51 votes

Rand Paul Did Not Vote For The NDAA Fa 2013

People that are saying that the NDAA passed 98-0 for 2013 are 100% WRONG!

The FINAL bill passed December 21st 2012 by a vote of 81-14.

Rand SLAMMED the bill in this article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/ndaa-indefinite-det...

Here is a list of the YEAs and NAYs to help it sink in.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/s229

I'm all for skepticism and keeping Rand honest, but let's be accurate in our charges.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Thank you! That one piece of information

should cause folks to think before they post. This is especially true when 1)one is uncertain of the facts before one posts, and 2) it reflects negatively on someone who is a known friend of freedom.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Bump

.

Rand presented it, McCain killed it

Glad he stuck to his principles.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/20/ndaa-amendment-designed-to...

"One resists the invasion of armies; one does not resist the invasion of ideas" Victor Hugo

sharkhearted's picture

BUMP

~

~Chris
Norfolk, VA

Time to INVESTIGATE the investigators of 9/11. PROSECUTE the prosecutors. EXPOSE the cover-up.

The darkest day of the year is 12/21.

How fitting is that? And it is no accident in my opinion.

No.7's picture

bump. +1

.

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

Thanks for the info.

Thanks for the info.

wow

Minnesota
Nay D Franken, Al

Senator Al Franken Stands Against NDAA Abuses
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/12/17/al-franken-stands-ag...

Apparently, this was explained back in December...

Right after the earlier bill passed unanimously Rand pointed out that it wasn't the final bill and there was a pretty good thread that had a response from Justin Amash as well.

http://www.dailypaul.com/265603/rand-paul-explains-ndaa-vote...

SteveMT's picture

Thanks for correcting the misinformation.

Appreciated.

This old divisive thread was made 'read only.' Done deal.
http://www.dailypaul.com/265238/ndaa-2013-passes-senate-98-0

Earlier version of the bill that had an amendment to ensure

that a U.S. citizen could not be indefinitely detained without a public trial by jury. Basically an affirmation of the 5th amendment. This early version of the bill, on December 4th, with the amendment passed unanimously. Later the amendment was stripped by McCain and that's when the final version passed on December 21st by a vote of 81-14 with Rand and Mike Lee opposing it.

Incorrect.

The Feinstein/Lee Amendment, legally, did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to protect Americans from indefinite detention, as the stipulation stating as such was in the section title, NOT the body of the legislation, which, by verdict of the Supreme Court, is not legally enforceable. It's nothing more than a clever political sleight of hand. Ben Swann has a superb breakdown of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWGcyatZt-A

Rand voted for MULTIPLE iterations of the 2013 NDAA, full well knowing that they could have passed, solely on the basis of an amendment that did nothing to protect Americans.

Don't get me wrong, I'm incredibly happy that Rand ultimately voted against the NDAA for 2013, but it's like John Kerry '04 all over again. "I was for it before I was against it," yadda yadda. Not to mention that any one of those bills that he DID vote for, one of which didn't even include the Feinstein/Lee Amendment, (which, again, does nothing,) very well could have passed.

I've been fairly vocal on DP about my distrust of Rand Paul, but I'll say this: I genuinely hope I'm wrong about him. That being said, all you hard-working patriots in the Rand Paul camp, PLEASE don't let him off so easily! Sanctions on Iran, trying to arrest journalists for asking him about Bilderberg, and this whole NDAA 2013 debacle... hold his feet to the fire. Get answers, guys, and best of luck to you in doing so.

(Preparing for downvotes in 3, 2, 1...)

"The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."
-Frederic Bastiat
www.cerebralindustrialcomplex.com

No

This is speculation. Some thought the Finestein Lee amendment did enough, others did not. It's ok to disagree. But to say it did nothing is false.

Sorry to inform you...

...but Supreme Court rulings aren't speculative. For better or worse, they're the law of the land.

"The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."
-Frederic Bastiat
www.cerebralindustrialcomplex.com

Okay, thank you hogsfan.

I am glad that he did not.

But even though he did not, my fears about his views on foreign policy are the same. If the only reason he did not vote for the second version is because of the indefinite detention for Americans but he still is in support of the wars and military spending than nothing really changes in my mind. He is basically a neocon-lite. He is mediocre on civil liberties (drug war), and basically bad on foreign policy. And he is in support of the Mack Penny Plan, which he now claims is his, that would not see a balanced budget for 10 years. Hmmmm.

