Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ 1) Statement in Opposition to NDAA 2013!

[Spoa]

The Statement (from Facebook-Thanks to Congressman Gosar for voting NO)

U.S. Rep. Paul Gosar, DDS (AZ-01) shared a link.
December 20
Last year, there was a national outcry against the indefinite detention language included in the NDAA bill. Imagine my dismay when I discovered that the final version of the annual defense bill failed to include language which would have protected American citizens against indefinite detention.

That is why I voted against the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report (H.R. 4310) today. The national defense funding bill is not a place to stuff language which would take away or call into question constitutional rights.

Please read more below.

Here's the Roll Call Vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll645.xml

[Smart3]

Even Pelosi voted against it. You gotta be kidding me.

[tsai3904]

Tim Huelskamp also cites indefinite detention as a reason for voting no:

I ultimately voted against the NDAA because it expands the use of taxpayer dollars for abortions. In addition, the bill fails to adequately protect constitutional rights by allowing individuals to be detained on suspicion alone, and it does not prohibit the indefinite detention of American citizens apprehended overseas. I am troubled by such failure to protect constitutional rights in the NDAA.

[RSLudlum]

Tom Davis' NDAA nullification bill he proposed in the SC Senate:

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess120_...4/bills/92.htm

No agency of the State, agency of a political subdivision of the State, officer or employee of the State, officer or employee of a political subdivision of the State, acting in his official capacity, to include any member of the South Carolina Military Department on official duty, or employees of any state or local detention facility may engage in any activity that aids an agency of the armed forces of the United States in execution of 50 U.S.C. 1541, as provided by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of any citizen of the United States in violation of Section 3, Article I, and Section 14, Article I of the South Carolina Constitution.

[Spoa]

My bad comment. Ooops! Sorry.

[Smart3]

And she should be commended for voting against it. I'm posting these so that people can be informed about the statements of Congressmen who are willing to explain WHY they voted against it (Nancy Pelosi hasn't posted an explanation yet).

Do you have any problem with me simply giving people information? I'm just trying to let the liberty movement know which reps are willing to stand strong and EXPLAIN their opposition. Sorry if that offends you.


P.S.: In addition, I want to commend as many of them as possible. You just showed why this vote is so risky. Congressman Schweikert was attacked by Quayle in the 2012 Primary for voting no on NDAA 2012. He was attacked by McCain as being against the military, voting with Pelosi, etc. In a GOP district, voting with Pelosi is very risky (even if she is right...one of the few times).

You never cease to amaze me. I said "you gotta be kidding me" as a common expression when something ridiculous happens. I would prefer you create a single thread and post them in nice quote boxes, I'm happy to read any and all messages from reps, even Pelosi. I just wish Pelosi had told someone she was voting no, so we could have had about 100 more nays.

[Spoa]

You never cease to amaze me. I said "you gotta be kidding me" as a common expression when something ridiculous happens. I would prefer you create a single thread and post them in nice quote boxes, I'm happy to read any and all messages from reps, even Pelosi. I just wish Pelosi had told someone she was voting no, so we could have had about 100 more nays.

If you want to negative rep me, you certainly have the right to. This is sometimes why I hate internet and technology communications so much...I can never tell whether a person is saying something as a good comment or an insult. I'll delete my previous comments. Please accept my apology, I'll have to be more careful next time.

By the way, thanks for the suggestion. If one of the mods could combine the posts I have done so far, that would be great!

[Smart3]

If you want to negative rep me, you certainly have the right to. This is sometimes why I hate internet and technology communications so much...I can never tell whether a person is saying something as a good comment or an insult. I'll delete my previous comments. Please accept my apology, I'll have to be more careful next time.

By the way, thanks for the suggestion. If one of the mods could combine the posts I have done so far, that would be great!

I really could care less.

but what were you thinking making so many different threads? When Scott was appointed, all the quotes congratulating him were in one thread. It's a general rule of thumb to put them in one spot. Frankly, I don't even know who Morgan Griffith is. Glad he's on our side for once though.

[Spoa]

I really could care less.

but what were you thinking making so many different threads? When Scott was appointed, all the quotes congratulating him were in one thread. It's a general rule of thumb to put them in one spot. Frankly, I don't even know who Morgan Griffith is. Glad he's on our side for once though.

I was creating different threads to that if individuals wanted to discuss different reps, they could. Really, I agree that it should all just be in one thread. I'm creating one thread for all of them. Will take some time though.