Did your Rep vote to let the govenment call you a terrorist and imprison you without trial?

[Eric J in MN]

Yes vote = Yes, have trials.

A No vote means No trial, just lock us up and throw away the key when the government calls us terrorists.

Roll Call.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll270.xml

[Robb]

1. As a courtesy to anyone who doesn't know everything about everything:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2018236474_indefinitedetention.html

House rejects Adam Smith's ban on indefinite detention on U.S. soil


WASHINGTON -- The House on Friday voted to uphold indefinite detention of any terrorism suspects, once again defeating a motion of Rep. Adam Smith, D-Tacoma, to roll back the legally-disputed practice.

By a 182-238 vote, the House rejected an amendment offered by Smith and Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., to guarantee any terrorist suspects arrested on U.S. soil -- not just U.S. citizens -- the right to a charge and a trial.

The amendment, included in the 2013 defense act, also would have repealed a requirement that anyone arrested on suspicion of terrorism be taken into military, not civilian, custody.

(snip)

Smith's amendment would have allowed indefinite detention only for those captured overseas, including American citizens. He also sought to give authorities the flexibility to try suspects in state or federal courts, not in military commissions.

[sadbear]

2. Keith Ellison voted no.

[Eric J in MN]

5. Keith Ellison is the ony person I recognize as being in the Progressive Caucus

...to vote No.

I wonder what he was thinking.

[Jumping John]

3. Didn't a federal judge rule that violated the

rights of people?

See:

"A US judge ruled on Wednesday that the indefinite military detention of American citizens, as allowed in the National Defense Authorization Act that President Barack Obama signed on December 31, 2011, is unconstitutional.

For now, American citizens will be excluded from the NDAA’s nasty laws that allow the government to detain persons with suspected ties to terrorist groups behind bars without ever pressing charges. Civilians the world over still face persecution, however, as the controversial legislation continues to allow for their imprisonment.

United States District Judge Katherine Forrest declared this week that the NDAA’s indefinite detention provision has a "chilling impact on First Amendment rights” and formally struck down the section of the legislation that allows for the government to imprison
Americans for only supposed terrorist ties. Unless the law is further challenged, though, those outside the US still face the wrath of Uncle Sam for having only suspected links with anti-American forces.

In her ruling this week, Judge Forrest appears to agree, writing, "In the face of what could be indeterminate military detention, due process requires more.”

"An individual could run the risk of substantially supporting or directly supporting an associated force without even being aware that he or she was doing so,” she added."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/05/16/national/a195608D55.DTL#ixzz1vFNDa8JG

[Eric J in MN]

4. Yes, but higher courts may or may not agree with that court. NT

NT