HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Senator Feinstein propose...

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 04:23 AM

Senator Feinstein proposes a stand-alone bill to fix the problems with the NDAA.

Sounds good, but if they thought it was needed, why didn't they just fix the NDAA in the first place instead of introducing this stand-alone bill? Still this would be good if it passes.


December 15, 2011
Feinstein: Prohibit Indefinite Detention of American Citizens Without Trial or Charge

‘Constitution gives every citizen the basic due process right to a trial on their charges’
Washington—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, today introduced the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011, legislation that states American citizens apprehended inside the United States cannot be indefinitely detained by the military.

The Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011 amends the Non-Detention Act of 1971 by providing that a Congressional authorization for the use of military force does not authorize the indefinite detention—without charge or trial—of U.S. citizens who are apprehended domestically.

The Feinstein bill also codifies a “clear-statement rule” that requires Congress to expressly authorize detention authority when it comes to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. The protections for citizens and lawful permanent residents is limited to those “apprehended in the United States” and excludes citizens who take up arms against the United States on a foreign battlefield, such as Afghanistan.

Feinstein said: “The argument is not whether citizens such as Yaser Esam Hamdi and Jose Padilla—or others who would do us harm—should be captured, interrogated, incarcerated and severely punished. They should be.

“But what about an innocent American? What about someone in the wrong place at the wrong time? The beauty of our Constitution is that it gives every citizen the basic due process right to a trial on their charges.

“Experiences over the last decade prove the country is safer now than before the 9/11 attacks. Terrorists are behind bars, dangerous plots have been thwarted. The system is working.

“We must clarify U.S. law to state unequivocally that the government cannot indefinitely detain American citizens inside this country without trial or charge. I strongly believe that Constitutional due process requires U.S. citizens apprehended in the U.S. should never be held in indefinite detention. And that is what this new legislation would accomplish.”

The Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011 is cosponsored by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).

###



http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=92cd1ac6-e756-4cd3-982c-ab34d1933d94

22 replies, 2753 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 22 replies Author Time Post
Reply Senator Feinstein proposes a stand-alone bill to fix the problems with the NDAA. (Original post)
limpyhobbler Dec 2011 OP
Tx4obama Dec 2011 #1
joshcryer Dec 2011 #2
Tx4obama Dec 2011 #5
mucifer Dec 2011 #10
karynnj Dec 2011 #21
Romulox Dec 2011 #12
Tx4obama Dec 2011 #19
fascisthunter Dec 2011 #14
JDPriestly Dec 2011 #6
Tx4obama Dec 2011 #8
Bonobo Dec 2011 #9
joeybee12 Dec 2011 #22
ProSense Dec 2011 #3
Tx4obama Dec 2011 #4
ProSense Dec 2011 #7
TheKentuckian Dec 2011 #13
Romulox Dec 2011 #11
fascisthunter Dec 2011 #15
mmonk Dec 2011 #16
tjwash Dec 2011 #17
Autumn Dec 2011 #18
Tx4obama Dec 2011 #20

Response to limpyhobbler (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 04:45 AM

1. See, the sky is not falling - everything will be fixed.


Although, the Feinstein amendment that already passed in the Senate before the bill did - DID fix the DoDA Act bill as to where it states that the bill does not change 'current law'.

Now this new 'bill' will be calming down the folks that believe that US citizens can be held indefinitely by the military (which they can't).

p.s. This is hopefully my last comment on this issue. Everything will be worked out by the time they all go home for Christmas and all the extra typing I've done over the past week will be for naught

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 05:04 AM

2. No chance in hell this passes with the obstructions in the way, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 05:21 AM

5. Well, then the Democrats can say that the REPUBLICANS want

U.S. Citizens to be detained indefinitely by the military.
It would be a great talking point AGAINST the republicans



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 09:20 AM

10. So indefinite detention is ok if we can use it to play politics? I'm confused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mucifer (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 06:48 PM

21. That did not seem to be the point made

The point is to fix it - more than the Feinstein amendment that passed with the vote of everyone but Kyl.

I assume that this has been written to get both the liberals and the libertarians on the other side. I would hope gets enough, though the fact that the Udall amendment and the two stronger amendments failed does make me less optimistic than I otherwise would be.

I think it is possible that this is written in such a way that voting against it would be voting for indefinite detention - without the cop out that the original language supposedly did not do that in the full bill

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 09:39 AM

12. Um, forgetting that the President enthusiastically signed this thing, huh? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 06:41 PM

19. President Obama has not signed it yet. He has NOT signed any bills since Dec 13th


Legislation signed by President Obama: http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/signed-legislation

The DoDA Act bill went into reconciliation, I think the Senate hasn't even re-voted yet, Obama can't sign it until the The House and The Senate are finished with the bill and both houses have passed the same version.

So, I don't know where you heard that 'the President enthusiastically signed this thing' (???)


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 09:56 AM

14. yeah.... a real political winner

 

my gawd

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 05:22 AM

6. Dianne Feinstein wrote on her website about her memory of visiting the

Japanese internment camp memorials with her father when she was a child.

The DoDA Act "fix" is too ambiguous to be of much use.

I think that the bill that Feinstein is proposing is still inappropriate because it suggests to some extent that Congress could pass a law depriving Americans of their Constitutional rights.

I like the portion of her proposal in which she reiterates the fact that we have our rights as defendants under the Constitution, but I don't think that Congress could ever claim the authority to take those rights away. So, I think the bill should not say anything about Congress taking our rights away just by passing a bill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 05:30 AM

8. Yep.


But I think the Feinstein amendment was enough to 'fix' the bill. The amendment stated that 'nothing' in the bill regarding that section changes current law.

So, the bill did not change anything.

And if something further needs to be addressed regarding the law that is NOT contained in that bill, then the federal courts probably should be the ones taking care of that issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 06:53 AM

9. A bill that promises due process is our hope? What a sad, bitter joke.

Due process is something that is owed to ANYONE charged with a crime in the United States according to the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

And now, a BILL is what your all "I told you so about"??
Are you totally blind, deaf and dumb to what is happening?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 06:51 PM

22. Just like the Health Care Overhaul was "fixed"...nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 05:12 AM

3. Interesting

"Sounds good, but if they thought it was needed, why didn't they just fix the NDAA in the first place instead of introducing this stand-alone bill? Still this would be good if it passes."

Good question, especially since Feinstein and nine of the co-sponsors voted for the NDAA.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 05:19 AM

4. There is really no need for the extra bill other than to make the folks that think US citizens

can be picked up by the military in the USA and help indefinitely - which isn't going to happen.

I think they are bring the extra bill forth just to appease the folks that are scared

Apparently some folks think that the Feinstein amendment that passed before the bill did wasn't enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 05:24 AM

7. If

"There is really no need for the extra bill other than to make the folks that think US citizens

can be picked up by the military in the USA and help indefinitely - which isn't going to happen."

...this is true, I hope we don't become like the Republicans, passing bills to address problems that don't exist. I mean, they're introducing bills to defund agencies that don't exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tx4obama (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 09:52 AM

13. Yeah, that is only optional versus required for non-citizens/non-legal residents

The entire concept is not just unconstitutional but counter-constitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 09:36 AM

11. I heard this was on the agenda RIGHT AFTER those NAFTA side agreements! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 09:56 AM

15. sure, she'll fix it

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 10:02 AM

16. I'm told here the NDAA isn't a problem. So why a fix?

And if NDAA doesn't change the rule of law, why have it in the first place? You see, I no longer have trust. My lack of trust is warranted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 10:05 AM

17. What's her problem? Her hubby is only getting half of the money so far?

Fuck her worthless married to a defense-contractor-lobbyist dino ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Original post)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 10:43 AM

18. Any idea when it might come up for a vote? I will

be keeping an eye on this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #18)

Fri Dec 16, 2011, 06:44 PM

20. I haven't heard, but here's a link to the Senate calendar below

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread