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.


Comment viewing options

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

It makes me very, very sad

It makes me very, very sad to hear Rand speak like this.

Things are only impossible until they are not.
-- Jean Luc Picard

Things are only impossible until they are not.
-- Jean Luc Picard

Those of us who are disheartened about this

and about the fact that we are called "Grayson trolls" and "sock puppets" if we try and express ourselves, might find some comfort in knowing we're not the only ones who are aggravated and disappointed.

Have you seen this thread at the Von Mises Institute?

I think the best thing we can do for Rand is hold his feet to the fire. To cheer him on as he wanders into the heart of darkness that is D.C.-style corruption and pandering will only hurt him. Maybe not politically, but morally and personally in the long run.

some people

some people overreact.


my dad does something wrong.

i declare him a backstabbing liar to the world, i smash his face in, denounce him, and loudly throw him out in the street.

instead of getting the full story, i just react.


new world order is gonna love those types.


you are clearly here to rip this place apart. You have a very clear agenda

This place IS ripped apart

Whether I am here or not, it is ripped apart.

Has anyone read his site?

"The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to declare war. As James Madison wrote, “The Constitution supposes, what history demonstrates, that the executive is the power most prone to war. The Constitution has, therefore, with studied care vested that power in the legislature.”

"However, in the face of an imminent nuclear attack or in response to an assault, the executive [Presidential] branch can and should make military responses without Congressional authority. After 911, an immediate raid by 10,000 Special Forces on camps in Afghanistan would have been justified by the executive, even if the decision was made in secrecy."

This is directly from his site, and I will not lie, that second part worries me.

Strain and Struggle to Justify For Rand

It is Rand who must explain, justify, reason through, open widely his deeper philosophy as to why the nation of Afghanistan is an enemy nation with whom we should go to war at this time. War demands, demands more than 5 quick 'soundbite' sentences.

It is not OUR job to 'explain him away'.

Call It What It Is

Rand's opinion is UNFOUNDED, unless you believe he has intimate knowledge of each and every one who was kidnapped from all over the world, and tortured at Guantanimo.

This is the first time I have ever seen evidence Rand Paul is willing to sacrifice the rule of law and the constitution for the sake of his unfounded opinion.

Rand calls for a Declaration of War against Afghanistan. Either he sees the nation of Afghanistan as our enemy (with our elected puppet government), or he is shallowly straining for artificial justification (proper paperwork) eight years after the fact. Rand has not explained why he sees the nation of Afghanistan as an enemy, why he is calling for war.

If we Declare war against Afghanistan, we are at war with its government, we seek Afghanistan's surrender. Frankly, I can make no sense at all out of this call for war on Afghanistan.

IT IS WHAT IT IS. To excuse him, we can "strain at gnats and swallow camels". Or we can give Rand a fair chance to explain this shocking, seemingly upside-down series of statements.

My mind is open. Maybe there is some logic here. Rand certainly needs more than five sentences to educate us on his uncompromising positions here.

uhh what???

Murderous thugs??? The vast majority of those guys are goat herders. Rand is completely wrong on this. He is sucking up way too much to Republicans for me to keep on thinking its just campaign rhetoric. The majority of the so-called Taliban bad guys were flown out and protected before the invasion. Consititutional protection for foriegners is a whole other issue but if he is actually saying that we need to keep Guantanamo open and believes the whole lie about who these guys are I can't keep support him. The FRUIT has fallen too far away from the TREE for my taste I WILL NOT SUPPORT RAND PAUL unless there is a good explanation or recantation of what he is saying.

I support Rand 100%

He is right that foreign prisoners dont deserve access to domestic US courts.

At the same time I have concerns (and I suspect Rand does too) that the Military Tribunals are not a really fair way to litigate these cases for those accused.

Regardless, Rand is right that they shouldn't be brought into the US as they would then potentially be released into to US population.

Rand you are right and as much as I hate gitmos existance I have to hand it to you on this one.

Debra Medina for Texas Governor 2010!

Rand Paul for US Senate in Kentucky!

Ron Paul 2012, Join or Die!



Nice glossover

You say: "He is right that foreign prisoners dont deserve access to domestic US courts."

Rand said: "Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution"

BIG differences there.

1) You say foreign "prisoners", Rand said foreign "terrorists"

Terrorists are guilty people. Have the prisoners at Gitmo been found guilty of a crime? They've already released dozens of prisoners after years of imprisonment because the gov't has been unable to present ANY evidence against them. With that as a precedent, why shouldn't the remaining prisoners be given the presumption of innocence? If the gov't had evidence against these men why has it taken 7+ years to bring charges against them?

2) You say these foreigners dont deserve "access to domestic US courts", Rand said they don't deserve "the protections of our Constitution"

Access to courts is a procedural issue. The Constitution is based on natural law. To say these men don't deserve Constitutional protection is tantamount to saying they're not human.

Finally, what about the admissibility of evidence obtained by torture? The Military Commissions Act is a disgrace and should be repealed immediately.

God given rights for all

Well said m8. People should remeber that we are talking about God given rights enumerated in the constitution. I just hope Rand/his people are checking this site cos he needs to make a correction fast.

Well said.

Obama = O.ne B.ig A.ss M.istake A.merica

Obama = O.ne B.ig A.ss M.istake A.merica

Just got my email thanking me...

for my generous donation to Rand Paul for Senate.
Yes, I am pleased and proud of Rand and proud of myself for supporting him.


I say let's turn this into a moneybomb!

An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it.

Natural Law and Natural Rights


The Virtual Conspiracy

The Constitution was written specifically FOR terrorists ...

