80 votes

UPDATE 3: Rand Paul Explains NDAA Vote & Justin Amash Responds

https://www.facebook.com/notes/rand-paul/explanation-of-ndaa...

I have noticed that many are confused by my vote for NDAA. Please allow me to explain.

First, we should be clear about what the bill is. NDAA is the yearly defense authorization bill. It’s primary function is to specify which programs can and can't be funded within the Pentagon and throughout the military. It is not the bill that spends the money—that comes later in an appropriations bill.

Because I think we should spend less, I will offer amendments to cut spending. I will likely vote against the final spending bill. This wasn't it.

This bill also isn’t about indefinite detention. This year's bill did not contain the authorization for indefinite detention.

That provision was in last year's NDAA bill.

The bill this year contained the amendment I supported which sharply limited the detention power, and eliminated it entirely for American citizens in the US. While it is only a partial victory, it was a big victory. Particularly compared to what passed last year. Even so, I will continue to fight to protect anyone who could possibly be indefinitely detained.

I would never vote for any bill, anywhere, that I believed enhanced the government's power to abridge your rights and detain people. This goes against every principle I hold dear and the Constitution I took an oath to uphold and protect.

Government power and the many associated abuses have been piling up for years. We will not win all our liberties back at once. But we did win one battle this year, and we should be pleased that we did while also realizing the fight is really just getting started.

I hope you will keep fighting alongside me.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/rand-paul/explanation-of-ndaa...

UPDATE:

Justin Amash's response via Facebook:

Senator Rand Paul is correct in his description of the 2013 NDAA. It's the 2012 NDAA (not 2013) that authorizes indefinite detention without charge or trial. There's much more to be done to protect our rights and undo the harm of the 2012 NDAA (which doesn't expire), but thanks to the efforts of United States Senator Mike Lee and Sen. Paul, we are making significant progress in (re-)advancing the principle that all people in the United States have a constitutionally protected right to full due process.

UPDATE 2:

From my Oklahoman friend of Liberty QFish of the Liberty Live Stream Team:

I asked him this question: "Would the Feinstein-Lee amendment that Sen. Paul voted for be sufficient for this 2013 NDAA? I know you had come out against this amendment initially, so was curious what you would say about that?"

Rep. Amash answered with: "Qadoshyah, I believe we need more than the Feinstein amendment. I understand their logic, but I disagree that it is sufficient because I have a different interpretation of the 2012 NDAA. They still made significant progress in advancing the cause and putting some protections in law."

UPDATE 3:

Here's my thought process on this in pictures: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=502351526465633&set=...

______

FYI - Check out my website if you're looking for an awesome, inexpensive, and perfect Christmas gift or stocking-stuffer for all Ron Paul Liberty-lovers! I had them made and should be getting them next week according to the manufacturer!



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

I believe in Liberty

and Rand Paul is either very uniformed or is selling out our freedoms for his political gain. The NDAA still authorizes indefinite detention, in fact this latest even codifies it. This is very serious about re education camps. It also allows troops on the streets. In addition to the spot on analysis from PANDA, see Downsize DC at: http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/do-you-want-indefinite-detent...

AD in NV

Interesting...

...seems like people criticizing Rand for voting for the 2013 NDAA might be like people criticizing Ron for voting for earmarks: comes from a lack of understanding of the Congressional process, and what it means to vote for the NDAA or earmarks.

If I now understand it correctly, the 2013 NDAA (a) did not spend a cent, (b) did not reauthorize the detention powers contained in last year's NDAA, (c) did contain Rand's amendment to limit those powers.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Unfortunately, Rand has

Unfortunately, Rand has become like the student in his own mother's class. Extra scrutiny to prove a lack of favoritism. Some of these folks around here will cut Obama more slack than they will Rand.

Debbie's picture

Thank you Rand.

I will absolutely keep fighting along side you.

Debbie

Study all of what is written here.

My opinion is Senator Rand Paul has deal-with-a-few-relevant-facts-inadvertently-drop-all-the-others political doublespeak down rather well. Time will tell I guess.

