Massachusetts
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2012
- Messages
- 667
The Roll Call is not up yet
NDAA Indefinite Detention Vote - Smith-Amash Amendment Fails 182-238 (roll call inside)
- Thread starter tsai3904
- Start date
LibertyEagle
Paleoconservative
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 52,730
I am pretty sure that my POS, whining, Congressman voted against it. He usually always votes with whatever the GOP leadership says.
HOLLYWOOD
Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2007
- Messages
- 22,314
Lawmakers back indefinite detention for terror suspects in US
By Jeremy Herb and Pete Kasperowicz - 05/18/12 09:48 AM ET
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hil...ion&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
In two votes Friday morning, the House backed the president’s powers to indefinitely detain terror suspects captured on U.S. soil.
Lawmakers rejected an amendment that would have barred military detention for terror suspects captured in the United States on a 182-231 vote,
beating back the proposal from a coalition of liberal Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans led by Reps. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and Justin Amash (R-Mich.).
Instead, the House passed, by a vote of 243-173, an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) sponsored by Reps. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), Jeff Landry (R-La.) and Scott Rigell (R-Va.) that affirmed U.S. citizens would not be denied habeas corpus rights.
Smith and Amash had hoped to attract enough support from libertarian-leaning Republicans to pass their measure, but only 19 Republicans voted for it, while 19 Democrats voted against.
The detainee fight is shaping up to be one of the biggest for this year's $643 billion defense authorization bill. The issue nearly derailed passage of last year's version.
Smith’s amendment would have changed last year’s defense authorization legislation and the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) so that terror suspects captured on U.S. soil would be handled by civilian courts, not the military.
The debate on the detainee amendments began after midnight Thursday, as part of a late night on the House floor to get through more than 140 amendments to the defense authorization bill.
Smith argued that indefinite detention gave the president an “extraordinary” amount of power, and said the federal courts have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists since the Sept. 11 attacks.
Smith and his allies said Gohmert’s amendment was redundant, since it affirms what is already true — that American citizens have habeas corpus rights.
Gohmert’s amendment was “offered as a smokescreen,” Smith said.
“It doesn’t protect any rights whatsoever,” he said.
But supporters of indefinite detention suggested that the Smith-Amash amendment would incentivize terrorists to come to the United States, because they would receive more rights on U.S. soil than outside the country.
Gohmert suggested at one point that terrorists “supported” Smith’s amendment.
“We cannot look to guarantee those who seek to harm the U.S. the constitutional rights granted to Americans,” said Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.). “If we extend that to them, this war on terror, now it’s a criminal action.”
Like the detainee issue last year, the debate in the wee hours of Friday morning saw the two sides often talking past one another.
Both sides have claimed the Constitution and the courts are on their side, but legal experts say the federal courts have yet to take a firm position about terror suspects on U.S. soil being detained indefinitely.
At the heart of the debate is a disagreement over whether terrorist suspects should be granted Miranda rights, and whether constitutional protections should be extended to terrorists.
Opponents of indefinite detention say that the Constitution covers “all persons,” not just U.S. citizens, so anyone captured on American soil should be granted rights to the court system.
Backers of indefinite detention say that terrorists should not be given the right to remain silent, as the United States must have the ability to extract intelligence from them to stop future attacks.
^^^^^^^^ aka Torture, Assassinate, & Murder
By Jeremy Herb and Pete Kasperowicz - 05/18/12 09:48 AM ET
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hil...ion&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
In two votes Friday morning, the House backed the president’s powers to indefinitely detain terror suspects captured on U.S. soil.
Lawmakers rejected an amendment that would have barred military detention for terror suspects captured in the United States on a 182-231 vote,
beating back the proposal from a coalition of liberal Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans led by Reps. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and Justin Amash (R-Mich.).
Instead, the House passed, by a vote of 243-173, an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) sponsored by Reps. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), Jeff Landry (R-La.) and Scott Rigell (R-Va.) that affirmed U.S. citizens would not be denied habeas corpus rights.
Smith and Amash had hoped to attract enough support from libertarian-leaning Republicans to pass their measure, but only 19 Republicans voted for it, while 19 Democrats voted against.
The detainee fight is shaping up to be one of the biggest for this year's $643 billion defense authorization bill. The issue nearly derailed passage of last year's version.
Smith’s amendment would have changed last year’s defense authorization legislation and the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) so that terror suspects captured on U.S. soil would be handled by civilian courts, not the military.
The debate on the detainee amendments began after midnight Thursday, as part of a late night on the House floor to get through more than 140 amendments to the defense authorization bill.
Smith argued that indefinite detention gave the president an “extraordinary” amount of power, and said the federal courts have successfully prosecuted hundreds of terrorists since the Sept. 11 attacks.
Smith and his allies said Gohmert’s amendment was redundant, since it affirms what is already true — that American citizens have habeas corpus rights.
Gohmert’s amendment was “offered as a smokescreen,” Smith said.
“It doesn’t protect any rights whatsoever,” he said.
But supporters of indefinite detention suggested that the Smith-Amash amendment would incentivize terrorists to come to the United States, because they would receive more rights on U.S. soil than outside the country.
Gohmert suggested at one point that terrorists “supported” Smith’s amendment.
“We cannot look to guarantee those who seek to harm the U.S. the constitutional rights granted to Americans,” said Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.). “If we extend that to them, this war on terror, now it’s a criminal action.”
Like the detainee issue last year, the debate in the wee hours of Friday morning saw the two sides often talking past one another.
Both sides have claimed the Constitution and the courts are on their side, but legal experts say the federal courts have yet to take a firm position about terror suspects on U.S. soil being detained indefinitely.
At the heart of the debate is a disagreement over whether terrorist suspects should be granted Miranda rights, and whether constitutional protections should be extended to terrorists.
Opponents of indefinite detention say that the Constitution covers “all persons,” not just U.S. citizens, so anyone captured on American soil should be granted rights to the court system.
Backers of indefinite detention say that terrorists should not be given the right to remain silent, as the United States must have the ability to extract intelligence from them to stop future attacks.
^^^^^^^^ aka Torture, Assassinate, & Murder
Last edited:
eff it. i hope 'they' double down on the fascist police state. there should be L-RADs in every neighborhood. i hope they start taking our guns, i wish they would nullify the constitution and start bringing in foreign troops to arrest anyone for the hell of it......lets do it.
LibertyEagle
Paleoconservative
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 52,730
If he would have limited it to U.S. citizens, I bet it would have passed.
Had I been a member of Congress, I would've voted in favor of Justin's amendment, since it's the only amendment that makes sure that no U.S citizen will ever be indefinitely detained by the military.
However, the wording in Justin's amendment was flawed in that it didn't simply prevent the government from indefinitely detaining U.S citizens. It also applied to foreigners captured in the U.S as well. Regardless of whether you think foreigners have the same legal rights as U.S citizens, many Republicans in the house who voted against the NDAA the first time voted against this amendment, because it applied to foreigners rather than simply U.S citizens. I think Justin's amendment would've had a good chance of passing had it contained language clarifying that the amendment only applied to U.S citizens. That's something that Justin needs to think about when crafting future amendments.
However, the wording in Justin's amendment was flawed in that it didn't simply prevent the government from indefinitely detaining U.S citizens. It also applied to foreigners captured in the U.S as well. Regardless of whether you think foreigners have the same legal rights as U.S citizens, many Republicans in the house who voted against the NDAA the first time voted against this amendment, because it applied to foreigners rather than simply U.S citizens. I think Justin's amendment would've had a good chance of passing had it contained language clarifying that the amendment only applied to U.S citizens. That's something that Justin needs to think about when crafting future amendments.
The basis of his argument is that the Constitution applies to all PERSONS.
http://amash.house.gov/sites/amash.house.gov/files/051812NDAAclosingargument.pdf
LibertyEagle
Paleoconservative
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 52,730
And that is why it lost. I understand his reasoning, but if all we could obtain right now is get Americans' rights restored, I would have taken that and then tried to get the other in another amendment.
Last edited:
Feeding the Abscess
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 8,340
I'll save my venom for a face-to-face meeting, if I ever get one.
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,990
Ah hell! I'm pissed! You know why I'm pissed? Because we had no organized effort to fight for this amendment! Just a couple of thread with only a handful of posts! When I saw this yesterday I didn't get a chance to do anything because I was tied up all day and figured I'd missed the boat. At least I made sure to donate to the campaign. Then I saw this today, saw I had one more chance and made the call. But I realize it's now too little two late. We had a freaking week of endless threads over Rand's "gayer" remark followed by another week of people parsing, crying and moaning over ever stinking email that came out of the campaign. "Did Paul really write this?" Of course he did! "Did the CIA get to Paul"? Of course they did NOT! And if they did it wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference! The campaign just told us what we already knew. Actually capturing the nomination is beyond a long shot. Throwing good money after bad in statewide TV ads in remaining primaries is a dumb idea. It's best to keep trying to get as many delegates as possible and see what we can do with that. That should have been the end of it. But nooooooo. We've got folks running around wanting "refunds" and crap. And while all the bellyaching and naval-gazing and hating gays and hating people who hate gays and hating people who could care less about gays but don't want the federal government telling states what kind of marriage licenses to write was going on We let an opportunity to repeal one of the worst assaults on the bill of rights in our generation slip through our fingers!
You know, when Wikipedia didn't want SOPA to pass they made it so that you couldn't even sign onto their sight. Wikipedia was "blacked out" except for the "Please call congress" page. Google and Facebook took less drastic, but similar moves. If we are going to win this fight we've got to get serious! We have to focus on what's important. We have to find the fights we can possible win and fight them! Come on people! Think!
You know, when Wikipedia didn't want SOPA to pass they made it so that you couldn't even sign onto their sight. Wikipedia was "blacked out" except for the "Please call congress" page. Google and Facebook took less drastic, but similar moves. If we are going to win this fight we've got to get serious! We have to focus on what's important. We have to find the fights we can possible win and fight them! Come on people! Think!
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,990
It lost because we didn't put enough pressure (any pressure?) on congress. Most people who called in and jammed the congressional hotline to complain about SOPA had no clue what SOPA was even about. They just knew that Google, Facebook and Wikipedia told them they should be against it. We should have had a full court press grassroots effort calling congress ourselves and getting everyone we could to call. They didn't have to know the exact language. They didn't even need to read it. We dropped the ball. And I'm saying we. I'm just as guilty as anyone else. I meant to call into a talk radio show and stump for it. I meant to, but I didn't. Oh sure, the host supported the NDAA. But last time most callers called in against it. Those of the folks I needed to reach. I dropped the ball. We need to take steps to make sure no more balls get dropped. We have banners for moneybombs and "call for Paul"? How about a banner on the top piece of legislation to call in and support / oppose each week? We've got to do better. I'm mad as hell at myself.
I called my rep Huelskamp and told him to vote for the amendment, and he actually voted for the amendment and against the GOP alternative amendment. He might have voted for it anyway, but I'd like to think that my call and others who called had something to do with it.
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,990
John Duncan rocks. I wish he'd run for senate.
jmdrake
Member
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 51,990
Good for you!
Agreed. Elections are not the only way to exert influence. We can pressure current members of Congress like what the internet companies did on SOPA. Unfortunately, we did not apply enough pressure on this issue. There were way more posts in the moneybomb thread than the Smith-Amash amendment thread. Ron Paul has made the indefinite detention issue one of his top priorities as he has mentioned it in every one of his college campus rallies and yet we got barely 20 people to say they called or emailed their Congressman.
Lishy
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2012
- Messages
- 1,499
I think McCain is still suffering from PTSD. He's so paranoid, he thinks we need martial law to keep us safe when terrorism is at an all-time low in the United States! 
This is what war does to people! He's fucked up in the head, man! Seriously! This is what war does to people, and why we should pull out of Afghanistan!
This is what war does to people! He's fucked up in the head, man! Seriously! This is what war does to people, and why we should pull out of Afghanistan!
Similar threads
