Tag Archives: Dianne Feinstein

Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban goes down in defeat

ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN WON’T BE IN DEMS‘ GUN BILL

I Love it when a plan comes together.    ~ Steve~ —————-

————————————————————————————————–

feinstein

ugly_dogs_01

BY ALAN FRAM
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP)Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has decided that a proposed assault weapons ban won’t be part of a gun control bill the Senate plans to debate next month, the sponsor of the ban said Tuesday, a decision that means the ban stands little chance of survival.

Instead, Sen. Dianne Feinstein said she will be able to offer her ban on the military-style firearms as an amendment. Feinstein is all but certain to need 60 votes from the 100-member Senate to prevail, but she faces solid Republican opposition and likely defections from some moderate Democrats.
“I very much regret it,” Feinstein, D-Calif., told reporters of Reid’s decision. “I tried my best.”

Asked about the decision, Reid, D-Nev., said he wanted to bring a gun bill to the full Senate that would have enough support to overcome any GOP attempts to prevent debate from even starting.

He said that “using the most optimistic numbers,” there were less than 40 votes for Feinstein’s ban. That is far less than the 60 votes needed to begin considering legislation, and an indication that Reid feared that including the assault weapons ban in the main guns bill would risk getting the votes needed to begin debate.

“I’m not going to try to put something on the floor that won’t succeed. I want something that will succeed. I think the worst of all worlds would be to bring to something to the floor and it dies there,” Reid said.

Feinstein, an author of the 1994 assault weapons ban that expired after a decade, said that Reid told her of the decision on Monday.

There are 53 Democrats in the Senate, plus two independents who usually vote with them.

An assault-type weapon was used in the December massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., that revived gun control as a top issue in Washington. Banning those firearms was among the proposals President Barack Obama made in January in response to those slayings.

The assault weapons ban was the most controversial of the major proposals to restrict guns that have been advanced by Obama and Senate Democrats. Because of that, it had been expected that the assault weapons measure would be left out of the initial package the Senate considers, with Democrats hoping the Senate could therefore amass the strongest possible vote for the overall legislation.

Having a separate vote on assault weapons might free moderate Democratic senators facing re-election next year in Republican-leaning states to vote against the assault weapons measure, but then support the remaining overall package of gun curbs.

Gun control supporters consider a strong Senate vote important because the Republican-run House has shown little enthusiasm for most of Obama’s proposals.

Feinstein said Reid told her there will be two votes.

One would be on her assault weapons ban, which also includes a ban on ammunition magazines that carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The second would just be on prohibiting the high-capacity magazine clips.

Many Democrats think the ban on large-capacity magazines has a better chance of getting 60 votes than the assault weapons ban.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved four gun control measures this month, including Feinstein’s barring assault weapons and high capacity magazines. The others would expand required federal background checks for firearms buyers, increase federal penalties for illegal gun trafficking and boost school safety money.

© 2013 THE ASSOCIATED PRESS.

 H/T Drudge

 

Dianne “gun-ban” Feinstein wants you to know she’s not a 6th grader

Yesterday, during a committee hearing in the U.S. Senate on gun control legislation, newly elected Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and long-time Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) engaged in a heated exchange over the constitutionality of her proposed bill, Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, to ban “assault weapons” that include more than 150 rifles, shotguns, and handguns.

By far the most ambitious of and just like the gun-control bills introduced across the United States in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, Feinstein’s bill exempts government officials (including Congress, of course), law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel.

At yesterday’s hearing, Sen. Cruz questioned the constitutionality of new gun laws: “It seems to me that all of us should begin, as our foundational document, with the Constitution. And the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Cruz went on to expound on the phrase “the right of the people,” its origins and its prolific use by the Founding Fathers in a number of Constitutional provisions, including the First and Fourth Amendments.

To that, Feinstein huffily replied: “I’m not a sixth grader.” Blah. Blah. Blah.

