Link to the actual roll call vote. (A Yea vote was a vote to amend the bill.)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.
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."
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
However, the second PrisonPlanet article I linked has something to say about that:(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.
(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.)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 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.