National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PAUL. Will the Senator yield for a question?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PAUL. Four years ago we passed legislation under the Defense authorization that allows the American Government to detain an American citizen without a trial. Think about that. One of our basic rights, one of our most important rights is the right to a trial, to be represented, to have a jury of our peers.

You say: Well, it will never be used. Well, President Obama recognized this. He said: This is a terrible power, and I promise never to use it. Any power that is so terrible that a President says he is not going to use it should not be on the books.

As the Senator from Utah said, it is not about having laws that require angels to be in charge of your government. Someday there will be someone in charge of the government who makes a grievous mistake, like rounding up the Japanese. So we have to be very careful about giving power to our government. That is what the challenge is here.

Many will say: Well, we are at war, and when at war you have to have the law of war.

What is the law of war also known as? Martial law. But this is a war that does not seem to have an end. They are not asking for a 1- or 2- year period in which there won't be trials; they are asking you to relinquish your right to trial for a war that may have no end.

I want you to imagine this. Who could these enemy combatants be who may not get trials? Imagine you are an Arab-American in Dearborn, MI, and you send an email to someone overseas. Maybe that person is a bad person and maybe there is a connection, but shouldn't a person in Dearborn, MI, have a right to defend themselves in court and say: I was just sending an email to them and I said a few stupid things, but I am not a terrorist. Shouldn't they get the right to defend themselves?

We need to be very careful that, as we fight this long war, we don't wake up one day and say we won the war, but we lost what we stood for. We lost the Bill of Rights. We lost it to our soldiers. I know soldiers who lost two arms and a leg fighting for us, and they come back and say they were fighting for the Bill of Rights. That is what this should be about--protecting the Bill of Rights while they are gone.

So the question I have for my esteemed colleague is--some will say: Well, they get a hearing. They get a habeas hearing. They go before a judge. Isn't that due process?

Is a habeas hearing equivalent to due process?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PAUL. Let me clarify in a followup question. If an American citizen goes to Syria and fights with ISIS and is captured on the battlefield, this amendment would not mean they get a trial.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PAUL. They could still be held as an enemy combatant.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PAUL. Let's also be clear on what we are talking about. People who have been defined as enemy combatants are not always holding a weapon. You can have a propagandist. We have had propagandists who have been killed overseas who were propagandists for the enemy. So it is conceivable that an American citizen could be exchanging information and saying something derogatory about us or something in favor of the enemy, and that could be considered to be--that person is now a propagandist.

My point is, shouldn't they have a day in court to determine the facts and have representation as opposed to being plucked up and saying: You are going to Guantanamo Bay for the rest of your life because you made some criticism, and now the state has deemed you an enemy.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PAUL. Is it currently true that this amendment is being blocked by one Senator from gaining a vote?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PAUL. One concluding point I would make would be that we have time in the Senate body to vote about which rockets we are going to use, made in which State and in which country. Shouldn't we take time to vote about the abrogation or possible abrogation of the Bill of Rights, of the right to a trial by jury?

I think this is an eminently important issue, should not be pushed under the rug, and that no one should be afraid to take a stand. Not everyone will agree, but we should be allowed to take a stand on the Senate floor, openly debate, and have a vote on whether you will have your right to trial by jury or whether we are going to abbreviate that right and say we are at war. But realize that if you think your rights can be abbreviated in times of war, this is a war--that the people who tell you they are going to abbreviate your rights are also telling you that this war has no end, that there is no conceivable end to this war, and that the diminishment of your liberty, the loss of your right to trial by jury, will go on and on without end.

I wholeheartedly support the amendment by my fellow Senator from Utah, and I advocate for having a vote on the Senate floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source