Like another Democrat senator, Chucky Schumer, Feinstein carries a concealed weapon and is also protected by armed police escorts, although she has plenty of moolah to hire her own body guards. One of the 10 wealthiest members of Congress, Feinstein reported a net worth of between $46 million and $108.1 million in 2010, according to financial disclosures.

Feinstein’s investment-banker husband Richard Blum was on the Board of Directors of Current TV and had facilitated the $500 million sale of Al Gore’s failing TV network to Al Jazeera.

The Hollywood Reporter reports that according to a lawsuit filed by John Terenzio, who claims it was his idea to sell to Al Jazeera but he was cut out of the lucrative deal, Gore at first was reluctant to sell to Al Jazeera but was persuaded by Blum. Feinstein’s husband pushed for the sale because “he and other Current investors were concerned about the prospect of losing their shirts in the financially troubled Current.”

As the spouse of a powerful senior U.S. senator, some of Blum’s lucrative business dealings have been questioned for potential conflicts-of-interest. From Wikipedia:

Blum’s wife, Senator Dianne Feinstein, has received scrutiny due to her husband’s government contracts and extensive business dealings with China and her past votes on trade issues with the country. Blum has denied any wrongdoing, however Critics have argued that business contracts with the US government awarded to a company (Perini) controlled by Blum may raise a potential conflict-of-interest issue with the voting and policy activities of his wife. URS Corp, which Blum had a substantial stake in, bought EG&G, a leading provider of technical services and management to the U.S. military, from The Carlyle Group in 2002; EG&G subsequently won a $600m defense contract.

In 2009 it was reported that Blum’s wife Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to provide $25 billion in taxpayer money to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, a government agency that had recently awarded her husband’s real estate firm, CB Richard Ellis, what the Washington Times called “a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.”

Hey, Dianne Feinstein.

At age 79, you are most certainly not a sixth-grader. But I doubt there’s even ONE sixth-grader in all of America who’s as hypocritical as you!

H/t FOTM’s CSM

~Eowyn

This just in: Sen. Holstein (ain’t that a cow?) Feinstein coming for your guns

Sock_Puppet_3_small-249x300

You have to admit it looks like that ugly, buffalo breath, no talent hack, who should have been put out to pasture 30 yrs ago.    :D    

But how do you really feel, steve?

The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved a controversial ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips, but the measure faces nearly certain defeat on the Senate floor.

The proposal, authored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), bans 157 different models of assault weapons, as well as magazines containing more than 10 bullets.

The vote was 10 to 8, with all Democrats supporting and all Republicans opposed. 

For more information… http://www.politico.com

Keep ‘em oiled boys and girls

-Steve

List of banned guns in Feinstein’s “assault weapons” bill

True to Obama’s former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel’s injunction to “never let a crisis go to waste,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) cited the “20 dead children in Newtow” as “a wakeup call” to America when she formally introduced Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 — her bill to ban “assault weapons.”

Those “assault weapons” include more than 150 rifles, handguns, and shotguns. As Feinstein’s press release says:

The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 has two principal goals:

  • First, the bill prohibits the sale, manufacture, transfer and importation of 157 of the most commonly-owned military-style assault weapons. It also bans an additional group of assault weapons that can accept a detachable ammunition magazine and have one or more military characteristics.
  • Second, the bill bans large-capacity magazines and other ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. These devices allow shooters to fire numerous rounds in rapid succession without having to stop and reload.

Other key provisions in the bill:

  • Requires background checks on all future transfers of assault weapons covered by the legislation, including sale, trade and gift;
  • Requires that grandfathered assault weapons be stored safely using a secure gun storage or safety device in order to keep them away from prohibited persons; and
  • Prohibits the sale or transfer of high-capacity ammunition feeding devices currently in existence.

Her bill is co-sponsored by several top Democrats, chief among them being Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY). The other co-sponsors are Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and newly-elected Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren (D-Mass.).

Both Feinstein and Schumer not only carry concealed weapons, they are also protected by armed police escorts.

This is the handout of the bill’s list of “assault weapons” which was distributed at her press conference today.

Feinstein gun ban

Charlie Spiering of The Examiner‘s Beltway Confidential transcribed the following lists from the handout:

Rifles

AK, AK-47, AK47S, AK-74, AKM, AKS, ARM, MAK90, MISR, NHM90, NHM91, Rock River Arms LAR-47, SA85, SA93, Vector Arms AK-47, VEPR, WASR-10, and WUM, IZHMASH Saiga AK, MAADI AK47, and ARM, Norinco 56S, 56S2, 84S, and 86S, Poly Technologies AK47 and AKS, All AR types, including the following: AR-10, AR-15, Armalite M15 22LR Carbine, ARmalite M15-T, Barett REC7, Beretta AR-70,
Bushmaster ACR, Bushmaster Carbon 15, Bushmaster MOE Series, Bushmaster XM15,Colt Match Target Rifles, DoubleStar AR rifles, DPMS Tactical rifles, Heckler and Koch MR556, Olympic rms, Remington R-15 rifles, Rock River Arms LAR-15, Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles, Smith & Wesson M&P15 Rifles, Stag Arms AR rifles, Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR 556 rifles; Barrett M107A1; Barrett M82A1,

Beretta CX4 STorm; Calico Liberty Series; CETME Sporter; Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100 and AR 110C; Fabrique Nationale/FN Herstal FAL, LAR, 22 FNC, 308 Match, L1A1 Sporter, PS90, SCAR, and FS2000, Feather Industries AT-9, Galil Model AR and Model ARM; High Point Carbine; Hk-91, HK-93, Hk-94, HK-PSG-1 and HK USC; Kel-Tec Sub-200, SU-16, and RFB; SIG AMT, SIG PE-57, Sig Sauer SG 550 and Sig Sauer SG551; Springfield Armory SAR-48; Steyr AUG; Sturm, Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rife M-14/20CF; All Thompson rifles including the following: Thompson M1SB, Thompson T1100D, Thompson T150D, Thompson T1BSB, Thompson TM1, Tompson TM1C, UMAREX UZI Rifle; UZI Mini Carbine, UZI Model A Carbine, ad UZI Model B Carbine, Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78; Vector Arms UZI Type; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine.

Pistols:

All AK-47 Types including the following: Centurion 39AK pistol, Draco AK-47 pistol, HCR AK-47 pistol, IO Inc. Hellpup AK-47 pistol, Krinkov pistol, Mini Draco AK-47 pistol, Yugo Krebs Krink postol; All AR-15 types including the following: American Spirit AR-15 pistol, Bushmaster Carbon 15 pistol, Rock River Arms LAR 15 pistol; Calico Liberty pistols; DSA SA58 PKP FAL pistol; Encom MP5 and MP-45; Heckler and Kock model SP-89 pistol; The following MAC types: MAC-10, MAC-11; Masterpiece Arms MPA A930 mini pistol, MPA460 pistol, MPA Tactical Pistol, and Mini Tactical Pistol; Military Armament Corp. Ingram M-11, Velocity Arms VMAC; Sig Sauer p556 pistol; Sites Spectre; All thomspon types including the following: Thompson TA510D, Thompson TA5; All UZI types including Micro-UZI

Shotguns:

Franchi LAW-12 and SPAS 12; All IZHMASH Saiga 12 types, including the following: IZHMASH Saiga 12, IZHMASH Saiga 12S, IZHMASH Saiga 12S EXP-01, IZHMASH Saiga12K, IZHMASH Saiga12K-030, IZHMASH Saiga 12K-040 Taktika; Streetsweeper; Striker 12

The full text of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 as well as additional background information is available on Feinstein’s website at feinstein.senate.gov/assaultweapons.

UPDATE (Jan. 28, 2013):

It is also now confirmed — SURPRISE! [snark] — that government officials (including Congress, of course), law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel are exempted from Feinstein’s assault weapons gun ban bill, by far the most ambitious of the number of gun-control bills introduced in the wake of the massacre.

