I would like to state that Ron Paul (R-TX) is the ONLY republican presidential candidate that stands against this new law.
H.R. 1540: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Ron Paul (R-TX) even voted NO when this bill was voted on in congress on May 26, 2011.
I came across several false rumors on the internet by both the Obama/democratic camp and Ron Paul opponents claiming he was a hypocrite and did not bother to vote on this bill. Allow me to clarify, Ron Paul was a "no vote" on Dec 14, 2011 when the hill was voting on a "CONFERENCE REPORT" after it PASSED BOTH the house and the senate! GovTrack writes "After passing both the Senate and House, a conference committee is created to work out differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. A conference report resolving those differences passed in the House of Representatives, paving the way for enactment of the bill, by roll call vote." So naturally, I can see why Ron Paul would not give a hoot about voting for a "CONFERENCE COMMITTEE" if he was against this bill in the first place!
I came across several false rumors on the internet by both the Obama/democratic camp and Ron Paul opponents claiming he was a hypocrite and did not bother to vote on this bill. Allow me to clarify, Ron Paul was a "no vote" on Dec 14, 2011 when the hill was voting on a "CONFERENCE REPORT" after it PASSED BOTH the house and the senate! GovTrack writes "After passing both the Senate and House, a conference committee is created to work out differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill. A conference report resolving those differences passed in the House of Representatives, paving the way for enactment of the bill, by roll call vote." So naturally, I can see why Ron Paul would not give a hoot about voting for a "CONFERENCE COMMITTEE" if he was against this bill in the first place!
President Obama claiming by signing an "unconstitutional" waiver should calm Americans nerves is simply hogwash. President Obama has SIGNED THIS BILL INTO LAW with these provisions included. It is the LAW OF THE LAND by the stroke of President Obama's pen. The only way it can legitimately disappear is by passing another legislative bill that would REPEAL these provisions.
In 2008, then Senator Obama called presidential "signing statements" (letters of interpretation and recommendations attached to Congressional legislation) unconstitutional and promised not to use them. Please click HERE to have Obama explain this to you himself.
So for the record, President Obama is for this new law because what he says and what he does are two different things. Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich have also stated emphatically that they too will maintain this new law as well as the Patriot Act and TSA. The ONLY one out of ALL of these presidential choices left or right fighting for our individual civil liberties is Dr. Ron Paul. The following legislative bill is an example of the 100's of bills Ron Paul has submitted and are completely ignored/rejected by the rest of our elected representatives who are also supposed to be fighting to protect and defend OUR CIVIL LIBERTIES!!!
The Humble Libertarian writes: Even while campaigning, Ron Paul is working hard as a legislator to fight for our rights, from rushing to Washington from South Carolina to vote against a debt ceiling hike, to introducing a bill this week that would undo the outrageous provisions of the NDAA that allow the president and military to arrest and detain U.S. citizens on U.S. soil and hold them indefinitely without charges.
In fewer than 100 words, the text of Ron Paul’s legislation, HR 3785, would overturn section 1021 of the NDAA:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1. Repeal of Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012.
The bill, introduced on January 18, has since been referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, in addition to the Committee on Armed Services. [I just checked GovTrack and this bill hasn't moved since. (emphasis mine)]
*********************************************************
RT news
written by Staff
Tuesday February 28, 2012
Utah is now the latest state to draft legislation specifically condemning the provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act that allow the president to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge.
The Utah House is currently considering legislation that would publically put down Congress for drafting the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or the NDAA. The United States House and Senate passed the NDAA late last year before sending it to the White House for President Barack Obama to approve on December 31, 2011. Although the legislation legitimizes the use of funds for the U.S. military to spend throughout 2012, it also includes some controversial provisions that grant the Executive Branch the power to indefinitely detain Americans considered terrorists in the eyes of the government.
Unfortunately, how the government goes about defining a terrorist is vaguely explained, which has many Americans concerned that they could someday find themselves forever behind bars in a military prison for expressing discontent with their country.
“Our concern is in the definition of ‘terrorist,’ ” Dalane England of the Utah Eagle Forum tells the Salt Lake City Tribune.
Should the government deem an American a terrorist and apply the punishments permitted through the NDAA, alleged criminals could be condemned to a shadow prison, such as the one at Guantanamo Bay, until their death.
Todd Weilier, a Republican senator representing the Woods Cross district of Utah, adds to the paper that other legislation with good intentions have been used in the past to implement harsh punishments on Americans that are otherwise undeserving of such. “I have a legitimate fear this National Defense Authorization law will do the same thing,” says the senator, who is sponsoring the bill, formally called the ‘Concurrent Resolution on the National Defense Authorization Act.’
“It is indisputable that the threat of terrorism is real and that the full force of appropriation and constitutional law must be used to defeat this threat,” reads the bill proposed in the Utah House. “However,” it continues, “winning the war against terror cannot come at the great expense of mitigating basic, fundamental, constitutional rights.”
Other state's lawmakers have drafted legislation since the creation of the NDAA that aims to cancel out those provisions as well, and Utah is the latest to follow suit. Earlier this month, lawmakers in the lower house of the Virginia General Assembly voted 96-to-4 to approve HB 1160, a bill that will ban state officials from abiding by some elements of the NDAA. Should the act see similar support in the state’s Senate, Virginia will be spared from the detainment provisions that have garnered opposition against Congress and the Obama White House over the NDAA’s passing.
In the latest plea from lawmakers in Utah, they are asking Congress to either repeal or clarify the language in the NDAA which they fear, otherwise, could be detrimental to the American way of life. In the resolution offered by Utah lawmakers, they urge Congress to act in order “to protect the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Utah Constitution.”
Senator Weilier proposed the substitute bill before the 2012 general session and the legislation was approved for filing on February 23. Nine states have so far introduced bills that aim to adjust or repeal the detainment provisions of the NDAA.
No comments:
Post a Comment