Senator Al Franken: Why I Voted Against the National Defense Authorization Act

[kpete]

Al FrankenU.S. Senator, Minnesota

Why I Voted Against the National Defense Authorization Act

................

With this defense authorization act, Congress will, for the first time in 60 years, authorize the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charge or trial, according to its advocates. This would be the first time that Congress has deviated from President Nixon's Non-Detention Act. And what we are talking about here is that Americans could be subjected to life imprisonment without ever being charged, tried, or convicted of a crime, without ever having an opportunity to prove their innocence to a judge or a jury of their peers. And without the government ever having to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think that denigrates the very foundations of this country. It denigrates the Bill of Rights. It denigrates what our Founders intended when they created a civilian, non-military justice system for trying and punishing people for crimes committed on U.S. soil. Our Founders were fearful of the military--and they purposely created a system of checks and balances to ensure we did not become a country under military rule. This bill undermines that core principle, which is why I could not support it.

Yesterday was the anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, and this wasn't the way to mark its birthday.

the rest:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-franken/why-i-voted-against-the-n_b_1154327.html?ref=homepage

[spanone]

1. k&r...

[Autumn]

2. Maybe he needs to read the bill. No reason for him to get hysterical

It's all good, his shtick has been debunked.





Now where the hell is that sarcasm tag?








DURec

[wakemewhenitsover]

33. Here you go...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/emoticons/index.html

...although why we can't access it from the same screen where we post, like the good ol' days, I do not know.

[donheld]

35. OMG I didn't know we now had

Jesus Favorite)

[fadedrose]

39. Handier...

Two ways:

Go to the link in your post, minimize and drop the codes down to your tray. Keep it there during your session. You can use it in as many groups or forums as you want. You can X out the link and the codes will remain.

Or, open another browser using the link above. Keep this second window open during your session.

[Puglover]

58. LOL

The dead have arisen! <poke>

[JDPriestly]

46. Autumn, what is your legal training? Are you an expert on this?

Have you read the relevant provisions of the bill?

I found the provisions that I read to be ambiguous if not contradictory and was not at all reassured by what remained of the Feinstein Amendment after the revisions.

If you are really knowledgeable about this law, please explain your point of view. Thanks. I will gladly admit I am wrong if given reason to do so.

I'm not posting my question to be unpleasant but rather in the hope that maybe you know something or saw something in the language of the bill that I did not see.

Again, thanks.

[Autumn]

55. I found what I read to be completely, ridiculously vague.

I'm trusting the two politicians that I halfway trust, if they say it's bad then I am going to believe them. I think it's all open to interpretation and I am not comfortable at all with the Military, Jeb Bush, Mittens. or any other toad having that power. Hell I don't even trust Obama with that power.

Now I am trusting that Sanders, Franken or Fienstein would have read it or at the least had someone with some kind of training read it. If they are shooting off at the mouth well their asses should be voted out. This crap is getting too deep.

[CanonRay]

61. "Vague" is trouble

Not necessarily today, but next year or ten years from now. What if someone in the White House, say President Cristie (arggghhhh) should decide it means he can arrest anyone for anything. Like Demorcats registering voters perhaps. Would this law prevent him from doing so or enable him to do so. If it is vague as you say, he can interpret it any way he wants, and who is going to stop him.

[rhett o rick]

70. I am concerned about the arrest of protest leaders on terrorism grounds.

I believe their actions meet the very loose definition of terrorism.

[justiceischeap]

62. I found this post at wariscrime.org explains the issues with NDAA very well

http://warisacrime.org/content/why-media-lying-about-new-ndaa-power-indefinite-military-detention-americans

As has been pointed out repeatedly by civil libertarians, the cunning language is technically correct, because "require" is different than "allow," but although the bill does not "require" the executive branch to place American citizens in military detention without charge or trial for life, it does indeed "allow" it.

Although Sections 1031 and 1032 were renumbered 1021 and 1022 in the Conference Committee (makes it harder to Google) the substance is still intact. The US military can bust down your door at any time, given the proper go ahead by the executive branch, take you away, never charge you with a crime, never give you a trial, and lock you up, torture you, or even kill you. There is a bit of new razzle-dazzle in the new Section 1021 language now stating:

"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."

The problem is that "existing law," as the traitor occupying the senate seat for the Great State of South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, reiterated, is the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court ruling in Padilla v. Rumsfeld, which temporarily upheld Bush's authority to hold American citizen Jose Padilla without charge or trial, as an "enemy combatant," even though he was arrested on US soil with the full rights of an American-born citizen. Judge Michael Luttig in that decision fully expected the question to go before the Supreme Court, before Bush pulled a fast one and said suddenly that Padilla could have a civilian trial after being held in isolation and tortured for 3 1/2 years. That made Luttig go ballistic. Now he was the last guy to have overturned the Bill of Rights.

[stevenleser]

68. Mother Jones disagrees

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/12/nitty-gritty-ndaa

[rhett o rick]

69. Their argument was extremely weak. They didnt talk about the

language in the bill that Sen Franken and Sen Sanders have pointed out.

[stevenleser]

73. you realize that Franken initially voted for it, right?

And the version he voted for is not materially different from the one he voted against.

[rhett o rick]

74. And your point is ....... nm

[Major Nikon]

77. It's not that simple

What MJ is saying is that, hey the military could have kicked in your door a month ago and sent you off to Guantanamo with no trail, no legal representation, and no habeas corpus so what's the big deal?

Well it is a big deal. Congress gets to decide when and under what conditions habeas corpus may be suspended. They did so after 9/11 which was fucking stupid to begin with. So here we are, 10 years later, and you still have a greater chance of drowning in your bathtub than dying from terrorism. So instead of reversing what was a completely irrational and stupid suspension of civil liberties, congress has instead expanded on the insanity.

I gave this example elsewhere, but I'll repeat it again to let you know what this bill does that's different than before. Let's say you decide to donate to a charity that says it's building a water well in a poor African village. It turns out, some or all of that money gets siphoned off to some obscure gang of yahoo thugs that got high on hashish one night and decided it would be cool to tell everyone they are affiliated with Al-Queda. The next thing you know, a group of jackbooted government thugs kick in your door, beat the living shit out of you, and haul you off to Guantanamo where you are introduced to the finer art of US torture methods. After a few days of half drowning you in a tub full of leach infested toilet water they decide to transfer you to a country that doesn't have such high and mighty standards about what is or isn't torture and the fun really begins. Can't happen you say? Oh yes it can! And you have no legal recourse if it does.

[Lord Magus]

92. Actually, no. Congress doesn't get to decide that.

The Constitution explicitly limits Congress's authority to suspend habeas corpus to times of rebellion or invasion. Since neither a rebellion or an invasion is occurring, any attempt by Congress to suspend habeas corpus would be unconstitutional on its face. Section 1031(e) says "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." Since contrary to what that moron Lindsay Graham claims, there was no prior authority to indefinite detention of people captured or arrested in the United States, that means there still is no such power.

[Major Nikon]

105. They do and already have

Certain cases have been challenged and the USSC has ruled congress can't simply deny the right to everyone, but it really doesn't matter. You can still be detained indefinitely, with no charge and no trial. The 4th circuit ruled exactly that in the Padilla case and this has NOT been overturned. So even if you qualify as a person the USSC has ruled can file a writ of habeas corpus, and even if you can get a court to accept it, it's not going to do you any good.

The Congress of the United States, in the Authorization for Use of
Military Force Joint Resolution, provided the President all powers
necessary and appropriate to protect American citizens from terrorist
acts by those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001.
As would be expected, and as the Supreme Court has held, those powers
include the power to detain identified and committed enemies
such as Padilla, who associated with al Qaeda and the Taliban regime,
who took up arms against this Nation in its war against these enemies,
and who entered the United States for the avowed purpose of further
prosecuting that war by attacking American citizens and targets on
our own soil — a power without which, Congress understood, the
President could well be unable to protect American citizens from the
very kind of savage attack that occurred four years ago almost to the
day.

The detention of petitioner being fully authorized by Act of Congress,
the judgment of the district court that the detention of petitioner
PADILLA v. HANFT 17
by the President of the United States is without support in law is
hereby reversed.

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/056396.P.pdf

[justiceischeap]

110. The whole point of the article I posted

talks about why the media is trying to sell NDAA as "no big deal," so I'm not putting much stock in the MJ article. It seems to me a lot of progressive/liberal reads are pushing hard that this is no big deal. Even if it didn't affect Americans, ever, the fact that we as a nation detain people without trial indefinitely is wrong and laws upholding that practice, are wrong.

[stevenleser]

114. in cetain circumstances it is not wrong

The Germans and Japanese we captured in WW II were detained indefinitely without trial. No one knew how long that war would last, it could have been for decades.

