Contact your Congressfolks & ask them to pass the TWO pending Feinstein DoDA amendments Thursday

[Tx4obama]

SA 1125. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Udall of Colorado) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill S. 1867, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:

On page 361, line 9, insert ``abroad'' after ``is captured''.



SA 1126. Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Udall of Colorado) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the bill S. 1867, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:

On page 360, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:

(e) Applicability to Citizens.--The authority described in this section for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain a person does not include the authority to detain a citizen of the United States without trial until the end of the hostilities.


p.s. I know that folks are still in a tizzy that the first Udall amendment was voted down - but the 'language' of the two Feinstein amendments is better that the original Udall one. This might be why so many dems voted 'no' on Tuesday ;)


Here's a link to a list to all the pending amendments: http://democrats.senate.gov/2011/11/30/amendments-to-s-1867-the-department-of-defense-authorization-act/

[sabrina 1]

1. It needs to be amended further. No one should be detained

indefinitely without trial if they are being accused of crimes. We used to be against this when Bush was president.

[woo me with science]

3. Thank you. nt

[woo me with science]

2. No, it should be vetoed, as the President indicated he was willing to do. nt

[Tx4obama]

4. He said he would veto it IF the 'current' language was it in.

Obama wants it fixed.

He doesn't want the whole bill to be thrown in the trash.

[noise]

5. Isn't Obama an advocate of indefinite detention?

If you really think about the argument Obama made yesterday -- when he described the five categories of detainees and the procedures to which each will be subjected -- it becomes manifest just how profound a violation of Western conceptions of justice this is. What Obama is saying is this: we'll give real trials only to those detainees we know in advance we will convict. For those we don't think we can convict in a real court, we'll get convictions in the military commissions I'm creating. For those we can't convict even in my military commissions, we'll just imprison them anyway with no charges ("preventively detain" them).

After yesterday, we have to add an even more extreme prong to this policy: if by chance we miscalculate and deign to give a trial to a detainee who is then acquitted, we'll still just keep them in prison anyway by presidential decree. That added step renders my criticism of Obama's conception of "justice" even more applicable:

Giving trials to people only when you know for sure, in advance, that you'll get convictions is not due process. Those are called "show trials." In a healthy system of justice, the Government gives everyone it wants to imprison a trial and then imprisons only those whom it can convict. The process is constant (trials), and the outcome varies (convictions or acquittals).

Obama is saying the opposite: in his scheme, it is the outcome that is constant (everyone ends up imprisoned), while the process varies and is determined by the Government (trials for some; military commissions for others; indefinite detention for the rest). The Government picks and chooses which process you get in order to ensure that it always wins. A more warped "system of justice" is hard to imagine.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/08-6">The Obama Justice System by Glenn Greenwald

[saras]

7. +1000 for plain English

[woo me with science]

8. Thank you. Much needed post. nt

[girl_interrupted]

6. +1