Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sen. Rand Paul Defends American Citizens Against Indefinite Detainment. (Video)
Youtube ^ | November 30, 2011 | Sen. Rand Paul

Posted on 12/01/2011 6:35:50 AM PST by GlockThe Vote

Sen. Rand Paul Defends American Citizens Against Indefinite Detainment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rghhz_t5POo&feature=player_embedded

Good video.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: lindseygraham; posse; possecomitatus
Wake up people.
1 posted on 12/01/2011 6:35:53 AM PST by GlockThe Vote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GlockThe Vote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rghhz_t5POo&feature=player_embedded

Direct link. I agree with Rand Paul 100%. This is Bi-Partisan Treason.


2 posted on 12/01/2011 6:36:46 AM PST by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GlockThe Vote

About time somebody on the Hill paid attention to the Constitution.


3 posted on 12/01/2011 6:38:47 AM PST by Retro Llama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GlockThe Vote

Another NUT that has not fallen far from it’s Father Tree.


4 posted on 12/01/2011 6:39:27 AM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP (If you come to a fork in the road, take it........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP

LOL. Are you joking?

you support the police state and giving obama this power? LMFAO.


5 posted on 12/01/2011 6:40:27 AM PST by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GlockThe Vote

Good for Rand.

I would like to see this guy as a VP pick.


6 posted on 12/01/2011 6:40:38 AM PST by SharpRightTurn ( White, black, and red all over--America's affirmative action, metrosexual president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP

Rand is right.


7 posted on 12/01/2011 6:43:09 AM PST by Tribune7 (Perry, Newt, Cain or Santorum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SharpRightTurn

People get on me for supporting RP in the primary.

I have one question to ask - other than Bachmann and Paul - how many of us really think Newt, Romney, Cain, perry, Santorum, Huntsman, would not also sign this bill if put before them?


8 posted on 12/01/2011 6:43:46 AM PST by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GlockThe Vote

I guess this video would carry more weight if the proposed legislation did not specifically exclude American citizens.


9 posted on 12/01/2011 6:45:31 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GlockThe Vote

I do not for one second believe that Gov. Perry would sign this.


10 posted on 12/01/2011 6:48:46 AM PST by muddler (Diligentia, Vis and Celeritas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GlockThe Vote

Clueless, completely clueless. The authors and supporters of this bill aren’t well intentioned. Not even close. Also the bill is so open ended that anyone can be defined as a terrorist w/o review etc. Basically, the govt can round up any group or individual they want to silence.


11 posted on 12/01/2011 6:49:53 AM PST by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 556x45

Worshippers of the police state see nothing wrong with this.


12 posted on 12/01/2011 6:51:37 AM PST by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GlockThe Vote
What's the name of Rand's proposed amendment to stop this?

Not that phone calls to the cesspool matter anymore.

13 posted on 12/01/2011 6:54:52 AM PST by Jane Long (Soli Deo Gloria!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GlockThe Vote
Worshippers of the police state see nothing wrong with this.

Worshippers of Barack Obama -- the man who would weild this power -- see nothing wrong with this. I didn't expect to find such people here, and yet a couple of them posted on this very thread.

14 posted on 12/01/2011 6:56:45 AM PST by Retro Llama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Retro Llama

These people are sick in the head and their lust for a police state is sickening.


15 posted on 12/01/2011 7:01:18 AM PST by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy; SharpRightTurn; Tribune7; GlockThe Vote; Retro Llama

dirtboy:”I guess this video would carry more weight if the proposed legislation did not specifically exclude American citizens.”

It is only because of the uproar they temporarily removed Section 1031. Section 1031 did not have the US citizen exclusion. I would not be surprised to see 1031 back in the final bill when it is consolidated with the house bill. I tried to follow the dozens of amendments but could not...

For those interested go to http://thomas.loc.gov and search for Senate Bill number S.1867

The Section 1031 that caused the mess is found in the PDF version of the bill at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf

The problem with 1031 was it did not include the exclusionary wording of 1032 and 1032 addresses a different scenario that 1031.

Section 1031 addresses:
“A person who was a part of or substantially
supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces
that are engaged in hostilities against the United
States or its coalition partners, including any person
who has committed a belligerent act or has directly
supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy
forces.”

The problem is ‘associated forces’ is undefined.

The Section 1032 addresses persons: “who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by
the Authorization for Use of Military Force” and goes on to specifically exclude “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States”
Key word in 1032 is “this section” and does not apply to the “Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities” in 1031.

If you really want an eye-opener read the pages from the debate on this bill where Graham, McCain and Levin are speaking...it is very eye opening. Pages 39-49 from the PDF below.
http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Detainee-Debate-SASC-floor-Nov-17-and-Nov-18-20111.pdf

Clear violation of the constitution. The USA, liberty and life as we truly know it is being quickly eroded through the reaction to terrorism.


