Senate votes to let military detain Americans indefinitely

**Valigarmander** · 11-30-2011, 10:24 AM

Senate Votes To Let Military Detain Americans Indefinitely, White House Threatens Veto

Quote:

WASHINGTON -- The Senate voted Tuesday to keep a controversial provision to let the military detain terrorism suspects on U.S. soil and hold them indefinitely without trial -- prompting White House officials to reissue a veto threat.

The measure, part of the massive National Defense Authorization Act, was also opposed by civil libertarians on the left and right. But 16 Democrats and an independent joined with Republicans to defeat an amendment by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) that would have killed the provision, voting it down with 61 against, and 37 for it.

"I'm very, very, concerned about having U.S. citizens sent to Guantanamo Bay for indefinite detention," said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the Senate's most conservative members.

Paul's top complaint is that a terrorism suspect would get just one hearing where the military could assert that the person is a suspected terrorist -- and then they could be locked up for life, without ever formally being charged. The only safety valve is a waiver from the secretary of defense.

"It's not enough just to be alleged to be a terrorist," Paul said, echoing the views of the American Civil Liberties Union. "That's part of what due process is -- deciding, are you a terrorist? I think it's important that we not allow U.S. citizens to be taken."

Democrats who were also concerned about liberties compared the military policing of Americans to the detention of Americans in internment camps during World War II.

"Congress is essentially authorizing the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens, without charge," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who offered another amendment -- which has not yet gotten a vote -- that she said would correct the problem. "We are not a nation that locks up its citizens without charge."

Backers of military detention of Americans -- a measure crafted by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) -- came out swinging against Udall's amendment on the Senate floor earlier Tuesday.

"The enemy is all over the world. Here at home. And when people take up arms against the United States and [are] captured within the United States, why should we not be able to use our military and intelligence community to question that person as to what they know about enemy activity?" Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said.

"They should not be read their Miranda Rights. They should not be given a lawyer," Graham said. "They should be held humanely in military custody and interrogated about why they joined al Qaeda and what they were going to do to all of us."

...

This seems to be flying under the radar. What do you guys think about this?

**Loot** · 11-30-2011, 10:43 AM

Isn't this the one where Obama said "You pass this I'm vetoing this to the ****ing ground"?

***Ace Mercury*** · 11-30-2011, 10:59 AM

Are there any people that actually think this is a good idea? Just judging on the merits of the provision, it's a ridiculous expansion of power. This sort of arrest-and-forget is sort of done right now, but making it explicit in law is basically admitting yours is a nation of jerks and hypocrites.

Terrorism is the trump card being played here, and it's getting old. How many terrorists do Americans think there are? So many that they don't have time for things like trials and due process?

Sim Kid · 11-30-2011, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loot

Isn't this the one where Obama said "You pass this I'm vetoing this to the ****ing ground"?

I heard he said that about SOPA.

***Cosmonautical*** · 11-30-2011, 12:59 PM

Christ, that's awful.

CuccoLady · 11-30-2011, 01:31 PM

I swear to Canada I'm moving to god if this passes.

Jere · 11-30-2011, 02:08 PM

Heck i would veto this to the F***ing ground if i was the president

***CaptHayfever*** · 11-30-2011, 02:39 PM

No. Absolutely not.
The House might not pass it (though probably they will). Obama will veto it. If the veto is overridden--not likely since the Senate doesn't have 2/3 support--or if Obama backpedals a la Patriot Act, the Court should shoot it down.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

Bomby · 11-30-2011, 03:05 PM

Wow. I actually agree with Rand Paul on something. Congratulations universe, you win.

***Ace Mercury*** · 11-30-2011, 03:26 PM

Hey, even broken clocks are correct twice a day.

**Loot** · 12-01-2011, 02:57 PM

Senator McCarthy would be proud.

***Marilink*** · 12-01-2011, 05:55 PM

What in the...what? What is this, 1970's Argentina?

Kil'jaeden · 12-02-2011, 12:05 PM

Everyone who voted for it needs to be detained by a citizen's arrest and locked in a cellar in the middle of the desert without trial. Indefinitely.

"They should not be read their Miranda Rights. They should not be given a lawyer," Graham said. "They should be held humanely in military custody and interrogated about why they joined al Qaeda and what they were going to do to all of us."

Why Al Qaeda? Is it the only organization for terrorists in the world or something? And what if they never joined anything but were accused and then held for 10 years for no good reason? Not like anything like that would ever happen in the US, where power is never abused by the government and politicians always say what they mean.

***Cosmonautical*** · 12-06-2011, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kil'jaeden

Everyone who voted for it needs to be detained by a citizen's arrest and locked in a cellar in the middle of the desert without trial. Indefinitely.

I favor charging them with treason.

We're allowed to execute them for that.

Maximum Spider · 12-06-2011, 02:57 PM

I honestly can't tell if these guys are for or against it.

**Loot** · 12-06-2011, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kil'jaeden

Why Al Qaeda?

Al Qaeda is this generation's witches/communists.

Kil'jaeden · 12-18-2011, 03:11 AM

Looks like it's been a while since anyone posted anything here. Now that this thing has been approved by both chambers, I think about what would happen if the bill's language were changed.

Right now, it's all about terrorists. They blow people up and occasionally kill them with guns or blades, and they mostly inhabit the desert somewhere. Obviously, the American public wants to be safe from these people. So maybe this bill sounds good to some people. They certainly have a selling point. Why worry about it unless you are a member of Al Jazheera or whatever they are calling it now? What if they changed the bill to say "whoever is suspected of being an enemy of the state may be detained indefinitely by the military, whether in America or Afghanistan." Then it sounds like straight up commie territory, doesn't it. Even the crazies in our political spectrum have to hate commies (contractually), unless they are commies already.

