Feinstein, Tea Party Sen. Lee Wage War on Obama’s Indefinite Detention Powers
A unique alliance between a Tea Party Republican and Democratic stalwart pushed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act on the Senate floor today to block the president’s broad power to hold American citizens without trial.
Civil libertarian supporters in the upper chamber stressed the urgency of passing the language for fear that more than actual terrorists could be detained by the government’s current authority.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) essentially mirrored their Due Process Guarantee Act of last year, which got stuck in committee after hearings.
That bill was “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 and for other purposes.”
In short, it would ban the military detention of Americans captured on U.S. soil — and attempts to stop any abuse of the powers by the executive branch.
Lee said on the Senate floor today that he and Feinstein have been working together over the past year to get passage of the bill — now in amendment form — “to craft what we believe represents a very prudent course in protecting both our nation and our liberties at the same time.”
“We must stand behind our 225-year-old founding document as it’s been amended to ensure our liberty isn’t taken away from us, to give us a path to providing for our security without jeopardizing the freedom that our American citizens cherish so much and have fought so hard and so long to protect,” Lee said. “Granting the United States government the power to deprive its own citizens of life, liberty, or property without full due process of law goes against the very nature of our nation’s great constitutional values. This amendment, the Feinstein-Lee amendment, protects those values.”
Feinstein outlined in “very clear” terms what the amendment is and is not about.
“It’s not about whether citizens such as [Yaser Esam] Hamdi and [Jose] Padilla or others who would do us harm should be captured, interrogated, incarcerated, and severely punished,” she said. “They should be. But what about an innocent American? What about someone in the wrong place at the wrong time, with the wrong skin color?”
“The beauty of our Constitution is that it gives everyone in the United States basic due process rights to a trial by a jury of their peers. That is what makes this nation great,” Feinstein continued. “…The federal government experimented with indefinite detention of United States citizens during World War II, a mistake we now recognize as a betrayal of our core values. Let’s not repeat it.”
The president was granted absolute power to make such detentions under last year’s National Defense Authorization Act, with a Feinstein amendment to exclude U.S. citizens from the detention authority failing 45-55.
This year’s amendment is not specifically mentioned as one of those up for consideration tomorrow, according to the majority leader’s calendar, but it does state that amendments will be worked through with intended completion of the bill this week.
Adding to the unusual pairing of the amendment’s authors is the mix of co-sponsors: Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Max Baucus (D-Mont.), and Dean Heller (R-Nev.).
Not surprisingly, Paul has threatened to filibuster the defense bill unless the amendment gets a vote.
“Those senators who would propose limiting the right to trial by jury, they reflect and demur that everyone would still have a habeas hearing. A habeas hearing is important. You must present the body and a judge must say ‘why are you holding this person.’ But it’s not the end of due process. It’s the beginning of due process,” Paul argued on the floor today.
“…We must still have a trial by jury or we do not have the due process that our Founding Fathers fought for. Those Senators who would abridge this and say a habeas hearing is enough should remember Blackstone’s admonition. Every new tribunal erected for the decision of facts without the intervention of a jury is a step toward establishing aristocracy, the most oppressive of absolute governments.”
Paul referenced a center in Missouri tasked with gathering information about terrorists and streamlining federal and local enforcement communications.
“But from this fusion center comes a document that says beware of people who have bumper stickers supporting third-party candidates. Beware of people who believe in stricter immigration laws,” he said. “Beware of people who support the right to life. They might be terrorists. This is an official document. Do we want to give up the right to trial by jury when we’re being told that somebody who keeps food in their basement might be a terrorist?”
President Obama tried to codify opponents of last year’s bill by saying he wouldn’t use his new broad authorities, which vaguely peg the targets as anyone who provides “substantial support” to al-Qaeda or “associated forces.” The administration recently went to battle in court to uphold the powers, though.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called the Feinstein-Lee amendment a “disaster.”
“What they’re trying to do is say if you can find an American who is trying to help Al Qaeda, you can’t hold them for military interrogation to find out what they’re up to,” Graham said. “You have to read them their rights and treat it as a common crime … I think it will make us less safe.”
“I think what you would actually be doing is actually encouraging the enemy to find American citizens.”
Paul is exactly right – the definition of “terrorist” now basically means anyone the government doesn’t like. Which includes peaceful political opposition like the Tea Party.
The last election, my local sheriff (also in Missouri, which issued the report Paul cited) threatened to have a truth squad that would arrest people who were “lying” about Obama. He backtracked, but it’s what Democrats would do if they could get away with it.
Sen. Rand Paul Voices Support for Feinstein-Lee NDAA Amendment – 11/28/12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdMU4N-Xo2E&feature=plcp
Call them POWs. Problem solved.
Tang, Americans are in a whirlwind of trouble, much more so than they realize. Though some are duly aware, most haven’t a clue.
