Two pending Feinstein amendments will fix the DoD Authorization Act's text re the detainment issue

[Tx4obama]

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-... /

---
I figured yesterday when the Udall amendment was voted down that there was an alternative amendment in the works - looks like that is the case :)

[villager]

1. Now to make sure this alternative doesn't get similarly voted down?

:shrug:

[CreekDog]

2. Surprised this is coming from her

But pleasantly so! :applause:

[Xithras]

9. Every once in a while...

...Feinstein will toss something out there to remind us why she's a Democrat. I wish it happened more often, but I'll take what I can get.

[Blue_In_AK]

3. Still and awful bill, but an improvement. n/t

[Tx4obama]

4. The detainment sections are only two small Sections of a several hundred page bill n/t

[toddwv]

6. That doesn't make them any less onerous.

They need to be expurgated post haste.

[Tx4obama]

7. My point was that the BILL is BIG and not everything in it is bad. n/t

[TBF]

8. That's fine - so strike those two and move on. nt

[toddwv]

11. It's a standard tactic to hide the uglies under "General Business"

[Newest Reality]

5. I'm sure the

$662 billion involved is more important than anything else we need right now.

[gratuitous]

10. Feeling very old

I remember a time when the United States stood against this sort of thing. Now we have it written into legislation and have to take affirmative steps to remove it when we shouldn't even be considering it in the first goddam place.

And in case you're wondering why, my opinion is that the military fucks up enough things as it is. Even considering giving them the authority to have this kind of discretionary power is to invite all kinds of mischief. When military mischief gets completely out of hand (cf. Abu Ghraib, indiscriminate missile strikes on unidentified targets, and so forth), stopping it always has to clear the stupid hurdles marked "national security" and "support the troops" not to mention "soft on defense." Holding people incommunicado indefinitely without charge or access to counsel is the purview of terrorists and kidnappers, plain and simple. It doesn't make us safer, it doesn't enhance the troops' military experience, and it invites rather than deters revenge and bloodlust from our so-called enemies. It also doesn't do much for our relationship with folks we presently consider our friends and allies.

[woo me with science]

12. Please explain why we need this legislation.

Also, where is the text of these amendments? I see only a list of titles.

[Tx4obama]

16. Heres some 'info' on the Udall amendment

SA 1109. Mr. UDALL of Colorado submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him 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; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 361, line 9, insert after ``a person who is described in paragraph (2) who is captured'' the following: ``abroad''.



SA 1110. Mr. UDALL of Colorado submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him 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; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 359, line 13, insert after ``covered persons (as defined in subsection (b))'' the following: ``captured abroad''.


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r112:1:./temp/~r112ptRXSZ:e141101:

and here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r112:1:./temp/~r112V6MDVx:e141101:

[NutmegYankee]

17. Here:

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://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r112:1:./temp/~r112WXN8M7:e324337:

[Tx4obama]

18. Thank you for finding those and posting :) n/t

[TheKentuckian]

19. The government has no right to hold anyone indefinitely.

This corrupt bucket of garbage just needs to go extinct.

How do you go about redeeming such a mess?

Just a few short years ago this entire conversation was off the table in Democratic circles and not too long before that in American circles of any respectability and now a fair chunk of Democrats are high fiveing an insane hack job on civil liberties.

We have absolutely hit a new low. Wickedness, cowardice, and taintlicking toadiness are beyond epidemic.
Even if the vote was the reverse it would be beyond shameful for representatives of a free people would even consider such reversals of a thousand years in advancement in rule of law and western civilization and more absurd that a people who consider themselves free or even aspire to freedom at some future juncture for those that come after would tolerate such a thing.

This is fundamentally at odds at what I believe America to be about. This spits in the face of the very concept of rule of law and it needs to be stopped dead in its tracks, this whole twisted tact.

[sabrina 1]

21. Thank you! I sometimes wonder if there is anything

that will not be excused when our team is in charge. At least when Republicans were in charge, the left FOUGHT this kind of thing.

How far we have sunk when there is not total outrage over this, among other things.

No wonder there is a growing movement across the globe that wants little to do with either party.

[Tx4obama]

22. The outrage is ridiculous. It was only the Udall amendment that was voted down.

There has been NO vote yet on the FINAL BILL.

The TWO Feinstein amendments regarding military detention will be voted on Thursday.

I wish folks would take the time and study how Congress works when it comes to legislation.

[sabrina 1]

24. We know very well how Congress works, that is the problem.

Why was this in the bill to begin with? If it was voted down, then take it out. You can't fix something that is rotten to begin with. Just remove it like a bad tooth.

[woo me with science]

23. Thank you. nt

[AtomicKitten]

13. One amendment to exclude American citizens lost 38-61.

Don't know if it was DiFi's but I do know plenty of Democrats helped defeat it.

[Tx4obama]

14. The amendment that got voted down yesterday was the Udall one.

The Senate hasn't voted on the two from Feinstein yet.

[AtomicKitten]

15. good to know

thanks

[noise]

20. Are government officials exempt?

For example Senator Bob Graham has stated that 28 redacted pages of the Congressional Joint Inquiry 9/11 report deal with Saudi support for the hijackers. Shouldn't any US government officials (current and former) who covered this up be indefinitely detained until the war on terror is over?