Rand Paul filibusters Senate to fight NDAA Indefinite Military Detention.

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   
If you remember, it was this time last year when the NDAA 2012 was passed and DUE PROCESS, an American RIGHT was legally stripped from us.

No wonder Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) wants to get rid of the filibuster, so they can shove legislation down our throats and directly bypass Constitutional defenders (like Rand Paul) without worry of any actual resistance.

reason.com...



Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is holding up a vote on the Defense Authorization Act until he gets a vote on his amendment affirming the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution and the indefinite detention of Americans.

Paul is seeking an agreement in principle to get a vote on his amendment when the Senate takes up the defense authorization bill that funds and sets the agenda for the U.S. military....

Paul’s amendment would give American citizens being held by the military rights to a fair trial with a jury of peers and the right to confront the witnesses against him or her.



Paul's Amendment that he filibustered for.


“A citizen of the United States who is 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 defense,” the amendment states.



I guess there is no video up from today's filibuster but here is Rand from last year fighting the indefinite detention provision.




posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Any other time... ANY other time at all and I would applaud him loudly and with enthusiasm. This, however, is the short time they have to work with the House and get something done about the Jan 2 train wreck.

Dems are absolutely wrong if THEY play politics and so what does that leave to say about him? He's different? Oh heck no.... They both need to put the party garbage aside, which is what this is for the timing of it, and fix something they assured the nation was going to be fixed a LONG time ago. Tick-Tock and the deadline that never should have actually remained is almost here ....and I haven't heard them talk about curtailing their Christmas recess for something as petty as the crash they both helped to put in motion.


A BIG BIG fail on anyone in Office playing politics until the sequestration issues are settled and buried as any viable scenario. Right now, they are a 100% certainty and it really IS serious enough to make even the NDAA issue a runner up in priority, IMO.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


It isn't really all that serious, it is but it also isn't. Going over the fiscal cliff isn't like a real cliff but a series of periodic drops really. It does have to be taken care of and with some expediency but do not expect it to get completely solved before the Christmas break. All they really have to do between now and then is show the markets they do infact mean business in dealing with it and that they can in fact get it done. As to the filibuster rules, Reid is not proposing getting rid of it altogether. However there are plans to change how it works so that it is not abused as completely as it has been by both parties for the last two decades this is a good thing.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


So bypass any resistance to their authoritarian legislation, for the sake of convenience?

Ever thought that might be what all this theatre is meant to do?



edit on 16-11-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
I can only say what I said in another thread on this subject:




I'd be interested to see how this shakes out. The last time around, the language was so vague that a lot of the reps who voted for it could pretend (and thus lie to their constitutents) that it said the opposite of what it actually said. So I'd like to see whether they're willing to positively affirm the principles of the 6th Amendment....



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


So bypass any resistance to their authoritarian legislation, for the sake of convenience?

Ever thought that might be what all this theatre is meant to do?



edit on 16-11-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)


...I think you've hit it precisely on the head. We'll learn a lot from which way these cowardly curs jump....



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 

Is there absolutely no sense of priority? I dislike the NDAA provisions as much as anyone but Rand Paul hasn't even mentioned the Black Sites still operating the last I heard anything said about the whole thing at all. So how serious can it really be to get something meaningful done in the days remaining if the meaningful side that gives it teeth isn't even mentioned?

On the other hand, this IS holding up the work every last one of them ought to be doing to do their jobs as required. Either side is perfectly capable of playing politics right off the deep end for timing or context, IMO. In this case, it's all about timing and the fact there is very little left in the "Congressional year" for time they will do anything.

Priorities have to be set when one threat has been ongoing for quite some time and isn't getting worse right this second, yet the other problem has a date certain for the first impacts. It is what drove the legally required mailing of layoff notices by defense contractors immediately after the election. (They were going out regardless of who won....THIS mess is Congress's first and foremost. They wrote it...they failed to fix it..and they're playing games about it now.
)
edit on 16-11-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Even if the NDAA was totally negated, the Military Commissions Acts of 2006 and 2009 would still allow indefinite detention of people deemed to be "enemy combatants" - including those of US citizenship.

~Heff



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


But the point, to me, is that we would like to have our "representatives" affirm that they support the principle....



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

Even if the NDAA was totally negated, the Military Commissions Acts of 2006 and 2009 would still allow indefinite detention of people deemed to be "enemy combatants" - including those of US citizenship.

~Heff
while what you say is true ... there is a definitive difference between the provisions of NDAA vs the legal definition of enemy combatant.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
But the point, to me, is that we would like to have our "representatives" affirm that they support the principle....


Much like the vote in 2010 maintaining that 'In God We Trust' is still our national motto? Or that the constitution be read at the beginning of the new legislative session?

It doesn't mean anything, it just makes you feel good. The NDAA non-sense is garbage and Rand Paul is chasing nothing.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
But the point, to me, is that we would like to have our "representatives" affirm that they support the principle....

The NDAA non-sense is garbage and Rand Paul is chasing nothing.


It is rather disappointing that you say blatant disregard to the Constitution is "non-sense" and "garbage".

Due process is worth fighting for, unless you're for tyranny of course.



posted on Nov, 16 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


Really? Where in the NDAA does it say that? Can you point out the wording? Probably not, that's ok though. This is America. The nation where non-Americans don't have rights. Especially illegal aliens.



posted on Nov, 17 2012 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


Really? Where in the NDAA does it say that? Can you point out the wording? Probably not, that's ok though. This is America. The nation where non-Americans don't have rights. Especially illegal aliens.


Looks like you missed the boat on this one, judge already asked obama if he was using this unconstitutional provision and his admin refused to answer...TWICE.

I hope you don't think the patriot act doesn't violate privacy either.






top topics



 
4

log in

join