinstein amendment passed the second round of votes.

Feinstein, D-Calif., said her goal was to ensure "the military won't be roaming our streets looking for suspected terrorists."

http://www.newser.com/article/d9rbvjbo0/senate-backs-military-custody-of-terror-suspects-pushes-to-complete-defense-bill.html

The Udall amendment had already been defeated as was hers on the first round. With Feinstein's amendment, nothing will change within the borders of the USA.

Except a few more billions going into the wrong hands with defense contracts. To the usual suspects, of course.

The Democrats did a lot of arm twisting to get it in. Busy day.

My senators voted for it to get want healthcare and help with jobs for returning veterans.

[Tx4obama]

3. It was Feinstein's 3rd amendment that passed. See link below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x824939

[freshwest]

4. We cross posted, I edited. Thanks Tx4obama. I think he would've vetoed it.

I'll be adding this to where I posted it elsewhere.

[Tx4obama]

5. Yes he would have. And he still might depending on how the Feinstein amend. reads n/t

[unkachuck]

6. "...it's not the bill's intent..."

....it's not the bills intent to allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens BUT if it happens, sorry sucker, who's gonna know....

....and what about this amendment repealing key aspects of the DTA

"Both retired military leaders and human rights groups spoke out against an amendment of a defense funding bill in the Senate that would repeal key aspects of the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) and make torture techniques legal."

http://www.constitutioncampaign.org/blog/?cat=10

....so, wall street wants their military to be able to round up chronic habitual protesters, call them terrorists, disappear them for life without trial and torture them....

....why do we have corporate shills in our Senate writing away our liberties and Constitution?....very unAmerican

[doublethink]

7. I'm not comfortable with it either ....

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.

[alp227]

8. Obama wanted to veto the bill if it had the original detention language.

wonder what he'll do with this one.

[tavalon]

9. Fuck!

We need cloning STAT!