11-30-2011, 10:59 AM	#3
*Ace Mercury* Marshmallow Knight ☆ Supermod Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Southern Ontario Gender: Posts: 23,275 Thanks: 568 Thanked 3,297 Times in 1,582 Posts Blog Entries: 1	Half-formed rant Are there any people that actually think this is a good idea? Just judging on the merits of the provision, it's a ridiculous expansion of power. This sort of arrest-and-forget is sort of done right now, but making it explicit in law is basically admitting yours is a nation of jerks and hypocrites. Terrorism is the trump card being played here, and it's getting old. How many terrorists do Americans think there are? So many that they don't have time for things like trials and due process?

11-30-2011, 02:08 PM	#7
Jere Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sutme Gender: Posts: 3,648 Thanks: 404 Thanked 331 Times in 256 Posts Blog Entries: 3	Heck i would veto this to the F***ing ground if i was the president __________________ From where it counts: Lapland

12-01-2011, 05:55 PM	#12
*Marilink* Gotta catch 'em all! Supermod! Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Location, Location. Gender: Posts: 29,118 Thanks: 2,535 Thanked 1,822 Times in 1,007 Posts	What in the...what? What is this, 1970's Argentina? Last edited by Marilink; 12-01-2011 at 06:03 PM.

11-30-2011, 10:43 AM	#2
Loot Apparently I'm a mod? Join Date: May 2001 Location: LEGITIMATE BUSINESS Gender: Posts: 13,208 Thanks: 236 Thanked 1,237 Times in 659 Posts	Isn't this the one where Obama said "You pass this I'm vetoing this to the ****ing ground"?

11-30-2011, 12:59 PM	#5
*Cosmonautical* Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I rub my tilde all over your asterisk Gender: Posts: 28,100 Thanks: 2,151 Thanked 5,338 Times in 2,433 Posts	Christ, that's awful.

11-30-2011, 01:31 PM	#6
CuccoLady Anime and Cartoons Mod Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: THIS LOCATION REMINDS ME OF A PUZZLE, LUKE Gender: Posts: 9,077 Thanks: 2,825 Thanked 1,222 Times in 822 Posts	I swear to Canada I'm moving to god if this passes.

11-30-2011, 02:39 PM	#8
*CaptHayfever* Smash SuperMod Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: (n) - the place where I am Gender: Posts: 27,661 Thanks: 1,991 Thanked 2,486 Times in 1,513 Posts	No. Absolutely not. The House might not pass it (though probably they will). Obama will veto it. If the veto is overridden--not likely since the Senate doesn't have 2/3 support--or if Obama backpedals a la Patriot Act, the Court should shoot it down. And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

11-30-2011, 03:05 PM	#9
Bomby You just freaking blew Joe Biden's mind! Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: WHAT?house Gender: Posts: 19,491 Thanks: 513 Thanked 1,449 Times in 849 Posts Blog Entries: 5	Wow. I actually agree with Rand Paul on something. Congratulations universe, you win.

11-30-2011, 03:26 PM	#10
*Ace Mercury* Marshmallow Knight ☆ Supermod Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Southern Ontario Gender: Posts: 23,275 Thanks: 568 Thanked 3,297 Times in 1,582 Posts Blog Entries: 1	Hey, even broken clocks are correct twice a day.

12-01-2011, 02:57 PM	#11
Loot Apparently I'm a mod? Join Date: May 2001 Location: LEGITIMATE BUSINESS Gender: Posts: 13,208 Thanks: 236 Thanked 1,237 Times in 659 Posts	Senator McCarthy would be proud.

12-02-2011, 12:05 PM	#13
Kil'jaeden Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: in your mind Gender: Posts: 2,132 Thanks: 21 Thanked 146 Times in 99 Posts	Everyone who voted for it needs to be detained by a citizen's arrest and locked in a cellar in the middle of the desert without trial. Indefinitely. "They should not be read their Miranda Rights. They should not be given a lawyer," Graham said. "They should be held humanely in military custody and interrogated about why they joined al Qaeda and what they were going to do to all of us." Why Al Qaeda? Is it the only organization for terrorists in the world or something? And what if they never joined anything but were accused and then held for 10 years for no good reason? Not like anything like that would ever happen in the US, where power is never abused by the government and politicians always say what they mean.

12-06-2011, 02:57 PM	#15
Maximum Spider Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: I'll take Street Fighter over Dragonball any day. Gender: Posts: 2,549 Thanks: 0 Thanked 191 Times in 126 Posts	I honestly can't tell if these guys are for or against it.

12-18-2011, 03:11 AM	#17
Kil'jaeden Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: in your mind Gender: Posts: 2,132 Thanks: 21 Thanked 146 Times in 99 Posts	Looks like it's been a while since anyone posted anything here. Now that this thing has been approved by both chambers, I think about what would happen if the bill's language were changed. Right now, it's all about terrorists. They blow people up and occasionally kill them with guns or blades, and they mostly inhabit the desert somewhere. Obviously, the American public wants to be safe from these people. So maybe this bill sounds good to some people. They certainly have a selling point. Why worry about it unless you are a member of Al Jazheera or whatever they are calling it now? What if they changed the bill to say "whoever is suspected of being an enemy of the state may be detained indefinitely by the military, whether in America or Afghanistan." Then it sounds like straight up commie territory, doesn't it. Even the crazies in our political spectrum have to hate commies (contractually), unless they are commies already.