The long and short of it is so scary one can be forgiven for sweating bullets. But time is growing short, and indefinite detention will look like a ‘tea party’, if patriots don’t get busy and push back – BIG TIME!!
http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/08/09/barack-hussein-obamas-brave-new-world-second-amendment-pro-life-supporters-bear-watchinglabeling-islamists-not-so-much-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
A follow up commentary on this very issue will be posted shortly. Truly frightening. Americans are indeed entering a ‘brave new world’.
OK Lindsay…you know darn well the spirit most of us agree with in the proposed legislation. So how would you suggest the language be crafted?
Pardon my ignorance but didn’t we already cover this with amendment IV,V,and VI of the U.S.Constitution? It seems sad to me that we have to specifically address this issue as an amendment to a spending authorization bill when its Right There in the founding documents. Man has our justice and political systems and perverted.
This is indeed in the Bill of Rights. However, being in the Bill of Rights has not prevented any politician from breaking laws, especially in the last decade. Remember the Patriot Act?
Sure – the indefinite detention powers are completely unconstitutional. Now Congress has a chance to fix it – they all did take an oath. All three branches of government are expected to protect and uphold the Constitution.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it deal enemy combatants – which is what that original defense bill attempted to deal with – if you believe that. I was almost surprised when that defense bill sailed through the house and passed with little discussion. Obama was handed a ‘gift’ – something that might prove useful against the ‘enemy of the state’ such as talk radio – Fox News – nettlesome newspaper editors – whomever he deemed an ‘enemy of the state’ could be spirited away in the night and never to be seen again.
I don’t think he’ll sign it if the bill even makes it to his desk. He’s been gathering power to himself – why would he want to give any away?
O can and will do anything he wants to now-regardless of the Constitution & absolutely no one will ever hold him accountable for anything! That is the truth of the matter.
“What they’re trying to do is say if you can find an American who is trying to help Al Qaeda, you can’t hold them for military interrogation to find out what they’re up to,” Graham said. “You have to read them their rights and treat it as a common crime … I think it will make us less safe.”
“I think what you would actually be doing is actually encouraging the enemy to find American citizens.”
True, Lindsey. But what you would also be doing is eventually encouraging the government to define American citizens the enemy. There is a reason, after all, there is a “Speech and Debate Clause” for Congress in the Constitution. These tricks have been played before (read more English history), and considering that back in September administration officials would not bluntly come out and say criticizing Mohammed would never be a crime, well….
Now, to be fair, we do know from experience that *no* American judge ever allows his personal political beliefs, especially if of a liberal nature, to influence his rulings from the bench, thus having only one safeguard for Americans and getting rid of the others is probably sufficient. Thus, Lindsey shows his wisdom in this matter.
Of course, in a week where Lindsey has been flat out accused of having ridden with Nathan Bedford Forrest, he might be a little more amenable to the idea that liberals in fact will sometimes–either through calculation or unshakeable belief in a stereotype–try by any means possible to destroy those who oppose them politically. What, pray tell, in human nature suggests that somehow they will be copacetic with unjustified character assasination but outliers will never progress to legal incarceration if able?
Nothing, that’s what. Nothing at all.
So obama said he would never use this power in such a manner. My guess is if you voted for obama and believe him in this case, you’ve already had a lobotomy. Hello hugo chavez, my, how you’ve changed.
Y’all miss an important point; Sen. Feinstein has finally read the Constitution! Not only that, but must have heard how dictators abuse their power! CHEERS!
Anyway, the power of any US president is awesome, he’s not only the chief law-enforcement officer, but commander in chief of all millitary forces. Put that power in the hands of an individual who shows open contempt for the Constitution he’s sworn to uphold, and he can move forward (OOPS…that word again) to trash Constitutional protections.
Of course Feinstein & Lee assume Obama will obey an act of Congress; as John Adams said, “laws are for the law-abiding”. Is Obama?
It’s a start. It’s anyone’s guess whether King Barry will sign any legislation containing it.
Sorry, Sen. Graham, but you are way off base here. If an American citizen is actively conspiring with our declared enemies, then charge him with treason and execute him. That might be enough of a deterrent. But don’t go after him in the dark of night with a lettre de caché to be stuffed into some deep dark hole and tortured, and then disappeared forever. That is not how we treat our citizens and legal residents.
As for limitations on the power of the Executive: like I said, it’s a start. Try here, too:
http://www.petition2congress.com/4957/presidential-power-act-proposed-amendment-to-united-states-consti/
Wow. Feinstein went to bat for the Bill of Rights? This is the same woman who said on May 11, 1995 that “Freedom of Speech is not what this country is about.”
Here’s the Senate subcommittee hearing in which she said that:
http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/s735_95_cdt.alert
11-29-12 Sen. Rand Paul speaks in support of Feinstein-Lee amendment to NDAA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Os5fEaT-vQ&feature=plcp