Bennion reports: "Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced an amendment ... that would protect American citizens from being indefinitely detained."
The flag and barbed wire within a detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. (photo: Getty Images)
Senators Launch Effort to Strike Indefinite Detention
29 November 12
enator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would protect American citizens from being indefinitely detained. The amendment, which is cosponsored by several other Republican and Democratic senators, uses essentially the same language as the Due Process Guarantee Act, which Feinstein and Lee introduced last year. The language of the amendment assures that no authorization to use military force, war declaration, or any similar authority would allow an American apprehended in the United States to be held without charge or trial.
During a discussion of their amendment on the Senate floor today, Sen. Lee said, "Senator Feinstein and I have worked closely together over the course of the past year to craft what we believe represents a very prudent course in protecting both our nation and our liberties at the same time. Security is important, and precisely because it's important, it must not be acquired at the expense of our individual liberty. It may well be said that government's most important basic responsibility is to protect the liberties of its citizens. Our nation has fought wars on American soil and around the world in defense of individual liberty. And we must not sacrifice this most fundamental right in pursuit of greater security, especially when we can achieve security without compromising liberty. The Feinstein-Lee amendment does precisely that.
"We must stand behind our 225-year-old founding document as it's been amended to ensure our liberty isn't taken away from us, to give us a path to providing for our security without jeopardizing the freedom that our American citizens cherish so much and have fought so hard and so long to protect. Granting the United States government the power to deprive its own citizens of life, liberty, or property without full due process of law goes against the very nature of our nation's great constitutional values. This amendment, the Feinstein-Lee amendment, protects those values."
On the floor, Sen. Feinstein explained, "I want to be very clear about what this amendment is and what it's not about. It's not about whether citizens such as [Yaser Esam] Hamdi and [Jose] Padilla or others who would do us harm should be captured, interrogated, incarcerated and severely punished. They should be. But what about an innocent American? What about someone in the wrong place at the wrong time, with the wrong skin color?
"The beauty of our Constitution is that it gives everyone in the United States basic due process rights to a trial by a jury of their peers. That is what makes this nation great. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the plurality in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, '[A]s critical as the government's interest may be in detaining those who actually pose an immediate threat to the national security of the United States during ongoing international conflict, history and common sense teach us that an unchecked system of detention carries the potential to become a means for oppression and abuse of others who do not present that sort of threat.'
"The federal government experimented with indefinite detention of United States citizens during World War II, a mistake we now recognize as a betrayal of our core values. Let's not repeat it."
The amendment is also sponsored by Senators Paul (R-KY), Coons (D-DE), Collins (R-ME), Lautenberg (D-NNJ), Gillibrand (D-NY), Kirk (D-IL), Tester (D-MT), Johnson (D-SD), Sanders (I-VT), Whitehouse (D-RI), Baucus (D-MT), and Heller (R-NV).
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 20 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
The thing is, NOBODY in the territory of this FREE country should be the victim of the horrors that have evolved, in the ugly game of "Homeland Security." There is nothing more a threat to REAL security than the widespread outrage over "indefinite detention" of anyone at all. If we believe in due process, then we believe in it across the board. The bill we NEED to support is Senator Udall's, which addresses this very issue, rather than this half-baked attempt to offend no one -- except the prisoner who just happened to look like that swarthy kind of guy who might "DO something."
NDAA is unconstitutiona l, as is the detention of the prisoners at Gitmo and the Patriot Act.
The disgrace is that the SCOTUS has not ruled on them.
The Obama Admin, otherwise, seems more like Dick Cheney--and Susan Rice--just looking for a perpetual war--and claiming its about 'human rights.'
""I want to be very clear about what this amendment is and what it's not about. It's not about whether citizens such as [Yaser Esam] Hamdi and [Jose] Padilla or others who would do us harm should be captured, interrogated, incarcerated and severely punished. They should be. But what about an innocent American? What about someone in the wrong place at the wrong time, with the wrong skin color?"
Why the phrase "those who would do us harm." Why "would do"? Why not just "those who actually do harm." Padilla and Hamdi were and are innocent. They were framed. The military never even said they "did" anything; only that they "would do" harm.