The Geneva conventions allows such detention under war conditions. It does not have to be a declared war in terms of international law.

So, now, the question is, are people we captured in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars enemy combattants? What status should they have? What is the process for repatriating them? If we figure that out, how about those that engage in terror attacks? I think that is easier, they should be put on trial. But the question of the Iraq and Afghanistan captured folks is a much more difficult question.

[kenny blankenship]

109. You know what govt lawyers do with a loophole when alone can't be printed on the internetz

best to keep it vague as there may be children reading this.

[jannyk]

3. k&r

[ProSense]

4. You know

With this defense authorization act, Congress will, for the first time in 60 years, authorize the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charge or trial, according to its advocates. This would be the first time that Congress has deviated from President Nixon's Non-Detention Act. And what we are talking about here is that Americans could be subjected to life imprisonment without ever being charged, tried, or convicted of a crime, without ever having an opportunity to prove their innocence to a judge or a jury of their peers. And without the government ever having to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

...this is getting ridiculous. "According to its advocates"? What's the point of relying on other people's interpretation of the bill?

It's fine that Franken voted the way he did, but no one can produce any language in the bill to confirm this claim.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100227687

[boston bean]

6. Franken LIES on PURPOSE! nt

[Autumn]

7. It's ridiculous for him to pull this out of his ass

and go with it like this. The man needs to be fired. How dare he presume to know what's in that bill. I am outraged. OUTRAGED













This is sarcasm if needed.

[Cali_Democrat]

19. Franken has an Obama voodoo doll

that he punches on a regular basis!

[ProSense]

24. Obama

"Franken has an Obama voodoo doll"

...is from Kenya, not Haiti!

Sheesh!

[ProSense]

8. Oh please

"Franken LIES on PURPOSE! "

....it's not about lying. The fact is that people have different interpretations of things. Franken supports the Protect IP Act, which many people allege to be dangerous.

Where is the language in the bill that supports the claim?

On edit, Franken gets credit for trying erase any ambiguity: http://www.democraticunderground.com/100225975

[JDPriestly]

49. "people have different interpretations of things"

ProSense, that is precisely why this bill is objectionable. It is not clear.
It is vague and ambiguous.

It will be a grave error on Obama's part if he signs something so poorly written. It is really a bad bill, really, really bad.

Shame on those who passed it, especially those who should know better than to pass such a sloppily written bill just so that they can go home for Christmas.

Future generations will pay dearly for the laziness of all involved including Obama's legal department.

ProSense, do you have legal training? What qualifies you to be so "doctor feel good" about this bill?

[Jakes Progress]

65. This is the point that people with no foresight ignore.

Just how do they think the AG under a bush/cheney type administration will interpret it?

Shortsighted for the sake of short term wins.

[indepat]

91. We can take great comfort that not only will the incumbent president

never misuse this authority and thereby undermine protections enshrined in the constitution, neither will any future president.

[stockholmer]

93. well put JD

[green917]

112. You're missing a sarcasm tag!

I've known Al for years and he's one of the most honest men I know to ever hold office at the National level! This bill is an egregious step backwards for human rights in general and the Bill of Rights in particular and it saddens me to see it defended here.

[truedelphi]

21. Uh, actually it can be proven that this bill will authorize the detention of

US citizens, may be now detained indefinitely, as long as they' re called "terrorists" first.

You can read the actual bill itself:
National Defense Authoriization Act
http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/NDAA-Conference-Report-Detainee-Section.pdf


Then once you finish reading the bill itself, make sure you realize the bill allows the Authorization for Use of Military Force
to remain intact, and be considered by the President and Congress, and in certain circumstances, the president and Congress can rely more heavily on the legal code more expounded upon inside Authorization of Military Force.

So basically when it comes into effect, the public will have to have a squabble over which "legislation" is more basic to our way of life - the Constitution and the inalienable rights that it claims we individuals possess, or the various new pieces of legislation, like the Authorization of Military Force, which have become part of the nation's legal code since Nine Eleven.

And a bit of the:
Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]

107th CONGRESS

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.


Approved September 18, 2001.

[ProSense]

29. OK:

"You can read the actual bill itself:
National Defense Authoriization Act
http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/NDAA-Conference-Report-Detainee-Section.pdf "

14 (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be
15 construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to
16 the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident
17 aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are
18 captured or arrested in the United States.

