HuffPo: Senate Votes To Let Military Detain Americans Indefinitely, White House Threatens Veto (Updates in post 41: Senate rejects attempts to amend)

[Larry]

Link.

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.

Link to the actual roll call vote. (A Yea vote was a vote to amend the bill.)

I've tried to find a link to the actual section that they're complaining about, or to exactly whet this amendment wouls supposedly changed it into. But I'll confess that I haven't found anything that I can follow.

"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."

----------

Updated.

Found another article, from, admittedly, another alarmist web site.

PrisonPlanet: Senate Moves To Allow Military To Intern Americans Without Trial

And their followup article: Yes, Americans Will Be Targeted As Terrorists Under the NDAA

Link to the text of the bill. (I don't know if this is the bill, the way it stands now, or as originally introduced. It looks like there's like 150 amendments have at least been proposed.)

Link directly to the section that I think they're talking about.

Now, the actual bill actually contains the sentences

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

However, the second PrisonPlanet article I linked has something to say about that:

Following an ACLU alert on the legislation, some pointed out that the text of the bill actually exempts Americans from being detained under the new “homeland battlefield” designation under the proviso that “the requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.”

However, as Republican Congressman Justin Amash told the The Grand Rapids Press today, the language of the bill is “carefully crafted to mislead the public.”

“Note that it does not preclude U.S. citizens from being detained indefinitely, without charge or trial, it simply makes such detention discretionary,” Amash wrote on his Facebook page.

(The second article also makes many other observations, like pointing out how PATRIOT was sold as being used for terrorists, but once it's passed, suddenly applies to American citizens who aren't in any way accused of being terrorists.)

----------

The first PrisonPlanet article also mentions where the language (and the entire bill) came from:

The bill was drafted in secret by Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), before being passed in a closed-door committee meeting without any kind of hearing. The language appears in sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA bill.

----------

The articles I'm quoting certainly aren't what I'd consider neutral sites.

OTOH, I also admit that there's a lot to be said for people being skeptical about new government powers.

[Thiebear]

I agree in spirit, but there are no indefinite detainees that we know of?
They've desperately tried to get rid of the remaining prisoners but nobody will take them, letting them free in the United States is not an option.

Willing To Take Gitmo Prisoners May 22, 2009 10:29 AM
Rep. James Moran, D-Virginia, says that if push comes to shove he and the people of Alexandria would be willing to take Guantanamo prisoners.

They are wrong! no freakin way!

[Hubbs]

A decent amount of Republicans, mostly the Tea Party types, are actually fighting this along with the Dems, which is good. I doubt this is gonna happen.

[Burgold]

The sentiment is really wrong... Now, if convicted and serving a life sentence is part of it I have no major problems... but, there seems some gray wiggle room that makes the liberty loving patriot in me a bit queazy.

[Larry]

A decent amount of Republicans, mostly the Tea Party types, are actually fighting this along with the Dems, which is good. I doubt this is gonna happen.

Two Republicans voted in favor of the Udal amendment (which supposedly would have fixed this). One was named Kirk, and I think we all know who the other one was.

----------

Although, I will observe that the Constitution specifically grants, to Congress, the power to suspend Habeas, if Congress thinks it's necessary.

(I don't like that power, but it's absolutely in there.)

Although I also agree with the USSC decision I'd read, stating that the decision to suspend Habeas requires a much more affirmative action. That, for example, the words "any means necessary" in the AUMF weren't good enough.

I would assert that attaching a rider to the Defense appropriations bill isn't enough to suspend Habaes, either. By the same reasoning.

[Hubbs]

The more I think about it, the dumber this seems. Treason is already a high crime, punishable by death if need be. The only possible reason I can see for this is to arrest and hold people when you know you can't prove that they're doing anything wrong, which is a terrible idea and flies in the face of everything that our justice system is supposed to be. If you can prove it, then those people can be arrested anyway, and they can be held without bail, and they can be sentenced to life in prison or even executed if need be.

---------- Post added November-30th-2011 at 08:06 PM ----------

Two Republicans voted in favor of the Udal amendment (which supposedly would have fixed this). One was named Kirk, and I think we all know who the other one was.

----------

Although, I will observe that the Constitution specifically grants, to Congress, the power to suspend Habeas, if Congress thinks it's necessary.

(I don't like that power, but it's absolutely in there.)

Although I also agree with the USSC decision I'd read, stating that the decision to suspend Habeas requires a much more affirmative action. That, for example, the words "any means necessary" in the AUMF weren't good enough.

I would assert that attaching a rider to the Defense appropriations bill isn't enough to suspend Habaes, either. By the same reasoning.

The Udal amendment didn't actually fix the problem, as I understand it. I think a few Republicans have signed onto the Feinstein amendment instead.

[thebluefood]

I have a really, REALLY bad feeling about this.

I pray the President vetos it if it makes it to his desk.

[Larry]

The Udal amendment didn't actually fix the problem, as I understand it. I think a few Republicans have signed onto the Feinstein amendment instead.

Yeah, it's certainly possible that some folks voted against this amendment, because they wanted a different one.

Although, what I'd really like to see, is the actual offending passage, and a list of the people who voted to put it in, in the first place.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You know when I read this for the first time today I kept thinking that I must have misunderstood it somehow. I just don't get how such an atrocious provision could be passed by our United States Senate, are these idiot for real?! They are seriously trying to make this country into the very thing that we supposedly have fought so long against!!!

Oh I get it now, they are really tricking us in order to show that government really can't be trusted! Good one guys........why aren't they laughing?

[LadySkinsFan]

Gee, I wondered why ICE under the Bush administrations built all those concentration camps. Oops, I mean detention camps.

[sacase]

Gee, I wondered why ICE under the Bush administrations built all those concentration camps. Oops, I mean detention camps.

Maybe so they can do their job of deporting people who don't belong here?

(Funny how liberals love to use Nazi imagry even when it doesn't apply)

Oh by the way, Obama is still using your concerntration camps, you know the ones we have with the steamy showers and the special heating ovens.

[CurseReversed]

A lot of big brother stories recently. Things are really ramping up, exponential growth is a real
kick in the but.

[LadySkinsFan]

Maybe so they can do their job of deporting people who don't belong here?

(Funny how liberals love to use Nazi imagry even when it doesn't apply)

Oh by the way, Obama is still using your concerntration camps, you know the ones we have with the steamy showers and the special heating ovens.

Believe me, I'm not pleased with Obama. I was expecting the Patriot Act to sunset, instead the Congress passed an extension and Obama signed it. Not a happy camper. But the Democratic platform is much more to my liking than the Republicans' platform planks, which are so anti-human and particularly anti-gay and anti-woman that I will never vote for a Republican.

And the imagery I wasn't calling forth were Nazis per se, but we also in the US had detention camps for the Japanese during WWII the Big One. Those detention camps were our version of concentration camps only we didn't outright gas people. But we didn't allow them to leave and in some cases their property was confiscated. Nice of us, huh?

[Redskins Diehard]

I thought the President already decided they could just be killed?

[SnyderShrugged]

Have any of the candidates (Beside's Paul) come out publicly against this yet?