Senator Kerry and the NDAA -- this is bothering me and I wonder if people here know more UPDATED [View all]

Last edited Mon Jun 18, 2012, 11:16 AM - Edit history (3)

I apologize that this is not a well-researched post. I'm assuming that some people here know far more than I do and I'm appealing for help. But I can fix it up with some links if necessary. In a nutshell, the National Defense Authorization Act looks scary; it appears to say that the military can haul US citizens away and hold them without trial, indefinitely. However, there's controversy in the blogosphere as to whether that is in fact what it says. Sen. Lindsey Graham seemed to think that indefinite detention without trial was exactly the point -- as he put it, suspects who want a lawyer would be told, "Shut up! You don't get a lawyer." These are probably well-known facts to most people in the liberal blogosphere.

JK eventually voted yes on this thing, though in a floor statement he expressed that he still had some reservations; he said it had been improved (in terms of civil rights concerns) in some ways, though. He also said he had proposed or tried to propose various amendments, none of which passed. I've been trying to find out more about this. I've looked in Thomas and haven't found anything about any proposed amendments, or even any floor statements by JK other than the one he made just before he voted yes. My Thomas skills may be a bit rusty, though.

If anyone has any great links to articles that really seem to nail down what the heck this law says, that'd be helpful. I'm also wondering who insisted that it be written in this way. But the reason I'm appealing for help here specifically is that I'm really wondering about JK's role in passing this and what efforts he made to change it. I'd like to find more than just that one floor statement. I thought someone here might know more about his position on the NDAA.

ETA: People who've known me for a while know that I'm about as diehard a JK supporter as you can be. One of many reasons is that I trust him -- and I don't take that for granted when it comes to politicians. Over the years, I've found that literally every time I hear a rumor that JK voted Yes on some kind of abomination or No on something that sounds great, or that he supposedly did something underhanded, I know that there will turn out to be a reasonable explanation, and there always is. It's usually that the law reads differently than what we thought, or the situation isn't what it appears to be, or he voted No on something because it had a poison-pill attached, etc. I like it that I can trust him to do the right and reasonable thing -- not always the perfect thing, but at least what's reasonable. But here's the thing -- after I say "There has to be a reasonable explanation," I always go and find out what it is. So it's in that spirit that I want to know more about what JK has said about the NDAA, if anything, and also more about what it really means.

ETA: A helpful link provided by Make7 shows that JK introduced two amendments to the bill. However, it looks as if neither one came to the floor for consideration, and the text of the amendments isn't available, apparently for that reason. Still, it's good to see something.

UPDATE: Here is Senator Kerry's statement from the floor on December 15th. I see now that he said he was supporting amendments that would've improved the bill, not that they were in his name.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am voting to pass the conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, NDAA.

This is not a perfect piece of legislation. But it contains important hard-fought provisions that I am unwilling to jeopardize or risk denying to the brave men and women defending our Nation, and their families. Specifically, this bill represents the year's last opportunity to pass a 1.6 percent across-the-board pay raise for our men and women in the military. The bill also includes a bipartisan provision Senator Collins and I have been working on for over a year to get passed: an effort to protect victims of sexual assault in the military. As a veteran, I have been deeply troubled by what Senator Collins and our colleague in the House, Representative Tsongas, have heard about the alarming incidences of sexual assault in the military--which is why we worked so hard through this bill to strengthen support for sexual assault prevention, legal protection for victims of sexual assault, and assistance for victims.

There are, however, problems with this bill which still concern me. When the bill was on the floor, I fought for amendments that would have stripped troubling detainee provisions out of the bill entirely. I also voted for other amendments that would have significantly narrowed the scope of the detainee provisions. Unfortunately, notwithstanding my votes, those amendments were not adopted by the Senate. The conferees, with our urging, and with the President's veto threat, made some progress in improving that part of the bill. I commend the conferees for working to address concerns of mine and many other Senators, senior administration officials, and the public over the detention-related provisions in the NDAA. While the provisions in the conference report are an improvement over their counterparts in the bill that the Senate passed last week, we need to continue to examine detention law and policy to ensure that the treatment of detainees is consistent with our national security and with core American values.

The progress made in conference on the detention-related provisions is significant enough that I am comfortable voting for the bill, and the White House has lifted its veto threat. Specifically, the conference report includes several changes to the detainee provisions, including a new paragraph that clearly states that nothing in the bill ``shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency,'' provisions that give the President additional discretion over implementation, and a transfer of the waiver authority from the Secretary of Defense to the President. In its totality, these changes led the White House to state that the ``the language does not challenge or constrain the President's ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people, and the President's senior advisors will not recommend a veto.''

Given all this, as well as the fact that the detention-related provisions of the bill have been improved from a civil liberties perspective, and in light of the other urgent priorities contained in the overall bill, I am voting in favor of the conference report.