Rand Paul: Try, Convict and Lock Up Terrorists In Guantanamo
Submitted by William the Silent on Thu, 11/19/2009 - 22:03
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...
Nonintervention should not be conflated with intelligence....
I believe nonintervention should not be conflated with intelligence gathering and detaining enemies of this country. i have read michael scheuer's writings and i believe that most of the mistakes in dealing with terrorists/enemy combatants/heinous criminals or whatever you want to call them, has resulted from administrations in the white house politicizing and cherry-picking information. innocent people winding up in guantanamo is the result of the politicization of the war on terrorism and not letting the intelligence services work properly as michael scheuer describes. this is a separate issue and should be dealt with. however, to simply close down guantanamo and to go out of your way to extend rights to heinous criminals is just silly and i believe rand paul is correct in this matter.
Not innocent
Personally I think most of the people in Guantanamo bay were actually arrested for attacks or conspiracy to attack the US (am a psychic), I dont think its actually that hard to find people shooting at the US army.
But how do u prosecute someone attacking an occupying force stealing liberty and treasure (iraq oil contracts) from their country? They are guilty of one thing and that is fighting for freedom, get out of Iraq and free them and if for any reason they decide they want more fight with the US, then arrest and prosecute them in military or civilian courts
interpretation
let's just cut the bullshit and state your view.
-you want gitmo to stay open
-you want the detainees to be locked away forever, regardless if there are any innocent men being held.
now to address the rest of your meandering packaging of your two simple statements:
ok. so you think people are conflating, i.e. BLENDING the concept of nonintervention with intelligence and detention. Not sure how you arrived at that concept. Sounds like you're conflating regulars on the DP for ignorant slackjawed idgits, except that you'd be wrong.
well let's just kick the thought that anyone's blending/conflating/fusing what-have-you, right in the nuts.
I totally disagree. People around here have very STRONG OPINIONS on intelligence gathering and detention, independently arrived at over the course of many many in-depth discussions, taking place over weeks, months, years. Which you might have known had you spend some time reading through the archive.
All you have to do is go to google and type in:
nonintervention site:dailypaul.com
or
detention site:dailypaul.com
There's no conflating going on here, on this topic. And as far as your theory goes about how this would have gone a lot better had the administration just let the intelligence agencies "work properly" ...I think you're high.
I don't know where you came from, but before you dive in and post anymore, you may want to spend a month or two reading through the archived articles and postings.
Rand Paul & KY GrassRoots Radio
new
Kentucky Grassroots Radio & Dr Rand Paul
On November 22nd, 2009 clint4liberty says:
It is clear Rand Paul is right on the issues save one. I stand behind Rand Paul for US Senate except one issue. Please do not allow Trey Grayson to slip back into the lead after Rand Paul just took it. By the way, Kentuckiana Grassroots Radio is covering the End the Fed Protest Live from to 2 PM to 3 PM on Sunday, November 23rd. Click here to listen: http://www.blogtalkradio....
I also encourage everyone to listen live or later on via archive to Norm Davis Interview on how to work on issues for liberty and putting egos aside. Mr. Davis will be on air Monday night Nov. 23rd from 6:30 to 8:00 PM Eastern Time. Anyone may call-in 1-347-637-3086 or e-mail: kymattsingleton@yahoo.com
and click here to listen: http://www.blogtalkradio....
can we condense this matter all into one thread?
Michael,
is this a possibility? And just delete any redundant ones and put them under the same thread? There are so many other pressing issues. I think it is only fair for other topics that need to be addressed, i.e, FED audit, economy, global warming, gun rights, and other pressing issues.
Disappointing
“These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil." - Rand.
Here's the problem: the people being detained at Guantanamo Bay may very well be completely innocent. We don't know because they're denied due process, habeas corpus, and the right to defend oneself against their accusers. We do know that the process by which many were brought to Guantanamo Bay is flawed. The US military offered rewards for bringing in terrorists, but what would stop somene from kidnapping an innocent man and telling the US military that they are a terrorist? What would Rand Paul tell an innocent goat herder or farmer who has been rotting in Guantanamo Bay for the last 8-9 years? Good luck at the Military tribunal? This is a violation of basic human rights. Rand is definitely a Neocon on this issue. And I think this will really hurt his chances of pol;itical success because the neocon philosophy of "giving up liberty for security" is ver, very unpopular.
Let me get this straight
If your dislike Rand Paul you're going to support who? No one? Grayson?
Rand is the man for liberty.
Unless you're going to vote for Grayson. Then you're just here to demolish Rand Paul's support.
Interesting...
A member for less than an hour and a half?
Hmmmm...
Don't feed the trolls!
We are under assault
by grayson trolls. who knows, maybe by becomign imposters and typing what they don't believe in, they might actually wake up
If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking. - George S. Patton
Ofc he must be a Greyson
Ofc he must be a Greyson troll for criticizing Rand Paul, no chance that hes a libertarian Ron Paul supporter visiting a Ron Paul site. Another thing I dont understand is why are you guys quick to pass the mantle to Rand Paul and not people like Peter Schiff, Harris or even Gary Johnson.
Not exactly, juleswin.
Someone isn't necessarily a troll because they criticize Rand.
However, when someone who has made little or no contribution on the forum becomes active just to do something like that, it is rather suspicious, and even if it is not part of some concerted effort on the part of ~opposition~, it is in poor taste.
Rand has the best chance,
raised more money and is ahead in the polls. Schiff is polling at 4% Harris is around 26%. I do agree we should be supporting Harris more with our donations, i can only recommend Harris put out more videos of his Campaign. I don't think i have seen one speech from him, sorry i tell a lie, i have seen 1.
Rand is also a worker, he gives us a lot of updates on what he is doing almost on a daily basis, you can feel he is doing a lot and working hard. I can't say the same for the others. Not that they are not, they are just not promoting it as well, so we don't know.
As for Gary, he is not running for anything, he just set up a PAC i think. he might soon, but not much we can do except wait.
As for Rand, i truly believe he does not mean what he says, and is pandering to the voters. He has gotten to the point where now he wants to win and is afraid to lose imo. For someone that has never run for office i would say he probably does not know how to handle the incredible situation he finds himself in, and is in real danger of loosing because of his lack of experience.
All i can say is cut the guy some slack, keep supporting him even if is compromising on his integrity a little. and make sure he knows that we know he is compromising and never let him forget it but don't pull your support.
It is not a choice between lesser of two evils at all, Grayson is 1/1000 of what Paul is don't forget that.
??
"I do agree we should be supporting Harris more with our donations, i can only recommend Harris put out more videos of his Campaign. I don't think i have seen one speech from him, sorry i tell a lie, i have seen 1."
Have you even done the slighest bit of research on the liberty candidates? Visiting their websites is a great starting point.
http://rjharris2010.com/media.asp
There are enough videos, interviews, and blogs on that site to keep you busy for months.
"Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises
6
i only see 6 vids of which i have seen them all. not sure which ones you are talking about. If you would be so kind as to point me in the right direction as i would very much like to see them. thanks
19 Videos ... 4 Interviews
On the left side of that page are links to seperate categories with various other videos.
There are also dozens of blogs and positions on the issues written as well at other locations.
Just navigate the site. You can always go to the guys YouTube page too http://www.youtube.com/rjharris2010
"Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises
huh
Excuse me? I'm not a grayson troll. I don't hate Grayson but I disagree with him on most issues. I really am anti-torture, anti-war, anti-empire, and I destest neocons. I don't believe we should sacrifice liberty for security, and I don't believe we should deprive people's rights for 8-9 years without due process. How would you like to be locked up without an opportunity to defend yourself? I'm not saying Rand is a neocon but he is acting like a neocon in this instance.
Thank You For Your Contribution to this discussion
Patriots' struggles are not easy. We will get through this. Open discussion is the hallmark of democracy. It is reasonable cry out for explanation. Thanks for your help.
Waterboard Rand Paul 183 times
within 30 days and he will swear to you that Barney Frank has the nicest set of natural teeth on Capital Hill, or whatever else you want him to say.
I feel sorry for Michael and those who are genuine defenders of the Constitution, there's so many unscrupulous people here that it's starting to stink.
that's a pretty dumb
that's a pretty dumb comment.
detracts from the sincere viewpoints on both sides.
1 Gallon of water
and few seconds I'd have you calling that THE greatest comment you've ever read before, and I'd still have 3/4 of a gallon left over.
Whenever you decide on getting 'sincere', you let me know and I'll be glad to show you.
The problem is that the viewpoints of both sides are bogus, there is no such thing as the 'war on terror', it's a gigantic fake bogey-man conjured up to scare people like you.
You don't have to feel sorry for us,
because while we may have been disappointed in that one confusing text. I am encouraged by this video of RAND. Rand understands what is happening and he is NOT turning his back on the Constitution or his supporters. Just my two cents.
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/115581
this is where RAND differs from Ron.
at least in Language. I don't think they are far off, but I believe that Congressman Ron chooses to portrait his foreign policy as anti-war, anti-nation building and anti-empire, YET he sometimes forgets to state that he is for a STRONG national defense. We know he is but his message sometimes gets lost.
I've heard Dr. RAND speak about how he feels that his father could have done a better during the 2008 election stating his case because many Republican Sheeple mistakenly assumed Ron favored a Liberal Idealogy dismantling our military.
Regarding the 9/11 Detainees, I see both sides of the argument. We could open a can of worms with a trial on our soil, but if someone commits a crime on our soil, they should be convicted here.
Ocean Front Property
The REAL GUANTANAMO BAY!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtrzcBMbVXs
----------------
Ron Paul Supporter Since 1997
"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson
----------------
Ron Paul Supporter Since 1997
"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson
Ack (as bill would say)
I think many of you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Surprise, Rand isn't Ron! And if he honestly believes the basic and generally accepted explanation of 911 then he probably feels compelled to support the premise that KSM and company are a form of war criminal. (personally I would support open trials for all involved, including Bush and Co)
My belief is that he isn't comfortable with Gitmo but feels the quickest way to get resolution for the accused is by military tribunal. Not very fair, but there it is. If you think that the USGOV is gonna take one for the team on Gitmo then you have another think coming.
Rand is trying to get to Washington primarily for MONETARY issues. In this, I totally agree with him. This country can survive Gitmo (albeit with a tarnished visage) but we will falter and fail if our dollar goes Wiemar on us.
So, as a recap; Surprise! Rand may be doing a small bit of politicking to attract more voters. Personally I can accept that with no problem.
For those of you who think that Ron Paul hasn't paid the piper occasionally I offer my heartfelt sympathy. Growing up is a painful process. May I suggest a quiet evening listening to Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto No. 1 in B flat minor, Op. 23. This has often brought me solace when the world gets too large.
And finally, for the person who made the statement about someone blowing up a Humvee in Iraq or Afghanistan. Do you think these people are criminals? Are they not Patriots of the highest order, defending their country from an illegal invasion? Would we still condemn them if they had blown up one of Saddam's or the Taliban's patrols?
Neocon in sheeps clothing?
The wars are already a top budget priority and have helped bankrupt us. Any informed person knows by now this is only enriching corporations and private interests and our legislatures invested in the war machine. It is totally staged.
Sorry Rand. You might be RP's son but you are way off track.
No, Rebel...
...you're way off track.
If you want Republican primary votes, you say what they want to hear.
And, to be far, if you look at how the Federal government is supposed to be, it's only primary purposes are to maintain a standing army, and coin money. Therefore, in a Constitutional government, most of the budget taken from tariffs, excise taxes, etc. would go towards the military.
No, Nidhogge...
... you're way off track.
You can still be strong on national defense while still being principled and sticking to the constitution.
We cannot just give Rand a pass on this. He needs to come out and clarify his position. If his position is one that he doesn't support due process for all individuals... or believe in natural rights for all humankind... then I must pull my support for his campaign. At the foundation of this debacle is the question of whether or not we have natural rights because of government and law/luck in where we are born, or if they are fundamental inalienable rights.
"Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises
Not quite.
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, VP of the United States 1813-1814, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789
Don't some people just make you pissed
I sometimes think we have a bunch of Obama mania people here who support Ron Paul. They never think through their own words, just come to crazy conclusions by misrepresenting what another person says.
Every few months I seem to get really annoyed by something, this is one.
I get it.
Also ,even if he does support these diabolical wars, he's still the best man running in the Rep race.
I set up a new topic to discuss the campaign's response
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/115555
Seems someone made a mistake
There's been a lot of good commentary already, but I'll add my 2 cents anyway.
Clearly something is amiss from the point of view of those of us who are disturbed by the Guantanamo-for-terrorists-and-war-on-Afghanistan press release.
The message from David Adams does not explain the press release, it mostly contradicts it. In spots, it leaves the issue hanging by asking a good question but providing no answer.
Clearly, in order to undo the damage done, what is needed is an unequivocal position paper written by Rand Paul himself, not a campaign employee, that addresses the issues raised by the release (roughly in order of appearance):
0 Who wrote the release? Does RP stand by it as-is?
1 Should GITMO remain open to house foreign terrorists?
2 What does "foreign" mean?
3 How is a terrorist to be identified?
4 Is it the "foreign" or the "terrorist" that makes a case undeserving of Constitutional protection? What about terrorist thug US citizens (just in case there are any)?
5 If the rules established by the Constitution don't apply as valid law, what does?
6 Why should we care where the thug is tried? What is special about being tried abroad in this context?
7 Will Kentucky be made unsafe by following the Constitution for terrorist thugs?
8 "Cracking down" means... what?
9 Should we be at war with Afghanistan now (LOL)? Why?
rdw
Good points
Poor choice of wording yes. But Rand has a point, force Congress to now declare war on Afghanistan if Obama wants to send 40k+ more troops. If would give them more control over it.
I think you will see him give a more definitive statement.
I think that horse has left
I think that horse has left the barn long time ago. I am wondering, is it constitutional to declare a Peace keeping mission?
The Way Forward in the "War on Terror." RJ's response to Rand
By RJ Harris, U.S. Congressional Candidate Oklahoma 4th District
The Ethics of Liberty Apply to All or to None
Our Constitution allows Congress under Article I sec 8 to "...define and punish Offences against the Law of Nations…" within the confines of the Due Process and Equal Protection required for all PERSONS, not only citizens, under our jurisdiction. Using the Necessary and Proper clause, we have codified the Due Process and Equal Protection required for prisoners of war through the Uniform Code of Military Justice. At a minimum enemy combatants must be afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard. However, since there has been no declaration of war against any foreign sovereigns, nor Letters of Reprisal issued against persons or activities, then the prisoners we are currently holding have been denied notice of their legal jeopardy as potential prisoners of war rather than as civilian criminals. The other critical element of Due Process is an opportunity to be heard. Yet to date barely a handful of the Gitmo detainees have received a trial. Due Process is always able to be provided so long as the law which underpins it has not itself been broken. We must then be very careful when weighing the arguments of those responsible for the breakdown in the enforcement of our law for to concede that we are not capable of providing Due Process is to admit that we have broken our own law. Providing these things, to the worst of humanity, is what separates the law abiding from the pirate and the terrorist.
Guantanamo Bay is a stain upon our National Honor. Within its walls we denied other human beings the same Due Process we gave to Nazi's guilty of genocide. Within it’s walls we committed torture in the name of convenience. Within it's walls our government abandoned the Ethics of Liberty for the cheap bauble of expediency. It must be closed and what went on there must never be repeated.
The opportunity to declare war on the Taliban government of Afghanistan has long since passed. The un-declared and therefore illegal war there was won when the Taliban Government was ousted and a new government was seated. What is going on there now is an occupation centered around nation building and the continued promulgation of an illegal empire.
Constitutionally speaking the way forward in the "War on Terror" is clear. 1. We must withdraw conventional occupation forces from any sovereign that has not had a Congressional Declaration of War issued against it (which is all foreign nations wherein conventional forces are currently garrisoned). 2. Those groups and individuals that have in the past and continue to this day to use violence to infringe upon the lives, liberty or property of Americans must have Letters of Reprisal issued against them so that they can be killed or captured legally. Those that are then captured must be treated as prisoners of war and housed in military prisons until they can receive a fair trial in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 3. We must use our superior force projection capabilities and diplomatic efforts to interdict those with Letters of Reprisal levied against them as they attempt to travel and or congregate.
Rand, please reconsider your position on this issue. It is clear to me that now that you are the front runner some neo-cons have infiltrated your inner circle and tricked you with a false dichotomy choice to say that we either try the Guantanamo prisoners in civilian courts or hold them indefinitely in Gitmo. My fellow Patriots, even the greatest General commits errors in the rage of battle. Please give Rand an opportunity to retract these comments and clarify his position. Such is the size and scope of our legal errors prosecuting the "War on Terror" that they are nearly insurmountable. But if we will return to our founding principles, codified in the Constitution, the Spirit of the Founders will light our way.
"it is easy to make light of insistence on scrupulous regard for the safeguards of civil liberties when invoked on behalf of the unworthy. It is too easy. History bears testimony that by such disregard are the rights of liberty extinguished, heedlessly at first, then stealthily, and brazenly in the end." Justice Felix Frankfurter
About RJ Harris:
RJ Harris is a currently serving nineteen-year Oklahoma Army National Guard Officer, two-time Iraq War Veteran and U.S. Congressional Candidate for Oklahoma's 4th Congressional District. He is a University of Oklahoma graduate in Philosophy and a second year law student at the University of Oklahoma College of Law. RJ is a Constitutional Conservative Republican and the first 912 Liberty Candidate in the nation. He has appeared on Fox News' Freedom Watch twice with Judge Andrew Napolitano and been the featured guest on conservative/libertarian talk-radio programs across the country.
www.rjharris2010.com
RJ Harris
Constitutional Conservative Republican
US Congressional Candidate
Oklahoma 4th District
www.rjharris2010.com
Thank You RJ
.
Thank you- please clarify this part
"Those groups and individuals that have in the past and continue to this day to use violence to infringe upon the lives, liberty or property of Americans must have Letters of Reprisal issued against them so that they can be killed or captured legally."
If I am understanding your context correctly, the first part of that sentence could apply to anyone who's committed violence.
How do you define "terrorist," what makes a criminal a terrorist and not, say a serial killer or hate criminal? Because it seems that is the crucial distinction to be made immediately upon capture of a criminal, determining whether they will be tried as PERSONS or with military tribunals. So everything flows from how a person is labeled (?)
Clarification
Groups referred to = Foreign groups of pirates or terrorists. Terrorist = Foreign stateless actors who use violence to accomplish their political ends.
RJ Harris
Constitutional Conservative Republican
US Congressional Candidate
Oklahoma 4th District
www.rjharris2010.com
Thank you
Your definition of terrorist seems an accurate summary of the popular notions of terrorism, but I'm still wondering why a person who also fairly might be termed a "foreign hate criminal" is treated differently than a domestic hate criminal. If the distinction is mainly the country of origin, doesn't that make the United States itself racist and therefore participating in a hate crime, by treating criminals in vastly different ways depending on their nationality?
Murder is murder to me, and all murderers might be tried the same way, fairly, and I would have no complaint with that. But I don't understand the point of setting up a scenario where we use exaggerated force against some murderers, just because their motivations are political and they are foreign. In other words, how do we justify our own brutality? Is it even effective, this new system of classifying people as terrorists? Or is it dangerous in that it sets the stage for Americans being abused down the road...ie Domestic Terrorism?
I ask these questions rhetorically; they are just commentary. I'm not trying to monopolize your time, and thanks very much for your first answer. Best wishes.
It isn't a new system.
It was built into our constitution, and it exists because foreign actors who commit acts of war, outside the jurisdiction of a state are not subject to our laws, and in fact not necessarily subject to that of another state if that state secretly condones the activity.
Capturing enemies that have declared war on us, who we cannot declare war on because they do not represent a state cannot easily be brought to justice.
A Letter of Reprisal is effectively declaring war on an individual. They are put on notice and if they wish to end this state of war on them, they could enter into normal diplomatic channels.
_________
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
Thank you
Now my main question is whether the term "domestic terrorism" is valid and useful.
I can't answer that for RJ...
Because that is a personal opinion, but I will offer mine...
There is no such thing as domestic terrorism, only criminals. Hence, innocent until proven guilty, fair trial, etc etc... (And that applies to NON US CITIZENS who act and are caught on our soil as well). The constitution doesn't protect just US Citizens.
_________
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
right on wolfe:)
I agree with wolfe. What some refer to as "domestic terrorists" are merely alleged criminals plain and simple. We can reach them and prosecute/exhonorate them with the existing criminal justice system and they need no special title.
RJ Harris
Constitutional Conservative Republican
US Congressional Candidate
Oklahoma 4th District
www.rjharris2010.com
What a relief!
I'm glad that's your argument, although I'm still a bit confused about what category foreign criminals, who might be labeled "terrorists" by some, but who are caught on US soil, will fall into.
Well said!!!! "We are all
Well said!!!!
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."-Benjamin Franklin
Thank you, we needed someone
Thank you, we needed someone in the liberty leadership to address this issue!
Ventura 2012
I donated to RJ as my thank you for the letter...
Care to join me?.... :)
_________
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
before the weekend is over,
before the weekend is over, for sure. He EARNED it.
Ventura 2012
I think Grayson drew very effective first blood in this debate.
More importantly he maneuvered Rand into betraying a decent share of his fund raising base in attempt to appease neocon Republicans. It's the fund raising base that has enabled Rand to launch a credible campaign and Grayson's advisers probably devised their strategy to render it ineffective.
My Blog:
http://horizonscanblog.blogspot.com/
Here is my response to the Campaign Manager
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.