• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Why is........

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
Ron Paul the onlt one talking about this?

GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul warned that the National Defense Authorization Act, which was passed by Congress this month, will accelerate the country’s “slip into tyranny” and virtually assures “our descent into totalitarianism.”


“The founders wanted to set a high bar for the government to overcome in order to deprive an individual of life or liberty,” Paul, the libertarian congressman, said Monday in a weekly phone message to supporters. “To lower that bar is to endanger everyone. When the bar is low enough to include political enemies, our descent into totalitarianism is virtually assured. The Patriot Act, as bad as its violations against the Fourth Amendment was, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act continues that slip into tyranny, and in fact, accelerates it significantly.”









The NDAA is the nearly $670 billion defense spending bill that covers the military budget and funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One controversial provision mandates the detention of terror suspects and reaffirms the administration’s authority to detain those suspected of having ties to terrorist organizations.

“The Fifth Amendment is about much more than the right to remain silent in the face of government questioning,” Paul continued. “It contains very basic and very critical stipulations about the due process of law. The government cannot imprison a person for no reason and with no evidence presented and without access to legal council. The danger of the NDAA is its alarmingly vague, undefined criteria for who can be indefinitely detained by the U.S. government without trial.”

“It is no longer limited to members of Al Qaeda or the Taliban, but anyone accused of substantially supporting such groups or associated forces,” Paul continued. “How closely associated, and what constitutes substantial support? What if it was discovered that someone who committed a terrorist act was once involved with a charity? Or suppose a political candidate? Are all donors of that candidate or supporters of that candidate now suspects and subject to indefinite detainment? Is that charity now an associated force?”

The White House initially threatened to veto the NDAA because of the detainee language, saying it would tie the hands of law enforcement officials. But the administration dropped the veto threat before the bill passed the House, as the bill’s supporters argued that there were sufficient waivers.

“The president’s widely expanded view of his own authority to detain Americans indefinitely even on American soil is for the first time in this legislation codified in law,” Paul said. “That should chill all of us to our cores.”

“The Bill of Rights has no exceptions for really bad people or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system, it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the Bill of Rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire United States is a battlefield in the war on terror. This is a very dangerous development, indeed. Beware.”
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
“The Bill of Rights has no exceptions for really bad people or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. That is not a weakness in our legal system, it is the very strength of our legal system. The NDAA attempts to justify abridging the Bill of Rights on the theory that rights are suspended in a time of war, and the entire United States is a battlefield in the war on terror. This is a very dangerous development, indeed. Beware.”

Maybe Buckwheat wants to be more like that tyrannical SOB Abe Lincoln?

http://www.civilwarnews.com/archive/articles/roswell_kirby.htm
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Ron Paul the only one talking about this?

by my research there are some in congress and the senate who who voted against the bill, sponsored amendments to the bill and have spoken out against the bill, have written a letter of protest against the bill, They have taken concrete actions to try to stop the bill from ever passing, so no he is not the only one of the group speaking out against it, but, he is one who failed to vote against it .

Ron Paul fails to vote against NDAA (the bill authorizing indefinite detention of American citizens)

You don’t run a campaign on the concept of absolute liberty and then fail to vote against the gravest attack on our civil liberties since the McCarthy era. Is Paul too busy to protect liberty? What a principled guy….

The vote was scheduled far enough in advance that Paul could have traveled back to D.C. to vote “Nay.” The belief that the NDAA would be passed regardless of his vote is also no excuse; he chose to put his (quixotic) presidential campaign before his (alleged) principles. He put a job he wants before the job he has.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Lonecowboy said:
I meant to label this why is Ron Paul the only presidential candidate talking about this.

don't get me wrong,.. I agree with Paul on alot of issues,
but if he doesn't have time or the inclination to show up for an important vote he should resign and let someone else represent his district... same goes for Bachmann.

If he felt it was important why didn't he vote against it?

at least on principle?
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2006
Messages
1,990
Reaction score
0
Location
eastern Montana
Steve said:
Lonecowboy said:
I meant to label this why is Ron Paul the only presidential candidate talking about this.

don't get me wrong,.. I agree with Paul on alot of issues,
but if he doesn't have time or the inclination to show up for an important vote he should resign and let someone else represent his district... same goes for Bachmann.

If he felt it was important why didn't he vote against it?

at least on principle?

and you are the one saying what good has he done by just showing up and voting no????????>? would his vote have changed the outcome of this?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Lonecowboy said:
Steve said:
Lonecowboy said:
I meant to label this why is Ron Paul the only presidential candidate talking about this.

don't get me wrong,.. I agree with Paul on alot of issues,
but if he doesn't have time or the inclination to show up for an important vote he should resign and let someone else represent his district... same goes for Bachmann.

If he felt it was important why didn't he vote against it?

at least on principle?

and you are the one saying what good has he done by just showing up and voting no????????>? would his vote have changed the outcome of this?

he could have offered an amendment, and yes he could have voted.. even if it was only on principle. but to complain after doing nothing is disingenuous.

but since you want to change it to what he has actually accomplished.. please feel free to show what he has actually accomplished in all the years in congress.
 

Latest posts

Top