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

[dinosaur]

DId anyone hear how Cornyn and Hutchinson voted? Or is their a breakdown yet of who made up the yeas and nays?

And what about Rubio? I assume that the "tea party" senator got shamed into voting for it, but I'm dying to know.

 

[Matt Collins]

wow.... Senators not knowing what the hell they are actually voting for!? I guess it shouldn't suprise me, but it sounds to me like there was mass confusion on the floor

 

[tsai3904]

DId anyone hear how Cornyn and Hutchinson voted? Or is their a breakdown yet of who made up the yeas and nays?

And what about Rubio?

Cornyn, Hutchison and Rubio all voted Nay.

Here's the roll call:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00213

 

[dskalkowski]

This is fresh meat for 2016. "Senator Rubio.. Remember when you voted against an amendment to reaffirm a citizen's Sixth Amendment right?"

 

[Pisces]

Cornyn, Hutchison and Rubio all voted Nay.

Here's the roll call:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00213

Thanks. They both voted no unfortunately. I'm glad Hutchinson is retiring. During the campaign, Cruz came out against indefinite detention, so hopefully he'll be an improvement.

 

[Occam's Banana]

wow.... Senators not knowing what the hell they are actually voting for!? I guess it shouldn't suprise me, but it sounds to me like there was mass confusion on the floor

Actually, I suspect many of them were like sheep waiting to be told which way they were supposed to vote by their shepherds.

I mean, come on. Rand voted for it ... and so did Lindsey "Shut Up! You don't get a lawyer!" Graham.

Is it any wonder that they couldn't figure out what they were supposed to do?

 

[dinosaur]

It looks like all but 4 of the nay votes were Republicans. What is up with that? I knew that they were carrying the line that terrorist war criminals shouldn't get trials, but I thought that they were referring to mooslims from the middle east, not American citizens. How do they plan to sell that? Hw do they plan to defend their vote in favor of Obama's amendment to the 2012 fiscal year NDAA?

btw, thanks for the roll call! I'm still in shock about Rubio.

 

[LibertyEagle]

http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=645

 

[GunnyFreedom]

It looks like all but 4 of the nay votes were Republicans. What is up with that? I knew that they were carrying the line that terrorist war criminals shouldn't get trials, but I thought that they were referring to mooslims from the middle east, not American citizens. How do they plan to sell that? Hw do they plan to defend their vote in favor of Obama's amendment to the 2012 fiscal year NDAA?

btw, thanks for the roll call! I'm still in shock about Rubio.

I'm not. I would have been in shock had he voted for it, however.

 

[Mr.NoSmile]

Should Rand indeed run, I think this ought to be remembered as a prime example of him willing to work across the aisle with Democrats on a issue as important and vital as our very own due process. It will show that he does indeed follow through on his promises and doesn't just play the party line all of the time.

 

[dinosaur]

I'm not. I would have been in shock had he voted for it, however.

But why did he believe that his nay vote was a smart move politically? What am I not getting? The only thing that I can think of is that he didn't want to flip-flop, but it seems that he could talk his way out of that accusation alot more easily than the accusation that he cares nothing for our Bill of Rights.

 

[tsai3904]

But why did he believe that his nay vote was a smart move politically? What am I not getting? The only thing that I can think of is that he didn't want to flip-flop, but it seems that he could talk his way out of that accusation alot more easily than the accusation that he cares nothing for our Bill of Rights.

This isn't the first time the Senate has voted on indefinite detention provisions. He already has explanations in place, which you can read here:

http://bwcentral.org/2011/11/marco-rubio-defends-his-vote-on-the-national-defense-authorization-act/

 

[dinosaur]

This isn't the first time the Senate has voted on indefinite detention provisions. He already has explanations in place, which you can read here:

http://bwcentral.org/2011/11/marco-rubio-defends-his-vote-on-the-national-defense-authorization-act/

Right, but this was a vote to uphold the right to a trial by jury for American citizens. His explanation from before just says that he is against trials for foreign terrorists and that he would vote to uphold posse comitatus, nothing about trial by jury for US citizens accused of terrorism.

 

[trey4sports]

1 small victory for liberty. Looks like Rand has some pull.

 

[tsai3904]

Here are arguments from civil liberty organizations that think the Feinstein amendment is poorly worded and actually hurts the cause:

http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/due_process_guarantee_letter_11_29_2012.pdf

I think the best move forward would be to hope this gets left out of the conference report (which it most likely will) and we fight for the Smith-Amash amendment in the House and Senate next year.

 

[tsai3904]

Justin Amash on Facebook:

The Feinstein amendment to the 2013 NDAA does NOT protect you from indefinite detention without charge or trial. In fact, it explicitly permits such detention so long as the detention is approved by an Act of Congress . . . such as the 2012 NDAA.

I'm not telling you anything about anyone. There is no one I respect more in the Senate than Rand Paul and Mike Lee. What I'm saying is that I read the amendment, and it has a gaping hole in it.

 

[J_White]

I would love to never see Graham again !! and Reid too. Rand really needs to remember this, (if and ) when he goes against Rubio in 2016.

 

[cpike]

I understand Amish's concerns, but doesn't Paragraph 3 state something like (paraphrasing as its not in front of me) "Nothing in paragraph 1 shall be understood as allowing indefinite detention of American Citizens" wouldn't this anull any law that DOES legalize it? Which paragraph has more sway?

 

[tsai3904]

I understand Amish's concerns, but doesn't Paragraph 3 state something like (paraphrasing as its not in front of me) "Nothing in paragraph 1 shall be understood as allowing indefinite detention of American Citizens" wouldn't this anull any law that DOES legalize it? Which paragraph has more sway?

Yea I'm not sure. I feel like that "unless..." clause refers to any future act of Congress but I really have no idea right now. It just seems so obvious that that clause doesn't refer to previous acts, such as the 2012 NDAA, because that's what Rand wants to amend but I'll wait to hear from Rand or Lee respond to Amash.

 

[dinosaur]

The Feinstein amendment to the 2013 NDAA does NOT protect you from indefinite detention without charge or trial. In fact, it explicitly permits such detention so long as the detention is approved by an Act of Congress . . . such as the 2012 NDAA.

Might be a valid point if Congress hadn't already deprived us of that right once already. Congress has done it once, and can do it again even without the Feinstein amendment. In light of that, the unless... clause is meaningless. Congress both does and does not have the authority to pass unconstitutional laws, it all depends on what the majority will allow. The substantive thing is, that the right (at least for citizens) is restored for the time being.