66 votes

Senate debate on indefinite detention; Feinstein amendment passed 67-29, but...

The Senate finished debating the Feinstein amendment on indefinite detention.

The amendment passed 67-29; however, many Senators, including McCain and Graham, voted for the amendment because they made the argument that the amendment authorizes indefinite detention.

Rand's speeches:


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Why They Continue to Violate the Constitution!

It is reasonable to believe the Senate is not ruling against ARREST, DETENTION, ASSISSNATION of American Citizens because if they ruled to follow the Constitution as they should, they would have to disclose ALL those who allready have been ARRESTED, DETAINED and ASSISSNATED.

Their criminality is unconsionable.


Post Entire Debate

Someone Post the entire debate video. I want to see it for myself.

so can someone fill me in

so can someone fill me in here, do they still have the power to arrest and detain us americans?

so which one is it......arrgg

So now we have 2 interpretations. Regardless on how we interpret it, you know the neocons and democons are just going to use whatever interpretation suites their warmongering ways.

I see 2 problems. The actual message (terrible wording) and the messengers (zero credibility accept a few).

Rand's email update:

The right to a trial by jury is one of the very foundations of our Republic.

Thanks to the petitions and phone calls from concerned Americans like you, the Amendment stripping the indefinite detention language out of the NDAA just passed the U.S. Senate by a vote of 67-29.

But this fight isn't over yet.

Since the Senate amended the NDAA, it now has to go back to the House for approval.

So you and I must remain prepared to pick up this fight in the Senate in the near future.

Once again, thank you for all you do. I'll be sure and keep you updated on our fight to protect the 6th Amendment rights of all Americans.

In Liberty,
Senator Rand Paul

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know Peace." - Jimi Hendrix

Same here...

Both republican senators from Alabama voted Nay. I wrote to one of them, when the NDAA passed, and in his return letter he stated military detention of US citizens on US soil is false. I supposed he was either stupid or lying. Since I don't think he's stupid, I believe he's lying.

“an authorization to use

“an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States.”

You left out the important

You left out the important part shortly after that... that it's OK if an act of Congress exists allowing for it.

scawarren's picture

Yes we do! If the forces were

Yes we do! If the forces were filled with more like him and
Deputy Stan Lenic the US would be a much better place :)

It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. – Mark Twain
Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it's wrong. - Ron Paul


I've been told a million times that if we AGAIN, elect more republicans, we can "hold their feet to the fire." So, now that "conservative and/or Tea" REPUBLICANS like Portman and Rubio have apparently voted leftist again (AS I FKING TOLD YOU THEY WOULD), LEMME SEE IT! HOLD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE!!!! Personally, I've never understood what this idiotic gibberish meant... but I've got my popcorn... got my beverage... got my recliner reclined... kids are in bed... I'm ready to see it!

Does anyone have a video link to Rubio's feet being held to the fire? Where can I find the footage? Was there a medic on hand? Was he hurt? Do they actually undergo this procedure on the Senate floor? Has he now reversed and resubmitted his vote... or do they need to hold his feet to MORE fire?

Brother Winston Smith

The r3VOLution is NOT republiCAN.

Justin Amash just stated on facebook

The Feinstein amendment to the 2013 NDAA does NOT protect you from indefinite detention without charge or trial. In fact, it explicitly permits such detention so long as the detention is approved by an Act of Congress . . . such as the 2012 NDAA.

I follow Justin Amash on FB

and i have not seen such a post. Are there more than one pages for the congressman?

"I will not submit to authority of man. I'm alive, I'm awake, this is more than I can take." -Jordan Page

it is on his fb page at

it is on his fb page at http://www.facebook.com/#!/repjustinamash?fref=ts

" Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of they day; but a series of oppresssions...pursued unalterably, through every change of ministers, too plainly proove delibrate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery..."

I was agureing this last night on the chat.

The way it is worded makes it seem as if it's against the provision... which it is... until you read the second paragraph(lines 9-13).

That section as I read it, and apparently Amash and several others, says that you can't detain an American indefinitely unless we are in a state of war or other state of "emergency" or by act of congress.

We are ALWAYS in a state of war. So this amendment is all but useless.

The wording is so bad that even lawyers are going to argue what this really means.

Tools of war are not always obvious. The worst weapon is an idea planted in the mind of man. Prejudices can kill, suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has an everlasting fallout all of its own.

Well the House and Senate will

go to conference and this amendment will more than likely be removed.

We need to fight for the Smith-Amash amendment in the House and Senate next year.

Rand had a good draft amendment that he never formally offered because he deferred to Feinstein since she offered a similar amendment last year.

Bleccccch. Both the senators

Bleccccch. Both the senators from Georgia voted against the amendment.



I tend to question these

I tend to question these things because our "elected politicians" have been known to vote multiple times for other people who aren't there... didn't watch it, but did this happen?


I can't believe Feinstein held a part in this

I sent her a personal letter as a constituent, and also the sent the C4L deal, and wrote in my personal letter that I would not vote for her if she voted for the NDAA which she did, so I didn't vote for her.

Now I wonder if I should write a thank you letter for this and also say screw you for voting for the NDAA and that's why I didn't vote for her this term??? But the main point was the indefinite detention of US citizens without due process which was somewhat addressed.

I know at least three of us here at the DP sent in letters to her stating our positions on the NDAA and received the same form letter back.

Feinstein is strange. She's a liberal, and every once in a while a classic liberal streak shows it's face with her. I don't like her much. But maybe she listened to her constituents. I told everyone I knew about the NDAA and to mail her but most people looked with a blank stare or thought I was crazy and no such thing existed as the NDAA. But evidently maybe her office payed a little attention to us weird folks who still believe in the constitution and our bill of rights.

It's one small step for man, but other than abolishing it, she did help yield one tiny slice of liberty. That's better than nothing.

I think I should send a letter saying thank you but you still helped to enact this piece of legislature.

I dunno.

I did the same things you did.

And I did write her a thank you note for this, saying the entire section doesn't belong in a free society and that I was ashamed it was on the books in the US.

But it isn't the best amendment that could have been written and I am concerned that McCain and Graham seemed happy with it. I suspect Obama will interpret it their way, and it will be up to the courts as much as it was before.

Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesnt want to hear -RonPaul

Thank you

Sailing away. You are an inspiration and an excellent person.

The nays have had it


Ayotte (R-NH)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McConnell (R-KY)
Nelson (D-NE)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Heller (R-NV)
Kirk (R-IL)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Wyden (D-OR)

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln


The Yea's have it. I gave you a thumbs up anyways, since you showed all the Nays. Those pieces of c---.

Debbie's picture

He's saying they "have had it", not they "have it". Thanks for

posting those results Jive.


McConnell and Rubio

voted not to ratify the 6th Amendment.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

So what are you going to do about it?

Write them a letter?

Like they care.

allegory - ˈalɪg(ə)ri/ - noun - 1. a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.


reason not to re-elect Chambliss or Isakson when their terms expire - they both voted nay. Wonder what their reasoning is - think I'll write and ask.

You'll get a straighter

IMO You'll probably get a straighter answer from the news than writing to them directly LOL

Menendez is such a humanitarian ...

And LOL quite a study of how 'sanctions' have worked in Cuba. For American Interests LOL

What a joke.