Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: [VIDEO] Rand corners McCain on "indefinite detention" of US citizens!

  1. #1

    Thumbs up [VIDEO] Rand corners McCain on "indefinite detention" of US citizens!

    Rand corners McCain on "indefinite detention" of US citizens!



    __________________________________________________ ________________
    this space for rent



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Thumbs up Sen. Rand Paul Defends Constitutional Liberties

    Sen. Rand Paul Defends Constitutional Liberties

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today in the U.S. Senate, Sen. Rand Paul took to the Senate floor as well as recorded a video message against the indefinite detention of United States citizens in defense of constitutional liberties.

    CLICK HERE TO SEE SEN. PAUL’S ADDRESS REGARDING DETAINEES


    TRANSCRIPT:


    James Madison, father of the Constitution, warned, “The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become instruments of tyranny at home.”

    Abraham Lincoln had similar thoughts, saying “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

    During war there has always been a struggle to preserve Constitutional liberties. During the Civil War the right of habeas corpus was suspended. Newspapers were closed down. Fortunately, these rights were restored after the war.

    The discussion now to suspend certain rights to due process is especially worrisome given that we are engaged in a war that appears to have no end. Rights given up now cannot be expected to be returned. So, we do well to contemplate the diminishment of due process, knowing that the rights we lose now may never be restored.

    My well-intentioned colleagues ignore these admonitions in defending provisions of the Defense bill pertaining to detaining suspected terrorists.

    Their legislation would arm the military with the authority to detain indefinitely – without due process or trial – SUSPECTED al-Qaida sympathizers, including American citizens apprehended on American soil.

    I want to repeat that. We are talking about people who are merely SUSPECTED of a crime. And we are talking about American citizens.

    If these provisions pass, we could see American citizens being sent to Guantanamo Bay.

    This should be alarming to everyone watching this proceeding today. Because it puts every single American citizen at risk.

    There is one thing and one thing only protecting innocent Americans from being detained at will at the hands of a too-powerful state – our constitution, and the checks we put on government power. Should we err today and remove some of the most important checks on state power in the name of fighting terrorism, well, then the terrorists have won.

    Detaining citizens without a court trial is not American. In fact, this alarming arbitrary power is reminiscent of Egypt’s “permanent” Emergency Law authorizing preventive indefinite detention, a law that provoked ordinary Egyptians to tear their country apart last spring and risk their lives to fight.

    Recently, Justice Scalia affirmed this idea in his dissent in the Hamdi case, saying:

    “Where the Government accuses a citizen of waging war against it, our constitutional tradition has been to prosecute him in federal court for treason or some other crime.”

    He concluded: “The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive

    Justice Scalia was, as he often does, following the wisdom of our founding fathers.

    As Franklin wisely warned against, we should not attempt to trade liberty for security, if we do we may end up with neither. And really, what security does this indefinite detention of Americans give us?

    The first and flawed premise, both here and in the badly misname patriot act, is that our pre-911 police powers were insufficient to combat international terrorism.

    This is simply not borne out by the facts.

    Congress long ago made it a crime to provide, or to conspire to provide, material assistance to al-Qaida or other listed foreign terrorist organizations. Material assistance includes virtually anything of value – including legal or political advice, education, books, newspapers, lodging or otherwise. The Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of the sweeping prohibition.

    And this is not simply about catching terrorists after the fact, as others may insinuate. The material assistance law is in fact forward-looking and preventive, not backward-looking and reactive.

    Al-Qaida adherents may be detained, prosecuted and convicted for conspiring to violate the material assistance prohibition before any injury to an American. Jose Padilla, for instance, was convicted and sentenced to 17 years in prison for conspiring to provide material assistance to al-Qaida. The criminal law does not require dead bodies on the sidewalk before it strikes at international terrorism.

    Indeed, conspiracy law and prosecutions in civilian courts have been routinely invoked after 9/11, to thwart embryonic international terrorism.

    Michael Chertoff, then head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and later Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, testified shortly after 9/11 to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He underscored that, “the history of this government in prosecuting terrorists in domestic courts has been one of unmitigated success and one in which the judges have done a superb job of managing the courtroom and not compromising our concerns about security and our concerns about classified information.”

    Moreover, there is no evidence that criminal justice procedures have frustrated intelligence collection about international terrorism. Suspected terrorists have repeatedly waived both the right to an attorney and the right to silence. Additionally, Miranda warnings are not required at all when the purpose of interrogation is public safety.

    The authors of this bill errantly maintain that the bill would not enlarge the universe of detainees eligible for indefinite detention in military custody. This is simply not the case.

    The current Authorization for Use of Military Force confines the universe to persons implicated in the 9/11 attacks or who harbored those who were.

    The detainee provision would expand the universe to include any person said to be “part of” or “substantially” supportive of al-Qaida or Taliban.

    These terms are dangerously vague. More than a decade after 9/11, the military has been unable to define the earmarks of membership in or affiliation to either organization.

    Some say that to prevent another 9/11 attack we must fight terrorism with a war mentality and not treat potential attackers as criminals. For combatants captured on the battlefield, I tend to agree.

    But 9/11 didn't succeed because we granted the terrorists due process. 9/11 attacks did not succeed because al-Qaida was so formidable, but because of human error. The Defense Department withheld intelligence from the FBI. No warrants were denied. The warrants weren't requested. The FBI failed to act on repeated pleas from its field agents, agents who were in possession of laptop with information that might have prevented 9/11.

    These are not failures of laws. They are not failures of procedures. They are failures of imperfect men and women in bloated bureaucracies. No amount of liberty sacrificed on the altar of the state will ever change that.

    A full accounting of our human failures by 9/11 Commission would have proven that enhanced cooperation between law enforcement and the intelligence community, not military action or vandalizing liberty at home, is the key to thwarting international terrorism.

    We should not have to sacrifice our Liberty to be safe. We cannot allow the rules to change to fit the whims of those in power. The rules, the binding chains of our constitution were written so that it didn’t MATTER who was in power. In fact, they were written to protect us and our rights, from those who hold power without good intentions. We are not governed by saints or angels. Our constitution allows for that. This bill does not.

    Finally, the detainee provisions of the defense authorization bill do another grave harm to freedom: they imply perpetual war for the first time in the history of the United States.

    No benchmarks are established that would ever terminate the conflict with al-Qaida, Taliban, or other foreign terrorist organizations. In fact, this bill explicitly states that no part of this bill is to imply any restriction on the authorization to use force. No congressional review is allowed or imagined. No victory is defined. No peace is possible if victory is made impossible by definition.

    To disavow the idea that the exclusive congressional power to declare war somehow allows the President to continue war forever at whim, I will also be offering an amendment this week to de-authorize the Iraq War.

    Use of military force must begin in congress with its authorization. And it should end in congress with its termination. Congress should not be ignored or an afterthought in these matters, and must reclaim its constitutional duties.

    The detainee provisions ask us to give up consist rights as an emergency or exigency but make no room for expiration. Perhaps the Emergency Law in Egypt began with good intentions in 1958 but somehow it came to be hated, to be despised with such vigor that protesters chose to burn themselves alive rather allow continuation of indefinite detention.

    Today, someone must stand up for the rights of the American people to be free. We must stand up to tyranny disguised as security. I urge my colleagues to reject the language on detainees in this bill, and to support amendments to strip these provisions from the defense bill.
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    this space for rent

  4. #3
    Moderatorus Emeritus Cowlesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    17,023

    Default

    Unfortunately, most Mom and Pops are going to agree with McCain based on that clip.
    "Your mother's dead, before long I'll be dead, and you...and your brother and your sister and all of her children, all of us dead, all of us..rotting in the ground. It's the family name that lives on. It's all that lives on. Not your personal glory, not your honor, but family." - Tywin Lannister


  5. #4
    Member Keith and stuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    The Live Free or Die state
    Posts
    9,619
    Blog Entries
    70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowlesy View Post
    Unfortunately, most Mom and Pops are going to agree with McCain based on that clip.
    I'd say at least 80% likely agree with him. Americans want American citizens found in the US to be tortured and then killed if there is any hint that the Americans are terrorists. It's the American way.
    Lifetime member of more than 1 national gun organization and the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance. Part of Young Americans for Liberty and Campaign for Liberty. Free State Project participant and multi-year Free Talk Live AMPlifier.

  6. #5

    Default

    Well done, Rand.

    Military detainment powers dominate Congressional debate

    http://fcw.com/articles/2011/11/29/s...ent-fails.aspx
    "Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesn't want to hear.” -Ron Paul

    "Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it." -Edward Snowden

  7. #6

    Default

    Mike Lee and Jim DeMint voted against the amendment that would've killed the illegal indefinite detention aspect of the bill: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00210

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZanZibar View Post
    Mike Lee and Jim DeMint voted against the amendment that would've killed the illegal indefinite detention aspect of the bill: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00210
    Only two Republicans voted yea... sad.

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZanZibar View Post
    Mike Lee and Jim DeMint voted against the amendment that would've killed the illegal indefinite detention aspect of the bill: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00210
    DeMint doesn't surprise me as much as Lee. Gonna study this some more and see if I can get a reason why. After all he did to combat the Patriot Act.

    Sincerely,

    Slutter McGee

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZanZibar View Post
    Mike Lee and Jim DeMint voted against the amendment that would've killed the illegal indefinite detention aspect of the bill: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00210
    How could they support illegal detention?
    “I have many friends in the libertarian movement who look down on those of us who get involved in political activity,”
    he acknowledged, but "eventually, if you want to bring about changes … what you have to do is participate in political
    action.
    ” -- Ron Paul


    "We do have some differences and our approaches will be different, but that makes him his own person. I mean why should he [Rand] be a clone and do everything and think just exactly as I have. I think it's an opportunity to be independent minded. We are about 99% the same on issues." "People Try To Drive Wedges Between Rand And Me." --Ron Paul

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=pB5JgzBVHN0

    The Property Basis of Rights

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    How could they support illegal detention?
    The same way they've supported every unconstitutional bill they've ever passed over the centuries. Even the founding fathers trampled all over the constitution, that says a lot about why we have the constitutional problems that we continue to have. Unless senators who try to pass such laws are really ousted from congress by a vigilant voting public (fat chance as we have witnessed), we will continue to see these successful, bold, attempts to circumvent our rights.

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    How could they support illegal detention?
    Depends what the intelligence services are telling them. There are alot of parsing of words. Same thing happened with the last passing of the Patriot Act when certain lawyers had given Steve King and Bachmann the guarantee that this was not applicable to law-abiding American citizens. There is alot of posturing going on. It's not like some of them just woke up yesterday and said I want to legislate illegal detention. It's not that simple.
    Last edited by AuH20; 11-30-2011 at 09:10 AM.
    “There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.” - The Reverend Jesse Jackson

  13. #12

    Default

    I hate it when asshats like McCain act like we troops need this. We HATE this. It destroys every pretext of our oath, and our supposed fights for freedom. That is of course why we overwhelmingly support Ron Paul.
    CPT Jack. R. T.
    US Army Resigned - Iraq Vet.
    Level III MACP instructor, USYKA/WYKKO sensei
    Professional Hunter/Trapper/Country living survivalist.

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    Depends what the intelligence services are telling them. There are alot of parsing of words. Same thing happened with the last passing of the Patriot Act when certain lawyers had given Steve King and Bachmann the guarantee that this was not applicable to law-abiding American citizens. There is alot of posturing going on. It's not like some of them just woke up yesterday and said I want to legislate illegal detention. It's not that simple.
    I won't parse words:

    They're bootlickers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
    The epitome of libertarian populism

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    I won't parse words:

    They're bootlickers.
    Some are crooks. Some are gullible. Some are subservient bootlickers.
    “There is nothing more painful to me … than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.” - The Reverend Jesse Jackson

  16. #15

    Default

    When I called my Senators yesterday, one of the aides told me that there were already laws on the books that allowed this and a ruling by the Supreme Court. He cited the case, but I don't remember it. In something I saw yesterday, when Rand was asked what rationale some of his colleagues were using that supported this, he mentioned the same. Maybe it was in his interview with Judge Nap.

    If that is so, what did this particular legislation add on top of what is already, wrongfully and unconstitutionally, already on the books?
    “I have many friends in the libertarian movement who look down on those of us who get involved in political activity,”
    he acknowledged, but "eventually, if you want to bring about changes … what you have to do is participate in political
    action.
    ” -- Ron Paul


    "We do have some differences and our approaches will be different, but that makes him his own person. I mean why should he [Rand] be a clone and do everything and think just exactly as I have. I think it's an opportunity to be independent minded. We are about 99% the same on issues." "People Try To Drive Wedges Between Rand And Me." --Ron Paul

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=pB5JgzBVHN0

    The Property Basis of Rights

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Maybe it was in his interview with Judge Nap.
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    this space for rent

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    When I called my Senators yesterday, one of the aides told me that there were already laws on the books that allowed this and a ruling by the Supreme Court. He cited the case, but I don't remember it. In something I saw yesterday, when Rand was asked what rationale some of his colleagues were using that supported this, he mentioned the same. Maybe it was in his interview with Judge Nap.

    If that is so, what did this particular legislation add on top of what is already, wrongfully and unconstitutionally, already on the books?
    They're citing the losing opinion in those cases.

    No, seriously, those cases were in favor of giving trials to the accused, even Nazi spies during WWII.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
    The epitome of libertarian populism

  19. #18

    Default

    McCain needs to be detained indefinitely, get a taste of his medicine. Oh wait...

  20. #19

    Default

    McCain and Lindsey Graham....


    Courtesy of Mike Church radio show





« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •