Sen. Paul filibusters defense bill [NDAA]

Wait, so people CAN'T be held indefinitely by their Government without trial? Where do we think we are? America?!

Thanks Rand Paul, at least you didn't bow down to the Republican party to further your career... again.

Originally posted by shelookslikeone
Wait, so people CAN'T be held indefinitely by their Government without trial? Where do we think we are? America?!

Thanks Rand Paul, at least you didn't bow down to the Republican party to further your career... again.

Yes sit back and preach while you do absolutely nothing, just like the rest of the nation.

Originally posted by shelookslikeone
Wait, so people CAN'T be held indefinitely by their Government without trial? Where do we think we are? America?!

Thanks Rand Paul, at least you didn't bow down to the Republican party to further your career... again.

Yeah... the courts recently ruled the section did not apply to US citizens and of course the Obama administration is appealing that ruling. This has actually ben resolved several times over now, starting with the Military Commission Act of 2006, the Jose Padillia fiasco etc etc etc.. In all of those cases the courts ruled US Citizens are NOT subject to military law and cannot be denied their constitutional rights.

with that being said there is no provision in the Constitution that specifically prevents the military from engaging in civilian law enforcement functions. The Posse Commitatus Act came around at the end of the civil war during reconstruction. That act is specific and has been amended to include other branches of the military as time went forward. Becase that act was passed by Congress, Congress can change or even repeal it, granting the authority to the military.

It has never applied to state guard / militia units as those units answer directly to the Governor of the State and adjutant general of that state. There was an executive order thaty stripped that ability, and all 50 state governors objected. That executive order (Obama) expired this past September and has not been renewed.

The military has no business arresting and prosecuting a US citizen inside the United states. The courts have ruled on this time and again and I support those rulings limiting the militaries abilities to venture into this realm.

For those who are concerned be heard.. contact your reps and let them know how you feel. It takes as much time to write them as it does to post on these forums.

Be heard... get involved...participate in YOUR government.

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by shelookslikeone
Wait, so people CAN'T be held indefinitely by their Government without trial? Where do we think we are? America?!

Thanks Rand Paul, at least you didn't bow down to the Republican party to further your career... again.

Yes sit back and preach while you do absolutely nothing, just like the rest of the nation.

There's a difference between sitting back and doing nothing and actually making the problem worse to further your career... and then pulling the classic "run away from the camera" politician when someone confronts him on it. There isn't much Rand Paul can do to fix his reputation when it comes to a lot of the people that supported his father. It was like a slap in the face and we all got reminded that Rand will never be Ron.

Originally posted by shelookslikeone

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by shelookslikeone
Wait, so people CAN'T be held indefinitely by their Government without trial? Where do we think we are? America?!

Thanks Rand Paul, at least you didn't bow down to the Republican party to further your career... again.

Yes sit back and preach while you do absolutely nothing, just like the rest of the nation.

There's a difference between sitting back and doing nothing and actually making the problem worse to further your career... and then pulling the classic "run away from the camera" politician when someone confronts him on it. There isn't much Rand Paul can do to fix his reputation when it comes to a lot of the people that supported his father. It was like a slap in the face and we all got reminded that Rand will never be Ron.

YOU got a slap in the face because you put too much of your eggs into one basket.

It is what happens when people 'BELIEVE' and not 'DO'.

You obviously are so disappointed in a political figure that he is on your mind more than the topic at hand, which is military indefinite detention and due process.

No better than those who just hate Obama because he is Obama and not for his policies, same with Dubya Bush.

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by shelookslikeone

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by shelookslikeone
Wait, so people CAN'T be held indefinitely by their Government without trial? Where do we think we are? America?!

Thanks Rand Paul, at least you didn't bow down to the Republican party to further your career... again.

Yes sit back and preach while you do absolutely nothing, just like the rest of the nation.

There's a difference between sitting back and doing nothing and actually making the problem worse to further your career... and then pulling the classic "run away from the camera" politician when someone confronts him on it. There isn't much Rand Paul can do to fix his reputation when it comes to a lot of the people that supported his father. It was like a slap in the face and we all got reminded that Rand will never be Ron.

