Senate votes to bar indefinite detention of U.S. citizens

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate has revived a divisive debate over civil liberties and the president's powers as commander in chief, voting that Americans citizens suspected of terrorism and seized on U.S. soil may not be held indefinitely.
A coalition of liberal Democrats and libertarian Republicans backed an amendment to a sweeping defense bill that said the government cannot detain a U.S. citizen or legal resident indefinitely without charge or trial even with the authorization to use military force or a declaration of war.
The 67-29 vote late Thursday was on a measure sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Mike Lee, R-Utah. The strong bipartisan approval sets up a fight with the House, which rejected efforts to bar indefinite detention when it passed its bill in May.
The $631 billion defense policy bill for next year authorizes money for weapons, ships, aircraft and a 1.7 percent pay raise for military personnel. The total is $4 billion less than the House-passed bill, and House-Senate negotiators will have to work out the difference in the closing days of this year.
The Senate is expected to vote Friday on a new package of tough sanctions on Iran targeting the Islamic Republic's domestic industries. If approved, it would mark the third time in less than a year that Congress has hit Iran with punitive measures designed to cripple its economy and thwart Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
Sens. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., introduced the package of penalties that would designate Iran's energy, port, shipping and ship-building sectors as entities of proliferation and sanction transactions with these areas. The legislation also would penalize individuals selling or supplying commodities such as graphite, aluminum and steel to Iran, all products that are crucial to Tehran's ship-building and nuclear operations.
The penalties build on the sanctions on Tehran's oil and financial industries that Menendez and Kirk shepherded through Congress in the past year.
"The Iranian currency, the rial, has lost much of its value, and Iran's oil exports have dropped to a new daily low of 860,000 barrels per day, which is over 1 million barrels of oil per day less than a year ago," Menendez said. "Through our sanctions and the combined effort of the European Union, we've forced the Iranians back to the negotiating table."
Menendez said the new penalties "will send a message to Iran that the time for confidence-building measures is over and we do not want the Iranian regime simply to believe they can tough-out the sanctions."
The legislation also would designate the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting and its president as human rights abusers for broadcasting forced televised confessions and show trials.
The United States and European Union have imposed tough sanctions on Iran that have weakened its economy. But Tehran has found ways to bypass the penalties, such as Turkey's use of gold to pay for Iranian natural gas imports.
The Menendez-Kirk measure would allow the president to impose sanctions in cases of the sale or transfer of precious metals, targeting efforts by Iran to circumvent the penalties.
Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.
The president has 90 days from the legislation's enactment to act. The bill does include the authority to waive the sanctions based on national security.
Ignoring a White House veto threat, the Senate voted Thursday to add to its restrictions on President Barack Obama's authority in dealing with terror suspects.
Lawmakers approved an amendment that would prevent the transfer of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to prisons in the United States. The vote was 54-41, with several Democrats vulnerable in the 2014 elections voting with Republicans.
Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., argued that the 166 terror suspects, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-styled mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, should remain at the U.S. naval facility and not be transferred to any facility on American soil.
Responding to Ayotte, Feinstein said the United States not only can but has handled terrorist suspects, with 180 now languishing in super maximum prisons. Feinstein complained that the measure would erase the president's flexibility.
In fact, the administration, in threatening to veto the bill, strongly objected to a provision restricting the president's authority to transfer terror suspects from Guantanamo to foreign countries. The provision is in current law.
Last year, Congress' approach to handling terror suspects divided Republicans and Democrats, pitted the White House against lawmakers and drew fierce opposition from civil liberties groups.
Current law denies suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subjects them to the possibility they would be held indefinitely. It reaffirms the post-Sept. 11 authorization for the use of military force that allows indefinite detention of enemy combatants.
That generated a conservative backlash as well as outrage among civil liberties groups.
In arguing for her amendment, Feinstein recalled the dark days of World War II when the United States forcibly removed thousands of Japanese-Americans and placed them in permanent internment camps amid unfounded fears that they were spies and national security threats.
House Republicans indicated they would stand firm.
A coalition of liberal Democrats and libertarian Republicans backed an amendment to a sweeping defense bill that said the government cannot detain a U.S. citizen or legal resident indefinitely without charge or trial even with the authorization to use military force or a declaration of war.
The 67-29 vote late Thursday was on a measure sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Mike Lee, R-Utah. The strong bipartisan approval sets up a fight with the House, which rejected efforts to bar indefinite detention when it passed its bill in May.
The $631 billion defense policy bill for next year authorizes money for weapons, ships, aircraft and a 1.7 percent pay raise for military personnel. The total is $4 billion less than the House-passed bill, and House-Senate negotiators will have to work out the difference in the closing days of this year.
