Rand Paul Campaign Manager Responds
The following is the email response that I received from Rand Paul's campaign manager and my email response to him which also incorporates some of my comments previously made to Rand Paul's Treasurer Mr. Hightower:
Michael,
Rand Paul is happy to refund your $500 if you feel he has "flip flopped" even though the law does not require it. The original post was put on the "Draft Rand Paul" website by some enthusiasts before the campaign began. The orginal post did not say that Rand Paul wanted to try the terrorists in the US but the Grayson campaign falsely asserted that it did. The question of closing down GITMO is a separate question.
Rand Paul feels that more important than the location of the prison is whether or not we should be detaining anyone, anywhere without a judicial hearing.
Rand Paul remains committed to his opposition to fighting "undeclared" wars. Rand Paul remains committed to the belief that we should not torture prisoners of war. Rand Paul remains committed to his belief that prisoners deserve trials and disposition not indefinite detention.
This current controversy, though, stems from whether or not prisoners of war should be treated identically to US Citizens. Should we read Miranda rights to prisoners captured on the battlefield? Should we release KSM because he was tortured? There are reports that a great number of detainees at GITMO were detained not on the battlefield but were turned in by competitors for their positions. The US should not detain anyone indefinitely anywhere whether in the US or otherwise.
While military tribunals may appear to some to be unjust, we currently try our own GI's in military court when they are accused of crimes such as rape and murder. Military court provides legal representation for the accused.
Rand Paul is opposed to the policy of scooping up people from around the globe and holding them in indefinite detention. Rand Paul believes that most of the detainees could have been tried, convicted, and or released long ago. Those whom the military has deemed untriable, like the Uighurs, should be deported to where they were captured not relocated in the South Pacific. Detainees who return to the battlefield and are captured should be imprisoned in the country in which they are captured.
If you have other questions for Dr. Paul, please let us know. If you still want a refund, let us know that also.
David Adams
Campaign manager
Rand Paul for U.S. Senate
859-537-5372
My response:
RandPaul2010.com is your official campaign website. The original URL was:
www.randpaul2010.com/2009/05/chief-of-the-u-s-military-shut-...
The question is a simple one. Does Rand Paul support Gitmo or not? Before yesterday HE said:
" ... it's kind of unclear whether these people are guilty, not guilty ... So I really think deportation or sending them back to their country of origin might be the best way to go. And none of it's fair, because some of them have been held years and years ..." - Alex Jones Show, 5/21/09.
"I think they should mostly be sent back to their country of origin or to tell you the truth I'd drop them back off into battle ... you're unclear, drop 'em off back into Afghanistan. It'd take them a while to get back over here." -YouTube video of Rand Paul speaking in Paducah, KY, 5/8/09.
Now on the website the article related to Rand’s position on Gitmo is entitled: “Try Convict and Lock Up Terrorists in Guantanamo”
As you can see from my previous email exchange with Mr. Hightower attached hereto, Mr. Hightower stated that the errant web posting was the fault of a campaign staffer. Although the web post may not have been read by Rand Paul, Paul did say those words cited above. Rand Paul didn’t support Gitmo before he supported it.
I really don’t care to debate Gitmo with you or Rand, although you should read the 14th Amendment’s incorporation for the Bill of Rights to persons, not citizens. I am really no longer interested to know what Paul’s views are on the matter. I cannot support a candidate that won’t take responsibility for his words and instead shifts blame to campaign staffers or “enthusiasts.” Paul should be responsible for what come out of his mouth.
All or Nothing
I will only vote for a candidate that I agree with 100 percent. I will only fight with patriots that completely agree with me. If you don't fully agree with me then you are my enemy, and I will work to bring you down. I don't care if we agree on almost everything, if I can find one issue in which our views our out of harmony with one another, then I'll withdraw my support. I'll ask for anything I've contributed back, and instead of fighting with you, I'll start fighting against you.
Seriously, how many would we have in the Liberty movement if we required us all to think exactly the same, and share all the same positions?
I'm a religious person, which some of you may not agree with, but I want to share what I've learned in studying religion. The devil is the great divider. He uses our differences to divide us, and weaken us, so that he can conquer us.
God tries to bring His people together. He tries to strengthen them, so that they might have a chance against their enemy. After reading the recent threads on Rand Paul, this scripture kept coming to mind.
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!" (Luke 13:34)
Are you working to gather, or are you working to divide?
You know, I am almost there actually
I do not believe there is a legitimate government seated right now. I am not comfortable participating in the fraud known as "elections." I am pretty well convinced that "compromise" in the men who govern has become license to contract with Satan. IF any good is to come from the dog and pony show called "politics" it will be in the restoration of TRUTH.
Adam Kokesh is the ONLY candidate that has got a dime out of me so far. I would LOVE to send more candidates money. I don't have much, but I will find a way to squeeze out a twenty for anyone who will question 9-11 without apology.
Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.
This is not some minor issue.
This is an issue of huge proportion where a previously-expected "liberty candidate" turns out to be a neocon, promoting unconstitutional activities that strike at the very heart of the Constitution.
And then he calls that "protecting our country".
If they can do it to KSM, they can do it to YOU.
All they have to do is declare you, or a group you've been in contact with, as a terrorist, for any reason they want. And the "Senate" is not going to be involved in that decision. That's an executive branch decision, which is completely arbitrary, as it stands now. Obama could declare anybody he wants to be a "terrorist", and he's already leaning heavily in that direction, with the MIAC activity and Fusion Center stuff.
It's absolutely beyond belief that he could take this position.
*I just edited this to remove some of my more angry comments, to tone it down a bit.
You make here the most
You make here the most compelling argument. Perhaps kind and supportive emails to Rand of the fallacy of his position would persuade him to rethink and/or adjust his position on this.
What would you do?
Before I argue this any further, I'd like to know what you would do with the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay? Should our soldiers be following proper police procedures? Should soldiers be mirandizing people on the battlefield? How long can we hold prisoners of war before they must appear in court, or before they get an attorney? Should our military obtain warrants before conducting raids? Are we going to honor the second amendment rights of our enemy? Can they exercise their first amendment rights, and conduct protest at military bases?
I don't think things are as black and white as you make them. Believe me, as one that has been labeled a terrorist by numerous agencies of our government, I understand your concern. I just don't think that Rand position of a problem, that never would have occurred if he had his way, is a little unreasonable.
Let's say that Rand came out and said that some of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are probably innocent, and even the guilty ones should go free since our military didn't follow proper police procedure. How would that affect his campaign? I think the military tribunal option is a good compromise. Do we treat our troops any better?
That being said, I hope that the men on trial in New York have very good attorneys, and that they can expose the real culprits of 9/11. I don't think that will happen, as I've witnessed first hand how trials work in the country.
Very simple.
Observe the Constitution.
If somebody can't do that, they don't get my support.
Period.
Military=Police?
So the military should be bound by the same restrictions as domestic law enforcement?
You're clawing for excuses.
to rationalize the desire to remove Constitutional protections from individuals who are right now in the USA, to suit some "reason" why you don't want them to have any.
Look,
There's no war.
These people were individuals who were arrested and basically kidnapped from another country, and thrown into a torture prison for years, and this particular guy KSM got waterboarded 183 times, and they held his children hostage until he told them what they wanted to hear.
You wanna defend that?
There is no "battlefield". It's somebody else's soveriegn nation.
There are no "soldiers". We are foreign invaders.
So, the whole argument about "it's too hard to mirandize people on the battlefield" is a ludicrous red-herring. There is no battlefield.
We're illegally and immorally attacking and occupying other nations on a whim of power.
The "battlefield" is somebody's backyard that we killed and then occupied.
We're the invaders.
If anybody needs to be mirandized, it's the people who authorized and sent our troops there to do mass murder.
Seriously, you have to look at what's going on here.
Even IF, and that's a very big IF, you can buy into the fantasy that these 19 Saudis did 9/11, masterminded by an old guy on a dialysis machine, how does that square with anything we've done?
To "get OBL" and his "supposed henchmen", we decided they were holed up in some mountain somewhere, so the obvious answer is to bomb and take over Afghanistan and Iraq? Not to mention de-stabilizing Pakistan and bombing it too?
The entire thing is so lame as to defy description.
The whole reason that they want to have a closed-door military trial is so that none of the criminal activity of the Bush administration can see the light of day in a real court, and it can all remain covered up.
And that's the bottom line.
Perfect analysis
Greatly appreciated.
Clawing for Excuses
I'm not "clawing for excuses". I'm asking questions.
If congress had declared war, would you then have supported military tribunals?
If they had declared war
military tribunals can be used on military people.
Not on civilians.
Because there is no war, and never has been one, none of these strong-arm solutions are backed-up by anything lawful.
Everything is now a "wildcat action" based on the emotion whipped up by the 9/11 operation, and using that emotion to justify illegal and immoral acts.
And the current administration is now just as guilty as the previous administration.
IF 9/11 was somehow masterminded by KSM or his cohorts, that is a civilian crime of mass murder. And the court should be a civilian court, just like any other mass murderer faces.
Soldier vs. Civilian
What if we declare war on a nation with a civilian army? Would our military need to acquire warrants before conducting military operations against a declared enemy that may, or may not be uniformed army? Would they be held to the same standards as domestic law enforcement?
According to the international
"rules of war" only uniformed regulars are considered to be "military".
However, militia(un-uniformed combatants) can be a part of the force, and can be dealt with as such, if they are apprehended in some form of military action, or attached to a part of a military unit that is captured.
And no, just taking off the uniform doesn't get you off the hook if it can be concluded that you were part of that force.
And un-uniformed "spies" can even be summarily shot(executed), although I think that might not be common anymore.
So, there are rules regarding that.
Here's the problem.
There was no "force" that we were fighting against, until we went over there and started shooting.
So, that sort of messes things up, when you try to accuse these people of being "enemies" when we're the ones that forced them to protect their own homes and lands.
When this began, there were 19 dead people who were claimed to be the perpetrator, and some suspicions about who was behind them.
That doesn't call for an attack on multiple nations and takeovers and occupations.
That calls for a police activity, where there are warrants issued, they are picked-up, and extradited for trial in a civilian court of 3000+ counts of murder.
It's not a military matter.
But it was made into one, for other purposes.
Let's say we found out that somebody like "Carlos the Jackal" who's killed probably hundreds of people, and he's hiding in France.
Do we bomb France, and take it over?
Or do we go find Carlos, and take him back for trial?
And if we can't find him, do we then bomb and take over Switzerland, just because he might have slipped over the Alps, and got away?
The neocons want to paint us as the "victim" in this, when actually we are the aggressors. We were the victim of a mass murder crime, perpetrated by a few individuals.
We then decided to become criminals by attacking other countries and bombing them into submission and killing civilians by the hundreds of thousands, in our "misguided attempt" to hold entire countries and populations responsible for the acts of a few people that weren't even from those countries.
International Law?
LOL!
Listen, I agree that the wars were unjust. I agree that these prisoners got a raw deal. I have no doubt that many of these prisoners are innocent, just as our domestic prisons are filled with people that were unjustly incarcerated, and whose constitutional rights were violated.
I just don't think that you will be able to sell Kentucky voters that these prisoners should get Constitution protections that we no longer get at home.
It's better just to avoid getting into these conundrums is the first place. Rand Paul does not support undeclared wars. This would never have been an issue had his position been followed. I will cut him some slack on this.
Ok well, that's another subject.
Regarding the military laws of war, those have been in place for a long time and that's what the military rules are derived from. I don't make them.
And I make no claims about whether KSM or any of the others are guilty or innocent on this matter.
I am addressing the matter of the Constitutionality of the procedure, to uphold the rule of law, and the protections of rights and liberties that we are all expecting to be upheld.
Regarding the subject of "selling it to Kentucky voters", how about "selling them" on the Constitution?
Rand Paul claims to be a Conservative Constitutional candidate.
Subverting the Constitution does not help his position with that at all.
Holding to the Consitution is an easy thing to defend, and it is documented in concrete as the basis of this nation.
There is nothing "conservative" about ignoring the Constitution for emotional purposes, hoping to gain votes from emotional voters looking for blood based on lies they were told.
This is what's known as the "slippery slope".
And Rand's on it.
It winds up in the mud.
Well said, thank you
.
xntryk1 ....
I would simply request one thing from you...
I know how you feel about this and it has a great deal of merit, and I feel the same way.
But consider this ...
Rand's position is more palatable for his constituents, and at the same time, his position would mirror ours. He can not support an undeclared war. You and I cannot support any war.
Is there a practical difference?
By the way ...
Because you posted this to the front page and refuse to post other pro Rand articles to the front page, you seem to be showing your colors.
What those colors are, I have not yet figured out.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
Rhino, the declaration of war is not the only issue here.
Are you not aware of the recent statements about Guantanamo and the prisoners?
I am aware of Rand's recent comments.
It changes nothing.
What do we do with the detainees?
I say let them go.
Rand says tribunals.
Others say the U.S. civilian courts should have jurisdiction.
Is there a difference?
I know one thing ...
All three of those is a substantial change from the status quo ...
which is to simply let them rot in jail without due process.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
He has deemed them guilty even before their trials.
That is no small matter. Neither is the lack of oversight with regard to Guantanamo and its reputation.
His comments have changed things for me. They have made me take pause. My aim is not to bash him. I wish to be able to support him again. But he needs to satisfactorily address some of the recent controversial things, though, for my confidence to be restored.
Amen.
.
I'll guarantee you this.
If they can put this guy in a star-chamber military tribunal behind closed doors, THEN THEY CAN DO IT TO YOU.
This is the danger of this entire assault on the Constitution that came in the wake of that 9/11 operation, and it IS designed to be used against YOU.
It was NEVER intended to be targeted at these "terrorist suspects". They are just window dressing to sell the program as "protection".
It's part of their illusion to make you accept their usurpations as "security".
Mark my words, if we don't have people in Congress that will fight against this kind of unconstitutional activity, and fight to eliminate these tyrannical usurpations of our liberties, then it IS coming to OUR doorsteps, just as it was always intended to do.
If anybody here, including Rand Paul, thinks this has anything to do with "protecting the country", they are in la-la land.
I don't need another Senator that doesn't know the difference between right and wrong. There's plenty of them already.
I notice how all the known neocons here on the DP are just ecstatic about this neocon turn of events with Rand.
That oughtta tell you something.
Rand..
dont send this troll a dime back. Rand isnt Ron and neither one of them is you or me so none of us will have the identical answer. But this person obviously has too much time on his hands. Disinfo is rampant.
http://www.jbs.org/
Semper Fortis
http://www.jbs.org/
Semper Fortis
Yeah seriously
If I was Rand Paul's campaign manager, I'd have told him to take a hike.
But since he is getting his mesely donation (in the grand scheme of the total raised) back, you would think "dallasjustice" would cease acting like a gigantic crybaby here.
G'morning. I'm back to counting "troll" allegations
and this is the first I saw today.
“Foreign terrorists do not
“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.”
these were the words rand paul used, period. this letter does not hold up to these expressions of neo conisms by rand paul.
Annica -
Maybe I'm not reading this right. Are you saying that "FOREIGN terrorists" DO deserve the protection of the Constitution of the United States of America?
Obama = O.ne B.ig A.ss M.istake A.merica
Obama = O.ne B.ig A.ss M.istake A.merica
yes, you read that
yes, you read that correctly. everyone, even a criminal, who is captured, arrested or kidnapped by our government deserves the constitution. the constitution does not state that all men are created equal except for this or that, and it doesn't state that all men of the united states are created equal. all men are created equal, period. anything else is an open door to tyranny.
I agree with you, Annica.
Let's take the Constitution at face value. True, the framers of it really didn't mean all mankind...they meant all white men. But I'm in favor of opportunism here- it says ALL, let's work for the rights of ALL!
How about SUSPECTS?
They were rounded up under HIGHLY questionable circumstances. How about we remember they have NOT been tried yet? Were they LITERALLY on a battlefield? No, they were living their lives. They were people. They get treated like PEOPLE until they are PROVEN to be terrorists.
Just a thought.
Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.