It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rand Paul helps defeat S. 1867 bill.

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Looks like Rand Paul scored a nice victory if I'm reading this right. Sorry if this was posted. Good to see there are still real people in congress.




Tonight, Sen. Rand Paul prevented the passage of an amendment that would have further eroded Americans' constitutional rights. Offered to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012 (S.1867), amendment No. 1274 would have allowed the U.S. government to detain an American citizen indefinitely, even after they had been tried and found not guilty, until Congress declares an end to the war on terror.


paul.senate.gov...

EDIT to add.

Is there any way we can see who voted in favor or against this bill?

edit on 1-12-2011 by mayabong because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
One for the good guys! Thank goodness we have guard dogs like Rand and Ron Paul to watch out for us.

/TOA



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Please let this be true
this bill is down right evil and has been giving me anxiety me all day
I just can't stomach how criminally corrupt our Representative are.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mayabong
 


My dude. I had serious reservations about voting for Rand, but so far he's come through.

Edit.. So what is the real status on this thing?
edit on 2-12-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   
It seems that Paul may be tooting his horn a bit much.

Senators ultimately reached an agreement to amend the bill to make clear it's not the bill's intent to allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and others legally residing in the country.

"It would provide the assurance that we are not adversely affecting the rights of American citizens in this language," Levin said while expressing support for the compromise.

"It supports present law," Feinstein added.

www.cnn.com...
The language was clarified but apparently the armed forces are still required to deal with the bums.



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   
That's funny,
CNN has an article on the front page saying it passed 93-7.
link



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
That's funny,
CNN has an article on the front page saying it passed 93-7.
link


I'm very confused.

edit on 1-12-2011 by mayabong because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
It seems that Paul may be tooting his horn a bit much.

Senators ultimately reached an agreement to amend the bill to make clear it's not the bill's intent to allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and others legally residing in the country.

"It would provide the assurance that we are not adversely affecting the rights of American citizens in this language," Levin said while expressing support for the compromise.

"It supports present law," Feinstein added.

www.cnn.com...
The language was clarified but apparently the armed forces are still required to deal with the bums.

C'mon Phage, you have to be smart enough to realize that the bill was passed in its full form...It might say in the text that American Citizens can't be detained without habeus corpus, or a trial by jury of peers, but it's safe to say that there is a clause, some would say loophole, that allows American Citizens to lose 2 of their constitutional rights under specific circumstances. They just worded it in a way that it will take some time before most people realize what's been done.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


Guess I posted too soon. Sorry guys.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 

Why not wait until the final form of the amendment is available and then see what it actually says?

And oh yes...It's not yet a law.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by mayabong
reply to post by Ghost375
 


Guess I posted too soon. Sorry guys.


No. It seems Rand Paul did.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by mayabong
 


Another misleading thread title -- the bill was not defeated only the amendment....

Either way, here is the link to the proposed Amendments and who voted "nay" and "yea"....Roll Call for Amdt. 1274

Oh and nice to see Phage in the Politico scene and [not only] telling us how the stars and planets go round and round---in apparent motion of course!
edit on 2-12-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-12-2011 by ownbestenemy because: added a missing statement



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 
First case where you [that is if you are a US citizen by birth or by right] are deemed a non citizen, the first giving aid to the enemy, or support there of...
the Second one is the willful act of wanting to do harm , knowingly partaking in the act or committing the act it self, but first they, the US GOV have to prove this.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
That's funny,
CNN has an article on the front page saying it passed 93-7.
link


That is because the thread title is incorrect -- It should read "Rand Paul helps defeat Amendment 1274 of S. 1867 bill"

The bill itself did pass but still has to be reconciled with the House version -- in which I believe no such language or subsection is in the H.R. bill. Good news here is the House can look like heroes if they reject that section flat out.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 

Thanks, just trying to add (or find) some clarity.

The amendment was rejected. Yet we have this:

Senators ultimately reached an agreement to amend the bill to make clear it's not the bill's intent to allow for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens and others legally residing in the country.

www.cnn.com...

So it's not dead? It's going back to committee? To the floor? What the hell are they doing?

edit on 12/2/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Those interested in Amendment 1274 text you can find it below: Congressional Record


AMENDMENT NO. 1274
(Purpose: To clarify the disposition under the law of war of persons detained by the Armed Forces of the United States pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force)

On page 360, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:

(5) Notwithstanding disposition under paragraph (2) or (3), further detention under the law of war until the end of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.


The amendment was voted on as presented and failed to pass.

If you want to know what it would have amended that would be found by going to S. 1867 (PDF from GPO site), page 360.

As the proposed (and failed) amendment states: they wanted to insert text:

If the amendment were to have passed it would have read:

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
(5) Notwithstanding disposition under paragraph (2) or (3), further detention under the law of war until the end of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

That is all it would have done if it didn't fail to pass.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by mayabong


Is there any way we can see who voted in favor or against this bill?

edit on 1-12-2011 by mayabong because: (no reason given)



61 senators

The names of your seditious Senators are as follow:

Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Brown (R-MA)
Burr (R-NC)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lee (R-UT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lugar (R-IN)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Moran (R-KS)
Nelson (D-NE)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Thune (R-SD)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Source



Hope that helps, am looking for the list of all who rejected it.
edit on 2-12-2011 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


No that is just poor reporting. The bill is passed and has an amendment buried somewhere (thanks CNN for taking the time to not give reference to the amendment). Looks like a long night of scouring the amendments to find this "compromise".

Currently the bill is now awaiting reconciliation with the House bill H.R. 1540; in which as I have stated, I do not believe has any language close to the section in question. This will lead to either a heated debate over the text or not -- no one can tell with the lackeys that occupy Washington.

Post Script:
I also do not know how long it takes for the Congressional Record portion of Thomas Library of Congress takes to update: I show no new movement with amendments since 11/30 and this was supposedly a "last-minute" compromise.
edit on 2-12-2011 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by dreamingawake
 


See my first post here -- it has the "NAY" and "YEA" and you can sort and do all sorts of fun stuff without relying on a third-party website for the information.



posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 

Do you know what the reconciliation process entails?
How far back does the process go?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join