101 votes

Rand Paul holds up NDAA bill over indefinite detention amendment

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul is holding up consideration of the fiscal 2013 defense authorization bill over an amendment he plans to offer that would require a jury trial for Americans detained in terrorism investigations.

A Paul spokeswoman said the senator wants “an agreement in principle to get a vote” on the amendment, which would likely produce some fireworks on the floor.

Paul’s demand for a vote comes as Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Arizona Sen. John McCain, the top Republican on the panel, are working behind the scenes to limit debate on the sprawling policy measure (S 3254) to ensure it receives floor time during the lame-duck session.


Text of amendment:

A citizen of the United States who is captured or arrested in the United States and detained by the Armed Forces of the United States pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

This means nothing. He endorsed Romney after Ron had lost. Ha!

Where are all of the anti-Rand folks on this?

Rand is doing a fine job.



If Rand was looking for approval from the establishment would he not support NDAA?

Why is Rand blocking NDAA? It is because he is one of us! He always has been.

Better Question:

How many other US Senators represent your views on indefinite detention or NDAA? None except Rand Paul!


Please refrain

Please refrain from making rational, logical arguments to people who only know how to reason based on emotions and their false perceptions of reality.

They'll be here

I'm sure they're on their way. Anyways, Rand also published an excellent op-ed today on Ron Paul and the movement. It's a nice read, hopefully people will check it out.


i dont think anyone can say

i dont think anyone can say it was good thing for him that he played politics endorsed Romney, having said that, he's still Ron Paul's son and will carry the torch as needed. Rookie mistake

Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...

I'll say it: It was a GOOD thing

I didn't like it, personally, but it was a good thing.
It is also a good thing to surgically operate on a badly damaged eye, although neither the patient nor the surgeon likes to do that. The fact is, somebody has to do it or somebody is likely to be blind or worse.

Ron Paul was -- and is -- a great statesman. He was never a good politician.

Only someone willing and able to man the front trenches as a politician -- with a bayonet -- is going to be in a position to save this country from a fate worse than death going forward. The vast majority of the people in this country are too dumbed down, or too corrupted, to appreciate a statesman; they will only follow a politician ... or someone who can convincingly act as one.

It is a GOOD thing that Rand had the courage to do what he did. It is a GOOD thing Ron Paul had the vision and wisdom to support him in EXACTLY the way he did.

Bill of Rights /Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Do you need a politician or judge to "interpret" those 28

Well yea it was a good thing

Considering it was a campaign promise he made to his constituents. If he hadn't endorsed Romney, he would be as irrelevant in the senate as the Constitution, just a nobody Kentucky would be waiting to replace come 2016.

Rand is not a rookie, he is an experienced surgeon and MD.

There was no mistake in what he did.

Sure it was distasteful for "pure Libertarians", but it was also an important strategic move that had little to no influence on the outcome of his fathers campaign; neither did it help Romney.

I was there in Tampa and present for Rand's RNC speech. It was not Rand Paul speaking, it was Rand reading pre-approved language from a teleprompter, language prepared by the Romney camp.

It was a joke! A complete joke. But it was also perfectly strategic, because though it did nothing to help Romney win in November, this endorsement by Rand in front of establishment RNC delegates has elevated this movement within the national Republican establishment such that we will convert many more NeoCons over the next 4 years.

If you don't think the

If you don't think the horrible timing and manner of Rand's endorsement did great damage Ron's campaign talk to some the delegates who were in the trenches at state conventions at the time he made it. Again....I think we should rally to Rand on this issue let's not rewrite history just because Rand does a very praiseworthy thing.

Yes Rally Behind Rand

...and entertain the strong possibility that Rand did not "pick" the timing...but rather was "dictated" the timing when he would hurt his Dad most. What was happening behind the scenes??? We don't know. He could have said "No" and slept better at night; however, he would not be re-elected and able to fight for us in the Senate.

How does Rand feel about his Dad? Read his tribute published in the Washington Times.

How does Ron Paul feel about his son? Listen to the things he has said.

How does Carol Paul feel about what Rand did? She said emphatically, "Rand did nothing wrong."

I say tht Rand did not "sabotage" his Dad and there were things we don't know about going on. I think it broke his heart to "appear" to do that to his Dad and his Dad's supporters (note the monotone as he endorsed and also as he spoke at the RNC).

If we want to truly honor Ron Paul, we watch Rand and applaud the good things he does. And, we don't let the "power machine" that is succeed in turning us, through resentment, bitterness, memories of what we don't understand totally, against those who "are" fighting for liberty. The anti-Rand Paul sentiment is going to be fed on the DP for a long time and many who cannot move forward will buy right in on it.

Just my thoughts not to be construed that I am in 2012 "for" Rand Paul as President in 2016. I am not. I believe in wait and see and don't put your eggs all in one basket prematurely.


I wish I could shake your hand and thank you in person

For this intelligent, constructive, and fair assessment of what we know and what we don't know.

I don't KNOW exactly what happened, nor why, nor when, either. Nobody does -- and nobody includes Rand, Ron, and Carol, even though they know vastly more than all the rest of us put together.

What I DO know is that Ron Paul is a man of magnificent intellect, courage, integrity, and discernment. Based upon that I can deduce that when he says and shows his love and trust in his wife and his son it is both genuine and deserved.

It requires the utmost arrogance and disrespect for Ron and Carol Paul for ANYONE on the OUTSIDE of that family unit to presume to know what really happened and why. But there is one thing worse: to not just presume to know but to then take their ignorant presumption public in such a way as to besmirch Ron, Carol, or Rand Paul.

If Ron Paul believed Rand had betrayed him in any way we would know it. That is how much intellect, courage, integrity, and discernment I believe Ron Paul has. Ron Paul has EARNED my assessment of him many times over; too many times for me, his lesser, to be second guessing him. If you DON'T trust Ron Paul that much then why are you here?

Bill of Rights /Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Do you need a politician or judge to "interpret" those 28

the naive

... or maybe mostly just DemoPublican trolls ... actually seem to think that Rand did his "endorsement" without his father's implicit support.

We, rightfully, admire Ron Paul for his integrity and intelligence. But Ron Paul will be the first to admit -- as he does in his farewell speech and followup interviews -- that while he has galvanized a minority outside of government he has actually accomplished "very little" in government. And yet he is optimistic things are going to change dramatically within government within "ten years" -- because whereas there were, in the past, perhaps only one or two who supported the Constitution their are now perhaps "a dozen". Gosh. Are we to think Ron is naive or does he have a plan?

Because of Ron Paul's work AND Rand Paul's actions to date, Rand Paul is NOW in a position to do something in 2016 his father wasn't in a position to do in 2012 or 2008 or 2004 or 2000 or .... Rand Paul is in a STRONG position to win the Republican nomination -- and the Presidency -- the next time around. The average Republican -- with no more intelligence nor integrity than the average Democrat if we are going to be truthful -- would likely support Rand Paul when they wouldn't support Ron Paul.

Would we rather win or would we rather sulk? There is an incredible selfishness and self-centeredness -- or maybe just lack of intelligence and experience -- imo, in people who can't or won't join Rand in manning the front line of battle in Washington D.C. but who want to lay additional constraints on him as to how, specifically, he is supposed to do that. Isn't that sort of like the hypocrisy of chickenhawks who are always rooting for war but never volunteering to enter the trenches with a bayonet themselves? It is UGLY in the trenches, guys. And you want the guy who has volunteered to do the fighting for you to carry a bayonet and ALSO act like Jesus?

Bill of Rights /Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Do you need a politician or judge to "interpret" those 28

Again, Rand is right on this

Again, Rand is right on this but let's not rewrite history. There is no way in hell that Ron endorsed the timing (when the delegates were still fighting with success) and manner (on the show of that first class scumbag Hannity who had recently smeared Ron) of the endorsement.

Most importantly, it

Most importantly, it "allowed" him to criticize Rmoney and the neo-cons as "one of their own" instead as a "cooky fringe element"

You are right in your

You are right in your assessment. When I was trying to sell Ron Paul to the Republican establishment in my home town, all I heard was how they really like his son Rand. His endorsement of Romney will enable me to collect, literally, thousands of dollars in '16 if he decides to run.

This is why Rand is the man!

This is why Rand is the man!

Nice thing about being a

Nice thing about being a senator is that you can hold things up for all to see.

The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. - Heinlein

I'm watching and listening.

I'm watching and listening.