The Senate is expected to vote Friday on a new package of tough sanctions on Iran targeting the Islamic Republic's domestic industries. If approved, it would mark the third time in less than a year that Congress has hit Iran with punitive measures designed to cripple its economy and thwart Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
Sens. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., introduced the package of penalties that would designate Iran's energy, port, shipping and ship-building sectors as entities of proliferation and sanction transactions with these areas. The legislation also would penalize individuals selling or supplying commodities such as graphite, aluminum and steel to Iran, all products that are crucial to Tehran's ship-building and nuclear operations.
The penalties build on the sanctions on Tehran's oil and financial industries that Menendez and Kirk shepherded through Congress in the past year.
"The Iranian currency, the rial, has lost much of its value, and Iran's oil exports have dropped to a new daily low of 860,000 barrels per day, which is over 1 million barrels of oil per day less than a year ago," Menendez said. "Through our sanctions and the combined effort of the European Union, we've forced the Iranians back to the negotiating table."
Menendez said the new penalties "will send a message to Iran that the time for confidence-building measures is over and we do not want the Iranian regime simply to believe they can tough-out the sanctions."
The legislation also would designate the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting and its president as human rights abusers for broadcasting forced televised confessions and show trials.
The United States and European Union have imposed tough sanctions on Iran that have weakened its economy. But Tehran has found ways to bypass the penalties, such as Turkey's use of gold to pay for Iranian natural gas imports.
The Menendez-Kirk measure would allow the president to impose sanctions in cases of the sale or transfer of precious metals, targeting efforts by Iran to circumvent the penalties.
Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.
The president has 90 days from the legislation's enactment to act. The bill does include the authority to waive the sanctions based on national security.
Ignoring a White House veto threat, the Senate voted Thursday to add to its restrictions on President Barack Obama's authority in dealing with terror suspects.
Lawmakers approved an amendment that would prevent the transfer of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to prisons in the United States. The vote was 54-41, with several Democrats vulnerable in the 2014 elections voting with Republicans.
Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., argued that the 166 terror suspects, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-styled mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, should remain at the U.S. naval facility and not be transferred to any facility on American soil.
Responding to Ayotte, Feinstein said the United States not only can but has handled terrorist suspects, with 180 now languishing in super maximum prisons. Feinstein complained that the measure would erase the president's flexibility.
In fact, the administration, in threatening to veto the bill, strongly objected to a provision restricting the president's authority to transfer terror suspects from Guantanamo to foreign countries. The provision is in current law.
Last year, Congress' approach to handling terror suspects divided Republicans and Democrats, pitted the White House against lawmakers and drew fierce opposition from civil liberties groups.
Current law denies suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial and subjects them to the possibility they would be held indefinitely. It reaffirms the post-Sept. 11 authorization for the use of military force that allows indefinite detention of enemy combatants.
That generated a conservative backlash as well as outrage among civil liberties groups.
In arguing for her amendment, Feinstein recalled the dark days of World War II when the United States forcibly removed thousands of Japanese-Americans and placed them in permanent internment camps amid unfounded fears that they were spies and national security threats.
House Republicans indicated they would stand firm.
Had this law of detainment been used in 2004, Brandon Mayfield may have never been heard from again. You all remember the Washington county attorney who was arrested because the government misidentified fingerprints from a Madrid bombing. Under the new law, Brandon could have never had a lawyer or any legal representation, he could have been held indefinitely, and if the government knew he was going to sue afterwards, well, they could just keep him locked up or dispose of his body, what ever they wanted. The US government dicarded the Constitution of the United States back in 2001. Good luck getting it back.
The 6th and 14th Amendments already bar indefinite detentions.
 @Max Quinn Yeah well, the 4th amendment also bars what the TSA is doing, yet it happens on a daily basis. Molesting a 1y/o in diapers is somehow a terror threat.Â
 @Jamie No argument from me.
 @Max Quinn  @Jamie No argument from me.
No need to hold these terrorists indefinetly. thats what the firing squad is for
 @LostSoul Sounds great, until some middle eastern terrorist accidentally misdials the wrong phone number and calls you - and you end up facing a firing squad with a hood over your head. Jokers like you are all the same - lack of critical thinking skills, short-sighted ignorance and 'anything goes', as long as it doesn't affect you. The US government is stripping all your constitutional rights away, and you loudly proclaim your ignorance and approval.Â
 @The Voice of Reason You seem to be reading a whole lot more into LostSoul's brief comment than is actually there. Why do you make so many assumptions?
@The Voice of Reason I loudly proclaim that if you are a terrorist you need to die like one. You sympathizers are all the same and ARE the reason the country keeps making BS laws and policies. For the most "free" country in the world, we have the most laws governing us. Is that freedom. I dont think so. Dont put your daisies in the barrel of my gun.....
