Comment: Rand Paul's NDAA amendment is much better than the Constitution

(See in situ)


Rand Paul's NDAA amendment is much better than the Constitution

I know some people on here love to bash Rand Paul but if you look at the constitution, Rand Paul's amendment is actually far superior than the constitution on this particular issue.

This is what the Constitution says "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.". This implies that the government has the right to capture anyone using the military or police or any other government agency anywhere and hold them indefenately without a trial or even a criminal charge without a writ if habeas corpus as long as there is a rebellion or invasion or even for public safety whatever that means. The constitution does NOT require a declared war to do so! The constitution also does NOT prevent the military from detaining citizens inside the United States either and even allows it for something as broad as "public safety." Even if you are allowed to file a writ of a habeous corpus this is nothing like having a trial with a jury, it's just a petition to a judge, most of which are denied anyway.

This is what Rand Paul's amendment says: "A citizen of the United States captured or arrested in the United States and detained by the Armed Forces of the United States pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

So what Rand's amendment is doing is preventing the government to use the military instead of the police from detaining people without giving them a fair trial in a civilian court or even charging them with a crime in the United States. If what you want is an amendment that says the military cant detain people in the United States, the only thing that would mean is they would use the police instead to detain people. The only difference Is you would have a right to a fair trial if the police arrested you. With Rand's amendment you'd have a right to a trial if you are captured by the military or by law enforcement. This is more than the constitution guarantees ... Obviously in some cases real terrorists should be arrested and put on trial. I'm not against that, neither is Ron or Rand Paul. What I'm against is using the military to get around the requirement for a fair trial... Something the constitution actually allows the military to do as long as there's an invasion or rebellion or even for "public safety.". Rand's amendment would put an end to that.