Rand Paul: Try, Convict and Lock Up Terrorists In Guantanamo [Archive]

Renter45

11-19-2009, 08:32 PM

http://www.randpaul2010.com/2009/11/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
0

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.

0zzy

11-19-2009, 08:55 PM

Well, ya, our defense and justice system are the main things that the fed should be involved in.

inibo

11-19-2009, 08:56 PM

This should get interesting.

Epic

11-19-2009, 09:08 PM

When Rand wins this race, I will be scrutinizing his votes.

CasualApathy

11-19-2009, 09:09 PM

Rand is still awesome in so many ways, this just isn't one of them.

Nathan Hale

11-19-2009, 09:17 PM

Of course you should track his votes - you should track every Senator's votes. That's the vigilance our founders spoke of. But this concession by Rand to the GOP establishment is not a major flaw. Even here in the movement there is no consensus that these people should be tried on US soil in a civilian court.

RonPaulFanInGA

11-19-2009, 09:20 PM

I guess this needed to be posted a second time?

All the in-fighting is discouraging. Honestly, it looks like Rand Paul can't win: he goes one way and is attacked by Grayson, the other way gets him attacked by us. This issue is a prime example; some don't like his position in favor of keeping Gitmo open while at the same time Grayson is attacking him on his website for not being pro-Gitmo enough.

rp08orbust

11-19-2009, 09:21 PM

Very disappointing.

rp08orbust

11-19-2009, 09:29 PM

But this concession by Rand to the GOP establishment is not a major flaw.

But how many more of these minor concessions to the GOP establishment are to come before he "wins"?

CasualApathy

11-19-2009, 09:32 PM

How can you claim to believe that people have inalienable rights, and then go on say that other people don't?

Logic fail, does not compute.

rp08orbust

11-19-2009, 09:40 PM

But how many more of these minor concessions to the GOP establishment are to come before he "wins"?

I'd like to retract my own concession to Nathan Hale that this is a "minor" issue.

You either believe in natural law/God-given rights (whatever you want to call it), or you don't. Claiming that certain people are more "deserving" of due process and legal defense according to their citizenship status implies that such rights are government-given. If that is Rand's philosophy, then we can expect more of these concessions to follow.

Bman

11-19-2009, 09:40 PM

Very disappointing.

In what manner?

rp08orbust

11-19-2009, 09:41 PM

In what manner?

Realizing that the apple didn't fall quite as close to the tree as I had hoped.

0zzy

11-19-2009, 09:43 PM

Realizing that the apple didn't fall quite as close to the tree as I had hoped.

But hot damn, it's still a good apple! You act like there is a worm in it or something, here, take a bite and see for yourself *hands you the apple*

Bman

11-19-2009, 09:47 PM

Realizing that the apple didn't fall quite as close to the tree as I had hoped.

What I'm saying what part of prisoners being held at gitmo are you against, and does Rand actually support those reasons you are against. IMHO I don't see what the problem is with keeping and trying terrorists at gitmo. I didn't hear Rand say he was for the MCA of 2006, and advanced torture techniques. Or did I miss something?

dr. hfn

11-19-2009, 09:54 PM

Wtf!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!

trey4sports

11-19-2009, 10:02 PM

not happy, not happy at all

Bman

11-19-2009, 10:10 PM

not happy, not happy at all

Seriously someone explain to me why what Rand said was bad in their opinion, rather than this...

Awww shucks, he should be for shutting down gitmo.

You're all crazy in you logic thinking that there's anything different from Gitmo and any other jail.

Ahhh, Policy!!! Where does Rand ever say he supports the policies which I know is where the real problem is. Gitmo itself is just a shell. You guys are way off base.

rp08orbust

11-19-2009, 10:18 PM

rp08orbust

11-19-2009, 10:23 PM

I haven't said anything about Gitmo. What disturbs me most is this:

"Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution"

This statement presumes their guilt before they have been given a fair trial. It assumes that because they are *foreign*, they do not deserve the same standard of justice that an American terrorist suspect would deserve.

skyorbit

11-19-2009, 10:31 PM

http://www.randsteaparty.com/
This, is the first thing Rand's said that I really disagree with. The fact is, with-out a trial we don't KNOW if they're terrorists or not.

If, after they've been determined to be terrorists, then I can agree that -- but they haven't yet.

You know what? This is a real minor issue.

He wants to bring the troops home from Iraq. He's opposed to the Patriot Act. He's a freaking DOVE compared to his opponent.
He's certainly miles more fiscally conservative then his opponent.

I know we all hate the lessor of two evils argument. But seriously. If Rand is only 1% evil, and Grayson is 85% evil, I'm going to root and support Rand Paul.

This is a very different race from typical ones where they're both about the same amount evil.

The other issue is that, Rand would actually force declarations of war, Rand would still filibuster the military conflicts that lead to these kinds of messes -- even if he DID support a war. What we do NOW with these people is only messy, because there was no official parameters of war that an actual declaration would have designated.

Rand needs our help.

WE need a person in the SENATE who will Filibuster all these bad bills.

Rand is miles and miles superior in ideology and determination then anybody else in the Senate. We need him!

And, just for that, I'm sending him $100 on BOTH the Bailout Ball II (11th) and the 16th.

Tracy

SWATH

11-19-2009, 10:37 PM

Bman

11-19-2009, 10:39 PM

I need to know what Rand accepts as a military tribunal before I proceed with a complete judgemnt, personally, on this stance.

He's talked about being in support of right to trial in the past, so unless he has changed his mind there I could care less. What right do I have to force someone adhere to our constitution not of this country. As long as their trial is part of due process, I think we are spliting hairs.

dannno

11-19-2009, 10:41 PM

Rand just needs to read this speech:

YouTube - RON PAUL - WHAT IF? (C4L) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgtfDwsdZIY)

He still has my full support, I wish he wouldn't speak so strongly like that on national defense, though he's right that it should be the core spending of the Federal Govt. and I understand why he is not advocating his father's position that the terrorists attack us because we have an imperialist nature.. which is true.. and i really hope he does realize that.

low preference guy

11-19-2009, 10:42 PM

Swath, rights are not granted by the government, they are a consequence of someone being a human. The function of the U.S. government is to make sure that every citizen can exert freely those rights, but it is required to protect ONLY the right of U.S. citizens.

Said that, I think it is a bad idea to violate foreigners' rights, but it still stands that the responsibility of the U.S. government is to protect the right of U.S. citizens, not foreigners.

rp08orbust

11-19-2009, 10:46 PM

What right do I have to force someone adhere to our constitution not of this country.

Who said anything about forcing the Constitution on anyone?

If a terrorist suspect prefers a military tribunal, or no trial at all, to a regular civilian trial by jury on US soil, then I have no problem with giving it to them.

But all human beings have a right to a fair trial, if they wish to claim it, before being deprived of liberty.

rp08orbust

11-19-2009, 10:51 PM

The function of the U.S. government is to make sure that every citizen can exert freely those rights, but it is required to protect ONLY the right of U.S. citizens.

True, neither the US government nor anyone is obligated to go around the world protecting people. But neither does the US government have the right to go around the world depriving individuals of liberty without giving them trials of the highest standards possible.

Bman

11-19-2009, 10:53 PM

But all human beings have a right to a fair trial, if they wish to claim it, before being deprived of liberty.

You don't need the constitution being applied to make sure these things happen. For instance these things still have to follow some type of law. This is what is important about where Rand stands.

I think you should have questions. I also think we should calm down before we get disappointed at something that may sound worse than it really may be.

Imperial

11-19-2009, 10:54 PM

Seriously someone explain to me why what Rand said was bad in their opinion, rather than this...

Awww shucks, he should be for shutting down gitmo.

You're all crazy in you logic thinking that there's anything different from Gitmo and any other jail.

Ahhh, Policy!!! Where does Rand ever say he supports the policies which I know is where the real problem is. Gitmo itself is just a shell. You guys are way off base.

Gitmo is less accountable than the US. They use military commisions, which have been proven quite unreliable to achieve justice. This is opposed to a jury. The judge has lots of power to what confessions are admissible, if torture is wrong etc. that would likely gain more play in a court of law.

I still back Rand though. This is quite a big error, but like others have said the majority of his positions are far better than the others. It is just a letdown when I am about to make a speech on this very subject in two days, arguing the OPPOSITE of Rand... :(

Chieftain1776

11-19-2009, 10:56 PM

I agree with RP08orbust, I had many arguments with neocons over this very issue. "But terrorists/criminals/foreigners do not deserve our Constitutional rights" they would say. My comeback was always, "So you think that rights only apply to Americans? Are you suggesting that rights are granted by government and thus in fact privileges?" I don't like it, I hope he miss spoke or didn't think it through, and if that's the case then he needs to get on it.

That's the thing. What happens when you go to war and a soldier is suspected of committing a war crime? The only people that can turn him in are fellow soldiers. In fact I believe they are all tried by military courts. And that's our own soldiers. Remember Abu Ghraib (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse#Courts-martial.2C_nonjudicial.2C_and_administrative_punis hment)?. All of them were court martialed... was justice denied to our own servicemen? Was their court-martial "unconstitutional"?

In a practical sense the military in the battlefield is what delivers justice. The military tribunals are just a different form of due process granted to enemy forces. They are no less trustworthy than our own courts.

rp08orbust

11-19-2009, 11:02 PM

You don't need the constitution being applied to make sure these things happen.

But what possible reason could there be for denying terrorist suspects the same justice system that you and I would enjoy other than that it's more likely to produce an outcome in the government's favor? Rand used the words "deserve" and "protect", implying that regular civilian courts are better for the innocent than what suspects are getting at Guantanamo, Bagram, and whatever other black holes terrorist suspects are being renditioned to by the CIA.

rp08orbust

11-19-2009, 11:05 PM

That's the thing. What happens when you go to war and a soldier is suspected of committing a war crime? The only people that can turn him in are fellow soldiers. In fact I believe they are all tried by military courts. And that's our own soldiers. Remember Abu Ghraib (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse#Courts-martial.2C_nonjudicial.2C_and_administrative_punis hment)?. All of them were court martialed... was justice denied to our own servicemen? Was their court-martial "unconstitutional"?

Those who joined the US military did so with the knowledge that they would be subject to the military justice system. Terrorist suspects did not.

Bman

11-19-2009, 11:08 PM

Those who joined the US military did so with the knowledge that they would be subject to the military justice system. Terrorist suspects did not.

I think we are splitting hairs. I mean I don't see too much fair about 12 American citizens judging someone for terrorism these days. Hell, depending on where you got sent to trial it would be like the revival of witch burning.

phill4paul

11-19-2009, 11:10 PM

“These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil.

I don't know. Not liking the rhetoric. :confused:

CasualApathy

11-19-2009, 11:12 PM

This is lifted from wikipedia, I couldn't have said it better myself:

While tribunals can provide for quick trials under the conditions of war, many critics say this occurs at the expense of justice.

Time constraints and the inability to obtain evidence can greatly hamper a case for the defense. Others have tried to use this argument in favor of commissions, as issues such as chain of evidence and hearsay, which are applied in civilian and criminal trials, could preclude conviction if such rules were applied (e.g., how to claim a bomb was in proper custody from a battlefield to a courtroom?) Civilian trials must be open to the public, while military tribunals can be held in secret. Because conviction usually relies on some sort of majority quota, the separability problem can easily cause the verdict to be displeasing not only to the defendant but also to the tribunal.

Decisions made by a military tribunal cannot be appealed to federal courts. The only way to appeal is a petition for a panel of review (which may or may not include civilians as well as military officers) to review decisions, however the President, as commander-in-chief, has final review of all appeals. No impartial arbiter is available.

Although such tribunals do not satisfy most protections and guarantees provided by the United States Bill of Rights, that has not stopped Presidents from using them, nor the U.S. Congress from authorizing them, as in the Military Commissions Act of 2006. All U.S. Presidents have contended that the Bill of Rights does not apply to noncitizen combatants.

Chieftain1776

11-19-2009, 11:16 PM

Those who joined the US military did so with the knowledge that they would be subject to the military justice system. Terrorist suspects did not.

Well even you and I did not formally assent to the American justice system. The issue is whether our armed forces has the right to try those whom it captures. In a normal war they would be held for the duration... in this disaster the military court system has to absorb the individuals in its justice system or detain them indefinitely and whether this applies to the rest of our national defense network (C.I.A.). I say if it's okay for the military to detain then it's okay for the military to try them in court. And if it's okay for one part of our national defense (military) to due so then it's okay for another part to do so (CIA).

dannno

11-19-2009, 11:26 PM

^ Shouldn't the military be in a Constitutionally declared war?

LibertyMage

11-19-2009, 11:27 PM

I disagree with Rand 100% on this issue. While his position on the issue is disagreeable, I am not disheartened.

MR2Fast2Catch

11-19-2009, 11:38 PM

How can you claim to believe that people have inalienable rights, and then go on say that other people don't?

Logic fail, does not compute.

I completely agree with you. This is so very disappointing. This press release is horrible. Why did he even bother writing this press release? It is obvious he is just appeasing the pro-war war Neo-con Republicans, in order to get their vote. I completely disagree with Rand on this, and to add weight to my opinion, listen to Judge Andrew Napolitano in this vid:

YouTube - Bill O'Reilly: "I Don't Care About The Constitution" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBrfql3pnU)

We cannot assume that these terrorist are all guilty just because the military says they are. They are suspects and deserve a fair trial in a civilian court.

That being said, this is an unpopular stance in the Republican party today. I am an intern at my local congressman's office (Congressman Jeff Flake-AZ) and we have been getting lots of angry callers who want these accused terrorists to stay in Guantanamo for a military tribunal. Rand is clearly appeasing these Republicans, and I only pray he does not to try appease the NeoCons anymore. This is not the first time Rand has said something I disagree with, but this is the biggest issue I disagree with him on. I am disappointed. But.......BUT....

There is only one Ron Paul guys. As hard as it is for me to say it, there is only one Ron Paul. Even if Gary Johnson ran for president, I'm sure he would take some different stances than Ron Paul on a few issues. I'm disappointed in Peter Schiff and Adam Kokesh because they are not as pro-life as Ron Paul is. But they are So close on 97% of the issues, we really have to see past it.

Rand Paul is probably as close as we can come to getting a "Ron Paul" in the US Senate. Even if another Libertarian-leaning Republican ran for US Senate, surely he would disagree with Ron on a few issues. I love Ron Paul, and I agree with him on almost EVERY issue. But when you compare Rand to all the other Republicans in the Senate, and ALL the other candidates running for US Senate, Rand Paul is hands down the best candidate we've got, NATIONWIDE. Rand Paul is the only opportunity to get a Ron Paul Repubulican in the Senate, who agrees with Ron Paul on 90-95 percent of the issues! Compare that to the other Republicans who probabkly agree with Ron Paul on just 60% of the issues! We need Rand Paul in there to defend the Constitution. I, like many of you, am very disappointed that Rand Paul does not line up perfectly with his father. But unless you can find me a better, more Constitutional candidate running for the US Senate, I will be donating to and supporting Rand Paul.

mport1

11-19-2009, 11:56 PM

Wish I could get a refund and give my money to something that would better promote liberty.

rp08orbust

11-20-2009, 12:00 AM

As bummed out as I am right now, I'd imagine it's worse for Ron.

Malachi

11-20-2009, 12:04 AM

Terrorists don't have the same rights as American citizens! They are enemy combatants at best.

Face it, we don't declare war anymore, but we are in more than one war. So, captured enemy combatants should be treated as POW and held until the war is over or tried in military tribunals.

No state wants them.... So, until there is a place for them to go... GITMO is all right for me.

rp08orbust

11-20-2009, 12:13 AM

Terrorists don't have the same rights as American citizens! They are enemy combatants at best.

If we're going to call people "terrorists" before they've even been tried in secret by a military judge, much less had a fair civilian trial by jury, then why even give them military justice, if they're "terrorists"? If we know they're terrorists, then they don't have the same rights as dogs. Why not just hang them all tomorrow morning?

grizzums

11-20-2009, 12:20 AM

If we're going to call people "terrorists" before they've even been tried in secret by a military judge, much less had a fair civilian trial by jury, then why even give them military justice, if they're "terrorists"? If we know they're terrorists, then they don't have the same rights as dogs. Why not just hang them all tomorrow morning?

