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