Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ron Paul took a day off from the campaign trail on Wednesday, not to pause from politics, but to urge his colleagues on Capitol Hill to overturn the provision in the National Defense Authorization Act that allows indefinite detention for Americans.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or the NDAA, was inked by President Barack Obama on New Year’s Eve, despite immense opposition from Americans who were concerned by vague language that could allow the commander-in-chief to use military forces to domestically police the United States. Under Section 1021 of the NDAA, any person, US citizen or not, can be held without trial by American armed forces if they are suspected of being engaged in hostilities against the country by al-Qaeda or associated forces.
Obama doesnt support the bill he was forced by congress to pass the bill with a 100 votes in the senate. He signed Presidental seal of dissapproval which means he is basically going to ignore that part of the law.
ifyou have a problem with the law call your local senator
Obama doesnt support the bill he was forced by congress to pass the bill with a 100 votes in the senate. He signed Presidental seal of dissapproval which means he is basically going to ignore that part of the law.
ifyou have a problem with the law call your local senator
Obama may ignore it, but there's nothing stopping the next occupant of the White House from declaring people to be "terrorist." It's on issues like this where I really like Ron Paul. Pretty much everything else he says...well, not so much.
Obama may ignore it, but there's nothing stopping the next occupant of the White House from declaring people to be "terrorist." It's on issues like this where I really like Ron Paul. Pretty much everything else he says...well, not so much.
So you give us the authorization for use of force to go after Bin Laden as a substitute for the NDAA? That's a specious argument and you know it. You might also recall the Dr. Paul voted AGAINST the Patriot Act, as well.
So you give us the authorization for use of force to go after Bin Laden as a substitute for the NDAA? That's a specious argument and you know it. You might also recall the Dr. Paul voted AGAINST the Patriot Act, as well.
First you need to understand that NDAA is a bill used for last 50 years to fund defense. What kind of nuttiness would it take to repeal the budget for defense?
Second, what you're talking about is really a provision inserted into NDAA. Now which one? That remains unclear to me at this time. I picked one likely candidate, and that is defined in section 1021, which simply reaffirms a law that Ron Paul and nearly 100% of the Congress supported and signed up for, in 2001. In fact there was only one person in the entire congress to vote "No", and that wasn't Ron Paul. That was Barbara Lee (D-CA).
And finally, where in the world do you see a direct reference to Bin Laden in Public Law 107-40? Do you see "exceptions" for traitors?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
