The Senate rejected an amendment on Tuesday that would have removed a provision from the pending Defense spending bill to toughen U.S. policy towards suspected terrorists captured on the battlefield or on the home front.
The amendment, defeated 37-61, would have struck a section of the spending bill that authorizes the president to use “all necessary and appropriate force” to detain people suspected of terrorism and instead would have implemented a timeline to allow further hearings and opportunities for the military to make recommendations on how detainee policy ought to change.
"We are ignoring the advice and the input of the director of the FBI, the director of the intelligence community, the attorney general of the United States, the Secretary of Defense and the White House," said Udall.
“My amendment would take out these provisions, and give us in the Congress an opportunity to take a hard look at the needs of our counterterrorism professionals, and respond in a measured way that reflects the input of those who are actually fighting our enemies,” Udall had said on the Senate floor. “The secretary of Defense is warning us that we may be making mistakes that will hurt our capacity to fight terrorism at home and abroad.”
Udall also said he feared the provision could apply to U.S. citizens, which he said would be an “unprecedented threat to our constitutional liberties.”
But Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Carl LevinCarl LevinThe Fed and a return to banking simplicity What Our presidential candidates can learn from Elmo Zumwalt Will there be a 50-50 Senate next year? MORE (D-Mich.) fired back, addressing concerns voiced throughout the day by both progressives and liberals in the Senate that the law would allow American citizens to be detained without a civilian trial.
“The Supreme Court has recently ruled there is no bar to the United States holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant,” said Levin. “This is the Supreme Court speaking.“
Sen. Lindsey GrahamLindsey GrahamHigh anxiety for GOP NYC mayor: Trump sounds like ‘a third-world dictator’ Five takeaways from final debate MORE (R-S.C.), said that any U.S. citizen suspected of aiding al Qaeda would be entitled to a trial. “The idea that an American citizen helping al Qaeda doesn’t get due process is just a lie,” Graham said.
The White House had opposed the detainee language, describing it as an effort to handcuff the administration's ability to develop their own policies on the handling of suspected terrorists.
“The Administration strongly objects to the military custody provision of section 1032, which would appear to mandate military custody for a certain class of terrorism suspects,” the White House said in a Nov. 17 release. “This unnecessary, untested, and legally controversial restriction of the President’s authority to defend the Nation from terrorist threats would tie the hands of our intelligence and law enforcement professionals.”
Democratic Sens. Dick DurbinDick DurbinGreat Lakes senators seek boost for maritime system Wikileaks: Durbin pushed unknown Warren for Obama bank regulator The Hill's 12:30 Report MORE (Ill.) and Jim Webb (Va.) supported Udall's amendment, however there was strong opposition from a bipartisan group of senators who said that the detainee language at issues had already been approved in committee.
Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Saxby ChamblissSaxby ChamblissObama drops nominee opposed by CBC Dems urge Obama not to renominate Georgia judge OVERNIGHT TECH: Tech giants help Microsoft in DOJ fight MORE (R-Ga.) both spoke in favor of the detainee language.
Pete Kasperowicz contributed.
This story was updated at 4:12 p.m.