YOU got a slap in the face because you put too much of your eggs into one basket.

It is what happens when people 'BELIEVE' and not 'DO'.

You obviously are so disappointed in a political figure that he is on your mind more than the topic at hand, which is military indefinite detention and due process.

No better than those who just hate Obama because he is Obama and not for his policies, same with Dubya Bush.

And yet you refuse to call the man out for what he's done and seem to take more offense to the criticism rather than the actual actions this cheat actually committed. I made my point about the NDAA and I think Xcarth is spot on with his analysis. There's not much more that needs to be said. But I dislike Rand Paul because of Rand Paul's actions, not because Rand Paul is Rand Paul and certainly not because he is NOT Ron Paul.

reply to post by shelookslikeone


What actions? The only "bad" action I have heard about was his "endorsement" of romney. That was after Ron prettymuch gave up. I don't think Ron even wanted to be president, I am pretty sure he made up his mind to get out of politics already, why do you think he didn't bother running for his seat? He would have won it again if he chose to. He is old.

I admit, I haven't been following Rand too close, so what are all these vague actions?

Originally posted by lspilot6946
If only more people weren't afraid to stand up to this then this wouldve been killed a long time ago. Way to go Rand Paul. Hopefully something comes of it.

No doubt you're right on this (NDAA) issue.

But I have not heard a single individual stand up and ask Rand Paul why he voted with Monsanto on GMO labeling. That issue is at least as important as the NDAA problem. A recent Russian experiment indicated that GMO poisons caused sterility in the third generation.

This whole hairball of dirty government ties into yet another issue -- secession!

reply to post by jcarpenter


Well, here is what Ron had to say about it.

"The federal government lacks constitutional authority to mandate labeling of products containing genetically-modified food. Furthermore, those who do not wish to consume genetically-modified products should be leery of federally-mandated labeling because history shows that federal regulatory agencies are susceptible to ‘capture,’ where the regulators end up serving the interest of the business they are supposed to control. In the case of labeling, federal agencies could redefine the meaning of ‘modified’ to allow genetically-engineered food on the market without fully-informing consumers of the presence of genetically- engineered ingredients. Instead of federal regulation, consumers should demand that manufactures provide full information and refuse to buy those products that are not fully labeled. Once producers see there is a demand for non-genetically-engineered products they will act to fulfill that demand. Of course, makers of genetically-engineered food should be held legally responsible if they fraudulently market their products or harm anyone." - Ron Paul

Sounds pretty spot on to me.

And from Rand:

"I am an opponent of the FDA's war on natural foods and farmers. I've stood up for raw milk, hemp and natural supplements. I fought to take power AWAY from the government on these issues. So while there is evidence we should be concerned about GMOs, we should also be careful not to lose our constitutional perspective simply because the end result is one we may desire. That's what we fight against. That's what the statists do. Take a loot at a pretty thorough rundown on the recent GMO amendment. There were many more problems with it, including the potential the FDA could have assumed broad new rulemaking authority if this badly written amendment had passed."

Source

Thanks for sharing!

Past or future is not the present, & right Now, what this man is doing is standing for liberty.
Good to him and his father~


“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever does.” Margret Mead

∞LOVE
mayallsoulsbefree∞

good for him



gonna watch this

i voted for Obama and i'm left of center, but i agree with this amendment 100%...this should be a basic right for all americans, left, right, blue, red, orange, green...doesn't matter. this supercedes any and all parts of the NDAA bill.

reply to post by shelookslikeone


You keep saying 'call him out for what he has done', but you aren't really calling him out for anything. You mentioned his refusing to answer a question on camera (Romney endorsement), but I'm not sure how that makes him unqualified. He did what he had to do, it doesn't change his policy and it doesn't necessarily make him a sellout (Ron personally likes Romney a lot as a person).

When you can get down to actual policy, which if you support Ron Paul for policy you won't find much different, then you can talk about needing to call him out. Rand has been nothing but great for the liberty movement.

Originally posted by shelookslikeone

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by shelookslikeone

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by shelookslikeone
Wait, so people CAN'T be held indefinitely by their Government without trial? Where do we think we are? America?!

Thanks Rand Paul, at least you didn't bow down to the Republican party to further your career... again.

Yes sit back and preach while you do absolutely nothing, just like the rest of the nation.

There's a difference between sitting back and doing nothing and actually making the problem worse to further your career... and then pulling the classic "run away from the camera" politician when someone confronts him on it. There isn't much Rand Paul can do to fix his reputation when it comes to a lot of the people that supported his father. It was like a slap in the face and we all got reminded that Rand will never be Ron.

YOU got a slap in the face because you put too much of your eggs into one basket.

It is what happens when people 'BELIEVE' and not 'DO'.

You obviously are so disappointed in a political figure that he is on your mind more than the topic at hand, which is military indefinite detention and due process.

No better than those who just hate Obama because he is Obama and not for his policies, same with Dubya Bush.

And yet you refuse to call the man out for what he's done and seem to take more offense to the criticism rather than the actual actions this cheat actually committed. I made my point about the NDAA and I think Xcarth is spot on with his analysis. There's not much more that needs to be said. But I dislike Rand Paul because of Rand Paul's actions, not because Rand Paul is Rand Paul and certainly not because he is NOT Ron Paul.

I refused to do what now?

I've been satisfied with almost all of his voting record.

How is Rand Paul a cheat? What actions did he 'commit' to make him a 'cheat' like you so claimed?

You keep dancing around the topic so out with it or DROP it.

Originally posted by jimmyx
i voted for Obama and i'm left of center, but i agree with this amendment 100%...this should be a basic right for all americans, left, right, blue, red, orange, green...doesn't matter. this supercedes any and all parts of the NDAA bill.

Its good to know where you stand but...

What do you have to say about Obama wanting the specific indefinite detainment provisions and then appealing the courts TWICE when it was declared unconstitutional?

Doesn't voting for Obama = advocating this policy?

reply to post by eLPresidente


Cult of personality around the Pauls, please get off it.

Originally posted by pianopraze

Sen. Paul filibusters defense bill [NDAA]

thehill.com< br />

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.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This sounds like nothing more then grand standing.
How many of you know what the 6th Amendment says?

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime 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.

All Paul is doing is holding up a funding bill for national defense. The issues he's having were already passed last year. Now whats his issue? Is he going to undo the AUMF? (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrists) Ron Paul voted yea on this ( AS SEEN HERE )

As an American we have rights to be protected against unlawful acts, but if an American decides to turn it's back on us why should they still get protection under the Constitution? (or do you all feel that people like Anwar al-Aulaqi should still be counted as American?)

reply to post by braane1


He endorsed Mitt Romney = instant shill status
Voted for Iran sanctions = war monger
Tried to use federal power to stop abortions while claiming to be a small government, anti-federalist, states rights type of guy = hypocrite
Against gay marriage but claims to be for liberty = more hypocrisy
Claims to be a small gov, free market type of guy but is steady requesting earmarks = corporate shill, hypocrite

lol......come to think of it. He IS just like his father. Rather identical really, minus the Romney endorsing.

I'll regret posting this because arguing with ##SNIPPED##...they are like arguing with religious people.... they have to find out the truth on their own, you cannot convince them. The mental conditioning is just too much to break. I can only hope half of them will look back a year from now and realize this reality.

You know, I've supported Ron Paul in the past, but I'm starting to see this sheep like mentality now that I saw with Obama in 08. How this guy and his family can do wrong. How even when they do slip up, the sheep come out in droves to defend him. I guess in any other forum you would call people like this a fanboy?

It's okay to call people out on their mistakes...

I'm a little confused on this, so if someone could shed some light on the subject for me, but i thought Obama already signed the NDAA into law like back in December or January. This says Defense Authorization Act but not National Defense and talks about paying the military bills. Is this the same thing?