Let the down-voting commence. Eternal vigilance not allowed on DP. Opposing viewpoints should be stomped-out by down-voting ostracism.

Well I would

hardly call Rand neocon-lite, he isn't hawkish in the least. The penny plan isn't a bad plan, Dr. Paul wanted to balance the budget in 2-3 years. This is way more austerity then he could ever get support for from congress or most of the people. Look at how these people are screaming about sequestration and it's a pathetic cut in the rate of growth. Rand voted "NO" for NDAA the military spending bill. Rand doesn't even want to make military money selling old fighter jets to Egypt. He did vote for one of those rounds of sanctions on Iran, however I haven't looked at what exactly they entailed so I can't judge too harshly on that yet. Although, sanctions are bad umm-kay.

The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it-Andrew Jackson

Thanks for the civil discourse, MUB. I like that...'MUB'

Yeah, at least is is outspoken on some items. I think all the fuss on the sequestration is scare tactics by the PTB. We basically live in a Phobiocracy, rule by fear.

Rand voted yes for military spending, but no for indefinite detention. There were 18 other Senators that also voted 'no' for indefinite detention, but yes to appropriations. So Rand does not really even stand out. I deduced this by looking at the two versions of the bill.

He voted for two rounds of Iranian sanctions.

As for the spending. Come on. 95% of it is ridiculous! And Rand does did not vote to cut any. He voted for the Dec. 4th version of the bill, which was what was requested.

But don't get me wrong. I am really trying to see what all the hurrah is about. I wished he was as good as his dad. For me, he just isn't.

And another thing. I think that in Kentucky, you can only run for one office at a time. So you guys need to think if you would rather have him in the Senate learning, or go bye bye.

I will keep watching from the bleachers.

He is NOT as good as his dad

I don't think he's as good as his dad for sure. I just don't think he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. I could be proven wrong in the future however, and I hope I'm not.

kudos!

That is good!

Although

Although Rand did make a mistake by not having the amendment looked at by the proper constitutional lawyers. Because had the bill not been stripped of the amendment and passed on to the president Rand would have unknowingly supported an amendment that did nothing. I'm sure he was assured by Feinstien that the amendment did what it was suppose to do. We found out from Ben Swann that it didn't mean anything because of a Supreme Court ruling on how amendments had to be written. I hope this was a lesson learned by Rand. Here's a link to Ben's investigation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWGcyatZt-A

The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it-Andrew Jackson

I hope so too!

With his recent filibuster next time will be much more important. He will have a lot more clout to get a bill or amendment passed that will really squash the indefinite detention clause.

Rand did not vote for final ndaa.

Thanks for the clarification, hogsfan90.

I knew that today was going to be a good day. I felt it this morning :-)

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

what is funny is that a lot of the disinfo and

divide and conquer posts are from members that have been registered for a few years. Could be trolls created during the 2008 campaign.

This site tolerates NEOCON shills. In fact it now promotes them.

Only the DP grassroots holds them accountable as the mods allow the known NEOCON shills to re-post at will.

This a new way of business for the DailyPaul.

No matter if I agreed or

No matter if I agreed or disagreed with anyone's views I would NEVER want this site to silence people. Michael has done a great job of leaving it up to us as individuals to defend our own ideas no matter what the subject and that's pretty rare in a forum.

If they started to delete post of certain views I wouldn't post in here any longer, so props to Big Mike :) lol

"I would NEVER want this site to silence people."

Me neither.

Rand still has a lot to prove. Somehow I seemed to have missed this vote. I am glad that the correction has been made. I want accuracy, plain and simple.

If there was no discussion, or everything was one sided, I would no longer visit here. I have learned so much by being here, and will continue to do so.

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

So was the disinfo designed to thwart state legislatures.

What was the other DP post referring to?

Free includes debt-free!

It was a post from December 4th 2012

There was an amendment that was supposed to do away with the indefinite detention clause in an earlier version of the bill, that bill passed unanimously 98-0. The post was made right after that bill passed. But later in the month the amendment was modified and eventually removed. Rand opposed the final bill as well as a few of the other constitutional republicans and a few democrats. The final bill passed 81-14 on December 21st