John McCain wants you detained

Dear friend of liberty,

In their mad rush to get out of town before the holidays, the statists in Washington, D.C. are launching an all-out assault to rip as much liberty away from you and me as possible.

With the NDAA expected to be voted on in both houses of Congress TODAY, it's absolutely vital you contact your U.S. Representative and Senators IMMEDIATELY.

I've listed their names and phone numbers below for your convenience.

So please call and demand they vote against the NDAA.

Please note, there's not much time, so it's absolutely critical you act at once.

As you may remember, just a few weeks ago, an amendment was added to the NDAA to curtail the blatantly unconstitutional indefinite detention provision.

Of course, the statists said the amendment was "no big deal," and the new provisions didn't limit their power to throw American citizens in jail forever and throw away the key.

But their actions tell a different story.

The McCain-led Conference Committee just stripped this provision from the NDAA at the last minute.

Their goal is to ensure statists can continue secretly targeting American citizens and throwing them in jail for years or even decades without so much as ever giving them a trial!

Zachary, this is outrageous.

That's why it's so critical you contact your Representative and Senators NOW and DEMAND they vote against the McCain NDAA.

Tell them to vote to STOP the indefinite detention of American citizens and vote against any defense authorization bill that includes this language.

Here are their names and phone numbers:

U.S. Rep. Rep. David Dreier – (202) 225-2305

U.S. Sen. Sen. Barbara Boxer – (202) 224-3553

U.S. Sen. Sen. Dianne Feinstein – (202) 224-3841

If you don't get through on your first try, please keep calling.

I hope those outside Arizona will also make a special call to Senator McCain's office at (202) 224-2235 to remind him of his sworn oath to DEFEND our rights – not strip them away in a blatant grab for power.

But please act now.

In Liberty,

John Tate
President

P.S. The John McCain-led Conference Committee stripped the NDAA of the amendment designed to protect American citizens from being indefinitely detained.

Now statists can continue secretly targeting American citizens and throwing them in jail for years or even decades without so much as ever giving them a trial!

With the vote in both houses of Congress expected TODAY, it's critical you contact your Representative and Senators NOW.

I hope those outside Arizona will also make a special call to Senator McCain's office at (202) 224-2235 to remind him of his sworn oath to DEFEND our rights – not strip them away in a blatant grab for power.

And if you could chip in $10 or even $25 to help C4L in the crucial fight to defend our civil liberties, please do so right away.

Source: C4L

Rand Paul, John McCain spar over NDAA ‘indefinite detention’ language

Federal lawmakers are once again clashing over how to treat American citizens accused of terrorism, after Congress quietly stripped a provision from a defense bill that was intended to prevent indefinite detention without trial.

In November the Senate voted overwhelmingly to amend the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to curb indefinite detention. California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee introduced the amendment.

But the House did not pass similar language, and a conference committee that convened to resolve the differences between the two versions declined to include the Feinstein-Lee amendment.

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul quickly blamed his party’s 2008 presidential nominee, blasting a “McCain-led NDAA conference committee” for the omission.

Read more

Source: Daily Caller

Rand Paul: Why I Voted for NDAA 2013

By Rand Paul

I have noticed that many are confused by my vote for NDAA. Please allow me to explain.

First, we should be clear about what the bill is. NDAA is the yearly defense authorization bill. It’s primary function is to specify which programs can and can't be funded within the Pentagon and throughout the military. It is not the bill that spends the money—that comes later in an appropriations bill.

Because I think we should spend less, I will offer amendments to cut spending. I will likely vote against the final spending bill. This wasn't it.

This bill also isn’t about indefinite detention. This year's bill did not contain the authorization for indefinite detention.  

That provision was in last year's NDAA bill.

The bill this year contained the amendment I supported which sharply limited the detention power, and eliminated it entirely for American citizens in the US. While it is only a partial victory, it was a big victory. Particularly compared to what passed last year. Even so, I will continue to fight to protect anyone who could possibly be indefinitely detained.

I would never vote for any bill, anywhere, that I believed enhanced the government's power to abridge your rights and detain people. This goes against every principle I hold dear and the Constitution I took an oath to uphold and protect.

Government power and the many associated abuses have been piling up for years. We will not win all our liberties back at once. But we did win one battle this year, and we should be pleased that we did while also realizing the fight is really just getting started.

I hope you will keep fighting alongside me.

Source: Rand Paul official Facebook page

Ron Paul Fights Indefinite Detention

Lest we forget that despite still running for president (Something this story gets wrong. Seriously, how are they going to spin this once we get to Tampa?), Ron Paul is still fighting for our constitutional freedoms on Capitol Hill. Reports National Journal:

Rep. Ron Paul has joined the next battle over terrorism-detainee rules.

The Texan made a surprise appearance at a House press conference in support of a bipartisan amendment to the defense authorization bill, which hits the House floor today, that would ban indefinite and military detention of anyone captured on U.S. soil, regardless of citizenship.

“I do not believe a republic can exist if you permit the military to arrest American citizens and put them in secret prisons and be denied a trial,” Paul argued.

The amendment, cosponsored by House Armed Services Committee ranking member Adam Smith, D-Wash., and Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., with the support of Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., promises to reopen the decade-long debate over whether to prosecute terrorism suspects in federal civil courts or within the military…

Paul, with just a bit less fire than he showed in this year’s presidential debates, asserted that if 9/11 planner Khalid Sheik Mohammed had been tried the same way the World Trade Center bombing terrorists were tried in 1994, he could have received a death-penalty conviction “10 years ago.”

“The system works; we should not be so intimidated,” Paul said. “This cannot stand.”

The good news is a federal judge in New York has ruled this to be unconstitutional. The bad news is most of the people on Capitol Hill don’t care one wit about the Constitution.

Source: Paulitical Ticker with Jack Hunter

LP Chair- Executive Orders And Military Tribunals Are NOT Due Process

WASHINGTON -- Libertarian National Chair, Mark Hinkle, released the following statement today:

“Last month, the joint war on liberty by Republicans and Democrats continued, when Attorney General Eric Holder informed surprised students and faculty at Northwestern University Law School that President Obama can kill anyone in the world without charge or trial. This, of course, is just acceptance of the Unitary Executive Theory which President George W. Bush utilized to ignore the courts during his administration. Needless to say, both Presidents, Bush and Obama, assured us that they would be careful to only use their unlimited powers for the benefit of their subjects.

“Libertarians say this is not good enough. Until recently, most Americans believed that they could not be deprived of their life, liberty or property without due process of law. The very idea of having people judged by a jury of their peers was to limit the ability of politicians to act as if they were monarchs.

“Nowhere is this bipartisan disgrace better demonstrated than in the ongoing saga of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Bush established this camp in January 2002 so that he could claim the prisoners held there were outside US legal jurisdiction. When the Supreme Court rejected that administration’s quaint new category of people who were neither accused criminals, subject to the protections of habeas corpus, nor prisoners of war, subject to the protections of the Geneva Convention, Bush began to use military tribunals in which US military officers operated as both judge and jury.  As Groucho Marx once said, `Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.’

“Conveniently, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 gave Bush both the legislative cover and official acceptance of his newly-minted category of enemy combatant. At that time, most Democrats voted against this law, while in 2008, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama called for regular civilian trials and the closing of Guantanamo. Needless to say, upon election President Obama decided instead to continue both the tribunals and the indefinite detentions at Guantanamo.

“It is far too late to talk about due process for the Guantanamo prisoners. Of the nearly 800 men and boys sent there, most were released after years of imprisonment without ever being charged, let alone convicted of anything. Eight have died in custody. A total of three have been convicted: one for making an anti-American video, one for being a chauffeur for Bin Laden, and one in a vague plea bargain in exchange for his release. Of the remaining 171 detainees, most have already been cleared for release but are still being held. And for the few still awaiting a hearing, the legacy of torture based evidence taints the entire process. Fair trials are impossible at this point.

“Let us end this farce NOW. While no single policy can ever guarantee our safety, we are far more endangered by a government which has justifiably earned the contempt of the world than we are by a few more people running free who are angry at the US. Releasing the innocent is far more important than accidentally keeping a few who might be guilty. Close Guantanamo and restore due process.

Which poses a bigger threat to America? Americans whom politicians claim are a threat? Or the politicians themselves?

###

P.S. If you have not already done so, please join the Libertarian Party. We are the only political party with a mission to give voters a choice to downsize Big Government, to do so in the most humane way possible, to greatly reduce taxes, and to slash high government spending. You can also renew your membership. Or, you can simply make a contribution .

Killing the Bill of Rights on Its Anniversar​y

Dear Lover of Liberty,

 

Today marks the 220th anniversary of the day the Bill of Rights were officially added to the Constitution.

 

Ironically, the U.S. Senate is set to kill the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments of that Bill of Rights later today.

 

Last night, the U.S. House approved the Conference Report version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which includes provisions that would allow the President to throw American citizens in jail and keep them there indefinitely.

 

The Senate was set to vote on this bill around 4 pm eastern today, so I need your immediate help if we are to stop this dangerous legislation.

 

You can find your senators' contact information here.

 

Please, call them right away and demand they stand up for the Bill of Rights on its 220th anniversary byvoting "No" on the NDAA Conference Report.

 

In Liberty,

 

Matt Hawes

Vice President

Source: C4L

Senator Rand Paul: Indefinite Detention and American Citizens

Government should not have unlimited power to detain citizens without a jury trial

 

I, like most Americans, want to ensure that we punish and prevent terrorism. However, we must do so in a way that protects the rights of American citizens. In his recent column, Andrew C. McCarthy simply has his facts wrong when he claims that last week's Senate debate on the 2012 defense-authorization bill was not about American citizens. It was.

 

In fact, the protection of American citizens is largely what my energies last week were directed toward. The amendments I championed - both Sen. Mark Udall's (D., Colo.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D., Calif.) - were specifically offered in order to protect American citizens from the indefinite detention allowed in the underlying bill. All of these amendments failed, but I was able to defeat an amendment that would have allowed American citizens to be held indefinitely even after they had been tried and found not guilty.

 

At no time did I argue that aliens should be given the same rights as American citizens. That was not the basis of the debate of any amendment last week. Yet Mr. McCarthy uses this strawman throughout his article. When the facts are presented clearly to Americans - that their own rights and liberties are threatened under this sort of unchecked, unconstitutional executive authority - I believe they will side with keeping their liberty.

 

 Supporters of indefinite detention believe the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld supports their view. But while the court in Hamdi held that U.S. citizens captured in combat in Afghanistan may be detained, it also held that they must, at a minimum, be granted many of the traditional aspects of constitutional due process - including a "meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for th[e] detention before a neutral decisionmaker," notice of the asserted charges, an opportunity to rebut the assertions, and, most important, the right to counsel.

 

Also, the court's holding pertained only to U.S. citizens captured in combat in Afghanistan. Hamdi does not address non-combatants captured in the United States. The argument in Congress this week was about whether we should expand the possibility of indefinite detention to include U.S. citizens accused of association with terrorism. This could conceivably apply to non-combatants. This could also conceivably include U.S. citizens falsely accused of association with terrorism.

 

If you allow the government the unlimited power to detain citizens without a jury trial, you are exposing yourself to the whim of those in power. That is a dangerous game.

 

The FBI publishes characteristics of people you should report as possible terrorists. The list includes the possession of "Meals Ready to Eat," weatherproofed ammunition, and high-capacity magazines; missing fingers; brightly colored stains on clothing; paying for products in cash; and changes in hair color. I fear that such suspicions might one day be used to imprison a U.S. citizen indefinitely without trial. Just this year, the vice president referred to the Tea Party as a bunch of terrorists. So, I think we should be cautious in granting the power to detain without trial.

 

Nevertheless, Mr. McCarthy avers that presidents are "highly unlikely to abuse this particular power." I am more of the Madison persuasion than Mr. McCarthy; I am worried that since governments are not constituted of angels, we must take care to restrain government with specific rules of conduct.

 

 I am very conscious of the fact that the battlefield is not a place to read Miranda rights. In my recent opposition to detaining U.S. citizens, I specifically emphasized that my statement referred to citizens apprehended in the U.S., and not on the battlefield.

 

In the 1942 case Ex parte Quirin, the Court cited, and did not criticize, the government's assertion that the one detained German alleged to be a naturalized U.S. citizen may have given up his citizenship by taking up arms against the United States. I tend to agree that taking up arms indicates a renunciation of citizenship. I have informed Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) that I support legislation that would clarify when a citizen's actions may cause him or her to lose citizenship, and I will work to give this debate more clarity.

 

 It is important to remember that civil liberties need defenders. The Bush administration in Hamdi argued for indefinite detention of a U.S. citizen without even the minimum requirements of due process. Bush lost. The court held that the executive branch does not have unlimited power to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens, and that citizens must be afforded basic due-process protections.

 

This debate is an important one, but it must begin with facts, not inaccurate accusations. Contrary to McCarthy's assertions, I do not argue for giving alien enemies constitutional protections. I do, however, argue for preserving U.S. citizens' constitutional rights.

 

Some conservatives may choose to trust the government to always do the right thing, but I fear the day when leaders come to power who would abuse that power. Therefore, I will continue to fight for limitations on it.

Rand Paul