Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

limpyhobbler

(8,244 posts)
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 03:23 AM Dec 2011

Senator Feinstein proposes a stand-alone bill to fix the problems with the NDAA.

Sounds good, but if they thought it was needed, why didn't they just fix the NDAA in the first place instead of introducing this stand-alone bill? Still this would be good if it passes.


December 15, 2011
Feinstein: Prohibit Indefinite Detention of American Citizens Without Trial or Charge

‘Constitution gives every citizen the basic due process right to a trial on their charges’
Washington—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, today introduced the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011, legislation that states American citizens apprehended inside the United States cannot be indefinitely detained by the military.

The Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011 amends the Non-Detention Act of 1971 by providing that a Congressional authorization for the use of military force does not authorize the indefinite detention—without charge or trial—of U.S. citizens who are apprehended domestically.

The Feinstein bill also codifies a “clear-statement rule” that requires Congress to expressly authorize detention authority when it comes to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. The protections for citizens and lawful permanent residents is limited to those “apprehended in the United States” and excludes citizens who take up arms against the United States on a foreign battlefield, such as Afghanistan.

Feinstein said: “The argument is not 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. They should be.

“But what about an innocent American? What about someone in the wrong place at the wrong time? The beauty of our Constitution is that it gives every citizen the basic due process right to a trial on their charges.

“Experiences over the last decade prove the country is safer now than before the 9/11 attacks. Terrorists are behind bars, dangerous plots have been thwarted. The system is working.

“We must clarify U.S. law to state unequivocally that the government cannot indefinitely detain American citizens inside this country without trial or charge. I strongly believe that Constitutional due process requires U.S. citizens apprehended in the U.S. should never be held in indefinite detention. And that is what this new legislation would accomplish.”

The Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011 is cosponsored by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).

###



http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=92cd1ac6-e756-4cd3-982c-ab34d1933d94
22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Senator Feinstein proposes a stand-alone bill to fix the problems with the NDAA. (Original Post) limpyhobbler Dec 2011 OP
See, the sky is not falling - everything will be fixed. Tx4obama Dec 2011 #1
No chance in hell this passes with the obstructions in the way, though. joshcryer Dec 2011 #2
Well, then the Democrats can say that the REPUBLICANS want Tx4obama Dec 2011 #5
So indefinite detention is ok if we can use it to play politics? I'm confused. mucifer Dec 2011 #10
That did not seem to be the point made karynnj Dec 2011 #21
Um, forgetting that the President enthusiastically signed this thing, huh? nt Romulox Dec 2011 #12
President Obama has not signed it yet. He has NOT signed any bills since Dec 13th Tx4obama Dec 2011 #19
yeah.... a real political winner fascisthunter Dec 2011 #14
Dianne Feinstein wrote on her website about her memory of visiting the JDPriestly Dec 2011 #6
Yep. Tx4obama Dec 2011 #8
A bill that promises due process is our hope? What a sad, bitter joke. Bonobo Dec 2011 #9
Just like the Health Care Overhaul was "fixed"...nt joeybee12 Dec 2011 #22
Interesting ProSense Dec 2011 #3
There is really no need for the extra bill other than to make the folks that think US citizens Tx4obama Dec 2011 #4
If ProSense Dec 2011 #7
Yeah, that is only optional versus required for non-citizens/non-legal residents TheKentuckian Dec 2011 #13
I heard this was on the agenda RIGHT AFTER those NAFTA side agreements! nt Romulox Dec 2011 #11
sure, she'll fix it fascisthunter Dec 2011 #15
I'm told here the NDAA isn't a problem. So why a fix? mmonk Dec 2011 #16
What's her problem? Her hubby is only getting half of the money so far? tjwash Dec 2011 #17
Any idea when it might come up for a vote? I will Autumn Dec 2011 #18
I haven't heard, but here's a link to the Senate calendar below Tx4obama Dec 2011 #20

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
1. See, the sky is not falling - everything will be fixed.
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 03:45 AM
Dec 2011

Although, the Feinstein amendment that already passed in the Senate before the bill did - DID fix the DoDA Act bill as to where it states that the bill does not change 'current law'.

