In Defense of Rand Paul
The discussion over civilian trials for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay is a very emotional one.
In Quirin and Yamashita, the Supreme Court upheld military tribunals when war had been declared. In fact, Judge Napolitano argues primarily against tribunals because war was not declared. The Judge implies that war could not have been declared against individual terrorists. I respectfully disagree.
Had war been formally declared against the Taliban government, I believe anyone captured in Afghanistan would be prisoners of war. Anyone captured elsewhere and accused of supporting sabotage or destruction such as the events of 9/11 would be considered non-uniformed military combatants.
Judge Napolitano argues that they should be tried in the city where the crime was committed. But what if the crime is organizing the attack while residing in a foreign country?
If the constitutionality of military tribunals hinges on declaration of war, is it problematic if the crime (9/11) occurred before a declaration of war? While it would seem nonsensical to declare war now, would that change the constitutionality of tribunals?
In his dissent in Yamashita, Justice Rutlege argues for the universal rights of man, that due process is a universal right. While I agree with the nobility and hope of that concept, the practicality is that Constitutional rights can only be extended and enforced within the US. The Constitution is a compact between the states, the people and the Federal Government.
The rights of foreigners do not always exactly equal the rights of US Citizens. For example, apparently, it is Constitutional to deport foreign nationals and deny them any adjudication or Constitutional rights. Student visas give restricted rights in our country. Foreign students must check in with authorities and reveal their travel and work and study habits. Restrictions we would not tolerate on US Citizens. Foreign students can have their freedom of speech or association rights removed simply by overstaying their visa through the act of deportation. We grant special status to foreign diplomats that essentially makes them immune from our laws.
The legal debacle seems to stem from not declaring war formally. The detainees at GITMO should receive timely and just trials. The constitutional question can also be avoided in the future by having the imprisonment and trials done in the country of capture and by following the Constitution in declaration of war.
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? The US should not detain anyone indefinitely anywhere whether in the US or otherwise without a trial.
While some may argue that military tribunals are 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.
If the constitutionality of military tribunals hinges on declaration of war, could the entire debate be made moot by a declaration of war now? Sounds nonsensical but any declaration of war would have been after the fact, even if declared on 9/12.
To say that we are Constitutionalists is not to say that we will always agree. I hope all in the Liberty Movement will carefully examine all angles to this emotional issue.
Rand Paul has not retracted his neoconservative rhetoric.
Either this guy is a reed blown about by every political wind, or he really is a neocon. At any rate, I cannot personally trust this guy to represent us as a Senator, and every patriot should be looking at Rand Paul critically rather than with rose-coloured glasses of hope that he could be something that he plainly is not.
Go back to your eye-doctoring Rand.
It is laughable that someone
It is laughable that someone who opposed the Iraq war, opposes torture, opposes indefinite detention, wants to scale down the empire abroad, and is a small-government constitutionalist can be considered a "neocon" simply because he thinks those held at GITMO should be tried in the same courts as our soldiers instead of civilian trials.
The problem is the law
The problem is the law doesn't even allow for what Rand wants. Refer to USC TITLE 10 Subtitle A PART II CHAPTER 47 SUBCHAPTER I § 802
On top of that no one was drafted into the military, they're all serving voluntarily. They've submitted to military law.
War wasn't declared, and I don't think anyone can show me one instance of anyone being held in GITMO carrying the status of Lawful Enemy Combatant. Nor is anyone in GITMO holding an EPW status, even though under the Geneva convention they are to be treated as such until they face a competent tribunal to determine their status.
The bottom line being the Constitution as it stands is swiss cheese. Considering we did things wrong to begin with, and avoided Constitutionally declaring war cutting the Constitution out the picture all together would be a grievous error and a huge blow to Habeas Corpus.
Obeying the United States Constitution Article VI Para 2 and honouring the Geneva Convention we signed on to and giving the prisoners the due process we promise is almost all we have left in this case.
Absolutely!
And one article even called him a "neocon absolutist"! You cannot believe it. So they are really saying Ron Paul would be endorsing asnd campaigning for a neocon, while he has campaigned against them his whole life. He would know much better what a neocon is than these people who have barely heard the word recently!
