Do not support or vote for lawmakers that said YES to the NDAA 2012

Font Size » Large | Small

If you are not aware – Congress just recently passed the National Defense Appropriations Act of 2012. To sum it up real quick the bill authorizes indefinite detention of “any person” – including U.S. citizens who are “suspect” of terrorism or terrorist activities.

What is very disappointing is both sides of the aisles cannot come together to make positive change like reduce deficits and grow America – but they can agree wholeheartedly to support this bill.

Here is a list of Senators that voted for the bill -

YEAs —86
Akaka (D-HI) Alexander (R-TN) Ayotte (R-NH) Barrasso (R-WY) Baucus (D-MT) Begich (D-AK) Bennet (D-CO) Bingaman (D-NM) Blumenthal (D-CT) Blunt (R-MO) Boozman (R-AR) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Brown (R-MA) Burr (R-NC) Cantwell (D-WA) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Chambliss (R-GA) Coats (R-IN) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Coons (D-DE) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Gillibrand (D-NY)	Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Hagan (D-NC) Hatch (R-UT) Heller (R-NV) Hoeven (R-ND) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Inouye (D-HI) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Johnson (D-SD) Johnson (R-WI) Kerry (D-MA) Kirk (R-IL) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lugar (R-IN) Manchin (D-WV) McCain (R-AZ) McCaskill (D-MO) McConnell (R-KY) Menendez (D-NJ)	Mikulski (D-MD) Murkowski (R-AK) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Portman (R-OH) Pryor (D-AR) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Rubio (R-FL) Schumer (D-NY) Sessions (R-AL) Shaheen (D-NH) Shelby (R-AL) Snowe (R-ME) Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Thune (R-SD) Toomey (R-PA) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Vitter (R-LA) Warner (D-VA) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wicker (R-MS)

Here is a list of Representatives that voted YES:

—- AYES 283 —

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Buerkle
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chandler
Cicilline
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly

Garamendi
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Hoyer
Hultgren
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent

Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sánchez, Linda T.
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Visclosky
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

There are those that are reporting that the law does not state anywhere that US Citizens can be detained without due process – this is true it does not specifically state US Citizens, however please read the following taken directly from the law itself -

SEC. 1021. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE
ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED
STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS
PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION
FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Congress affirms that the
authority of the President to use all necessary
and appropriate force pursuant to the
Authorization for Use of Military Force
(Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes
the authority for the Armed Forces of
the United States to detain covered persons
(as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition
under the law of war.
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person
under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed,
or aided the terrorist attacks that
occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored
those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially
supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated
forces that are engaged in hostilities
against the United States or its coalition
partners, including any person who
has committed a belligerent act or has directly
supported such hostilities in aid of
such enemy forces.

——————————————————————————

When I read the above – I am very concerned and suspicious of the last paragraph there. To me – much is left open to be determined by someone who may have a unique perspective. I mean – we once had a President of the United States answer a question with “ It Depends on what the meaning of the word is is”. Crazy.

——————————————————————————

Bottom line – things are getting crazy. I will not be supporting a single name on either one of those lists. Ain’t gonna happen.

Any of your Congressman on the list?

Rourke

Tags: Current Events

Current Events | Rourke December 28, 2011

12 Comments to “Do not support or vote for lawmakers that said YES to the NDAA 2012”

By kevin, December 28, 2011 @ 7:48 am

yeah one is on that list and you can beti will NOT be voting for her
By Tyler, December 28, 2011 @ 7:53 am

I do see that but what about paragraph (e) of that section? It states:
(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section
shall be construed to affect existing law or
authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens
of the United States, or any other persons
who are captured or arrested in the United
States

I don’t care for this whole thing, sounds shady, but everywhere people are saying it included US there is an AUTHORITIES paragraph like this? Would love for someone to explain.

Thanks
Tyler
By Badvoodoodaddy, December 28, 2011 @ 9:00 am

I have several on the list!! I am going to be sending e-mails to them today and lettting them know how I feel about this. I too feel that the wording in this law is vague at best and can be seriously misconstrued into what ever the powers that be decide they want it to be. It needs to be changed and I for one will be on the front lines making sure that it gets changed.
By Matt G, December 28, 2011 @ 2:53 pm

Here in Washington state both Senators and six Representatives voted for it. No surprise there. I long ago realized that I (apparently) live in the wrong state based on my view of right, wrong and Rights. I agree, things are getting crazy.
By countryboy6685, December 28, 2011 @ 3:25 pm

I wrote today to all my elected officials and let them know that I would no longer be supporting them with donations or my vote because they have voted for this . Also wrote to BO to let him know how I felt about it if he were to sign it .
Robert W
By Rourke, December 28, 2011 @ 5:25 pm

Tyler –

This guy explains it better than me:

Myth #1: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill

This is simply false, at least when expressed so definitively and without caveats. The bill is purposely muddled on this issue which is what is enabling the falsehood.