<...>

10 (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS
11 AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
12 (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The require13
ment to detain a person in military custody under
14 this section does not extend to citizens of the United
15 States.
16 (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The require17
ment to detain a person in military custody under
18 this section does not extend to a lawful resident
19 alien of the United States on the basis of conduct
20 taking place within the United States, except to the
21 extent permitted by the Constitution of the United
22 States.

[Major Nikon]

48. Read it more closely

Section 1031, paragraph (e) which you referenced first was the language Feinstein added. It does NOT grant an exemption to US citizens. What it means is that IF (very big IF) the USSC decides the indefinite detention of US citizens in Guantanamo is unconstitutional, this law doesn't change that (which it couldn't anyway because acts of congress don't trump the Constitution). Well guess what? The USSC hasn't decided that question and may never, or if they do with the current court makeup are almost certainly going to favor the side of fascism. Padilla was only moved to a civilian court because of public pressure. No court ruling mandated that he be moved. So if "existing law" didn't protect Padilla, what makes you think it will protect you, me, or any other citizen? 1031(e) is a meaningless paragraph filled with empty words.

If you look at the second section you posted (APPLICABILITY) carefully you'll find the words "under this section". Those provisions only apply to section 1032 and not section 1031. So for the purposes of section 1031, which is where the problem is, the second part of what you posted is irrelevant. Nothing in this bill exempts US citizens from indefinite detention and in fact it expands the existing authority of the executive branch to potentially many more people. The authors of the bill (which included McCain) specifically told everyone it didn't exempt US citizens. So now (assuming the bill is signed) if you send a check to a charity you think is building a water well in Africa, but actually winds up in Al-Queda's coffers, you can be sent to Guantanamo for the rest of your natural life with no trial or even legal representation, and your only hope is that the Roberts court somehow finds it in their hearts to say you can't be.

[truedelphi]

89. Very good information to have.

Feinstein actually, for the first time ever, answered an email our household sent her regarding the need to eliminate the detention provisions of this bill. But she didn't mention how extremely vague and non substantial her contributions to the bill are. (though it is possible she started out wanting more than she got left with.)

She has answered us before, but incorrectly - when we wrote to tell her the wars need to end, she would write a letter thanking us for following her for passing some national "honor some product day."

The one person who has been elegant about how dangerous and outrageous bill being enacted was Rand Paul. I never in a million years thought I would listen to a speech of his on the Congressional floor, but it was extremely brilliant and patriotic, and hit all the right notes.

Possibly Kucinich has also had a similar speech, so maybe I should check for his words about the Act.

[Cameron27]

101. Thanks for clarifying.

[ProSense]

103. Wait

Section 1031, paragraph (e) which you referenced first was the language Feinstein added. It does NOT grant an exemption to US citizens. What it means is that IF (very big IF) the USSC decides the indefinite detention of US citizens in Guantanamo is unconstitutional, this law doesn't change that (which it couldn't anyway because acts of congress don't trump the Constitution). Well guess what? The USSC hasn't decided that question and may never, or if they do with the current court makeup are almost certainly going to favor the side of fascism. Padilla was only moved to a civilian court because of public pressure. No court ruling mandated that he be moved. So if "existing law" didn't protect Padilla, what makes you think it will protect you, me, or any other citizen? 1031(e) is a meaningless paragraph filled with empty words.

...you want me to read it more closely to find your hypothetical?

Ludicrous.

[Major Nikon]

106. Believe whatever you want

The hypothetical claim is if the courts ever rule that a US citizen can't be detained indefinitely without trial. It's not my hypothetical claim, it's how the bill is worded.

If you want to claim this bill exempts US citizens from indefinite detention without trial, you're simply wrong and I have shown you why. I have no interest in convincing someone who refuses to be objective.

[Bonobo]

26. Al Franken meet the DNC bus. nt

[Jakes Progress]

66. You knew he was to liberal for the party.

Tread marks all over his face.

[SaintPete]

28. Bull

All that the Feinstein amendment to this bill has done is remove the requirement American citizens be detained by the military, it doesn't remove the possibility that they be so detained.

[ProSense]

30. Ah

"All that the Feinstein amendment to this bill has done is remove the requirement American citizens be detained by the military, it doesn't remove the possibility that they be so detained."

...so the outrage is not over what the bill states, but what could possibly happen regardless of what the bill states?

That sounds like "bull" to me!

[sabrina 1]

41. Did you support Bush's policies on the president having the power to name anyone an 'enemy combatant

Did you support the Bush administration's claims it had the right to indefinitely detain people with no charges and no access to any criminal justice system?

Were you FOR the abomination known as 'Guantanamo Bay' and the kidnapping of people from various countries around the world, detained in that hell hole for years without charges?

I must be dreaming but airc, we on the 'left' opposed all of this. Because we are not 'at war' no matter how many times they lie about it. The rules of war do not apply no matter how many Cheneys and Bushes and Rumsfelds and Wolfowitzes, Ledeens and the rest of the war criminals, say they do.

Has this changed? Is the position of the Democrats now that Bush and Cheney were right? Because that is what the signing of this bill does, it codifies what has always been viewed by the 'left' and by many Libertarians, Independents and many Conservatives as an attack on the US Constitution.

I would like to know if what we thought was going to be finally fixed, the restoration of the rule of law, is no longer 'on the table'. What this bill says is that now the Bush/Cheney policies are now accepted by both parties. If that is the case, what were we working so hard for in 2008?

[Aerows]

60. I would be SHOCKED

If you got one of the people supporting this, or at least attempting to minimize its impact, to respond. I've asked that same question, and they won't touch it with a ten foot pole.

The truth is, had this been Bush signing this, they would have been the first on the band wagon to criticize. Since it is Obama who signed it, suddenly, this law isn't so bad, and in fact, is necessary.

It's one thing to be supportive of your candidate of choice; it's quite another to behave in a blatantly hypocritical manner based strictly upon who is the person doing the signing, rather than objectively addressing the law. I guess some are eager to have this be a country of men, not laws. It's unfortunate that they forget that Obama won't be President forever, and we could just as easily have this law be in effect under a Republican.

I wonder if their tune would change then?

[pscot]

71. The personality cult

surrounding this president seems to shut down some folk's critical faculties. That's not new. It's been going on since George Washington. It's what that goddamned piece of paper was supposed to protect us against, before we threw it under the bus.

[Aerows]

98. It's dangerous to Democracy

And dangerous to a functional, free government.

Some people are willing to chuck it all based upon *who* did it, and that scares me worse than anything. What in the hell has happened that we think it's okay under one person, but horrible under another, when it sucks under BOTH!?

[dotymed]

75. Actually, many bills have ben passed under Obama that would have

never passed under bush. All of them anti-constitution and pro-Fascist. TPTB know what they are doing.

[bvar22]

78. Exactly.

I am recommending post #41 by sabrina 1:

"Did you support the Bush administration's claims it had the right to indefinitely detain people with no charges and no access to any criminal justice system?

Were you FOR the abomination known as 'Guantanamo Bay' and the kidnapping of people from various countries around the world, detained in that hell hole for years without charges?"

This is a very useful method for detecting internal hypocrisy:
*Would you support that attack on Social Security funding known as "The Payroll Tax Holiday"
if Bush & The Republicans did it?

*Would you have supported entering a Civil War in Libya without Congressional Approval if Bush did it?

*Would you have supported a Mandate to Purchase Health Insurance without a Public Option if Bush did it?

*Would you support the use of Drones to attack "suspected" terrorists in Pakistan and other countries if Bush did it?

*Would you support the use of Droned to kill the children of a "suspected" terrorist if Bush did it?

*Would you support slashing Government Spending and Tax Breaks during a Recession if Bush did it?

*Would you support the Privatization of Public Schools and attacks on the Teachers Union is Bush did it?

This list could go on and on, but you get the picture.
[font size=6]It is about The POLICY, NOT The Person.[/font]
The Person will be gone after a few years.
We WILL be stuck with the POLICY for a LONG time.








You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[sabrina 1]

90. The problem is, when I ask these questions, and I really do want to know the

position of the Democratic Party now on these issues, I never, ever get a response from those who claim to be representative of the party. Not once.

And the lack of a response, both from elected officials and political operatives from the left, has and will continue to drive people out on to the streets. Which in the end, is probably a good thing.

I, eg, remember Sen. Leahy as an eloquent outspoken defender of the rule of law when Bush was president. He formed a committee to try to restore some of what was lost and we were told that committee would have more impact once Democrats took over. Instead, it seems to have disappeared altogether and Leahy has, apparently signed this bill. This all requires and explanation, as far as I am concerned.

[indepat]

94. A great big bravo and for lagniappe,

No, I would not have liked it had junior done it, I don't like it now, neither would I like it under the next or any future president.

[Aerows]

99. Bravo for using the word lagniappe, cher :)

I miss that section of the Times-Picayune.

