What Do Georgia Senators Think About The NDAA?

 There has been alot of talk about the recent legislation called the National Defense Authorization Act.  Many believe the act gives this President, and/or future Presidents the ability to use the military in America to arrest, and jail indefinetly, without charges or a trial, American citizens.  The President simply has to declare a person a threat to "national security" and that person can be imprisoned, no right to lawyer, a jury, a hearing, evidence, witnesses, habis appeals....nothing.

A good friend of mine whom I work with on occasion thought this bill was a bad idea.  They did not want it to pass in it's original form back in 2011, when the public first became aware of the bill.  So my friend wrote to his/her Georgia State Senators and  Georgia Congressman, John Lewis.  He/she told them about their opposition to the bill and why he/she thought they should vote against it.  I was courious about what their resposes were.  All three legislators wrote back to my friend in an email.  Some were more detailed than others.  Below are the responses my friend received, with my friend's name deleated per their request.

This is an intersting look at the thinking of three Georgia Representives, and why two of them think stripping their constituents of their rights is a good thing for America.

From: saxby_chambliss@chambliss.senate.gov

Dear M

Thank you for contacting me regarding the fiscal year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, passed by the Senate on December 1, 2011, that included several provisions relating to the authority of the United States to detain certain individuals associated with al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. 

It is well-founded in our history that the United States has the authority to hold enemy combatants until the end of hostilities in order to prevent their return to the battlefield.  The detainee provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act codify this long-recognized authority, and make clear that any al Qaeda terrorist, whether foreign or American, who takes up arms against the United States, can be held under the laws of war.  Because we are at war, detention within a military framework is often the most fitting solution for handling certain terrorist detainees.  At the same time, the provisions ensure that the rights of United States citizens continue to be protected by the Constitution.  Thus, any American detained under this authority would still be able to challenge his detention in a federal habeas proceeding. 

During the vigorous debate of the National Defense Authorization Act, several Senators offered amendments intended to address perceived problems with the provisions.  Rather than improve the legislation, however, these amendments would have severely undermined our intelligence collection efforts from suspected terrorists.  As we continue to fight al Qaeda and other terrorists, our primary concern must be to ensure that our military and intelligence professionals have the authority and flexibility they need to collect valuable intelligence.  Because of the negative impact these amendments would likely have had on such critical collection efforts, I am thankful the amendments were defeated.  Following vigorous debate and an agreement to re-emphasize current law concerning the detention of persons captured inside the United States, the Senate passed the National Defense Authorization bill with overwhelming bipartisan support. 

If you would like to receive timely email alerts regarding the latest congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my web site at: www.chambliss.senate.gov.  Please let me know how I may be of assistance to you.

From: senator@isakson.senate.gov

Dear M

Thank you for contacting me regarding the detainee provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year 2012.  I appreciate hearing from you and am grateful for the opportunity to respond to your concerns.

            S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, contains provisions that deal with the enemy combatant detainee policies of the United States.  Section 1031 sets guidelines for detaining enemy combatants suspected of participating in the September 11th terrorist attacks or in aiding the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or its affiliates.  This section also affirms the military's authority to detain those persons suspected of planning, authorizing, committing, or aiding the September 11th terrorist attacks, or if persons are suspected of harboring those responsible for these atrocities.  Section 1031 codifies the military's current authority to detain suspected enemy combatants who significantly support al-Qaeda, the Taliban or other forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States and it coalition forces. According to the subsequent Section 1032, those detained under the authority of Section 1031 must be held in military custody, unless they are American citizens, who are exempt from this military custody requirement. 

On November 29, 2011, the Senate voted on Senator Mark Udall's (D-Colo.) amendment to S.1867 that would strip Sections 1031 and 1032 from the bill.  I voted against this amendment because I believe that the Obama Administration's decision to try terrorists and enemy combatants in civilian courts has resulted in a lost opportunity to collect intelligence.  The administration's increasing willingness to revert to the pre-9/11 mentality of treating terrorism as a law enforcement matter rather than an intelligence or war matter is flawed.  The President has the Constitutional authority and responsibility as Commander-in-Chief, along with the Congressional authorization for the Use of Military Force (P.L. 107-40), to detain those suspected of working on behalf of al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated groups.  I have urged the President to reconsider his decision to use the civilian criminal justice system to prosecute terrorists and enemy combatants in U.S. custody.  As al-Qaeda continues its quest to destroy our nation and our interests abroad, I believe it is imperative that we use all intelligence-gathering means possible to deny them this opportunity and to protect our citizens from harm.

            Additionally, I voted for Senator Feinstein's amendment to S.1867 that clarifies that the bill is not intended to alter the current legal authority to detain prisoners captured in the war on terror.  On December 1, 2011, S.1867 passed the Senate by a vote of 93-7.  The differences between S.1867 and H.R.1540, the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act, must be worked out in a conference committee.  

            As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, I am deeply concerned for the well-being of our soldiers as we send them to war and when they return home from the battlefield.  I will continue to make sure that our fighting men and women have the means to successfully carry out their missions and preserve our national security.  I understand your concerns about these specific provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act, and I will keep your thoughts in mind as we continue to work on issues related to our armed forces, terrorism, and our national security.

Thank you again for contacting me.  Please visit my webpage at http://isakson.senate.gov/ for more information on the issues important to you and to sign up for my e-newsletter.

Sincerely,
Johnny Isakson
United States Senator

From: Congressman John Lewis

Dear M

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the National Defense Authorization Act.  I appreciate hearing from you about this important issue.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes broad provisions that threaten the constitutional rights of American citizens. This bill perpetuates reactionary policies enacted as part of the PATRIOT Act, which I have continuously opposed.  The terms of the NDAA expand the reach of the military to detain citizens and hold them indefinitely without trial. These provisions weaken our nation's commitment to justice. 

As a Member of Congress, I have continuously fought to defend the fundamental rights which are a cornerstone of our democracy.  I voted against this bill in May of 2011 because I believe we can ensure our nation's security without compromising our most sacred rights.  I remain committed to protecting the constitutional rights and civil liberties of all Americans, and will not vote for future defense authorizations unless these concerns are addressed.

Again, thank you for taking for the time to share your views about such an important issue.  I hope that you will contact me with any other concerns.  Also, please visit my website at www.house.gov/johnlewis for more information on legislation that interests you.

Sincerely,
  
John Lewis
Member of Congress