There are two separate indefinite military detention provisions in this bill. The first, Section 1021, authorizes indefinite detention for the broad definition of “covered persons” discussed above in the prior point. And that section does provide that “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” So that section contains a disclaimer regarding an intention to expand detention powers for U.S. citizens, but does so only for the powers vested by that specific section. More important, the exclusion appears to extend only to U.S. citizens “captured or arrested in the United States” — meaning that the powers of indefinite detention vested by that section apply to U.S. citizens captured anywhere abroad (there is some grammatical vagueness on this point, but at the very least, there is a viable argument that the detention power in this section applies to U.S. citizens captured abroad).

But the next section, Section 1022, is a different story. That section specifically deals with a smaller category of people than the broad group covered by 1021: namely, anyone whom the President determines is “a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force” and “participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.” For those persons, section (a) not only authorizes, but requires (absent a Presidential waiver), that they be held “in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.” The section title is “Military Custody for Foreign Al Qaeda Terrorists,” but the definition of who it covers does not exclude U.S. citizens or include any requirement of foreignness.

That section — 1022 — does not contain the broad disclaimer regarding U.S. citizens that 1021 contains. Instead, it simply says that the requirement of military detention does not apply to U.S. citizens, but it does not exclude U.S. citizens from the authority, the option, to hold them in military custody…

The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.
By dj, December 28, 2011 @ 7:13 pm

I sent a nasty email to McConnell of Kentucky when they passed it last week or so and I just sent an email to Rep Hal Rogers who supported this too. These turds will not get my vote EVER again! My other Senator, Rand Paul was vehemently against it from the start! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuL8xgzokwQ
I am proud of my vote for Senator Paul! I know that he is one of a very few who will swear, defend and live up to the oath he took when he became my Senator. Like him I swore that same oath for 22 years in the Army and I still live by it today! There is a group out there, they are called Oath Keepers. Check them out, they are non-partisan and completely Constitutional! We are seeing our country on the road to tyranny and the majority of the “sheeple” are asleep while the wolves in DC are hacking away at our liberties and rights! I am a sheepdog, I will NOT just lie here and watch my country implode! Like many here on who visit and comment on this website we are preppers; people who know what is coming and are doing the right thing by preparing for it.
I know that our founding fathers are rolling in their graves right now. I hope and pray that there was some way things were different, however, reality tells me otherwise. My faith is strong in my Christian belief and my determination as a retired soldier will NOT waiver. Everyday I continue to prep for what is going to happen!
Thunder 7
By Tyler, December 28, 2011 @ 8:43 pm

Rourke,

Thanks for the extra info.

Tyler
By Ben, December 28, 2011 @ 11:42 pm

We have crossed the Rubicon my friends. When due process goes out the window, you have tyranny. Hell, have been in soft tyranny for about 10 years. We are moving towards a police state and right quick. I hope you are prepared for this paradigm shift.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

- C.S. Lewis
By David, December 29, 2011 @ 8:25 pm

I know of two senators and a representative that will not be getting my vote next time.
By Coop, December 30, 2011 @ 1:24 am

Let’s see 89 Voted YEAs and 283 Voted YES. BTW YEA and YES mean the same thing. Now of course I can research myself, but it would be nice if you would report accurately and proof read before you release.
By Rourke, December 30, 2011 @ 9:42 am

Coop –

There are 100 senators – 13 votes against, 1 did not vote – that leaves 86 that voted for it. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00230

NAYs —13
Cardin (D-MD)
Coburn (R-OK)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Durbin (D-IL)
Franken (D-MN)
Harkin (D-IA)
Lee (R-UT)
Merkley (D-OR)
Paul (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Sanders (I-VT)
Wyden (D-OR)

EDIT:
Not Voting – 1
Moran (R-KS)

In the House of Representatives – 283 voted for the bill, 136 voted against, and 14 did not vote. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml

YEA versus YES – come on man!!!! Give me a break – it is the terminology they use when voting!

There goes 5 minutes I can’t get back.

Rourke