PDA

View Full Version : Rand Paul's victory over the NDAA Indefinite Detention clause




CaseyJones
11-30-2012, 12:51 PM
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/high-tide-and-turn/2012/nov/30/rand-pauls-victory-over-ndaa-indefinite-detention-/


Rand Paul rose to speak in support of a different amendment. Amendment #3018 was sponsored by California Sen. Feinstein and Mike Lee of Utah. It provides that,

“an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States.”

And , would you believe it?, the Senate did something right. Albeit, it was merely an undoing (and, admittedly, a partial one) of something that was already horribly wrong. Nevertheless, it was a mighty demonstration of the power of the irate and tireless minority when the amendment passed the Senate just a few hours ago.

The vote was 67-29.

brandon
11-30-2012, 12:54 PM
I haven't read the amendment but I don't really like the wording of what you posted.

"an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States.”

I feel like that should be "and". Couldn't they detain someone indefinitely with charges but no trial?

belian78
11-30-2012, 01:43 PM
Sucks that even more innocent Iranians will ultimately suffer and most likely die, can Rand still claim a victory on that one? Not really in my mind he cant. Whether they be US Citizens or Iranian, any innocent suffering and dying because of US legislation is wrong.

braane
11-30-2012, 01:58 PM
Sucks that even more innocent Iranians will ultimately suffer and most likely die, can Rand still claim a victory on that one? Not really in my mind he cant. Whether they be US Citizens or Iranian, any innocent suffering and dying because of US legislation is wrong.

We don't even know what's in the amendment yet... we only have someone's interpretation.