I'm personally not at all comfortable with the presumptive rhetoric used by Rand in his press release nor am I comfortable with his somewhat wobbly stance. I imagine he (partially) squares up his stance with his belief that Congress should make a declaration of war for the ongoing mission in Afghanistan. Regardless, a little disappointing but my support for Rand is still rock solid...there's only one Ron Paul....Rand is still a decent man, whom I generally agree with.

TheTyke

11-20-2009, 12:49 AM

What appears on the website are not Rand's actual words. This is something the campaign has to get a better handle on... frankly they've done an amazing job in helping us get where we are, but they have to do a much more accurate job of presenting Dr. Paul's message. And there's only one person I actually trust to make those decisions (Truth).

Compare the press release to Rand's actual speech yesterday: "I'm not for bringing the prisoners up here. I think they should be tried under military tribunal at GITMO."

Think, people. You've heard Rand speak. He is calm and measured. Do you honestly hear him using terms like "thugs" and "foreign terrorists" about people who haven't been tried??

I think the problem was exacerbated by the inflammatory terms used in the press release. As to what to do with the prisoners, not only would Americans feel threatened, but does hauling them half-way across the world to stand trial in a hostile nation serve justice any more? The situation is a grim one from start to finish, and the answers are not simple.

I know we've been burned time and again by corrupt politicians... but I know Rand, and he's not one of them!! I am distressed when the people he needs most jump all over him without thinking the situation through.....

In fact, I liken it to a war. We need to consider war very carefully because lives are at stake and many may be hurt from a hasty decision or reaction that's bigger than required, yes? Well, what if you undermine the best senate candidate in 50 years by jumping to conclusions?

YouTube - Rand Paul in Louisville 11-19-09 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWd_kXVaFj0&feature=player_embedded)

skyorbit

11-20-2009, 01:09 AM

I posted a little write-up here.
http://randforsenate.blogspot.com/2009/11/rand-paul-and-guantanamo-first-debate.html

Tracy

AuH2O

11-20-2009, 01:10 AM

TheTyke

11-20-2009, 01:22 AM

In any campaign, and doubly so in a U.S. Senate Campaign, no one with the authority to do so would post something so potentially controversial without the candidate's OK. Of course he probably didn't write it, 90% of the language you read attributed to politicians and public figures is written by staff. But it has their approval, which lends it the weight of being penned by their own hand.

I agree, and this issue needs to be fixed ASAP. However it should console people that Rand doesn't believe what all is being placed at his feet.

At this point, I've come to disregard rhetoric from politicians and look at their records. I'm looking forward to seeing Rand's, and I'm optimistic about it.

AuH2O

11-20-2009, 01:25 AM

I agree, and this issue needs to be fixed ASAP. However it should console people that Rand doesn't believe what all is being placed at his feet.

At this point, I've come to disregard rhetoric from politicians and look at their records. I'm looking forward to seeing Rand's, and I'm optimistic about it.

Trust me, Rand okayed every word of this. It was a response to a position on his page that caused him problems because he hadn't read or signed off on it. You think their response will go out without his blessing?

TheTyke

11-20-2009, 01:30 AM

Trust me, Rand okayed every word of this. It was a response to a position on his page that caused him problems because he hadn't read or signed off on it. You think their response will go out without his blessing?

Yep.

Sadly, not the first time. For Ron or Rand.

Joe3113

11-20-2009, 01:40 AM

Not cool... not cool at all.

Talk about giving up a prime opportunity; "Why is your dad wrong on recommending to shut down Guantanamo?"

I mean this is beyond idiotic. What a sell out.

anaconda

11-20-2009, 01:48 AM

WTF?

Please tell me that Rand Paul is not a cheerleader for the "war on terror" charade.

Promontorium

11-20-2009, 04:05 AM

Son of Detroit

11-20-2009, 05:08 AM

LibertyEagle

11-20-2009, 05:41 AM

Sad to see many people saying that they aren't supporting Paul anymore, and that they wish they could get a refund because of a disagreement on one MINOR issue.

I saw ONE person say that and if they will bail on Rand over this, then I guess it will be good riddance.

jmdrake

11-20-2009, 07:10 AM

I saw ONE person say that and if they will bail on Rand over this, then I guess it will be good riddance.

I agree. No matter how you slice it Rand made a mistake, though it's not fatal. Never be unaware of what's in your own campaign material. And I don't blame the staffers for this. What's clear from the videos Grayson posted (and gave deceitfully edited transcripts of) is that Rand hadn't fully thought out a Gitmo policy. Nature abhors a vacuum. It wasn't unreasonable for a staffer to take what Rand said plus his dad's clear position and assume Rand's position. Still Rand needs to take stronger control of the website. There are content management systems that allow multi-level editors. Rand's website should be like that. Adams should be the mid level editor to filter out any crap that's not worth Rand's time and Rand should be the final editor. Some might say "Rand doesn't have time to do that." The truth is he can't afford NOT to do that! And if Adams will winnow down everything to no more than 1 or 2 posts a day (or even a week) it will be fine.

But here's the bigger issue. As a movement we've got to start thinking more about how we're going to address this war on terror question and further addressing candidates that don't line up 100% with Ron Paul. I saw this coming months ago but didn't say anything because I didn't want to give Grayson ammo. (We're fools if we don't think he has someone reading this and reporting to his campaign.) The fact is that the way we've allowed the question of terror to be framed it's extremely difficult to win on Ron's position. Let me rephrase that. It's hard to win on Ron's emphasized position of blowback. You can't just tell the victims of the Ft Hood shooter "Sorry. That's just some more blowback from our foreign policy." But Ron Paul did also talk about the "cover up of incompetence". Both 9/11 at Ft Hood could be framed as a failure to hold government accountable. You don't even have to go as far as the "inside job" position. But we can't keep self censoring when it comes to things like FBI whistleblower Colleen Rowley! People need to know that the government had access to information that could have stopped the 9/11 attacks and that whether it was through abject stupidity or something else that information was blocked. People also need to know that nobody in government has been held accountable! Similarly in Ft Hood we now know that was plenty of reason independent of Hasan's muslim faith to bounce him out of the military. Again people who screw up this bad need to be held accountable.

As for my second point, sometimes we are so hard on people that we don't think line up as "liberty candidates". Case in point is someone who wanted to claim Doug Hoffman was a neocon just because he mentioned fighting terrorism on his website. That's mild compared to the position Rand has taken. Come to think of it even Ron is for fighting terrorism. (Letters of marque and reprisal anyone?) It's just a question of how you fight. We need to develop our own "80/20" rule. Ron showed the way with his joint 3rd party press conference where he laid out key principles that all 3 agreed to. Clearly there are a lot of things that Chuck Baldwin and Ron Paul disagreed with Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader on. But as long as someone sticks to those key principles we shouldn't be going out of our way to tear them down.

I personally could care less about whether or not Gitmo is shut down. Months ago when I was telling pointed out broken Obama promises to his supporters a common response was "At least he's shutting down Gitmo." My reply was "According to the lawyers for the Uighurs the torture has gotten worse. What difference does it make where you torture me?" That said Rand needs to clarify his position on constitutional rights for detainees. Pushing for a formal declaration of war can help. A formal statement that we're operating under the Geneva Conventions is a way to split the difference. But ultimately this will be a problem for the CFL until we force a change in the debate on the WOT.

Regards,

John M. Drake

mport1

11-20-2009, 07:17 AM

Sad to see many people saying that they aren't supporting Paul anymore, and that they wish they could get a refund because of a disagreement on one MINOR issue.

Those same people probably donated to Alan Grayson because he agrees with us on ending the Fed.

I would hardly call the fact that he is a warmonger a tiny issue. It is bad enough that he is also bad on immigration. I think the bigger issue is that if this isn't his true opinion but he is just trying to get the conservative vote that he will bend more on his principles in the future.

RM918

11-20-2009, 07:24 AM

I would hardly call the fact that he is a warmonger a tiny issue. I think the bigger issue is that if this isn't his true opinion but he is just trying to get the conservative vote that he will bend more on his principles in the future.

Eh, I'm not sure if this is any proof at all that he's a 'warmonger'. This certainly weakens my faith a bit, but Rand is still far, far ahead in my agreeing with him than anyone else that isn't his father, so my support won't waver. It will end if he actually acts that way once elected, but I'm not going to make any snap judgements. I think he's earned the chance to prove himself, at least.

