Look who voted for the indefinite detention act. Any American can be disappeared....

[midnight]

Congrats Oregon. Oregon was the only state to have both it's reps. vote against it.. Unfortunately both my Wisconsin reps. decided to vote for it... If you want to see how your reps. voted look here:http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2011-218

Oregon
Nay OR Merkley, Jeff
Nay OR Wyden, Ron
Wisconsin
Yea WI Johnson, Ron
Yea WI Kohl, Herbert

[sakabatou]

1. Confound my CA!

[abelenkpe]

O man CA?! Nt

[Maccagirl]

2. Sherrod Brown and Al Franken voted yea?

WTF?

[Deep13]

6. Just wondering the same thing. nt

[midnight]

7. When Al Franken voted to reauthorize the patriot act-I felt ill...

[joshcryer]

15. I don't think they would have voted yes without the language in #12.

The language was probably added so that they could get it passed and the President could veto it anyway. I think the President wants a nice pro-citizen veto in his run up to the 2012 elections.

[Peter1x9]

19. They are just more of the same...

best government that money can buy.

[joshcryer]

20. Please do not put Franken in that category.

Thanks.

[midnight]

30. Al Franken is in the category of voting for this insane bill....

Minnesota
Yea MN Franken, Al
Yea MN Klobuchar, Amy

[joshcryer]

31. Al Franken most certainly would not have voted for this without Feinstein's amendment.

Al Franken is not a corporate shill and I am insulted that he is being framed that way on DU.

[Deep13]

3. Just to be clear...we are sure this bill still contains the anti-habeus corpus language?

If so, and I haven't heard that it was eliminated, then this is a shameful act unworthy of the heirs of the revolution.

[Deep13]

5. Just checked. Yeah, it is.

http://news.yahoo.com/why-obama-might-veto-defense-bill-itll-hurt-173013550.html

The story was buried on Yahoo.

[midnight]

10. link: "bureaucracy will not solve the fundamental problems with an approach that mandates militar

Despite what the Senate says, trying to paper this over with waivers and additional bureaucracy will not solve the fundamental problems with an approach that mandates military custody…which it hasn’t really explained – beyond calling terrorism “war” – why such an approach is needed."

[joshcryer]

14. See post #12, it has strong language to subvert it, but WH intends to veto anyway.

[Major Hogwash]

38. How many vetoes has President Obama issued so far? Do you know?

I don't think he has even taken that veto stamp out of the box yet.
I think it's brand new.

[joshcryer]

39. Just twice, small vetos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes#Barack_Obama

[bighughdiehl]

4. Jesus Christ!

93 yays! What kind of fucked up sheeple are these?
At least the overwhelming vote for the Patriot Act
was in the wake of 9/11...but what's the excuse now?
Fuck! Assholes! Morons!

[joshcryer]

16. It's politics. Republicans want to be "strong on terror." The added language in #12...

...let's the Democrats claim that they're "strong on terror and defend citizens rights."

And Obama's veto lets him say that he's "strong on citizens rights, and he killed Bin Laden."

It's goddamn awesome once you look at the big picture. :)

But yes, that's politics, and it can be really fucked up, and stupid.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Mr Merkely and Mr Wyden have my thanks and my continued

support. A vote like this and Oregon earns the State motto: 'She flies with her own wings'.

[formercia]

9. More Dems voted for it than Republicans.

:wtf:

[ZombieHorde]

11. It is embarrassing. nt

[bhikkhu]

18. What's embarrassing is the OP

...which just repeats the same thing that has been worried over since july or so, but which has been well addressed in the bill itself since then. Reading the bill is the best way to address your concerns, and the best advice to concerned people is that they read the bill rather than gossip-fear in the little echo-chambers the internet is full of.

Google "library of congress thomas bill 1867" or something along those lines to access the current text of the bill.

[midnight]

26. Actually bhikkhu you should be embarrassed..

No matter how many times you read this bill..... And to be sure.... You should read it again.... It will not tell you how your Representative voted.... But I suppose that doesn't matter to you....

[bhikkhu]

33. Have you read the bill then?

I'm curious exactly what you think is wrong.

[Major Hogwash]

43. Do you think President Obama was bluffing when he said he would veto this piece of shit?

I'm curious exactly what you think why Obama would say that.

[bhikkhu]

44. How about a quote - something from the actual bill?

I think the executive branch has a long track record under all presidents of generally opposing restrictions on its ability to enforce the law. As I understand it, Obama objected to some of the restrictions on enforcement that were put in place as a response to the objections about the application of military detention to civilians.

Its all a bit upside-down and backwards as far as that goes, but the bill itself, as it is now and as it has been passed, is just fine. Even the veto-threat is old news that had more to do with old versions. You can get a good sense of what the bill actually says by reading the bill - all I've seen online and in the news is trumped-up outrage-in-an-echo chamber that has very little to do with the actual legislation.

All this makes me realize how the RW has made people so distrustful and alienated from government, in a way that somewhat explains how badly we got our asses kicked at the last election. If we (who should be informed) can so carelessly misinform ourselves, how much easier can their job get? Again, stop listening to stupid things people say about what government is doing or not doing, and just read the legislation.

[Major Hogwash]

45. If President Obama vetoes this bill, are you going to tell me to stop listening to him?

Since President Obama is the one that said just last week that he will veto it if that particular language is still contained in it?