As for this legislation:

I did not like it then,
I do not like it now.
I wouldn't like it with a hen
I wouldn't like it with a cow.

I wouldn't like it with a throne
I wouldn't like it when I'm known
I do not like now or ever
It wasn't vetoed and it was always

NEVER.

[indepat]

108. This Times-Picayune subscriber from

1957 to 1966 still remembers to use lagnaippe at the slighest excuse.

[StarsInHerHair]

43. so you must have been fine with the Patriot Act, because it only mentions terrorists

would fall under its' jurisdiction.......until gang members started getting charge using the P.A. But you do not see a pattern here: 1st it's only "the terrorists"........then it's also Americans.....

So if you had your hand on a table, & I swung a sledgehammer up over my head & was standing near you..........you would not take your hand off the table?

[SaintPete]

82. Is the outrage over what the bill says, or what it doesn't say?

Both.

Apart from the RIDICULOUS $pending, the bill erodes our civil rights both through what it says (that the military has a requirement to detain certain folks, but no requirement to present evidence of their wrong doing, no requirement to provide a lawyer to the accused, and no requirement to allow the accused any defense) and for what it does not say --that the "authority" to detain certain folks does not apply to American citizens. Read it - the only thing that doesn't extend to Americans is this "requirement."

If you have no outrage over the former, then tell me why not? I thought that the rights enumerated in the Constitution were inalienable, and endowed at birth? Has that changed? Is it ok with you to treat some people as less than human, as long as you are treated fairly?

And if you still have no outrage over the former, then why no outrage over the latter? Doesn't it sicken you to know that the government believes it has the AUTHORITY to violate your 4th and 5th amendment, even if they choose to not require the military to act on that bogus authority?

If none of this causes you outrage, then for god's sake what the hell WILL cause you outrage?

Oh wait....

Let me criticize President Obama...I'm sure THAT will stir up a little "outrage"...

[JDPriestly]

47. I am capable of reading the bill and read two provisions which

seemed contradictory and ambiguous to me.

The Feinstein amendment was watered down to the point that it is virtually meaningless. The bill is a mess.

The version of the bill I saw also involves the National Guard in law enforcement in ways that concern me.

But then the text of the bill has changed so often that it is hard to know who is discussing what version of it.

I strongly disagree with your complacency about this bill.

I understand Obama's problem in dealing with the Guantanamo detainees, but claiming still more executive and military authority over American citizens is not the answer.

Just how do you define the word "terrorist"? Same question for "terrorism."

Throughout history in nation after nation, we have seen that one person's terrorist is another person's patriot.

Were the dissidents in the USSR, the Sakharovs, terrorists? The Soviets thought so.

Were the Jews in Germany terrorists? Hitler's SS viewed them as such.

Defining terrorists as associated with Al Qaeda is a problem since, as I understand it, Al Qaeda is not a nation or an organization that keeps lists of member or affiliates or that hands out membership cards. Any political foe could be designated as a terrorist or an Al Qaeda sympathizer as these things are vaguely defined now.

I am utterly opposed to this kind of ambiguity.

It is our legal tradition that our laws should be certain so that a person can know whether or not he or she is violating them.

The laws about terrorism are extremely subjective. They are incompatible with our legal traditions. They will cause our nation great sorrow -- greater sorrow than the terrorists themselves.

I have talked to a lot of people but I have not personally ever knowingly met or talked to a terrorist. Have you? Why do we need this law?

[Major Nikon]

51. The executive branch gets to answer those questions

The truly scary part is that whatever answers they come up with are completely immune from court appeal. If the President decides you're a terrorist, you're a terrorist. It's that simple. It doesn't matter that the rest of the world can't agree on a common definition. If Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, or any other GOP fruit loop gets elected and decides you're a terrorist, that's the end of it. Off to Guantanamo you go (which now can't be closed).

People who are afraid of terrorism in the US are victims of irrational fear, and irrational fear pretty much always leads to stupid ideas.

[pscot]

72. Irrational fear is the button

the Oligarchs and their political henchmen press make us move the way they want.

[Major Nikon]

80. Here's the really funny part

Or at least it would be funny if I lived in another country and could better see the humor in it. The funny part is they aren't doing this as the direct result of any real threat. It's not as if the wolves are at the door. You have a greater chance of drowning in your bathtub than you do of being killed by a terrorist. And for this congress suspends habeas corpus? Imagine if we faced a real threat. You know, something like a rogue country suddenly cuts off the US supply of yellow dye #37 and there can no longer be yellow skittles.