"Would do" is a phrase of deceit. For example, say the CIA bombs your home town with a drone and kills your family. Would you do harm to the CIA if you could? Yes, you would. But you could not. You don't have the means or the opportunity. The FBI and military fabricated the means and opportunity. All you have is the intention -- the "would." The US gives lots of people good reasons to wish or intend harm to the US. The right bill "would" have changed US foreign policy. It would have stopped the practice of creating enemies.
The Hon. Jonsditter, a supporter and protector of Wikileaks' Julian Assange, was cautioned by Icelanders to not come to the U.S. this past March, for the initial hearing in this so vital case. The hearing was the Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order on this year's National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) article which instates this egregious indefinite detention with no due process flushing away of our basic, vital rights.
And, why would Icelanders be so concerned? With good reason. The Hon. Jonsdottir, in her support and protection of truthteller Assange, could, like Assange, be deemed a 'terrorist', and become victim of the very arrest without charges and indefinite detention in question.
So, instead of traveling to New York's Federal Dist. Court for the hearing, a deposition was planned, wherein both sides could question the M.P. in Iceland, and enter said depo. into evidence. But, guess what! Formal objection came from our Sect. State Hillary Clinton re. said depo. being entered into evidence. Clinton's motion granted.
Did anyone ask on what grounds SS HC objected?
What jumped into my mind, upon hearing the SS's objection, was her and being aghast at what Wikileaks had outed, insofar as it caught so many pols. with their pants/panties down, herself included. Cannot have truth being told re. all the bought off's and scared off's of pols. by the greed and power addicted 1%ers, now can the pols, Clinton included. That was my take on it.
And, another deduction of mine (sad to say): G.O.P.ers are blatantly bought off by the 1%, while far too many Dems. have also fallen the trap, including a constant cave in Pres. whom I confess, I most reluctantly voted for, who first declared he would veto this year's NDAA, but instead very quietly signed it this past New Year's Eve, bringing on the need for the above discussed, attempts to restore basic rights 'Trial of the Century'.
The level of self-delusion that prevails in the senate is just intolerable. The USG has been engages in well over 200 wars in its 225 year history. None of these were for the defense of "individual liberty." They were all wars of empire, conquest, and colonial suppression. They were all -- as Smedely Butler says -- wars to make the world safe for capital investment.
But Feinstein's self-delusion is even worse. By repeating the propgaganda slogan "those who would do us harm," she is criminalizing dissent. The people she wants to indict and imprison don't want to do "us" (i.e., the american people) harm. they want to do harm to US (i.e., the US government or military). There's a huge difference. Those doing the most harm to "us" are the banks and ruling elite. They are not being prosecuted because they ARE the US (government).
Anyone who is flatly against the policies of the USG and wishes to change them is a threat to US -- doing US harm. Feinstein is criminalizing intentions, wishes, desires. When Obama drops a bomb on a village in Yemen, the people there naturally and rightly have hostile intentions or feelings against the US. They have no means to retaliate but they sure as hell feel like it. And they should feel that way. IT is these feelings that Feinstein wants to crimialize.
Perhaps it will expose the rats on the awning.
Why do we need legislation that mirrors provisions of the US Constitution? If that improbable ass in the White House can ignore the Bill of Rights, he sure as hell can ignore some recently passed law -- if he doesn't just kill it with a veto.
Passing legislation that allowed the US military authority over American civilians was a disgrace and definitely must be amended. I would also suggest that an apology be issued to all Americans for this outrageous law.
Even worse was President Obama signing the bill and then earlier this year fighting when it was declared unconstitutiona l by a federal court challenge by Chris Hedges and others.
America needs to pay close attention to Congress at all times as they legislate so many things affecting our lives. This was one of those times.
Now let's see if the Patriot Act, drone attacks, and unreasonable search and seizure (as with NYPD) can be taken on.
This year after they had all vanished one reappeared vaguely out side our bedroom window. It remained for about a week and sounded distinctly synthetic and its song had a bizarre tone to it that I could only describe as electronic.
It did not sing in 'waves' as what I have always known cicadas to do...a slow mounting of volume, sustained at a height and the a fade.
This thing began at a pitch and volume and finished at that pitch and volume with little variation.
Sometimes it sounded like it was actually ON our windowsill and at other times a few feet to the right.
I walked outside and there I could not determine any direction from which the sound was emanating from.
It had a quality as tho it was projected from another place and focused directly on a point
What I articulate is as bizarre as trying to grasp why this thing struck us so so alien.