... by those despicable terrorists and traitors (against the British King), the Founding Fathers! Habeas Corpus, the right to trial by jury, the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and all the rest were meant to prohibit labelling people as subhuman and treating them as such, no matter how heinous their crimes are in anyone's mind.

I suggest withholding contributions to Rand Paul until he properly explains what this is all about. His father did not get to where he is by compromising on adherence to the Constitution in ALL cases.


Have you heard whether Rand

Have you heard whether Rand is planning on clarifying his position? To me, it's pretty clear. Rand supports the war in Afghanistan, tribunals for supposed 'terrorists', and wants Sarah Palin to campaign with him. He has the right to hold to those positions, but I have the right to withdraw support unless he changes those positions.


Happy Libertarian

I have

Not Donated to Rand Paul.


Because of this BULLSHAT you idiots (Or is it "Idiot") spew I'm going to donate.

Blow-back is a bitch!

BMWJIM's picture

I,m with you Sarge

An Oath once taken must live for Eternity!

1976-1982 USMC, Having my hands in the soil keeps me from soiling my hands on useless politicians.

People who think the

People who think the Constitution is something to salute rather than read and live by tend to be rather good at name-calling.



I thought it over and I will not be donating to the Rand Paul campaign. You made me see the light. I couldn't possibly make a dent with a 25 dollar donation. I need to dig deeper and load up his campaign coffers if I'm ever going to shut up neoconservative's like you and your ilk.

No. You're right. 25 dollars isn't enough.

BMWJIM's picture

Sarge, I will meet your $25.

Shouldn't $50 make it better. I'll do my very best to match whatever you can do. It most certainly will be difficult for me but maybe I just need to dig a little deeper.

An Oath once taken must live for Eternity!

1976-1982 USMC, Having my hands in the soil keeps me from soiling my hands on useless politicians.


and so are you!



I donated

to the Ron Paul campaign while deployed to the desert. I'm stateside and making films. This has fired me up to start donating again. This is like the primaries allover again. I'm getting that feeling. I've got the urge. The urge to donate.

I'm confused

Where has Rand said he's "pro-war". I know he said that "Defense spending" should get a priority but specifically called out unnecessary military spending.

The press release says that

he has called for a declaration of war with Afghanistan (last sentence). Why in blazes would we want to declare war on Afghanistan !? Afghanistan is (sort of) ruled by the Karzai people, whom WE pretty much installed there.

I'll add, after re-reading this news release, I don't believe Rand Paul actually wrote it. It reeks of hare-brained campaign staffer.


BMWJIM's picture

A declaration of war would come from congress. That

did not happen. So what is the beef. That tells me he is against the POLITICAL CONFLICT ( ie: Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, Bosnia, DUH, can you get the point now) going on in Afghanistan. This BS would not have happened if Congress would have done their job. Ron Paul was the only one that gave the answer. Rand is saying the same thing.

This is the same as saying we should not be there. Bush and now Obama think they should send our kids to die on their say so. Instead they should have gone to congress and congress should have had balls enough to either declare or not allow this Political conflict. Damn politicians just do not learn and neither does the ignorant American people.

1976-1982 USMC, Having my hands in the soil keeps me from soiling my hands on useless politicians.

He's wrong on this.

There's no reason to treat KSM and the other terrorists any differently from other criminals, as far as their trials and punishment goes. They're not soldiers, and we can put them away just like Jeffery Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, or Charles Manson.

After the Nuremburg trials, the nazis who were caught later on were tried in civilian courts.


"The problem with trying to child-proof the world, is that it makes people neglect the far more important task of world-proofing the child." -- Hugh Daniel

I remember when Ron Paul was criticized for ghost written . . .

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

articles on . . . what was it Lew Rockwell?

I can't remember, so don't stone me--:)

There were many people who shot arrows and tried to discredit him. As I remember he wasn't really very good at defending himself, but somehow his supporters got past the hits made upon his past writings and his present reputation--

somehow he got through it. I think he even explained himself, and we all picked ourselves up and went on--

So . . . give Rand a chance to explain himself. He is young. Old men DO make better politicians, I think. Ron Paul is very wise. His son is a young whippersnapper--

and may not think he needs to watch his back--

kind of tearing straight ahead and not seeing some of the damage left behind by his tearing--?

Perhaps there really ARE those who want to discredit him--

So, let's be fair.

I don't really think that much about him, to be honest. I am not in Kentucky or anywhere near Kentucky, and the only people I know in Kentucky are corrupt--

seriously . . . corrupt and wealthy--

he's got his work cut out for him, if you ask me!


give him a chance. This isn't about Rand Paul; it's about being FAIR!

Be fair.

Go to him--if you can. Talk to him. Communicate. Get at the truth.

And then go from there, whatever you discover.

Before I would throw the baby out with the bathwater, I would go to his father, even--

and ask him.

He might be able to put the youth into the right gear--

might be able to give a little fatherly advice, "Rand, in your rush to be elected, you are leaving behind a bit of sweepings that need to be swept up; take care of it."

Truth. Get at the truth. Then go from there.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Support Rand

With a declaration of war, I don't see why trying KSM et al in a military tribunal would be illegal or wrong.

Regardless, this issue is not that relevant in the sense that Rand's opinion (one way or the other) has no practical significance. There's only political implications involved. Even though I support the federal trial of KSM, I'd be disappointed if Rand sided with that.

The point is to WIN so we can FISCALLY take control of the country. It's not to get every nuanced and complicated issue right. The public doesn't understand legal arguments for this issue -- it's far too convoluted and if Rand said the opposite it would play like he was the defense attorney for the terrorists.

Rand has a REAL chance to win, let's focus on that!