Todd

11-20-2009, 08:04 AM

Slutter McGee

11-20-2009, 09:19 AM

erowe1

11-20-2009, 09:25 AM

Rand doesn't believe that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. He believes that we are endowed by a piece of parchment with certain arbitrary privileges.

RonPaulFanInGA

11-20-2009, 09:46 AM

Grow the fuck up people. You are acting like a bunch of twelve year olds who are pissed that there are not enough fucking sprinkles on your chocolate cake.

I think it's coming from mostly the same crowd that wanted Paul to run as a libertarian or independent. Some people I think are so programmed by years of supporting losing candidates in these third parties that they never realized when you go as far as Paul you'll eventually start having to compromise.

jmdrake

11-20-2009, 09:47 AM

Rand doesn't believe that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. He believes that we are endowed by a piece of parchment with certain arbitrary privileges.

Rand is a pragmatic politician who is trying to win his first election. I was trying to tell you this a while back when you seemed incapable of comprehending what I was saying about Doug Hoffman. Now there are a few choices. We can be political puritans and throw Rand under the bus because he's not a clone of his father. We can try to be helpful for Rand repelling these attacks, realizing that he's MUCH better than any other candidate running. Or we can sit on our duffs and wait to see what happens. I chose door # 2. It's the toughest option because it requires deeper thought. For instance there are constitutional rights that are not inalienable. Take the right to bail. Should the same rules for bail apply to POWs? The problem is that we don't have any POWs because we've never formally declared a war. And POWs still have rights. They're just laid out in a different "piece of parchment".

Regards,

John M. Drake

erowe1

11-20-2009, 10:03 AM

Rand is a pragmatic politician who is trying to win his first election.

OK. But he still believes that we don't have inalienable rights endowed by our creator, just arbitrary privileges endowed by a piece of parchment.

I was trying to tell you this a while back when you seemed incapable of comprehending what I was saying about Doug Hoffman.
Are you implying that Rand is a big government proponent like Hoffman and George W. Bush. I hope not. If I thought Rand was that bad I wouldn't support him at all.

Now there are a few choices. We can be political puritans and throw Rand under the bus because he's not a clone of his father. We can try to be helpful for Rand repelling these attacks, realizing that he's MUCH better than any other candidate running. Or we can sit on our duffs and wait to see what happens.
There are lots of other options as well. And none of the options you gave are mutually exclusive us simply telling the truth when he says something untrue or immoral. If your idea of helping him win means agreeing with him when he's wrong or giving unconditional support that lets him think he can compromise however he feels he needs to to win and we'll be fine with that, then your idea of helping is not my idea of helping.

jmdrake

11-20-2009, 10:15 AM

OK. But he still believes that we don't have inalienable rights endowed by our creator, just arbitrary privileges endowed by a piece of parchment.

:rolleyes: False choice logical reasoning fail on your part. You assume that there can't be both inalienable rights and alienable ones. Rand hasn't said waterboarding is ok. But I don't expect soldiers on the battlefield to Mirandize people.

Are you implying that Rand is a big government proponent like Hoffman and George W. Bush. I hope not. If I thought Rand was that bad I wouldn't support him at all.

No. I'm implying that you have grossly overestimated your ability to judge people based on what you read on a website. The problem isn't Rand. It's not Hoffman either. It's you.

There are lots of other options as well. And none of the options you gave are mutually exclusive us simply telling the truth when he says something untrue or immoral. If your idea of helping him win means agreeing with him when he's wrong or giving unconditional support that lets him think he can compromise however he feels he needs to to win and we'll be fine with that, then your idea of helping is not my idea of helping.

Another logical fail. You can't simultaneously do something and do nothing. Those things are mutually exclusive. You also can't simultaneously support someone and "throw them under the bus". Those things are mutually exclusive. Now there are different ways in supporting Rand in repelling the attacks and they don't involve giving "unconditional support" or "agreeing with him when he's wrong". But making rash statements without thinking them through, as you have a tendency to do, is not helpful in the least.

Icymudpuppy

11-20-2009, 10:21 AM

Terrorists don't have the same rights as American citizens! They are enemy combatants at best.

"We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights."

I don't care where they are from or what they are accused of. They still have rights. HUMAN RIGHTS. GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. The constitution doesn't grant rights. It recognizes the divine rights of all men. I suggest you learn to recognize the divine rights of all men as well.

erowe1

11-20-2009, 10:25 AM

:
No. I'm implying that you have grossly overestimated your ability to judge people based on what you read on a website. The problem isn't Rand. It's not Hoffman either. It's you.

I don't know how much Rand or I are problems. But I do know that the Hoffmans of the world are a huge problem, and I want nothing to do with helping them out. I'm seriously hoping Rand isn't one of them.

Malachi

11-20-2009, 10:34 AM

"We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights."

I don't care where they are from or what they are accused of. They still have rights. HUMAN RIGHTS. GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. The constitution doesn't grant rights. It recognizes the divine rights of all men. I suggest you learn to recognize the divine rights of all men as well.

I don't read the constitution giving speedy trials in federal courts to POWs, sorry. Link?

Icymudpuppy

11-20-2009, 10:43 AM

I don't read the constitution giving speedy trials in federal courts to POWs, sorry. Link?

No declaration of war = no prisoners of war.

Just prisoners. Held without trial.

Captured on a battlefield is one thing. Dragged out of their home in the middle of the night by a gestapo raid based on the testimony of a jealous rival is something quite different.

Few in Gitmo are battlefield captures. Most battlefield fighters don't get captured. They get shot on sight.

Have you been to Iraq or Afghanistan?

I have. My infantry unit never captured anybody in direct action against us. All of those were killed on sight. We did capture a lot of people out of their homes in the middle of the night on "intelligence" of dubious origin. It is a fact I'm not proud of, and something that some people can't deal with when they realize what they have been complicit in, and start thinking about their own love-triangles, and what if they were hauled off for indefinite imprisonment and torture based on the testimony of their girlfriend's ex. We wonder why suicides in the Army are so high.

MR2Fast2Catch

11-20-2009, 10:44 AM

sofia

11-20-2009, 10:45 AM

Rand doesn't believe that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. He believes that we are endowed by a piece of parchment with certain arbitrary privileges.

and Rand apparently believes that those arbitrary privileges only apply to humans who happened to be born on a certain land mass between the Atlantic and pacific Oceans, north of the Rio Grand, and south of Canada.

men born anywhere else are somehow not "created equal"

RonPaulFanInGA

11-20-2009, 10:47 AM

human who happened to be born on a certain land mass between the Atlantic and pacific Oceans, north of the Rio Grand, and south of Canada.

I'm pretty sure the U.S. Constitution does only apply to people described above. And of course people living in the land mass when arrested.

sofia

11-20-2009, 10:53 AM

I'm pretty sure the U.S. Constitution does only apply to people described above. And of course people living in the land mass when arrested.

If Rights come from Nature's God, then they apply to everyone. Unless you think that only humans born in America are God's chosen?

We're not talking about giving Kalid rights to US unemployment benefits.....we're talking about FRAMING AND THEN MURDERING an innocent man who was abducted in the middle of night, and then tortured into "confession" of the 911 attacks.

American, Pakistani...or friggin Martian....This is a gross injustice. I cant close my eyes to this man's plight just so Rand can win a few more redneck votes.

klamath

11-20-2009, 11:12 AM

No declaration of war = no prisoners of war.

Just prisoners. Held without trial.

Captured on a battlefield is one thing. Dragged out of their home in the middle of the night by a gestapo raid based on the testimony of a jealous rival is something quite different.

Few in Gitmo are battlefield captures. Most battlefield fighters don't get captured. They get shot on sight.

Have you been to Iraq or Afghanistan?

I have. My infantry unit never captured anybody in direct action against us. All of those were killed on sight. We did capture a lot of people out of their homes in the middle of the night on "intelligence" of dubious origin. It is a fact I'm not proud of, and something that some people can't deal with when they realize what they have been complicit in, and start thinking about their own love-triangles, and what if they were hauled off for indefinite imprisonment and torture based on the testimony of their girlfriend's ex. We wonder why suicides in the Army are so high.

I have been there as well and always had questions on reliable intel. This is why the main issues are declaration of war, proper and humane treatment of POW's and a solid chain of evidence for those that are being picked up on suspected war crimes.

jmdrake

11-20-2009, 11:36 AM

I don't know how much Rand or I are problems. But I do know that the Hoffmans of the world are a huge problem, and I want nothing to do with helping them out. I'm seriously hoping Rand isn't one of them.

You don't really know that much about Hoffman. Frankly I don't either, but I'm not going to make stuff up to fill in the blanks. That's what the neocon and socialist media does. We're better than that. Case in point, in one interview during 2008 Ron Paul was asked about universal health-care. He pointed out that we can't afford it, but if you saved all of the money we're wasting deploying troops overseas that might cover the cost. Someone could take that one video, ignore everything else Ron Paul subsequently said on health-care and paint a very distorted picture. You similarly pointed a distorted picture of Hoffman. The most anyone could honestly gleam from his statement on the stimulus is that if the government is going to spend the money anyway they might as well spend it on things that would actually help people instead of flat wasting it. Does that equate to "big government"? Maybe. Then again maybe not. But at a time when people across the country are hurting the most pragmatic way to attack something like the stimulus is to point out that it doesn't even do what it claims to do rather than quoting Mises and Rothberg at them and saying "no pain...no gain". People have to crawl before they can walk.

Regards,

John M. Drake

jmdrake

11-20-2009, 11:46 AM

If Rights come from Nature's God, then they apply to everyone. Unless you think that only humans born in America are God's chosen?

We're not talking about giving Kalid rights to US unemployment benefits.....we're talking about FRAMING AND THEN MURDERING an innocent man who was abducted in the middle of night, and then tortured into "confession" of the 911 attacks.

American, Pakistani...or friggin Martian....This is a gross injustice. I cant close my eyes to this man's plight just so Rand can win a few more redneck votes.

Disagree with Rand all you want. I disagree with Ron on 9/11. (Clearly an inside job.) And I think any evidence obtained from torture shouldn't be admissible. But you don't have to grant someone constitutional rights to disallow torture. What Rand can't afford to happen is for his opponent to be able to say "Rand wants to throw out and convictions for people who weren't read their rights in Pashtun."

mport1

11-20-2009, 11:54 AM

Eh, I'm not sure if this is any proof at all that he's a 'warmonger'. This certainly weakens my faith a bit, but Rand is still far, far ahead in my agreeing with him than anyone else that isn't his father, so my support won't waver. It will end if he actually acts that way once elected, but I'm not going to make any snap judgements. I think he's earned the chance to prove himself, at least.

It sure sounds like he is one to me:

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.

Maybe not as much as Obama or Bush, but way too much for my liking.

LibertyEagle

11-20-2009, 11:57 AM

I would hardly call the fact that he is a warmonger a tiny issue. It is bad enough that he is also bad on immigration. I think the bigger issue is that if this isn't his true opinion but he is just trying to get the conservative vote that he will bend more on his principles in the future.

Warmonger???!!! How in heck do you get to that? Believing in a strong national defense does not a warmonger make.

And he doesn't believe in open borders. Well, neither does his father.

LibertyEagle

11-20-2009, 12:00 PM

Disagree with Rand all you want. I disagree with Ron on 9/11. (Clearly an inside job.)

Please stop it. Dr. Paul never said that. In fact, he repeatedly has stressed the opposite.

Icymudpuppy

11-20-2009, 12:05 PM

Please stop it. Dr. Paul never said that. In fact, he repeatedly has stressed the opposite.

I think you misread JM's post. JM thinks 9/11 was an inside job, and disagrees with Ron Paul's assertion that it was not.

Ethek

11-20-2009, 12:14 PM

The constitution is a framework for government. A necessary 'evil' institution among men to protect rights through force, in the absence of any other viable structure to so the same. The constitution is restraint on the use of that government force, to keep it from overstepping its bounds and trumping Natural God Given rights that all men have. Unfortunatly, its now a government that exerts oppressive force not only its citizens but innocent people everywhere.

How far do the protections of the US Constitution go? Do we strecth this to cover all people?

The distinguishing point here I believe is this system of government governs citizens of this country. Its broken. To correct it takes an equally immovable force (parallel government or a force of arms) or you work within the current system until you are in a position to change it.

To microcosm this election I say we have to help ourselves before we can be in a position to help others. I see it as a choice between taking a principled stand that winds you up in front of the firing squad (or loosing an election) or being the guy running the internment camps that keep people from going into the gas chambers when you have your opportunities.

The world is an evil place. Not black and White.

angelatc

11-20-2009, 12:25 PM

I think it's coming from mostly the same crowd that wanted Paul to run as a libertarian or independent. Some people I think are so programmed by years of supporting losing candidates in these third parties that they never realized when you go as far as Paul you'll eventually start having to compromise.

This is why Libertarians don't win elections.

Deborah K

11-20-2009, 12:58 PM

http://www.randpaul2010.com/2009/11/rand-paul-try-convict-and-lock-up-terrorists-in-guantanamo/

Agreed 100%.

Deborah K

11-20-2009, 01:06 PM

"We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights."

I don't care where they are from or what they are accused of. They still have rights. HUMAN RIGHTS. GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. The constitution doesn't grant rights. It recognizes the divine rights of all men. I suggest you learn to recognize the divine rights of all men as well.

They can have their God given rights in a tribunal just as well.

Brian4Liberty

11-20-2009, 01:27 PM

I actually think both sides are wrong on this issue.

If you assume a military court is somehow a mistreatment for enemies of the U.S., then what is it to our own military?

If you assume that not being American means you don't have rights, then what is inaleinable about them?

Here's the thing, in all wars, prisoners have been taken, as a more humane method than executing combatants. It's just in this instance, the war has been going on for 8 years. They should have had a filtration process, combatant = POW, 9/11 mastermind = criminal. Criminals don't get let out after a war, the POWs do. Simultaneously, YOU PROSECUTE THE CRIMINAL, If found guilty, then sentenced. America has been screwing up for 8 years. This isn't a quick fix.

I want to point something else out too. GUANTANAMO BAY IS AMERICAN SOIL. I don't want to bore you with the details, though I love the topic, any U.S. military base is automatically officially U.S. soil. It is a cop out, to think we have some magical place in Cuba, where we have authority without responsibility. Where people can be detained, but without rights. This is complete bullshit. Guantanmo Bay is just as much America as Times Square in the eyes of the law, and I'm God-Damned sick of people thinking of it as our personal "liberty free" zone.

All the suspected and detained terrorists should have been prosecuted in 2001-2002. Every day they aren't prosecuted is a failure. POWs are POWS. They are a different issue. What do we have left at X-Ray? If we have POWs, they should be evaluated, and either sent to Afghan authorities, or continue to wait until America elects a president who will actually end the war.

Good post. I agree fully that this should no longer be an issue. And they certainly should have had all the rights of a POW, including an appropriate trial and no torture. I don't believe that the appropriate trail is a civilian trial in the US, based on how, where and under what circumstances they were captured.

No declaration of war = no prisoners of war.

Just prisoners. Held without trial.

Captured on a battlefield is one thing. Dragged out of their home in the middle of the night by a gestapo raid based on the testimony of a jealous rival is something quite different.

Few in Gitmo are battlefield captures. Most battlefield fighters don't get captured. They get shot on sight.

Have you been to Iraq or Afghanistan?

I have. My infantry unit never captured anybody in direct action against us. All of those were killed on sight. We did capture a lot of people out of their homes in the middle of the night on "intelligence" of dubious origin. It is a fact I'm not proud of, and something that some people can't deal with when they realize what they have been complicit in, and start thinking about their own love-triangles, and what if they were hauled off for indefinite imprisonment and torture based on the testimony of their girlfriend's ex. We wonder why suicides in the Army are so high.

Another good post. Once again, the failure to officially declare war is a major failure.

I have been there as well and always had questions on reliable intel. This is why the main issues are declaration of war, proper and humane treatment of POW's and a solid chain of evidence for those that are being picked up on suspected war crimes.

I agree. I would add that it is much harder to do the solid evidence collection in a war zone or hostile environment. In addition, these are soldiers, not civilian police detectives.

All in all, I probably agree with Rand Paul's position. I would guess that Rand would agree that the torture and the convenient "unknown" status of these prisoners has been a mistake (and illegal) right from the start.

SWATH

11-20-2009, 01:29 PM

My main issue is GITMO. I though we were trying to get rid of it. We are basically occupying that section of Cuba against its wishes for our convenience. How does one defend that? So is he advocating that we bring our troops home except for the ones in Cuba?

W. E. Messamore

11-20-2009, 01:42 PM

Hey folks- I'm doing a live, call-in radio show tonight (http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2009/11/rand-paul-on-guantanamo-bay.html) so that you can call in and voice your opinion on this issue- as there are wide range of them and we need to explore this thoroughly.

It will be at 8 pm Central time and last for one hour. More details are at the link above. After recording it, I will be e-mailing a link to the recording to Rand Paul's people so they can benefit from what we have to say.

Please check it out and spread the word.

AuH20

11-20-2009, 02:29 PM

Wish I could get a refund and give my money to something that would better promote liberty.

You're an absolutist?

AuH20

11-20-2009, 02:31 PM

Austrian Econ Disciple

11-20-2009, 02:36 PM

This is why Libertarians don't win elections.

I bet you money that if allowed into debates Libertarians would win a LOT more elections. Election laws are so rigged against any parties outside R and D that it's literally almost impossible for any chance to win. If Rand was running as a L with the same message and same talking point as he does right now how much do you want to bet that he would be polling 5-8% or less? That's because Libertarians hardly get any media exposure and aren't allowed into the same forums as R's or D's. Now, conversely if Rand was running as an An-Cap he would probably get 1-3% or so. Now tell me again, why one should give up their principles for ~3% generally speaking? Principles are called principles for a reason...

Secondly, just having the R behind the name denotes at least a 20-50% increase in support EVEN if you have the same principles and rhetoric. Look at Ron Paul from 1988 to 2008. Same person, same rhetoric, same principles....oh, but now he has a R and can get into the forums and media exposure.

Libertarians lose not because of our message or principles. Go be a Republicrat somewhere else. I'm sure McCain and Graham will welcome you whole-heartidly with your openness to compromise and bi-partisanship!

PS: Libertarians actually win quite a few local elections, because we can actually get some exposure and media time due to size of venues, localities, and how local politics works. I guess that never crossed your mind though....

0zzy

11-20-2009, 02:43 PM

I bet you money that if allowed into debates Libertarians would win a LOT more elections. ]

um... for state wide debates, they usually are in it. and they don't win.

being in debates=/=win

Austrian Econ Disciple

11-20-2009, 02:48 PM

I agree. The Constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens. If that was the case, citizenship would be meaningless.

This is another reason I don't care for Constitutionalists and why I always contend that many Constitutionalist do not comprehend the principles behind the document and why the DoI should be the supreme law of the land. Natural Law does not stop at a State induced barrier. Every individual is entitled to a fair trial, and according to the Constitution itself makes it quite clear where they should be tried.

I don't understand how birthplace entitles anyone to Natural Law, yet precludes other individuals based on State boundries...

Now, I hear it said over and over from Constitutionalists that the Constitution enumerates our Natural Rights....so, are these Natural only to Americans? Are they only "Endowed by God" to Americans and no one else? Is the Bill of Rights not the enumeration of these Natural Rights spun from Natural Law, or am I missing something? (Now I need to make this obvious; I'M TALKING ABOUT THE BILL OF RIGHTS)

So, being blunt I call fucking BS and will call out every so-called Constitutionalist for their apparent and blindingly obvious contradictions in principles, philosophy, and rhetoric. This is another reason why I don't support the CP.

Would you like to clarify this position?

PS: Gunny seems to be the exception! GO Gunny. :D

Austrian Econ Disciple

11-20-2009, 02:53 PM

um... for state wide debates, they usually are in it. and they don't win.

being in debates=/=win

Perhaps California is the exception, but most other States they don't, and if they do it's in one debate if any at all. I've seen this first hand.

Ethek

11-20-2009, 03:03 PM

I bet you money that if allowed into debates Libertarians would win a LOT more elections. Election laws are so rigged against any parties outside R and D that it's literally almost impossible for any chance to win.

This is the crux of the matter. I am a supporter of www.thirty-thousand.org. What does it matter if we get a Libertarian into office 'one off' number of times. If they have little or no influence in a legislature that is not representative anyway. I whole heartedly agree that Natural Rights are inherint to every human everywhere by nature itself.

AuH20

11-20-2009, 03:06 PM

This is another reason I don't care for Constitutionalists and why I always contend that many Constitutionalist do not comprehend the principles behind the document and why the DoI should be the supreme law of the land. Natural Law does not stop at a State induced barrier. Every individual is entitled to a fair trial, and according to the Constitution itself makes it quite clear where they should be tried.

I don't understand how birthplace entitles anyone to Natural Law, yet precludes other individuals based on State boundries...

Now, I hear it said over and over from Constitutionalists that the Constitution enumerates our Natural Rights....so, are these Natural only to Americans? Are they only "Endowed by God" to Americans and no one else? Is the Bill of Rights not the enumeration of these Natural Rights spun from Natural Law, or am I missing something? (Now I need to make this obvious; I'M TALKING ABOUT THE BILL OF RIGHTS)

So, being blunt I call fucking BS and will call out every so-called Constitutionalist for their apparent and blindingly obvious contradictions in principles, philosophy, and rhetoric. This is another reason why I don't support the CP.

Would you like to clarify this position?

PS: Gunny seems to be the exception! GO Gunny. :D

Austrian, I respect your perspective, but I cannot comprehend how the global citizen model fits within the narrow parameters outlined in the constitution.

Lets examine the preamble and the it's expressed focus on the privileges of citizenship . Note the bolded:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

"Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves"- implying a guarantee in an internal sense.

Now if you're referring to the Declaration of Independence as the raison d'etre for the Constitution, I think your argument gains far more credence. The declaration directly calls for the protection of undeniable natural rights derived from the creator. I could always flippantly counter that the declaration was a persuasive form of propaganda in order to galvanize support for the Revolution, since Jefferson personally did not adhere to the principles outlined in the declaration. ;):D

Regardless, I think reasonable people like you and I can disagree on this issue. We probably agree on 80% of the issues anyway.

Brian4Liberty

11-20-2009, 03:19 PM

This is another reason I don't care for Constitutionalists and why I always contend that many Constitutionalist do not comprehend the principles behind the document
...
Would you like to clarify this position?

I might be a constitutionalist. Not really into those labels. I believe that the US Constitution should apply to everyone under the jurisdiction of the US government (after all, it isn't the Bolivian Constitution we're talking about here). So, in that regard, citizenship shouldn't matter.

As for POWs, the US Constitution (Bill of Rights) wouldn't apply in a war zone, and after POWs are taken, international (Geneva) conventions apply.

If you want to talk about an abstract, universal "natural rights" concept, it would apply to everyone by definition. That turns into a philosophy argument though...

Austrian Econ Disciple

11-20-2009, 03:19 PM

Austrian, I respect your perspective, but I cannot comprehend how the global citizen model fits within the narrow parameters outlined in the constitution.

Lets examine the preamble and the it's expressed focus on the privileges of citizenship . Note the bolded:

"Secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves"- implying a guarantee in an internal sense.

Now if you're referring to the Declaration of Independence as the raison d'etre for the Constitution, I think your argument gains far more credence. The declaration directly calls for the protection of undeniable natural rights derived from the creator. I could always flippantly counter that the declaration was a persuasive form of propaganda in order to galvanize support for the Revolution, since Jefferson personally did not adhere to the principles outlined in the declaration. ;):D

Regardless, I think reasonable people like you and I can disagree on this issue. We probably agree on 80% of the issues anyway.

Like I've always said, I'll support anyone on the issues to which I am concerned (Nearly all that deal with liberty, which is essentially everything), that support the position that I take. That said, I'm not going to hesitate to point out contradictions in ones philosophy. Philosophy established the State, and Philosophy will dismantle the State. Philosophy is the only guiding light for politicians, correctly labeled -- Statesman --. So, yes, we can disagree, and I certainly do appreciate your support on issues that we agree on. However, I will not associate myself to people who do not have the same philosophical delineations that I do. This is why I am still a L, and not a R, and even then I do not like to be associated with the likes of Barr and W.A.R., and is why I associate myself with the LP Radical Caucus.