..maybe others have heard these or similar such instances of something that struck a chord as oddly synthetic...
Always the sound of a single strike of the ringer,
also totally synthetic sounding.
Walking outside it seemed to come from roof level and because of that it was impossible to get any bead on its 'location'.
We do not have access to any rooftop so could not go up and sense it from there.
Neither sound has reappeared.
Our Constitution requires that a citizen NOT be held without warrant indefinitely.
The same statement is made for all mankind in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the U.N. The U.S. Congress also - ALREADY - has embraced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights terms.
Even if held as military prisoners, they are humans who deserve to be charged or released, and if charged; they should receive fair trial.
What makes anyone think she's changed now?
There is a hole a mile wide in this amendment. Just more smoke and mirrors to pacify the gullible.
The Patriot Act and NDAA are extraconstituti onal and should be repealed.
Or have the Democratic Party flag wavers simply not shown up yet?
Thanks to all of you brave souls!
Now that the election is over, those of us who are "Democratic flag wavers" are joining the ranks of the opposition. Hence, I believe that is why there are no thumbs down.
I have known Diane Feinstein personally since the mid '70s when I worked together with her on projects to improve the lives of those living in the San Francisco tenderloin district. Although she has some good ideas from time to time, her gut instincts are not progressive and this bill is an example.
Again, I believe that what Diane has created is not valid unless it covers the individual rights of every human being. As many others have pointed out in this conversation, American citizens are already purportedly protected by the constitution and such a bill is not necessary for us.
If Diane had any balls, she would be writing a bill that protects all citizens of the world, not just the privileged few who are American citizens.
(Ive been in a partnership over half my life and have begun flirting with turning 60 in a few years).
I responded to the Obama request:
"I cannot imagine paying you $50 for rights which I should have had all along. Thank you."
To me it's akin to imagining a future political divide where a candidate is FOR the forced incarceration of children because the nation need their labor ...somehow. OK?
And people stand up for his opponent because 'He is against the forced incarceration of children for labor.'
The whole argument is insane, but attention is lavished on the thugs who initiate these oppressive dialogues, and we all know they deftly control them as well.
Yes achieving gay rights is a victory, but it's a load of BS that never should have been up for discussion for so long.
The insanity of endless American selfishness, division and power lust knows no bounds.
It's easy to say Romney would have made any number of situations worse.
It is extremely hard to feel comfortable with a man who I never would have expected to require a change of heart in this regard.
New ideas come to acceptance slowly at times, yes, but equal rights for all is rather long in the tooth is it not.
1. For someone who has known Dianne Feinstein personally for over 30 years, I would think that you should know how to spell her first name correctly, especially when it is right there in front of you in the article.
2. There were other choices than the mainstream party marionettes of the military industrial complex and surveillance state apparatus, which is why I proudly cast my vote for Dr. Jill Stein. Not realistic, you say? The same could be said of voting for Republican John C. Fremont in 1856 when the Republican Party stood mainly for extending slavery into the western states. In choices between good and evil, always vote for good over even the lesser evil.
3. The way things are now set up for California elections, voters who have been alienated by the political duopoly are disenfranchised for offices other than the presidency. The "open primary" procedure is a failure and should be repealed. I couldn't stomach voting for either of the Senatorial candidates, so left that one blank for the first time in my 40 year voting life. I'm tired of the hot and cold positions of Dianne Feinstein. She does not deserve a life tenure in the Senate or even an overwhelming mandate in an election.
I cannot disagree with anything the two of you say, except that you are both perfectionists in an imperfect world.
As for voting for a candidate other than Obama because Obama is not a perfect president sounds very idealistic. But again, I repeat, this is not a perfect world and that attitude gave us George Bush rather than Al Gore when 2% of the electorate voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. That was because a million people "voted for 'good' over 'evil'" even though their vote was no more than tokenism.
Gays should have always had the same rights as straights all along as you say. However, the reality, unfortunately, is that we haven't. So, I supported a candidate who agreed to stop the discrimination against us in the military and (belatedly) supported our right to marry whom we choose. (Even though that is not a right I personally will ever use. I might end up with a perfectionist who would drive me insane.)
You are also right that I misspelled Dianne's name. I knew the correct spelling 30+ years ago, but my memory, like so many other things in the world, is not perfect.
RSS feed for comments to this post