Senate bill 1867

Voted No
Sen. Rand Paul [R, KY]
Sen. Jeff Merkley [D, OR]
Sen. Ron Wyden [D, OR]
Sen. Mike Lee [R, UT]
Sen. Thomas Harkin [D, IA]
Sen. Thomas Coburn [R, OK]
Sen. Bernard Sanders [I, VT]

7 NOs

3 Republicans - 3 Democrats and 1 indy.... Dems own the house...
 
Voted No
Sen. Rand Paul [R, KY]
Sen. Jeff Merkley [D, OR]
Sen. Ron Wyden [D, OR]
Sen. Mike Lee [R, UT]
Sen. Thomas Harkin [D, IA]
Sen. Thomas Coburn [R, OK]
Sen. Bernard Sanders [I, VT]

7 NOs

3 Republicans - 3 Democrats and 1 indy.... Dems own the house...

No Republicans control the House, which passed #1540, with the broader language, The SENATE narrowed it.
 
Voted No
Sen. Rand Paul [R, KY]
Sen. Jeff Merkley [D, OR]
Sen. Ron Wyden [D, OR]
Sen. Mike Lee [R, UT]
Sen. Thomas Harkin [D, IA]
Sen. Thomas Coburn [R, OK]
Sen. Bernard Sanders [I, VT]

7 NOs

3 Republicans - 3 Democrats and 1 indy.... Dems own the house...

No Republicans control the House, which passed #1540, with the broader language, The SENATE narrowed it.

Corrtect, I didn't mean house like House... My bad, I meant it like Dems own the Senate.
 
Voted No
Sen. Rand Paul [R, KY]
Sen. Jeff Merkley [D, OR]
Sen. Ron Wyden [D, OR]
Sen. Mike Lee [R, UT]
Sen. Thomas Harkin [D, IA]
Sen. Thomas Coburn [R, OK]
Sen. Bernard Sanders [I, VT]

7 NOs

3 Republicans - 3 Democrats and 1 indy.... Dems own the house...

No Republicans control the House, which passed #1540, with the broader language, The SENATE narrowed it.

Corrtect, I didn't mean house like House... My bad, I meant it like Dems own the Senate.

And the Senate narrowed House bill #1540. The link I posted is to the entire legislative history,
 
In a nutshell, this amendment permits the President to use the U.S. military against American citizens in the USA.

Actually it doesn’t, as the NDAA authorizes no such thing.

The president may not use the military to detain citizens infinitely in any jurisdiction where the courts are still functioning. See: Ex parte Milligan
Even if a president were to attempt to contrive ‘actual war’ out of a supposed terrorist attack, the fact that civilian courts are still in session disallows military tribunals to manifest. They can not operate concurrently.

Ex parte Milligan also restricts tribunals to only an area so effected by actual war, where that area is subject to foreign invasion, martial law may not be established countywide, statewide, or Nationwide.

Moreover, in HAMDI V. RUMSFELD the Court held that:

[W]e believe that neither the process proposed by the Government nor the process apparently envisioned by the District Court below strikes the proper constitutional balance when a United States citizen is detained in the United States as an enemy combatant. That is, “the risk of erroneous deprivation” of a detainee’s liberty interest is unacceptably high under the Government’s proposed rule, while some of the “additional or substitute procedural safeguards” suggested by the District Court are unwarranted in light of their limited “probable value” and the burdens they may impose on the military in such cases. Mathews, 424 U.S., at 335.

We therefore hold that a citizen-detainee seeking to challenge his classification as an enemy combatant must receive notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government’s factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker. See Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985) (“An essential principle of due process is that a deprivation of life, liberty, or property ‘be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case’ ” (quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950)); Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 617 (1993) (“due process requires a ‘neutral and detached judge in the first instance’ ” (quoting Ward v. Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 61—62 (1972)). “For more than a century the central meaning of procedural due process has been clear: ‘Parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard; and in order that they may enjoy that right they must first be notified.’ It is equally fundamental that the right to notice and an opportunity to be heard ‘must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’ ” Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80 (1972) (quoting Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall. 223, 233 (1864); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965) (other citations omitted)). These essential constitutional promises may not be eroded.

Consequently, this is a political issue, having nothing to do with the law or Constitution.

What was legal foundation for the Gitmo "detainees"? The Patriot Act.

With regard to due process? None. They have the same right to a habeas as anyone else in custody. See: BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH
 
In a nutshell, this amendment permits the President to use the U.S. military against American citizens in the USA.

Actually it doesn’t, as the NDAA authorizes no such thing.

The president may not use the military to detain citizens infinitely in any jurisdiction where the courts are still functioning. See: Ex parte Milligan
Even if a president were to attempt to contrive ‘actual war’ out of a supposed terrorist attack, the fact that civilian courts are still in session disallows military tribunals to manifest. They can not operate concurrently.

Ex parte Milligan also restricts tribunals to only an area so effected by actual war, where that area is subject to foreign invasion, martial law may not be established countywide, statewide, or Nationwide.

Moreover, in HAMDI V. RUMSFELD the Court held that:

[W]e believe that neither the process proposed by the Government nor the process apparently envisioned by the District Court below strikes the proper constitutional balance when a United States citizen is detained in the United States as an enemy combatant. That is, “the risk of erroneous deprivation” of a detainee’s liberty interest is unacceptably high under the Government’s proposed rule, while some of the “additional or substitute procedural safeguards” suggested by the District Court are unwarranted in light of their limited “probable value” and the burdens they may impose on the military in such cases. Mathews, 424 U.S., at 335.

We therefore hold that a citizen-detainee seeking to challenge his classification as an enemy combatant must receive notice of the factual basis for his classification, and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government’s factual assertions before a neutral decisionmaker. See Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985) (“An essential principle of due process is that a deprivation of life, liberty, or property ‘be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case’ ” (quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313 (1950)); Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern Cal., 508 U.S. 602, 617 (1993) (“due process requires a ‘neutral and detached judge in the first instance’ ” (quoting Ward v. Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57, 61—62 (1972)). “For more than a century the central meaning of procedural due process has been clear: ‘Parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard; and in order that they may enjoy that right they must first be notified.’ It is equally fundamental that the right to notice and an opportunity to be heard ‘must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’ ” Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80 (1972) (quoting Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall. 223, 233 (1864); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965) (other citations omitted)). These essential constitutional promises may not be eroded.

Consequently, this is a political issue, having nothing to do with the law or Constitution.

What was legal foundation for the Gitmo "detainees"? The Patriot Act.

With regard to due process? None. They have the same right to a habeas as anyone else in custody. See: BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH

Yes, I know. Passed in months after 9/11/01.
 
I think he should research this a bit, it has no real limitations on it's useage if the president pushes it.
He says you are a threat and you are held indefinately without trial, etc.

And what goes around, comes around. Today Obama has the power. Possibly tomorrow it will be Romney, not that that is going to make much difference, but it could have been Rick Santorum and do the libs want him having this kind of power?

Immie


Actually the Senate bill took OUT the House bill allowing US citizens to be arbitrarily detained under the provisions:

A single amendment was made to the detainee provisions of the bill as had been reported out of committee, which clarified that the bill’s affirmation of the legal authority to detain persons captured in the conflict with Al Qaeda did not modify any existing authorities relating to the power to detain U.S. citizens or lawful resident aliens, or any other persons captured or arrested in the United States. The Senate subsequently passed H.R. 1540, with its original provisions stripped and replaced with the language of Senatepassed S. 1867.

Yes the problem was the origional bill did restrict existing authorities relating to the power to detain U.S. citizens or lawful resident aliens, or any other persons captured or arrested in the United States. Obama threatened to veto it if his powers were reduced in this area, so they were restored by the senate and reconciled into the house bill.

or that is my take on what I have read.
But rumors persist in all directions. Intentionally clouded water it would seem and both houses had closed sessions on it.
 
Last edited:
And what goes around, comes around. Today Obama has the power. Possibly tomorrow it will be Romney, not that that is going to make much difference, but it could have been Rick Santorum and do the libs want him having this kind of power?

Immie


Actually the Senate bill took OUT the House bill allowing US citizens to be arbitrarily detained under the provisions:

A single amendment was made to the detainee provisions of the bill as had been reported out of committee, which clarified that the bill’s affirmation of the legal authority to detain persons captured in the conflict with Al Qaeda did not modify any existing authorities relating to the power to detain U.S. citizens or lawful resident aliens, or any other persons captured or arrested in the United States. The Senate subsequently passed H.R. 1540, with its original provisions stripped and replaced with the language of Senatepassed S. 1867.

Yes the problem was the origional bill did restrict existing authorities relating to the power to detain U.S. citizens or lawful resident aliens, or any other persons captured or arrested in the United States. Obama threatened to veto it if his powers were reduced in this area, so they were restored by the senate and reconciled into the house bill.

or that is my take on what I have read.
But rumors persist in all directions. Intentionally clouded water it would seem and both houses had closed sessions on it.

I posted a link to the entire legislative history, the SENATE version refers only to those with links, or suspected links to al Qaeda or other terrorists groups; the House version left it open.
 
Actually the Senate bill took OUT the House bill allowing US citizens to be arbitrarily detained under the provisions:

A single amendment was made to the detainee provisions of the bill as had been reported out of committee, which clarified that the bill’s affirmation of the legal authority to detain persons captured in the conflict with Al Qaeda did not modify any existing authorities relating to the power to detain U.S. citizens or lawful resident aliens, or any other persons captured or arrested in the United States. The Senate subsequently passed H.R. 1540, with its original provisions stripped and replaced with the language of Senatepassed S. 1867.

Yes the problem was the origional bill did restrict existing authorities relating to the power to detain U.S. citizens or lawful resident aliens, or any other persons captured or arrested in the United States. Obama threatened to veto it if his powers were reduced in this area, so they were restored by the senate and reconciled into the house bill.

or that is my take on what I have read.
But rumors persist in all directions. Intentionally clouded water it would seem and both houses had closed sessions on it.

I posted a link to the entire legislative history, the SENATE version refers only to those with links, or suspected links to al Qaeda or other terrorists groups; the House version left it open.

So if an american citizen in America is suspected of links to AQ or such they can be held indefinately without trial?

Remember we suspected that Sadam was going to use WMD's on us.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top