And some do not even want to trust that it is Carol Paul who wrote that about her son. Question: what would they have believed that she would say?
Should she have said, we are worried that he is a becoming a neocon, but please vote for him as he is our son? Should she have said actually he is not so smart, but still our son, so endorse him??? Or would they have liked that he issued a statement, please bring the Gitmo prisoners to Kentucky, not NYC!
IHMO Rand is very intelligent and savvy, but simply not so much experienced in crafting a balanced statement as he has done, it was perhaps more emotional reaction due to the false accusations and distortions of Trey Grayson on the latter's website. And it may only be the 911 "inside job" theorists who think all the Gitmo captives are totally innocent of anything, as they believe the US govt did 911. They are fond of describing or suspecting all who do not share their beliefs as being a neocon.
Fact of the matter is, Rand is 100% like his father and will also vote and act, only he craft his message a bit differently for the situation in Kentucky specifically and he has to turn people's trust and they ought to get to know him and his education is a step by step process. He needs to appeal to the more hawkish Republicans, many of whom were perhaps still pro-war and watch Fox news all the time, without giving up any principles. It is good that he focus on the main issues currently, namely the economy. If he hopefully wins the primary, he can campaign a bit differently in the general, to attract Independents as well by emphasizing other aspects of his platform as well, including a peace message. Foreign policy may not play such an important role int he race, but he will know how to vote and act in senate and said himself if there were any future possible planned attack on say Iran, he would filibuster a law and call for a declaration of war first, and vote against that.
In his statement he has not said Gitmo should be open and act as a place of imprisonment forever, yet this is what some conclude. He may well mean that those that are convicted of crimes, should be at first locked up in Gitmo and later transferred to their country of origin in prison.
You're missing somethings
You're missing somethings about Quirin that are HUGE. Since the Quirin-1942 and the Yamashita - 1946 the United States has ratified the Geneva Conventions -1949 which are therefore considered municipal law in accordance with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. So the way we treated Unlawful Combatants then and now is different.
Even if we go on the assertion that the Quirin case would take precedence then as the American Bar Association points out.
"The Quirin case, however, does not stand for the proposition that detainees may be held incommunicado and denied access to counsel; the defendants in Quirin were able to seek review and they were represented by counsel. In Quirin, “The question for decision is whether the detention of petitioners for trial by Military Commission ... is in conformity with the laws and Constitution of the United States. “ Quirin, 317 U.S. at 18. Since the Supreme Court has decided that even enemy aliens not lawfully within the United States are entitled to review under the circumstances of Quirin,11 that right could hardly be denied to U. S. citizens and other persons lawfully present in the United States, especially when held without any charges at all.
—American Bar Association"
To back what I'm saying about Unlawful Combatants then vs now I can point to Hadman vs Rumsfeld, where the US. Supreme court ruled that Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions applies to detainees in the War on Terror, and that the Military Tribunals used to try these suspects were in violation of US and international law.
The Military Commissions act of 2006 supposedly address these issues, but after reading it myself it falls short, and merely offers a short definition of Unlawful Combatants, and in no way definitively says they are to be subject to military law under USC title 10.
Declaring War is an act of National Sovereignty
Many of our public servants, while giving lip service to the Constitution, consider us (and themselves) under authority of the United Nations Charter, rather than our Constitution. If in fact the Constitution is subservient to the UN Charter (which it certainly is not!), we as a nation cannot declare war. We need the UN's permission to wage war.
To me, this constitutes a situation where many of our public servants have demonstrated where there true allegiance is. They won't say this publicly, but their actions demonstrate where their true loyalty lies.
If my opinion is fact, these public servants are not only guilty of betraying their oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, this amounts to subversion. They are working for a foreign power, namely the United Nations.
Maybe I am wrong. Maybe one of these politicians will explain why they have refused to declare war since World War Two, while they have continued to wage war.
Does a declaration of war require the words "declaration" and
"war" be in the bill? When congress funds a war that is a declaration of war. Why the continual argument over wording?
I don't have to agree with a candidate 100% to support that candidate. Why would anyone expect total agreement?
