Where can a person get a full list of everyone who voted for it?

action listed the sites.... click on the names for contact...

You very rarely get a reply other than the standard "we thank you for your contact and will forward your inquiry to your representitive" or "the proper Presidential advisor for consideration"

On this bill your reply could be DHS at 3am in black SUVs with tinted windows...... I did it anyway!

Better to fight on your feet than die on your belly! SEMPER FI!

Check page one. I posted two links, one for each House. Lists every vote and abstention.

Thanks. OMG! here are the ones in Colorado who voted:

Colorado
No CO-1 DeGette, Diana [D]
No CO-2 Polis, Jared [D]
Aye CO-3 Tipton, Scott [R]
Aye CO-4 Gardner, Cory [R]
Aye CO-5 Lamborn, Doug [R]
Aye CO-6 Coffman, Mike [R]
Aye CO-7 Perlmutter, Ed [D]

I've been looking at some of the on line copies of that bill and damn... it is really a mass of confusion. So far I have not spotted the specific part of the bill that is causing all the ruckus.

If anyone can point me to that, I would appreciate it.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/dec2011/sena-d02.shtml

US Senators back law authorizing indefinite military detention without trial or charge
By Tom Carter
2 December 2011

Provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) bill, currently being considered in the US Senate, would authorize the military to unilaterally abduct and imprison any person anywhere in the world without charge or trial—including US citizens within the United States.
According to a statement released by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU, the bill “was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.” The media, meanwhile, has blacked out the development of this legislation.

The official Senate “debate” this week over the NDAA’s military detention provisions starkly illustrates the anti-democratic political trajectory of the American bourgeoisie. The debate on Wednesday consisted of various senators taking turns to boast about their dedication to “protecting our homeland from terrorism,” competing to see who could provide the most effusive statements of support for “our troops.”

Not one senator rose to defend, on a principled basis, the historic protections of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, or even to point out the unprecedented nature of the powers the bill would grant the military. Senators from both big business parties participated in the stampede.

Senator Lindsey Graham featured prominently in the debate, repeatedly taking the floor to imply that no restrictions on the military’s power to abduct and detain “enemy forces” would be tolerated, especially in the US. The NDAA military detention provision “does apply to American citizens and it designates the world as the battlefield, including the homeland,” Graham insisted.

The military detention provisions are written in impenetrable legal and military jargon and incorporated into an obscure section of a defense spending bill (sections 1031 and 1032 of Senate Bill 1867, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012”).

During the official proceedings, many senators were unable to agree upon the meaning of these provisions, including whether US citizens would be subject to indefinite detention without trial.

The bill, according to its text, “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) 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.”
Covered persons under subsection (b) include anyone “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.”
The bill further provides that the “Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement” that the laws of war be observed with respect to individual detainees.

Translated in to plain English, this means that the US military can unilaterally cause any person to “disappear,” imprisoning him or her indefinitely—without trial, without a warrant, without the involvement of an attorney or a judge, without respect for international law, and without giving any reasons.

These provisions of the NDAA are unmistakably expansive and vague. What does “associated forces” mean? What does it mean to have “supported such hostilities?” What does it mean to give “aid” to “enemy forces?”

Read more:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/dec2011/sena-d02.shtml

More good links on wiki:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012#cite_note-6

Here, Jeannie. This link will take you right to it.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:2:./temp/~c11211z5ki:e548990:

action and the rest of you.... got a warning, may be banned for a post, but it has been a pleasure if I am.

Needed to say it just in case.... may freedom ring!


Happy Holidays!

I dont know if I would e mail them it could put you on top of the list to be rounded up when the shtf.

That thought crossed my mind.

keep your nose in the wind and hope we dont elect a republican except ron paul.

If occupy movement gets going I do expect them to round up some folks before we can honestly revolt.

The real quistion is who will obay the orders?

I am sure some posters on this website would gladly turn someone in or if they had the chance be a willing guard over political disedents or from what I see from some posts actualy enjoy being a triggerman.

These are strange times when the most unamerican americans can hide behind the flag and make absurd statements.

There is blood, MY BLOOD, on the flag I wave, and I will GLADLY point to those who discredit it!

I heard that certain military recruits were asked point blank if they would fire on or take action against American citizens if they were ordered to do so. The ones who answered yes were put in a special group.

You can bet the leaders know who would be willing to arrest or fire upon their own citizens.

I'm a Marine (there are no ex-Marines....just ask) and I would like to think that HONOR would dictate their duty. We are sworn to protect the constitution and defend against all enemies foreign and domestic.... civilian protesters doesn't qualify in my book... and while they may react to quell mob disturbance, they are not the Nat Guard (Kent State) and I think my brothers would have a problem with that.

SEMPER FI MARINES!

You might think so. I think this question has only been posed recently. (Not that I'm saying you are old.)

MARINES WILL STAND WITH THE PEOPLE JEANNIE...COUNT ON IT!

HONOR IS MORE THAN A WORD!

SEMPER FI!

Lets hope so. (But everyone is not a marine.)

(I love Gibbs on NCIS.)

MARINES! FIRST TO FIGHT! DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR!

SEMPER FI! ALWAYS FAITHFUL!

That's awesome that you were a marine. My first cousin was a marine. He went from a skinny dope smoking hippie to a marine. When he got out, he was strong! Then he became a minister. He died from service related agent orange cancer.