 @LostSoul  I think terrorists should be executed too, but not without a trial! I guess that makes me a "sympathizer"? Do you really think the US government should be allowed to execute an American citizen without due process?!??
 @LostSoul  So if we don't need anymore laws; since we have Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution, why do we need this law?
@The Voice of Reason @LostSoul Extremely well said!
This is good news. The abandonment of habeas corpus would be the beginning of gulags, detention camps, and abuse of government power against the citizens.
Â
Of course 0bama is against this as would be expected. He really doesn't like citizens having rights and prefers government having all the power. The quote below says it all.
Â
"Ignoring a White House veto threat, the Senate voted Thursday to add to its restrictions on President Barack Obama's authority in dealing with terror suspects."
Wow - How often have Feinstein and Rand Paul co-sponsored bills? This is one for the record books.
Mr. Obama, are you listening?
Â
What a world:
"Current law denies suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens seized within the nation's borders, the right to trial."
Mr. Obama, in your oath of office you promised to uphold and defend the Constitution, remember?
 @alohan He promised a lot of things, and hasn't kept the majority of them.
@alohan that's written into the patriot act that was signed into law by Bush and a republican congress. Yes it was extended by President Obama, but the primary wording and execution of it was under republican watch.
 @Ramsesthegreat Why do you feel it necessary to spin this so frantically? The Republicans passed a bad law that threatens our civil liberties and the Democrats and Obama have kept that bad law on the books. Neither party is better than the other here. But I realize asking you not to carry water for your "home team" is a concept that's well beyond your grasp.
@Ramsesthegreat execution should be the key. by firing squad. No sympathy for any terrorist
 @LostSoul  @RamsesthegreatÂ
"Terrorist" is now re-defined as somebody who stockpiles food and flashlights!
I say we can't afford NOT to have free, fair and open trials, or any of us could be the next to disappear.
Hey, honey. It wasn't this President who started this. It was Mr. Bush and his cronies, remember? And on his second day in office, Obama signed the Executive Order to CLOSE Guantanamo. The REPUBLICANS were the ones who blocked any way to bring those held there to trial and incarcerate them in the States.
 @Mechanic Dear Mr. Hyperpartisan - It's high time you removed those blinders and realized that both the Democrats and Republicans have supported and taken advantage of bad laws that undermine our civil liberties. Yes, G.W. Bush and the Republicans "started it" after 9/11 and President Obama and the Democrats have kept those bad laws in place and continue to take advantage of them.
@Mechanic   No AMERICAN should be held by their government without due process and so I agree that " the government cannot detain a U.S. citizen or legal resident indefinitely without charge or trial even with the authorization to use military force or a declaration of war. We shouldnt need an Amendment to state that. It should be "self evident".
Â
Outside of the United States, we can not guarantee foreigners rights. DONT bring them here. The problem is that if they are that dangerous and their countries of origin WONT or CANT guarantee their detainment, they should stay where they are for OUR safety.
@scared_citizen @Jamie Did you people forget why these scum bags are locked up in the first place???? they are TERRORISTS. THey deserve to be punished as such- DEATH!! If you want to sympathize for them, maybe you should start your own country. THe world isnt full of white picket fences and flowers
 @LostSoul  @RamsesthegreatÂ
 @LostSoul The question becomes by what process is a person found to be a terrorist, upon what evidence and to be judged by whom? Just because a government official says so is not nearly good enough.
 @LostSoul  @scared_citizen You're missing the point. The government now gets to decide who is a terrorist and who isn't. There is no due process, no consulting with an attorney, none of it.. you're just snatched one night and never to be heard from again.
@LostSoul Apparently the US Constitution means nothing to you. Why do you even want to live in America? Please pay paticluar attention to the 6th Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence" and the 14th Amendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
@Ramsesthegreat I dont see a problem with this if your a terrorist
 @LostSoul  @scared_citizen Do you realize the military anyone pointing a gun at them an 'insurgent', thus a terrorist. Not everyone likes their country invaded and occupied.
@LostSoul do you realize that under the patriot act, all the government has to do is claim that you have ties to terrorism, without any evidence needed mind you, and they can lock you up until you die without ever granting a trial.
 @Mechanic Still blaming Bush? You really need to grow up and accept reality. On December 31, 2011, President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act giving him the power to indefinitely detain US citizens for any reason.. well until now. Anyone as treasonous as Obama should be sent to Guatanomo Bay and tortured until he screams and cries about how awesome it is.
One more outrage showing up AFTER the elections.
Â
If the president vetoes this or tried to fight it he should be locked up for treason.
 @Jamie He should be impeached, tried and convicted. He swore to uphold the constitution.
As for Lost Soul, what color crayons do you like best for your coloring books ?