War Powers
A declaration of war does not necessarily have to contain the word "declaration" and maybe not "war" either. As long as the intent is clear. The main point is that the decision must be made entirely by Congress. Congress cannot delegate this authority to the President.
To Declare or Not to Declare
Yes, a formal Declaration of War is necessary. You need to ask yourself why Congress has REFUSED to declare war since 1945. I believe the answer is, they think that we need the UN's permission to wage war, and that a Declaration of War would be an arrogant display of national sovereignty.
Only a sovereign nation can declare war. A Congress that refuses to declare war, and allows an Administration to wage war is useless. A Congress that allows an Administration to issue "executive orders", while the Constitution says that ALL LAWS ARE MADE BY THE CONGRESS is worthless. A Congress that allows a private bank to issue non-redeemable paper while the Constitution mandates that congress with coining money and regulating it's value is worthless.
We either follow the Constitution or we continue to suffer under the crimes of our Criminal Class - the politicians. You can't have it both ways.
Very well said
Hard to argue with that.
Crimes of States
The Constitution empowers the Congress to Declare War or to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal because sometimes crimes are committed by governments, and sometimes they are committed by free-lance redistributionists. The framers purposely made the distinction because different origins of danger require different responses. The thuggery that brought us the atrocities of Naina Levin appeared not to be state sponsored which is why there was no justification for waging War (legal conflict between states), but did appear to be orchestrated by a stateless organization. It is precisely for that reason that The Good Doctor introduced legislation to issue such Letters, which sound reasoning fell on hyper-vigilance induced deaf ears.
And yes, contractually speaking, if one wishes to declare war under the auspices of the Constitution, one MUST use the words "Declaration" and "War".
When Congress funds an undeclared "war", that is not a de facto or implicit declaration of war, it is a crime.
No metaphors or inferences are allowed. It was written that precisely so as to avoid such Clintonian parsing.
LXXI BC: Ego sum Spartacus // MDCCCLVII: I am Dred Scott // MCMVL: Ich bin Anne Frank // MMX: Je suis Assange // MMXI: Ik ben von NotHaus
Not Too Late for the Letters
We could still issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal against the terrorists, including the ones at GITMO. This would give Congress more say in the matter and they could handle it in accordance with the Constitution.
Congress has the power to "define and PUNISH piracies...and offences against the law of nations..."
Too technical
Ladies and Gents,
Let's not get sidetracked here. I'm not even sure most folks can articulate a clear question to this issue, and THUS most people are confused as to what is even being debated.
There is zero doubt Rand Paul is a constitutional conservative. There is zero doubt he is a good, honest, moral man who believes in the values of the Liberty Movement and limited government folks.
This issue has gotten a bit technical and academic, and people are really going off on tangents, and perhaps getting emotional when they are missing the point.
One key point is to realize that there is not one candidate you will agree with 100%, more than likely. There are very few litmus tests, and in my book, Rand passes them all easily. My main litmus test is: does the candidate understand and promote allegiance to the Constitution (which is our standard of liberty)?
Rand clearly and quite easily passes this test. The other candidates, honestly, have probably never read the document and could care less about its relevance to Liberty. Mr. Grayson's backers belie his allegiance, and it's not to Freedom, but to money and power.
Let's FOCUS. United we stand....
"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford
In defense of Afghanistan
I will not support a candidate who wants to declare war on them.
Hear! Hear!
.
where?
Where have you seen that Rand wants to declare war on Afghanistan? I don't believe that to be the case. He is against these phony wars, just as his father, Ron Paul, is.
Rand wants to bring the troops home.
"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford
He said it in a recent Wall Street Journal interview.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/11/12/qa-with-rand-paul-s...
"Universal rights" is a trap...
or at least a slippery slope.
As noble as it may sound to extend CONSTITUTIONAL rights to non-U.S. citizens, this ends up blurring the distinction between the various peoples of the world, their national sovereignty, and furthering the cause of the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT advocates.
Don't think so? What do you think the NWO has used as an excuse for entangling the U.S. in so many police actions around the world?
