154 votes

URGENT: NDAA Indefinite Detention Vote Today!

The House voted down the Smith-Amash amendment on Friday by a vote of 182-238.

Here's the roll call vote:


The House will be voting on amendments to the 2013 NDAA bill TODAY.

The Smith-Amash amendment explicitly bans indefinite detention and military commissions from the US and repeals section 1022 from the 2012 NDAA. The amendment also guarantees that persons arrested on U.S. soil under the Afghanistan AUMF or the NDAA will be charged for their alleged wrongdoing and will receive a fair trial.

Justin Amash said the Republican leadership is pushing the Gohmert amendment, which says "you get due process if you're entitled to due process. Sounds nice but doesn't do anything."

Here's a great fact sheet Amash wrote to counter all the myths against indefinite detention:

Find your Congressman here:

Again, urge them to SUPPORT the Smith-Amash amendment and OPPOSE the Gohmert amendment to the 2013 NDAA to protect our Constitutional rights.

Stay up to date on this issue by following Justin Amash on Facebook:


Justin Amash (R-MI-3)
Howard Berman (D-CA-28)
John Duncan, Jr (R-TN-2)
John Garamendi (D-CA-10)
Paul Gosar (R-AZ-1)
Mazie Hirono (D-HI-2)
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX-18)
Hank Johnson, Jr (D-GA-4)
Raul Labrador (R-ID-1)
Ron Paul (R-TX-14)
Adam Smith (D-WA-9) (Sponsor)
Scott Tipton (R-CO-3)


John Conyers, Jr (D-MI-14)
Morgan Griffith (R-VA-9)
Barbara Lee (D-CA-9)
George Miller (D-CA-7)
Jerrold Nadler (D-NY-8)
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA-8)
Chellie Pingree (D-ME-1)


Louie Gohmert (R-TX-1)
Jeff Landry (R-LA-3)
Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO-9)
Howard McKeon (R-CA-25)
Tom Rooney (R-FL-16)
Mac Thornberry (R-TX-13)
Allen West (R-FL-22)

Pre-Written Letters:
Gun Owners of America

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Every U.S. Representative from Oklahoma Voted Against Repealing

Every U.S. Representative from Okla. voted against repealing indefinite detainment of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.

John Sullivan (R)
Dan Boren (D)
Frank Lucas (R)
Tom Cole (R)
James Lankford (R)

All have proven they have no regard for the constitution, nor the rights of the citizens of this country.

Oh, don't worry, there's always the Supreme Court!


"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

My Senator's response to my request

My Senator responded to a request to vote down the negative aspects of the NDAA with the following email. He basically said that all the fears of indefinite detention, assassination of American citizens, etc. are false. Where is he wrong?

Thanks for taking the time to contact me with your concerns about parts of a law known as the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. I appreciate hearing from you.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is an annual piece of legislation that authorizes expenditures for the Department of Defense. The legislation is over 1,000 pages long and includes funding for military programs and projects, including the annual salaries for soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors. Additionally, the bill usually includes a number of different military policy pronouncements dealing with the conflict in Afghanistan and other operations around the globe.

Your letter expressed concerns with provisions in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2012 related to the detention of individuals who perpetrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks. These provisions, found in Subtitle D of the bill titled, "Counterterrorism," codify a number of existing policies and legal authorities that are the result of Presidential Executive Orders, previous laws passed by Congress, and decisions issued by the Supreme Court of the United States.

There have been a number of misconceptions about these provisions, especially their applicability to U.S. citizens. These provisions do not authorize the President to unilaterally detain U.S. citizens in military custody, they do not authorize or require the detention of any U.S. citizen at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and they do not erode any protections for U.S. citizens under the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Much of the debate has surrounded Section 1021 of the NDAA, which is titled "Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force." This section does nothing more than reaffirm the current legal authority to detain al Qaeda and Taliban fighters under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. This includes reaffirming the President's authority to detain a person "who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for the attacks." It also includes "a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States." Section 1021 also reaffirmed that this authorization allows the President to detain such a person for the duration of the conflict "pending the disposition under the law of war." The avenues for a "disposition" under the 2001 AUMF include detention until the end of hostilities, trial by military commission, trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having jurisdiction, and transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin.

