Senate Rejects Amendment Banning Indefinite Detention

[AnCap Dave]

Source

Today, the Senate voted 38-60 to reject an important amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would have removed harmful provisions authorizing the U.S. military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians, including American citizens, anywhere in the world. The amendment offered by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), would have replaced those provisions with a requirement for an orderly congressional review of detention power.

The Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the FBI and the head of the Justice Department's National Security Division have all said that the indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA are harmful and counterproductive, and the White House has issued a veto threat over the provisions.

We're disappointed that, despite robust opposition to the harmful detention legislation from virtually the entire national security leadership of the government, the Senate said 'no' to the Udall amendment and 'yes' to indefinite detention without charge or trial.

The next opportunity to remove the harmful detention provisions from the bill will be when House and Senate conferees meet in conference committee next week.

If the conference committee fails to remove the detention provisions, President Obama should follow through with his veto threat. Today's vote on the Udall amendment shows there's more than enough opposition to these provisions to sustain a veto. Stay tuned for more information.

I really want to see someone try to defend this kind of bullshit....

[Lord T Hawkeye]

If this does not tell you EVERYTHING you need to know about the whole "The military protects our freedoms" nonsense, you are beyond hope.

[AnCap Dave]

The NDAA passed in the House.

The vote was 283-136.

Source

H R 1540      RECORDED VOTE      14-Dec-2011      6:58 PM
QUESTION:  On Agreeing to the Conference Report
BILL TITLE: To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes

Ayes   Noes   PRES   NV
Republican   190   43    8
Democratic   93   93    6
Independent               
TOTALS   283   136   14

---- AYES    283 ---

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Buerkle
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chandler
Cicilline
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Hoyer
Hultgren
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sánchez, Linda T.
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Visclosky
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

---- NOES    136 ---

Amash
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Blumenauer
Braley (IA)
Bucshon
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Campbell
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Chaffetz
Chu
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Conyers
Costello
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DesJarlais
Doyle
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Flake
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garrett
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Hahn
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hurt
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Jones
Kaptur
Kucinich
Labrador
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Luján
Lummis
Mack
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Payne
Pence
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Ribble
Richmond
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Simpson
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Stutzman
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Watt
Welch
Woodall
Woolsey
Yarmuth

---- NOT VOTING    14 ---

Bachmann
Coble
Diaz-Balart
Filner
Giffords
Gutierrez
Johnson, E. B.
LaTourette
Lynch
Myrick
Paul
Pitts
Sanchez, Loretta
Young (FL)

[ebalosus]

What?! They actually allow this shit to fly? What about the 4th amendment? Does the federal government even have the power (constitutionally speaking) to do that?

With this and SOPA, I'm finding it very hard to hold out hope for america...

[Ibrahim90]

wow...Pelosi is on the yes list. for some mysterious reason, I'm not at all surprised, and was in fact expecting it.

in any event, all I have to say is this: f*** all 283 of these people. f*** them hard.

[AnCap Dave]

I'm not even surprised by this honestly. Disgusted. Just not surprised. Like it was stated in another thread, unconstitutional laws passing would seem like something horrible to us, but to them its just another day of the week.

As long as there is no kind of legitimate punishment for breaking the oath to uphold the Constitution, it is merely a paper of promises that they have no incentive to keep.

[MrBogosity]

What?! They actually allow this shit to fly? What about the 4th amendment? Does the federal government even have the power (constitutionally speaking) to do that?

Absolutely not! It violates the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments!

Half the Democrats and FOUR-FIFTHS of the Republicans voted for it. A plague on both their houses!

[FSBlueApocalypse]

But, but the GOP IS THE PARTY OF SMALL GOVERNMENT!!! GAH OBAMA IS THE ATHEIST MUSLIM WHO NEEDS TO BE VOTED OUT!!!!! DERK A DER!!!!!!!!!!!

[ebalosus]

Absolutely not! It violates the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments!

Half the Democrats and FOUR-FIFTHS of the Republicans voted for it. A plague on both their houses!

Do they put something in the water supply in D.C? Or is this an example of my most hated of government topics "Political Expediency." I'd think by this point that *all* americans should realise that the greatest threat to them is not terrorists, atheists, or muslims, but their own government.

[MrBogosity]

I really wonder what the hell it's going to take for Americans to descend on Washington with torches and pitchforks.

[AnCap Dave]

I really wonder what the hell it's going to take for Americans to descend on Washington with torches and pitchforks.

They won't. They've been lead to believe that you simply can't fight "the man." Not to mention the silver tongued politicians continue to put words in their ears of comfort while lying right through their teeth.

"It's okay. You won't be effected by this."
"There's nothing you can do to stop it."
"It doesn't make a difference."
"You need to learn to compromise to move forward."

These lies will be enough to hold back the masses from fighting back.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

[yt]WuRQbIBv2zg&feature=g-u&context=G2eca282FUAAAAAAABAA[/yt]

Stef's take on things.

"Everybody wants war because it's exciting...to depressed and empty people violence is a thrill. If you send them a bill for that war right away, they suddenly become much more able to put down their guns, because they realize that they are shooting at their own bank accounts. But if you go into debt then people get the thrill of war without the costs of war...So it's free evil. That's what government debts are all about -- Free Evil. Pay later. Well...now is later."

[FSBlueApocalypse]

Great take on this from Lee Wrights
http://wrights2012.com/2011/12/america-is-not-a-battlefield/

[Goaticus]

I really wonder what the hell it's going to take for Americans to descend on Washington with torches and pitchforks.

Sadly a lot of people actually look at this as a good thing, pretending that this is a sign the Government is doing something about "terrorism".

[ebalosus]

Y'know, when people voted for "change," I didn't think they voted for "change for the worse."

Sadly a lot of people actually look at this as a good thing, pretending that this is a sign the Government is doing something about "terrorism".

It flummoxes me that anyone with half a mind in america would support this. Even in countries like New Zealand (where I'm from), there would be a public outcry if the government tried to do something like that, even though, due to how the country is set up, they technically can exercise such power. I'd think that in a country like america, with a written, codified, and "technically" upheld constitution, people would be more willing to demand that the government stops abridging their rights and freedoms