Ron Paul furious over indefinite detention act
Although President Barack Obama had originally insisted that he would veto the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin revealed recently that the bill in its current wording was drafted after the current administration asked for changes.
Already making its way through the House and Senate, the Act in its current wording will allow for Americans suspected of any “belligerent” act to be detained in Guantanamo Bay-style military prisons indefinitely for any alleged crimes without trial. With it now being revealed that the president put forth suggestions to draft the latest version of the legislation, Levin told the press Monday night, "I just can't imagine that the president would veto this bill.”
"I very strongly believe this should satisfy the administration and hope it will,” added Levin.
Outside of the independent media, opposition to NDAA has remained almost nonexistent, with the mainstream neglecting to discuss the colossal implications the bill would have if it is signed into law. Speaking to radio host Alex Jones on Tuesday, however, Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul finally became one of the first main figures to attack the act.
“This is a giant step – this should be the biggest news going right now – literally legalizing martial law,” said Paul. The congressman from Texas also appeared flabbergasted that the bill managed to escape discussion in any of the recent GOP debates, despite its provisions being detrimental to the US Constitution and the freedom of every man, woman and child in America.
“This is big,” continued Paul, adding “This step where they can literally arrest American citizens and put them away without trial….is arrogant and bold and dangerous.”
The bill could be on the desk of Barack Obama as early as Wednesday of this week.
Congressman Paul has been continuously critical of the Obama administration as of late, and although his fellow candidates for the GOP nomination have been equally as opt to attack the president, Paul has largely been the only one to tackle the sacrifice of civil liberties that Obama and the Republican Party frontrunners seem unconcerned with.
“Today it seems too easy that our government and our congresses are so willing to give up our liberties for our security,” Paul said during a presidential debate earlier this election season. “I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security. You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights.”
Paul has also condemned the Patriot Act for crushing the freedoms of Americans, while top-tier candidate and former-House Speaker Newt Gingrich has insisted on finding a “balancing act between our individual liberties and security.”