The U.S. Senate has fought this week on a defense appropriations bill which has aroused great controversy because of language in the bill about detainees held in the United States. The Obama administration has threatened to veto earlier versions of the bill.
Senator Mark Udall (D-Colorado) attempted to delete all detainee language from the bill, but that amendment failed by a 38-60 vote on Tuesday. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-California) then offered two amendments which stated Americans could not be held indefinitely by the military, but both were defeated 45-55.
Then a compromise was reached which states that "the legislation did not alter existing law for the detention of U.S. citizens or anyone who was captured or arrested in the U.S." as The Hill reports. Senator Feinstein has said she received reassurances that this language would remain in the final bill coming out of a House/Senate conference to reconcile the two bodies’ versions of the legislation.
Civil liberties groups "warned that the compromise did not stop military from detaining U.S. citizens," The Hill wrote. Then the newspaper quoted Christopher Anders, ACLU senior legislative counsel, who noted, "The bill is an historic threat to American citizens and others because it expands and makes permanent the authority of the president to order the military to imprison without charge or trial American citizens."
Summarized from: http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-approriations/196773-senate-passes-defense-spending-bill
This story also covered by Politico at: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/69585.html
and by the Associated Press at:
http://news.yahoo.com/senate-approves-662-billion-defense-bill-012555722.html
Comment by the blog author:
It is not clear from any of these stories whether the administration is still considering a veto of the final version of the Senate bill. Of course, what will be presented to the President is a different bill, reconciled but made up of both the House and Senate versions.
Nor is it clear that a bill authorizing indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the military within the United States "does not alter existing law." In the final Senate version, it looks like, smells like and may be construed by this or any subsequent administration as permission to exercise unlimited detention without trial of American civilians suspected but not formally charged with terrorism.
Senator Mark Udall (D-Colorado) attempted to delete all detainee language from the bill, but that amendment failed by a 38-60 vote on Tuesday. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-California) then offered two amendments which stated Americans could not be held indefinitely by the military, but both were defeated 45-55.
Then a compromise was reached which states that "the legislation did not alter existing law for the detention of U.S. citizens or anyone who was captured or arrested in the U.S." as The Hill reports. Senator Feinstein has said she received reassurances that this language would remain in the final bill coming out of a House/Senate conference to reconcile the two bodies’ versions of the legislation.
Civil liberties groups "warned that the compromise did not stop military from detaining U.S. citizens," The Hill wrote. Then the newspaper quoted Christopher Anders, ACLU senior legislative counsel, who noted, "The bill is an historic threat to American citizens and others because it expands and makes permanent the authority of the president to order the military to imprison without charge or trial American citizens."
Summarized from: http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/budget-approriations/196773-senate-passes-defense-spending-bill
This story also covered by Politico at: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/69585.html
and by the Associated Press at:
http://news.yahoo.com/senate-approves-662-billion-defense-bill-012555722.html
Comment by the blog author:
It is not clear from any of these stories whether the administration is still considering a veto of the final version of the Senate bill. Of course, what will be presented to the President is a different bill, reconciled but made up of both the House and Senate versions.
Nor is it clear that a bill authorizing indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the military within the United States "does not alter existing law." In the final Senate version, it looks like, smells like and may be construed by this or any subsequent administration as permission to exercise unlimited detention without trial of American civilians suspected but not formally charged with terrorism.
No comments:
Post a Comment