General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHere is the list of Senators who voted against the Defense Authorization
and who are the only ones who apparently still believe in the Bill of Rights. It's a short, bi-partisan list:
Sen. Thomas Coburn (R, OK)
Sen. Thomas Harkin (D, IA)
Sen. Mike Lee (R, UT)
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D, OR)
Sen. Rand Paul (R, KY)
Sen. Bernard Sanders (I, VT)
Sen. Ron Wyden (D, OR)
http://squashed.tumblr.com/post/13832537748/senators-who-voted-against-the-national-defense
msongs
(67,465 posts)FirstLight
(13,366 posts)a FUCKING SHORT list... seriously?! I am not feelin' warm fuzzies about my country right now
JCMach1
(27,581 posts)The tea partiers were already on the list anyway. Didn't take them long to sell-out their country...
JCMach1
(27,581 posts)That's how I am feeling at the moment.
Rhiannon12866
(206,404 posts)Who would have thought?!
JCMach1
(27,581 posts)These people passed that test.
As for the rest, they receive an epic fail for forgetting what this country is based on...
Rhiannon12866
(206,404 posts)But even more surprised at most who were included!
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)I am proud of the fact that I donated to him in 2008. He's proved to be the same good guy that he ran as.
But what the fuck is he doing in a party surrounded by so many worthless assholes?
JCMach1
(27,581 posts)Everyone else should be replaced...
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)He's got a lot of other areas where he leaves a lot to be desired.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... even though I wasn't able to vote for him then since I moved to Oregon from California a week or so after the election. Alas, my vote still didn't stop prop 8 there, but at least the new senator that Oregon has doesn't believe that Sarah Palin used to be my governor in California like the former idiot that was a senator here in Oregon postulated. Glad to see that Wyden also had some sense too. Makes me now proud to be an Oregon resident!
Selatius
(20,441 posts)I think the main thing to take away from such a bill is if you are not in any of those two protected groups and are on US soil and are arrested on suspicion of terrorism or terrorism related activities, you are not afforded any protection granted to people under the Bill of Rights.
If you object to that exclusion, then necessarily you would want to vote against such a bill. If you vehemently object to such an exclusion, then you may even consider the possibility of lodging a filibuster against such a bill.
JCMach1
(27,581 posts)...The legislation would deny suspected terrorists, even U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subject them to indefinite detention. The lawmakers made no changes to that language... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/13/national-defense-authorization-act-ndaa-obama-detainee-policy_n_1145407.html
...The latest version of the defense authorization bill does nothing to address the bills core problems legislated indefinite detention without charge and the militarization of law enforcement, Andrea Prasow of Human Rights Watch said in a statement... http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/199207-white-house-quiet-on-threat-to-veto-defense-authorization-terror-detainees
Selatius
(20,441 posts)Sadly, that law is still kicking.
JCMach1
(27,581 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)That's how it starts. By the time it's over, it's too late to object.
Selatius
(20,441 posts)Nobody will care for them, because they're technically illegal aliens. Once the protocol is well-established to deal with them, somebody with ill intent could easily turn that machinery on Americans one day down the road, under the guise of some new national emergency.
JCMach1
(27,581 posts)I am sure there are some RWers who think #OWS are terrorists...
closeupready
(29,503 posts)I'm going to let them know via letter, I think, so I can put my thoughts together.
irisblue
(33,040 posts)gotta call my senator about this and ask WTF...well the senator with a D after his name
JCMach1
(27,581 posts)newfie11
(8,159 posts)I am confused. What say all of you? I posted this earlier and some felt better about the bill.
Dear Sherrie:
Thank you for contacting me regarding detainee provisions within the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012, S. 1867, which passed the Senate by a vote of 93-7 on December 1, 2011. I believe there is a great deal of misconception surrounding these detainee provisions, and I would like to take this opportunity to clear up these misunderstandings.
Sections 1031 and 1032 of S. 1867 do not create new laws regarding the holding of an American citizen without trial. In fact, to reinforce this point, the Senate passed Senate Amendment 1456, offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein, by a vote of 99-1. This amendment codifies that nothing in Section 1031 regarding the detainee issue affects existing law or authorities relating to citizens or lawful aliens of the United States or any other person who is captured or arrested in the U.S. I voted in favor of amendment 1456.
The authority to hold U.S. citizens engaging in acts of war against the U.S. in military custody has existed for many years. Consequently, Section 1031 simply codifies existing law under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), 50 U.S.C. w 1541, and the 2004 Supreme Court case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which states that "[t]here is no bar to this Nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant." Section 1031 affirms, it does not create, the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the AUMF against any person who participated in the September 11, 2001, attacks or who is a part of al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces and who is engaged in hostilities against the United States. If an American citizen is part of al-Qaeda or the Taliban and engages in hostilities against the U.S., then that citizen, as determined by the Supreme Court and the Administration, and now codified in S. 1867, can be held without trial until the end of hostilities, similar to U.S. citizens who assisted the Nazis during World War II.
You may be interested to learn that S. 1867 actually creates new safeguards for holding individuals engaging in acts of war against the U.S. It requires that once the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) detains a citizen who has joined al-Qaeda or the Taliban, DOD must provide that person with an attorney and bring the accused before a federal judge to make the argument that the individual is an enemy combatant. Additionally, an annual review of the accused status as an enemy combatant is required.
It also should be noted that there is nothing in the bill which undercuts the right of habeas corpus. Detainees held by the United States may seek federal court review of the legality of their detention in habeas corpus proceedings. In such proceedings, the government bears the burden of proving the legality of the detention by a preponderance of the evidence. I believe these safeguards will protect citizens and non-citizens alike from being wrongfully held.
Finally, Section 1032 of this bill provides for mandatory military custody for all non-citizens captured, who are members of al-Qaeda and are carrying out or planning to carry out an attack against the United States. We are at war with al-Qaeda, and I believe mandatory military custody is in our best national security interest in the fight against terror. This provision does not apply to American citizens, and there is a national security waiver the Administration may use in the event our national security is better protected by holding an individual in civilian custody.
Thank you again for contacting me. It is an honor to represent you and all Nebraskans in the Senate, and I encourage you to continue sharing your thoughts and ideas.
Sincerely,
Ben Nelson
U.S. Senator
Hutzpa
(11,461 posts)but democrats can never seem to find republicans to vote with them.
My question is, who controls the power?