[ProSense]

12. The bill

included a compromise by Senator Feinstein, roll call.

(e) 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.

Basically, the compromise defers to existing law.

White House stands by veto threat despite Senate compromise bill

The White House is not backing down from its veto threat of the Defense authorization bill after it passed the Senate last night with a compromise on detaining terror suspects.

The bill, which passed 93-7, included a last-minute amendment that said nothing in the legislation would alter existing law when it came to military detention of U.S. citizens and those captured on American soil.

That compromise, reached between Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), did not change the White House veto threat, a spokesman said in an email to The Hill Friday.

“We have said that the language in this bill would jeopardize our national security by restricting flexibility in our fight against al Qaeda,” press secretary Jay Carney said at Friday’s briefing. “Any bill that challenges or constrains the President’s critical authorities to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the nation would prompt his senior advisors to recommend a veto.”

<...>

[joshcryer]

13. That compromise is very strong language, now I don't feel bad Franken voted for it.

[Ter]

36. Who are the brave seven?

n/t

[Turbineguy]

17. Until Rush Limbaugh disappears

I'm going to withhold judgment.

[Major Hogwash]

21. Rand Paul voted against it, yet Orrin Hatch voted for it.

That must be one fucked up bill!!

[Ter]

35. No surprise, Hatch is a police state neo-con to the max

He even supported the feds in the Ruby Ridge case, when every right-winger was united. Paul has some libertarian leanings.

[Major Hogwash]

37. Even weirder than that is that McConnell voted for it, but Lee (Utah) voted against it.

And Lee was elected because he was a tea party coalition member!
They didn't think that Bennett was conservative enough in Utah last year, so they threw him out of office and put in Lee!

[Ter]

40. Lee is very similar to Ron and Rand Paul

The true tea party has some libertarian leanings. Many are so far to the right and so anti-government (like Lee) they don't trust the government with anything like this and think they'll put them in camps. :) Lee is also very much against the Patriot Act. All of the extreme right opposes this bill and the Patriot Act.

The real question is to know what's the extreme right. To put it bluntly, none of the pukes running for president are extreme right. Newt Gingrich? Neo-con not particularly liked by Tea Baggers. Bachman goes the furthest without going over that edge. Palin is just there. Pat Buchanan is the definition.

Hatch is very unpopular with the Tea Party in Utah. If someone were to challenge him, he would likely lose the primary. As for McConnell, he's despised by Tea Baggers, he's a neo-con to the extreme.

Now, with all that said, that doesn't make Tea Baggers wrong on this issue. To me, the globalist neo-cons are the real problem.

[Tx4obama]

22. There is no such thing as 'indefinite detention act'. And read the Feinstein amendment that passed

before the passage of the DoDA bill.

[midnight]

27. Post a link?

[joshcryer]

28. See post #12?

[Tx4obama]

23. Unrec'd due to the OP subject title being completely FALSE. n/t

[midnight]

29. So you think the act of detaining any American

is completely false? Carl Levin and John McCain are saying otherwise... But only research if/when you start changing your mind.....

[sense]

24. Go OREGON!

Our guys usually vote the right (correct) way!

[midnight]

25. Hats off to Oregon....

[joshcryer]

32. Congressional Record for Feinstein's amendment:

(e) 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.

In the original amendment--my original amendment--which affects only U.S. citizens, that is not the case. They are likely to drop that amendment. So I wish to make the point by voting for both, and I would hope others would do the same. I think a lot has been gained. I think a clear understanding has been gained of the problems inherent in the original bill. I think Members came to the conclusion that they did not want to change present law and they wanted to extend this preservation of current law not only to citizens but to legal resident aliens as well as any other persons arrested in the United States. That would mean they could not be held without charge and without trial. So the law would remain the same as it is today and has been practiced for the last 10 years.

I actually believe it is easy to say either my way or the highway. I want to get something done. I want to be able to assure people in the United States that their rights under American law are protected. The compromise amendment, which is the second amendment we will be voting on, does that. It provides the assurance that the law will remain the same and will not affect the right of charge and the right of trial of any U.S. citizen, any lawful legal alien or any other person in the United States. We have the commitment by both the chairman and the ranking member that they will defend that in conference.

There are those who say I wish to just vote for the original amendment. That is fine. I am not sure it will pass. I don't know whether it will pass, but in my judgment, the modification is eminently suitable to accomplish the task at hand and has the added guarantee of the support of the chairman, the ranking member in a conference committee with the House, which I think is worth a great deal. They have given their word, and I believe they will keep it. This Record will reflect that word.

edit: link, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2011-12-01/pdf/CREC-2011-12-01-pt1-PgS8094-3.pdf#page=30

[provis99]

34. great. I'm on the same side as Rand Paul and Tom Coburn.

The Democrats are just as rotten and fucked up as the Republicans on this vote.

[joshcryer]

41. And potentially Obama.

Which probably bothers you worse. ;)

(Assuming he veto's this as he's threatened.)

[MineralMan]

42. There is no bill called the Indefinite Detention Act.

There is a defense authorization bill, which includes one section regarding this. Another amendment has been added to the bill that reaffirms existing law regarding detention of US Citizens and others. This post is bogus on its face, and indicates a complete lack of knowledge concerning this defense authorization act and its contents. Apparently, you have found some website that also has no idea what is in the bill and are echoing it.