Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal NDAA

[General Brock]

Ron Paul introduces bill to repeal section of NDAA
article:318153:59::0

Jan 19, 2012 in Politics

By Christine Mattice.

On Wednesday, Ron Paul introduced a bill to his House colleagues to repeal section 1021 of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act).

This section states the United States can indefinitely detain anyone—without charges or trial—who they believe has “substantially supported certain terrorist groups.”

Paul fears that this vague language could extend the military might to United States citizens.

Taking a break from campaigning for the GOP nomination, Paul defending his bill on the House floor and asked his colleagues to join him.

Paul said, in part:

Section 1021 provides for the possibility of the U.S. military acting as a kind of police force on U.S. soil, apprehending terror suspects, including Americans, and whisking them off to an undisclosed location indefinitely…This is precisely the kind of egregious distortion of justice that Americans have always ridiculed in so many dictatorships overseas.

He also took a swipe at Republican Senator Lindsay Graham (without naming him), by recalling his famous statement on the Senate floor about future detainees: “When they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’”

“Is this acceptable,” Paul asked his colleagues, “in someone who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution?”

Paul is not alone in his concern about the language and intent of the NDAA. Before the bill was passed, many Americans were upset and outraged over its possible implications. However, despite intense objections and little support for this bill among American citizens—a poll conducted by OpenCongress.com gave it just a 2% approval rating—Congress approved it and President Obama signed it into law on New Year’s Eve.

Now Paul is trying to get Congress to finally do right by the people who elected them. Will they listen to him? Who knows? But maybe their (dis)approval ratings are finally sinking in.

According to Bloomberg Business Week:

A Washington-Post ABC News poll conducted Jan. 12-15 put Congress’s approval rating at 13 percent, a record low for that opinion survey. A Dec. 15-18 Gallup poll put the approval rate at 11 percent, also a record low. A Pew Research Center poll found that 53 percent of those surveyed Dec. 7-11 said Republicans were more extreme than Democrats and 51 percent said Democrats were more willing to compromise.

Other surveys have given them approval ratings of between 5 and 9 percent.

Link: http://digitaljournal.com/article/318153

Its interesting stuff, regardless.

[bobalot]

Ron Paul also introduced a bill to stop the Federal government removing tax exempt status from schools that segregate. Could you explain that one to us?

[Grumman]

Good on him. If the government was actually acting in good faith, they wouldn't need such powers - how pathetic does your case have to be if you can't convince twelve Americans that your so-called terrorist has actually done something wrong?

Ron Paul also introduced a bill to stop the Federal government removing tax exempt status from schools that segregate. Could you explain that one to us?

Don't you have every other Ron Paul thread to talk about this? Can't we just be happy that there's a presidential candidate that has any redeeming features?

[Crossroads Inc.]

Ron Paul also introduced a bill to stop the Federal government removing tax exempt status from schools that segregate. Could you explain that one to us?

Don't you have every other Ron Paul thread to talk about this? Can't we just be happy that there's a presidential candidate that has any redeeming features?

Ok ok, fine, we can be happy there IS a candidate that DOES indeed have more redeeming features then anyone else out there.

And it's Obama

[K. A. Pital]

I doubt anything can redeem a law like NDAA. Speaking out against it - whatever your motives are, high or low - is a positive action.

Obama has few redeeming features as he basically signed all this dictatorial bullshit into being with extremely low support and under media silence (hell, the Wikipedia blackout was a bigger event than the signing of NDAA, with the latter being just as dangerous for civil liberties!).

[Mayabird]

You know what they say about broken clocks. Just because someone is batshit insane and mostly full of crap doesn't mean they can't have some good points in there somewhere.

[Broomstick]

Good for Ron Paul on this issue. I fully support his stance on this issue.

I still do not want him as PotUS, however.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Good on him. If the government was actually acting in good faith, they wouldn't need such powers - how pathetic does your case have to be if you can't convince twelve Americans that your so-called terrorist has actually done something wrong?

Ron Paul also introduced a bill to stop the Federal government removing tax exempt status from schools that segregate. Could you explain that one to us?

Don't you have every other Ron Paul thread to talk about this? Can't we just be happy that there's a presidential candidate that has any redeeming features?

They all have redeeming features! I mean, Romney's not bugfuck insane, Gingrich writes the occasional piece of popcorn alt-history, Santorum's CO2 and water vapor emissions provide fuel for plants, and like a broken clock, Ron Paul is occasionally right . . . but only by happy accident.

The problem with Paul is that he's bugfuck insane the rest of the time. It's quite right for others to point out his flaws, as a counterpoint to the rabid lolbertarians who turn up to mindlessly defend the bastard.

[Beowulf]

It should be noted that the disagree with the NDAA is with a specific section (1021/1022), and not the whole bill (unlike SOPA/PIPA). Large portions of the NDAA are not controversial. Specifically, the parts that actually fund the military (well, I suppose those would be controversial to some crazy people, but yeah).

[bobalot]

Good on him. If the government was actually acting in good faith, they wouldn't need such powers - how pathetic does your case have to be if you can't convince twelve Americans that your so-called terrorist has actually done something wrong?

Ron Paul also introduced a bill to stop the Federal government removing tax exempt status from schools that segregate. Could you explain that one to us?

Don't you have every other Ron Paul thread to talk about this? Can't we just be happy that there's a presidential candidate that has any redeeming features?

Well, I have not been given an answer by Ron Paul supporters. They all seem to avoid giving one for some reason.

[General Brock]

Ron Paul also introduced a bill to stop the Federal government removing tax exempt status from schools that segregate. Could you explain that one to us?

First, I'll say that its more important that Paul is fighting for repealing NDAA 1021, because I doubt that any sincere attempts to do so would appear without him, and if it fails, unless he brings it up again, there may not be anyone else willing to do so.


You are making a very simplistic conclusion in saying Ron Paul 'wants' to bring back segregation in schools. In racial politics, as anywhere else, correlation does not equal causation. While he does say he 'celebrates' the end of segregation, his sincerity will always be under question.

Ron Paul's ideology revolves around preserving state rights as a mechanism for promoting individual rights. I would assume cash incentives for schools to remain non-segregated infringe upon this. With the entire system hurting for money, segregation - as opposed to academic performance or some mix of the two - is perhaps not even the best place to be putting federal money.

Ron Paul if nothing else tends to get fixated on fiscal policy, and knows the tricks; perhaps there are ways to screw minorities under the guise of helping them.

There's also the problem, recognized by more other people than Ron Paul, that children in schools appear to increasingly self-segregate. Racial violence remains a problem in some schools.

There is also the phenomenon of declining white majority on many states. How crucial was their cooperation in keeping down racial conflict not only between themselves and other races, but between the non-white races who don't get along?

There is also, maybe - I've read about but not verified to my satisfaction - white flight to private schools. Now, if some of those private schools are taking advantage of the tendency for whites to be be foremost among attendees, and pocketing desegregation cash, maybe that's not fair to the public sector.

The entire public system inconsistently produces kids who can read, write, and do math at their supposed level.

There is also the massive disparity between the rich and poor attending those schools - when the rich haven't haven't run off to a private school. Many of the poor appear to be non-white.

That is a very complicated situation, demanding more Federal resources to either clamp down or study and manage, and its safe to assume there isn't much money for either.

Ron Paul is also, I might add, is soft on gender segregation citing studies that indicate this appears to improve academic performance.

I don't agree with segregation. People need to experience one another and learn to get along. But in some places, that is just not happening. Children have only so many years to be children. Reasons they do not get along need to be examined. Denial that there is a problem will only guarantee the problem worsens. Even aracial bullying is becoming an issue.

