Archive for December 22nd, 2011|Daily archive page
Oh Hey Palm, Need You On The Face Now
I sent a note to my senator about the NDAA a week or so back and got a form reply. This is my response:
Dear Ms. Boxer:
You recently sent a reply to my written concern about the NDAA that included the following:
“I also voted for an amendment offered by Senator Feinstein that would have clarified that mandatory military detention would apply only to terrorist suspects captured outside the United States. This amendment also failed by a vote of 45-55.”
…
“I strongly oppose any expansion of military detention authority that erodes our civil liberties. However, I voted for the National Defense Authorization Act because it includes a number of provisions for our troops and their families, including a pay raise requested by President Obama and important health care benefits.”
I’m deeply concerned that you don’t seem to see the distinction between due process as applies to US citizens and due process for any detainee, for any reason, nor do you indicate a concern for human rights violations beyond our borders. It’s also incredibly upsetting that despite there being a deep flaw in the NDAA which, as you put it, erodes our civil liberties, you voted for it to provide quality of life improvements for troops.
While I agree that proper compensation and benefits for soldiers is important, I’m disappointed that you seem to place civil liberties of the world’s populace and even the greater citizenry of Americans above a pay hike and health benefits for (voluntary) military personnel.
If your approach to this kind of legislation is to pass it to get what you want and then work to undo the “bad parts” later, your representation of me is completely backwards. To be clear: Vote down the unconstitutional stuff, re-introduce clean legislation to pass through the beneficial measures. This is what I elected you to do. If you won’t operate with prudence for my best interest, I’m happy to elect someone else who will.
Granted, I wish I had edited a bit more because the clause, “…you don’t seem to see the distinction between due process as applies to US citizens and due process for any detainee, for any reason…” doesn’t come out how I intended it to. What I meant is that I’m not sure there ought to be a distinction, but my point gets muddled. C’est la vie.
I was a little confused by Boxer’s citation of the Feinstein amendment compared with the Wikipedia article (99-1 success in Wikipedia vs. 45-55 in Boxer’s reply) but this article (the Wikipedia source) clears it up: The 99-1 success was a wishy-washy amendment designed to say, “We don’t mean to override current US law.” To me that sounds a little like making a rule that says it’s cool to punch people in the face whenever, but qualifying it with, “though standard manners still apply.” The defeated amendment tried to clarify the “mandatory detention” bit for terrorist suspects captured outside US borders.
I’m not the most politically-inclined person in the world, and I fear I misunderstand a lot of what’s going on as a non-politico, but I’ve read enough to see that congress is floundering and people are looking for excuses to showcase what a miserable job they’re doing. And with stuff like this, it’s not hard to see where the problem lies.
For reference, the full text of Barbara Boxer’s original reply is here:
Thank you for writing to me about provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) concerning the military detention of enemy combatants. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
I was deeply disappointed that the final version of the NDAA did not include important language authored by Senators Mark Udall (D-CO) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) regarding detainees that would have protected civil liberties while helping to keep us safe. During floor consideration of the NDAA, I voted for an amendment offered by Senator Udall that would have replaced the detainee provisions in the bill with a requirement for the Administration to report to Congress on detention authorities. Unfortunately, this amendment failed by a vote of 38-60.
I also voted for an amendment offered by Senator Feinstein that would have clarified that mandatory military detention would apply only to terrorist suspects captured outside the United States. This amendment also failed by a vote of 45-55.
I have now agreed to be a co-sponsor of S.2003, the Due Process Guarantee Act. This important bipartisan legislation would protect American citizens arrested within the United States from being held indefinitely by the U.S. military.
I strongly oppose any expansion of military detention authority that erodes our civil liberties. However, I voted for the National Defense Authorization Act because it includes a number of provisions for our troops and their families, including a pay raise requested by President Obama and important health care benefits.
#