On Facebook:
Personal ProfilePolitical GroupPolitical Page

Smash was wrong initally. The

Smash was wrong initally. The law does make detention of us citizens illegal. To me, this was the clear intent of Congress. On the flip side, courts could use the rejection of the language of Rand's amendment coupled with an inventive reading of the new amendment new to say that all congress intended was to restrict indefinite detention other than that authorized by 2012 NDAA. This would be blatantly wrong but a possibility. This is why sometimes attaching amendments that sound good but will not pass can be dangerous because courts sometimes view them as a rejected interpretation of the new law.

Ventura 2012

"world peace will never

"world peace will never happen overnight, therefore, we shouldn't hold doors for one another" is what i'm hearing from those who are criticizing rand's past choices.

And the trading goes on. No one willing to actually make a real

stand worth a shit. Tinker here trade there meanwhile tougher sanctions on Iran were voted yes on by Rand. 1 innocent child in Iran dies and that blood is on your hands Rand.You didn't explain a damned thing other than you are just like all the rest willing to play with innocent lives.

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

Voted back up

Who voted PollMans post down is not sincere.

There is no compromise when it comes to defending and protecting the Bill of Rights.

I would say that there are some here who I would not be able to count on if/when the time came. You can bet your a$$ I'd be there right up front.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

nothing to see here folks,

move along please...

How...

How can any libertarian in good conscience vote to fund murderers and thieves?

When you vote to fund the US military, you are voting to fund war, which is nothing but "legal" wholesale murder and plunder.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

psss Rand has said it

psss Rand has said it himself. He's not a libertarian.

and if you didn't believe him

look who he endorsed and campaigned for: mr anti-libertarian, warmonger, police state himself: mitt romney.

He endorsed

but he did not campaign for Romney.. he made is clear that Romney was a business/compromised from the ;loyalty oath vote, not a vote from his heart. Look how the GOP wants blood.. they got a big kick seeing Rand do that.. and seeing hate from Rand must have them ROTFLTAO.

You have been watching the GOP block us from joining and purging us. The name of the game is you gotta stay to play, and in to win.

Politics by it's very nature is evil, dirty.. so if you can't get your hands dirty working to restore the republic, have some respect for those who are in the game.. compromises are built in.. like the loyalty oath crap.. but of we are not in, we can't change it.

Scream from the outside all you like, wave signs, educate the public.. but for those of us who followed RP into the GOP.. we need to educate the GOP and it takes people who are willing. That's not you, and that's fine.. just have some respect for those who are willing, like Rand.

Do you have a candidate for senate.. president? Or are you all about bashing mine because you don't have a candidate to promote?

OK

I'll buy that.. I was thinking in terms of the general election, but I absolutley agree the electoral college is where the real campaigning happens, and thus, Rand did, rightfulls so, campaign for ERomney over Obama. I think the top answer on the piost you shared is a perfect example and reason.

So.. if you are not a Republican and you are not voting statigy to stay in the game, but to have your ideal political vision represented, then the electoral college is meaningless because that is all about stategy, not ideals.

your next point

"You have been watching the GOP block us from joining and purging us. The name of the game is you gotta stay to play, and in to win."

yes, i've been watching and i agree with ron paul, that this kind of behavior will only make amash and the others stronger. i'm more interested in the long term, the spreading of the message, and (yes this is part of that process), but the message, the movement sticking to principles and growing is what's most important.
http://www.thedaily.com/article/2012/12/04/120512-news-ron-p...

finally

i prefer to read your own thinking rather than the professor, but maybe you can boil it down?

back to your original post, you claim that stating facts is bashing your candidate, and that (me or everyone?) should respect rand and his
supporters and not bring those ugly facts up. respect is earned not just handed out willy nilly. let me put it this way: if ron paul would have endorsed romney that
would have been the end of his legacy, the movement and message. that's how big it is. rationalize it all you want, the devil's bargain is the
worst bargain of all.

BTW the latest post on this thread by Bob-45 adds a more intense attitude.

Thank you

Some folks say things better than I do:

Then there is the matter of conservative political practice. "Conservatives should be the party of judgment, not just of principles," he says. "Of course there are conservative principles—free markets, family values, a strong national defense—but those principles must be defended with the use of good judgment. Conservatives need to be intelligent, and they shouldn't use their principles as substitutes for intelligence. Principles need to be there so judgment can be distinguished from opportunism. But just because you give ground on principle doesn't mean you're an opportunist."