Ron Paul makes the case that segregation should not be forced, and that it is up to the states, which in turn would normally answer to local needs and conditions. It is in some way a cop out, except that the responsibility does technically lie with the states.

If you think racist whites will try and take advantage of the situation, you are correct and that is already taking place under the table. Furthermore, given the changing racial demographics, it could probably only happen under the table so as not to spark open conflicts as minorities become empowered with numbers as well as education and wealth. Grassroots level solutions may be needed moreso than top-down Federal solutions, especially if the Fed solution is only to throw more cash at a problem.

In the meantime, the indirect and backhanded discrimination that concerns you already finds ways to manifest itself and pouring more money on the problem isn't going to solve it. It may very well guarantee it not only remains unresolved, but dependent on cash, not the will of the participants, to stay contained. That is not a lasting solution and at best you are going to produce bigots adept at sounding politically correct.

I still believe the problem has moved beyond this; America's present culture of "just do it" violence and corruption in external affairs cannot be without effect on internal affairs.

[Alkaloid]

Broken clocks are regularly right. Twice a day. Beats the hell out of a slow clock, or a mis-set clock.

Yeah, but a mis set clock at least gives an idea of how much time is passing, and I'd argue that most politicians these days are slow clocks.

[Shroom Man 777]

Why is it that, in the land of the free and home of the brave, one of the main and most vocal opponents of legislation that violates civil law and human rights is actually or supposed to be a racist religious fundamentalist conspiracy nut? What has happened to the people who are actually, or supposed to be, saner and more sensible than him? If this crazy person who is so very derided here is one of the few opposing it, then what does this make the non-crazy people who are not-opposing it? Why is the one opposing the illegal detention of fellow American citizens the super best friend of David "shapeshifting reptiloid conspiracy" Icke and not the other ostensibly better politicians who don't think that the alien invasion series V was a TV documentary? There seems to be something wrong with this star spangled picture. Will Farrel should make a movie of all of this.

[Panzersharkcat]

Shroom, I am sigging that.
EDIT: Never mind. Damn character limit.

[Broomstick]

Ron Paul if nothing else tends to get fixated on fiscal policy, and knows the tricks; perhaps there are ways to screw minorities under the guise of helping them.

Of course there are. That doesn't mean removing protective legislation is the way to fix the situation.

There is also the phenomenon of declining white majority on many states. How crucial was their cooperation in keeping down racial conflict not only between themselves and other races, but between the non-white races who don't get along?

In other words, you're postulating a "white man's burden", or "white kid's burden", to keep down conflict between other ethnicities? Why is it the white kid's responsibility to, say, prevent conflict between blacks and Mexicans in a public school? What makes you think that is even possible? Do you realize how paternalistic, patronizing, and racist that is?

There is also, maybe - I've read about but not verified to my satisfaction - white flight to private schools. Now, if some of those private schools are taking advantage of the tendency for whites to be be foremost among attendees, and pocketing desegregation cash, maybe that's not fair to the public sector.

Verify it. In urban areas, there are many private schools that are not dominated by whites. They aren't the prestigious private schools. There is an assumption private schools cater to rich white people, but does that include Catholic schools, which are considered private but often take in impoverished students?

There is also the massive disparity between the rich and poor attending those schools - when the rich haven't haven't run off to a private school. Many of the poor appear to be non-white.

Only in urban areas - once you get to rural areas the poor are overwhelmingly white. Most poor people in the US are white, despite the stereotypes.

Ron Paul is also, I might add, is soft on gender segregation citing studies that indicate this appears to improve academic performance.

Yes, studies indicate that in some cases this is true. That doesn't mean people should be segregated from kindergarten through the end of high school.

Even aracial bullying is becoming an issue.

That has actually been around since... well, forever. What's happening is that it is finally being recognized and someone is trying to do something about it. Oh, and we have video cameras now. When I was beaten by 4 or 5 people at a time I was flat out told I was lying, despite my injuries. Now, when the bullies film themselves and post it on YouTube it's harder for the matter to be ignored.