Yugoslavia? Somalia? Even in Iraq and Afghanistan much of the justification for our ongoing involvement has been to insure "democracy". And what is that if not a thinly veiled attempt to impose our value system on a sovereign people?
No, people need to look past the rhetoric and think about the implications for the viability of our OWN constitution before we try to extend it too far and end up destroying the nation and people that sustain it.
******************************
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it.
Natural Law and Natural Rights
http://jim.com/rights.html
******************************
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."
You are such a tool, who are
You are such a tool, who are you working for?
First you promote H1N1 vaccines here and now this?
We aren't talking about the constitution in other countries only US soil.
We are talking about Gitmo WHICH IS ON US SOIL and part of the US just like any other military base around the world. Where is the conflict? These suspected criminals are already on US soil.
The 14th amendment is clear about rights of non US citizens on US soil.
Crawl back under the rock from which you came.
www.retakecongress.com
www.retakecongress.com
www.revolutionbroadcasting.com
www.RJHarrismoneybomb.com
Another Ad Hominem attack brought to you by...
ThePatriot.
That tells me I must be right. ;)
******************************
An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it.
Natural Law and Natural Rights
http://jim.com/rights.html
******************************
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."
It tells me you are just
It tells me you are just trolling around here. Take your bullshit to RPF from which you came. I notice you don't post this kind of crap there, why is that?
Keep pushing those H1N1 vaccines Doc.
www.retakecongress.com
www.retakecongress.com
www.revolutionbroadcasting.com
www.RJHarrismoneybomb.com
Just a thought on this subject. Comments please....
A good friend just pointed out that God gave every man and woman certain inalienable rights. (EVEN when it comes to foreigners)
A trial would have to be the first step to proving a man guilty. So the only question is, Where should he be tried.
If we allow anyone to be held without a fair trial, regardless of who they are, then we open ourselves up for that same treatment. I think Andy Savage, The attorney for the "alleged" terrorist is absolutely correct when he said. This is not about him, this is about you and you and you. (paraphrasing)
Join me on Revolution Broadcasting .com at 8PM EST. Fri evenings. Tune in to Keep America Free with Amanda Moore
Your friend meant certain
Your friend meant certain Unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of PRINCIPLES is no vice! And moderation in the pursuit of VOTES is no virtue!"-My edit
......tender heart
Octobox
*&^ Constitution --- Constitutional Rationality
"The rights of foreigners do
"The rights of foreigners do not always exactly equal the rights of US Citizens."
This is simply incorrect. Rights are inherent, and not provided by governments or agreements. The Bill of Rights simply draws attention to pre-existing rights, it doesn't create them. All human beings have the same rights. Not all human beings have the same privileges.
i absolutely agree with you.
i absolutely agree with you. rights are inherent. government does not create them.
This guy doesn't have a clue
This guy doesn't have a clue what he is talking about!
In Quirin and Yamashita, the Supreme Court upheld military tribunals when war had been declared. In fact, Judge Napolitano argues primarily against tribunals because war was not declared. The Judge implies that war could not have been declared against individual terrorists. I respectfully disagree.
Answer : What? You disagree? The Judge is correct because war is defined clearly : War - a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations
Had war been formally declared against the Taliban government, I believe anyone captured in Afghanistan would be prisoners of war. Anyone captured elsewhere and accused of supporting sabotage or destruction such as the events of 9/11 would be considered non-uniformed military combatants.
Answer : Wrong again : That doesn't make sense. If war were declared against the Taliban, only Taliban soldiers could be captured, or are you claiming that every single person in Afghan because they are there can be tried with military tribunals? What did Afghanistan have to do with 9-11?
If the constitutionality of military tribunals hinges on declaration of war, is it problematic if the crime (9/11) occurred before a declaration of war? While it would seem nonsensical to declare war now, would that change the constitutionality of tribunals?
Answer : How do you declare war against an entity that isn't a state or country? WTF, again, what did Afganistan and Iraq have to do with 9-11? 17 of the 19 so called hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. You can't declare war against a person. That is like saying since we have a war racism that anyone suspected of being a racist is now deemed a terrorist and shall face a military tribunal because they are an enemy combatant. This could also be said about the war on drugs and so called drug dealers.
