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.

So Rand IS pro-torture?

Anyone have an official statement by his campaign, about torture? Being FOR Guantanamo suggests he is pro-torture but I don't want to jump to conclusions, maybe he wants to keep it open without torture. Maybe.

that's awful. all men are

that's awful.

all men are created equal....... no exceptions.

"We've been punked"

It grieves me to say this on a site frequented by the Paul family. I mean no disrespect. But all signs indicate that Rand Paul drank the Neocon kool-aid. Is he going to just keep going down the list of Neocon beliefs and espousing them, EXCEPT for the bailouts, which he didn't like? Will he come out in favor of torture soon?

We donated to his campaign on his word that his beliefs weren't much different from his father's. It seems to me that he is very different from his father, and Kentucky Republicans can choose which Neocon they like better.

Very sorry to say all this. God bless Rand, but he has blown way off course.

Good post

I agree.

Rand Paul made me queazy during an interview he gave

before he was even a candidate. I donated to his campaign anyway (more as an anti-establishment gesture, because I don't think Rand has all his ducks in a row). Now, I'm done! He's starting to sound like a real politician. I'll send my money elsewhere, thank you very much!

I've Said It Before, I'll Say it Again!

The Bill of Rights. Adopted by the Congress in 1789 and ratified by the several states on December 15, 1791. The Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights states....

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

No where in the Amendment does it say "citizen" which would imply one who is not foreign. It also states in the beginning "In all criminal prosecution..." which is (in my opinion) what the *crimes* of 9/11 fall under, in regards to the constitution. He should rightfully be tried "by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed". Now, thanks to George W. Bush with the Military Commissions Act of 2006 we can say Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is not entitled to the protection of the Sixth Amendment, BUT (And this is the BIG BUTT) likewise, do to the Military Commissions Act, Neither do we. Since, we as supporters of policies against the Federal Government, it would classify us as "enemy combatants". The thing to understand is as Americans who live in a very small world now (Compared to the founding fathers world) we no longer can accepted that we have exclusive rights that the rest of the world does not.

If we think we can deny LIBERTY to others, then we do not deserve it ourselves.

And above all (which makes it even more sublimely poetic that those men "218" years ago wrote the words the way that they did to insure that those accused of a crime will at the least be given a small bit of hope, no matter how guilty one may be portrayed, to protect themselves) we KNOW he is innocent. We really don't want to admit it but we KNOW. We have known for a very long time. He MAY be linked to terrorist. He MAY have killed in his lifetime. But morally speaking, We know who is truly to blame. We know who started this mess. And we know who REALLY should be in that courtroom at 500 Pearl St. in New York. Lets not kid ourselves, we will for first time since September 11th, 2001 witness in a public trial the evidence of that day. The way the founders had designed it.

~If your not having fun during a revolution, your not doing it right!~

~Good Night, And Good Luck~

Great post

Thank you.

Calm down!

In the WSJ Q&A Rand said:

"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."

That foreign policy position is consistent with Ron's.

On the Palin issue Rand was asked, "Do you want Sarah Palin to campaign for you?"

And he said:

"We’d love to have her come. We’ve made some overtures to her."

I don't see how that indicts Rand. Not a big deal at all IMHO


If we want perfect to be the enemy of the good... fine. I guess this means I have to campaign for Romney in '12... because I can't find an ideolgically pure canidate other than Ron Paul. I mean there is only one Ron Paul, so I might as well vote for the next guy. Hmm, all of a sudden, ya know Mike Huckabee seems SO nice, maybe I'll vote for him. Or maybe Obama, I mean nobody is perfect but he's "trying really hard"... Yeah, better I support a 100% sellout and fraud than somebody like Rand Paul...

Thanks guys! This thread has really cleared my head. Grayson/McConnell/McCain/Bush '10,'12! Ahh, everything just feels better all of the sudden, when I don't have to think for myself or worry. After all, I've got other people I can vote for to do that for me! What a relief! Here I was worried about the economy, the bailouts, everything... And it is SO obvious, I mean these guys "know" what they are doing! WHEW!!! Who needs Rand Paul! We've got Grayson, and McConnell doing just fine. I think I actually feel better now, that I am waking up, FROM "waking up!" Grayson '10, Grayson '10!!! Where's my checkbook???

Oh hell, I'll just wait for the next stimulus. I mean hey, it's the least I could do. I mean Grayson supports the stimulus, so I should at least, contribute some back to him, just to be fair. After all you gotta support the guy who will give you something from somebody else, for absolutely nothing! Hell with Ayn Rand... Bernanke should write a book. Clearly he knows what he's doing, I mean it's not like we're in a depression or anything. Didn't you hear, this is only a "Great Recession", See!!! The status quo IS saying us from catastrophe! Yippee!!!

Like it or not it is not these opinions that are relevant to winning in a closed Republican Kentucky primary. Rand doesn't have to meet your litmus test just yet, he has to get elected by conservative Republican Southern Baptists for crying out loud. You guys are spoiled by Ron Paul, but Ron Paul is an exception, not the rule. All politics is LOCAL!!! We all can't live in a libertarian district or state. You have to run with a strategy that fits your electorate or LOSE! If losing is acceptable, then Ron Paul's campaign staff didn't fail him, they did what they were supposed to do. Nobody is ever going to agree with you 100 percent. You are still elected to represent THEM (the constituents), more so than yourself. This is a primary, I'd save this reaction for when he's actually in office. A closed primary is just that... he's not trying to appeal to this element, he's trying to appeal to the Kentucky Republican primary voter... Can't anybody see that???

Don't tell me

what to do.

His support for the war in Afghanistan

That war is based on a pack of lies. All government wars are un-libertarian (because they are paid for via taxation).


Rand even said that he thought our reasons for being there were "murky." But he wants to be there. Kill innocent people for murky reasons? I can't get over that one.


If I remebered correctly,

If I remebered correctly, didnt Ron support the invasion of Afghanistan? Just like Rand, Ron supported the initial invasion but is against the occupation. I believe we should have gone in, kill the al qaida along with Osama bin laden and withdraw.

Btw what is Rand stance of the Afghanistan war now? is he supporting the occupation or what?

? Curve ball

WoW! Not what I expected to read this morning. Especially after such a great victory in the house yesterday. Oh well, It's not DC politicians that are going to save this country. It's boots on the ground. The next two years are going to be a hell of a ride.

"I don't want to be in a battle . . . but
waiting on the edge of one I can't escape
is even worse"

"I have found that being rich is not about having the most but about needing the least"

What did they do?

Honestly, do you folks still believe what was shoveled our way on 911?

Buildings don't fall straight down in their own foot print unless it's a controlled demolition. Building 7 only had fires on one or two levels and still it fell! Open your eyes people!

So I ask again what did the terror suspects do? They are our new boogie man. Once the Soviet Union fell, we had no bad guys for the government to have us FEAR. Now we have terrorists. And the new term, DOMESTIC TERRORIST.

A DOMESTIC TERRORIST is ANYONE who speaks against the government.

Almost seems like something is being setup in our country...if the economy crashed, I wonder if they have a plan, like global currency and government? Anyone who didn't like it would be a ...say it again with me...DOMESTIC TERRORIST.

meekandmild's picture

Does that quote sound like Rand Paul Speaks?

"These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil."
the quote implies they are already guilty. Or is someone in Rand's staff trying to sabotage his campaign?

Just a question. I haven't formed an opinion yet.

I don't know . . .

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

I think it's rhetoric to get elected if these ARE his words.

I am being an apologist--

I, too, feel sceptical, BUT--

if these people are tried in honesty, they can be found innocent, correct? Isn't that the idea?

Or are military tribunals kangaroo courts?

I ask in honesty.

But, yes, it does concern me, too--

When I've heard him speak I have been concerned about his saying that war needs to be declared, BUT who would declare war? How many in congress want war anymore?

So, is this double speak? Is this just caution speaking? Politics as usual?

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

I have had enough with Rand Paul

I have stood on the side lines for so long but I cant anymore. I have been coming to Dailypaul for about a year now without ever commenting in the forums, I participated with moneybombs, calls to call congressmen and pollings.

Anyway I have had it after donating more than $500 I did not have to his campaign. 1st hes seen trying to solicit Sarah Palin to campaign for him and now hes playing into the neocons hands. Its just saddening that Rand Paul cannot even be more like his father or that matter be more like Peter Schiff.

Am going to take a break on supporting Rand until he straightens up


People sometimes are too too early to dismiss. Others are clearly trolling to disenfranchise the freedom movement- think back to Ron Paul's campaign.

I think we need to hear from the doctor himself.

Anyway, there is an interesting article out about the whole thing. Something tells me there is more to this than meets the eye:


edit: Jules trolling? - at the time of this post, member for 45 minutes?

Rand wants to keep Gitmo open

That's what the article you posted said. This indicates he is probably pro-torture.

I didn't know that before.

Not troll, I just felt the

No troll here, I just felt the need to post a message to this article. I have been reading the dailypaul for a very long time now and its just now that I decided to join. You would be surpised how many people visit this site without ever registering.

And yes am the juleswin from Huffingtonpost.com. Ex liberal with trust issues with the republican, democratic and MSM parties :)

photoshopwiz's picture

re edit: picked up on that

but he is okay ...

juleswin on HuffingtonPost
Ex liberal whose now camping the libertarian tent. Ron Paul is my hero.


Harry Potter had to deal with Rita Skeeter. Ron Paul had to deal with the MSM.

Though I always considered politicians to be dangerous.

They are hoping Ron Paul will give politicians a good name. Beware ;-)

All for freedom? Freedom for all!

Free includes debt-free!

Dr. Rand Paul...

I hope you are reading this. This was probably not a very smart move on your part. Most of us here are not imperialists and want our troops home off of foreign soil. These so-called terrorists have every right as human beings to the protections of the United States as long they are in our territory. Keeping them in Guantanamo just advocates the promotion of the imperialist state, deterioration of our Constitution and its protections, and subltly implies we need to continue this war on terror. This I strongly object too. Keep in mind, I donated lots of money to your campaign.

I hope you have been misquoted and clarify your position.

No....better yet..

....tell Grayson of a way to get elected;

1. Be a Constitutionalist
2. Work to abolish the IRS and Federal Income Tax
3. Work to end the Patriot act, Guantanamo, torture and.....


He'd slaughter krugerRAND.

LOL I like the platform

Still, there is the issue of wolf in sheep's clothing. Public repentence is the way to our hearts. We can forgive them but we need not forget their record.

Which is different from a politician who takes a stand and is unafraid to consider and even modify his postion in order to be better inline with his principles, Or to comprimise when it leaves principles standing.

Free includes debt-free!

That's 3 STRIKES for Rand Paul - HE'S OUT !

The 1st 2:
1) I heard him refer to politicians as "leaders" - THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SERVANTS. This is as basic as it gets.

2) He stated that he had asked SARAH PALIN to campaign for him ! Good lord.

Looks like Ron raised a "neo-libertarian".


I refer you to a quote by Paul Hein:

The proper term for politicians is not "leaders," but "rulers." - Paul Hein

Secondly, he's no neo-libertarian. He's a neo-conservative.

and one more thing ...

he refers to the prisoners as "Foreign terrorists".
Because he federales told him so ??