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!




Comment viewing options

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

...

It's not an appropriation bill, he didn't vote to spend anything

It authorizes use of tax money for the DoD

He voted to allow them to use funds (extorted from American taxpayers btw) to continue operations.

How is it any different?

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


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

No

The bill does not appropriate any funds at all.

It likely incrementally leads up to it.

I think Rand is taking an incremental step to accomplish something good. When I observe his actions I see one who is wet behind; possibly too swaggering for his own good. He seems to want to comprise “to a point.” Let’s hope and pray he either pulls it off or wises up.

On Facebook:
Personal ProfilePolitical GroupPolitical Page

Yes

Much better to vote against it and give everyone at the Daily Paul a warm fuzzy feeling about that 97-1 than to keep yourself in contention for the presidency, where you can actually have a chance to stop the extortion of funds.

Good work, Rand.

Good work, Rand.

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

Rand Paul 2016...

...this is a good interview from Peter Schiff with Rand Paul yesterday:
http://www.dailypaul.com/265581/peter-schiff-interviews-rand...

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

www.randpac2016.com

https://twitter.com/randpac2016

I just want to comment and

I just want to comment and maybe someone else already brought it up..But his saying " and eliminated it entirely for American citizens in the US"
that was specific language and it means...we still voted to detain American Citizens NOT in the US...sounds like a threat to me. American citizens don't leave the US or we could detain you forever without charge.
NOT good guys.

"and the truth shall make you free"
John 8:32

GGB

Are you under the impression that Rand supports the indefinite detention of US citizens outside the US? If not, what are you talking about? Is anyone suggesting that the due process battle has been won?

"The battle is not over yet. NOT good guys."

This is not Rand specific.

This is not Rand specific. All the talk about the new NDAA...it just struck me that he made mention of in the US...i'm not bashing Rand on this people..i'm questioning his statement and what it means. Can people not think logically and get to the same conclusion as me.

"and the truth shall make you free"
John 8:32

Update added to OP: Justin Amash responds to Rand

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.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

Yes, but...

Was Rand Paul Blackmailed by Bilderberg?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFAmfa5MHS0

At first I thought this was just a hit piece by a scam artist, but after reading everyone defending him on the Daily Paul, I've discovered that Gary Franchi is actually a man of integrity.

So, how can anyone support Rand after hearing the leader of the Liberty Movement, Gary Franchi, suggest he's been corrupted by strippers and drugs and blackmailed by Bilderbergers?

I'm so glad it turns out Gary wasn't actually wasting our money on anything except helping the movement, right?

"the leader of the Liberty Movement, Gary Franchi"

...lol, what?

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

Franchi calls it "the freedom movement"

Actually Franchi calls it "the freedom movement" which is a sure sign that he's a phony. He doesn't even want to say the word liberty. Freedom can be debated, but liberty is impossible to talk around. Even a Communist could claim they're trying to free people, and there is a kind of freedom in living off another persons productive labor.

That's the biggest load of

That's the biggest load of horseshit I've ever heard. Read a book or something.

Thanks.

As far as I know, Gary is for real. He has been doing a great job.

Yeah, right.

Yeah, right.

I don't really get why he is explaining, but I appreciate it

I don't really get why he is explaining, but I appreciate it nonetheless. The only people who are still questioning Rand are the same individuals who have yet to get over Rand keeping his campaign promise by endorsing Romney. These people are a lost cause.

I thought we were all past this...

and agreed that Rand was playing ball. Last time I checked, Rand was the first politician to support his father after Dr. Paul announced his campaign.

Veterans for Ron Paul

If you don't know your rights, you don't have any.

Respectfully Disagree

I think everyone should always question politicians (this includes Rand Paul) - being skeptical is a good way to not getting duped/blindsided. We, who fight for liberty, are here, among many other things, to keep lawmakers and politicians on their toes - they have to remember who they are fighting for.

I am not saying that Rand Paul is not, and will not, do a good job defending Americans' freedoms, but I am saying that us scrutinizing and questioning politicians' decisions is a good thing. I am glad he came out and explained the rationale behind his vote.

True but considering how much time he put into the amendment

I mean a major amendment in the bill is one Rand has worked on for over a year, it would make no sense for him to have voted no to begin with.

I Am Honoured That Rand Paul...

...takes time out of his busy schedule to explain to this community why he does certain things and votes certain ways. Like with his endorsement of Romney, instead of hiding and trying to distance himself from us, he goes on THE DAILY PAUL RADIO to explain why he did it. He probably reads this site and cares about our opinion for him to do things like this. If your reading Rand, I and many others got your back.

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

www.randpac2016.com

https://twitter.com/randpac2016

You sound like a Rand Paul boot licker

Why would you be "honoured" that the high and mighty Rand Paul takes time out of his busy schedule to explain to us peons why he is voting to get us further into debt slavery in support of wars that do not further our national defense?

Isn't Rand Paul our employee drawing a paycheck from our taxes?

Totally agree Matt.

I am completely astounded by the unquestioned support Rand gets here. He has voted for sanctioning Iran...TWICE...,voted for 9 billion dollars for Israel's 'offense', voted for NDAA 2012 and 2013 (if he does not agree with the foreign policy, than quit fucking funding it!!!!!!), endorsed Romney on Hannity at the climax of his father's campaign, and could not tell you the difference between a debt and a deficit no more than TWO years ago.

Here are the intended consequences of economic sanctions.

http://www.dailypaul.com/257455/iranian-holodomor

And for what? Did the Iranian people do something horrible? No. Did their government? Not according to our multiple US agencies that collect intelligence.

Go ahead, down vote this. How many clues do y'all need to understand that Rand is NOT on our side? Not only that, why down vote and bash anyone using reason and logic in our assessment of his disastrous performance? Just one of the above mentioned offenses is enough for y'all to give the 'Rand Haters' some slack. If you gave people with a dissenting view some respect maybe we would not have to obsess about why y'all should wake the fuck up.

LOL...

...how can anyone take you seriously??? Rand Paul did not support NDAA 2012. You LIED... http://www.dailypaul.com/198522/senators-who-voted-yea-for-n...

you should be ashamed of yourself, to ignorantly claim something that is TOTALLY false.

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

www.randpac2016.com

https://twitter.com/randpac2016

Fine.

What about the rest of it? It's all okay, because he's Ron's son. He's deluding himself and y'all too. Can anyone here even remotely contemplate what Ron did for 30 years? He was there all alone. We were not there. He voted all by himself. No one gave him any accolades. He is the most courageous man alive. He hates politics yet he attended the Congressional sessions and stood up for the people with NO support. Rand can't even stand for liberty for two years without selling out. This is such a no brainer. Rand sucks. But convincing y'all of it is impossible. He could be as bad as Pol Pot and you guys would cheer him on. Bizarro World, indeed.

.

No one cares about your opinion if you can't even get the SIMPLE facts straight.

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

www.randpac2016.com

https://twitter.com/randpac2016

I never doubted him. everyone is so freakin' quick to assume

people need to have some patience and stop jumping to conclusions. His intentions are good and is actually making progress that no one else could actually grasp.

Bump for Rand Paul 2016!

Bump for Rand Paul 2016!

“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till." -J.R.R. Tolkien

I am so glad he addressed

I am so glad he addressed this. I only hope people here will be mature enough to understand. We cannot change things over night. He voted on a bill that gives an inch towards liberty. We need every inch we can get. He is a maverick.

Rand 2016