16 posted on 12/01/2011 7:06:11 AM PST by An American! (Proud To Be An American!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GlockThe Vote

This must mean the FEMA camps are ready and operational.


17 posted on 12/01/2011 7:06:42 AM PST by LadyBuck (In the immortal words of Jean Paul Sartre, 'Au revoir, gopher')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 556x45

See discussion on the senate floor to truly see how clueless they are...pages 39-49 approximately
http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Detainee-Debate-SASC-floor-Nov-17-and-Nov-18-20111.pdf

Here is a snippet from page 39:
“ I am of the belief that we have the ability to question people under the law of war
without congressional authorization. But when the Congress acts, it is better for us all.
So in this bill, working with Senators Levin and McCain, we have, as a body, said the President—this President and all future Presidents—will have the ability to detain a
member of al-Qaida and other allied organizations, regardless of where they are
captured in the world, and hold them as an enemy combatant.
Under the law of war, when we capture an enemy prisoner, there is no magic date we have to let them go. “


18 posted on 12/01/2011 7:10:15 AM PST by An American! (Proud To Be An American!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LadyBuck

“This must mean the FEMA camps are ready and operational.”

Yep, open for business. Look for “closed down” military bases being remodeled.


19 posted on 12/01/2011 7:21:53 AM PST by steveab (When was the last time someone tried to sell you a CO2 induced climate control system for your home?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GlockThe Vote

“I have one question to ask - other than Bachmann and Paul - how many of us really think Newt, Romney, Cain, perry, Santorum, Huntsman, would not also sign this bill if put before them?”

Excellent point. That very question should be posed to each one of them in an upcoming debate.

Also whether they favor endless, nation-building wars costing the lives of brave American soldiers and costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars to try to convince 7th century goat herders to read de Toqueville and form Rotary clubs.


20 posted on 12/01/2011 7:23:22 AM PST by SharpRightTurn ( White, black, and red all over--America's affirmative action, metrosexual president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SharpRightTurn

I still cant get over people supporting these wars at this point. Why should one more american lose their life for these savages and barbarians who are ungrateful and hate us?

Sorry - I personally do not one more family to lose a loved one for these bogus wars that we refuse to fight to win and are helping bankrupt this nation.

We won WW2 in 4 years and someone wants to tell me we should spend more time in afghanistan? please. For what?

Our soldiers did their job, they fought bravely under political ROE, time for them to come home.


21 posted on 12/01/2011 7:28:50 AM PST by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: An American!

“The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States”

Just looking at the wording here “The requirement to detain” does not mean they can’t do it. Seems the wording here is something to be concerned about.


22 posted on 12/01/2011 7:31:52 AM PST by ScottfromNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: steveab

We don’t have any bases around here, but alarm bells go off when those in power are quietly passing an “US-vs-THEM” bill.

Something evil is in the wind, and I don’t think our BOBs are going to save us.


23 posted on 12/01/2011 7:46:11 AM PST by LadyBuck (In the immortal words of Jean Paul Sartre, 'Au revoir, gopher')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ScottfromNJ

This section is all about extending the powers of the federal government to unilaterally declare someone or some group of someones outside the judicial system. They are doing it in the name of intelligence gathering and preventing terrorism. They are calling it a ‘war power’ which seems understandable, a prisoner of war really does lose out. The problem is we are in an indefinite war now. Which means there is no end or conclusion and the power will creep. No knock warrants won’t even be needed, they can just round you up under the war powers act and call you the enemy because you are associated in some arcane way to Al-Queda goals or beliefs.


24 posted on 12/01/2011 7:47:59 AM PST by An American! (Proud To Be An American!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Retro Llama

Not all the Tea Party people in Congress are idiots, following along behind the Rinos with more of the same. This is good. Thank you Rand Paul.


25 posted on 12/01/2011 10:27:31 AM PST by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GlockThe Vote

BTTT


26 posted on 12/01/2011 10:36:14 AM PST by Earthdweller (Harvard won the election again...so what's the problem.......? Embrace a ruler today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ScottfromNJ
Just looking at the wording here “The requirement to detain” does not mean they can’t do it. Seems the wording here is something to be concerned about.

The wording is actually worse -- it gives the government the power to pick and choose who will be detained, for any reason (e.g. he p!$$@d off some politician) or no reason.

27 posted on 12/01/2011 12:51:42 PM PST by Retro Llama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Retro Llama

Does anyone have a link to the legislation?


28 posted on 12/25/2011 6:19:02 AM PST by JBGUSA (If it's us or them, I choose us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson