23 votes

Rand Paul's NDAA Amendment: Does It Go Far Enough? (No)

"Senator Paul’s amendment — for all the good that it does — doesn’t go far enough. Read the text of the proposal again. There is not one word of repeal or abolition or revocation of the indefinite detention of Americans from the NDAA."

http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/13728-rand-pa...?

Comment viewing options

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

There's an updated draft amendment

that should address the concerns mentioned in the OP.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/11/new-rand-paul-draft-on-de...

Remember, this updated amendment and the one mentioned in the OP are DRAFTS. Nothing has officially been proposed.

There is a lot of confusing double speak here

I just read the new draft. It appears to outlaw detention without charge or trial for any person apprehended in the U.S., or U.S. territories and possessions. It also appears to outlaw the transfer of such a detainee to the custody of the U.S. Armed Forces or any entity outside the U.S. That part sounds good on the surface, but then it has this disclaimer:

"unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention or transfer."

Am I wrong to say that the NDAA that has been passed and signed by the president is an Act of Congress? In section 1021 of the NDAA, congress explicitly gives the president the authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force." That section goes on to give the president authority to detain "any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces." It gives the president the authority to transfer the detainee to the military or foreign entity.

In other words, it appears that the Rand Paul amendment gives some tough sounding language without actually overturning the offensive parts of the NDAA that has already been signed into law. Please someone tell me I am wrong! I'm not a law scholar.

Rand Paul seems like poison to liberty. All the people here on this forum bashing people who criticize Rand Paul remind me of the GOP bashing people for not getting in line to support Mitt Romney.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

If Rand's amendment passes...

does that prevent him or Amash from comming back with another amendment repealing or abolishing NDAA latter?

Supports Rand Paul Amendment On NDAA

We should absolutely support US Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky efforts to reform the NDAA. These provisions need to be amended or dealt with when the US Senate votes on reauthorizing. Barrack Obama or US Senate Democrats did not receive a mandate to destroy the bill of rights. Even if the US Congress received a mandated to destroy the bill of rights;the US Constitution remains the supreme law of the land.

"Obama or US Senate Democrats did not receive a mandate."

Neither did the REPUBLICANS that helped pass NDAA, like "tea party" Bachmann, "tea party" West, "tea party" Brown and "tea party" Rubio.

Rand "playin' the game" Paul will NEVER, EVER have my support.

F the R's!!!!
ALL OF 'EM!!!!!!!!!!

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

here's my view on the

here's my view on the subject. rand paul isn't ron paul. rand paul is a dangerous compromiser. now theres this guy, ron paul. he supports rand paul. so we can't support ron paul either. since we cant support ron paul for supporting rand paul, we can support rand paul, since we no longer care that hes not ron paul because we hate ron paul for supporting rand paul.

ALEX JONES/DAVID ICKE 2016!!!

rand paul has the curly hair

rand paul has the curly hair of the devil

If it'll get further'n

If it'll get further'n Amash's amendment I'll say yes. Because as wonderful as Amash was he got as far as the dustbin with that one.

NDAA...

went VERY, VERY far. Maybe we should all get behind it, "because as wonderful as" the Bill of Rights was, it "got as far as the dustbin with that one."

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

Troll elsewhere Sister

Troll elsewhere Sister Soldier. Your Puritanical crusade will get as far as Amash's bill. I have no ill will towards you but your zeal could be toned down a bit. I'm a pragmatist I'll take any step toward freedom I can get.

So we should all hate Ron Paul...

I mean, the Federal Reserve is the most destructive force we have, and instead of proposing a bill to abolish it, Ron Paul 'caved' and submitted bills to just audit it!

That shows that Ron Paul is bought and paid for by the bankers, right?

Actually, I welcome any resistance to the loss of liberty and our money. Rand is providing that. Maybe instead of bashing him, we should ask ourselves what we are doing? How are we educating our neighbors, family and friends so that a stronger bill would get the support of the people?

If you want to blame someone, blame yourself. You are failing. You don't give nearly the effort or sacrifice that Rand Paul is.

"You don't give nearly the... sacrifice that Rand Paul is"

Correct. "We" should NEVER "sacrifice" our integrity or principles, as Rand "playin' the game" Paul is.

"What we are doing?" I've been helping people to identify Tea Party CO-OPTING republicans and Liberty Movement CO-OPTING republicans. They're actually pretty easy to spot, with their "better evil" philosophies ("any resistance to the loss of liberty" kinda thing), their ridicule of third parties, their ridicule of alternative media, their NEVER-ENDING, EMBARRASSING DEFENSE of republicans (who will NEVER actually call themselves "republican").

