Indefinite detention amendment to be voted on soon [update: PASSED 67-29]

[tsai3904]

Perhaps Levin/Graham are just trying to get our side to not vote for it so it will fail?

I think the point of this was to have a debate because it's a losing battle. The House didn't pass the Smith-Amash amendment and there was no way the Senate was going to pass its version of the Smith-Amash amendment. This bill will go to conference too, where any amendment can be removed or amended, regardless of its interpretation.

 

[JJ2]

I think the point of this was to have a debate because it's a losing battle. The House didn't pass the Smith-Amash amendment and there was no way the Senate was going to pass its version of the Smith-Amash amendment. This bill will go to conference too, where any amendment can be removed or amended, regardless of its interpretation.

Yeah, but if it got 45 votes last year, I would have liked to give it one more shot this year.

 

[JJ2]

Oh no, now there's a new "Kony" we have to go after!

 

[tsai3904]

Yeah, but if it got 45 votes last year, I would have liked to give it one more shot this year.

The amendment that got 45 votes only applied to US citizens. It wasn't as strict as Smith-Amash.

 

[Mr.NoSmile]

They're at last voting on the Feinstein Amendment.

 

[1836]

Anyone else hear Rand Paul talking near one of the open CSPAN microphones?

Something about the Hamdi case and very clearly you could hear him trying to convince someone saying "in fact, I think you could have firing squads..."

Go get em Rand

 

[JJ2]

You can hear Rand discussing it with people on the CSpan feed.

 

[Brett85]

Anyone else hear Rand Paul talking near one of the open CSPAN microphones?

Something about the Hamdi case and very clearly you could hear him trying to convince someone saying "in fact, I think you could have firing squads..."

Go get em Rand

I heard that too. He was talking about the difference between capturing an American citizen on the battlefield and capturing an American citizen here in the U.S.

 

[1836]

Pretty sure we won this one.

 

[1836]

John McCain votes for it!?

 

[Brett85]

McCain: Aye.

Interesting.

 

[1836]

LINDSEY GRAHAM VOTES FOR IT!?

 

[1836]

Then I guess because everyone else is voting for it, a few senators changed their votes. Dan Coats of Indiana one example, changing his vote form NO to YES.

I guess the momentum was with this one. Cool!

 

[1836]

This can be considered a small victory for liberty indeed! Thanks Rand, Mike, and Jim!

 

[JJ2]

Wait a second, even Lindsey Graham and John McCain are voting for it, and yet Kyl and Rubio and McConnell are voting against it?!

 

[1836]

Wait a second, even Lindsey Graham and John McCain are voting for it, and yet Kyl and Rubio are voting against it?!

Dan Coats changed his vote BACK to no.

Just to recap...

Coats of Indiana voted NO originally,

then changed to AYE,

then changed back to NO

 

[Brett85]

Feinstein's amendment has a clause that says "unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention".

I think that's why Graham and McCain voted for this. Is this amendment really that good when it contains that provision?

 

[1836]

There must be arm-twisting going on. Maybe the vote is really close, actually.

 

[Kelly James]

Feinstein Amendment being voted on

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

Ugh - both my senators (Chambliss and Isakson) voted NO. Bleccccch.

 

[1836]

I think that's why Graham and McCain voted for this. Is this amendment really that good when it contains that provision?

It puts up another statutory roadblock for courts to consider, so it's a step in the right direction.