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

And the two men from SC stand totally opposed on this issue. We need the voters of SC to reject one and replace him with Tom Davis.
 
O WOW!!!! SUPRISE! SUPRISE!

I am so suprised to see that Rob Portman and Sherrod Brown aren't supporting this! Two of Ohio's best!

...Not
 
NDAA Vote THURSDAY: Tell Senate to end indefinite detention

http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/ndaa_2013/?akid=1874.370479.v6GlSx&rd=1&t=3


The 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees every American citizen the right to due process, but The "National Defense Authorization Act" (NDAA) shreds the 6th Amendment by allowing the indefinite detention of Americans without so much as a jury trial.

Powerful members of Congress continue to argue that it is ok for the military to lock people up without charge or trial here at home. An explicit statutory ban is needed to ensure that no president or any other government official will ever try to use these practices in the United States itself.

Granting government the unlimited power to detain American citizens without a jury trial is a dangerous precedent to set.The indefinite detention provisions within the NDAA destroy the very foundations of our constitutional Republic.

I urge you to support Senator Rand Paul's Amendment to strip the indefinite detention provision out of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) during the lame duck session of Congress.
Click to expand...
 
I called my Senators and urged them to vote in favor of the Feinstein-Lee amendment. We'll see whether it does any good. :)
 
The Senate has not debated and voted on the amendment.

If you haven't done so, please contact your Senators and urge them to support Feinstein's indefinite detention amendment to the NDAA bill (Amendment #3018 to S. 3254).
 
Gage said:
Was there a vote?
Click to expand...

They haven't debated the amendment yet. The vote will happen today or tomorrow though because the bill needs to be done by end of tomorrow.

Also, Mark Udall introduced a detainee amendment of his own that I believe goes further than the Feinstein amendment as it applies to all persons and not just US citizens or lawful residents.

Here's the text of Udall's amendment (Amendment #3115 to S. 3254):

At the end of subtitle D of title X, add the following:

SEC. 1032. DISPOSITION OF COVERED PERSONS DETAINED IN THE UNITED STATES PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81; 125 Stat. 1562; 10 U.S.C. 801 note) is amended--

(1) in subsection (c), by striking ``The disposition''and inserting ``Except as provided in subsection (g), the disposition''; and

(2) by adding at the end the following new subsections:

``(g) Disposition of Covered Persons Detained in the United States.--

``(1) PERSONS DETAINED PURSUANT TO THIS ACT, THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE, OR THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013.--In the case of a covered person who is detained in the United States pursuant to this Act, the Authorization for Use of Military Force, or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, disposition under the law of war shall occur immediately upon the person coming into custody of the United States Government and shall only mean the immediate transfer of the person for trial and proceedings with all the due process rights as provided for under the Constitution of the United States.

``(2) PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER TO MILITARY CUSTODY.--No person detained, captured, or arrested in the United States, or a territory or possession of the United States, may be transferred to the custody of the Armed Forces for detention under this Act, the Authorization for Use of Military Force, or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.

``(h) Rule of Construction.--This section shall not be construed to authorize the detention of a person within the United States, or a territory or possession of the United States, under this Act, the Authorization for Use of Military Force, or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.''.

SEC. 1033. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) Repeal.--Section 1022 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81; 125 Stat. 1563; 10 U.S.C. 801 note) is hereby repealed.

(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1029(b) of such Act (125 Stat. 1570) is amended by striking ``applies to'' and all that follows through ``any other person'' and inserting ``applies to any person''.
Click to expand...
 
They're trying to muddy the water and trick senators into rejecting both amendments is my guess.

Why else would Udall introduce this and not sign on to the other one?
 
Wow, I could sit there and poke so many holes in Graham's arguments. He must be a crappy attorney to make these kind of arguments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Brian4Liberty
Birthright Citizenship Isn’t Real
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
Invisible Man
I
PAF
New Poll: Americans Reject Deporting Foreigners for ‘Wrongthink’ on Middle East
Replies
5
Views
41
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
DOGE to shred regulations
Replies
15
Views
119
acptulsa
acptulsa
Swordsmyth
According To Supreme Court Precedent, The United States Of America Is A Christian Nation
2
Replies
32
Views
174
wizardwatson
wizardwatson
PAF
Trump Revives the Alien & Sedition Acts
Replies
9
Views
85
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
Back
Top