Sen. Franken writes: "I think that denigrates the very foundations of this country. It denigrates the Bill of Rights. It denigrates what our Founders intended when they created a civilian, non-military justice system for trying and punishing people for crimes committed on U.S. soil. Our Founders were fearful of the military- and they purposely created a system of checks and balances to ensure we did not become a country under military rule. This bill undermines that core principle, which is why I could not support it."
Portrait, Senator Al Franken. (photo: Jeffrey Thompson/Getty Images)
Why I Voted Against the Homeland Battlefield Bill
17 December 11
esterday, the Senate passed a bill that includes provisions on detention that I found simply unacceptable. These provisions are inconsistent with the liberties and freedoms that are at the core of the system our Founders established. And while I did in fact vote for an earlier version of the legislation, I did so with the hope that the final version would be significantly improved. That didn't happen, and so I could not support the final bill.
The bill that passed on Thursday included several problematic provisions, the worst of which could allow the military to detain Americans indefinitely, without charge or trial, even if they're captured in the U.S.
At their core, these provisions will radically alter how we investigate, arrest, and detain individuals suspected of terrorism. What's more, they could undermine the safety of our troops stationed abroad, and they introduce new and unnecessary uncertainty into our counterterrorism efforts.
But before I get into the details of why I opposed these detainee provisions, I think it is important to recognize that September 11th irrevocably and unalterably changed our lives. I was in Minnesota that terrible day. A number of Minnesotans died - in the towers, in the air, and at the Pentagon. In New York in the months following the attacks, I attended the funerals of brave firefighters and law enforcement officers who sacrificed their lives to help rescue Americans from the towers. I can't shake those images from my mind, and I am guessing like many of you, I won't ever be able to erase the horrors of September 11th from my head.
But it is exactly in these difficult moments, in these periods of war, when our country is under attack, that we must be doubly vigilant about protecting what makes us Americans.
The Founders who crafted our Constitution and Bill of Rights were careful to draft a Constitution of limited powers - one that would protect Americans' liberty at all times - both in war, and in peace.
As we reflect on what this bill will do, I think it is important to pause and remember some of the mistakes this country has made when we have been fearful of enemy attack.
Most notably, we made a grave, indefensible mistake during World War II, when President Roosevelt ordered the incarceration of more than 110,000 people of Japanese origin, as well as approximately 11,000 German-Americans and 3,000 Italian-Americans.
In 1971, President Richard Nixon signed into law the Non-Detention Act to make sure the U.S. government would never again subject any Americans to the unnecessary and unjustifiable imprisonment that so many Japanese-Americans, German-Americans, and Italian-Americans had to endure. It wasn't until 1988, 46 years after the internment, when President Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act, that the government formally acknowledged and apologized for the grave injustice that was done to citizens and permanent residents of Japanese ancestry.
These were dark, dark periods in American history. And it is easy today to think that is all behind us.
But I fear the detention provisions in the bill forget the lessons we learned from the mistakes we made when we interned thousands of innocent Japanese, Germans, and Italians.
With this defense authorization act, Congress will, for the first time in 60 years, authorize the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charge or trial, according to its advocates. This would be the first time that Congress has deviated from President Nixon's Non-Detention Act. And what we are talking about here is that Americans could be subjected to life imprisonment without ever being charged, tried, or convicted of a crime, without ever having an opportunity to prove their innocence to a judge or a jury of their peers. And without the government ever having to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think that denigrates the very foundations of this country. It denigrates the Bill of Rights. It denigrates what our Founders intended when they created a civilian, non-military justice system for trying and punishing people for crimes committed on U.S. soil. Our Founders were fearful of the military-and they purposely created a system of checks and balances to ensure we did not become a country under military rule. This bill undermines that core principle, which is why I could not support it.
Yesterday was the anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, and this wasn't the way to mark its birthday.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |











Comments
ASHAMED TO BE AN AMERICAN!!!
You really did your homework. And you still are.
ASHAMED TO BE AN AMERICAN (and an about to be no longer registered Dem., since it's clear that not only the G.O.P. but also the Dems. have been taken over by the evil villainaire, fascist rulers)
Let's OCCUPY LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL, and fight bravely and determindly, and not give up 'til we...UNDO THE COUP!
Love ya Al - keep up the good fight.
The people who need to explain their vote are the ones who voted _for_ the Homeland Battlefield provisions, then voted for the bill that included them.
Those who voted for the Homeland Battlefield amendments have no _good_ excuse, because there are no good reasons to vote for them, but it would be interesting to hear their bad excuses.
Those who voted for the bill as a whole, but didn't vote for the amendments, are the ones with the most explaining to do. Did they think the bill was too important to block, even with a poison pill amendments mixed into it? Did they think that the amendments didn't really matter, perhaps because the Supreme Court would find them unconstitutiona l anyway? Did they think that it would be impossible to remove the amendments?
While we're at it, let's replace the know-nothing, naive, Tea Party ist terms, who have made the House look like the Cuckoo's Nest.
(Speakers included Hillary, Cathryn Mannheim, Whoopi Goldberg,Susan Sarandon, and so on... but Bush was out on his pseudo-'ranch' clearing brush and had nothing to say about 1.3 million people from every state in the union...
His response was to ignore all of us. (Like Darth Cheney, whose response to any protest, or criticism was to say, 'so what...who cares!)
Expecting 'justice' is futile...
perhaps not, but by his first promising to veto this terrible legislation, he blunted the efforts and words of those honest members who might have fought harder against it
his "waffling" bait-and-switch tactic from this "constitutional scholar" shows how his principles crap out under the pressure of reelection - like bush's decision to attack iraq, this sad action will blow up in all our faces
for your explanation of the vote.
one of them.
there are already too many people locked away behind bars in this country.
can this bill ever be overturned?
I can't get those videos of the buildings falling out of my mind. We are told they collapsed from fire but the videos show the buildings being blown up with explosives. I have watched the videos many times and there is no question in my mind that this is what is happening. At least 1600 professional architects and engineers agree with me.
Have you talked to any of these brave people? Do you have any questions about the official conspiracy theory?
If you love your country, support President Obama.
However, don't make me wait another year or two to hear your dissent.
I agree with others that Obama/Dems are no different than the other side but why only 2 sides ? Well that is by design as well. Maybe we need to completely throw out our government and start with something new that will speak for all of We the People.
I was ashamed a long time ago - I am pi$$ed off now.
Occupy and vote em all out of office.
hey red, lets look at 4 sides, just give each side one more party - give the reps a tea party and the dems a 99 or a green party
"So it's simply not true, as the Guardian wrote yesterday, that the the bill "allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay." When the New York Times editorial page writes that the bill would "strip the F.B.I., federal prosecutors and federal courts of all or most of their power to arrest and prosecute terrorists and hand it off to the military," or that the "legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial," they're simply wrong.
The language in the bill that relates to the detention authority as far as US citizens and permanent residents are concerned is, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/defense-bill-passed-so-what-does-it-do-ndaa
But you must consider that Congress' rejection of four amendments that spelled out the constitutional right to habeas corpus and trial by jury for American citizens means that we no longer have those rights. If we were intended to have those rights, those amendments would have been included. According to Congressman Nadler, the D's in the House split almost 50/50 on this bill, but not in the Senate, where both parties voted overwhelmingly to reject all four amendments. Feinstein's office claims that the "existing law" phrase, added later, takes care of the problem, but clearly it does not, since all constitutional lawyers find all language in this bill too muddy to constitute any protection for US citizens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtSXeV6tNcA&feature=related
Thank you Al. You are the best. I love reading your emails to me.
http://votesmart.org/bill/14187/37420/prohibits-detention-of-us-citizens-without-trial
Senator Feinstein offered an amendment to remove American citizens from unlawful detainment. Check out who voted against.
When that hideous pharmaceutical bill was up for vote in the House, I sat up ALL NIGHT watching with amazement that a vote supposed to be limited to 15 min stretched out for HOURS until the admin. got the result it wanted! It was INCREDIBLE to watch CNN cameras following representatives around and the representatives not being at all embarassed to be seen negotiating for changing their original vote!
My ancestors came to the New World with a land grant from William Penn, but it is CLEAR to me that America as we knew it is OVER. So as the old saying goes, "Don't BITCH, TRANSFER!!!'
We are dual citizens (Canada and U.S.) but LIVE In Canada so cannot vote for Franken in local elections. However, we can contribute GENEROUSLY to your campaigns and just signed up for your email list so KNOW that we will receive the appeals.
The U.S. would have some HOPE if there were more like YOU!
Great going Al!
this is the exact situation that was covered and is now being stricken from our bill of rights
we need more franken and less obama - so mad at this terrible abusive law
We must change the system now. Its time to make the Green of the Green Party stand for freedom, and saving not just the planet but the country & democracy. We need 50 state ballot access & at this late date the Green Party ballot assess is the only option.
We much stop being drawn into Presidential politics and stick to replacing every member of Congress, State & local government up for election replace them with candidates who place their signature on the 99% New Green Party Platform.
It is Congress not the President that has the power & makes the policy. The President is held hostage by not having a veto proof Congress. But he could use the signing statement to indicate that he will not implement this or any legislation that erodes the Constitutional rights of Americans.
Than leave it up to the People to assure no President is ever elected who will implement this legislation. For the People to elect a president who as a candidate promises in writing to sign legislation repeal these provision & any other legislation that erodes the Constitutional & human rights of the people.
It is time for grass roots 99% people power to take control of this nation.
What is so sad however is that 87 other Senators couldn't and most likely the President will not either.
Our soldiers must really be angry to see the freedoms they supposedly fought for are disappearing.
Couple the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) with The Patriot’s Act and the Military Commissions Act we have some really scary stuff. There is virtually no public discourse or corporate media talking about NDAA…
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/2449-Military-Detention-Bill-Set-for-Final-Votes-Obama-Drops-Veto-Threat
http://armstrongeconomics.files.wordpress.com/2011...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2009
America had better wake up….it may be too late already…
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/275-42/893...
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/425-nati...
Plus keep an eye on SOPA - Stop Online Piracy Act
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/14/sopa-protect-ip_n_1140180.html?ref=canada&ir=Canada
Thank you for voting against the bill. We need Senators who understand the consequences of bad law. Your quote above is exactly why people question whether this bill is constitutional. Is it being challenged in the courts? If the Supreme Court were to decide this is law legal, it would still not be constitutional.
Newt Gingrich is speaking out against the courts having more power than the other branches of government, but I don't believe for a minute he is referring to the right-wing Supreme Court in power now.
Instead I'm stuck with Durbin, and the clown who was caught LYING about his military service...Kirk.
I don't realy know if there is much hope of humanity the path it is currently going, I only hope that perhas through the correct practice of BUDDHISM (Nichiren) could turn the tide! Maybe it is our only hope!
Seriously, folks... this CLEARLY isn't ideological. This is a question of: Do you support the Constitution or don't you.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2011-218
Don't blow smoke up my ass Al.
RSS feed for comments to this post.