52 votes

Rand Paul comes out against fellow Republicans in Tsarnaev case

In an interview with Fox Business on Monday evening, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) came out against Republicans who had called for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to be held as an “enemy combatant.”

“I think we can still preserve the Bill of Rights,” Paul told Neil Cavuto. “I see no reason why our Constitution isn’t strong enough to convict this young man, with a jury trial, with The Bill of Rights. We do it to horrible people all the time. Rapists and murders – they get lawyers, they get trials with juries and we seem to do a pretty good job of justice, so I think we can do it through our court system.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

1/2 plus, 1/2 minus

Right, give a trial and let a jury decide. Elected citizens who what to be judge, jury and executioner all together, should take a break for long time contemplation of what they advocate. As far as drones shooting first go, if God (the loving One, not the mean old testament One) where in control of them, fine. Otherwise forget it: God's not chasing the robber here. Any law enforcer IMO retaliates to lethal force in self defense, or otherwise just arrests the person, for trial.

This is unreal. How can Rand

This is unreal. How can Rand think stealing $50 at gunpoint is punishable by death??????????? Especially with no trial..??

Wow- while I agree with Rand

Wow- while I agree with Rand on Due Process and the Bill of Rights, I'm completely disappointed with his mentioning of killing by use of drones here in the U.S. He mentions someone coming out of a store with a gun and $50 cash, and feels it's alright for a drone to be used to kill this suspect. What the hell about the innocent bystander sitting in his car or woman in a stroller passing by?

His statement sounded like McCain or Graham, and showed once again he is not consistent. While I like Rand...I'm still not 100% convinced!

In defense of Rand on this he

In defense of Rand on this he did not say kill. He was suggesting that the surveillance capabilities would be valid in that scenario as is a helicopter currently. Personally I think the nearly assured misuse of Drones should prohibit them entirely until the debate is complete on their use in the US. Should the 4th amendment issues be cleared up and the NDAA and Patriot acts and all other unconstitutional orders and regs be repealed I would then consider the use of drones as a cost effective replacement for helicopter in non-lethal configurations only with warrant based and active scene being the only authorized times surveillance equipment could be active during a flight.

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

Here is his exact quote - “If

Here is his exact quote - “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”

I watched the interview live

I watched the interview live and almost fell out of my chair when he said it!!

Holy crap

You are right. Here is the video he says it at 2:30
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctha0exQTd4

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

there are those who give Rand the benefit of the doubt . . .

and those who can't find anything right with what he says.

As always.

I'm glad he spoke up. I'm sure his words were not 100% perfect, but at least he is defending the constitution.

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

Rand is trying to preserve some sanity

in all of this. He is calling for preserving our Bill of Rights and following the Constitution. He also asks that the 19 year old be given a FAIR trial through the court systems.

And this is a far cry from what is happening right now, which is trial and conviction by MEDIA and FBI. Let's have a fair trial and show the evidence.

Good for Rand!

"I see no reason why our

"I see no reason why our Constitution isn’t strong enough to convict this young man, with a jury trial, with The Bill of Rights. We do it to horrible people all the time. Rapists and murders – they get lawyers, they get trials with juries and we seem to do a pretty good job of justice"

technically, their suspects, until after trial, where judgement is made, otherwise, whats the point of trial, if their already seen as guilty

when a person has wrongfully been accused or served time, they should recieve an OFFICIAL for the record public apology, plus, compensation based on the severity, if its proven to be the case

Trial is the opportunity for the wrongly accused to to not be convicted as guilty, but thats all it is, a chance, but a chance is better then fuck all

Why does Rand not call them

Why does Rand not call them suspects? So disappointing that he continually refers to these guys "as the bombers" in no uncertain terms at the same time talking about jury trials. His politicing, to groups like the masses who have convicted these kids in the media already, scares me sometimes.

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

Get over it.

This is a clear case of people just looking for something to be mad at Randa bout. It's like you think he's trying to convince the world that this kid is guilty, while he is clearly calling for the kids rights not to be infringed. Even I'm pretty sure he's guilty, and if I called him "the suspect" or "the accused", that immediatly makes it sound like I'm an apologist or I think he's been framed. Rand using the word bombers or whatever doesn't have any legal affect on anything. I'd use it myself while simultaneously arguing for their rights.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

I don't even know what to say to that

"Even I'm pretty sure he's guilty, and if I called him "the suspect" or "the accused", that immediatly makes it sound like I'm an apologist"

I don't even know what to say to that statement... I'm stunned.

I have one question for you though; Do you still beat your wife?
*Hint, this has nothing to do with your wife, or physical violence.

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

I know you're stunned...

....because you think that "innocent until proven guilty" means that you can't have an opinion until a jury of peers tells you what your opinion should be.
Due process doesn't mean people can't form a guess, or an opinion prior to the verdict. And by the way, the verdict is nothing more than the legal statment of the jury's opinion.
You want Rands opinion to be that the kid is innocent. That makes just as little sense as assuming he is guilty. Rand is trying to argue for the kid's rights, but he can't do that if he goes in implying that the kid probably didn't do it. In my opinion, the kid probably did it. Does that mean that a jury should take my opinion into account? No. Does it mean they should take Rand's opinion into account? No.
Will the GOP listen to Rand's argument for due process if he goes in sounding like an apologist? Hell no.
Rand understands that calling the kid "bomber" instead of "suspect" is the difference between being able to argue that the kid has rights, and being ignored completely. Is it political? Yes. Will anyone important listen to Rand's argument? Yes. Will anyone important listen to yours? Not to be rude, but no. By stressing that "we don't know if the kid did it", the people in DC who will make these decisions will assume he is apologizing for acts of terror, and they'll ignore anything he has to say about due process.
In the purist world of the DP, I know that sort of subtlety doesn't fly, but in politics, you can't get anywhere without it.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

As you say taking a stand

As you say taking a stand either way makes little sense. Please do not assume you know what I would like. I have no feelings in this case as to the guilt or innocence of any party.

I contest it is irresponsible to publicly state otherwise as the only information now flowing is from one side of the fence, the side we almost unanimously here at the DP believe to be corrupt and unreliable at best.

You say it is ok to form opinions. That same thought process would disqualify you to serve on a jury in this or any case.

Our precious and threatened system of justice relies on the wisdom of 12 common persons selected as peers of the accused with the opportunity to deliberate freely, with direct access to all the evidence and instruction on the law. Your emotion threatens that. Your opinions are that of the tyranny of the mob that humans have been trying to rise above through ancient Greece, to the Magna Carta, and to our most sublime document to date, the US Constitution.

Do not allow popular thought or those around you to make you ignorant of the sacrifices humans have made throughout history to get here and how easy it is to let it slip from our grasp manipulated by those that seek to control us by having us work against our own interest.

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

I love everything you said,

but the truth is that no comments like that will ever get to the people who run this country, unless someone like Rand politics his way in.
There are two ways to make the argument for liberty here.

1. "We don't even know if this kid did it. The government is typically corrupt and unreliable, so lets just remember that he is innocent until proven guilty and lets be sure to give him his Constitutional rights."

2. Our Constition is strong enough to bring justice to terrorists so there is no reason to ignore due process just because the bomber did something especailly heinous.

As you've said, the jury should be made of people who haven't been immersed in this issue and don't have emotion on either side yet as driven by the media or other factors. Rand obviously isn't serving on the jury, and isn't trying to convince a jury of the guilt of this guy. He is trying to convince the government of the need for due process.
Argument number one would be just fine for a defense lawyer arguing to the jury, but it would be immediatly ignored or berated more likely, by government officials deciding if they should hold the kid as an enemy combatant.
Argument number two is more fitting of a politician who is trying to convince a pissed off group of right wingers that due process should not be ignored.
I realize it is a "loaded question" to call the kid a bomber, but again, Rand isn't talking ot the jury, nor is he trying to serve on the jury. He is trying to convince hardcore right wingers not to abandon the Bill of Rights.
We at the DailyPaul have the freedom to be able to speak exactly how we feel, and avoid fallacy. Rand is dealing with illogical and corrupt people. He can't speak like we do, or he'll be so irrelevent that the only audience he'll be able to get is here at the DailyPaul.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Where does he say "as the bombers"?

I didn't see it in this article.

Rand did say the phrase "as the bombers"

in the video interview that is in another DP post. I just didn't see it in this article about the interview. My apologizes for questioning you.

my thoughts exactly, wish i

my thoughts exactly, wish i read your post before posting

+1

Mealy Mouthed Answer

"I think"? Come'on.

Rand is good.

Rand is good.