~Eowyn

Obama Signs Bill Giving Him Armed Protection For Life

While simultaneously launching effort to disarm the American people.

110113armed

OK Folks. The Steaming Pile has decided he needs Secrete Service protection for life. Probably a smart move. Will cost us millions but hey he’s such a nice guy let’s cut him some slack.   BRB, going to barf.     :)  ~Steve~

H/T May & Tina

———————————————————————————————————–

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
January 11, 2013

Despite launching a gun control agenda that threatens to disarm the American people, President Obama has signed a bill that would afford him armed Secret Service protection for life.

The legislation, crafted by Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, rolls back a mid-1990s law that imposed a 10-year limit on Secret Service protection for former presidents. Bush would have been the first former commander in chief affected,” reports Yahoo News.

The new bill, which will cost American taxpayers millions of dollars, is a re-instatement of a 1965 law which will see presidents protected for life as well as their children up to age 16

The irony of Obama seeking to surround himself with armed men for the rest of his life while simultaneously working to disarm the American people via a gun control agenda that is likely to be enforced via executive decree represents the height of hypocrisy.

But it’s not the first time that Obama has lauded the notion of responsible Americans using firearms to protect himself and his family while concurrently eviscerating that very same right for the American people.

During an ABC Nightline interview broadcast on December 26 yet recorded before the Sandy Hook shooting, Obama said one of the benefits of his re-election was the ability “to have men with guns around at all times,” in order to protect his daughters.

In addition, the school attended by Obama’s daughters in Washington D.C. has no less than 11 armed security guards on duty at all times, yet the idea of arming teachers and school officials to prevent school massacres has been dismissed by gun control advocates who want school campuses to remain “gun free zones” where victims are disarmed and shooters are free to carry out their rampage unimpeded.

The hypocrisy of gun control advocates who feverishly work to create victim disarmament yet surround themselves with armed men is rampant amongst the political class.

As we reported last month, despite in the same year calling for “Mr. and Mrs. America” to “turn in” their guns California Senator Dianne Feinstein, author of a draconian bill set to be introduced later this month that would treat gun owners like sex offenders, admitted to carrying a concealed weapon for her own protection after she was threatened by a terrorist group.

Other prominent gun control advocates such as Mayor Michael Bloomberg have also aggressively pushed to disarm Americans while themselves employing armed bodyguards at all times.

Michael Moore, another vehement proponent for gun control, also has armed bodyguards, one of whom was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon at in New York’s JFK airport back in 2005.

A White House petition created at the end of last month calls for making the White House and all federal buildings gun free zones. “If the government believes gun free zones are a solution for citizens, the same standard should apply to government servants and employees,” states the petition, which currently has over 12,000 signatures.

http://www.infowars.com/obama-signs-bill-giving-him-armed-protection-for-life/

FBI: More People Killed with Hammers, Clubs Each Year than Rifles

WOW Who Would have Thunk IT?

By Clash Daily / 3 January 2013

According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.

This is an interesting fact, particularly amid the Democrats’ feverish push to ban many different rifles, ostensibly to keep us safe of course.

However, it appears the zeal of Sens. like Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) is misdirected. For in looking at the FBI numbers from 2005 to 2011, the number of murders by hammers and clubs consistently exceeds the number of murders committed with a rifle.

Think about it: In 2005, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618.

And so the list goes, with the actual numbers changing somewhat from year to year, yet the fact that more people are killed with blunt objects each year remains constant.

For example, in 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.
While the FBI makes is clear that some of the “murder by rifle” numbers could be adjusted up slightly, when you take into account murders with non-categorized types of guns, it does not change the fact that their annual reports consistently show more lives are taken each year with these blunt objects than are taken with Feinstein’s dreaded rifle.

Another interesting fact: According to the FBI, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by murderers who use rifles.

Read more at breitbart.com

~Steve~

Liberal hypocrisy on guns

Narcissists will never admit it, but the plain truth is that no one is perfect. Conservatives partake of the same fallen human nature, but I submit the Left excel in hypocrisy.

Leftwing elites are especially prone to hypocrisy. For examples, see some of the posts on Al Gore and the Hollywood crowd on our “Leftwing Pathology” page.

Here is an example of the liberal hypocrisy on guns.

Elisabeth Meinecke writes for Townhall, Dec. 31, 2011, that one of the most popular trends in America today is concealed-carry licensing.

That shouldn’t surprise us because it is well known that gun sales have shot sky high ever since the POS began squattering in the White House. What is surprising, if you’re so naive as to buy the rhetoric of the Left, is that the concealed-carry licensing trend is bipartisan!

Meinecke writes:

Darniece McCray, 42, exited her Detroit, Mich., house, locked the door and drove to another part of the city to visit her mother. Upon arriving at her mother’s house, McCray knocked on the front door with her right hand. While waiting for an answer, she clasped her left hand around her handgun, hidden from view. “Mom lives in a really bad neighborhood,” McCray says, “and I don’t feel safe there.”

McCray holds a concealed pistol license—one of 290,731 that Michigan has issued as of November 2011—which she obtained for her protection about five years ago, she says. At the time, she was working the midnight shift and continually feared for her safety in crime-ridden Detroit—the most violent U.S. city, according to FBI data.

“After all,” she says, “You never know if someone is out there who is going to rob or attack you.”

McCray says she is a Democrat, but her desire to protect herself transcends the political realm. “I’ve worked in Detroit and in the more Republican suburbs,” she says. “There’s crime there, too. It doesn’t matter what political party you are, and criminals certainly don’t care. People should be able to protect themselves.”

Rick Ector, firearms trainer at Rick’s Firearms Academy of Detroit, says he has seen an uptick in business over the last part of 2011 and agrees with McCray’s assessment. “The biggest surprise about my customers, usually black males age 35 to 50, is the disconnect between firearms ownership and political affiliation,” Ector tells Townhall. “They are overwhelmingly liberal Democrats who are unaware of the fact that, in general, liberals are anti-gun. With respect to politics, the ‘gun question’ is not relevant or not discussed. Detroit is a town where five out of nine City Council members have concealed pistol licenses but still advocate that citizens sell their guns back to the police department for as little as $25.” Wayne County, where Detroit is located, granted the most concealed pistol licenses of any Michigan county: 56,325 as of November 2011.

Ector’s customers and McCray represent a unique trend: A recent Gallup poll indicates that while gun ownership is higher among Republicans than Democrats, the level of ownership among Democrats (40%) has never been higher. Moreover, personal gun ownership among adult females is at 23%.

Beyond mere ownership of guns, however, the carrying of concealed weapons, or at least the licensing that allows it, is on the rise as well. 

It’s not just rank-and-file Demos who are hypocritical on gun ownership, the liberal elite are worse. For them, it’s “Do as I say, not as I do.” They  love to pass laws severely restricting individual liberty for the “great unwashed,” but never consider that they themselves should have to live by those laws. Here are just two examples:

  • Carl Rowan was a columnist for the Washington Post who for years campaigned to ban handguns and helped get the law passed banning them in his hometown of Washington, D.C. On June 14, 1988, Rowan shot a teenage intruder with a gun he just happened to have in his possession, which was in direct violation of the law he himself had pushed for.
  • Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) is a staunch gun control advocate. Despite her stance, in the 1970s, she obtained a concealed firearms carry permit, and carried a handgun with her. A CCW permit was then rare in California, and was the only such permit in San Francisco.

~Eowyn

This explains a lot.

The year was 1947.

Some of you will recall that on July 8, 1947, a little more than 64 years ago, numerous witnesses claim that an unidentified flying object (UFO), with five aliens on board, crashed onto a sheep and mule ranch just outside Roswell, New Mexico.

This is a well known incident that many say has long been covered-up by the U.S. Air Force, as well as other federal agencies and organizations. However, what you may NOT know is that in the month of April, year 1948, nine months after that historic day, the following people were born:

Barrack Obama Sr.,
Albert A. Gore, Jr.,
Hillary Rodham,
William J. Clinton,
John F. Kerry,
Howard Dean,
Nancy Pelosi,
Dianne Feinstein,
Charles E. Schumer,
Barbara Boxer, and
Joe Biden.

Clearly, this is the consequence of aliens breeding with sheep and jack-asses.

I truly hope this bit of information clears up a lot of things for you. It certainly did for me. And now you can stop wondering why they support the bill to help all Illegal Aliens.

~Steve~                          A Big H/T   Miss May

Why Obama Wants to Veto S.1867

UPDATES: 

On December 31, 2011, Obama signed this effective martial-law bill into law.

Our concerns about Sec. 1031 are ignored. The reconcile conference committee has produced a final version of NDAA, which Obama says he will not veto. US citizens are NOT exempted from being arrested and detained without charge or trial. See my post of Dec. 14, 2011: “”U.S. Citizens Still Subject to Detention w/out Trial in Final Version of Defense Bill.”

See also, “There Really Are FEMA Camps.”

+++

Some among us are puzzled as to why Obama has made known he plans to veto the recently passed Senate bill 1867, that will give him (and future Presidents) immense power.

The now infamous Section 1031 of S. 1867 does not exclude U.S. citizens from those “covered persons” whom the President can have the military arrest and detain without charge or trial. In effect, S. 1867 suspends and  removes the protection of the U.S. Constitution from American citizens if they/we are deemed to be “at war” with the United States, whatever “at war” means.

Obama’s opposition to S. 1867 is not due to his passion to preserve our civil liberties.

Matt Apuzzo of the AP reports that on Dec. 1, 2011, “top national security lawyers” in the Obama administration said exactly what S. 1867′s Sec. 1031 says — that “U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida.”

The Obama administration’s CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson, were asked at a national security conference about the CIA killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and leading al-Qaida figure who died in a Sept. 30 U.S. drone strike in the mountains of Yemen. The two lawyers did not directly address the al-Awlaki case, but they did say U.S. citizens do not have immunity when they are at war with the United States. Echoing S. 1867′s Sec. 1031, Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, is equipped to make military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.

So why is Obama opposed to S. 1867?

It is not for reasons of protecting U.S. citizens, but because Obama opposes S. 1867′s “military detention” of those “covered persons.” Military detention means those “covered persons” become prisoners of war (POWs), and POWs are covered by the Geneva Convention, which forbids the torture of POWs.

In other words, Obama wants to continue to be able to use torture on “covered persons” — a category that, as Sen. Dianne Feinstein says in her e-mail, includes U.S. citizens.

As former Wall Street Journal editor and columnist Paul Craig Roberts explains:

“The Obama regime’s objection to military detention is not rooted in concern for the constitutional rights of American citizens. The regime objects to military detention because the implication of military detention is that detainees are prisoners of war.[...]

Detainees treated according to the laws of war have the protections of the Geneva Conventions. They cannot be tortured. The Obama regime opposes military detention, because detainees would have some rights. These rights would interfere with the regime’s ability to send detainees to CIA torture prisons overseas. [Yes, Obama is still apparently allowing "extraordinary renditions" to torture people abroad.] This is what the Obama regime means when it says that the requirement of military detention denies the regime “flexibility.”

The Bush/Obama regimes have evaded the Geneva Conventions by declaring that detainees are not POWs, but “enemy combatants,” “terrorists,” or some other designation that removes all accountability from the US government for their treatment.

By requiring military detention of the captured, Congress is undoing all the maneuvering that two regimes have accomplished in removing POW status from detainees.

