sailingaway
05-04-2012, 10:29 AM
Congress is now considering three bills designed to quiet the uproar. One, sponsored by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), would repeal the detention sections of the NDAA entirely. Another, sponsored by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), would ensure that suspected terrorists captured on US soil, whether they are citizens or not, could not be detained indefinitely without trial.
Then there's a third bill, proposed by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), called the Right to Habeas Corpus Act. Rigell's bill, which has 32 cosponsors, would do basically nothing. That's because all it does is affirm the right of American citizens to have a judge evaluate the legality of their detention, and there has been no disagreement over that right since the Supreme Court affirmed it in 2004. The question has been whether the United States could hold suspected terrorists without ever charging them with a crime. Under Rigell's bill, a future president could still potentially indefinitely detain an American citizen arrested in the United States on suspicion of terrorism, while Smith's bill would prevent them from doing so.
Rigell's bill is "addressing a habeas problem that doesn't exist, and ignoring the real problem, which is indefinite detention without charge or trial," says ACLU legislative counsel Chris Anders.
Rigell's office didn't respond to a request for comment. But Anders notes that detention authority can be a "confusing" and "difficult" area in which to legislate, partially because many of the issues aren't entirely settled. Of the two bills that would actually alter the NDAA, Smith's has 56 cosponsors in the House. Paul's bill has five cosponsors.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/05/obama-ndaa-backlash
Why do I cynically suspect that the REASON the 'more popular' bill is more popular is BECAUSE it would do nothing?
In any event, we know how to do this, we did it with the audit of the Fed. It is time to contact our Senators and Congress Reps and make sure they know RON'S bill is the one we require.
Find your Senator: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Find your House Rep either by name or by entering your zip code at the upper right: http://house.gov/representatives/
Then there's a third bill, proposed by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), called the Right to Habeas Corpus Act. Rigell's bill, which has 32 cosponsors, would do basically nothing. That's because all it does is affirm the right of American citizens to have a judge evaluate the legality of their detention, and there has been no disagreement over that right since the Supreme Court affirmed it in 2004. The question has been whether the United States could hold suspected terrorists without ever charging them with a crime. Under Rigell's bill, a future president could still potentially indefinitely detain an American citizen arrested in the United States on suspicion of terrorism, while Smith's bill would prevent them from doing so.
Rigell's bill is "addressing a habeas problem that doesn't exist, and ignoring the real problem, which is indefinite detention without charge or trial," says ACLU legislative counsel Chris Anders.
Rigell's office didn't respond to a request for comment. But Anders notes that detention authority can be a "confusing" and "difficult" area in which to legislate, partially because many of the issues aren't entirely settled. Of the two bills that would actually alter the NDAA, Smith's has 56 cosponsors in the House. Paul's bill has five cosponsors.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/05/obama-ndaa-backlash
Why do I cynically suspect that the REASON the 'more popular' bill is more popular is BECAUSE it would do nothing?
In any event, we know how to do this, we did it with the audit of the Fed. It is time to contact our Senators and Congress Reps and make sure they know RON'S bill is the one we require.
Find your Senator: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Find your House Rep either by name or by entering your zip code at the upper right: http://house.gov/representatives/