Senate passes defense bill with Defeat of Detainee Amendment

Sen. Paul Statement on Defeat of Detainee Amendment

Dec 1, 2011

WASHINGTON, D.C. -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.

"Suspicion of committing a crime should lead to your attempted prosecution. If the evidence does not support conviction, it would be against everything we believe in and fight for in America to still allow the government to imprison you at their whim," Sen. Paul said. "Tonight, a blow was struck to fight back against those who would take our liberty."

The amendment would have passed by voice vote, but this tactic was blocked by Sen. Paul's objection. He then forced a roll call vote, in which the amendment was defeated, 41-59.

http://paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=399

Senate passes defense bill with detainee policy compromise

By Ted Barrett, CNN

updated 9:24 PM EST, Thu December 1, 2011

Senate Armed Services leaders Carl Levin, left, and John McCain agreed to a compromise on detention of U.S. citizens

Washington (CNN)-- The Senate on Thursday passed a giant defense bill that includes a new policy for detaining and trying suspected al Qaeda terrorists -- a policy that attracted controversy during the debate and may draw a presidential veto.

The defense authorization bill passed by a vote of 93-7.

In keeping with budget cuts across the government, the $662 billion bill shrinks Pentagon spending by $43 billion from last year. It includes funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and sets policies for the various weapons systems and personnel programs at the Defense Department.

Senate debate

Sen. Paul earlier this week introduced an amendment to formally end the war in Iraq. Despite the fact that troops will be removed from Iraq at the end of this year, the amendment failed 30-67.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/01/politics/senate-detainee-policy/?hpt=hp_t1

4 members like this

‹ Previous
1
2
Next ›

Comment

You need to be a member of 12160 to add comments!

Join 12160

Comment by Robert L. Fallin on December 4, 2011 at 3:17pm: If you live in one of the 18 states that allow recall of US Senators, I suggest you get started.

http://www.uscitizensassociation.com/pdfs/Recalling%20U.S.%20Senato...

If not, I suggest you petition your state legislature to allow recall. After all, one the legislation passes, you can still recall the Senators even though they committed the treason BEFORE the legislature changed the law. This is not "ex post facto," in that treason is already a criminal offense. Remember, there won't be any polling places in secret prisons or internment camps.

Comment by Anonymiss Express on December 4, 2011 at 3:14pm

I've seen the schoolyard boys and biker clubs fighting each other. My conclusions:

Everything you ever needed to know about warfare you learned in the school yard at kindergarten.
Strategists believe that they can conduct limited strikes and keep them limited, but in reality they operate under a “use it or lose it” philosophy.
Strategists do not choose to include “whatever can go wrong, will go wrong” alias "guaranteed to solve every minor problem by turning it into a major disaster" into their strategising.

http://anonymissexpress.tumblr.com/post/12754369884/some-schoolyard... I was kidding when I wrote that, but have been tracking the news and to my great amazement and dismay, these patterns also seem to apply on a world scale between nations. Doh! They never read Szun Tzu I guess.

So maybe those patterns apply for this context too. Hence I have been and am calling for creative civil disobedience tactics in a crossfire manner. We are with more, way more people. And, if and when we have exhausted all of the peaceful means, we'll be with more people and ...

The consensus seemed to be that if really large numbers of men were sent to storm the mountain, then enough might survive the rocks to take the citadel. This is essentially the basis of all military thinking. ~TP

More seriously, I don't ask men to fight for my freedom. I can do that myself or I'll die trying, if only because there's the infamous rescuer -> perpetrator -> victim triangle that seems to run people's lives in Western society (The "rescuer" often becomes the next "perpetrator", and then deposed and "victimised" by the next "rescuer").

If people just stop giving away their power to rescuers and simply leave the war-work-machine, there is no victim? And what is a perpetrator without victim? Or a rescuer (the king is dead, long live the next king) for that matter? Where will the tax money for government come from if people simply refuse to pay? And what if we stop consuming all the big junk corps produce? Undercut all of the arrogation and appropriation by simple resources that we can find all around us?

Comment by SJ on December 4, 2011 at 12:13pm: I'm not convinced that the track record of "peaceful protest" is very encouraging.

Nevertheless, I do feel a moral obligation to exhaust every peaceful means of making change before considerimg the use of force. Nothing "pussified" about that, and I suspect that people who seem so anxious to let the shooting start have never seen a dead man up close. Force should be a last resort, always. It may come to that, and if it does, it does. I hope not.

But, as I said, history doesn't paint an optimistic picture.

liberty & justice,

sj

Comment by Anonymiss Express on December 3, 2011 at 3:51pm: Some twitter IDs for senators who voted for/against S1867 Defense - Past...

Comment by James Φοίνιξ on December 2, 2011 at 6:31pm: What happened last night? this fight isn't over, ... language in th...

A message from Campaign For Liberty

Comment by allan fairbairn on December 2, 2011 at 3:49pm: the moment you divide the one, this current pass becomes inevitable...and must go through all the pain ,tilll the ocean of utter difference before the next identity[ the next... ONE]

Comment by Daniel Seigler on December 2, 2011 at 3:15pm

and yet, no one seems to have any objection to the military reserves being called to active duty instead of being left under state control where the emergency is taking place

Levin amendment #1219 (authority for military reserves to active duty to provide assistance in a disaster or emergency); agreed to by unanimous consent

and does anyone know what McCain's 'Cyber Security agreement' is about?