A careful reading of the Obama regime’s objections to military detention supports this conclusion. (See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps1867s_20111117.pdf)”

Update (12.11.2011):

More than 2 years ago, Obama had proposed the creation of “a legal basis” for the preventive and indefinite detention of American citizens. Go here.

~Eowyn

Sen. Feinstein Confirms S. 1867′s Detention of U.S. Citizens w/out Trial

UPDATE:

Our concerns about Sec. 1031 are ignored. The reconcile conference committee has produced a final version of NDAA, which Obama says he will not veto. US citizens are NOT exempted from being arrested and detained without charge or trial. See my post of Dec. 14, 2011: “U.S. Citizens Still Subject to Detention w/out Trial in Final Version of Defense Bill.”

See also, “There Really Are FEMA Camps.”

+++

Sen. Dianne Feinstein

If you still have doubts that the recently passed Senate bill 1867 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012) is harmless, read this e-mail from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif).

S. 1867′s Sec. 1301 gives authority to the President to detain certain “covered persons” without charge or trial “until the end of the [war] hostilities.” There’s a dispute in the blogosphere as to whether “covered persons” include U.S. citizens.

Sen. Rand Paul

Feinstein — like Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) and Mark Udall (D-Colo)– had tried to get an amendment into S 1867 that would “limit the authority of the Armed Forces to detain citizens of the United States under section 1031″, but her proposal was rejected by the Senate 45Y – 55N.

Sen. Mark Udall

Here’s Sen. Feinstein’s e-mail to FOTM’s beloved Tina:

From: <senator@feinstein.senate.gov>
Date: Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 12:05 PM
Subject: U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein responding to your message

Dear Mr. and Mrs. ___:

Thank you for writing to express your concerns about the detention provisions in the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.”  I appreciate knowing your views and welcome the opportunity to respond.

This year’s defense authorization bill would, among other things, authorize funding for the U.S. Department of Defense.  As you know, section 1031 would authorize the U.S. government to detain suspected terrorists until the end of hostilities, and section 1032 would require that certain suspected terrorists connected to al-Qaeda be automatically detained in military custody when apprehended.

Like you, I oppose these provisions.  Section 1031 is problematic because it authorizes the indefinite detention of American citizens without due process.  In this democracy, due process is a fundamental right, and it protects us from being locked up by the government without charge.  For this reason, I offered an amendment to prohibit the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial or charge.  Unfortunately, on December 1, 2011, this amendment failed by a vote of 45-55.

I was, however, able to reach a compromise with the authors of the defense bill to state that no existing law or authorities to detain suspected terrorists are changed by this section of the bill.  While I would have preferred to have restricted the government’s ability to detain U.S. citizens without charge, this compromise at least ensures that the bill does not expand the government’s authority in this area.

I also oppose section 1032 of the defense bill, which creates a presumption that individuals associated with al-Qaeda will be held in military custody, as opposed to being processed through the criminal justice system.  I disagree with this approach, and believe that the President should be able to hold captured terrorists in the military or the criminal justice systems based on the individual facts and evidence of each case.  Accordingly, I offered an amendment to clarify that under section 1032, the presumption of U.S. Armed Forces detention only exists for an individual captured abroad.  Unfortunately, on December 1, 2011, this amendment also failed on a vote of 45-55.

Once again, thank you for your letter.  Please know that I am committed to ensuring that our nation has the appropriate tools to combat terrorism, and committed to upholding our fundamental constitutional rights.  If you have any additional comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.  I hope that you and your family enjoy a happy and healthy holiday season.
May I wish you and your family a happy and healthy holiday season.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

In the end, however, both Feinstein and Mark Udall voted “yes” on S1867, while Sen. Rand Paul held firm and was one of seven senators who voted against the bill.

This is not the end of the story. Now that both houses of Congress have passed their respective versions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (the House version of this Act is HR1540), they must now reconcile their two versions in committee. FYI, the House version of the Act is significantly different from the Senate’s version. More on this in a separate post to come.

~Eowyn