President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 08, 2012 09:27 PM UTC

Mark Udall: Indefinite Detention Hurts America

  • 14 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

It hasn’t attracted a lot of attention here in Colorado, but we’ve taken note a few times of Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado pushing back on continued expansion of law enforcement authority to combat terrorism. In March, we discussed Sen. Udall sounding the alarm about Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which is the subject of secret legal opinions that interpret this provision very broadly–much more broadly than understood by most Americans.

Today, Sen. Udall writes an opinion column for CNN.com with Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), in support of their legislation to require civil law enforcement and civilian courts take charge of persons captured in the United States:

Recently, a federal judge blocked the enforcement and implementation of the indefinite military detention authority that Congress passed late last year as part of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. It’s a welcome sign from our courts that constitutional safeguards still exist.

When this provision was debated last year, we argued that it was an unwise expansion of law that jeopardized the freedoms of all Americans. We were heartened that the court has wisely chosen to block this policy for much the same reason we opposed it.

However, this federal court injunction is only temporary, and the debate over whether the military has the authority to indefinitely detain individuals captured on U.S. soil without trial is far from over.

Earlier this year, we introduced legislation, recently co-sponsored by U.S. Rep. Justin Amash, R-Michigan, that would require that civilian law enforcement, including the FBI and civilian courts, take the lead with respect to those captured or detained in the United States.

Some, however, have argued that this approach to national security — one that involves law enforcement and not solely the military — is tantamount to ceding ground to al Qaeda. This argument, designed to paint members of Congress as “soft on terror,” is wrong on two fronts.

Sen. Udall says that for one thing, terrorists aren’t going to be persuaded or dissuaded from attacking an American target based on what kind of authority would arrest and prosecute them, because suicidal attackers really don’t care. It’s much more important, argues Udall, that we protect the rights of American citizens. He also notes that to dis civil police and our court system is a slap against civilian law enforcement “who have kept us safe since 9/11.”

Bottom line: Sen. Udall deserves more credit for these principled stands in defense of the civil liberties of Americans than he ever gets from local media. It almost seems like local press is disinterested in what Sen. Udall is doing, whether out of ignorance or simply because they’re overwhelmed with so many politicians up for election this year. Udall will deserve recognition for his perseverance on domestic civil liberties in 2014, and we hope he gets it.

Tweet
Share

Comments

14 thoughts on “Mark Udall: Indefinite Detention Hurts America”

  2. God forbid if we’re attacked, but that’s one way being soft on terrorism could become a big headache for Markey Mark.

    I sincerely hope it’s Mike Coffman who defeats him in 2014.

    2. I understand the pathetic cover that Pols attempts to use in promoting Udall’s weakening of our national security.

      But what will Obama say or do with his election staring him in the face? Certainly we should respect Obama’s agreement to launch the Osama kill, but wouldn’t this change restrict the ability of POTUS to defend the homeland?

      As an example, the way I read this POTUS nor the military couldn shoot down a private aircraft bring piloted in a threatening stance.

      1. This is about Section 215. Here’s what’s disturbing: You (assuming you’re an American citizen) could be hauled off and detained in a military facility, and maybe or maybe not brought to trial in a military court — ever. Udall thinks that’s not only disturbing but not the way we should treat people, even you, in this country — centuries of legal precedent, the Constitution and petty stuff like that. He also thinks that doing that in the name of national security is extremely harmful to your personal civic security and, therefore, also detrimental to national security. The personal liberty of you, ArapaGoon and ModeratelyOverrated is important to the security of America. Get it?

        Or not. Your continuing unwillingness to even attempt to understand things is still tiresome.

        1. Yu really appear to be in full freakout mode here.

          Under 215, any order advancing security rights is granted by a district court judge designated by the SCOTUS Chief Justice. The application must not violate the First Amendment rights of any U.S. citizen. Further, the application is to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a U.S. citizen. Lasttote purpose of the order will be to protect against terrorism or foreign intell activities.

          What you really want is Udall to move on the Patriot Act itself.

  3. I’m beginning to think he’s a keeper.

    At first he seemed to be a one-trick pony: a  tree hugging Westerner — good enough for Colorado (and the country) considering the dearth of environmentally conscious representatives in DC. That alone was trustworthy.

    But Coloradans aren’t just a bunch of F-150 drivin’ hunters and fishers and ’97 Volvo drivin’ birdwatchers. [Stereotypes purposeful for the benefit of any east-of-the-Mississippi types here] :)] Udall’s emphatic stances on women’s rights, the rights of gays, corporate oversight, and this and other national security/personal security issues are earning him consideration as one of Colorado’s all-timers.  

      1. ArapaGoon & ilk? (O god, I wanted to put some exclamation points there.) They can flap and snipe and bully and crow and try to throw sucker punches and plot to jump Udall in a dark alley, but they’re still chickenshits. Ignorant, ineffectual chickenshits. Udall’s safe on this one. All conservatives are not Republicons. They used to think; most still do.  

      2. Honestly, the problem with politicians nowdays is that they will do ANYTHING to get re-elected; the problem with that is that voters are 1)incredibly stupid and 2)usually believe whatever crap that is being spewed on TV, which is fed with corporate dollars (no, mainstream liberal media does not exist, contrary to popular belief from the GOPers.) Few politicians speak the truth nowadays; Mark Udall is one of the few that actually speak the truth most of the time (besides Ron Wyden…what other senators actually speak up for the people more than half of the time?) Of course, I can’t say that Bennett is a bad guy, he just doesn’t take much action…but in my opinion anyways, most Colorado democrats beat the Dems from most other states by a long mile. Hey, it’s something to be proud of…

        “In total communion with Tim Wirth-less”

        Cuz Campbell and Allard were totally awesome.

        Yeah, right.

  4. ArapaGOP doesn’t really provide much reasoning behind his dislike of Sen. Udall’s position other than that it’s “soft on terrorism” – as though we somehow need the military to become involved within our own borders as prison guards without trials in order to prosecute and hold terrorists.

    Libertad seems intent on misreading Section 215, probably because he’s been told it’s that way, but also probably because whoever told him that thinks that whatever authority we dole out still won’t be enough to protect us from the super-villains of terrorism.

    How many terrorists have broken out of our civilian jails here?  How good has our justice system been at convicting suspected terrorists?  Well, we’ve stopped a lot of terrorist plots and convicted pretty much all of the people involved (despite some of the cases having pretty flimsy evidence IMHO).  And no jail breaks for them, either.

    We haven’t had an attack on our soil for a number of years now, under either Bush or Obama – without the law in question.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

120 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!