Natural Law is the crux and anyone who does not expressely support Natural Law in its logical entirety, well, we have a little problem. :D

Now, I say this with all due respect and courtesy. I cannot fathom however, one can logically believe that our rights are granted by a piece of paper, yet, then presuppose that they can then not be revoked. It only logically follows if one grants something then one can revoke it. So, in that sense a Constitutionalist is a clear contradiction, or in the only sense - without principles -. Now, there are of course exceptions (Gunny), but I think it is clear that Constitutionalists are not libertarians, or at least do not share the philosophy of libertarians. I am truly piqued as to why you do not believe that the Constitution merely enumerates our rights (Bill of Rights -- which came from the Anti-Fed's Jeffersonians (Mason, Henry, et al)) as humans. If you actually believe that the DoI was propaganda and not the cornerstone of Classical Liberalism (Natural Law), which was a highly respected intellectual philosophy and axiom for at least a hundred years prior, then I cannot say anything to displace that....

Austrian Econ Disciple

11-20-2009, 03:27 PM

I might be a constitutionalist. Not really into those labels. I believe that the US Constitution should apply to everyone under the jurisdiction of the US government (after all, it isn't the Bolivian Constitution we're talking about here). So, in that regard, citizenship shouldn't matter.

As for POWs, the US Constitution wouldn't apply in a war zone, and after POWs are taken, international (Geneva) conventions apply.

If you want to talk about an abstract, universal "natural rights" concept, it would apply to everyone by definition. That turns into a philosophy argument though...

The legal arguement is directly within the Constitution and was brought up in another thread (or was it this...). All crimes within the US are under the jurisdiction of that district and municipality. Secondly, if a person who steps across the State created boundry then legally they fall under the Bill of Rights. 9/11 was committed on American soil. The Constitutionalists position should be to try KSM in New York, New York by a jury, and granted the protections that all persons are rightfully entitled; Fair trial. Now, one can argue that he will not get a fair trial regardless, however this is also why we have a Judge who should be neutral, but again the Judge is a vestige of the State so good luck with that.

Secondly, philosophy is the cornerstone of Government. Government was instituted or more correctly the United States, was instituted for the protection and preservation of liberty. I do not believe for a moment, that Natural Law only applies to America, because Natural Law directly says all rights stem from humanity, and humanity certainly isn't limited to America.

In easier terms. Think of it as a contract. You have an area that created an all voluntary Government that has their own rules that were consented to by all. This means that by definition all persons entering into said territory or property is now willfully consenting to its jurisdiction and law. This is the only way for contracts to be used. So, this person commits a crime in your property and violates the laws set forth. What is your arguement that one therefore is not entitled to the due process under the contract, yet, he is legally held in violation of said law. Is there not equal protection under the law? There is only one solution and one logical premise. If one falls under the law, then one must also fall under all law in said jurisdiction. The Constitution is clear on this. (Even if I disagree with the premise of the Constitution itself, I am arguing from merely the Constructionist view of the Constitution in this instance) In a strict Constructionist view it is quite clear what should happen, especially given that these men voluntarily entered the jurisdiction and property. So I get tired of people calling Rand a Constitutionalist when he is clearly violating the Constitution. Rand is a Conservative, not a libertarian, and not a Neo-Con. If that's your sauce go for it, but he's treading on thin water with me based purely on the philosophical reasons for such positions, which again is why I understand why things are the way they are.

0zzy

11-20-2009, 03:38 PM

Perhaps California is the exception, but most other States they don't, and if they do it's in one debate if any at all. I've seen this first hand.

I dono, all the debates I've ever seen included 3 people. the third was either green or libertarian.

i just moved to cali i watch my debates online X:

Brian4Liberty

11-20-2009, 03:41 PM

9/11 was committed on American soil. The Constitutionalists position should be to try KSM in New York, New York by a jury, and granted the protections that all persons are rightfully entitled; Fair trial.

Certainly, the standard decision would be to try KSM in New York in a civilian court (with all rights), which seems to be the decision of the current administration. That would be the obvious (and only) option if he were caught by the Police.

But, that changes with the undeclared war in Afghanistan/Pakistan, which is where KSM was captured. He was an enemy combatant, captured in (undeclared) wartime. This creates the additional option of trying him under the Geneva Convention. The impossibility of applying the Bill of Rights, and properly collecting evidence in a war zone or hostile environment makes the POW/War criminal trial more appropriate, imho...

CCTelander

11-20-2009, 04:10 PM

Austrian, I respect your perspective, but I cannot comprehend how the global citizen model fits within the narrow parameters outlined in the constitution.

I really don't mean this to be insulting in any way, but all this indicates is that you haven't done your own due diligence.

The judiciary here in the US, at all levels up to and including the Supreme Court, has consistently held that the rights "protected" by the constitution and BoRs apply to everyone, citizen and non-citizen alike. It's one of the very few things that the judiciary has consistently gotten right.

Austrian Econ Disciple

11-20-2009, 04:15 PM

Certainly, the standard decision would be to try KSM in New York in a civilian court (with all rights), which seems to be the decision of the current administration. That would be the obvious (and only) option if he were caught by the Police.

But, that changes with the undeclared war in Afghanistan/Pakistan, which is where KSM was captured. He was an enemy combatant, captured in (undeclared) wartime. This creates the additional option of trying him under the Geneva Convention. The impossibility of applying the Bill of Rights, and properly collecting evidence in a war zone or hostile environment makes the POW/War criminal trial more appropriate, imho...

The State must have some evidence that provides his guilt? Of course this means revealing so-called "State secrets" and is why many want to make this a Military Tribunal. Of course, if one takes the position that there is a lack of evidence (Which I used to be an Intelligence Major) to his guilt, then why was he caught and then suspected behind 9/11? There has to be evidence before presumption, or at least reasonable suspicion no? How can one go from A to C by bypassing B?

Again, people are believing evidence to be like CSI, but in-fact, evidence is more akin to CIA, SIGINT, HUMINT, ELINT etc. all evidence would be housed with our IC more precisely CIA and NSA. Again, I doubt he's going to get a fair trial either way, however, as to whether I believe he is guilty or innocent? Honestly, I have no clue and do not have the evidence so I will not say one way or another.

Also, if one can conduct the Nuremburg trials, one can presume that they can also conduct a reasonable/fair trial with KSM. You are using Neo-Con talking points that I am forced to refute over and over in regards to "cannot collect evidence on the battlefield". It creates a mental picture of soldiers trying to act like forensic investigators as if we are trying to figure out a serial killing and not the supposition of guilt by conspiracy to commit murder....It really begs the question.

Deborah K

11-20-2009, 04:36 PM

I really don't mean this to be insulting in any way, but all this indicates is that you haven't done your own due diligence.

The judiciary here in the US, at all levels up to and including the Supreme Court, has consistently held that the rights "protected" by the constitution and BoRs apply to everyone, citizen and non-citizen alike. It's one of the very few things that the judiciary has consistently gotten right.

Then let their rights be upheld in a military tribunal.

CCTelander

11-20-2009, 04:41 PM

Then let their rights be upheld in a military tribunal.

:rolleyes:

NYgs23

11-20-2009, 04:50 PM

Gitmo and the military tribunals are despicable violations of civil liberties. Rand Paul's position on this is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is anti-freedom. If you can't call a person out for his bad positions, out of "loyalty" and good political strategy, you might as well give up right now.

Freedom is not going to come from the top down, but only from the bottom-up. Winning the battle of ideas is far, far more important than winning this or that election. Even political campaigns are useful primarily as an educational tool. In order to be truly persuasive, we must be absolutely consistent, and that includes opposing Bushian secret prisons and kangaroo courts.

Deborah K

11-20-2009, 04:56 PM

This is another reason I don't care for Constitutionalists and why I always contend that many Constitutionalist do not comprehend the principles behind the document and why the DoI should be the supreme law of the land. Natural Law does not stop at a State induced barrier. Every individual is entitled to a fair trial, and according to the Constitution itself makes it quite clear where they should be tried.

I don't understand how birthplace entitles anyone to Natural Law, yet precludes other individuals based on State boundries...
Now, I hear it said over and over from Constitutionalists that the Constitution enumerates our Natural Rights....so, are these Natural only to Americans? Are they only "Endowed by God" to Americans and no one else? Is the Bill of Rights not the enumeration of these Natural Rights spun from Natural Law, or am I missing something? (Now I need to make this obvious; I'M TALKING ABOUT THE BILL OF RIGHTS)

So, being blunt I call fucking BS and will call out every so-called Constitutionalist for their apparent and blindingly obvious contradictions in principles, philosophy, and rhetoric. This is another reason why I don't support the CP.

