Blogging Blue » Al Franken

Can we expect to see the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial or Constitutional protections?

Zach W — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:33:08 +0000

To say that the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012 contains some troubling provisions would be an understatement. Among them is a set of provisions that expressly empowers the President — with regard to anyone who “substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners” – to detain those individuals “without trial until the end of the hostilities.”

Put plainly, the National Defense Authorization Act would give the President the power to imprison anyone – including U.S. citizens – indefinitely without a trial or any of the legal protections afforded to U.S. citizens by our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Over at the Huffington Post, Democratic Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota wrote an excellent editorial explaining why he voted against the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.

With this defense authorization act, Congress will, for the first time in 60 years, authorize the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charge or trial, according to its advocates. This would be the first time that Congress has deviated from President Nixon’s Non-Detention Act. And what we are talking about here is that Americans could be subjected to life imprisonment without ever being charged, tried, or convicted of a crime, without ever having an opportunity to prove their innocence to a judge or a jury of their peers. And without the government ever having to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think that denigrates the very foundations of this country. It denigrates the Bill of Rights. It denigrates what our Founders intended when they created a civilian, non-military justice system for trying and punishing people for crimes committed on U.S. soil. Our Founders were fearful of the military–and they purposely created a system of checks and balances to ensure we did not become a country under military rule. This bill undermines that core principle, which is why I could not support it.

Yesterday was the anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, and this wasn’t the way to mark its birthday.

And for more reading on the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, check out Glenn Greenwald’s piece over at Salon.com, where he debunks three myths about the NDAA.

It’s worth noting that the NDAA passed a vote in the House of Representatives with a vast majority of “freedom loving, anti-government intrusion” Republicans supporting the measure, so for all their talk about how they want to limit government intrusion into the lives of our nation’s citizens, those Republicans who voted for the NDAA have clearly and unambiguously demonstrated that they support government intrusion into our lives (and government violating our Constitutionally-protected rights) when it’s politically expedient.

Oh, and shame on those Democrats (Wisconsin’s Rep. Ron Kind, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz among them) who voted to allow some of the most basic principles upon which our nation was founded to be forfeited in the name of “national security.”

Al Franken’s Supply Side Jesus

Zach W — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:47:51 +0000

Thanks to Steve Carlson for drawing this to my attention:

He isn’t conservative he is just wrong.

Jeff Simpson — Mon, 20 Sep 2010 13:04:01 +0000

CONSERVATIVE- the term is misused often, especially in the media.

con·serv·a·tive
/kənˈsɜrvətɪv/ Show Spelled[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2.
cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3.
traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4.
( often initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5.
( initial capital letter ) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.
6.
having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.

Usually it applies to anyone who is not a liberal. for example Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman get wrongly tagged with the label often.

Today it happened again. This interesting story about Justice Antonin Scalia where he is described as “The 74-year-old justice, leader of the court’s conservative wing,…” Although I do not know what is conservative about just being wrong. He has proven throughout the years to not have a thorough understanding of the law. Now he shows us he does not have a thorough understanding of the Constitution. Despite the “tea partiers” considering themselves conservative and not understanding the constitution being in the news daily, I expect more from a Supreme Court Justice. He recently had a question and answer session with, UC Hastings College of the Law.

Here are a few of his head scratchers:

* The court has ruled since the early 1970s that the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws applies to sex discrimination, requiring a strong justification for any law that treated the genders differently. That interpretation, Scalia declared Friday, was not intended by the authors of the amendment that was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War.

* But when the justices overturned laws against gay sex in 2003 as a violation of personal autonomy and due process, Scalia dissented vehemently. He compared the anti-sodomy laws to statutes against incest and bestiality and said many Americans view bans on homosexual conduct as protections for themselves and their families against “a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.”

* He also described the legal underpinnings of the court’s 1965 ruling declaring a constitutional right of privacy – the basis for Roe vs. Wade – as a “total absurdity.”

As if those are not crazy enough he comes out with this:

Scalia asserted that the Constitution’s authors always meant for religion to play a large role in US politics.

“Don’t tell me that the framers of the American Constitution never had that in mind,” he said. He added that the United States is superior to some other countries because it “does God honor.”

“It’s not unconstitutional,” he said.

Instead of labeling him conservative in the future, he should be just labeled “head of the erroneous wing!

Sen. Al Franken talks about judicial activism

Zach W — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:26:26 +0000

Watch as Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) talks about the judicial activism of the Roberts Supreme Court:

Judicial activism isn’t just confined to “liberal” judges, but I’m betting you won’t hear many conservatives lamenting about the judicial activism of the Roberts Supreme Court; after all, that’s the right kind of judicial activism!

Feingold supports effort to enroll all members of Congress in public option

Zach W — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 12:01:04 +0000

Yesterday, U.S. Senator Russ Feingold announced his support for an amendment by Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma to require all members of Congress be enrolled in the public health insurance option included in the health care bill currently being considered in the Senate. Sen. Feingold, a staunch supporter of a strong public health insurance option as a way to bring down costs and help ensure Americans receive affordable health care coverage, had previously stated that if eligible, he would enroll in the public option, and Feingold joins Senators Sherrod Brown, Chris Dodd, Barbara Mikulski, and Al Franken in asking to be added as cosponsors of the amendment:

“I strongly support a public health insurance option as a way to break the health insurance industry’s grip on the health care system and get uninsured Americans good health care coverage,” Feingold said. “A strong public option would lead to good coverage so supporting this amendment is an easy choice.”

It’s good to see some elected officials putting their money where their mouths are when it comes to health care reform, and I’m not surprised one bit that Sen. Feingold is one of those elected officials.

Al Franken has some nerve!

Zach W — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:45:37 +0000

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Guess the number of medical bankruptcies in Germany

Zach W — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:31:58 +0000

Listen and watch as Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) educates Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Hudson Institute on the issue of health care-related bankruptcies during a Senate Judiciary sub-committee hearing on bankruptcies driven by catastrophic medical expenses:

Jon Stewart destroys Senate Republicans

Zach W — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:51:06 +0000

A little over a week ago, Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota proposed a legislative amendment that would stop funding defense contractors who deny sexual assault victims their day in court. At the time, 30 Senate Republicans voted against the amendment, including Sen. John Ensign of Nevada and Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, both of whom seem to have serious problems with women.

Here’s Jon Stewart’s take on those 30 Republican Senators:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c

Rape-Nuts

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Ron Paul Interview

Franken talks health care

Zach W — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 15:33:08 +0000

Now this is what an honest debate on health care reform is all about:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I know I’ve talked a lot about the antics of the right when it comes to health care reform, and to be honest, this is what I’d like to see – a rational debate on the issue, rather than yelling, screaming, and name calling.

‘Frankincensed’ with Pickens

PartiallyBlue — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 03:42:45 +0000

Sen. Al Franken has long been a supporter of the military and its men. So it is no surprise that he took T. Boone Pickens to task for Boone’s financial support of the Swift Boat ads that besmirched Sen. John Kerry’s military record.

T. Boone was to present his ideas on wind energy to the Senate Democratic Policy Committee. Upon being introduced, Sen. Franken “began to berate Pickens for funding an ad campaign that depicted Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., as not deserving of the military honors he received during the Vietnam War.”

Other Senate Democrats gave Pickens a warm welcome, Politico said. Kerry did not attend, his staff saying he “had a long scheduled lunch with interns and pages.”

I wish Sen. Kerry had shown up and demonstrated a class act riposte to T. Boone for his role in Kerry’s defeat in 2004. I am not a fan of Sen. Kerry but, like Sen Franken, I was offended at the dishonoring of a Vietnam veteran and public servant.