[pscot]

113. Gasp! The Yellow Peril!

If the theat were real it wouldn't be irrational.

[bvar22]

79. Its WORSE than that.

The President doesn't even have to DECIDE you ARE a terrorist,
he only has to "SUSPECT" that you MAY be connected to a terrorist,
or even indirectly support a "terrorist".



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[indepat]

95. More

[Major Nikon]

50. The bill was authored behind closed doors

This means that the intent of the language of the bill wasn't revealed to all of the Senate, including Franken. So the bill says pretty much what the authors of the bill say it says. And the authors have said it doesn't exclude US citizens and they specifically wrote it so that it doesn't.

[Puglover]

59. Yes indeedy.

Thank GOD you are here Prosense to put my Senator into perspective for me. Many thanks!

[blackspade]

88. The point is, that there is no reason to have any clauses related to indefinite detention...

in the bill at all.

These clauses do not further our 'War on Terror' or any other war for that matter.
It codifies some of the worst executive branch abuses of the last 10 years under a Democratic president.

Absolutely beyond the pale.

[Betty Karlson]

5. God bless him. n/t

[DonCoquixote]

9. Franken for 2016

One fo the few liberal senators we have left.

[Under Dog]

15. So what? I'm still disappointed in him.

This crappy piece of legislation should have been rejected - period! It's based on a big lie to begin with. Just like the
the so-called war on terror, the USA Patriot Act, and the TSA patdowns/full body scans.

[jakeXT]

10. He voted for the Feinstein amendment, I was confused because he voted for S. 1867 on Dec 1

S.Amdt. 1126: To limit the authority of the Armed Forces to detain citizens of the United States under section 1031.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2011-214

[Under Dog]

11. Whoa! Did I miss something?

According to this report Franken voted for NDAA.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2011-218

and here's a breakdown of the House. Surprise! There are some you would have thought would've voted
against it.....
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-375

[jakeXT]

12. yes

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1540

Dec 15, 2011: After passing both the Senate and House, a conference committee is created to work out differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. A conference report resolving those differences passed in the Senate, paving the way for enactment of the bill, by roll call vote. The totals were 86 Ayes, 13 Nays, 1 Present/Not Voting. Vote Details.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2011-230

[redqueen]

13. I guess it was better before, but now it's worse.

[karynnj]

14. That was on the Senate bill earlier this month. He voted "no" on the conference bill today

That said his statement goes over the top.

[patrice]

17. And the difference between the two versions is that the conference bill moves the

detention (of non-U.S-citizens) decision from the Sec Def to the Pres, right?

Looks to me as though Franken, like others, but not all, who voted No on conf version, had his cake and ate it too. Gets to say he tried to do something about terrorism, but PO fucked it up so he voted No.

[bhikkhu]

37. No significant difference betwen the bills

and I'd assumed he voted yes, as he did the other day - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00218

I suppose there's politics involved - imagine that!

[Douglas Carpenter]

16. very good for Sen. Franken

[patrice]

18. I listened to him on Air America for a couple of years. Someone tell me just how Liberal he is,

please.

[truedelphi]

22. When I heard him a few years back on Air

America, I was struck by how he refused to be for Single Payer Universal HC.

And of course, Minneapolis, St Paul areas are where many of the top Health Insurers have chosen to base their corporations.

[patrice]

25. I remember that. He also had to be talked into being against War on Iraq.

[truedelphi]

87. I did not know that. I enjoy his comedy more than his notion of

Political ideals.

[TheKentuckian]

84. Not very. I'd call him a moderate but for a US Senator, he is pretty far left.

I say that would hold for the Democratic Caucus in the Senate too. Hell, I'd say he is to the left of at least one of the Senators from California and New York.

[patrice]

20. Which color is Franken on this graph? How many millionaires directly create our laws?

http://front.moveon.org/how-many-millionaires-directly-create-our-laws/#.TuuYUdiKRPs.facebook

And how might we guess what his unease about the 99% might turn into?

[Jim_Shorts]

44. Has Al made a statement about OWS? an article?

I still cling to the belief that he is one of the few good ones. He did vote against a very bad defense bill but he also voted for two of the three trade deals. I know he has made his niche the media, internet laws ect.. and has been the fighting for net neutrality. (goodby OWS without the net)

I listend to him on Air America for a long time too and he would always get emotional when talking about disadvantaged people, but everyone seems to be bashing him lately. I sure hope he hasn't been assimilated by the Borg. (seems like they all are eventually) Would be nice if he acted a little more like Bernie Sanders and communicated whats going on in the Senate.

