Senate approves S.1867 bill that gives President power to detain 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.”
+++
On Thursday, December 1, while we were busily tearing at each other about what the language of Sections 1031-1032 of Senate bill 1867 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012) means — whether or not the authority given by the bill to the President to have the military arrest and detain without charge or trial is over not just “terrorists,” but U.S. citizensthe Senate breezily passed the bill on a 93:7 roll call vote.
Amendments that sought to insert language into the bill, limiting the President’s carte blanche authority over U.S. citizens were rejected.
Here’s the partisan breakdown:

  • Of the 93 senators who voted “Aye,” 48 are Democrats, 44 are Republicans, 1 is Independent.
  • Of the 7 senators who voted “Nay,” 3 are Democrats, 3 are Republicans, 1 is Independent.

As you can see, the Senate’s passage of S. 1867 was a bipartisan undertaking. A record of each senator’s position was not kept. For the names of the senators who support vs. voted against the bill, click here.
Alas, the Library of Congress’ THOMAS website has only a summary, instead of the full text of the final version of the S. 1867 because “The text of this legislation is not yet available on GovTrack. It may not have been made available by the Government Printing Office yet.”
Before S. 1867 was passed, 381 amendments to the bill were proposed.
Of those, 3 were amendments proposed by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), the substance of which is unknown because govtrack.us says “Amendment information not available.” But Oath Keepers and the John Birch Society say Paul’s amendment sought to delete Sec. 1031 from S. 1867. None of Paul’s proposed amendments was accepted.
An amendment (S.Amdt. 1107) “to revise the provisions relating to detainee matters” was proposed by Sen. Mark Udall [D-CO]. No text of Udall’s amendment is available. The amendment was rejected by the Senate 38Yea – 60Nay.

An amendment (S.Amdt. 1125) “to clarify the applicability of requirements for military custody with respect to detainees” was proposed by Sen. Diane Feinstein [D-CA]. The amendment was rejected by the Senate 45Y – 55N.

An amendment (S.Amdt. 1126) “to limit the authority of the Armed Forces to detain citizens of the United States under section 1031” was proposed by Sen. Diane Feinstein [D-CA]. No text for this amendment is available. The amendment was rejected by the Senate 45Y – 55N.

An amendment (S.Amdt. 1274) “to clarify the disposition under the law of war of persons detained by the Armed Forces of the United States pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force” was proposed by Sen. Jeff Sessions [R-AL]. No text of the amendment is available. The amendment was rejected by the Senate 41Y – 59N.

In the end, however, both Diane 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.
The House of Representatives’ version of S. 1867 is H.R. 1540. The House had passed HR 1540 on May 26, 2011, by a roll call vote, 322 – 96 (13 present/not voting).
Now that both houses of Congress have passed the bill, it will now proceed to a conference committee of senators and representatives to work out differences in the versions of the bill each chamber approved.
To read the critical Sections 1031-1033 of S. 1867, go here.
Welcome to the Fascist States of Amerika.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0
 

13 responses to “Senate approves S.1867 bill that gives President power to detain U.S. citizens w/out trial

  1. I honestly do not understand the enticement here. What on earth was the justification for this??? Do you know?

     
    • That would be my question barb, it doesn’t make sense. Why in the world is this necessary, except to put “dissidents” in interment camps… What has happened to our Republic!!!

       
  2. And like good little DNC puppets, the SRM remains silent.
    Welcome to Amerika…

     
  3. It seems that for the first time the War of Terror was identified in legislation, and for this reason the Bill reduces the amount of executive power that the president can claim at present to get around loopholes and other ugly things like going to Congress for permission before he goes ahead on and commits more atrocities in this catagory. As I understand it that is why he is threatening to veto this Bill. Perhaps the actual defining of the woolliness of the concept of the “War on Terror” is wittingly or unwittingly there for a purpose.
    I stand ready to be corrected………………………….

     
  4. The war on terror is just starting, as Hitler did prior to WW2.
    The object is to silence all descent and therefore dragging citizens out of their house in the middle of the night at will and not knowing where they are. Just come up missing. A Soviet KGB tactic.
    They were able murder millions with no accountability.
    Welcome to real terrorism.

     
  5. Dennis H. Bennett

    The Judicial branch’s counter-control of Mullahobama will take years. It will take God moving His bold and willing people, and there seems to be a plethora in our company of Biblically-oriented patriots (Yes, as in FOTM), to take the truths exposed to the blind, the weak, the apathetic. I’ll be using a few examples of sin/corruption in my annual Christmas newsletter to family and friends, which include many of the above. I’m also searching for other media opportunities. I’ve served on several candidate’s pre-election, “get out the vote” campaigns and will continue. Its like I tell the grandkids, “Ask not what Grampa can do for you, but what can YOU do for Grampa”. When 2 or 3 gather in His name, ANYTHING can happen……
    So………………prove me wrong!…….

     
  6. People should start calling their representatives DAY AND NIGHT to SCREAM!!!!!!!!!!! DO IT or live in 1930’s Germany…. your choice Sheeple.

     
  7. Quote: The Defense Authorization Bill – sections of which shatter the Constitutional right to due process and would require that any terrorist suspect be held in military custody without trial under the laws of war – is being opposed by the Obama administration, not for those odious provisions, but because the bill would put limits on Obama’s imperial “unitary executive” powers.In a November 21, 2011 posting on her website, emptywheel.net, and again on Antiwar.com Radio today, Marcy Wheeler, who came to prominence in liberal blog circles as part of the Firedoglake team which denounced the Bush Administration’s outing of Valerie Plame and the Scooter Libby trial, argues that the veto threat has been made by the White House because the provisions — by Congress’s very act of authorizing the Executive Branch to do certain defined things i.e limit Obama’s power to make war on whomever he wants. For years, Wheeler says, “the Executive Branch has used the vague wording of the AUMF [post-9/11 Authorization for the Use of Military Force] to claim all the laws limiting the Executive Branch didn’t apply, because the AUMF trumped those laws. Their assertion [that] the AUMF authorized detention authority became a cornerstone of that argument … But with the language in the Defense Authorization …. Congress asserts its authority to define the Executive Branch’s authority, which ought to, at least, put limits to the areas in which the Executive can be claiming to be acting at the zenith of its power.”

     
  8. Conclusion:For example, Wheeler continues, “The language in the Defense Authorization limits the target of the President’s counterterrorism authorities to [9/11 Al Qaeda/Taliban] ‘associated forces,’ which probably doesn’t include FARC or the Quds Force. In other words, by deigning to define the war on terror, Congress not only threatens that entire ‘AUMF puts the President at the zenith of his power’ argument on which things like wiretapping and, presumably, geolocation and assassination authorities rely. But it has done so in terms that are more narrow than the Executive has already claimed…”
    The Administration’s attacks on the authorization bill, she concludes, betray “a concern that the explicit restatement of AUMF actually limits the Executive Branch’s authority.”

     
  9. That should clear up any confusion on my part.
    God bless.

     
  10. Why did the Congress not include the cartels as terrorists and take care of the threat on our soil and they are responsible for more deaths than 9/11 and day to day in the current conflict.

     
  11. They are not afraid of the cartels they are on the same side! The people they are afraid of is the American people that are determined to restore this country to it’s {original Constitutional control or the “control of the people”}! The American people may as well get prepared to take back what our forefathers fought and died for and we allowed the big government to take away from us a little at a time while we played Golf, Football, Basketball, Sockerball, and a host of other time consuming amusements while the America was going to Hell in a hand basket!

     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *