Ron Paul didn’t bother to vote against ‘martial law’


image: ryking

Ron Paul tells Alex Jones the NDAA will establish martial law — doesn’t bother to VOTE against it.

Republicans: 190 to 43 in favor.
Democrats: split 93 to 93
Didn’t even show up to vote: 14 (both Paul & Bachmann were in this group)

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml

President Obama: “Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill…”

“Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists…

Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people.”

Statement by the President on H.R. 1540 [a.k.a. the NDAA] (via: ryking)

Obama signed the NDAA and I don’t see where U.S. citizens can be detained indefinitely

HELP ME UNDERSTAND how this REVISED section of the NDAA means that U.S. citizens can be detained indefinitely. Please. Greenwald / Hamsher emoprogs are having hissy fits all over the interwebs — and with that crowd, on any issue, I honestly have to wonder if this time it’s outrage over facts or if it’s about page views and revenue. So here’s what I’ve found:

The question is, what does EXISTING law say about the detention of American citizens. That is what we need to be concerned with. If existing law states American citizens can be detained indefinitely, by the military, that is the law or laws that need to be changed. NOT this current law.

Refer to Obama’s signing statement regarding laws that existed PRIOR to this 2012 NDAA.

Unfortunately, we still have Senators like Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and others who supported the old version President Obama was going to VETO, which did NOT exclude American citizens.

Setting The Record Straight: The Changed Language In The NDAA

SOME MORE FACTS from Politicususa:

The NDAA is a terrible law because it forbids the funding to close GITMO. It is a terrible law because the language of the bill contains a predisposition towards indefinite detentions. The language used is the right’s attempt to revive the policies of the war on terror. The NDAA is lousy because what it is advocating runs counter to who we are as a people and what this great nation stands for. The NDAA stinks for all of these reasons and many more, but it is NOT lousy because it allows for the detention of US citizens.

And here’s where we come to the problem of “anything Obama” and emoprogs:

Those who believe that Obama should have vetoed the NDAA don’t seem to realize that what they are asking for is that the military go unfunded. The NDAA is a yearly funding measure, and as such could be amended when a new, and hopefully saner Congress is sworn into session to remove the war on terror language that this Congress foolishly in a bit of near election year pandering passed.

Too many Democrats went along with supporting the NDAA, and those members of Congress along with their detention and torture loving GOP colleagues must be held accountable. I know that it is easier to blame the president for everything, because he is but one man, but the truth that we need to clean out and disinfect this Congress.

Yes, Obama signed the NDAA. Even if he would have vetoed it, an override would have been likely. His veto would have been nothing more than an empty symbolic gesture that would have caused more problems than it solved.

The NDAA does a lot of things, but the one thing it does not do is authorize the detention of American citizens. As we head into to 2012, can we finally put this bogus piece of misinformation to bed?

Read more

Sec. 1031. Affirmation of authority of the Armed Forces of the United States
to detain covered persons pursuant to the Authorization for
Use of Military Force.
(warning: PDF)

President Obama’s signing statement on the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012″ (H.R. 1540)

Update:

Those who published columns as recently as two days ago playing the role of town crier on indefinite detention of U.S. citizens should be embarrassed. As should those who have published columns claiming this was already signed into law.

By my count, this marks the fifth time since 2009 congress has unanimously blocked this administration from closing Guantanamo Bay. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012, which was signed on December 23rd, was the fourth time.

Can we put this dead horse to rest now?

No Indefinite Detention. No Closure of Gitmo.

For two decades, Ron Paul made millions from racist, conspiracy-laden, anti-Semitic newsletters


image: wrongpaul

Mistermix of Balloon Juice asks a great question: how could you endorse a guy who published and profited from a newsletter that included AIDS conspiracy theories and called Martin Luther King Day “Hate Whitey Day”?

And links to a post about “the newsletters” from which Ron Paul profited greatly:

Yet a subsequent report by Reason found that Ron Paul & Associates, the defunct company that published the newsletters and which counted Paul and his wife as officers, reported an income of nearly $1 million in 1993 alone. If this figure is reliable, Paul must have earned multiple millions of dollars over the two decades plus of the newsletters’ existence. It is incredible that he had less than an active interest in what was being printed as part of a subscription newsletter enterprise that earned him and his family millions of dollars. Ed Crane, the president of the Cato Institute, said Paul told him that “his best source of congressional campaign donations was the mailing list for the Spotlight, the conspiracy-mongering, anti-Semitic tabloid run by the Holocaust denier Willis Carto.”

RECENT FACTOID: Ron Paul did NOT vote against the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)Where’s your God now, Glibertarians?!


image: anticapitalist

Government is bad, unless it’s state government (or unless it’s regulating a uterus).  You can try to dress it up anyway you like, but Paul’s perfect world? An Old Testament-like patriarchy.

The War on Terror and the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

Click for larger image:

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.”George Orwell, 1984

Related: