Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Ron Pauls Statement on NDAA Conference Report

Posted 1 year ago on Dec. 22, 2012, 10:52 p.m. EST by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Mr. Speaker I rise to oppose what will be the final National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) I will face as a Member of the US House of Representatives. As many of my colleagues are aware, I have always voted against the NDAA regardless of what party controls the House. Far from simply providing an authorization for the money needed to defend this country, which I of course support, this authorization and its many predecessors have long been used to fuel militarization, enrich the military industrial complex, expand our empire overseas, and purchase military and other enormously expensive equipment that we do not need and in large part does not work anyway. They wrap all of this mess up in false patriotism, implying that Members who do not vote for these boondoggles do not love their country.

The military industrial complex is a jigsaw puzzle of seemingly competing private companies; but they are in reality state-sponsored enterprises where well-connected lobbyists, usually after long and prosperous careers in the military or government, pressure Congress to fund pet projects regardless of whether we can afford them or whether they are needed to defend our country. This convenient arrangement is the welfare of the warfare state.

Because of the false perception that we must pass this military spending authorization each year or our men and women in uniform will go hungry, Congress has over the years taken the opportunity to pack it with other items that would have been difficult to pass on their own. This is nothing new on Capitol Hill. In the last few years, however, this practice has taken a sinister turn.

The now-infamous NDAA for fiscal year 2012, passed last year, granted the president the authority to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge, without access to an attorney, and without trial. It is difficult to imagine anything more un-American than this attack on our Constitutional protections. While we may not have yet seen the widespread use of this unspeakably evil measure, a wider application of this “authority” may only be a matter of time.

Historically these kinds of measures have been used to bolster state power at the expense of unpopular scapegoats. The Jewish citizens of 1930s Germany knew all about this reprehensible practice. Lately the scapegoats have been mostly Muslims. Hundreds, perhaps many more, even Americans, have been held by the US at Guantanamo and in other secret prisons around the world.

But this can all change quickly, which makes it all the more dangerous. Maybe one day it will be Christians, gun-owners, home-schoolers, etc.

That is why last year, along with Reps. Justin Amash, Walter Jones, and others, we attempted to simply remove the language from the NDAA (sec. 1021) that gave the president this unconstitutional authority. It was a simple, readable amendment. Others tried to thwart our straightforward efforts by crafting elaborately worded amendments that in practice did noting to protect us from this measure in the bill. Likewise this year there were a few celebrated but mostly meaningless attempts to address this issue. One such effort passed in the senate version of this bill. The conferees have simply cut it out. The will of Congress was thus ignored by a small group of Members and Senators named by House and Senate leadership.

There are many other measures in this NDAA Conference Report to be concerned about. It continues to fund our disastrous wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere for example.......

continued:

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2035:statement-on-ndaa-conference-report&catid=15:floor-statements

43 Comments

43 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3025) 1 year ago

'Throw Out The NDAA , End The Wars and Start Nation Building At Home' by Dennis Kucinich - http://www.nationofchange.org/throw-out-ndaa-end-wars-and-start-nation-building-home-1355497806 . Never Give Up Exposing The Absurdities! Go Occupy The Issues! Soidarity & Happy Holidays to all.

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Thank god...someone who doesn't think i'm attacking dems by posting this.

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3025) 1 year ago

LOL! Dems are almost as clueless as the Repugnants! Here's a couple of interesting insights - http://www.nationofchange.org/does-us-senate-commit-treason-ndaa-bill-1327245191 and also - http://www.nationofchange.org/how-dark-money-helped-republicans-hold-house-and-hurt-voters-1356192842 Never Give Up Exposing Duopoly! Occupy Democracy! Merry Christmas to you :)

ps : why do you keep getting voted down? I just twinkled you but still you are 0? Very Strange!

[-] 2 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Doesn't matter what i post - i could agree with a comment that just got up voted to +10 and i'd still get down voted. Got a couple of the hounds on my ass because i dare to post stuff a republican might say that goes after something as terrible as the NDAA.

I'm non-partisan....I love Kucinich and Ron Paul....Jill Stein and Gary Johnson...I love the guys that are honest on both sides and hate all the other hacks that are keeping the duopoly going.

Likewise - Merry xmas to you.

[-] 2 points by Ache4Change (3025) 1 year ago

'Is this who we are as a nation?' - http://www.nationofchange.org/kucinich-ndaa-who-we-are-nation-1337614419 - Solidarity from me, though we may differ on RP! Points mean jack really so keep posting and making your points with no concession to the twinkles or stinkles! Solidarity and have a great 2013! Never Give Up! Keep Occupying The Issues!

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6214) 1 year ago

You probably get downvoted so much because you're an ultra right-winger, advocating an IMMORAL ideology.

Kucinich and Stein's views on taxes and social justice are very different than Paul's and Johnson's. These are pretty essential topics, wouldn't you say?

So whose policies do you like better? Paul's tax cuts for the 1%, or Stein's economic justice? I think I know the answer.

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"You probably get downvoted so much because you're an ultra right-winger"

That couldn't be further from the truth....i believe in gay marriage, right to choose, alternative energy, protecting the environment, anti-war no matter who is in office, and many other left wing ideologies.....but i am fiscally conservative, believe in individual liberties, and believe the american people deserve a currency that can't be manipulated. Pretty much right smack in the middle of everything. And i didn't vote for romney - that should take me off the right wing slate right away.

I like Kucinich, Stein, Johnson and Paul because they are honest politicians that actually want to help the people - even though their ways of accomplishing it are different. I would take any of them in a heartbeat over the choices we have right now in the two parties.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6214) 1 year ago

When it comes to the really important issues in politics and political philosophy - property rights, "economic freedom" etc - you're an ultra right winger.

Also, you didn't answer the question.

[-] 1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"really important issues in politics"

War - money - and equality for everyone aren't important topics in politics?

What question? Paul's tax cuts for the 1%? I'll answer it.

Paul doesn't want tax cuts for just the 1% - he wants them for everyone. And yes, i do agree with tax cuts for everyone-not just the 1%.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6214) 1 year ago

Politics and political philosophy. Foreign policy is important, but the kind of core in political ideology and philosophy is property rights. On this issue you're far to the right.

"Paul doesn't want tax cuts for just the 1% - he wants them for everyone"

Yes, Paul wants tax cuts for everyone - including the super wealthy. So who gets the most in cash when Paul makes his cuts, you think? The janitor or the CEO?

[-] 2 points by JohnFKennedyIV (11) 1 year ago

Ron Paul has the most integrity of any politician I can remember. I discovered him a year and a half ago and I'm sad to see him go so soon.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20608) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Ron Laul writes a great speech - but the fact is he is either a liar or a fool.

The now-infamous NDAA for fiscal year 2012, passed last year, granted the president the authority to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge, without access to an attorney, and without trial. It is difficult to imagine anything more un-American than this attack on our Constitutional protections. While we may not have yet seen the widespread use of this unspeakably evil measure, a wider application of this “authority” may only be a matter of time.

That quote come from the forum post, I assume Lolly did say that. As a member of Congress he should be well aware that the authority he is complaining of was passed before NDAA 2012 - and some of the research behind that statement may be found here:

As a member of Congress Lolly should know better - instead he is perpetuating a myth. Ever the faithful repelican I suppose. Had to hand the fukers something after bashing the MIC like that. Those who are in a position to know will recognize him for the good lap dog that he is, and I'm sure he will find his reward . . .

[-] 0 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

I understand many want to make this a republican democrat fight.....that's not what this is about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DNDHbT44cY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCNYhMAAZxA

Ron Paul was very anti-bush....rejecting and voting against all of the wars he got us into..and was very much against his ridiculous spending which he voiced opposition for while bush was in office (some people like government spending i understand..but what you can't say is that he has one set of principles when a republican is in office and then another when the democrats are in office)....but most people weren't paying attention to him back then because he was relatively unknown. He's been just as critical of the republicans - i've even heard him blast Regan a number of times.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20608) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

that does not change the fact that he has mischaracterized NDAA 2012 - and thus helped perpetuate a common misperception.

He is in a position to know very well what Congress passed, when it passed, and what the implications are.

He is either a fool, or he is a liar. Take your pick.

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

What is mischaracterized?

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20608) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago
[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

But the bill does afford the government with all of those abilities. What is innaccurate about that?

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (20608) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

The language of NDAA 2012 was almost identical with that of NDAA 2011, and what that did was simply reaffirm authority granted under the Patriot Act.

Under Bush I could have been waterboarded and sent to Gitmo for many of the things I have written on an internet forum.

It isn't new. What is new is leftist agitation over it. What is new is right wing talking heads pointing at the issue. The President provided the opportunity for Congress to close gitmo. Congress Fucked him.