Congress passed the AUMF in 2001 and the Supreme Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld upheld detention of al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters and their supporters under the AUMF as "fundamental and accepted [as] an incident to war." Further, the Court held in Hamdi that detention authorized under the AUMF is "for the duration of the particular conflict in which they were captured" and is for the purpose of removing and preventing such a person "from returning to the field of battle and taking up arms once again." Thus, the detention authority authorized in Section 1021 merely reaffirms the authority already granted by Congress as part of the 2001 AUMF and recognized as constitutional by the Supreme Court in Hamdi. All of this follows the traditional laws of war.

Section 1022 of the NDAA has also raised concerns and has also been the subject of misrepresentations of the impact it has on U.S. citizens. Section 1022 is titled, "Military custody for foreign al-Qaeda terrorists." This section requires that the President detain any person covered by Section 1021-those affiliated with or supporting al-Qaeda...etc.-in military custody pending disposition under the law of war as outlined in Section 1021-that is, detention for the duration of hostilities, a trial by military commission, trial by an alternative court, or transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin. One major misconception has been that this provision would authorize and require the President to detain in military custody any U.S. citizen arrested for conspiring with al-Qaeda. By the express terms of Section 1022, U.S. citizens are excluded from the mandatory military custody provision.

While the express provisions in the NDAA clearly exclude U.S. citizens from any military detention requirement, there continues to be a number of misconceptions about what impact these provisions will have on U.S. citizens who are arrested for working with, on behalf of, or in substantial support of al-Qaeda terrorists. Simply put, the provisions do not impact the President's authority under the law to detain U.S. citizens who engage in terrorist activity at home or abroad. This legal framework includes U.S. criminal laws and existing detention authority under the law of war as outlined by the Supreme Court.

More specifically, the NDAA does not amend the current Supreme Court precedent, first established in 1942, that during times of military conflict, the President has the authority to detain those who take up arms against the United States and try them via military commission instead of traditional criminal courts. In 1942, the Supreme Court, in Ex Parte Quirin, upheld President Roosevelt's authority to detain an American citizen who was captured along with a number of German Nazi saboteurs. These individuals were sent to the United States to attack both military and civilian targets. They were captured and arrested and then tried by military commission. The Supreme Court heard an appeal of their conviction and held that the President was acting within the scope of his duties as Commander in Chief and that the detention and trial did not violate Quirin's constitutional rights. The Supreme Court also recently upheld the ruling in Ex Parte Quirin in the case called Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, which was decided in 2004. In Hamdi, the Court held that a U.S. citizen who was captured and arrested on a foreign battlefield, in this case Afghanistan, could be detained in military custody and tried via a military commission under the AUMF provided that there was sufficient opportunity to challenge the detention. Finally, the Supreme Court has held in another recent case, Boumediene v. Bush, that individuals detained under the AUMF, including U.S. citizens, have the right to challenge their detention in federal court. While the NDAA expressly exempts U.S. citizens from the detention provisions, it is important to note that this Supreme Court precedent exists regardless of what Congress included in the NDAA. To be clear, a U.S. citizen always has the right to appeal to a federal judge to review his detention, and the NDAA does not change that.

In voting to support the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2012, I recognized the important need to fund the military and support the soldiers, airman, sailors, and marines that defend our Nation. I understand the concerns that were expressed with early drafts of the NDAA that included U.S. citizens in the reaffirmation of military detention under the AUMF. Ultimately, the final conference report of the NDAA I voted for expressly exempts U.S. citizens from the detention regime. Ensuring that those who take up arms against the United States are detained in a lawful manner is an important part of providing for the national defense as outlined in the Constitution. That job must ensure the security of our citizens from terrorists while balancing civil liberties of those who are American citizens. I take this job seriously and believe that the final version of the NDAA strikes the careful balance between protecting the civil liberties of American citizens while ensuring we remove dangerous terrorists from society under a lawful detention authority.