The rights of foreigners do not always exactly equal the rights of US Citizens. For example, apparently, it is Constitutional to deport foreign nationals and deny them any adjudication or Constitutional rights. Student visas give restricted rights in our country. Foreign students must check in with authorities and reveal their travel and work and study habits. Restrictions we would not tolerate on US Citizens. Foreign students can have their freedom of speech or association rights removed simply by overstaying their visa through the act of deportation. We grant special status to foreign diplomats that essentially makes them immune from our laws.
Answer : What? Please point out the clause in the constitution that asserts your claim, here is a hint, you won't find one because it doesn;t exist.
The legal debacle seems to stem from not declaring war formally. The detainees at GITMO should receive timely and just trials. The constitutional question can also be avoided in the future by having the imprisonment and trials done in the country of capture and by following the Constitution in declaration of war.
Answer : Moma's wrong again : People don't receive timely or just trials in a military tribunal in Gitmo, this place was set up especially to avoid compliance with ANY Constitutional requirements on United States land?
I could pick this article apart all day, I think you all get the point here and this article doesn't help Rand at all and to have Rand Paul staff posting this crap is insane. Rand needs to clairfy this himself.
www.retakecongress.com
www.retakecongress.com
www.revolutionbroadcasting.com
www.RJHarrismoneybomb.com
I agree!
"The rights of foreigners do not always exactly equal the rights of US Citizens. For example, apparently, it is Constitutional to deport foreign nationals and deny them any adjudication or Constitutional rights. Student visas give restricted rights in our country. Foreign students must check in with authorities and reveal their travel and work and study habits. Restrictions we would not tolerate on US Citizens. Foreign students can have their freedom of speech or association rights removed simply by overstaying their visa through the act of deportation. We grant special status to foreign diplomats that essentially makes them immune from our laws."-OP
------
1, There are no constitutional rights.
2, Student Visas are contracts. Are they not? And with all contracts there are conditions.
3, The "Restrictions we would not tolerate on US Citizens" (i.e.travel, work and study habits) I have news for you, we already do it to our own citizens.
4, "Foreign students can have their freedom of speech or association rights removed simply by overstaying their visa through the act of deportation."
They applied for a Visa and it has conditions as well an expiration date.
WTF!!!
I do question have questions about this
If illegal aliens cannot be deported when they commit vehicular homicide, then how are these "terrorists any different? Holder and Obama have declared them convicted prior to the trial, so why have them? We are at a point where our leaders are not only violating law, but blatantly stating their intent to disregard verdicts in a court of law, what times we live in. I also like to think of the Afghanistan detainees in the light of the Bloods and Crypts street gangs and think that this war would resemble one or several of these gang members committing murder in Canada, so Great Britan decides to invade and occupy the U.S., and it is clear that during the time shortly after 9/11 had our fearful leaders respected the rule of law then we would not be having this conversation at all. Instead of the hope and change from Obama we see more of the same, more digging down deep to avoid doing the right thing. In the end, these trials will be better than dancing with the stars and the O.J. hearing rolled into one, and perhaps when some truth is revealed (if truth is allowed) it might just wake up the masses thats lives revolve around the main stream media and manipulated media in general. I foresee these hearings taking place in New York and behind closed doors open to only a select few that will delve out only the approved information that comes out, and I certainly hope Bush is squirming right now, but I seriously doubt it.
In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.
~Mark Twain
Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, and set those BRUSH FIRES everywhere you go and in all you do!
There is something you are ignoring here....
This murky definition of 'terrist' or 'unlawful combatant' can be applied to citizens. Once so defined (there cases of schoolchildren being so charged). The accused can then be tortured (whatever name they want to call it), denied counsel, denied the right of confronting the witnesses or evidence against him and detained indefinitely, or worse. This is not somewhere we want to go, and it is no MINOR issue.
Now if Rand is ready to call for the repeal of PATRIOT and the repeal of the Military Commissions Act, then maybe we can talk. I doubt it though. Rand is evidently more interested in cozying up to neocons.