Tell the Senate NO to Indefinite Military Detention (of US citizens) [Archive]

View Full Version : Tell the Senate NO to Indefinite Military Detention (of US citizens)

Hotspring 44

11-28-2011, 05:00 PM

Tell the Senate NO to Indefinite Military Detention (https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3865&emsrc=Nat_Appeal_AutologinEnabled&s_subsrc=111128_ndaa&emissue=national_security&emtype=advocacy&JServSessionIdr004=jur5v66ku1.app223a)

Either tonight or tomorrow, there will be a vote on whether Congress will give this president — and every future president — the power to order the military to indefinitely imprison people anywhere in the world without charging them or trying them. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens, within our own country's borders, could be swept up by the military.

The National Defense Authorization Act bill, which is on the Senate floor now, was drafted in secret and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, and includes this dangerous provision allowing worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial.

But there is a way to stop this craziness. Senator Mark Udall is offering the Udall Amendment that will delete the harmful provisions and replace them with a requirement for an orderly review of detention power. The Udall Amendment will make sure that the bill matches up with American values.

It seems almost unimaginable that the Senate would even consider passing a provision that is such a deep affront to human rights and to American values. But, this outrageous measure could be voted on at any moment.

And because this bill is so dangerous and fast-moving, once you've petitioned your senators, please ask your friends and relatives to do the same. The only way to stop this outrage is for as many Americans as possible to contact their senators immediately.

Message * Subject:
<table style="border-collapse: collapse; border: medium none;" class="MsoTableGrid" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="border: 1pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top"> Vote Yes on Udall Amendment to NDAA
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> Dear Senator,
Text of the message:

I strongly urge you to vote yes on the Udall amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA).

The Udall amendment would strip sections 1031 and 1032 from the bill and in their place, mandate a process for Congress to use to consider whether any detention legislation is needed. If enacted, sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA would:

(1) Explicitly authorize the federal government to indefinitely imprison without charge or trial American citizens and others picked up inside and outside the United States;

(2) Mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilians picked up within the United States itself; and

(3) Transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial, investigative, law enforcement, penal, and custodial authority and responsibility now held by the Department of Justice.

You can go to the ACLU link and sign@:
https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3865&emsrc=Nat_Appeal_AutologinEnabled&s_subsrc=111128_ndaa&emissue=national_security&emtype=advocacy&JServSessionIdr004=jur5v66ku1.app223a

Hotspring 44

12-09-2011, 11:37 AM

I recieved an e-mail from Dianne Feinstein.
This is most of what it said:

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 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.

In addition to offering the amendments I mentioned above, I was a cosponsor of an amendment proposed by Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) (Amendment 1107) that would have removed sections 1031 and 1032 from the defense bill altogether. The amendment would also have required the Administration to produce recommendations on the detention of terrorist suspects, followed by Senate hearings on legislative proposals to detain and prosecute terrorists. On November 29, 2011, this amendment failed by a vote of 38 – 60.

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

ubaru

12-09-2011, 08:29 PM

I recieved an e-mail from Dianne Feinstein.
This is most of what it said:

If she's against military detention of American citizens without due process, then why the f*#K did she and Boxer vote for the bill that contained these provisions? I'm glad that they voted for the Udall Amendment, but when that didn't pass, they should have voted down the bill (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?85445-Unbelievable-Police-State-Bill-Passes-S.1867-Our-Enemy-Is-Within&p=144185#post144185).

I call for her resignation and that of the other 91 senators who voted our fundamental rights away.

One of our own Waccobians, Colleen Fernald, aka Peace Voyager is running to take her seat. Keep your eye out for her (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?84249-Is-Whole-Foods-out-of-touch-with-the-community&p=144526#post144526).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HrXyLrTRXso
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HrXyLrTRXso

Liz:waccosun:

Hotspring 44

12-09-2011, 10:45 PM

If she's against military detention of American citizens without due process, then why the f*#K did she and Boxer vote for the bill that contained these provisions?
That is a good question.
Senator Feinstein’s answer in the e-mail to me was woefully inadequate as far as explaining why she voted for the bill anywayhttps://mail.yimg.com/ok/u/assets/img/emoticons/emo37.gif.

I call for her resignation and that of the other 91 senators who voted our fundamental rights away.Realistically speaking they won’t listen to that.https://mail.yimg.com/ok/u/assets/img/emoticons/emo17.gif
The only realistic way to get them out of office is to vote them out because there is no one to impeach that many of them.:vote1:

One of our own Waccobians, Colleen Fernald, aka Peace Voyager is running to take her seat.
Senator Feinstein has a lot of clout here in CA and is still a formidable candidate to win an election against, particularly in a democratic primary.
Independent candidates that are not bought and paid for or billionaires have financial difficulties with getting the word out to the constituents.

Norman Solomon (https://solomonforcongress.com/index.php) is going to run for Boxer’s position because Boxer is supposedly going to retire.
I have asked Norman Solomon specifically what he thinks about Sections 1031 and 1032 in the bill in an e-mail but I have not received any response as of yet; (it has only been a couple of days since I asked).
BTW, nobody as of yet has my vote or ‘endorsement’.:confucious:

Correction: Norman Solomon is going to run for Lynn Woolsey's seat in the House not Boxer's seat in the Senate.

phloem

12-11-2011, 08:25 PM

Both Boxer and Feinstein are war profiteers, staunch supporters of AIPAC and Israeli interference in American government, and long-time supporters of the illegal invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, and inhumane sanctions, covert operations, political assassinations against countries that "don't cooperate" with American policies. As Glenn Greenwald has pointed out [https://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/] virtually all American politicians are party to American exceptionalism and state-sponsored terrorism. I have no doubt that both Boxer and Feinstein support the conventional exceptionalist viewpoint that citizens of other countries defending themselves from American attack are terrorists, so why would they not also support measures to classify and charge dissidents in the U. S. as terrorists? Don't for one nanosecond think these turncoats represent your best interests! They are just as aligned with the corporate-military-banking complex as is Obama and ALL other Democratic and Republican politicians. One cannot be an officeholder (perhaps other than at the local level) from either corporate party without full allegiance to American corporatism and global hegemony.

By the way, about 3 years ago I wrote letters to Boxer, Feinstein, and Mike Thompson, firing all of them from representing me in Congress, specifically for their abetting the commission of war crimes, profiting from illegal American wars on sovereign nations (as well as from warfare against the environment), and obstructing justice by not supporting impeachment of Bush & Company -- just another sick example of why Democrats are just as much to blame as Republicans for the insane and treasonous policies perpertrated by the American government. I no longer write to them because it's a waste of my time, and in the past, they've never responded to the issues I've raised -- once Feinstein and John Kerry sent me the same letter in response to the illegality of the American attack on Iraq. In a just and democratic nation, the local politicos and many others would be tried as traitors, which is truly what they are for promoting and prospering from illegal wars, among myriad other crimes.

I don't think Norm Solomon is running (yet) for Boxer's Senate seat, but for Woolsey's House seat. I think he's a worthy candidate (sadly, running as a Democrat, even though I understand the political expediency of his circumstances), but the House would need hundreds more progressives to have any chance at reversing the current tumble of American government into fascism.

Hotspring 44

12-11-2011, 09:07 PM

I don't think Norm Solomon is running (yet) for Boxer's Senate seat, but for Woolsey's House seat. I think he's a worthy candidate (sadly, running as a Democrat, even though I understand the political expediency of his circumstances), but the House would need hundreds more progressives to have any chance at reversing the current tumble of American government into fascism.

Thanks phloem!
You are correct, Norman Solomon will be running for Lynn Woolsey's seat in the house if (according to Solomon) she "decides not to seek re-election".
I stand corrected.:Thanks:

zenekar

12-12-2011, 10:48 AM

Thanks phloem!
You are correct, Norman Solomon will be running for Lynn Woolsey's seat in the house if (according to Solomon) she "decides not to seek re-election".
I stand corrected.:Thanks:

Lynn Woolsey is NOT seeking re-election.