McCain amendment #1229 (cyber security agreement btw DoD and Dept of Homeland Security); Agreed to by Voice Vote

And if the NS waiver is still in effect, then doesn't that mean that the military can still get one to hold citizens indefinitely?

Rubio amendment #1290 (strike national security waiver authority for military custody); withdrawn

or, as we are not at war with Pakistan YET, why are we funding security forces there?

Corker amendment #1171 (prohibits funding of security forces in Pakistan); fell

was this one for or against the buying of domestic products?

Brown (OH) amendment #1259 (domestic manufactures to defense supply chain opportunities); fell

and so much for clearing out gitmo

Rubio amendment #1291 (strike national security waiver authority -Gitmo); fell

and the difference here is pretty minute, if you ask me. and THIS ONE is on topic with the article.

Feinstein amendment #1126 (prohibiting military authority to indefinitely detain US citizens); Not Agreed to: 45-55
Feinstein amendment #1456 (detainees); Agreed to: 99-1

Comment by Vincent L. Guarisco on December 2, 2011 at 11:27am: Yeah, it's a watered-down version of the original bill. Not as harsh, but it's still a slap in the face of every freedom loving American. The filthy dogs must pay for trying to subvert our constitution..

Comment by James Φοίνιξ on December 2, 2011 at 11:26am: Here is the link to see the list of traitors who voted "Yea" for this bill.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2011-218&sort...

Comment by James Φοίνιξ on December 2, 2011 at 11:17am: re what really happened last night:

Rand the only source ATM that I would follow, and there is this:

The bill would require military custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates and involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. American citizens would be exempt. The bill does allow the executive branch to waive the authority based on national security and hold a suspect in civilian custody. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2101270,00.html

Comment by TheBigWedding on December 2, 2011 at 10:42am: Excellent! However, We still need to educate people within the intelligence, police communities, and US citizens (the 99%) that:

1. the people who were involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11, London 7/7 and other contrived "strategy of tension" terror attacks designed to instill fear and provide the pretext for the police state;

2. are connected to the MSM "usual suspects" who continue to fan the flames of the so-called "war on terror", the Muslim boogie-man (destroy Palestine) agenda;

3. are part of the same groups of allied individuals who continue to contrive intelligence on the "war on terror";

4. are part of the same criminal groups pillaging the tax-payers, profiting from the "war on terror"

5. are part of the the same group of fraudsters using DHS grants to spy on and criminalize those opposed to them;

6. are connected to the corrupt politicians who propose, advocate legislation criminalizing the freedoms necessary to determine the identities of this same oligarchic clique now pillaging the world one nation state at a time, and transforming the world into a global gulag.

So, we need to the identify the individuals, countries comprising these groups, and throw these people in jail, rather than the American citizens opposed to this criminality.

Comment by Robert L. Fallin on December 2, 2011 at 9:38am: Funny, I must have misread this last night. I thought the amendment passed. This is great news.

Comment by Donna Volatile on December 2, 2011 at 8:28am: After watching our politicians debating this on the floor, my stomached turned and I was quite literally ill. Their discourse on just what constitutes an enemy combatant was chilling. Even though they passed Feinstein's watered down amendment, I do not feel over joyed. I found the language of her amendment almost identical to the original wording in the two sections of the bill. That is the reason the Republicans could overwhelmingly support the amendment. This is a dangerous farce.

Comment by Curtis on December 2, 2011 at 4:18am: 2 steps forward 1 step back

Comment by Freedomrox on December 2, 2011 at 12:52am: This means nothing, as the very same language is contained in 3 other bills before Congress and the Senate. There is a concerted effort to make all Americans the Enemy of the State, and held without Habeus Corpus, Trial, (as if you can get a fair one anymore), and the last time this happened THOUSANDS of Japanese Americans, (All Americans), were detained in camps.

God People, wake the HELL UP!

Comment by allan fairbairn on December 1, 2011 at 10:48pm: should be more of the prostitutes on the dole...rather than fomenting wars for others...to suffer in

Comment by Patty Volies on December 1, 2011 at 10:37pm: I LOVE EVERYONE , YOU'RE ALL HEROS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comment by Patty Volies on December 1, 2011 at 10:35pm: I'm So Proud of RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Also VERY THANKFUL TO EVERYONE THAT VOTED!!!!

Comment by Metalchemist on December 1, 2011 at 10:27pm: The picture above is of two TRAITORS to the citizens of this country.

1) They should have kept Juan McShame when he was a POW.

2) I really feel that If Juan McShame had been elected America would be in the exact same perdicament, Globalist minion's.

3) 98.9 % of the politicans in Washington and in the entire country are traitors to this country.

Ron Paul 2012 the ONLY candidate that gives a damn about this country and it's citizens.

Comment by SJ on December 1, 2011 at 10:25pm: Yeah.

Well, here's the thing. The protections in the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments don't just apply to "citizens." They apply to EVERYBODY.

You want to change it so only "citizens" have these recognized rights? No problem. They'll just come up with a way to strip the "suspected terrorist" of his/her citizenship, and permanent detention is just fine and dandy, eh?

Don't be a sap.

We can't let these bastards to that to ANYONE. Period.

If we do, sooner or later (and probably a lot sooner than we think) it's going to come back and bite us on the ass.

Remember how the "Patriot" act was just going to be used against "terrorists?" No problem. Now EVERYBODY who so much as farts during the national anthem is a "terrorist.

It's the ultimate slippery slope.

The only thing you can do is stay off of it.

liberty & justice,

sj