Rand Paul

Rand Paul Wants Vote on Fair Trial for Military Prisoners in U.S., Holds Up Defense Authorization


Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), good on you. From The Hill:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is holding up a vote on the Defense Authorization Act until he gets a vote on his amendment affirming the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution and the indefinite detention of Americans.

Paul is seeking an agreement in principle to get a vote on his amendment when the Senate takes up the defense authorization bill that funds and sets the agenda for the U.S. military….

Paul's amendment would give American citizens being held by the military rights to a fair trial with a jury of peers and the right to confront the witnesses against him or her.

"A citizen of the United States who is captured or arrested in the United States and detained by the Armed Forces of the United States pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40) shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense," the amendment states.

[Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid [D-Nev.] said he hoped Republicans resolve the issue so the Senate can proceed to the Defense Authorization Act when it resumes work on Monday, Nov. 26.

Reid whined that, hey, it wasn't Democrats holding up getting this bill rushed through before Thanksgiving break. No, Sen. Reid, no it was not. And shame on you and them.

Reason on Rand Paul.

The senator kindly appeared at a Cato Institute event to discuss and present my book Ron Paul's Revolution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired. Video of that:

NEXT: Victim Can't Hold New York City Responsible for Detective's Sexual Assault

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “affirming the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution” “and the indefinite detention of Americans”

    LOL…What a sentimental stance on that old relic, the constitution, how quaint. Chump.

    1. It was written like a hundred years ago, man. It’s Old English, how are we supposed to know what it means?

      /Ezra Klein

      1. It is almost as old as jokes about Ezra.
        /meme killer

        1. You killed nothing, sticks.

          1. I know. But I can sleep knowing I tried.

      2. But,..”It was written like a hundred years ago” by slaveholders, warmongers, and crypto-fascists. Now it’s a living document, let’s let it ‘re-invent’ itself through bizarre rationale, and vague interpretations, judicial intuition and some plain old bullshit, into something ‘we can all enjoy’ (?today).

        /up twinkles

        1. We could just start replacing amendments until we had the new progessive papers of Amurika, written in politically correct language of course, with only gender neutral words.

          1. Don’t joke; I shudder to think of what an abomination an amendment crafted today would be.

            1. Precisely why I would never support a new Constitutional convention.

              1. Where is your sense of adventure?,…Bitter clinger.

                1. I wouldn’t say bitter. Clinger got a bit despondent a couple of times. And the time he ate a Jeep? Hilarious!

      3. Er, it’s not Old English. Old English is essentially a foreign language to speakers of modern English.

        1. I have a problem understanding folks after downing a few 40s of Olde English.

          Jus’ sayin’

          1. I would have thought Old English was corrosive or poisonous or something.

        2. No shit Tulpa, I’m making fun of Ezra Klein. I don’t actually think it’s Old English

          1. But Ezra Klein never said the Constitution is written in Old English. Clearly you are mistaken. Glad to be of service, sir.

            Tulpabot sleep-mode activated.

          2. Sorry, I didn’t realize you were strawmanning.

            Klein has said silly things about it being old and written by dead white men, so I thought you were being serious.

  2. No, fuck you, cut spending.

    Oh, wait, wrong motto.

    No, fuck you Harry Reid.

    1. It’s a near-universal response, but not quite universal. Not with Paul, anyway.

      Because he has that tattooed on his chest.

      1. Do we count a half trillion dollar decrease in spending as cutting spending?

        1. “Do we count a half trillion dollar decrease in spending as cutting spending?”

          I could see the “rational basis” in that.

  3. but Ayn Randgharrbl

    1. She collected social security. Her books were fine when I was 14 and appeal to teen age boys, but then I grew up and became a progressive. She advocated not caring for people…

      1. gah, my pseudo HTML tags didn’t show up!

        1. the tags were “annoying progressive voice” open and close

          1. Don’t use the alligator mouths, that makes ’em disappear. A slash will suffice for those in the know.

  4. OT: Shitbag cop who beats an innocent man to death 6 years ago gets 4 year in the joint.

    My hatred of the police is reaching critical mass…especially after they murdered another Marine in CA last week.

    1. Why is it worse if they kill a Marine than if they kill a normal person?

      1. Well kinda, an average citizen never dodged mortar fire in a shithole only to come state side and die via meathead.

  5. It’s amazing that we should need a law to affirm this stuff.

    1. I look forward to the day someone uses the existence of this amendment to argue that the Sixth Amendment doesn’t already apply.

    2. You’re assuming that the Senate won’t override the threatened filibuster by getting 60+ votes to shut down debate and defeat this amendment.

  6. Rand is like something from another era, you know, like when they cared about constitutions and silly stuff like that?

    If during the next session, Rand goes outside, cuts a big ol hickory stick, goes back inside and beats Harry Reid unconscious on the Senate floor with it, I am voting for him in 2016 even if he doesn’t run. I’ll write him in, which is one better than I did for his old man. I hear they used to regularly do stuff like that back in the good old days. Things are boring now that the campaigns are over. We need a good old fashioned Senate floor beating.

    1. I have to look to Taiwanese or Indian Indian parliament for the gleeful mindless violence amongst politicians that I crave, it’s kinda sad really that my reps don’t just go at it.

      1. If I recall correctly, back in the summer, some guy from one of Greeces crazy political parties got up on national TV and slapped the shit out of some fembot socialist. It was pretty damn funny.

          1. Well, aside from the Nazi stuff.

    2. D.C. needs to re-legalize dueling.

  7. Conflict intensifies as rockets hit Tel Aviv

    Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called Israel’s bombing campaign against the Gaza Strip an act of savagery
    against the Palestinians.

    “Another savage aggression against the Gaza Strip has begun,” Chavez told a cabinet meeting on Thursday televised by state-run TV.

    “Once again, the state of Israel is bombing the Gaza Strip.”

    1. I think a pretty good barometer of what opinion you should have about any particular foreign conflict is to see what Hugo Chavez thinks about it and then realize the truth is the exact polar opposite.

      So for instance when he says “Israel is bombing Gaza” you can say safely realize that Gaza is probably bombing Israel already.


      1. “what Hugo Chavez thinks about it and then realize the truth is the exact polar opposite.”

        think that’s a pretty sound policy.

    2. Oh God I lust for Israel to crush Hamas and other degenerates to pulp like they should have done years ago. The failure to cap Cast Lead in that manner was an inexcusable error.

      1. You know me, I don’t usually get a war boner on, but hells yes.

        Hamas has fucked the Palestinian people over far more than Israel ever could.

    3. Just because it was said by Hugo Chavez, doesn’t mean it’s wrong, Nigel.

      Sheesh, don’t you care about other people’s suffering?

      1. I care about Hugo Chavez suffering. Does that count?

        1. Come on tumor!

      2. Why should Palestinian children suffer?

        1. Ask Hamas.

          1. Islam in itself, like Judaism in itself and Christianity in itself, is not a threat to me or to anyone. American imperialism is, European indifference and co-operation is, and the Israeli racist and cruel regime of occupation is.

            1. Have you been drinking?

            2. I don’t know why, but a group of neocons come here to spew a foreign policy at odds with liertarianism. They have few rational thoughts or knowledge and rely on shock and insults for their laughs. They never offer any kind of civil or rational analysis. They are a joke.

              1. Invade Canada! Operation Leafblower! Drive the pinko frenchies into the Arctic Ocean!

                Sorry, I get cranky before my coffee’s finished perking.

  8. I’m beginning to suspect Harry Reid is an asshole.

    Sorry the majority leader is telling the minority party to get its people to fall into line. The best part is GOP leadership is no doubt trying to pressure Paul into standing down, because the truth is that very few in Congress look favorably at that roadblock known as the Constitution.

    1. From the comments on that Hill article:

      The Sleeping Giant?an hour ago ?
      Thanks to the damage done to the Republican Party by Paul’s father and their cult member-like followers America is seriously damaged and now he wishes to do more damage. The Paul clan is one of the best friends the democrats have.

      1. Sounds like a real AMURICAN, unlike you.

        It’s good to be reminded that TEAM RED has its own share of retarded sycophantic fanbois.

        1. A dying animal nips at it’s wounds.

        2. No the real AMURICANs are the guys saying stuff like this:

          First thing we need from Reed is filibuster reform. Enough of this nonsense that we need 60 votes for anything and everything but we can elect president with 50% of votes.

          Partisan sacks of shit.

          1. Pretty retarded (obviously), since all Rand is asking for here is a vote on his amendment.

            Getting rid of the filibuster but allowing the Majority Leader to prevent any amendments or votes other than ones he likes (hell, the House at least has the discharge petition) isn’t any better at all.

          2. What they need is to bring back the Jefferson Smith style filibuster, of one Senator reading from something like All The King’s Men on the floor of the Senate while the rest of the Senate’s business is brought to a screeching halt.

            The filibuster will still be used, but only when it’s important enough to stop everything. (That should of course be all the time, but with TEAM BE RULED you know the filibuster will be used much less.)

      2. Hyuk hyuk mega dittos thayer Rush, uh, yer a great Murkin Mr. Hannity…

      3. Did you write “You Neo-Cons are a huge dead corpse of a Giant and we are going to feed you to the vultures now. Until you have your epiphany and realize the truth that no one would ever dream of supporting your cruel, stuip nightmarish Neo-Con vision of endless war, debt and less freedom and lower wages we will never have to fear you again. Rest In Peace.” ? That is fantastic. Can I make that a public quote?

        1. Looks like somebody needz to find jeesus.

    2. And they certainly don’t look favorably at the prospect of having an up or down vote on the constitutionality of some military practice – they’d much rather issue press releases either praising the President’s “leadership” or bitching and moaning about it. But taking a specific stand? Against all their conditioning. Which is why we’re where we are.