Ron Paul was ignored for decades, no one cared how Crazy Uncle Earnest voted.. and his last campaign, he was leaving, so he didn't care about a loyalty oath.. he stayed in all those years stealth.

There's nothing stealth about Rand. Either you will learn from him, and how to stay in the game, or your'e a cheerleader trying to tell the players how to win.. thanks.. and good luck doing it your way. When you gt a candidate that's not a Republican for congress, senate, please, let me know.

and good luck

with your politics as usual. ron paul has brought more people who had zero interest in politics aboard than any politician ever, and those people are not going to buy a watered down, compromising, uninspiring GOP owned candidate regardless of his last name.

I completely understand

That is exactly how I felt. Plenty folks will tell you that about me.. plenty folks here, including MN are "dissappointed" that I would join the GOP, become a national delegate, get a committee seat, and vote Romney to keep that seat..

Once I went to a committee meeting I thought: You gotta be ucking kidding me. This is it? This is what I was so bent out of shape about the GOP? I don't miss meetings now, and I make an effort to educate, and I have some success on getting liberty votes.. which is great.., it used to take me years to do what I can do in months.

You see, all those people who aren't going to buy the rEVOLution in the GOP, have alraeady bought the blue pill and they don't know it.. I didn't know it until I went to a meeting. They will never go to a meeting. That is their mistake, not mine. That is why elections are rigged, they remain outside protesting.. like George Carolin says. they don't car3e about you, so waste your time sign waving. And I'm going to stay in with Rand and eventually, mich sooner than anyone outside.. we will win. It's a fight,, we fight them and we fight those who agree with our fight, but not the arena Ron Paul picked, the GOP.

Only regret I have is not joining the GOP in 07.

"...the party in many ways is irrelevant"

The longtime Texas congressman, essentially the father of the modern American Libertarian movement, on Friday told Bloomberg News the GOP "is not his party" in response to a question about whether, when reflecting on his campaign, he is unhappy with the direction the party has taken this election cycle.

"Well, it's not my party. I don't like politics at all and I think both parties are Keynesian economists and both parties support the positions that I don't like. So the party in many ways is irrelevant," said the three-time presidential candidate, an avowed enemy of the public spending championed by British economist John Maynard Keynes.

http://www.ibtimes.com/ron-paul-gop-not-my-party-still-not-e...

Not MY Party

as in he does not control the GOP anymore than he controls the Liberty Movement, or the rEVOLution.. he does control C4L and his campaigns; however, he does not intend to be anyone's dictator.

He remains in the GOP. Why?

I keep wondering if people even want to remember that.

I might be a little off base but I think many libertarians are just determined to elect a Paul.

Another thing: Don’t you think the Rand Paul 2016 swan song is a little premature? I first found out about “a guy down south” (I didn’t know his name) when I was 16 (1977). I just remember being so impressed that a politician like that actually existed. I sort of rediscovered him in 2008. For several months I wrestled with the prudence of getting behind Ron Paul. I think everything is better well-thought-through. Otherwise we run the risk of jumping from band wagon to band wagon with our eyes closed.

On Facebook:
Personal ProfilePolitical GroupPolitical Page

Yes, Rand should vote in

Yes, Rand should vote in favor of abolishing the U.S military. I'm sure that Rand would have a great chance to win the GOP nomination in 2016 if he had an anarchist voting record in the Senate.

Your argument boils down to voting for career advancement.

I'd hate to see that record.

edit, sorry, this was a response to a post saying that Rand has to vote differently than Ron to get ahead. I don't know how to delete it. I'll repeat it there.

I am withholding judgement on this particular vote, until I can get into it more. But I don't support the approach suggested in the comment that I was responding to that implied to me it is more important to vote in ways to get political advancement, than to take a stand for liberty.

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

Abolish the US military? that

Abolish the US military? that is laughable. I suppose Russia and China just wanna visit and have tea? Have you read world history? Since the beginning of time Nation has risen against nation. I support a stron US military as long as we follow the Christian theory of the just war as Ron Paul has supported. Abolish the military. shaking head and laughing...

Uhhh...

How did you post hours after me and not notice that I pointed out that the post you're replying to is clearly sarcasm?

Eric Hoffer

For those

For those of you who don't know, this is what sarcasm looks like.

Eric Hoffer