Ron Paul makes the case that segregation should not be forced, and that it is up to the states, which in turn would normally answer to local needs and conditions. It is in some way a cop out, except that the responsibility does technically lie with the states.

Except the states used segregation to systematically deny people an education, to give one group good facilities and everyone else total shit. People risked their lives in the 1960's to put an end to that "system" that held down and held back everyone but privileged white boys. This is just an underhanded way to reverse the gains of everyone not privileged, white, and male.

If you think racist whites will try and take advantage of the situation, you are correct and that is already taking place under the table.

Yep, but that's no reason to make it easier for racists - of any color or creed - to discriminate against others.

Furthermore, given the changing racial demographics, it could probably only happen under the table so as not to spark open conflicts as minorities become empowered with numbers as well as education and wealth.

You mean, like a white minority could never hold down a black majority in South Africa? Oh, wait...

Some of the worst offenders on segregation in the US were states that historically black majority, or close to it, for most of US history like Alabama and Mississippi.

[TheHammer]

Ron Paul also introduced a bill to stop the Federal government removing tax exempt status from schools that segregate. Could you explain that one to us?

First, I'll say that its more important that Paul is fighting for repealing NDAA 1021, because I doubt that any sincere attempts to do so would appear without him, and if it fails, unless he brings it up again, there may not be anyone else willing to do so.

Repealing NDAA 1021 on the premise that it "might be extended to include American Citizens" is simply a publicity stunt. The Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh amendments of the U.S. constitutation already prevent its application to American Citizens. The people who wrote the bill know (or should know) this.

Further, you have the closing provision in 1021:

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

The constitution is existing law. And the NDAA couldn't "affect it" even if it wanted making the affirmation wholy unneccessary. Despite all of that, you still have the chicken little types running around screaming that the sky is falling. The reality is, any attempt by the government to extend this provision to citizens would get smacked down HARD by the SCOTUS.

[Simon_Jester]

Why is it that, in the land of the free and home of the brave, one of the main and most vocal opponents of legislation that violates civil law and human rights is actually or supposed to be a racist religious fundamentalist conspiracy nut? What has happened to the people who are actually, or supposed to be, saner and more sensible than him? If this crazy person who is so very derided here is one of the few opposing it, then what does this make the non-crazy people who are not-opposing it? Why is the one opposing the illegal detention of fellow American citizens the super best friend of David "shapeshifting reptiloid conspiracy" Icke and not the other ostensibly better politicians who don't think that the alien invasion series V was a TV documentary? There seems to be something wrong with this star spangled picture. Will Farrel should make a movie of all of this.

Because the system is corrupt, and almost everyone who is (A) not dumb enough to think V was a documentary and (B) manipulative enough to win at politics knows it is corrupt... BUT it is not yet corrupt enough to touch off a revolt, even a peaceful one.

Though we are beginning to see this- were it not for the success of the oligarchy in hijacking the American lower and middle classes with dishes of Tea, we might have seen it already.

[DoomSquid]

Ron Paul also introduced a bill to stop the Federal government removing tax exempt status from schools that segregate. Could you explain that one to us?

First, I'll say that its more important that Paul is fighting for repealing NDAA 1021, because I doubt that any sincere attempts to do so would appear without him, and if it fails, unless he brings it up again, there may not be anyone else willing to do so.

Repealing NDAA 1021 on the premise that it "might be extended to include American Citizens" is simply a publicity stunt. The Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh amendments of the U.S. constitutation already prevent its application to American Citizens. The people who wrote the bill know (or should know) this.

Further, you have the closing provision in 1021:

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

The constitution is existing law. And the NDAA couldn't "affect it" even if it wanted making the affirmation wholy unneccessary. Despite all of that, you still have the chicken little types running around screaming that the sky is falling. The reality is, any attempt by the government to extend this provision to citizens would get smacked down HARD by the SCOTUS.

