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.

http://www.randpaul2010.com/2009/11/rand-paul-try-convict-an...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

On the issue of "terrorist" being tried for their crimes

The Judge had some good analysis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBrfql3pnU

If you compare the positions of O'Reilly (a pinhead) and the Judge (a champion of the Constitution) it is clear who's statements sound like the ones in the Rand Paul press release. I wouldn't call this a gaffe. This statement is detrimental to the entire campaign. I wonder how you can surround yourself with the greatest minds for individual liberty and make such a egregious mistake like this.

Watch over 500 Activist-Issue Films Online, www.filmsforaction.org

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
www.yaliberty.org - Young Americans for Liberty
www.ivaw.org/operation-recovery - Stop Deploying Traumatized Troops

my god that damned youtube link...

keeps coming back to me. I've already spent too much time there. But yes, the Judge does make manage to get some good points in, despite BillO's best efforts (i.e. name-calling, interrupting, and raising his voice) to discredit him.

No he's not

He's not a politician- he hasn't been elected to any office yet.

He will not win.

"He will not win."

Keep dreaming Grayson troll.

Those of you who came here thinking it's a RAND PAUL site

have exaggerated fears about Grayson trolls.

You think there are imaginary Grayson trolls everywhere simply because you haven't been around enough to get a sense of who the regulars are.

Regulars who have supported Ron Paul for a long time will probably be most disturbed by Rand's deception- he said he was like his father yet, on critical issues, he is the opposite. If you don't know or like Ron Paul...and you've said some things to indicate you are NOT a Ron Paul fan, you called him a "losertarian"...you won't understand our gripe with Rand.

+1

...

I really don't see the big hubbub over this statement.

War criminals have never been protected by the constitution unless they are citizens. Chill out people. It's not all cake and ice cream out there. The war is stupid and should be stopped, but if someone blew up a humvee in Iraq and killed solders, why the hell should they be given a civil trial?

"This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave."

And since we are NOT at war,

since there has been NO war declared, they cannot be "war criminals", now can they?

Here's the basic low-down.
Some people took down the WTC, but we aren't even certain who was actually behind that yet, and so we decided to go invade and blow-up numerous countries and kill over a million people, with no "war" declared, and we have gone in and scooped these certain people out of their countries and homes, labeled them as "enemy combatants" in a non-existent "war", and put them in a torture prison in Cuba.

Oh! That's right!
"They hate us because we are good".
What kind of person thinks that's "good"?

Actually we are technically

Actually we are technically at war with al qaida since 1996 when Osama bin Laden declared a holy war on the US. I say they are alleged war criminals and not terrorist

No

I think you mean "philosophically". Technically we haven't declared war.

rokdevil

That guy "juleswin" has been a member for 7 hours.

Get it?

Yup, i have been a member

Yup, i have been a member for 7hrs and since them I have been catching up to dailypaul message board. FYI, I have been a supporter on Ron Paul since 2007 so its not like I just signed up to bash Rand Paul.

Oh well, if being registered for 7hrs and posting alot of messages is a crime them am guilty as charged.

You don't have a shred of evidence to support your position

Are you in possession of conclusive proof the accused in Gitmo are guilty of war crimes? If so, please share. I'm sure you don't.

Does the treatment of the detainees at Gitmo pass the criteria very specifically described in the Geneva Conventions? If not, then please tell us who are the war criminals.

Rand is a Great Politician

He will be a great Senator :)
 
Freedom, Prosperity and Peace

 
Freedom, Prosperity and Peace

There are no perfect people

And there are no perfect candidates nor political parties (remember the last Libertarian Party Convention?). Therefore why (and how) can we expect and demand perfection from Rand? This is where WE come in: we must school Rand and help him become perfect like us (!). Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
God bless him. At least he is trying. How many of US are in the race?
Stop rearranging deck chairs. We need all the life preservers we can get as we're going down fast and maybe have only months.
Get a grip, patriots. Teach him, not criticize him. He will come around to our way of thinking because he IS rational and just. He is only mis-guided. Even the founding fathers disagreed on basic human rights issues and they produced a less-than-perfect Constitution. Do we throw out the baby with the bath water? Besides, our fickleness might discourage others from jumping into the ring; and right now, can we afford to be this fussy?

You people are acting childish and nieve!

It is absolutly foolish to stop supporting Rand because of over these comments! Who would you rather have GRAYSON? I see Rand as acting practical in a social conservative state like Kentucky. Just you try to get elected as a libertarian with 100% libertarian beliefs in a southern state like Kentucky. Good luck, because you would NEVER WIN! If I was Rand, I would be doing the same like he is, so I wouldn't look so extreme to mainstream Republican voters. You all have to face the fact. You're kind of political beliefs are in the MINORITY. Most people in this country(especially Kentucky) are NOT LIBERTARIAN! So YOU HAVE to go along with the mainstream if you want any sort of chance. There is nothing wrong with being principled, and it is possible to campaign a certain way, and vote the oppostite while you are in office(which is quite common btw) So you people need to get your heads screwed on right, becuase there will probably never be any other candadate with libertarian leanings running for Senator in Kentucky ever. I hate to break it to you all, but most people think libertarians are crazy, even though it's sad, it is considered radical by today's standards. Ron Paul never compromised his views when campaigning, but did that help win many votes? No, some things you have to give up if you want to win. So by all means, if you want to stop supporting Rand, than I guess your support goes to Grayson, since it seems like you all would perfer him now over Rand.

This isn't a football game

The point isn't for your side to win, it's to promote what is true and right. Unprincipled men can't do that. Better to spend your energy/money doing something that actually supports the cause of freedom.

The race is lost because both sides are unprincipled. Move on to something more productive.

Sounds a lot like the

Sounds a lot like the "lesser of two evils" form of voting. I think Rand could give up almost any of his other "libertarian" views, but being Pro-War is something I could just never get behind.

>>>-----------------> ( ( O ) )
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy

I'd rather have a bottle in front o' me than a frontal lobotomy
www.tattoosbypaul.com
www.bijoustudio-atx.com

Sad but that is how politics

Sad but that is how politics is, if you haven't realized that by now. Face the fact, most people in the U.S. are not going to elect a libertarian, so the best chance is to get elected in a social conservative state like Kentucky, is to appeal to that political viewpoint in campaiging, but act differently while you are in office. I stated this in an earllier post, how do you think the neo-cons and Bush came into power? or Obama?

Answer

"how do you think the neo-cons and Bush came into power? or Obama?"

By promising peace. Bush said the US shouldn't be the policeman of the world. Obama said he would end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home.

my point EXACTLY!

my point EXACTLY!

Most people in the U.S. on the national level are anti-war.

Most people in Kentucky are pro-war.

You get my drift?

Please provide an example

Could you please provide an example of a leader who promised to ignore the presumption of innocence, habeas corpus, due process, and the natural rights of all mankind but then later turned out to be a humanitarian dedicated to protecting individuality.

Well, you could rephrase

Well, you could rephrase your question on how many leaders, promoted peace, liberty, jobs, and everything you described kept their promise after they got elected? Refer back to my Obama comment on how he and Bush were elected! The answer is telling people what they want to hear, and to pretend to be one of them. Thats how most politicians get elected if you know anything about politics.

If that's the answer than the question is wrong

"The answer is telling people what they want to hear, and to pretend to be one of them."

Is the question: how to get power without having to act ethically?

Take that stupid question and your even dumber answer and go get a clue.

then expect to never have a

then expect to never have a chance in hell to get elected as a senator in Kentucky. Oh yeah Libertarianism, anti-war, dope legalization, prostitution legalization, is sooo popular in Kentucky, and I'm sure all those Kentucky church-goers who vote Republican would be more than happy to vote for someone who stands for that. Sorry man you live in a dream world who has spent too much time on your computer and have probably never been around many people in that state.

I'm not buying what you're selling

Have you got anything other than unprincipled filth? BTW, I'm not a libertarian. I'm a constitutional conservative.

Are you sure about that?

Why do they have the Democrat leading in early polling?
From my understanding Kentucky is a more moderate State. I think the fusion of people that Ron Paul was able to harness was based on his pro-peace stance.

Watch over 500 Activist-Issue Films Online, www.filmsforaction.org

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
www.yaliberty.org - Young Americans for Liberty
www.ivaw.org/operation-recovery - Stop Deploying Traumatized Troops

Yeah but look how far Ron

Yeah but look how far Ron Paul got in the primaries! If I can recall McCain, Romney, and Huckabee were still the perfered choice of voters in the Republican primary, all pro-war candidates. Romney still got a lot more votes total, even though he dropped out.
So you think that the majority of people who are going to vote in the Kentucky Republican Senate primaries are going to be anti-war?

It all makes sense now, hes

It all makes sense now, hes trying to mimic the campaign strategy that won the republican primary but lost in the general election. Whats next for him is to hire Steve Schmit and get himself a Sarah Palin sidekick and then the nomination will be all his.

But while hes at it, try not to lose your soul in the process

Are we witnessing the price of admission?

Had Rand ever mentioned anything about Gitmo prior to his "little talk" with Mitch McConnell? Because the statement “Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution” is very deeply troubling in a number of ways. Presumption of innocence? Nope. Habeas Corpus? Nope. Due process? Nope. Natural rights? Nope. These aren't little minor issues which can be explained away. There are more ethical and sensible ways to communicate a strong position on national defense without abandoning the core pillars of liberty.