Friday, December 2, 2011

Rand Paul Single Handedly Stops Amendment that Would Have Allowed the Government to Detain American Citizens Indefinitely

Last Night, Senator Rand Paul prevented the passage of an amendment that would have further eroded Americans’ constitutional rights. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012 (S.1867), amendment No. 1274 would have allowed the U.S. government to detain an American citizen indefinitely, even after they had been tried and found not guilty, until Congress declares an end to the war on terror.

“Suspicion of committing a crime should lead to your attempted prosecution. If the evidence does not support conviction, it would be against everything we believe in and fight for in America to still allow the government to imprison you at their whim,” Sen. Paul said. “Tonight, a blow was struck to fight back against those who would take our liberty.”

The amendment would have passed by voice vote, but this tactic was blocked by Sen. Paul’s objection. He then forced a roll call vote, in which the amendment was defeated, 41-59.

Sen. Paul earlier this week introduced an amendment to formally end the war in Iraq. Despite the fact that troops will be removed from Iraq at the end of this year, the amendment failed 30-67.

Update: I see from the comments that there is some confusion over what Senator Paul was able to accomplish. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012 (S.1867) passed. Senator Paul was only able to stop amendment No. 1274 attached to the bill. Here the direct wording in Senator Paul's statement on the matter:
Sen. Rand Paul prevented the passage of an amendment that would have further eroded Americans’ constitutional rights. Offered to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012 (S.1867), amendment No. 1274 would have allowed the U.S. government to detain an American citizen indefinitely, even after they had been tried and found not guilty, until Congress declares an end to the war on terror.
No doubt, other provisions in the act treat the rights of American citizens with additional disrespect. Senator Rand has won a battle here, not the war.


  1. so when it came to a roll call call vote, enough senators passed on opportunity to go back to their home state to be accused of ripping up a citizens right to a trial. Well done Mr Paul.

  2. I'm getting conflicting is the article over at

    Which is it?

  3. Go here ( to see who fears their constituents more than than they fear not being re-elected.

  4. Thank you Mr. Paul - a light in the darkness.

  5. You got it wrong. The bill passed.

    The Paul vote stripped out an amendment which was even MORE egregious, that even someone found innocent in court could still be detained indefinitely.

  6. This is not entirely accurate. Rand Paul was able to defeat an amendment that would have allowed the military to continue detaining a person even if a civil court found them not guilty. He was not able to stop the 'indefinite detention' amendment itself.

    US Rep. Justin Amash posted the following clarification on Facebook earlier:

    UPDATED: Here's the roll call for S 1867, National Defense Authorization Act, which grants the President new statutory authority to indefinitely detain American citizens on American soil, without charge or trial, at his sole discretion. I voted no on the House version of this bill, H R 1540, on May 26, 2011 []. The Senate bill, S 1867, passed 93-7.

    Some have asserted that the defeat of Sen. Sessions' amendment, S Amdt 1274, means that the egregious detainee provisions have been defeated. That is incorrect. First, logically, the defeat of an amendment cannot change the problematic language in the underlying bill. Second, S Amdt 1274 provides that even if a detainee (American citizen) were to receive a civilian trial and be acquitted, he STILL could be held indefinitely in military custody. In short, it was an effort to make the bill even more destructive of our Constitution. That is all that was defeated.

    Others have asserted that Sen. Feinstein's amendment, S Amdt 1456, protects the rights of American citizens and preserves constitutional due process. Unfortunately, it does not. It's just more cleverly worded nonsense to preserve the status quo, which, according to the Obama administration, permits the President to deny constitutional due process to American citizens without having to provide any justification.

    Although the President has threatened to veto this bill, he actually does not object to the most egregious provisions related to the indefinite detention of American citizens, so those provisions are not likely to be removed without further public outcry.

  7. Like father, like son.
    Awesome performance, thank you once again,citizens of Kentucky.
    I concur with Heath, I think senators got the message from the electorate over the last couple of days of voters calling, emailing, yelling, screaming.
    One small step for liberty.

  8. Are you sure he didn't get help from the current administration who basically wanted the authority to rest solely with the executive branch?

  9. Incredible, that amendment. Amazing, how much our Congress tramples over our rights.

    Great job, Senator Paul!

  10. Yet I haven't seen any reports of this in the MSM.

    I thought HuffPo would do a piece since it's kind of a leftist issue, but because it was Rand Paul, I couldn't find anything on it.

  11. I have to say, i started out thinking Rand Paul was one of those Tea Party types that talks a good game but whose actions would show otherwise.

    But i am really liking him more and more. He may not be as good on everything as his old man, but when it comes to consistency he may be a chip off the old block. He's certainly no neocon, that's for sure.

  12. Does anyone have a list of the Fab Forty-One??!!!

  13. What else is worth defending, but liberty?

    A toast to Mr. Paul, and my deepest thanks.

  14. This hardly is anything to smile about. This bill is a disaster for the Republic.

  15. the amendment that was removed was so Stalinesque. I can't believe 41 voted yes. Well, yes I can.

  16. They'll pass it eventually. Good for Rand though, he's walking the walk for sure.

  17. Roll call vote.

  18. I was pretty steamed when I saw this. I decided to do some research on it. I am glad I did. The bill is S. 1867 and it is called the National Defense Authorization Act. But, under sections 1031 the critical part is the Persons which is under part (b) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
    And section1032, in Paragraph 2 shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined—
    (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
    The part about being detained without trial is under section 1031 paragraph (c) which reads: DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
    (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
    (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111–(84)).
    (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
    (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign counry, or any other foreign entity.

  19. I'm also a little confused about this post. I guess we have to wait until the dust settles. I read earlier that this bill passed?

  20. Hate to burst everyon'e bubble, but Rand Paul voted AGAINST this egregious bill - he was not able to stop what he really wanted stopped. According to Linsey Graham, 'the homeland is a battleground'. 'Homeland' is what the Nazi's called Germany. We have lost our Bill of Rights with this bill - no more freedom of speech, no Habeus Corpus, no trial before our peers, etc.
    America lost and 93 traitors need to be put to the gallows, starting with McCain. Or am I now considered 'an enemy terrorist' for writing that? Think about it...

  21. And then he went and voted for sanctions on Iran.

  22. seems Thu night's great news turned sour with Fri morning's difficult news:

    US Senate votes to end Bill of Rights, authorizes military to occupy U.S. cities and detain Americans....
    Fri, Dec 2, 2011 - 09:26 AM

  23. The bill will come in handy when it's finally proven that those responsible for 9/11 are in fact the neocons. Then we'll have the legal right to imprison them for life no matter what.

  24. I'm fortunate to have been able to vote for Rand. His father Ron is the only one I'll vote for next.
    McCain , Graham, Boehner, Newt, Romney , etc are as bad as the current demon in the whitehouse as far as I'm concerned.

  25. (including any person who has committed a belligerent act.) that small piece, that one sub-phase opens the door to any interpretation. Look forward, this bill was passed 97-7. the U.S.A elected senate see's that in the (future)? there will come a time when the tree of liberty needs to be watered. and if you try to organize... they now have the legal means to hold you. By definition the bill is very loosely worded, open to future interpretation .

  26. "Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force."

    Unless I am confused this means as long as the USA is in existance. Makes me proud to be a citizen.

  27. Found this on another site:

    another says:
    November 15, 2011 at 7:03 pm
    We have to face that fact that the Constitution of the United States is obviously no longer in force.
    Among other things, this means that the people occupying congress, the courts and the White House have no legitimate basis for their power. All of their supposed power derives from a document that they clearly do not respect or obey.
    I think the powers that be, these dishonorable usurpers of power, well understand that the consent of the governed has been withdrawn. Hence the police state. Not “police state tactics,” police state.
    To continue to call this monstrosity by the name “the United States of America” is a falsehood and an insult to the flawed, but respectable democratic republic that I grew up in and that many honorable men and women have fought and died to uphold. What shall we call it instead? At the very least, it has to be “the former United States of America” at this point.

  28. Sen. Paul has done us a great service. Keep it up, please.

    What's with "Tony" and the slur on the Tea Party? I'm kind of sick of hearing that kind of crap. It's the Tea Party (which could also be called the Constitutional Party or the Preserve our Freedom Party just as easily) that
    has shed light on the liberal elite/whacko's in this country who are running us into the ground. I think that the Tea party folks are folks like me. I've always worked for my living, done well on my own, accepted NO HANDOUTS and, shame on me, expect everyone else to do the same damn thing!

    The establishment calls Tea Party folks names because THEY ARE AFRAID OF US, pure and simple. If we don't stand up, NO ONE WILL.

    BNC - Maine

  29. Mr. Anonymous#1 is the one who has it wrong. The Bill passed, the amendment did not. The key is AFTER BEING FOUND INNOCENT BY A COURT one can still be detained. This was defeated.

  30. Seriously, you guys should all get out of the former USA while you still have a chance, in the same way that all the Jews, Gypsies, homos etc shoud have fled nazi germany in the 30´s.

    Think about it... this is serious shit that´s going down

  31. Uncle Chuck is right. Only he is a bit late. This bill/law did not do as he said. This government has been defunct for a long time now or the government could not do what they have been doing for so very long. It has been the Former United Stated of America for quite some time. The question is, will the Former become the Present, again?