Rand Paul Challenges Obama's NDAA Military Detention of US Citizens without Trial

[system]

Rand Paul defends a US citizens’ right to trial by jury when accused of any crime, the right that Obama personally insisted you should not have.

Democratic Sen. Carl Levin revealing that indefinite military detention law should include US citizens: (D) Carl Levin on NDAA 'Obama Admin insisted on the contents' - YouTube

Quote:
 	 		 			 				**[Rand Paul's Petition for his New Amendment...](http://randpaul.com/f/stop-indefinite-detention?sr=rhf061015c)**

There is only one way to describe detaining a U.S. citizen indefinitely and denying trial by jury: Un-American.

If the federal government can arrest you, throw you in prison for years, and strip away your due process rights to prove your innocence, our Republic is sliding into dangerous territory.

That’s why I’m introducing – along with Senator Mike Lee and others - the Due Process Guarantee to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

This amendment blocks indefinite detention of American citizens without being charged and denying them a jury trial unless there is a vote in Congress.

Whereas: The fight over the indefinite detention of American citizens in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) strikes at the very heart of our fragile Republic; and

Whereas: It effectively GUTS the 6th Amendment of the Constitution. It places the freedom of every American citizen at the mercy of the federal government; and

Whereas: After the NSA’s spying scandals and the IRS targeting of conservative political organizations, Americans aren’t buying the argument any longer that our government won’t abuse its powers; and

Whereas: The federal government shouldn’t have the power to lock American citizens up and throw away the key – all without trial;

Therefore: I urge you to take action to support Senator Paul’s amendment to stop the indefinite detention of Americans and restore the 6th Amendment. WEBPAGE HERE

Report: Rand Paul single-handedly tries to stop NDAA

- YouTube

Sen. Rand Paul Objects To Indefinite Detention Language In NDAA - 12/21/12

[Rick_Kitchen]

Wasn’t the NDAA passed by a Republican majority?

[andros]

Reported as Lobster Thermidor aux crevettes with a Mornay sauce, garnished with truffle pâté, brandy and a fried egg on top.

[bobot]

See, that’s the damn thing about these Libertarians: There’s always, like 1 thing, that they are correct about. (Me personally, I don’t doubt for a second, however, that Rand Paul is actually a Republican.)

[Hamlet]

@Rick_Kitchen

Wasn’t the NDAA passed by a Republican majority?

Does it matter?

I am very depressed that it’s a loony, rather than the Democrats, who is trying to finally put limits on Presidential authority since 9/11. The loud voices that so decried Bush’s actions (including Mr. President) became silent, and all of them should be embarrassed.

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

I agree with Hamlet. As someone who voted for Obama twice, the man is a disappointment in this area. I hate it when I agree with Rand Paul and it has been happening too often.

[John_Mace]

@Hamlet

Does it matter?

I am very depressed that it’s a loony, rather than the Democrats, who is trying to finally put limits on Presidential authority since 9/11. The loud voices that so decried Bush’s actions (including Mr. President) became silent, and all of them should be embarrassed.

Amen to every word in that post.

[Renee]

Agreed. This has been an outrageous government overreach, and I’m glad someone is finally making an issue of it.

[John_Mace]

**Reported as spam. **

If you google the thread title, you can see the exact same OP on at least one other MB.

[Little_Nemo]

Paul’s right on this issue and has my full support for whatever that’s worth.

[Algher]

@John_Mace

**Reported as spam. **

If you google the thread title, you can see the exact same OP on at least one other MB.

Yeah - but not a bad lead in to the topic. I love that Rand Paul is doing this, and I hope he can get some Democrats and a couple of Republicans to join him. This is an important issue that should be dealt with.

[Robot_Arm]

@munkles

There is only one way to describe detaining a U.S. citizen indefinitely and denying trial by jury: Un-American.

If the federal government can arrest you, throw you in prison for years, and strip away your due process rights to prove your innocence, our Republic is sliding into dangerous territory.