[patrice]

45. I should look into that question . . . tomorrow.

I also wonder what he thinks of HR 676 - Expanded and Improved Medicare for All. The answer to that question would be VERY telling.

[Aerows]

102. Franken is white and Jewish

If I recall correctly.

[Major Hogwash]

111. That is a great graph.

I never realized how many people were in the top 10% that were in Congress.
Now, if I can just find out what that means "dollarwise", then I'll really have found out something.

I know that the tea party faction really skewed the median level of wealth when they got elected last year.
I think someone said that out of the 87 tea party people that were elected to Congress, 85 were millionaires.

[Wellstone ruled]

23. Now that's a progressive's answer!!

Way to go Al!!! You are what a real Dem is all about. A kid from a blue collar background from the Park,what more can you say. Minneasota values.

[Sky Masterson]

27. Love me some Al

:bravo:

[UnrepentantLiberal]

31. So glad he's a Senator.

We could use more like him.

[libodem]

32. good by to the right to a fair and speedy trial

Disgusting. Indefinite detention. See what depriving the Gitmo inmates has done to this nation. Made us all less human, gave us all less rights, because we fucked our fellow human beings, all life is less valued. Thank Cheney.

[JoeyT]

34. Well now we know the truth.

Franken never loved Him anyway.

Under the bus with Al.

[bhikkhu]

36. Maybe I'm missing something - but he voted for it the other day

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00218

[Major Hogwash]

38. Who else didn't vote for this bill?

Do you know?

[Major Hogwash]

40. Found it -- the 13 Senators voting against it were:

The bill passed the Senate on a vote of 86-13.

The 13 senators who voted against the bill were Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).

Source --
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/12/16/18702870.php

[Major Nikon]

53. In other words, only reliable Democrats and the looneyest of the looneytarian Senators

That certainly restores my faith in our elected officials to stand against the march to fascism.

[Major Hogwash]

56. Since my 2 Senators both voted against this bill, I can guarantee you that nothing is wrong with it.

Because just like what General Custer said in the movie "Little Big Man" about his scout could be applied to either one of my Senators --

"Anything that man tells me, will be a lie.
Therefore, he will be a perfect reverse barometer."

Neither one of those yahoo Republican Senators of mine wants President Obama to succeed.

I have no idea why any Democratic Senator would think there was something wrong with this bill as it is written.

[bvar22]

81. You DO realize that the person you are quoting from that Comedy Fiction...

...was a complete IDIOT who used that philosophy to lead his men into a massacre,
thereby totally discrediting the Piece of Wisdom you are choosing as a Guiding Principle?





You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Major Hogwash]

107. Of course I do, muleskinner.

And it also gives me the opportunity to call someone "muleskinner" on the DU!!



Franken is wrong.
Anytime you wind up agreeing with Rand Paul, Mike Crapo, and Jim Risch, you're on the wrong side of the argument.

[4dsc]

57. These are brave Senators for sure

[Pachamama]

64. Excuse me???

You want to escape America but want to know where the "hottest white girls" are??
So, in your world only girls that are "White" and "hot" need apply?

That is disgusting.....
Your reference is both rascist & offensive....

[RainDog]

52. k&r n/t

[Fire Walk With Me]

54. K&R. Others were paid to vote for it, but Al didn't.

[gateley]

63. It must be so frustrating for Franken to have made it to DC,

only to find it's even worse than he thought it was going to be.

[WillyT]

67. K & R !!!

[Odin2005]

76. TYhe posters bashing Al in this thread should be ASHAMED of themselves.

Thank you, Senator for being a true patriot against tyranny!

[Under Dog]

100. Paul Wellstone

Would have been embarrassed

[Paladin]

83. Note To Obama Apologists: This Is How A REAL Democrat Thinks And Votes.

Franken, 2016.

[bhikkhu]

97. Like this?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00218

[SaintPete]

104. I can understan why this is confusing

Here's a politician who changed his mind for the better, rather than one who promised us something better, then changed his mind.

[sulphurdunn]

85. Under any interpretation

of this Act, The Patriot Act or the Military Commissions Act is it possible for someone (US citizen or not) to permanently disappear into federal detention?

[indepat]

96. That would happen only in a totalitarian

state.

[blackspade]

86. Way to go Al Franken!

They all should have voted against this bill.