0 votes

Rand Paul: Try, Convict and Lock Up Terrorists In Guantanamo

Rand Paul: Try, Convict and Lock Up Terrorists In Guantanamo

Published on 19 November 2009 by admin in General News

For Immediate Release
November 19, 2009

BOWLING GREEN, KENTUCKY – Leading United States Senate candidate Rand Paul today criticized the Obama administration’s decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center and try terrorism suspects in United States Civil Courts.

“Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” said Dr. Paul. “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.”

Dr. Paul believes in strong national defense and thinks military spending should be our country’s top budget priority. He has also called for a Constitutional declaration of war with Afghanistan.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

One can be in favor of national defense...

...without buying into the phony war on terror.

This sucks. However, he is

This sucks. However, he is the closest chance (other than Schiff) we have at continuing Dr. Paul's message in Congress.

We fight amongst ourselves and the Establishment laughs...

So I guess some of Rand's supporters will just pick up their balls and go home because no one's playing the way they want to play.I guess you can moneybomb Conway or Mongiardo. The grasssroots support for Rand is what's got us to this point and now you're going to let an obvious divide and conquer hail mary pass throw us into turmoil and bickering? I don't believe it!

The election is 6 months away and Rand needs us all working our hardest for him whether you're in KY or not.. You do what you want but it's going to be a long cold winter here in KY and I'll be out there in the freezing cold knocking on doors, waving signs and doing everything I can to get this good man elected. We see this all the time in elections. Rand couldn't ride high the whole way. There's always days like today in every campaign but do the candidate's supporters quit? No. The double down. Does the candidate quit? Of course not. Is Rand quitting? HELL NO! But I guess some of you are.

I've never seen a group of people more ready to pack up and quit on a guy just because the opponent got his little jab in.


I am stunned and

wondering if those are his exact words because. It just didn't seem like he would have written something like that. I'm not fighting with anyone, just disappointed. To bad he didn't have his dad look that over before he put that out. I know the young man is trying his best and it is not easy going against the power structure.

"We can see with our eyes, hear with our ears and feel with our touch, but we understand with our hearts."

Bloody hell. Whose fault is that?

Afghanistan, Guantanamo, military tribunals. These are NOT trivial things.

Rand Paul Wants a Declaration of War in Afghanistan

I'm pretty sure that is his father's position for Iraq too. Not sure what exactly the complaint is there.

Where did he say he favors

Where did he say he favors war? He said he wants a declared war. I think he's playing the same foreign policy hand that his father does.

Following the Constitution and holding the congress responsible for the wars would slow these warmongers down, way down. As it is, these elite bastards and bitches are absolved from any responsibility. If things go well they can take credit, if they go badly they just claim they didn't vote for the use of force, only giving president authorization to use force. Of course that lays the problem on the administration. No problem, out with the old, in with the new and the killing continues.

I know you already know this JC. I've read too many of your posts to think otherwise.

Miamisburg, Montgomery County, Ohio

Ron asked for a delcaration of war against Iraq

to stress the seriousness of going to war, knowing the chicken hawks on the Hill wouldn't go for it. I really hope Rand's playing the same hand. I'm really torn about this; I first read it and thought "This can't be right," so i re-read it, and then my heart sunk. However, I do realize that his electablity may hinge on this very issue, ans as much as I hate to admit it to myself on the grounds of principle, if this is what puts him over the edge with the KY Republican voters, then I can understand. Rand is certainly the best candidate in the race, and I think we can all admit that the alternatives are much much worse.

Principals over pragmatism

Rand's statements show he favors pragmatism over principals. Principals must be at the highest level, and that is what makes Ron Paul stand unique among politicians. When we compromise our principals for reasons such as "getting elected", "raising money", etc., then we don't truly stand for what is at the very heart of Ron Paul. I previously was excited about Rand Paul, but now feel he is willing to give up what is the essense of his father's principals. I will hold final judgement as I wait for the dust to clear, but this is disheartening.

Thanks for your reply, trapfive.

As I said in another thread, I'd like some clarification on that.

If he is saying that if there is going to be war it should be declared the proper way, that is one thing, as in this part of his recent interview:

Washington Wire: Your father opposed the war in Iraq.
Paul: I would have voted no on the Iraq war and yes to Afghanistan. The main thing I say on war is that we need to obey the law and formally declare war.

But this part is troublesome:

Washington Wire: What should happen in Afghanistan?
Paul: I support a declaration of war in Afghanistan. We have to now determine what our mission is. It’s become somewhat murky.


Is he saying war declarations need to be done properly, or is he saying he wants war declared on Afghanistan?

We do not need war with Afghanistan, declared or not. We need to leave.



Rand: " I want a declaration

Rand: " I want a declaration of War on Afghanistan"

Ron: "We should have declared war."

Future vs Past.

Ventura 2012

My heart is breaking, xntryk.

I hoped Rand was different.

Yeah, it's really Frustrating

Appears we're going to have to have these big argument threads every single time Rand Paul says a sentence someone here doesn't like.

Who is the opponent, the

Who is the opponent, the NWO? RAND is the one that got the jab in, AT US!

If I was in Kentucky, I would still vote for Rand. I am a lesser of two evils voter, as long as the difference between the candidates is significantly different. However, I am NOT a lesser of two evils donater or campaigner.

Even Obama was looking good a year before the election.

Ventura 2012

Gotta Feel for Rand Paul

This is about the billionth time he's been attacked simultaneously. This time by hardcore Libertarians who want Guantanamo closed down....and at the same time by Grayson (see his official site) for not being pro-Gitmo enough.

Personally, I think this is a smart political move. In a closed GOP primary in Kentucky, he would have lost a TON of people if he said he supports Obama's position of giving these people civialian trials in America.

Hey man, where in GA are

Hey man, where in GA are you? Im in Atlanta, we should get people together to campaign for McBerry for Governor.

Paulding County

I was iffy on McBerry at first but am now a big supporter.

Nice, I am in Dekalb... I

Nice, I am in Dekalb... I vote in Seminole County though, thats my permanent address (here for grad school)

I agree...but I understand

I agree...but I understand where those who disagree are coming from...

For one, how do we know they

For one, how do we know they are terrorists before they're tried and found guilty? Because Cheney said so?

And, isn't the constitution just a recognition of inalienable natural rights; granted by the Creator, (or by the Big Bang or something), not by some arbitrary government laying claim to an equally arbitrary plot of land?

Anyway, I guess close call Senate primary races aren't necessarily the best time and place for philosophy debates.

What happen?

He never talked like this before? Something is amiss. Whooa! I want to cry.

"We can see with our eyes, hear with our ears and feel with our touch, but we understand with our hearts."

I'm willing to let this play

I'm willing to let this play out some. I'd like to hear him talk about that stuff at length, and put some context to it.

He will always get the benefit of the doubt from me, till he proves he no longer deserves it.

From my own perspective, we're a longgg way from that.

Declaration of War. I agree with that. Without a declaration, we should not be anywhere. This will stop a lot of the policing. I'm on board with that.

Defense spending. Since one of the only true responsibilities of the federal government is providing for a common defense, I agree that it would be the largest part of the budget.

But if I combine that with what I know about the Paul's economic viewpoint, in their ideal world, federal budget for defense would be a lot less then it is now, because right now, we're just printing money, and spending untold amounts abroad. Spending on everything else should be even less then that.

So let's say 1 trillion a year for defense is what we are spending to maintain our empire right now.

That should be reduced to 333 billion. And that number should be 55% of the federal budget pie. Then everything else should fit in that last 45%.

I'm not trying to be accurate with the numbers, I'm just showing a scenario where the statement "the federal budget should be mostly spent on defense" is still meaningful.

He's not saying that he wants to spend what we spend right now on defense. And he's not saying that he wants to continue our empire around the globe.

I think quite the contrary. He's defining the role of the federal government. How much of the pie, defense should take federally, and how we should proceed when initiating hostilities. I.e. It should be according to the constitution ...a formal Declaration of War. Which has not happened since when? WW2?

The only troubling part is gitmo.

What guarantees are the government giving me, that someone innocent isn't locked up? The one thing I know about government is that it's never about ACTUAL results, it's always about PERCEIVED results. And don't rock the boat.

There are people that would lose their jobs if they didn't find someone to lock up and claim that they were terrorists. And those people work for the government. And that bothers the hell out of me.

If we are at war, then declare the war over, and send the prisoners back to their country.

If that's not possible. They should be tried and convicted and imprisoned here.

I believe that its in the

I believe that its in the fine print. Although he says that defense should be the highest percentage, he says that unnecessary military spending should be cut (along with everything else unnecessary). So many bases would be closed, etc., but defense would be the highest percentage spent. Get it?

"The only troubling part is

"The only troubling part is gitmo."

I agree, but it is so troubling that I can't stand it. I feel ill.

Ventura 2012

Oh boy, stand by for more in-fighting

Charles Merwin Grayson must be smiling at the divide and conquer.


Let the infighting begin while the bankers and the statists laugh at us.

Michael Nystrom's picture

It sucks.

This is a major disappointment.

I can't support it.

He's the man.

I was pretty disapointed

I was pretty disapointed when I heard Peter Schiff was pro-choice, so I decided to campaign for him but not donate anymore. All my donations would go to Rand(who I already gave like $150 I don't have). Now I will be giving my money to Peter.

It is important to not fall down the "politics is a waste of time" defeatism just because of this one setback. Rand might even turn out to be a great Senator in spite of himself :(

Ventura 2012