Idaho Senators Vote for the NDAA

Both Mike Crapo and Jim Risch voted for the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act)  termed by some as the National Detention of Americans Act.

The two sections of concern are 1031 & 1032, posted below:

Subtitle D: Detainee Matters - (Sec. 1031) Affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force includes the authority for U.S. Armed Forces to detain covered persons pending disposition under the law of war. Defines a “covered person” as a person who: (1) planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for such attacks; or (2) was 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. Requires the Secretary to regularly brief Congress on the application of such authority.

(Sec. 1032) Requires U.S. Armed Forces to hold in custody pending disposition a person who was a member or part of al Qaeda or an associated force and participated in planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners. Authorizes the Secretary to waive such requirement in the national security interest. Makes such requirement inapplicable to U.S. citizens or U.S. lawful resident aliens. Outlines implementation procedures.

3 Responses

  1. Need to do better homework on how the Idaho senators voted. They both voted “no” and were two of the six Republicans to do so.

    Vote Number: 230 Date: December 15, 2011, 04:02 PM
    Question: On the Conference Report H.R. 1540
    Measure Title: To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.
    Measure Number: H.R. 1540 to

    Required for Majority: 1/2
    Result: Conference Report Agreed to
    Votes: YEAs NAYs ABSENT
    86 13 1
    Grouped By Vote Position
    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)
    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)
    Not Voting – 1
    Moran (R-KS)

  2. Need to do better homework on how the Idaho senators voted. They both voted “no” and were two of the six Republicans to do so.

    Yu’ll need to do a better job in helping to solve this country’s problems – how’s that, Mr. Hoaglun?

    It would have been perfectly fine to point out the vote I cited is from the 1st of December (published the post on the 13th), and your citation was from the 15th of December, thus the difference. See, then we could’ve had a dialogue about are there differences in the bill (Dianne Feinstein insert?); why’d they vote ‘yes’ here and ‘no’ there. But nope – ya gotta come all macho and shit.

  3. Here we go: I knew it had already passed the Senate wherein it then went over to the House where Ms. Feinstein offered up the changes. It passed the House, going back to the Senate for re-approval. It’s now on the president’s desk.

    Perhaps you can explain why the ‘no’ vote on yesterday’s vote when originally both their votes, specifically Mr. Risch’s vote in your case, were ‘yes.’ Too lenient? Not harsh enough? Don’t like Ms. Feinstein? Why the change?

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: