7 votes

Senate Passes Treasonous Defense Authorization Bill. Rand votes for Iran Sanctions.

THIS WAS MISREPORTED LAST NIGHT. RAND DEFEATED THE DETAINEE AMENDMENT BY FORCING A RECORDED VOTE. THE DETAINEE PORTION FAILED 41-59.

Senate Approves $662 Billion Defense Bill

WASHINGTON – Ignoring a presidential veto threat, the Democratic-controlled Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly approved a massive, $662 billion defense bill that would require the military to hold suspected terrorists linked to Al Qaeda or its affiliates, even those captured on U.S. soil.

The vote was 93-7 for the bill authorizing money for military personnel, weapons systems, national security programs in the Energy Department, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. Reflecting a period of austerity and a winding down of decade-old conflicts, the bill is $27 billion less than what President Barack Obama requested and $43 billion less than what Congress gave the Pentagon this year.

Shortly before final passage, the Senate unanimously backed crippling sanctions on Iran as fears about Tehran developing a nuclear weapon outweighed concerns about driving up oil prices that would hit economically strapped Americans at the gas pump. The vote was 100-0.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/01/senate-approves-6...




Comment viewing options

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

What has Iran ever done to Rand?

To the American people?

What gives the US gov't the right to to do this?

Rand obviously thinks the US has the right, and he wants it used. Why?

This is a liberty guy? Really?

whatever

Whether that clause is left in or not, I have had every single one of my friends that are in the Military say that Not on their watch will they ever Honor this. Actually this bill has brought out the most opinions from people that I know that never say Boo about anything. Now I have a lot of people that are saying that as far as they're concerned there has been a line drawn in the sand. DC is really starting to push some buttons. What they don't realize is that there arrogance is pushing more to our campaign and I like that.

"I have found that being rich is not about having the most but about needing the least"

Rand Paul has been a pretty big disappointment.

Lets face it. I never hear about him fighting the Fed, trying to bring the troops home, or working on the drug war. I'm sure I'll get some arrows down but I regret donating to his campaign.

"A living Constitution is a dead one" -Ron Paul

Now I'm Confused

Most of what the senate does is confusing on purpose!
Can they or can they not detain Americans indefinitely w/o due process? Did they or did they not declare the "Homeland" (sounds like Germany) the new battlefield? Can you please define the "Detainee Portion"? Do you mean the Udall Ammendment?
Read more at Fox News? Seriously? Please advise

Me, too

I'll try and find more information on this...

[three minutes later] Well, I see that C4L emailed this to me:

Senator Paul called for a roll call vote that saw the amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act defeated by a vote of 41-59.

I thought I'd see more about what this means for us though? I'll try and find some recent threads on it...

proves the ENTIRE senate is

proves the ENTIRE senate is not only pro-war and anti-diplomacy, but anti-market and especially anti-free market waging such a war on the business cycle. a war on the business cycle is no less destructive than a fake war on terrorism.

Michael Nystrom's picture

The Senate vote for sanctions was 100-0

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20111201-717868.html

The vote is designed to persuade banks around the world to adopt economic sanctions similar to one announced by the U.K. to block Iran's entire banking sector from the U.K. financial system.

How this is any of the U.S. Senate's business under a non-interventionist foreign policy is beyond me.

Just sounds like meddling, and a further provocation down the path towards war with Iran.

All art is only done by the individual. The individual is all you ever have, and all schools only serve to classify their members as failures. E.H.

Ron Paul And The Tea Party Can't Save You: 2012 National Defense

There has been considerable confusion over the past few hours as to whether the Senate -- which passed the National Defense Authorization Act (FY 2012) -- included a last-minute "waiver" to protect American citizens from some of the bill's more outrageous and fascist elements, including the right of the US government to detain citizens -- even those on American soil, and not charged with a crime -- indefinitely in military prison. This means that peaceful protesters could be rounded up, dishonestly labeled as potential terrorists or "suspicious," and imprisoned for life without a trial or attorney. This means that federal military personnel would be patrolling our streets, literally signaling the end of our free republic.

http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-and-the-tea-party-ca...

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Great article there

even though I strongly disagree that "Ron Paul can't save you." Oh yes he CAN! Voting for Ron Paul is, and has been, literally a matter of life and death. By death I mean, the death of soldiers and people in the Middle East, death of Americans slated for assassination, death of the Constitution, the death of America as we know it. This country's laws are now written too eerily like that of Nazi Germany, and I am not exaggerating one iota. For more on this, I hope everyone will take a look at The End of America by Naomi Wolf.

This author has just woken up (as he wrote in another recent article) and doesn't realize that the government claimed the right to be able to seize Americas under Bush. I was morose about this years ago.

Still it's like a gift from God that greater numbers of people have woken up this time around with the NDAA. I think the author of that ACLU article that started this firestorm ought to be given a Nobel Prize.

Haven't heard a whimper of this in the msm.

What a surprise.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
"I have one word for you...predator drones. Oh, you think I'm kidding?" Obombya

Were sanctions passed by unanimous consent?

If so Rand would only have needed to stay silent in order to be counted as a "yes".

and here is the full text of the voted on amendment

SA 1414. Mr. LEVIN (for Mr. Menendez (for himself and Mr. Kirk)) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 1867, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:

At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following:

SEC. 1243. IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE FINANCIAL SECTOR OF IRAN.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:

(1) On November 21, 2011, the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding under section 5318A of title 31, United States Code, that identified Iran as a jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern.

(2) In that finding, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the Department of the Treasury wrote, ``The Central Bank of Iran, which regulates Iranian banks, has assisted designated Iranian banks by transferring billions of dollars to these banks in 2011. In mid-2011, the CBI transferred several billion dollars to designated banks, including Saderat, Mellat, EDBI and Melli, through a variety of payment schemes. In making these transfers, the CBI attempted to evade sanctions by minimizing the direct involvement of large international banks with both CBI and designated Iranian banks.''.

(3) On November 22, 2011, the Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, David Cohen, wrote, ``Treasury is calling out the entire Iranian banking sector, including the Central Bank of Iran, as posing terrorist financing, proliferation financing, and money laundering risks for the global financial system.''.

(b) Designation of Financial Sector of Iran as of Primary Money Laundering Concern.--The financial sector of Iran, including the Central Bank of Iran, is designated as of primary money laundering concern for purposes of section 5318A of title 31, United States Code, because of the threat to government and financial institutions resulting from the illicit activities of the Government of Iran, including its pursuit of nuclear weapons, support for international terrorism, and efforts to deceive responsible financial institutions and evade sanctions.

(c) Freezing of Assets of Iranian Financial Institutions.--The President shall, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), block and prohibit all transactions in all property and interests in property of an Iranian financial institution if such property and interests in property are in the United States, come within the United States, or are or come within the possession or control of a United States person.

(d) Imposition of Sanctions With Respect to the Central Bank of Iran and Other Iranian Financial Institutions.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--Except as specifically provided in this subsection, beginning on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President--

(A) shall prohibit the opening or maintaining in the United States of a correspondent account or a payable-through account by a foreign financial institution that the President determines has knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant financial transaction with the Central Bank of Iran or another Iranian financial institution designated by the Secretary of the Treasury for the imposition of sanctions pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and

(B) may impose sanctions pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) with respect to the Central Bank of Iran.

(2) EXCEPTION FOR SALES OF FOOD, MEDICINE, AND MEDICAL DEVICES.--The President may not impose sanctions under paragraph (1) with respect to any person for conducting or facilitating a transaction for the sale of food, medicine, or medical devices to Iran.

(3) APPLICABILITY OF SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO FOREIGN CENTRAL BANKS.--Except as provided in paragraph (4), sanctions imposed under paragraph (1)(A) shall apply with respect to a foreign financial institution owned or controlled by the government of a foreign country including a central bank of a foreign country, only insofar as it engages in transaction for the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum products to or from Iran conducted or facilitated on or after that date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(4) APPLICABILITY OF SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO PETROLEUM TRANSACTIONS.--

(A) REPORT REQUIRED.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 60 days thereafter, the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall submit to Congress a report on the availability and price of petroleum and petroleum products produced

[Page: S7934]

in countries other than Iran in the 60-day period preceding the submission of the report.

(B) DETERMINATION REQUIRED.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of the Act, and every 180 days thereafter, the President shall make a determination, based on the reports required by subparagraph (A), of whether the price and supply of petroleum and petroleum products produced in countries other than Iran is sufficient to permit purchasers of petroleum and petroleum products from Iran to reduce significantly in volume their purchases from Iran.

(C) APPLICATION OF SANCTIONS.--Except as provided in subparagraph (D), sanctions imposed under paragraph (1)(A) shall apply with respect to a financial transaction conducted or facilitated by a foreign financial institution on or after the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act for the purchase of petroleum or petroleum products from Iran if the President determines pursuant to subparagraph (B) that there is a sufficient supply of petroleum and petroleum products from countries other than Iran to permit a significant reduction in the volume of petroleum and petroleum products purchased from Iran by or through foreign financial institutions.

(D) EXCEPTION.--Sanctions imposed pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to a foreign financial institution if the President determines and reports to Congress, not later than 90 days after the date on which the President makes the determination required by subparagraph (B), and every 180 days thereafter, that the foreign financial institution has significantly reduced its volume of crude oil purchases from Iran during the period beginning on the date on which the President submitted the last report with respect to the country under this subparagraph.

(5) WAIVER.--The President may waive the imposition of sanctions under paragraph (1) for a period of not more than 120 days, and may renew that waiver for additional periods of not more than 120 days, if the President--

(A) determines that such a waiver is vital to the national security of the United States; and

(B) submits to Congress a report--

(i) providing a justification for the waiver; and

(ii) that includes any concrete cooperation the President has received or expects to receive as a result of the waiver.

(e) Multilateral Diplomacy Initiative.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--The President shall--

(A) carry out an initiative of multilateral diplomacy to persuade countries purchasing oil from Iran--

(i) to limit the use by Iran of revenue from purchases of oil to purchases of non-luxury consumers goods from the country purchasing the oil; and

(ii) to prohibit purchases by Iran of--

(I) military or dual-use technology, including items--

(aa) in the Annex to the to the Missile Technology Control Regime Guidelines;

(bb) in the Annex on Chemicals to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, done at Paris January 13, 1993, and entered into force April 29, 1997 (commonly known as the ``Chemical Weapons Convention'');

(cc) in Part 1 or 2 of the Nuclear Suppliers Group Guidelines; or

(dd) on a control list of the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies; or

(II) any other item that could contribute to Iran's conventional, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons program; and

(B) conduct outreach to petroleum-producing countries to encourage those countries to increase their output of crude oil to ensure there is a sufficient supply of crude oil from countries other than Iran and to minimize any impact on the price of oil resulting from the imposition of sanctions under this section.

(2) REPORT REQUIRED.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 180 days thereafter, the President shall submit to Congress a report on the efforts of the President to carry out the initiative described in paragraph (1)(A) and conduct the outreach described in paragraph (1)(B) and the results of those efforts.

(f) Form of Reports.--Each report submitted under this section shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a classified annex.

(g) Definitions.--In this section:

(1) ACCOUNT; CORRESPONDENT ACCOUNT; PAYABLE-THROUGH ACCOUNT.--The terms ``account'', ``correspondent account'', and ``payable-through account'' have the meanings given those terms in section 5318A of title 31, United States Code.

(2) FOREIGN FINANCIAL INSTITUTION.--The term ``foreign financial institution'' has the meaning of that term as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to section 104(i) of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (22 U.S.C. 8513(i)).

(3) UNITED STATES PERSON.--The term ``United States person'' means--

(A) a natural person who is a citizen or resident of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)); and

(B) an entity that is organized under the laws of the United States or jurisdiction within the United States.

I've never been a fan of

I've never been a fan of Demint, but I know some here have had hopes for the guy in the past. Demint voted for the amendment which failed that would indefinitely detain US citezens without due process who were considered a threat to national security. Here is the vote count on that amendment in case anyone is interested. Anyone who voted yea is a traitor to the Bill of Rights!

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c...

McCain voted nay?

I'm confused now..why would he do that? He is the one who wanted to detain Any citizen, including an American.

RP R3VOLution

I see only three possible outcomes for this.

1. Thermonuclear war in the Middle East.
2. Internment of everyone who opposes thermonuclear war in the Middle East.
3. Violent overthrow of the US government.

I hope there is a fourth option; i.e., election of Ron Paul and peaceful resolution of this treason. However, the margin with which this legislation passed makes this option extremely doubtful.

We will have the answer some time before election day, 2012.

Can we rank them in order of probability.

Probability ranking:
3. Violent overthrow of the US government (but certainly not because of this legislation since the American public are too brainwashed to comprehend, and too easily led by the nose; rather it will be because huge numbers of people are broke, starving, homeless, sick, and angry, all coming to a neighborhood near you in due time thanks to the FED and your rulers).
1. Thermonuclear war in the Middle East (and likely worldwide); nuke the bastards is a popular thought on all sides.
2. Internment of everyone who opposes thermonuclear war in the Middle East.
4. Peaceful restoration of freedom and sanity with the election of Ron Paul.

But look at the bright side. If they blow up all the oil production facilities in the Middle East, we won't need to wait around for the oil age to play out gradually; instead of a long drawn out collapse we will have an instant end to the industrial age; no wait, just zip through the express line right back to an agrarian society that can only support 10% of the world population.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

see Rand's press release

see Rand's press release below. The amendment was defeated.

Trust in God, but tie your camel tight.

"Socialism needs two legs on which to stand; a right and a left. While appearing to be in complete opposition to one another,they both march in the same direction." - Paul Proctor

Press Release: Sen. Paul

Press Release:

Sen. Paul Statement on Defeat of Detainee Amendment
Dec 1, 2011

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Tonight, Sen. Rand Paul prevented the passage of an amendment that would have further eroded Americans' constitutional rights. Offered to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012 (S.1867), amendment No. 1274 would have allowed the U.S. government to detain an American citizen indefinitely, even after they had been tried and found not guilty, until Congress declares an end to the war on terror.

"Suspicion of committing a crime should lead to your attempted prosecution. If the evidence does not support conviction, it would be against everything we believe in and fight for in America to still allow the government to imprison you at their whim," Sen. Paul said. "Tonight, a blow was struck to fight back against those who would take our liberty."

The amendment would have passed by voice vote, but this tactic was blocked by Sen. Paul's objection. He then forced a roll call vote, in which the amendment was defeated, 41-59.

Sen. Paul earlier this week introduced an amendment to formally end the war in Iraq. Despite the fact that troops will be removed from Iraq at the end of this year, the amendment failed 30-67.

http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=399

Trust in God, but tie your camel tight.

"Socialism needs two legs on which to stand; a right and a left. While appearing to be in complete opposition to one another,they both march in the same direction." - Paul Proctor

Rand posted this on Facebook

Rand posted this on Facebook about 11:30pmET:

Rand Paul
Tonight, I objected to the Senate passing a dangerous amendment that would have allowed the detaining of American citizens, even after being tried and found not guilty. I forced a vote in the Senate and prevailed. We must all remain vigilant to protect our liberty

Trust in God, but tie your camel tight.

"Socialism needs two legs on which to stand; a right and a left. While appearing to be in complete opposition to one another,they both march in the same direction." - Paul Proctor

These (the sanctions) sound like a set up...

It deals with the "bankers" and "transacting in the dollar". Remember, they always warn us what they're going to do... So the Treasury/Obama administration pretends to be against it... (from the article):

"Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, David Cohen, a senior Treasury Department official, and Wendy Sherman, an undersecretary of state, warned that the amendment could force up oil prices....

Cohen said the amendment would tell foreign banks and companies "that if they continue to process oil transactions with the Central Bank of Iran their access to the United States can be terminated."
"It is a very, very powerful threat," Cohen warned. "It is a threat for the commercial banks to end their ability to transact in the dollar and their ability really to function as major international financial institutions," and one that could push allies away from contributing to a coordinated effort against Iran.

This was beautifully played by Rand, knowing it would pass he

Showed support for the party and now has something owed. It is called politics. Sanctions would have gone ahead anyway, and if it is just US sanctions then it was even less of a gesture, while the reality is China and Russia may well block any UN sanctions, and Rand will not have to worry about that vote, other than gaining ground in the neo con realm. I have put my full trust in the two Paul's and I was a Rand skeptic when he spoke in favor of mountain top removal, but it got him elected over an entrenched, status quo, globalist with all the status quo support one could possibly get.

This election cycle may make it very clear to everyone that if you are not on the inside of the game, then they will make sure you loose at all costs. Look what happened to Dr. Paul in Nevada during the convention, had that been any other "insider" candidate it would have been a huge election scandal followed by jail time, what we must watch for is a strategic Herman Cain exit and those votes divided primarily between the other neo cons raising their numbers versus Dr. Paul's. Newt gaining so much ground in an environment that is predominantly anti status quo makes it hard for me to believe his rise at all, so let Rand play the game, and hold fast your trust that he will not let us down in the long run. Bottom line is a more right wing Rand Paul in the White House beats anyone else that has a chance in 2016, you have thrown away your vote so many times, trust just once more and if I am proven wrong, then remove your support and bash Rand all you like. The time for infighting is over, we must remain a force together, for we will surely fail alone.

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

Billy Jack's picture

Agreed.

Agreed.

Cos Cob, CT

Was this part of his toolbag

Billy Jack's picture

This went out to that pig,

This went out to that pig, Levin, about an hour ago:

Senator Levin:

I'm a practicing attorney and have been following your actions via S. 1867.
What you did today in that bill (and your attempted amendment) confirm that you are nothing but a fat cocksucking puppet of the bastards who truly run our government. I don't know if you are being bribed, blackmailed, or if you are simply a part of that luciferian cabal. In any event, you have sold what shred of soul you have left. I'm confident you will answer to someone for your treasonous actions.

Cos Cob, CT

Rand needs to explain this.

I need to hear rands side.

Maybe he doesn't want to be

Maybe he doesn't want to be branded a contrarian. I know that Rand isn't as hard core as his dad and I know that a lot of people here think he's a sell out but of the two issues the Iran sanctions and the NDAA the NDAA was the thing that was more important. Maybe he figured that if he made a fuss about the Iran sanctions that nobody would listen to him regarding the NDAA. I'm not saying I agree I'm just saying give the guy some credit. He's been a big fighter for liberty since he joined the senate and if he was anybody besides his dad's son we'd all be thrilled at how liberty minded he is.

I'm a fan of rand

I told him to his face that I liked Senator Paul better than Candidate Paul (because of his rhetoric during the campaign). He talked about relating to the audience without compromising principle. I really believe he is 100% legit. That's why I want to hear his side. We all owe him that.

But I am not that anxious to start apologizing for his actions because of some percieved political gains. I did enough of that when I was a didohead. Plus it would make "holding their feet to the fire" (which I hear all the time from my republican apologist tea-party group) sorta a joke.

Rand's no Neocon

People, even liberty minded people, simply aren't going to always agree. That doesn't make those who disagree 'neocons'. Rand is one of the good guys, no question. You are never going to agree with anyone 100% of the time, even Ron Paul. Something else to consider is that these bills are often more complex than what fits into a one liner. Rand may have had a very good reason for voting for this bill.

It's a step to war, he should

It's a step to war, he should know this. He should also know that they won't do any good, and in fact, will only hurt the "little guy" and won't slow them down or deter them from working on a nuke (assuming they are..which we don't know for sure they are). I was concerned that Rand is neo-con when it comes to foreign policy, and it remains to be seen how far he'll go down this path. To me, so far, this is not a plus for him in my view..it's a HUGE negative.