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

His dad says you have to make progress.

You can't jump from hot water to cold. You have to warm these ideas up to politicians. That's why they look at Ron as extreme because of being in shock from hot to cold water.

Actually,

the human body (and our nation) is amazingly resilient. "Shock" only lasts a few seconds.

We need to FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION TO THE LETTER, NOW, and leave the results to God.

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

people here don't like to

people here don't like to hear it, but RAND is bought. You can clearly see it within almost everything he does. THE LIBERTY MOVEMENT WILL NOT WIN WITH RAND PAUL. thank you have a good day.

Here Is How We Must View This...

...the NDAA is going to be passed no matter what anybody says. Rand Paul just saw Amash's bill fail. There is no stopping it. So why not make it at least a little better by adding something that might make things a little better and have a chance at getting it passed.

We need to get an early start on 2016: Support Rand PAC 2016

www.randpac2016.com

https://twitter.com/randpac2016

Why not

join 'em if he can't beat 'em? Because then where's the difference between him and them?

Funny...

how Liberty folks defended Ron against Establishment for months. With Rand... the OPPOSITE seems the case.

"Why not" is one of those if-you-have-to-ask,-you'll-never-know kinda questions.

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

If Rand introduced a bill to

If Rand introduced a bill to legalize marijuana....

They would complain that the bill did not legalize cocaine, crack, magic mushrooms and LSD!

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

when rand was running for senator

he was for decriminalizing pot, but as soon as he was challenged by his opponent he caved. of course he won that election, and that probably gave him incentive to compromise more, and that's fine and dandy for him and his supporters, but do people really see him at the helm of the freedom movement? if so i'd say it's a sad day for liberty.

RON PAUL 2016

meanwhile, the senate can't

meanwhile, the senate can't even find 10 votes to legalize industrial hemp.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

Thats because it's still demcorat/republican (same thing).

Ooooops... and your Liberty Movement CO-OPTER propaganda is a little flawed... a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Patrick Henry. A vote for Rand "playin' the game" Paul is a vote for Benedict Arnold.

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

The NDAA provisions were just

The NDAA provisions were just one in a string of clearly unconstitutional acts of treason against the people. All that voted for (signed and defended) that bill are no less than traitors to the people of United States of America and their Duly ratified Constitution.
A little more K.I.S.S. on the NDAA and the many additional layers of treachery we must now begin to unravel from the federalist machine would go a long way in our movement here.

Rand is wrong to dance. NDAA provisions must be repealed. He will pay a greater price than he thinks if he continues. I will not forget soon what his timing did to the hard work and dollars put in by multitudes of us when he endorsed Romney early. Ron Paul in front of the nation for 15 minutes in Tampa would have put a real dent in the propaganda shield that has become what is called the "free" press in this country.

The corrupt agents of the media joke about it in a room we are paying for in this video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxeH3Cad1MQ )at time indexes 1:40 and repeated at 2:30.

We must not get caught up in the degrees of wrong here.
If it is not specifically authorized by the Constitution it must go.
AND,
One can not do evil for the cause of good. The ends do not justify the means in politics. No matter how he might self-justify, or we here try to reason away, Rand's current track is a losing one. I hope he wises up before it is too late.

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

Why wouldn't Rand Paul support the Amash ammendment?

Justin Amash moved to simply strike the offensive section of the NDAA. If Rand Paul truly believes in liberty, why would he not support that? The U.S. is not a war zone. We already have a police force and court system to deal with crimes in the U.S.

Rand Paul is walking a tightrope trying to appeal to libertarians and tea party types while not really upsetting the status quo. He is just another politician trying to obtain more power. In all of his actions, I think he has "Rand Paul 2016" in his mind more than protecting individual liberties.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

The offensive section of the

The offensive section of the NDAA has already be enacted into law in other legislation from the past. Rand's amendment would apply against that language.

Amash is good, but his amendment does not go far enough to protect liberty.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

If that is the case ....

then why is that section even in the NDAA and why would the establishment oppose striking it?

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

The NWO likes to be thorough.

The NWO likes to be thorough.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

Rand Paul's NDAA amendment is much better than the Constitution

I know some people on here love to bash Rand Paul but if you look at the constitution, Rand Paul's amendment is actually far superior than the constitution on this particular issue.

This is what the Constitution says "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.". This implies that the government has the right to capture anyone using the military or police or any other government agency anywhere and hold them indefenately without a trial or even a criminal charge without a writ if habeas corpus as long as there is a rebellion or invasion or even for public safety whatever that means. The constitution does NOT require a declared war to do so! The constitution also does NOT prevent the military from detaining citizens inside the United States either and even allows it for something as broad as "public safety." Even if you are allowed to file a writ of a habeous corpus this is nothing like having a trial with a jury, it's just a petition to a judge, most of which are denied anyway.

This is what Rand Paul's amendment says: "A citizen of the United States 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."

So what Rand's amendment is doing is preventing the government to use the military instead of the police from detaining people without giving them a fair trial in a civilian court or even charging them with a crime in the United States. If what you want is an amendment that says the military cant detain people in the United States, the only thing that would mean is they would use the police instead to detain people. The only difference Is you would have a right to a fair trial if the police arrested you. With Rand's amendment you'd have a right to a trial if you are captured by the military or by law enforcement. This is more than the constitution guarantees ... Obviously in some cases real terrorists should be arrested and put on trial. I'm not against that, neither is Ron or Rand Paul. What I'm against is using the military to get around the requirement for a fair trial... Something the constitution actually allows the military to do as long as there's an invasion or rebellion or even for "public safety.". Rand's amendment would put an end to that.

The Constitution

Are you stupid? Read what you just posted. The writ of habeas corpus can *only* be suspended when either the nation is being invaded or a full blown rebellion is occuring. BOTH of those occasions are war times, and then only when armies are actually on national soil, and then the power to suspend habeas corpus isn't garaunteed as it still has to be occasioned for the need of public safety. So not even invasion and armed rebellion is quite enough justification by themselves. Rights to trial by jury, speedy trial, evidence, etc are all right protected by the Constitution as well. Rand's amendment to the NDAA 2011 merely reaffirms those for US citizens. It doesn't even go nearly as far as The Constitution which grants it to every person. Do yourself a favor. Go read The Constitution.

PierzStyx

I have read the Constitution ...

The clause about habeous corpus was in the original constitution, not the bill of rights. It's true that in the bill of rights, specifically 6th amendment, the constitution granted the right to a fair trial to people being accused of a crime. If you read the 6th amendment it specifically says "In all CRIMINAL prosecutions..." What is controversial about the NDAA is it allows the military to detain you indefenately without even charging you with a crime. When the government detains you indefinately without charging you witha crime the ONLY legal remedy you have is a to file a writ of habeous corpus. A writ of habeous corpus is just a petition to a judge which is decided in a so called "writ hearing." A writ hearing is not even close to having a right to a trial by jury, it's just a hearing decided by a judge, without a jury. You don't have the right to call witnesses, you don't have the right to cross examine witnesses, you don't have a right to an impartial jury. The majority of writs of habeous corpus are denied. And the right for anyone to even have a writ hearing can be suspended in times of rebellion OR invasion. Lincoln, George W Bush and Obama have each personally suspended the right of habeous corpus for anyone captured by the military and the courts have upheld that. What Rand Paul's amendment does is it specifically requires all the rights of a full jury trial for any US citizen captured or detained in the US by the military, not just a writ. This is an expansion of the rights in the constitution.

The constitution is a great document but as Ron Paul said it's not perfect, it originally allowed for slavery and had no bill of rights. It has an amendment process which gave us the Bill of Rights which made it a truely remarkable document. But because the 6th amendment starts out with the clause "In all criminal prosecutions..." it's very easy for a lawyer for the government to argue to the supreme court that the right to a fair trial in the 6th amended should not apply to someone captured and detained by the military who is not formally being charged with a crime. This is exactly the argument that the Bush administration used before the supreme court and the court sided with the government. Rand Paul's amendment closes this loophole by requiring that if the military wants to capture a US civilian citizen on US soil they had better be prepared to give this person a fair trial in civilian court with all the normal rights a defendant has, rather than just hold this person indefinately and denying them due process of law.

Right now because Obama like Bush before him, has personally signed laws suspending the right of a fair trial and even the right of habeous corpus for prisoners captured by the military in the US, they can detain anyone and hold them as long they want as the "war on terror" isn't over. Rand's amendment would guarantee a fair trial for people who right now who have no legal remedy at all, not a trial or even a writ hearing, and are being held indefinately against their will.