Rand Paul: End the war on terror and save billions
Submitted by A Real Conservative on Mon, 12/10/2012 - 16:05http://www.facebook.com/#!/RandPaul2010
While we must always protect ourselves against terrorism, our current policies are often misguided and too costly. Writes CNN's Fareed Zakaria: "If you want to know why we’re in such a deep budgetary hole, one large piece of it is that we have spent around $2trillion on foreign wars in the past decade. Not coincidentally, we have had the largest expansion of the federal government since World War II."
Rand Paul
»
- Login to post comments
That would include the DHS ,TSA and other liberty stealing ...
agencies, as well as all foreign aid. This should come a long time before any tax increases are even mentioned.
But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers
McCain has the wrong type of birds in sight: Angry Birds are the type!
www.dailypaul.com/277441/mccain-calls-paul-cruz
Kudos to Rand Paul, like his father the empty suits have no
option except to 'quote' them, acknowledged or not.
Plagiarism
Did not Mr. Zakaria admit to it?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/08/cnn-suspends-far...
If anyone else did this in college they would most likely be thrown out.
CNN is a good role model for students lol
donvino
bump
.
-- RAND PAUL 2016 --
Bump!!
“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
Rand...
If we were to truly end the war on terror, we must put stop to the concept that we must simultaneously go to wars with countries that have some that hate the U.S. Government.
Please, vote against the sanctions next time, Iran is not a threat to us or will attack U.S.A.
"Truth is Treason in an Empire that lies" - Ron Paul
Educate the masses, and win in the end.
I still believe
that we would have a lot less problems if we would end our membership in the United Nations. All it does for us is cost us money and lives. Aren't we in Iraq and Afghanistan and have been in other "no-win wars" because of the NATO Treaty? I know Vietnam was because of the SEATO (Southeast Asia) Treaty. Sorry, it just bugs me.
We are in another war for our Independence.
There is no war on terrorism
it's a made up war so they can spend money. Rand falls right into that crap. If we'd leave them alone and I mean TRULY leave them alone, we'd be left alone.
It's not "too costly and misguided" It's a flat out fuck up and travesty.. He perpetuates it with the sanctions. Paying other countries with our money and this new NDAA bullshit which he IS guilty of selling the US population out over.
And to answer the neocon nut washer below..
I'm right here.
Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.
wow, nothing is good enough
wow, nothing is good enough for you.
Ventura 2012
Really? Because I remember
specifically, time and time again espousing what would make me happy and those that do so. Perhaps you're not paying attention in the same manner you pick candidates.
Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.
NDAA 2013 was a step in the
NDAA 2013 was a step in the right direction. Ending the war on terror would end the actual use of indefinite detention. No one has been harder on Rand re: sanctions than me, but I'm not ready to ditch our last realistic shot at the Presidency yet. If he comes out for war with Iran then I'll jump.
Ventura 2012
NDAA 2012 amendment changes are smoke and mirrors
https://pandaunite.org/ndaa-2013-ndaa-amendmentschanges-are-...
Its a very good argument and
Its a very good argument and its correct that Ron Paul's bill(as well as Rand's original bill not the one he co-sponsored) were a lot better. However, it makes one big flaw(from the first link):
"According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the government can detain U.S. Citizens and permanent
residents without charge or trial because Congress has already authorized it in the 2001 AUMF.”
This isn't true. In Hamdi, the Court recognized the power of the government to detain enemy combatants, but ruled that detainees who are U.S. citizens must have the ability to challenge their enemy combatant status before an impartial judge. So it said NDAA(indefinite detention without habeas) is unconstitutional. Furthermore, NDAA 2013 actually provides clear Congressional intent(which was relied on in Hamdi under AUMF) that the AUMF does NOT mean the denial of a right to a trial. Also, the definition of the AUMF as an "explicit" authorization is not the holding of the court. The opinion was a plurality opinion so the holding is just on the narrowest grounds: that detainees deserve some due process and appellate/habeas relief in Article 3 courts.
Ventura 2012
double cross
http://libertycrier.com/u-s-constitution/ndaa-double-cross/
What it does is repeal the
What it does is repeal the 2012 NDAA, which used the AUMF as its basis for authority. So until Congress "expressly" authorizes such a detention, there is no authorized indefinite detention on the books. Also, courts must interpret "trial" as the 4th-5th-6th Amendment rights as that is the most natural reading.
Ventura 2012
Sorry but you fail too..
The NDAA 2013 was a joke.. it did nothing to protect people and was nothing more than trickery.
Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.
I read it and it does protect
I read it and it does protect US citizens who were previously not protected. the 2012 NDAA implies that US citizens may be detained indefinitely. The 2013 NDAA says that US citizens may not be detained without EXPLICIT authority from Congress, which overturns 2012 NDAA's implication as well as Obama's 2012 signing statement that he has the power to detain without Congress.
Ventura 2012
it still applies to us
check the wording out,it is all smoke and mirrors
congress already voted in ndaa,so congress gave the go ahead
in the first bill
deacon
IS AN A-NARCHIST ONE WHO PRACTICES THE ART OF SQUEALING?
I don't understand what is so
I don't understand what is so complicated about this:
SEC. 1033. PROHIBITION ON THE INDEFINITE DETENTION OF CITIZENS AND LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENTS.
Section 4001 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
‘(b)(1) 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 apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.
‘(2) Paragraph (1) applies to an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority enacted before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2013.
‘(3) Paragraph (1) shall not be construed to authorize the detention of a citizen of the United States, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, or any other person who is apprehended in the United States.’.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3254/text
How is this not a huge improvement over indefinite detention?
Ventura 2012
It's only for certain courts.
It's only for certain courts. Check my post above.
Don't blindly believe that a bill is good! You should know by now that there's ALWAYS bad stuff in bills.
The bigger the bill, the more bad stuff there is.
Keep reading.
unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.
congress has already authorized this,says so right in
my header, from your post
"unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention."
ndaa 2012 gave congress the authority to authorize all detentions
the act of congress is the ndaa,and the patriot act,right along
with the expatriation act that was signed
deacon
IS AN A-NARCHIST ONE WHO PRACTICES THE ART OF SQUEALING?
The 2012 NDAA IMPLIES that US
The 2012 NDAA IMPLIES that US citizens may be detained indefinitely. The 2013 NDAA says that US citizens may not be detained without EXPLICIT authority from Congress, which overturns 2012 NDAA's IMPLIED authorization as well as Obama's 2012 signing statement that he has the power to detain without Congress.(repost)
Ventura 2012
explicit?!?!?!
congress gave explicit authority
you posted the same info twice
what part of "authorized detention" of americans do you not understand?
it did not over turn anything,it merely made it seem that way
by its wording,they did not strike any words form the ndaa laws
nor did it do anything for that patriot act,nor that pesky
expatriation bill(which they will use to strip americans of their rights first
nor does it do away with the trading with the enemy act
IS AN A-NARCHIST ONE WHO PRACTICES THE ART OF SQUEALING?
Wrong, NDAA 2012 was
Wrong, NDAA 2012 was implicit. It had two sections. The first EXPLICITLY exempted US citizens, the second did not. One could imply that the second applied to US citizens because it lacked the EXPLICIT exemption. Therefore the second section only IMPLIEDLY applied to US Citizens.
Furthermore, the EXPRESS intent of the bill's cosponsors was to end indefinite detention of citizens. The bill should be interpreted in that light.
Ventura 2012
i sure hope you are right
but we have seen how they twist and distort
meanings of the simplest of words
and i for one,do not trust their best attempt
here is an example,the patriot act,aka,the act against patriots
this bill has been twisted by law enforcement,even so far as
trying to say they can't be filmed in public(we own PUBLIC)
this was written to stop terrorists
all that needs to be done is declare america a battle ground
and all bets are off
i do not trust them as far as i can throw them
deacon
IS AN A-NARCHIST ONE WHO PRACTICES THE ART OF SQUEALING?
Lets put it this way, a
Lets put it this way, a non-corrupt non-idiot judge will rule our way on this. That's most of them, doesn't mean we can't get a bad apple though. The Supreme Court could always even overturn Hamdi and go with Thomas' dissent that says the President can do whatever he wants and any legislation by Congress attempting to restrict him is Unconstitutional. More likely, a corrupt/idiot judge can find plenty of loopholes to misinterpret this thing to go the other way. I liked Rand and Ron's original amendments better, they were more airtight. But at least they'd be wrong according to a proper interpretation of this stuff.
These guys that are freaking out over this are doing it from a "worst case scenario" position, which is understandable but we're still in a better position than we were before this bill.
Ventura 2012
No it doesn't lol
That's what the initial reports looked like but it seems it was all bullshit. It in fact does nothing to stop them from anything.. all it has managed is to remain vague and confusing just enough to fool most people.
There are a couple of articles and videos out explaining it. Maybe spend some time reading those.
Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.
I did read them and I'm
I did read them and the ACTUAL BILL. I'm taking the Bar Exam this summer. I disagree with the people that think this bill doesnt do what it says it does.
Ventura 2012
Well well well I'm an uber lawyer on wall street.. yeah that's
the ticket.. Yeah yeah and I was an adviser on the new Grecko movie!! yeah YEAH that's it.
I don't care what you say or how you name drop... it's pretty plain that the idea was to use a little smoke to blur the truth.
He went from no NDAA 2012 to.. okay okay.. I'll give you some "killing of US citizens" trading cards for one of your "I can be president" cards.. Deal? Deal!
I think you have a long way to go before you're up to military law. What's your expertise anyway? Hang around the emergency room for practice?
Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.
it isn't const law
i can tell you that,this lawyer wannabe makes a habit
of disregarding posts where he loses the argument
i debunked his drama with a series of questions he never answered
deacon
IS AN A-NARCHIST ONE WHO PRACTICES THE ART OF SQUEALING?