Senator Rand Paul aims to kill “indefinte detention” section of DoD bill
Submitted by bobbyw24 on Mon, 11/28/2011 - 17:56in
Senator Rand Paul has submitted an Amendment to Senate Bill 1867 (known as the National Defense Authorization Act) which would strike the section of the bill that allows the US government to indefinitely detain individuals without trial or due process. The Amendment is #1062 and would eliminate Section 1031 which says:
"Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force...includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons...Detention under the law of war without trial"
http://tncampaignforliberty.org/wordpress/2011/11/senator-ra...
can't find 1062
SA 1062 is not on the list of amendments either pending or considered. If you anyone can find where it will be voted on ... please respond..
"The greatest good we can do our country is to heal its party divisions and make them one people." Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Dickinson, July 23, 1801
The Right to Remain Silent
The right to remain silent, and to due process and legal representation, as with all the other rights protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, are unalienable rights granted by our "Creator." In other words, they are not limited to citizens or to those within our borders.
All people have the same rights.
The statement above is the foundation of the Declaration of Independence. It is what gives people the right to defend themselves when they are deprived of those rights.
There are only a couple of priveleges protected in the Constitution, for which citizenship is required (e.g., elegibility to be president, and to vote).
If we don't stand together on this, we will hang separately.
You can reach voters in California, here: http://consequeries.com/California-voter-guide.php
The authors of this section
The authors of this section apparently think that the Congress can grant powers to the president that override the Bill of Rights. These fools should be thrown out of the Congress. And I believe they should be prosecuted.
But before they are
But before they are prosecuted, they should get indefinate detention!
Total confusion
This is what was said on the Senate floor today:
Section 1,031 attempts to expressly codify the detention authority that exists under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) (the ``AUMF''). The authorities granted by the AUMF, including the detention authority, are essential to
our ability to protect the American people from the threat posed by al-Qa'ida and its associated forces, and have enabled us to confront the full range of threats this country faces from those organizations and individuals. Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk. After a decade of settled jurisprudence on detention authority, Congress must be careful not to open a whole new series of legal questions that will distract from our efforts to protect the country. While the current language minimizes many of those risks, future legislative action must ensure that the codification in statute of express military detention authority does not carry unintended consequences that could compromise our ability to protect the American people.
It seems neither Obama nor Rand likes 1031. By removing it altogether, does Obama keep all his "uncodified" (unmitigated) powers or does he get NONE?
It sounds to me like they want it removed
so that it won't be challenged! Because they have been getting away with it for so many years now, if they put it in writing, clearly, they KNOW it will be challenged and that any challenge will force the courts to clearly DEFINE what they CANNOT do.
Oh heavens, can't have that!
What a bunch of snakes. And again what a failure and disappointment to make it appear anyone is really watching our backs. Im sorry, (and apologies to Dr Paul) but so far Rand hasn't done anything that gives me the warm fuzzies.
Yes, it calls attention to the Military Commissions Act 2006
which already codifies indefinite detention. The difference is there has been debate over whether this includes American citizens. The present bill settles this question and explicitly say yes, citizens, and yes, America is also a battlefield. In other words fascism.
This should be used as an opportunity to talk about all of it and roll it ALL back.
A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life.
-- Muhammad Ali
Right
Administration EXPLICITLY demanded that US Citizens be included as potential terrorists, and explicitly gives all power to Obama to decide who is and who isn't. Also, it may re-define "terrorist" to make it inclusive of larger groups of people. Now, apparently, anyone who gives "support" to any group that has goals pursuant to that of al-Qaeda can be deemed a "covered person."
This will go into effect 60 days from passage. That's why I'm asking whether or not Cat Stevens will be seized and detained, as he's already been charged with donating (giving support) to a terrorist organization.
Heck, they could say C4L is terrorist because, like al-Qaeda, we want the US to get out of the Middle East!
hahaha
I like Rand Paul's strategy, I use that one too all the time it's freaking classic. No one can tell where the hell you are so everyone takes your side because they all think your side is their side. He show's his true colors on rare occasions to exert subtle influence otherwise convincing everyone else that he's one of them. It's an interesting 2016 strategy that could be more immune to potential threats as long as he maintains a strong position consistently and therefore creates an illusion of being predictable and also is harder to challenge on core principles. Usually once I'm at that point I start pulling awful pranks, releasing skunks in houses, reversing plumbing, ect, depending on the level of good humor of the person I'm messing with (I all ways pay for it or help with cleanup). It would be awesome though to try to use it to change the system from within like Rand Paul is, instead of for meaningless jokes like I do.
The funny thing is even if someone points out that you are doing it, they usually end up looking way more suspicious as a result. What's most awesome about this people can get the crap kicked out of them by questioning a person pulling this con game, and the con never has to lift a finger. He's literally protected by charisma, people will leap to his aid when challenged.
If Rand hadn't made so many neocon statements
in the past, none of us would ever have to second guess him.
In this case, I don't mean to accuse him of foul play. I just don't understand what's going on.
it's a con game
Basically, the idea is to use Rand to try to bring the extreme neo-cons over in time. I can guarantee you there are neo-cons voting for Ron Paul because of Rand this round, some of them probably will even vote in the primaries.
Ya Ya I know, Well, I hope you are right-
Just hate that we still have to watch them "play a part in the big charade".
It is all so much un-nerving BS> but I suppose the people IN it, they gotta play a hand they consider will win.
I would rather they just stop "playing" and try calling the hand a little more often to see who has what cards or who is behind which mask and let us have half a chance to more effectually do OUR part. Right now we are like some removed observers watching Poker After Dark in bed on some off channel only because we awoke from our slumber to pee.
;)
I've had a bad day forgive my mood.
thats ok I'll take it as flirting
.
Ok, but why doesn't he submit to kill the whole act?
Is this one of those, they submit the worst then give back a little to look like they care?
I still don't like it!
Kill the whole thing.
would it get anywhere
That is the FY defense budget bill they are approving, killing the section is within the realm of posibility but killing the whole bill is a non-starter.