In closing, I appreciate hearing your concerns; they are an important part of the two-way communication necessary for Congress to function. Thank you.



Bachmann voted NO

Holy cow, what a neocon. I am so glad she didn't get far.


I can't believe it!

I called Rep. Loyd Doggett's office this morning urging him to support this amendment and told them that I will be voting this year and to keep that in mind. I was so surprised to see he voted YAY!!! I will just go on thinking that it was all because of me :)
I wish it would have passed though :(


Good for you! My neo-con congresswoman voted nay :(

She's got to go!

What are you fightin' for?
Caught in the middle?
Freedom is only for those with the guts to defend it!

Wrong vote.

The correct roll call vote is number 270.

Here it is:

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible

really, really piss me off!

“It is the food which you furnish to your mind that determines the whole character of your life.”
―Emmet Fox

MO Representative Leutkemeyer

My Humble Neocon voted NO on this bill. I asked why and the aide told me that this bill would tie the hands of the President in prosecuting terrorists. I told him it was about CITIZENS of the UNITED STATES! I told the aide to tell him he was either inept or a war-mongering freedom hating neocon and that when he runs again I would vote for a goat before I voted for him. I am digusted, I am sick to my stomach and I am so ANGRY that I supported and voted for these individuals so that they could destroy my country!!

voted down

It appears while posters were posting some non important issues, the most important vote this year on indefinite detention repeal was defeated. The opposing bill which does absolutely NOTHING passed. Thank you to the few dedicated Freedom loving Ron Paul supporters that followed this post and actively called their representatives and thank you to the poster for bringing this to our attention...."Let it not be said that we did nothing" Ron Paul

Is the Smith vote

The one that is almost finished, the one we have been discussing?

Debate on the Smith-Amash amendment

has concluded.

Vote will occur tomorrow.

Please CALL or EMAIL your Representative first thing tomorrow.

House is debating

the Gohmert amendment, which is being pushed as the alternative by the establishment. The Gohmert amendment does nothing.

Debate on amendment

will be coming up soon (maybe 10-15 minutes).

Live stream:

Debbie's picture

Wow they are going late!






They are voting on one amendment now and few are watching! This post should be right under the MONEY BOMB!!

Debbie's picture

Emailed last night and called today!

Thanks for posting this!


No need to call my Rep.

Mike Honda represents the district where I live. He is of Japanese decent, and was indefinitely detained along with his parents during World War II. I think I can guess which way he will vote.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

I would call

My rep but its Orin hatch so.....no point! he is as bad as the ones who wrote the thing in the first place!


is your Senator. We need to contact Congressmen because this amendment will be debated in the House of Representatives.

You can find your Congressman by entering your zip code in the top right of this page:

Send your Congressman an email because their offices might be closed tonight.

Just say that you want your Congressman to support the Smith-Amash amendment to the NDAA bill because you want it to be explicitly clear that no American citizens should be held indefinitely without a charge or trial.

Big bump!

Big bump!

“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till." -J.R.R. Tolkien

Called all of my 4 congressional reps...

well spoke with 2 humans, 1 voice mail and KS Rep. Lynn Jenkins office didn't answer and her mailbox is full. Makes it kind of hard to represent your constituents if you can even hear what they have to say doesn't it?

The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it-Andrew Jackson


I Twittered and called and left messages with all 6 of South Carolina's reps.

Still time to pressure your Congressman

All you need to do is make one simple call stating that you want your Congressman to support the Smith-Amash amendment to the NDAA bill so that it is explicitly clear that no American citizen can be held indefinitely without a charge or trial.

Many Congressional aides have said they are receiving a lot of calls on this issue.

Call or email your Congressman!

Glad to see my Rep Hirono

Glad to see my Rep Hirono signed on to support. Keep pushing all your representatives to join the list.


called my 2 in Maine. They voted down NDAA earlier.

I was told the vote was tonite.

Ron Paul is My President

just called

Degette from CO. Her aid didn't have a straight answer as to whether she would support it. Degette isn't the worst democrat in the world, so maybe some pressure from the constituancy can help get her on the right track...let's go CO!