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."


Comment viewing options

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


This is a great explanation for those who weren't aware on the difference.

Love the unknowing rabble rousing going on in this thread.

Eric Hoffer

Appreciate your input and

Appreciate your input and info. Voted up.

Interesting how something so abusive is in our Constitution. You have to remember that at our founding they were obsessed with "keeping the Union together". By force, if necessary. I think that's what led to numerous anti-liberty events in our early founding. Nothing much worse than the vicious civil war which in my mind was a very evil venture when you consider it's implications for limited government and "states rights".

Thank you..

I love the constitution but there's room for improvement. The habeous corpus clause was in the original constitutional and was intended to at least give people the right to a writ hearing for people being detained by the government or because of the law... The right to a fair trial came later in the bill of rights.

One area where writs of habeous corpus have done a lot of good is it enables people in psychiatric hospitals held against their will to cthe right to challenge whether the government is justified in keeping these people in these hospitals, and even if the court does side with the hospitial, the patient has the right to file another writ if the hospital wants to keep him or her longer than the spefied amount of time the court allowed the hospital to involuntarily hold the patient. These people are not being charged with a crime so the 6th amendment right to a jury trial doesn't apply to them.

Why Rand's amendment is watered down

I agree that the amendment doesn't go far enough. However, there's already been an attempt to remove the military detention and indefinite detention language in the NDAA both in the house in the senate. This one is watered down because the strong one failed. Rand is already a co-sponsor or signer or whatever it's called of the one that did go far enough. If you can't get what you want, sometimes you have to settle for second best.

I'd rather support someone who supports what is right

Compromise isn't worth anything if all it does is slightly slow down accumulation of total power in the executive branch.

Here is a quote you can do an internet search for from a politician who didn't compromise:

"No Enabling Law can give you the power to destroy ideas which are eternal and indestructible....."

Concentrating power in one man is dangerous, and we need leaders who will oppose it without compromise.

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

In this case

and with any regarding civil liberties, I believe Ron Paul would vote for more liberty than less. I have heard him many times discuss just trying to hold the line in Congress. Repealing 100 years of bad legislation is almost impossible. There has to be a mind shift in the population.

I can't imagine even Dr. Paul being rigid on a civil liberty issue when so much is at stake.

Here Are The First Words I Saw...

...when clicking on the link. "source", whatever that means, "apparently", "may propose". LOL, this is almost telling you it is not reliable and yet all the "anti-Rand Paul" folks on here are saying, "ahhh, look at the lying, neo-con". Talk about digging deep to find out something bad about Ron Paul's son.

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




Makes one wonder why they don't just change the NDAA to comply with the Constitution. Could it be they have arrested or assassinated UNTOLD United States Citizens without trial allready?

Makes you wonder what a criminal mind would do to keep from getting caught. Would they ingnore the rule of law? Could they lack integrity? Would they lie to the American People? Would they cheat to be elected?

Makes me sick!



Looks like Rand "playin' the game" Paul... is learning how to "play the game." And the game of Ferociously Toothless Legislation has been a Grand Ol' favorite for years and years!

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

It's also the game

that undid all gains of the revolution. Ad hoc politics is a losing game.

May The Transformation of Rand


And for WHAT!?!



(Rand Paul aint seen as "Latino friendly" in RINO land!!!)

Some of these anti Rand

comments just sound too simple minded to come from the average Libertarian or Daily Pauler. It's as though they expect to get something accomplished by having Rand walk out onto the Senate floor with a can of gasoline, a road flare and the actual NDAA Bill in hand. Just stupid ! It's as though the establishment has installed trolls that just don't have the intellect.

Ron Swanson


Rand IS Establishment. Why would the Establishment "send out trolls" to bash the Establishment? Seems it would be MORE REASONABLE to assume that "Establishment trolls" have been installed to PROTECT the Establishment (Rand), grease the republican co-opting of the Liberty Movement and Alisnkyite-smear folks WHO ARE NOT FOOLED BY SELLOUTS, by calling them stupid.

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

You enjoy

your Jebb Bush / Marco Rubio ticket in 2016 ;)

Ron Swanson


No, I headed back to my third parties the moment the leftist republican party reelected Obama, by CHEAT-nominating Romney.

Jeb "playin' the game" Bush, Marco "playin' the game" Rubio, Allen "playin' the game" West, Michele "playin' the game" Bachmann, Rand "playin' the game" Paul, etc, etc... ALL REPUBLICANS, ALL THE SAME!

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

you weren't alone!

"You play along to get along" Ron Paul chided Santorum at the debates, now Rand plays too, and that's fine for him and his supporters, but let's not call it liberty or freedom, it's insulting.

It's getting to be pretty

It's getting to be pretty funny to watch how desperate people on here are to defend Rand. Good luck with that..


I Cannot Believe...

...how disrespectful you people are being. If you don't like Rand, keep it to yourself. You are on a site that is named after Ron Paul so please don't dedicate all your time to bashing his own son on this site.

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



Ron Is not Rand

and vice versa. When did standing UP for RON PAUL's principles become heresy on the DAILY PAUL!!!

Standing up for...

...Ron Paul's values is different then bashing Rand Paul.

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



I am not saying...

...anything against you. I am referring to others.

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




than to keep to myself. But, sadly, the republican/democrat (same thing) party is GANG-RAPING MY CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC... so my yelps, as I'm being penetrated in every orifice... should be understandable.

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

see it how you want to

if you were just a little bit more intelligent you could see what exactly he is doing...why do you think ron paul never got anywhere but with staunch liberty minded people like you see on dp?? tho we love and admire dr. paul for his non compramising ways...rand saw another way...you dont think this was discussed between them?? rand is in there gaining ground from inside...how much will he gain??? thats yet to be seen.

With ron spreading his message still...as rand takes small steps to get what he can done from the inside!...has rand done anything but get right to work fighting for the same things his dad spoke of?? he sure did...why not support him?? till he shows us he really sold out?

If he really sold out...and really supported romney! how come he criticized romney for his foreign policy...rand is in there pushing issues that had nothing to do with romneys policies...so tell em...how are we desperate?? he is the best thing we have inside and you are a fool to think the apple falls that far from the tree!

again...rand said he would support the GOP canidate no matter who it was!

Our founding fathers are rolling in their graves...the land of liberty needs a regime change!


So Rand "playin' the game" Paul was LYING, when he endorsed Romney?

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

You Make Me LOL...

...I think pretty much everybody, except you, get's the whole endorsement thing. And it is getting very annoying when you think you are so clever with your new name for Rand Paul. ((not funny))

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



I don't get the endorsement,

I don't get the endorsement, and neither does Rand. He knows he made a mistake, but he thinks it would be another mistake to correct it.

He played with the devil and got burned. His father warned him, and he didn't listen.

You Seem To Forget That...

...Ron Paul "played the game" when he endorsed Newt Gingrich for speaker of the House.

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



You don't understand

It's fine to hate Rand Paul because he endorsed Romney, but Ron endorsing Gingrich and Boehner for Speaker of the House TOTALLY doesn't count.


Eric Hoffer

Murray Rothbard endorsed

Murray Rothbard endorsed Bush.

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Thomas Jefferson. A vote for Rand Paul is a vote for James Madison.

Good call

Down with Rothbard the evil ne'er-do-well!

Eric Hoffer