That’s why I’m introducing – along with Senator Mike Lee and others - the Due Process Guarantee to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

This amendment blocks indefinite detention of American citizens without being charged and denying them a jury trial unless there is a vote in Congress.

Wow, he’s really sticking up for the little guy. The federal government can’t arrest a private citizen and hold him without trial, only Congress should get to do that!

Is this a matter of principle, or is he just trying to take a power away from the Executive while keeping it for himself?

[Roderick_Femm]

If Congress has to vote on holding a citizen without trial, that makes it much less likely that the whole thing can be done in secret and without airing of the issues and the evidence. Compare that to the executive branch, who can do it completely in the dark, on top of which they can plausibly deny everything later and who can prove otherwise?

Count me among those who are behind Senator Paul on this issue at least.

[Robot_Arm]

@Roderick_Femm

If Congress has to vote on holding a citizen without trial, that makes it much less likely that the whole thing can be done in secret and without airing of the issues and the evidence. Compare that to the executive branch, who can do it completely in the dark, on top of which they can plausibly deny everything later and who can prove otherwise.

What’s to prevent the Congressional majority caucus from meeting in secret, voting to detain someone with no debate or reasons given, and refusing to answer questions about it?

If Rand Paul thinks this is such an overreach of the government’s authority, so unconscionable, then Congress shouldn’t have the right to do it either. When he’s willing to give up some of his own power, then I’ll believe he’s sincere.

[Little_Nemo]

I think that removing the power to detain people without trial from the executive branch would virtually eliminate the problem. The reality is that only the executive branch has the real world capability of doing this. If you transfer this power to Congress, they might hold the power in theory but would lack the means of using it.

So if Congress had the sole legal authority to authorize detention and the President and the executive branch had the sole ability to carry out detentions, they would hopefully act as a check on each other and no detentions would occur. At the very least, it’s better than the executive branch holding both the authority and the power to use it.

[Willcross]

@Robot_Arm

Wow, he’s really sticking up for the little guy. The federal government can’t arrest a private citizen and hold him without trial, only Congress should get to do that!

Is this a matter of principle, or is he just trying to take a power away from the Executive while keeping it for himself?

Well he himself hopes to become the executive in 2016 so I don’t think it’s for selfish reasons. I’m a democrat but I think Paul is the most palatable out of the GOP canidates.

[Robot_Arm]

@Little_Nemo

I think that removing the power to detain people without trial from the executive branch would virtually eliminate the problem. The reality is that only the executive branch has the real world capability of doing this. If you transfer this power to Congress, they might hold the power in theory but would lack the means of using it.

Well, then there’s no reason to have that provision in the bill (assuming the OP is accurate), is there? Imagine how much stronger a statement it would make about government abuse of power if it prohibited this kind of detention in all cases, full stop.

Again, assuming the OP is accurate, Rand Paul is essentially saying “indefinite detention without trial is wrong, an example of the evils of government, and only my branch of the government can do it responsibly”. That’s bullshit.

[Little_Nemo]

@Robot_Arm

Well, then there’s no reason to have that provision in the bill (assuming the OP is accurate), is there? Imagine how much stronger a statement it would make about government abuse of power if it prohibited this kind of detention in all cases, full stop.

Again, assuming the OP is accurate, Rand Paul is essentially saying “indefinite detention without trial is wrong, an example of the evils of government, and only my branch of the government can do it responsibly”. That’s bullshit.

Politics is the art of the possible. Maybe Paul knew he couldn’t convince a majority to abolish the law outright but would be able to convince them to limit it this way.

[Locrian]

Oh, please. Keep Gitmo, open 7 more and continue water boarding for anyone who’s a remote suspect.

[Robot_Arm]

@Little_Nemo

Politics is the art of the possible. Maybe Paul knew he couldn’t convince a majority to abolish the law outright but would be able to convince them to limit it this way.

That’s possible. It’s still a burning sack of crap, we just don’t know whose porch it’s on.