Why Sen Mike Lee (R-UT) voted for "indefinite detention" of US citizens?

what a joke that our lives are ruled by spineless, paper-pushing little men, thousands of miles away in a house made of marble.
 
Last edited:
MRoCkEd said:
Good news:

Mike Lee: There is a lot of confusion surrounding my vote on the Udall Amendment. I voted against this amendment to the NDAA because it did not change current policy that allows indefinite detention of American citizens. I am a proud cosponsor of Amendment #1126 to the NDAA which prohibits the indefinite detention of American citizens.

http://lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=953f3f14-aec6-42fe-8f62-ab5bcf39d16b
Click to expand...


Now I'm totally confused....
 
http://lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=953f3f14-aec6-42fe-8f62-ab5bcf39d16b

Lee Supports Detainee Protections for American Citizens

WASHINGTON – Today, Senator Mike Lee announced his support for legislation that would prevent any American citizen from being held indefinitely by the military without trial. The provision is an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, which is currently being considered by the U.S. Senate.

“Congress should make absolutely clear that the U.S. government does not have authority to detain an American citizen indefinitely without trial and proper constitutional process,” said Senator Lee, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “This amendment ensures the proper balance between individual liberty and national security, and maintains that we are both a free and a secure nation.”

Amendment #1126 to the NDAA states: “The authority described in this section for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain a person does not include the authority to detain a citizen of the United States without trial until the end of hostilities.”

Senator Lee strongly disapproves of any policy that would allow for the indefinite detention of American citizens. Congress expects to vote on the amendment this week as a part of the NDAA package.
 
MRoCkEd said:
Good news:

Mike Lee: There is a lot of confusion surrounding my vote on the Udall Amendment. I voted against this amendment to the NDAA because it did not change current policy that allows indefinite detention of American citizens. I am a proud cosponsor of Amendment #1126 to the NDAA which prohibits the indefinite detention of American citizens.

http://lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=953f3f14-aec6-42fe-8f62-ab5bcf39d16b
Click to expand...

And this is what happens when neurotic cat libertarians immediately jump to conclusions that someone has turned "neocon" and that we must send angry/nasty emails voicing our displeasure over what we take as fact; facts that are grounded in posts by random people on an internet messageboard, instead of calling his office, or visiting his website.
 
MRoCkEd said:
Good news:

Mike Lee: There is a lot of confusion surrounding my vote on the Udall Amendment. I voted against this amendment to the NDAA because it did not change current policy that allows indefinite detention of American citizens. I am a proud cosponsor of Amendment #1126 to the NDAA which prohibits the indefinite detention of American citizens.

http://lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=953f3f14-aec6-42fe-8f62-ab5bcf39d16b
Click to expand...

Looks like it will be called the Feinstein Amendment:

Feinstein Amendment No. 1126, to limit the authority of Armed Forces to detain citizens of the United States under section 1031.
Click to expand...
 
Does anyone have the Text of this amendment? Or of the Udall Amendment?

I can find text of neither. (was wanting to compare)
 
pcosmar said:
Does anyone have the Text of this amendment? Or of the Udall Amendment?

I can find text of neither. (was wanting to compare)
Click to expand...

Found it. At least a discussion of it.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r112:26:./temp/~r112kKsona:e41552:

AMENDMENTS NOS. 1125 AND 1126

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I understand the procedure, it is now appropriate for me to speak on my pending amendments. I will not offer my two amendments for a vote now, but I would like to take the opportunity to speak about them at this time. I trust that is in order.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to express my continued opposition to the detention provisions in the Defense authorization bill.
...
Frankly, I would prefer that the provision--section 1032--be struck in its entirety, as I don't believe we should be creating a presumption of military custody over the law enforcement route. That is not what this country is about. There is the posse comitatus law on the books. The military isn't supposed be roaming the streets of the United States. But if there is going to be this type of provision, it should at least do no harm to our ability to detain,

interrogate, and prosecute terrorists. So I ask for my colleagues' support on this amendment.

While I am on the Senate floor, I would like to speak briefly to the second amendment I have filed and on which I also seek a vote, since the Udall amendment has failed; that is, amendment No. 1126 , which would prohibit U.S. citizens from being held in indefinite detention without trial or charge.

As Members know, section 1031 of the underlying bill updates and restates the authorization for the use of military force that was passed on September 18, 2001, 10 years ago, 1 week after the attacks of 9/11. The provision updates the authority to detain terrorists who seek to harm the United States, an authority that I believe is consistent with the laws of armed conflict. However, I strongly believe that the U.S. Government should not have the ability to lock away its citizens for years, and perhaps decades, without charging them and providing a heightened level of due process. We shouldn't pick up citizens and incarcerate them for 10 or 15 or 20 years or until hostilities end--and no one knows when they will end--without giving them due process of law.

So my amendment simply adds the following language to section 1031 of the underlying bill:

The authority described in this section for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain a person does not include the authority to detain a citizen of the United States without trial until the end of hostilities.
Click to expand...
 
Was the Udall Amendment poorly conceived or deceptive?

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=12076

Udall subsequently proposed an amendment that he claims would alleviate these concerns. The Obama administration supported Udall’s amendment.

When one reads the actual text, it appears as if Udall’s amendment would have granted the president more authority than the sections the ACLU, Obama and others opposed.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
MRoCkEd said:
Good news:

Mike Lee: There is a lot of confusion surrounding my vote on the Udall Amendment. I voted against this amendment to the NDAA because it did not change current policy that allows indefinite detention of American citizens. I am a proud cosponsor of Amendment #1126 to the NDAA which prohibits the indefinite detention of American citizens.

http://lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=953f3f14-aec6-42fe-8f62-ab5bcf39d16b
Click to expand...

They are voting on Feinstein Amendment #1125 right now. I assume that a vote on Feinstein #1126 is next...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FineSpeech
Mike Lee sponsoring digital ID surveillance laws for app stores
Replies
19
Views
4K
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
Anti Federalist
UT-Mittens Romney torpedoes Mike Lee, refuses to endorse him for Senate
Replies
11
Views
1K
nobody's_hero
nobody's_hero
Matt Collins
Senate confirms Janet Yellen to Treasury Secretary position
Replies
3
Views
423
Pauls' Revere
Pauls' Revere
PAF
Tim Scott On The Record
Replies
0
Views
671
PAF
PAF
E
Sen. Mike Lee — Who Didn’t Vote For Trump In 2016 — Is Co-Chairing Trump 2020 Utah Campaign
Replies
1
Views
877
enhanced_deficit
E
Back
Top