PDA

View Full Version : 5/25/2011-H.AMDT.318 (A018) Amends H.R.1540 -- need clarification




Harald
08-24-2011, 11:35 AM
Can someone living in Ron Paul district contact the house.gov/paul and asking him to clarify his vote "NO" on this amendment?

I am sure vote NO is for the good reason, but to argue for it, I need some ammo. I didn't find neither text of the amendment on thomas or govtrack, nor Paul comments on his vote.

From:

hxxp://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/08/77_of_democrats_and_ron_paul_voted_against_rules_o f_engagement_that_protect_our_troops.html




Florida Republican Congressman John Mica offered the following morally clear Amendment (5/25/2011-H.AMDT.318 (A018) Amends H.R.1540):


Amendment requires that the rules of engagement [ROE] allow any military service personnel assigned to duty in a designated hostile fire area to have rules of engagement that fully protect their right to proactively defend themselves from hostile actions.


As for the two Republicans in Congress running who are Presidential candidates, Michele Bachmann voted for the amendment; Ron Paul against it.

Aliangel
08-24-2011, 11:38 AM
Can someone living in Ron Paul district contact the house.gov/paul and asking him to clarify his vote "NO" on this amendment?

I am sure vote NO is for the good reason, but to argue for it, I need some ammo. I didn't find neither text of the amendment on thomas or govtrack, nor Paul comments on his vote.

From:

hxxp://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/08/77_of_democrats_and_ron_paul_voted_against_rules_o f_engagement_that_protect_our_troops.html

Proactive defense? like this :


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

Proactive defense is not sending our troops to die in the ME for nothing

Harald
08-24-2011, 12:18 PM
Found the text:

38. An Amendment To Be Offered by Representative Mica of Florida or His
Designee, Debatable for 10 Minutes

At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following new
section:

SEC. 1085. RULES OF ENGAGEMENT FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES DEPLOYED
IN DESIGNATED HOSTILE FIRE AREAS.

The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the rules of
engagement applicable to members of the Armed Forces assigned
to duty in any hostile fire area designated for purposes of
section 310 or 351(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code--
(1) fully protect the members' right to bear arms;
and
(2) authorize the members to fully defend themselves
from hostile actions.
----------

Why did Paul voted against it?

gerryb
08-24-2011, 07:58 PM
Found the text:

38. An Amendment To Be Offered by Representative Mica of Florida or His
Designee, Debatable for 10 Minutes

At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following new
section:

SEC. 1085. RULES OF ENGAGEMENT FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES DEPLOYED
IN DESIGNATED HOSTILE FIRE AREAS.

The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the rules of
engagement applicable to members of the Armed Forces assigned
to duty in any hostile fire area designated for purposes of
section 310 or 351(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code--
(1) fully protect the members' right to bear arms;
and
(2) authorize the members to fully defend themselves
from hostile actions.
----------

Why did Paul voted against it?

Is that all it says, in it's entirety?

If it is,my guess would be because we already have a 2nd amendment. We don't need any additional law.

jackers
08-25-2011, 02:02 PM
I'd like clarification as well.

Harald
08-25-2011, 02:09 PM
I e-mailed campaign, they sent to me to his congressional office.
I contacted congressional office, but not sure if I will get a reply since their stated policy is to reply only to people in his district.

If someone lives in Ron Paul district, can you send an e-mail to his congressional office and asked about this vote?

Feeding the Abscess
08-25-2011, 02:14 PM
1. Defense is reactive, not proactive. Think of the abuses on citizens by proactive police; then apply it in this context.

2. Where's the authority for Congress to dictate the rules of engagement for the military?