Other than that, nothing has really changed all that much.

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

The NDAA goes a step further than the patriot act as it applies ot american citizens - an american citizen can be held without charge indefinitely....without a trial....that was never in the patriot act.

But even if your argument were true (that the NDAA doesn't take the patriot act a step further) - you don't discuss the fact that Ron Paul was very much against the patriot act even under Bush....he voted against it back then in 2001 and still rails against it today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdvpiA7-gss

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20608) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

My argument is true, and I am here to help you get a clue:


http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=patriot+act+indefinite+detention+us+citizens&oq=patriot+act+indefinite+detention+us+citizens&gs_l=serp.3..33i21.6222.9442.1.9636.12.12.0.0.0.0.234.1476.5j6j1.12.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.yYnJZyvgiGw&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=eeaed9fac54bfaee&bpcl=40096503&biw=1024&bih=585


Indefinite detention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indefinite_detention Jump to United States‎: Regarding U.S. Citizens accused of supporting terrorism, ... of the USA PATRIOT act permits indefinite detention of immigrants; ... Views - Australia - See also - References

Indefinite Detention Ruling Backed By Civil Liberties Groups www.huffingtonpost.com/.../indefinite-detention-national-d...

Michael McAuliff

by Michael McAuliff - in 179 Google+ circles - More by Michael McAuliff Sep 13, 2012 – The indefinite detention law -- contained in the National Defense ... that American citizens can be placed in military detention indefinitely, for acts they .....

The Patriot Act already allows for secret charges, secret evidence which ... Appeals Court Judge Reinstates Indefinite Detention — for Now www.thenewamerican.com › U.S. News › Constitution Sep 19, 2012 – You may have noted NDAA referred to the USA Patriot Act. Under the ... to order the arrest and Indefinite Detention of any U.S. Citizen, writer, ...

NY judge blocks law permitting indefinite detention — RT rt.com/usa/news/us-court-law-unconstitutional-031/ Sep 13, 2012 – The US Congress is moving to renew the USA PATRIOT Act, ... that American citizens can be placed in military detention indefinitely, for acts ...

NDAA battle ends: Loss for 'indefinite detention' opponents | The ... dailycaller.com/.../ndaa-battle-ends-in-defeat-for-indefinite-detention... 1 day ago – NDAA battle ends in defeat for 'indefinite detention' opponents ... Defense Authorization Act's (NDAA) treatment of American citizens ... Some lawmakers believed that the NDAA allowed the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without trial if they .... Top Jewish Obama campaign surrogate: 'Hagel is a patriot' ...

Indefinite detention of American citizens is back on? | Tavern Keepers tavernkeepers.com/indefinite-detention-of-american-citizens-is-back-... 2 days ago – to strip the National Defense Authorization Act of the amendment that protects American citizens against indefinite detention now renders the ...

Indefinite Detention of U.S. Citizens without Trial is Treason - YouTube ► 17:10► 17:10 www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUUD0FMQ7Gg Dec 12, 2012 - Uploaded by TheAlexJonesChannel NDAA ACT:INDEFINITE DETENTION OF U.S. CITIZENS WITHOUT TRIAL IS TREASON. IMPEACH ... Tom ... More videos for patriot act indefinite detention us citizens »

Obama to Sign Bill Allowing Indefinite Detention of American Citizens davidkretzmann.com/.../obama-to-sign-bill-allowing-indefinite-deten... Dec 15, 2011 – The PATRIOT Act gave the federal government the ability to wiretap ... government the ability to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely without trial.

Could Obama use NDAA To Arrest Militias? : Indybay www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/10/25/18724486.php Oct 25, 2012 – Obama could use NDAA provisions to order U.S. Military Forces to round up ... to extend NDAA to imprison U.S. Citizens in Indefinite Detention not ... refers to the Patriot Act e.g. warrant-less searches of private property and ...

New National Defense Authorization Act Authorizes Indefinite ... hrbrief.org › Featured Mar 27, 2012 – On October 26, 2001 President Bush enacted the Patriot Act authorizing indefinite detention of non-U.S. citizens; allowing suspected terrorists ...

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

So the patriot act allows indefinite detention of immigrants apparently....but not US born citiznes. So the NDAA goes a step further and says everyone. What am i missing here?

But when it comes down to it who cares about all of this - both of these bills are disgusting and should be fought against. Who cares if one takes a little more of your rights away than another - they're both terrible. That's why Ron Paul has fought against BOTH of them...and not gone after one because a a dem was in office and left the other alone because a repub was in office....he's attacked both of them. So i don't understand your argument i guess. Are you upset that he didn't specifically state the terribleness of the patriot act when he was writing a review on the NDAA? I can point you to comments and articles he's written on the patriot act as well that don't discuss the NDAA.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20608) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

YOu should get a clue - or grow a brain - either way I'm not going to continue to do your homework for you:

The point I am trying to make is that according to THIS bill, American citizens can not be detained at all, indefinitely.

But as section 1031 states, “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens…”

The question is, what does EXISTING law say about the detention of American citizens. That is what we need to be concerned with. If existing law states American citizens can be detained indefinitely, by the military, that is the law or laws that need to be changed. NOT this current law.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20608) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

you don't understand my argument because you erroneously believe the legal authority for indefinite detention of U.S. citizens was granted by Congress in 2012 - it was not.

Lolly continues to perpetuate a myth - I find that objectionable. NDAA 2012 did not grant that authority, it reaffirmed it.

He is in a position to know perfectly well that to assert this authority to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely was new, and unique to NDAA 2012 is false.

Yet he behaves otherwise. Is he simply incompetent?

Or is he a lair engaged in deliberately disinforming the public?

If the later, then for what purpose? Perhaps the purpose is no more than to strengthen the hand of the regime of bushite in the public mind - by spreading the appearance of guilt across administrations.

In any case, he is no more than a common liar - in an uncommon position, and as such has done the public a great disservice.

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"legal authority for indefinite detention of U.S. citizens was granted by Congress in 2012"

No i don't believe that.....i know that occurred with NDAA 2011...and by your post US immigrants by the Patriot Act.

But Ron Paul has voted against the Patriot act, NDAA 2011, NDAA 2012....and been very outspoken against all of them. I'm not seeing any conflicts of interest here at all? Where is the conflict of interest coming in?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Ron Paul? Isn't he the retired extremist libertarian with the racist newsletter that he claims he was unaware of?

He's done!!! The repubs redistricted him out.

You like anyone else.? maybe less racist, & libertarian?

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (20608) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

why don't you stop perpetuating LIES and google Jose Padilla

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

"not too bright are ya"

I got it from your own post -

"According to the American Civil Liberties Union, section 412 of the USA PATRIOT act permits indefinite detention of immigrants;[6] one of the most highly publicized cases has been that of Jose Padilla,[7] whose ultimate prosecution and conviction in the United States have also been highly controversial."

Or straight from ACLU:

"Section 412 of the final version of the anti-terrorism legislation, the Uniting and Strengthening America By Providing Appropriate Tools Required To Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (H.R. 3162, the "USA PATRIOT Act") permits indefinite detention of immigrants and other non-citizens. There is no requirement that those who are detained indefinitely be removable because they are terrorists. "

http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/how-anti-terrorism-bill-permits-indefinite-detention-immigrants

Is Jose Padilla not an immigrant????? Yes or no??? Who's not too bright here then??

Nowhere does it allow the indefinite detention of all US citizens. But who cares????? It's still a freaking terrible bill that should have never been passed while repubs were in office.

But YOU'RE STILL SKIRTING the issue - because Ron Paul voted against ALL of these bills taht you seem to have a problem with....and he isn't using the NDAA 2012 to solely attack dems like you're making it out....he voted against the patriot act when his own boys were in office. Stop being untruthful.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20608) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Is Jose Padilla a U.S. Citizen? YES or NO

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

I wasn't perpetuating a lie - Jose Padilla - an IMMIGRANT....just like i said in my reponse to you. So the patriot act allows indefinite detention of IMMIGRANTS by even your own post.....not all american citizens like you're making it seem...the NDAA allows indefinite detention of every american citizen - even US born....not just immigrants.

But who cares - that is besides the point because they're all terrible - you're skirting the issue - Ron Paul was against the Patriot act, NDAA 2011 and 2012....which includes everything you have a problem with. Or am i missing something else?

You're basically on here saying because he doesn't mention the patriot act (which allowed the indefinite detention of an immigrant) in the post that somehow he's trying to blame the democrats for all of this stuff...that couldn't be further from the truth as he railed against the Patriot act when Bush was in office. So why don't you stop perpetuating lies.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20608) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Now YOU are just lying.

To wit:

.

José Padilla (prisoner) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Padilla_(prisoner)) José Padilla (born October 18, 1970), also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir or Muhajir Abdullah, is a United States citizen convicted of aiding terrorists. Padilla was ... Early life - Arrest - 2002 memos - Habeas corpus

.

José Padilla - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Padilla Kentucky case; José Padilla (DJ) (fl. since 1970s), Spanish DJ; José Padilla (prisoner), (b. 1970), United States citizen convicted of aiding terrorists ...

.

Rumsfeld v. Padilla - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumsfeld_v._Padilla José Padilla and Donna R. Newman, as Next Friend of José Padilla. Citations ... On May 8, 2002, Padilla, a U.S. citizen, flew from Pakistan to Chicago's O'Hare ...

.

Jose Padilla News - The New York Times

topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/.../people/.../jose_padilla/index.html Sep 19, 2011 – ... Attorney General John Ashcroft interrupted a visit to Moscow to announce a sensational arrest: an American citizen named Jose Padilla had ...

.

All courtesy of Google

.

not too bright are ya

[-] 1 points by shooz (26717) 1 year ago

The idea, if you would have bothered to hold your knee still, is to help prevent nuclear subs and such, from malfunctioning halfway around the world, and hold those who would create that situation accountable to the military.

I'm not judging here, just sayin' that's what is.

It's got shit to do with anything Mr. P says.

He's a lying sack anyway.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26717) 1 year ago

Mr. P was/is the foil of the GOP, nothing has changed and he has NEVER come clean. He is playing his roll to the end, even as his son picks up his racist banner.

Mr. P can and should go away and spend his "earnings".

[-] -1 points by john32 (-272) from Pittsburgh, PA 1 year ago

Go interject somewhere else shooz - wasn't talking to you.

Unless you can back up anything you say with facts and references....i have no desire to talk to you because it turns into me refuting your broad generalizations that have nothing to back them up....not doing that again.

So unless you can back up anything you just said with references and facts...i won't ansewr you again.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26717) 1 year ago

I guess you should have posted this shit in PMs to the rest of the "true believers".

Everything I said was proven here many months ago.

You can look it up yourself. I'm NOT going through it all ever again, just because YOU say so.

Ron Paul is a lying sack of shit as is his son.

Stop posting things that pretend he is anything else.

I read those newsletters. He's a racist fuck. Nothing more.

http://ronpaulsupporters.com/

Racist fucks, masquerading as States rights advocates.

What assholes.

[-] 0 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

to be fair he didn't write those newsletters, those were a discredit operation by Newt's people.

[-] 2 points by shooz (26717) 1 year ago

Yeah, except no.

Mr P. endorsed them for years before he tried to deny them.

Put his name to them.

He is the ultimate scallywag.

A liar for the Kochs and the oil corporations from his inception.

[-] 1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Now while I don't believe that those newsletters are his creation, I don't rule out his connection to Koch. But for the sake of clarifying the truth, do you have links?

[-] 1 points by shooz (26717) 1 year ago

I'll tell you the same thing I tell ALL the Mr. P pushers of late.

All of the links were posted here many months ago, and I don't save every one of them just in case someone like you comes along and refuses to believe what is in front of their faces.

All you really need to know is this.

If it wasn't for the backing of oil corporation owners, including the Kochs, you would never have heard of libe(R)tarians and Ayn Rand would only be known as a hack novelist, and pseudo philosopher..

[-] 0 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

So no links? Your argument is invalid. Don't propagate the paradigm.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26717) 1 year ago

All the links are here.

Look them up yourself.

The one I did provide for you is telling in and of itself.

Didn't you check it out?

Mr. P is and always was a corporate asshole, and a foil for the GOP.

[-] -1 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Re-post them. That's all it takes. I have been looking for that information, if you can't supply it, that's libel.

[-] 1 points by shooz (26717) 1 year ago

LOL!!!

So sue me then. The lawyers will subpena the transcripts from the forum and you won't have to look for them........;)

You could start at around 11 months ago and get around 4 months of transcripts.

I'm not going to bother going over it again, for you or anybody else.

You want to believe the guy? go ahead, but I won't stop pointing out what shit he and his son actually are.

[-] 0 points by ivyquinn (167) 1 year ago

Who said anything about suing? You spout information without backing it up, you are the one who loses by not enriching minds.