The Democratically-controlled Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly passed an enormous $662 billion defense bill, including a provision that would give the military the responsibility to indefinitely detain suspected terrorists, even if they are American citizens caught on U.S. soil.
Despite a vow from President Obama that he would veto the bill if it still contained the dangerous detainment provision, the Senate blocked not one but two attempts to strip it from the legislation, ultimately passing the bill in a 93-7 vote.
The first attempt was from Senator Mark Udall (D-CO), who proposed getting rid of the provision. The Senate rejected that amendment Wednesday in a 61-37 vote. The second attempt occurred on Thursday and came from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) who offered an amendment to lessen the measure by specifying that it applied to non-U.S. citizens captured “abroad.” That failed 55-45.
The provision on the detainment of suspected terrorists would codify a truly extreme principle into law. That American citizens can be captured on American soil and jailed indefinitely without charge or trial would be a radical departure from a system based on the rule of law.
The Obama administration has promised a veto of the bill with this provision, not for the sake of the rule of law and the habeas corpus rights of Americans, but because it would restrict the President’s prerogative to decide whether to put suspects in civilian courts or in the hands of the military.
As expected. The only folks who deserve indefinite military detention with no rights are the neocons and the scum who voted for this unconstitutional piece of garbage. Folks need to start occupying DC before we the entire country ends up indefinitely tortured in some private jail.
It's like they live in an alternate universe or something.
RickR, I agree. Not only occupy D.C. but rid it of all those in power and change the rules so that such lowlife cannot return.
So where is the list of these swine who voted for this crap? These people need to be outed for the devils that they are.
The seven nays:
Coburn (R-OK)
Harkin (D-IA)
Lee (R-UT)
Merkley (D-OR)
Paul (R-KY)
Sanders (I-VT)
Wyden (D-OR)
Thanks! This disheartening info tells me that both of my states senators are pro empire. Looks like I have to holler at them again.
The State's law enforcement apparatus, like all bureaucracies, always chooses the path of least resistance that will produce desired results. The cavemen who wrote the bill of rights knew that. Under this detainment provision, law enforcement (which now includes the military) can lock up Americans for life, without trial. If the courts go along with this–and after ten years of gutless indulgence to the State, there is no reason to think they will not–the State will more and more turn to detainment as an alternative to criminal prosecution. Why would the State bother with the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a court before a jury when all a prosecutor will need to do is a write a memo asserting that the defendant is a "person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners…."? Almost anyone who commits a crime could be detained. "Substantially support" for the Taliban could mean buying smack on a street corner–and just think of the dragnet that "or associated forces" gives the State.
Just another step on the path of an oligarchic military State (owned and operated by Zion).
I don't think it will be necessary to pose al Qaeda as the only source of terror in order to establish the dungeons envisioned by our inside traders who have enriched themselves at our expense. You can create a construct where just about anything they don't like is terror (and of course the undeserving rich get more and more scared of losing their grip as the social injustice grows). One example: in the pepper spray case at UC Davis, where the policeman went at seated demonstrators like a line of grease-ants with a can of Raid: the police chief at sister university Berkeley declared that sitting together with your arms linked was "an act of violence." So it's easy, isn't it? Declare the purchase of marijuana as aid to terrorists. Declare pouring concrete to build a mosque as aid to terror. It just goes on and on.
I'm aure all thoz wogs halfway round the world won't notice :Zion's role…!!
I expect a veto of the provision, and I imagine that its basis has to be one with precedent and which can be easily argued as a usurpation of executive prerogatives. It would be harder to be argued as simply a violation of the Constitution in general – that is what the Supreme Court does, judicial review. If you argue on the constitutionality issue, you will be accused of taking their role. But a swift veto on whatever basis is what is called for.
I do have to say that as with Romeo coming upon the sleeping Juliet and believing her dead, sometimes bad news without antidotes travels faster than good news. It would not take much, prior to this veto, to haul a few citizens into indefinite detention and say it was a really important emergency. Then something could happen to postpone the veto: an act of clumsy almost terror which gets the media excited, or perhaps an attack on Iran, or perhaps some provocation to make us attack Iran – which then results in a bad poll numbers if the President vetoes this piece of … legislation. Et voila! Romeo follows through and so does Juliet before any antidote can save them.
How is it that this country is only one veto away from death? Why does the Constitution hang by a single rotten thread?
If the House passes it with a similar percentage as the Senate, the "promised" veto will be overridden. The rotten thread is already severed.