Hawaii’s senators split their votes on an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Bill that would have limited the right of the government to indefinitely arrest and detain American citizens in military prisons without trial.
The New York Times called the issue “a momentous question about constitutional rights” in the ongoing “war” on terror.
Akaka voted for the amendment but Inouye voted against it (click here for the roll call votes).
One local reader immediately emailed me.
Given the history that the Nisei suffered in WWII with indefinite detention as potential enemies of the state, one would think Dan Inouye would be very sensitive to this.
The provisions in the bill were part of a deal struck earlier between Carl Levin and John McCain, the ranking Democrat and Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
According to an earlier NY Times account:
Among the changes: a section affirming that the United States government can hold terrorism suspects without trial would delete a paragraph saying that it does not apply to citizens or lawful residents for their actions on domestic soil “except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.” Instead, it would be silent on whether or not such Americans can be held without trial.
The draft would also delete language imposing a potential limit on that detention authority: that the person must have been “captured in the course of hostilities.” The Defense Department had objected that such language might call into question whether it could detain Qaeda suspects who were captured far from the so-called “hot battlefield” of Afghanistan, and who were not accused of taking part in specific plots.
A section that would mandate military custody for noncitizen terrorism suspects is said to have been modified to add in that it does not apply to lawful residents, either, but that it does apply to people “captured in the course of hostilities.” The people describing the provision said it was ambiguous how that could be interpreted — including whether people “arrested” inside the United States would count.
A legal analysis by the ACLU includes this comment:
Section 1031 of S. 1253 would be the first time that Congress creates an exception to the Non-Detention Act of 1971, which is a statute signed into law by President Richard Nixon that provides, “No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.”
The Non-Detention Act of 1971, authored by Senator Daniel Inouye, was enacted to make sure that the United States never subjected any American citizens to the kind of imprisonment without charge or trial used by the government in the internment of Japanese Americans. However, the Non-Detention Act of 1971’s protections are only as good as the commitment of Congress and the president to uphold them. Section 1031 would be the first exception to the statute’s protections.
I can’t find any comment by Hawaii’s senior senator in news reports or on the senator’s official web site last night, and the site was “down” this morning.
I’m of the feeling that the senator has an obligation to explain the bill, the internal Senate politics, and his negative vote on the limiting amendment.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Methinks the ol’ fox knows that the White House goin’ veto the bugger if and when it gets that far. So no matter.
In the meantime, I guess he’s going along with most of the Senators so they finally can prove they’re capable of the wheel ‘n deal…. even if it’s a rotten deal.
I am seriously concerned about contemporary attitudes about bail, no bail and excessive bail.
The sense that bail is punitive is unnerving as hell. Big Island advocate Roger Christie is into his second year of federal incarceration on Oahu sans bail.
Arrogant as he may perceived, he is no threat to you or me or himself. A lot of anti-marijuana folks are salivating that this is a swell idea.
This old gin-and-tonic guy sees a travesty. You convict folks before punishing them. Civil rights are being stomped these days.
I think Hugh strikes the right balance on Roger Christie. I think I briefly met him years ago, but will yield to Hugh’s assessment of the man’s personality.
The most salient facts are that Christie was arrested for growing and distributing marijuana, has yet to be tried and the Feds are unwilling to release him on bail, saying he is a “danger to the community.”
People should understand that Christie has been quite open about what he has been doing, even if part of his justification is pretty flakey. He claims he is a minister and the practice of his religion requires the use of marijuana. He has convinced others to adopt the same stance and has succeeded in getting them arrested as well. (Sorta like Perfect Title?).
But however flakey Roger may be, it is absurd to say he is a “danger to the community.” Green Harvest, draconian anti-marijuana laws, including imprisoning non-violent potheads and the asset forfeiture laws, THOSE represent a much bigger “danger to the community” than would a freed Roger Christie.
I stopped using pot in my senior year of high school. (Not counting a few moments of partying in college). Pot is no longer my intoxicant of choice. Depending on the circumstances, I prefer a glass of wine or a cold beer. But if, at the end of a long day, I am sitting on the beach admiring the sunset with a glass of wine and the guy ten feet away lights up a joint, God bless ’em. It’s his choice. (I won’t even complain if the smoke blows my way. I still love the smell!)
It is long past time to decriminalize, nay, to LEGALIZE, recreational use of marijuana for those who want it.
FREE ROGER CHRISTIE!
On Thom Hartmann’s show this morning Bernie Sanders had nothing to say about the bill except the President was going to veto it. He literally said “That’s all I want to say about that.”
This vote is an example of the reasons I will so miss Senator Akaka. He almost always votes in line with my own sense of right and wrong.
D.I. : WTH?
Sen. Inouye shamed Hawaii with his vote against citizens right to due process.
The bill sucks. Yet another step away from respect for constitutional due process. And “habeas corpus”? What is that foreign sounding thing?
When I saw your headline, I knew right away which senator had voted which way. Mahina is right. Senator Akaka has almost always been on the right side on these sorts of issues. When Ed Case was running against Akaka, claiming he was smarter than Akaka, I only had to compare their voting records. Akaka had been right on so many issues: Bush’s drive to war in Iraq, the bankruptcy bill, the Patriot Act, where Ed had been wrong.
The one exception was drilling in the ANWR.
Inouye has a more mixed record. Better than Case, not as good as Akaka or Hirono. He opposed the war on Iraq, for example and had enough authority to provide cover for others who lacked his “national security” credibility.
Not to make excuses for him, but I suspect he decided in part because Senator Levin had worked out a deal with Senator McCain which softened the bill a little. With the passing of most other longtime senators, Senator Inouye is probably the strongest believer in supporting the lead Democratic colleague when a deal is struck. That, combined with Obama’s explicit pledge to veto the bill, probably goes part way to explaining why Inouye voted for the bill.
Will Obama follow through on his pledge and veto the bill? Sadly, I no longer have confidence in anything progressive-sounding Obama has to say. I have been wrong before and am willing to be wrong here.
@Ian,
Thanks for the link to the New York Times article. It was very informative and I recommend it to others who may have skipped reading it.
It is absolutely fascinating how sweeping the agreement in congress was on this issue. It proves that congress believes they are supposed to do things TO us and not FOR us.
Even more fascinating that most televised media was too busy pounding us with Cain’s sex life allegations day after day to barely acknowledge the implications of what congress proposed to do.