http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2012/s/213

On the Amendment S.Amdt. 3018 to S. 3254 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013) Amendment purpose To clarify that an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States.

For the cliff's notes folks, the correct answer to this question is "yes," or "aye," we talk like pirates in Congress apparently.

The results:

67-29 For this change to the s*** sandwich legislation known as the National Defense Authorization Act. It's like adding some lettuce and tomatoes to it, yes, but it's a significant first step towards elimination of this Police State manifesto.

The parties:

46 Democrats made the right choice including the senators from my great state of Virginia. Thank you gentlemen. 20 Republicans also made the right choice including Ron Paul's son, Rand.

3 Democrats made the wrong choice, shame on them.
Sen. Joe Manchin [D, WV]
Sen. Ben Nelson [D, NE]
Sen. Mark Pryor [D, AR]

Overall, though, the Democrats had a much better showing on this than did the Republicans. Twenty ****in Five of those sumbitches want the President to be able to snatch up an American Citizen with no charge necessary, imprison them with no trial, and for an indefinite period. This is a no brainer folks. Well, more to the point, it's a brainer. Here are the Republicans that have none.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte [R, NH]
Sen. Scott Brown [R, MA]
Sen. Richard Burr [R, NC]
Sen. Saxby Chambliss [R, GA]
Sen. Daniel Coats [R, IN]
Sen. Thad Cochran [R, MS]
Sen. John Cornyn [R, TX]
Sen. Charles Grassley [R, IA]
Sen. Orrin Hatch [R, UT]
Sen. Kay Hutchison [R, TX]
Sen. John Isakson [R, GA]
Sen. Mike Johanns [R, NE]
Sen. Ron Johnson [R, WI]
Sen. Jon Kyl [R, AZ]
Sen. Richard Lugar [R, IN]
Sen. Mitch McConnell [R, KY]
Sen. Robert Portman [R, OH]
Sen. Pat Roberts [R, KS]
Sen. Marco Rubio [R, FL]
Sen. Jefferson Sessions [R, AL]
Sen. Richard Shelby [R, AL]
Sen. John Thune [R, SD]
Sen. Patrick Toomey [R, PA]
Sen. David Vitter [R, LA]
Sen. Roger Wicker [R, MS]

If you see your Senator up there, the ball is in your court. Now is a great time to be a Republican voter. After than nut stomp they just got in the Presidential election, they might be scared enough to do what you tell them to do.

Now, four people abstained from this vote. You better have a damned good reason for that choice gents.

Sen. John Rockefeller [D, WV]
Sen. Ron Wyden [D, OR]

Sen. Dean Heller [R, NV]
Sen. Mark Kirk [R, IL]

Here is the full text of the NDAA. Read it if you want to get very very concerned.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s ... 254pcs.pdf

Again, this amendment is no knockout punch by any measure as correctly explained here.
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/ ... nsitution/

If Congress intends to uphold the Constitution, it must immediately ban indefinite detention, require that trials of American civilians be held in civilian courts, and strike the President’s extraordinary rendition powers. Congress must restore the rule of law!

Otherwise, the terrorists have won.

That's a great post Mike. I saved that link to my faves. I wish the mainstream media would provide clear information like this to the GP every single day. Especially those days when the Congress does absolutely nothing. I see my future Senator on that list, Sen. Patrick Toomey [R, PA], I'll be telling my sizable family in PA to fwd him a letter that I write for him.

You're pretty up2speed on this, any suggestions as to the verbage I should use? I tend to be a bit fvckyouish where as you're a bit more eloquent.

You could remind him that Stalin used this sort of technique to oppress his people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

Stalin passed a new law on "terrorlst organizations and terrorlst acts" that were to be investigated for no more than ten days, with no prosecution, defense attorneys or appeals, followed by a sentence to be executed "quickly."

Then remind him that you are watching.

Here's his contact info: http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=contact

Unfortunately, you can't touch him until 2017.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/refere ... ss_III.htm

I don't have to touch him, just let him know that he's being watched. I have lots of family up that way.

I've committed long ago to sending Chambliss packing. Now I have a reason to dislike Isakson. Flippin sad that BOTH of my senators became such utter morons.

Is this not some of the same behavior we were pissed at mother Britain about a few hundred years ago?

Well, I still think they would do what they want anyways but this is just a slap in the face.

Some Congressional staffer wrote:On the Amendment S.Amdt. 3018 to S. 3254 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013) Amendment purpose To clarify that an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States.

Eh, were I elected to office, I could go either way on this. To be honest, I think it's a pretty s*** piece of drafting. The language might be intended to restrict the government's ability to detain people at home without charge, etc. But in that case, I would probably prefer that we extend those protections (i.e., limitations on what police can do) to anybody, and not just citizens or LPRs.

Another flaw in the language is that if that is its intent, it doesn't so differentiate: I see no reason, in reading that passage, to think that Congress is trying to impose all kinds of procedures on battlefield captures. So I'd probably vote against this amendment as doing more harm than good absent some clarifying language on where said individuals are located at capture, and, subsequent to that, broadening it so that it doesn't apply only to citizens and LPRs (assuming the people proposing the amendment are doing what I think they're trying to do).

As a side note, however, I have to say that if indefinite detention is already unconstitutional, Congress doesn't have to do anything. It could do a few different things, but none of those involve what's written in this amendment. It doesn't actually do anything to stamp out indefinite detention (cf. outlawing indefinite detention versus clarifying that the President's power to detain indefinitely does not come from a war declaration, etc.) or to make its constitutional fate more quickly decided (weakening pleading requirements for such cases, for example, so that Gitmo detainees could actually, you know, sue, as the people who are actually being detained indefinitely).

You won't see either thing come to pass, because they would have the result of actually doing something, and not just looking like you're doing something. Frankly, I don't see any good guys in that particular vote.