      1. Not everyone will like this comparison, but Jesse Helms (R-NC) really pissed off his Senate colleagues by forcing votes on issues where Senators wanted to be vague and noncommittal. Seems like Rand is beginning to acquire a similar reputation (though, many would argue, on behalf of better issues).

    3. I’m beginning to suspect Harry Reid is an asshole.


      1. No shit; the guy’s an asshole amongst assholes. Complete fucking jerks bow in awe at his mastery of douche.

      2. What, would you prefer he be stopping?

    4. I’m beginning to suspect Harry Reid is an asshole.

      Sorry the majority leader is telling the minority party to get its people to fall into line.

      There’s no doubt in my mind that Reid is an asshole, but between recalcitrant Republicans and warmongering statist Democrats like “our” Senator Inouye, Reid may not currently have 60+ votes to move this amendment along and prevent a filibuster.

    5. What took you so long?

  9. What would Rand have to do to take a serious run at 2016? I know the whole Maddow show thingy would drive the left into hysterics AGAIN, but I can’t remember the last time I actually admired a politician for his principles.

    1. The collective piss that would flow down the prog/statist’s legs if the Pauls got anywhere near any real power, would be an epic sight to belold. The statists would fight them to their dying breath.

      1. Especially with Obama leaving. I can just imagine Chris Matthews crying into his Obamerica flag as Rand gets closer to power. “Come back glorious savior! Save us from the Liberthuglican Tea Bagger racists! I’M TINGLING.”

        1. When Obama leaves office, Chris Matthews will probably be institutionalized for a nervous breakdown, start a libprog commune suicide cult in South America dedicated to felaciating a 30′ obsidian statue of ‘The One’ while re-watching bootleg paparazzi videos of Obama taking the ‘first dog’ outside to shit, while sobbing uncontrollably in a fit of passive aggressive rage.

          /dispense the refreshments….

          1. He’s going to be pushing for a repeal of the 22nd amendment in the mean time.

            1. we can’t afford to lose Obama during this precarious time.

              1. Don’t change baboons in the middle of the jungle.

              2. Oh..no..not with…uhmm..Biden as the vice pres.

                /cold shiver..fumbles for my cup of anti-freeze

    2. “the whole Maddow show thingy ”


      1. Rachel Maddow is such an angry young man



    3. You know, I really do think he’d have a serious shot at the nomination. From what I’ve noticed, a lot of conventional conservatives don’t roll their eyes over Rand Paul the way they do with his father. The guy just seems a lot better at marketing a libertarian message to conservatives. That said, I have to wonder how many heads around here would blow up at the thought of voting Republican.

      1. Team Blue is carrying my state regardless. I can vote for the Libertarian candidate without worrying about costing Rand Paul the election.

        1. But wouldnt Rand Paul be that libertarian candidate?

          Hopefully, if Rand go the nomination, the LP wouldnt run anyone. Paul may not be perfect, but he is at least as legitimate as Johnson and way moreso than Barr.

          1. Theoretically, and I’ll grant, this is just hypothetical, couldn’t they ALSO nominate Rand Paul as their candidate?

            Which would make for a really weird situation if he won – the same guy would be the putative head of two opposing parties.

  10. And even if they brush Paul aside and vote cloture to stop his filibuster and evade the need to vote on his amendment, it will take up as much time as debating the amendment on its merits would have taken, and Paul will have prime-time opportunity to point out that they are so desperate to avoid a vote on a civil liberties question that they’re cutting off debate. Which defeats the point of cutting off the debate in the first place! And the on-the-record vote to stop debate will be almost as clear a rejection of jury trial as an explicit vote against.

    1. I’m sure the MSM will get around to reporting on the defense authorization after they’ve tracked down every Army officer’s shirtless picture emails.

    2. Well, not quite. A lot of Senators oppose the 6th Amendment, but don’t want to go on record as voting against it, because it looks bad. So they may be maneuvering to prevent having to vote on this at all.

      1. “The only winning move is..not to play”

  11. Um…. I think it just moved.

  12. It’s brilliant of Rand to force senators to declare that they favor dispensing with the 6th Amendment or support the Constitution.

    1. It’ll be brilliant if he can get anyone to care.

  13. at about 4:55. THAT is strength – proprioception, balance, power, flexibility, etc.

    i may not be a crossfitter, but you gotta respect a 150 kilo overhead squat.


  14. I do. It will be an historical moment if the Senate explicitly attempts to override the Constitution legislatetively, a clear act by Congress disregarding constitutional limits, joining unequivocally arm in arm with the president’s disregard for the Constitution. We will truly know where we stand.

  15. lol, that dude is so full of himself, I am surprised his head doesnt implode!


    1. Anonbot’s post was supposed to be in response to this.

  16. Way to go Paul! A man with integrity! We need more men like you. Please keep fighting for us.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.