Now this new 'bill' will be calming down the folks that believe that US citizens can be held indefinitely by the military (which they can't).

p.s. This is hopefully my last comment on this issue. Everything will be worked out by the time they all go home for Christmas and all the extra typing I've done over the past week will be for naught

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
5. Well, then the Democrats can say that the REPUBLICANS want
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 04:21 AM
Dec 2011

U.S. Citizens to be detained indefinitely by the military.
It would be a great talking point AGAINST the republicans



karynnj

(59,430 posts)
21. That did not seem to be the point made
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 05:48 PM
Dec 2011

The point is to fix it - more than the Feinstein amendment that passed with the vote of everyone but Kyl.

I assume that this has been written to get both the liberals and the libertarians on the other side. I would hope gets enough, though the fact that the Udall amendment and the two stronger amendments failed does make me less optimistic than I otherwise would be.

I think it is possible that this is written in such a way that voting against it would be voting for indefinite detention - without the cop out that the original language supposedly did not do that in the full bill

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
19. President Obama has not signed it yet. He has NOT signed any bills since Dec 13th
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 05:41 PM
Dec 2011

Legislation signed by President Obama: http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/signed-legislation

The DoDA Act bill went into reconciliation, I think the Senate hasn't even re-voted yet, Obama can't sign it until the The House and The Senate are finished with the bill and both houses have passed the same version.

So, I don't know where you heard that 'the President enthusiastically signed this thing' (???)


JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
6. Dianne Feinstein wrote on her website about her memory of visiting the
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 04:22 AM
Dec 2011

Japanese internment camp memorials with her father when she was a child.

The DoDA Act "fix" is too ambiguous to be of much use.

I think that the bill that Feinstein is proposing is still inappropriate because it suggests to some extent that Congress could pass a law depriving Americans of their Constitutional rights.

I like the portion of her proposal in which she reiterates the fact that we have our rights as defendants under the Constitution, but I don't think that Congress could ever claim the authority to take those rights away. So, I think the bill should not say anything about Congress taking our rights away just by passing a bill.

Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
8. Yep.
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 04:30 AM
Dec 2011

But I think the Feinstein amendment was enough to 'fix' the bill. The amendment stated that 'nothing' in the bill regarding that section changes current law.

So, the bill did not change anything.

And if something further needs to be addressed regarding the law that is NOT contained in that bill, then the federal courts probably should be the ones taking care of that issue.

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
9. A bill that promises due process is our hope? What a sad, bitter joke.
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 05:53 AM
Dec 2011

Due process is something that is owed to ANYONE charged with a crime in the United States according to the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

And now, a BILL is what your all "I told you so about"??
Are you totally blind, deaf and dumb to what is happening?

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
3. Interesting
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 04:12 AM
Dec 2011

"Sounds good, but if they thought it was needed, why didn't they just fix the NDAA in the first place instead of introducing this stand-alone bill? Still this would be good if it passes."

Good question, especially since Feinstein and nine of the co-sponsors voted for the NDAA.


Tx4obama

(36,974 posts)
4. There is really no need for the extra bill other than to make the folks that think US citizens
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 04:19 AM
Dec 2011

can be picked up by the military in the USA and help indefinitely - which isn't going to happen.

I think they are bring the extra bill forth just to appease the folks that are scared

Apparently some folks think that the Feinstein amendment that passed before the bill did wasn't enough.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
7. If
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 04:24 AM
Dec 2011

"There is really no need for the extra bill other than to make the folks that think US citizens

can be picked up by the military in the USA and help indefinitely - which isn't going to happen."

...this is true, I hope we don't become like the Republicans, passing bills to address problems that don't exist. I mean, they're introducing bills to defund agencies that don't exist.

TheKentuckian

(24,828 posts)
13. Yeah, that is only optional versus required for non-citizens/non-legal residents
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 08:52 AM
Dec 2011

The entire concept is not just unconstitutional but counter-constitutional.

mmonk

(52,589 posts)
16. I'm told here the NDAA isn't a problem. So why a fix?
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 09:02 AM
Dec 2011

And if NDAA doesn't change the rule of law, why have it in the first place? You see, I no longer have trust. My lack of trust is warranted.

tjwash

(8,219 posts)
17. What's her problem? Her hubby is only getting half of the money so far?
Fri Dec 16, 2011, 09:05 AM
Dec 2011

Fuck her worthless married to a defense-contractor-lobbyist dino ass.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Senator Feinstein propose...