The US constitution prevents it from applying to anybody. It doesn't specify anywhere in the constitution that civil liberties, protection form unreasonable search and seizure and so on only apply to US citizens, so far as I'm aware.

[TheHammer]

The US constitution prevents it from applying to anybody. It doesn't specify anywhere in the constitution that civil liberties, protection form unreasonable search and seizure and so on only apply to US citizens, so far as I'm aware.

One could reasonably argue the intent was only to apply to U.S. citizens, and one could argue that it applies to every person. In fact, many people have argued over whether or not constitutional protections extend to non-citizens with varying degrees of success on both sides. I'm not going to debate that aspect.

However, it has NEVER been in dispute that the bill of rights applies to U.S. citizens. Thus the fear cited that section 1021 might somehow be construed to "apply to U.S. citizens" and over-ride their Constiutional protections is complete bullshit.

[bobalot]

I was about to respond to Brock's bullshit rationalisation to why Ron Paul thinks the Federal government shouldn't remove tax exempt status from segregated schools, but Broomstick has already done that.

It's amazing what lengths he will go to justify Ron Paul's enabling of racism. Coupled with Ron Paul's belief that the states should be allowed to discriminate against minorities, it gives us a very clear picture of the man. A unrepentant Confederate.

[TheHammer]

Where was the due process before Anwar al-Awlaki was deprived of his life? When did he have a chance to face his accuser? Where was his speedy and public trial by jury? Where was the indictment?

As I recall, his father tried to sue, but didn't get anywhere with it.

The Anwar Al-Awlaki situation has been debated to death on this board. I'm not going to rehash the particulars. Given his situation, and his own very public admission of his role with AQAP, his death is justifiable.

[Simon_Jester]

So... NDAA and the machinery of the War on Terror don't affect the constitutional rights of American citizens, except when it's "justified" in the eyes of an unaccountable third party?

[Grumman]

The Anwar Al-Awlaki situation has been debated to death on this board. I'm not going to rehash the particulars. Given his situation, and his own very public admission of his role with AQAP, his death is justifiable.

If it was "justifiable", why refuse to justify it? If the extent of the US government's failing in this case was to try Al-Awlaki in absentia, with the ACLU and CCR's lawyers defending him at his father's request, this would at least be less bad than putting him on an assassination list for undisclosed, incontestable reasons.

[Broomstick]

Well, a major obstacle to that very reasonable suggestion is that in the US legal system trial in absentia simply does not exist. If the suspect can't appear before a judge a trial can not occur.

[TheHammer]

So... NDAA and the machinery of the War on Terror don't affect the constitutional rights of American citizens, except when it's "justified" in the eyes of an unaccountable third party?

Police gun down dangerous criminals without trial when the situation warrants it. They are then almost always taken before a review board of some sort after the fact to determine whether or not it was justified. The makeup of these review boards varies, but they often aren't elected judges or lawyers. Unfortunately, there does not currently exist such formalized boardy with oversight on situations such as Awlaki. However, as was noted during the debate, before Awlaki was put on any "list" there was significant review done through various members of the Federal government. Among the criteria cited:

1) His self affirmed membership in AQAP, and credible evidence supporting his affirmation.
2) His location, operating from foreign soil making capture unfeasible.
3) His danger to the general public good and wellbeing should he continue to live and operate as per 1 and 2.

It would be hard to fathom a formal "review board", should it have existed, taking those facts into account and not giving the go ahead.

Further, even the vast majority of those people who say they were against killing Awlaki often begin their statements with something similar to the following: "Awlaki was a piece of shit, and we are all better off without him around but...". I can understand the desire to have a formalized process, so long as it was streamlined, to deal with such situations in the future. However, given our ineffectual congress Awlaki likely would have died of old age before they got it figured out.