Senate Rejects Amendment Banning Indefinite Detention

[ProSense]

Senate Rejects Amendment Banning Indefinite Detention

Today, the Senate voted 37-61 to reject an important amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would have removed harmful provisions authorizing the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world. The amendment offered by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), would have replaced those provisions with a requirement for an orderly congressional review of detention power.

<...>

We’re disappointed that, despite robust opposition to the harmful detention legislation from virtually the entire national security leadership of the government, the Senate said ‘no’ to the Udall amendment and ‘yes’ to indefinite detention without charge or trial.

The next opportunity to remove the harmful detention provisions from the bill will be when House and Senate conferees meet in conference committee next week.

If the conference committee fails to remove the detention provisions, President Obama should follow through with his veto threat. Today’s vote on the Udall amendment shows there’s more than enough opposition to these provisions to sustain a veto. Stay tuned for more information.

Menendez switched to yes. The other Senators who voted against the Udall amendment need to get a lot of calls.

[Javaman]

1. See you all in the Gulag...

you going to eat that rat?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[newfie11]

2. OMG!!!!!

Unfricking believable. What in hell is happening to this country.

[Huey P. Long]

3. This is ultimately to put us all in prison if we fight the corporate overlords.

[backtoblue]

5. yep, see you on the inside brother...

And isn't that otherwise known as kidnapping? Holding someone agaist their will with no evidence to support wrongdoing? Crazy shit.

[damonm]

6. Actually, the bill doesn't do that.

In Section 1032, subsection b, paragraph 1, it says: "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

Full text at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112w7Skym:e462417:

[pinboy3niner]

9. See Sec. 1031, which doesn't have such an exclusion for citizens

It's not mandatory under this section, but would be legal if the military is ordered to do it.

[patrice]

12. Why would that happen, when citizens would fall under the responsibilities of Justice?

[pinboy3niner]

13. The ACLU's Washington Legislative Office explains:

UPDATE: Don’t be confused by anyone claiming that the indefinite detention legislation does not apply to American citizens. It does. There is an exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032 of the bill), but no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial (section 1031 of the bill). So, the result is that, under the bill, the military has the power to indefinitely imprison American citizens, but it does not have to use its power unless ordered to do so.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being

[patrice]

15. Okay, but, pardon me, in the interest of fighting the good fight against our actual

oppressors, instead of fighting it against those who are also oppressed by those same oppressors, those who, incidentally, WILL be ham-strung, drawn, and quartered, AND replaced by greater oppressors (as the revolution stands politically impotent by) if 9/11 2.0 happens again . . .

And please believe that I am just trying to fully articulate this conundrum . . .

I don't understand why the higher-level logical category is not: Mandatory Detention, of which military mandatory detention is only one sub-type, and since Mandatory Detention is illegal, as specified in 1032, that would seem to apply to the powers of the military too, wouldn't it?

I am aware of the Civil Liberties issues and I agree to the extent that NO verbiage, legal or otherwise, is ever absolute, so abuse, or preservation, both, are ALWAYS possible (it's the nature of the "beast") and we are, thus, ALWAYS dependent upon the precise nature of those empowered to make appropriate determinations - a VERY blunt instrument indeed!!, but one that is perhaps most significantly so-blunt because of the essential and historic delinquency of the electorate, which, in relationship with historic and actual evil-doers in office and in our board rooms, has brought us to our current state of fundamental corruption, which state necessitates the consideration of what to do about domestic (and otherwise) terrorism.

In short, though I agree with discussions about the preservation of our Civil Liberties, which ARE under attack, I continue to wonder what kind of reactions, what blame-finding, we will hear from those same sources, and most of their followers, if/when, as I mentioned earlier, some, perhaps even much MORE horrific, 9/11 2.0 happens.

Hypotheses, anyone?

[patrice]

16. P.S. Please recall that there ARE domestic powers who're currently very likely in thrall to FOREIGN

powers, because of our toxic financial sector.

[patrice]

17. AND there are Americans who WILL take money for A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G. So what do we do?

[damonm]

21. Upon further review...

BOY, was I wrong.

[LeftHandPath]

7. Traitors.... every one of them

Everyone who voted for this abomination should be immediately banished from US soil for the rest of their traitorous lives.

[truebrit71]

8. WTF???

Obama had bloody well better veto this horseshit if it passes....:grr:

[qb]

10. There are more DINOs than I thought. Kick the bums out.

:mad:

[FlyByNight]

11. There seems to be nothing Congress won't pass...

...just so long as their corporate contributions keep coming.

What, not enough bases? Not enough oil-rich territory to conquer? Not enough MICC money rolling into your fucking bank accounts?

This is gross.

[pscot]

14. There are some really surprising no votes

I thought Whitehouse, Reed, Levin and Stabenow were reliably liberal. Is there any possible explanation for their votes?

[wiggs]

18. This might be a political play. Let gop help pass the bill in the senate, then

the gop will pass it in the house. Obama will veto to expose gop and mccain as uber-militaristic and unconstitutional in their policies. Levin and Reed fall on sword. This is a highly visible veto that the public will support Obama on.

Gop will have to kill this bill itself in the House, or Obama gets to veto it on behalf of the citizens. Obama is on offense, gop on defense.

[pscot]

19. That's too convoluted for me

to get behind.

[joshcryer]

20. Same here. But that's politics. Obama already threatened the veto.

[Tx4obama]

22. The Senate only rejected the Udall amendment, there are still TWO FEINSTEIN amendments pending

The pending Feinstein amendments will fix the bill's text regarding the detainment issue

Feinstein amendment #1125 (limiting military custody of detainees to those captured abroad)
Feinstein amendment #1126 (prohibiting military authority to indefinitely detain US citizens)
http://democrats.senate.gov/2011/11/30/amendments-to-s-1867-the-department-of-defense-authorization-act/

More info below...

SA 1125. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Udall of Colorado) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill S. 1867, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:

On page 361, line 9, insert ``abroad'' after ``is captured''.


SA 1126. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Udall of Colorado) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill S. 1867, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:

On page 360, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:

(e) Applicability to Citizens.--The authority described in this section for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain a person does not include the authority to detain a citizen of the United States without trial until the end of the hostilities.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2406124&mesg_id=2407917