Senate keeps controversial detainee policy in defense bill

CBS/AP

The Senate on Tuesday voted to keep a controversial provision regarding military detainees in a Defense spending bill, setting up a showdown with President Obama.

The controversial language in question would require the military to detain terrorist suspects, including U.S. citizens, allowing for their indefinite detention. Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., led an effort to remove the language and provide more room for study on the issue, but his amendment was rejected by a vote of 37 in favor to 61 against.

President Obama has promised to veto the Defense bill if it includes the controversial provision, with his administration arguing that applying the new rules within the U.S. would challenge the "fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets."

The vote indicates the fight over the provision isn't over -- its supporters did not garner enough votes today to override the president's veto.

In spite of the president's protests, the provision's supporters -- primarily the leaders of the Senate Armed Committee, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Carl Levin, D-Mich. -- argue the measure would simply put into law a counterterrorism system already in place, codifying rules that are currently based on court decisions and executive orders.

"We're trying to provide tools and clarity that have been missing for 10 years," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said on the Senate floor in defense of the provision. Arguing that suspected al Qaeda allies shouldn't be treated as criminal defendants, he told his Senate colleagues, "This is your chance to speak on the central issue after the attacks 9/11: Are we at war, or are we fighting a crime?"

Udall's amendment would have removed that aspect of the Defense bill, instead requiring various officials to issue a joint report detailing gaps in current detention policy. After the report was released, Congress could once again take up the issue.

"This is a debate we need to have, it's a healthy debate," Udall said today, "but we ought to be armed with all the facts... before we move forward."

Citing the objections to the provision from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and FBI Director Robert Mueller, Udall continued, "It concerns me we would tell our national security leadership... that Congress knows better than they do... What I am asking is to listen to those who are on the front lines of fighting terrorists."

Specifically, the provision in question would require al Qaeda terrorists to be held in military custody. However, it would allow the administration, through a waiver, to choose to hold a detainee in civilian custody. The administration would also decide who would fall under the new rule.

Udall argued in a Washington Post op-ed today that it would give the military "unprecedented power on U.S. soil" and interfere with the progress the FBI has made working with state and local law enforcement officials to prevent terrorism.

Debate over the provision did not exactly fall down partisan lines. Sixteen Democrats, as well as independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, joined Republicans in voting against Udall's amendment. Two Republicans -- Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mark Kirk of Illinois -- joined the rest of the Democrats in supporting it.

Paul said that "detaining American citizens without a court trial is not American."

Levin, meanwhile, quoted the Supreme Court, which said in 2004, "There is no bar to this nation's holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant."

Al Qaeda "brought this war to us, and if it's determined that even an American citizen is a member of al Qaeda, then you can apply the law of war, according to the Supreme Court," he said.

[Berdyaev1]

"The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved...and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section." Carl Levin, D. Minn - Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Unless something is missing, then apparently either Mr. Levin or Mr. Obama is lying.

[gsh1104]

ON Yahoo news there were hundreds of negative comments last night ..... they have been mostly deleted ..... just 22 comments there right now .... cherry picked comments talking about the cost of the bill.

[mudslag]

www.gpo.gov/f...112s1867pcs.pdf

The bill doesn't actually say that. Section 1031 - Page 362
"APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—
(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the
extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States."

"The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." (sec 1032, b, 1)

[nonpolitico]

Where are the Tea Party activists when you need them??
Come on CBS, Walter Cronkite would spin in his grave!!
Actually, if The Hill DID vote for this, they would (technically)be declaring that they do not agree with the US Constitution!!
As they ALL took an Oath Of Allegiance to the "Constitution of the United States of America", they would all need to stand down as in breach of their Oath!!
Mebbee the Constitutional Court can block this evil bill and turf out all those backing it!!
More than ever it seems that those elected to office are not fit to hold the position they were voted into.
What would the Founding Fathers have called someone proposing such evil intent on fellow citizens??
Traitors?? Probably.
Even the disgraced President Richard Nixon, would not have looked kindly on what is being proposed.
Hitler was elected to office. He did as these politicians are doing. (Wartime GIs who fought for the freedoms hitler removed experienced the horrors of wartime Germany.
They fought and died to re-establish those freedoms.
These pathetic remnants of politicians should be led out of the building in chains!!! Shameful is what they are!!
And maybe the Supreme Court could revisit the Patriot Act!!

[sandiegopete]

This bill is intended to have a chilling effect on dissent in the United States. Under this bill any citizen who voices opposition to the current system of corruption in our government, such as the Occupy Wall Street protesters, can be designated by government functionaries as terrorists and be detained indefinitely at a government detention center. There is no providion for any such detainee to dispute the indefinite detention.

It is interesting that on the same day the world was remined of Josef Stalin the United States Senate voted to pass a law that mirrors one of Stalin's favored methods of dealing with any opposition. It seems that each year the United States moves closer to being a copy of Soviet Russia.

[farbemeister]

Even Joe Lieberman. This is just one provision eroding our Constitutional Rights and bringing us closer to a NAZI-style society. I thought no one wanted to see that sort of thing again.

[pstanley54]

Ron Paul was right. Building that fence may just lock us in after all!

[jlayneca]

ANYONE who votes to allow this expansion of military power on U.S. soil, the indefinite detention of American citizens under pretenses the government chooses, should be THROWN out of Washington. That means Republicans AND Democrats. We have to draw the line in the sand. NO, Washington, you cannot throw our rights out the window. Call your Senators and Representatives NOW and tell them to stop this. Our liberty should not depend on a Presidential veto. The People's own representatives should uphold that liberty.

[farbemeister]

Yes, but it just seems the People have very few representatives.

[jstengren]

And America takes one more step towards facism. The American people have totally lost their voice in this Democracy. The only people who support this ammendment are politicians trying to paint Obama in a corner, and the wealthy who will do anything (including imprison their own sons and daughters) to protect their stash. For a nation that's constantly at war with something or other, now at war with "a concept", this will turn all of us into potential inmates. Disgusting.