Senators Who Voted "Yay" to Detain Americans

I think the Bill passed, but without the amendments that made it so intrusive.

It is still an overall loss, they didn't get the whole enchilada, but they got their grubby little fingers in the drawer and now they'll wedge it open eventually.

Yes, the Senate is loaded with Democrats and Republican traitors. Only about 1/2 of the Republicans supported by the Tea Party actually stuck to their morals, the other half sold out.

In 2012, we need to remember to support those politicians that actually stuck to their guns in the debt ceiling fiasco and in the case of this bill and others. Marco Rubio from FL is one of those Tea Party candidates that has fulfilled his promises. I'm sure there are others.

The rest need to get the BOOT!

Yay! My Tea Party person voted NAY! Mike Lee, Utah.

The Bunny feels justified.

Interesting. Of the 16, three are retiring, Lieberman, Conrad, Kohl.

7 are up for reelection, Casey, Manchin, McCaskill, Nelson, Menendez, Stabenow, Whitehouse,

Focus on those 7.

Originally posted by charles1952
You may want to consider looking at the various, multiple discussion threads this bill has spawned in the last day or two.

If you do, please give some attention to the people who are actually citing or quoting the sections involved and showing why it is not the dangerous bill people here seem to think it is.

It gives no new authority for arrest beyond the 2001 law (Not the patriot act) and requires that, at the least, you have to perform a belligerent act against the US.

Charles, I was one of those people who were advocating that the bill wasn't dangerous to U.S. citizens. But I went back and read it again in detail, and I was wrong! It absolutely does allow indefinite retention of U.S. citizens, and defines belligerent act so vaguely and broad that even the OWS movement could conceivably fall within its reach.

reply to post by jibeho


Find out who in fact was pushing this and you will see a much more broader conspiracy emerge!

I am truly ashamed that Menendez went for this! He's one of the last people's I would've expected to back this.

reply to post by jburg6

Thanks for taking the time to read the discussion. I believe I can help out a bit with the definition of belligerent.

These definitions are from 10 USC 948 (a)

(7) Unprivileged enemy belligerent. - The term "unprivileged enemy belligerent" means an individual (other than a privileged belligerent) who -

(A) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners;

(B) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or

(C) was a part of al Qaeda at the time of the alleged offense under this chapter.

(8) National security. - The term "national security" means the national defense and foreign relations of the United States.

(9) Hostilities. - The term "hostilities" means any conflict subject to the laws of war.

So, to be a belligerent you have to engage in a conflict subject to the laws of war against the United States, or it's coalition partners, or be a part of al-Qaeda at the time of the Twin Towers.

The important part here is the "laws of war" clause. No protester or OWS member could get covered by this.
(By the way, a "priveleged enemy belligerent is one who gets covered by the Geneva Convention.)

Does this answer your question?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by beezzer


Bunny, I'd hate to snatch the carrot out of your mouth , but Mike Lee (R-UT) voted NAY which means he is FOR detaining Americans with no charge or trial. If he had voted YAY he would've been against it. It's very confusing because normally NAY would me to vote down...but in this case the vote was:

YAY to NOT INCLUDE American citizens in this treasonous bill or,

NAY to INCLUDE American citizens in this treasonous bill

So Mike Lee is part of the scum!!

reply to post by charles1952


I would tend to agree with you if the definitions in that chapter applied to this bill. However, what in Section 1031(c)(1) of the bill ties it to Chapter 47A of Section 10 in the U.S. code? Because the definitions section you point out clearly defines the terms to apply only to that chapter, which would be 10 U.S.C. ss 948-950. Notice Section 1031(c)(2) of the bill, which addresses trial under Chapter 47A, is not the only power given in the bill. Section 1031(c)(1) does not govern trial or any part of 10 U.S.C. ss 948-950, but rather governs the detention aspect.

Hopefully, the House refuses to pass this crap and this is a non-debatable issue.

Originally posted by FreedomKnight
reply to post by beezzer

 

Bunny, I'd hate to snatch the carrot out of your mouth , but Mike Lee (R-UT) voted NAY which means he is FOR detaining Americans with no charge or trial. If he had voted YAY he would've been against it. It's very confusing because normally NAY would me to vote down...but in this case the vote was:

YAY to NOT INCLUDE American citizens in this treasonous bill or,

NAY to INCLUDE American citizens in this treasonous bill

So Mike Lee is part of the scum!!

edit on 30-11-2011 by FreedomKnight because: (no reason given)

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH SNAP!

Well don't I feel like the fool.

Well, thanks first off.

Second? Buh-bye Mike. Rat-bastard!

Your frst term is going to be your LAST!

reply to post by charles1952


Ron Paul defined it best: Terrorism is a tactic not a group.

I believe the Patriot Act states (I'm 99% sure it's the Patriot Act and this is not verbatm), but if I'm correct any organization can be categorized as a "terrorist" group. It doesn't clearly state specific groups (i.e. Al Qaeda)...so whatever group the government deems a threat...Tea Party, Oath Keepers, etc...can be catergorized as terrorists. And because the National Defense Authorization Act is a clear attack on our Constutional Rights I consider this bill an act of terrorism on the American people and HIGH TREASON.

Print the voting outcome from GovTrack.us and show EVERYONE you know who is FOR the People and AGAINST the People. Remember "YAY" is FOR the People and "NAY" is AGAINST

GovTrack Results

Have the house and/or senate voted on the actual bill yet? The links I have seen appear to be votes on amendments to the bill and not the actual bill.

Dear jburg6,

Excellent points, thank you for making them. Let me start with the first, which is definitional. If the bill doesn't supply a definition in the Chapter, there are three approaches that one can take:

1) It can mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean. That's not the case here. That would be too flamboyantly unconstitutional to ever be a problem.

2) Use Black's Law dictionary. I forgot to look it up.

3) Use other law or cases. That's what I'm trying to do here.

TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A - General Military Law

PART II - PERSONNEL

CHAPTER 47 - UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

SUBCHAPTER I - GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 801. Article 1. Definitions

Sure I could check in other places, but I'm now pretty sure that the definition in 10 USC 948(a) will do the job, especially since that's the reference used here in section 801.

I know, this is getting a little dry, but I just haven't seen any thing yet (besides the panic) that indicates this is a major departure, or threat to America. The argument "They're going to take anyone they want for any reason and keep them in a FEMA camp forever," is not very persuasive to me.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


Charles, if a statute is silent or ambiguous on an issue or term, the court will first look to Congress' intent in passing the statute, which means looking back at the Congressional record to see what if anything was said about the ambiguous subject. If nothing or if it is still unclear, then it would conceivably look at other cases construing the same or similar language.

I guess the reason people are making this a big deal is that it could potentially legally take away our rights. We all know the government could detain us indefinitely if it wanted without this bill, but this bill would potentially make legal recourse against the government for doing so impossible, and it would certainly give more legal power for the government to detain whoever it wanted by its made up military jargon.

I would hate to leave it up to a randomly assigned federal judge, who can be inconsistent at times and who could be bought and paid for by special interests, to interpret some bogus law that never should have been passed in the first place.

I doubt President Obama is going to veto this, they're just going to fire up the signature machine.

As for ANY elected official who actively usurps our Constitutional rights, Dem or Rep, isn't that treason? Where's the Wheel when we need it?

Derek

reply to post by getreadyalready


Please take a look at Rubio's position in both the links provided from the first page. The appear to be different.

This is confusing already. How is it that Rubio voted opposite of Rand Paul?

www.govtrack.us...
www.senate.gov...

This is what I sent to Dean Heller (R-NV) my Rep:

How do you even find it anywhere near acceptable to support SB 1867????

A bill, DRAFTED IN SECRET, which turns the United States of America into the United POLICE States of America, INDEFINITELY SUSPENDS A US CITIZENS ABSOLUTE RIGHT to Habeas Corpus, and labels the USA as a battlefield?!?!

Are you serious?!

Now I'm not making a threat here, just a prediction based on my own observations, but if this passes I'm pretty sure you (the US Govt) will have a LOT of very angry citizens on your hands.

If the Government wanted to oppress their citizens, you should've taken our 2nd Amendment away before trying, because every citizen that I know will fight to the death to maintain their freedom and this bill puts a gaping hole in those freedoms.

And please don't give us this "Well it's to protect us against 'terrorism'" spiel because we're not buying it. Stocking up on supplies (food & ammo) is 'terrorism'?

If Washington wants to find the terrorists they need only look into the mirror should this bill be passed.

The only way this sh-t is gonna stop is when all of them are gone.

Come on folks, it"s time to start targetting all the freaking incumbents, all of them, from left to right, the young ones and the old ones.
Second termers can stay, but they should be closely watched.

These people are the only ones exempt from insider trading.

Get rid of them all.

Oh look. A list of people who will keep getting reelected because we have too many dummies that are allowed to vote!. Huzzah!

Originally posted by Viesczy
I doubt President Obama is going to veto this, they're just going to fire up the signature machine.

As for ANY elected official who actively usurps our Constitutional rights, Dem or Rep, isn't that treason? Where's the Wheel when we need it?

Derek

Obama and the White House have been very vocal about vetoing it if this measure was included. You do not get that vocal in an election year and not follow through unless you want to get creamed.