Would you like to clarify this position?

PS: Gunny seems to be the exception! GO Gunny. :D

Do you believe each country is entitled to its own set of laws and rights for its people? Or do you believe that we are all citizens of the world and anyone who enters anyone elses country should be considered a citizen of that country? I know you don't like boundaries and in a perfect world we wouldn't need them. But the reality is that borders are needed in much the same way that doors with locks are needed on houses. And in my house I have my rules and rights, as you have in your house.

I agree that all humans deserve certain basic rights, like a fair trial. But that is not the issue here, unless you believe that KSM et al. will not get a fair trial with a military tribunal. I don't see why they wouldn't.

The question is really whether or not their acts are considered acts of war. I think they were and I think the military should handle it.

Deborah K

11-20-2009, 04:57 PM

:rolleyes:

Nice retort. Care to explain why you think they shouldn't be tried by a tribunal?

Deborah K

11-20-2009, 04:59 PM

NYgs23

11-20-2009, 05:01 PM

Absolutely consistent.......or puritanical? So, if someone doesn't fit your mold exactly you are finished with them? That seems a bit harsh and unyielding and elections are never won that way - they are taken by force.

As I just said, consistency is more important than winning elections.

Austrian Econ Disciple

11-20-2009, 05:07 PM

Do you believe each country is entitled to its own set of laws and rights for its people? Or do you believe that we are all citizens of the world and anyone who enters anyone elses country should be considered a citizen of that country? I know you don't like boundaries and in a perfect world we wouldn't need them. But the reality is that borders are needed in much the same way that doors with locks are needed on houses. And in my house I have my rules and rights, as you have in your house.

I agree that all humans deserve certain basic rights, like a fair trial. But that is not the issue here, unless you believe that KSM et al. will not get a fair trial with a military tribunal. I don't see why they wouldn't.

The question is really whether or not their acts are considered acts of war. I think they were and I think the military should handle it.

No I do not think he will get a fair trial. The State will not allow it. Imagine how that would look if he was found innocent...Military tribunals are secretive. They are not allowed to be FOIA and only persons with the appropriate security clearance and need to know will actually know what happened in the court. Is it or is it not in the State's best interest for a conviction? I don't think he will get a fair trial either way, but the fairest trial possible is under the conditions I highlighted earlier because all evidence would be public and the scrutiny would be so huge.

The only reason the State wants a tribunal is because of the former and because of "State Secrets". There is logically no reason against the Constitutional position, that he should be tried in New York, New York by a trial jury and entitled to all the workings of our judicial process. I guess innocent until proven guilty is only for people on this little spec of land. Anyone we accuse either here (Via Patriot Act), or abroad is instantly guilty! This is very dangeous, very, very dangerous.

So, by that logic Timothy McVeigh committed an act of war then, right? Therefore he should be tried by military tribunal. Secondly, we haven't even declared war with Al-Qaeda or with anyone for that matter! We have a "War on Terror" which reminds me of: You can't have a war on a tactic! You can't declare a war on a flanking manuever! :p

Austrian Econ Disciple

11-20-2009, 05:11 PM

As I just said, consistency is more important than winning elections.

Agreed.

CCTelander

11-20-2009, 05:21 PM

Nice retort. Care to explain why you think they shouldn't be tried by a tribunal?

Because the standards of proof are usually more lax in military tribunals?

Because MTs are held in secret, with little or no oversight?

Because the courts have already upheld the FedGov's "authority" to pick up anyone, anywhere in the world (yes even here in the "land of the free") as an "enemy combatant" and subject them to this same crap?

Beacuse it sets a very dangerous precedent that can and will be used, at some point, against you, me, or someone like us?

Because it's repugnant to the concept of simple justice?

I could go on. Look, I know this will sound a bit condescending, and I apologize for that in advance, but this stuff is all very elementary liberty philosophy.

The point isn't to "protect" any particular alleged criminal, it's that anything you let government get away with in any instance can and will be applied in other instances. You let them get away with "convicting" even a truly guilty individual under these kinds of circumstances and they absolutely will, usually in very short order, use the same against truly innocent people. There's never been a case in all of recorded history where this hasn't proven to be true.

If you don't demand that they follow the rules, to the letter, you WILL regret it later.

familydog

11-20-2009, 05:24 PM

I fail to see why this statement is such an issue.

People make me laugh.

This thread is an example of why this movement has not been more successful.

Deborah K

11-20-2009, 05:30 PM

No I do not think he will get a fair trial. The State will not allow it. Imagine how that would look if he was found innocent...Military tribunals are secretive. They are not allowed to be FOIA and only persons with the appropriate security clearance and need to know will actually know what happened in the court. Is it or is it not in the State's best interest for a conviction? I don't think he will get a fair trial either way, but the fairest trial possible is under the conditions I highlighted earlier because all evidence would be public and the scrutiny would be so huge.

This could be a catch-22. I'm not so keen on the enemy having so much information.

The only reason the State wants a tribunal is because of the former and because of "State Secrets". There is logically no reason against the Constitutional position, that he should be tried in New York, New York by a trial jury and entitled to all the workings of our judicial process. I guess innocent until proven guilty is only for people on this little spec of land. Anyone we accuse either here (Via Patriot Act), or abroad is instantly guilty! This is very dangeous, very, very dangerous.

Agreed, it is dangerous for us to accuse people of guilt until proven innocent. And if he gets his trial in NY, do you really think he will be afforded an impartial jury of his peers? Not any more than he would with a tribunal. The difference is, NY will be a circus, people's safety will be at risk, and non-Americans who have openly declared fatwa ( read this WSJ article on KSM's admissions before he was captured: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009792) against us will be afforded all the rights that Americans are afforded. F'k that! In the history of this country, no enemy combatant has ever been tried in a civil court:

YouTube - Lindsey Graham DESTROYS Obama's Leftist Clown and Black Panther Supporter Eric Holder (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg3ZitCAbUE&feature=related)

So, by that logic Timothy McVeigh committed an act of war then, right? Therefore he should be tried by military tribunal. Secondly, we haven't even declared war with Al-Qaeda or with anyone for that matter! We have a "War on Terror" which reminds me of: You can't have a war on a tactic! You can't declare a war on a flanking manuever! :p

Perhaps McVeigh should have been tried by military tribunal, it is a good question.

I don't think it matters whether we have declared war as it pertains to this particular matter. What those scumbags did to us on 9/11 was an act of war by their own admission. That's enough for me.

Deborah K

11-20-2009, 05:32 PM

As I just said, consistency is more important than winning elections.

If we never win elections then how can we restore the republic?

Ethek

11-20-2009, 05:32 PM

As I just said, consistency is more important than winning elections.

You could also say that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

No one here, with the principles that they have are in a position to change anything in the current system. What are you going to do about it?

We have a government pandering and enslaving an entire population to corporatism and the military industrial complex, and controlling monetary units of production to fund perpetual war. Are we going to be principled from the comfort of armchairs or are you going to do something to stop the machinery of an oppressive government. I am open to suggestions.

BTW, I will proclaim that I have my own way to wrestle back control of peoples liberties. Rand only being a nicety in the overall importance of things... think Barter Union and Time Dollars.

Brian4Liberty

11-20-2009, 05:36 PM

The State must have some evidence that provides his guilt? Of course this means revealing so-called "State secrets" and is why many want to make this a Military Tribunal. Of course, if one takes the position that there is a lack of evidence (Which I used to be an Intelligence Major) to his guilt, then why was he caught and then suspected behind 9/11? There has to be evidence before presumption, or at least reasonable suspicion no? How can one go from A to C by bypassing B?

Again, people are believing evidence to be like CSI, but in-fact, evidence is more akin to CIA, SIGINT, HUMINT, ELINT etc. all evidence would be housed with our IC more precisely CIA and NSA. Again, I doubt he's going to get a fair trial either way, however, as to whether I believe he is guilty or innocent? Honestly, I have no clue and do not have the evidence so I will not say one way or another.

Also, if one can conduct the Nuremburg trials, one can presume that they can also conduct a reasonable/fair trial with KSM.

Most of us are working under the assumption that they have enough evidence, and that either venue is legal. There are a lot of political concerns that cloud the issue, and that's probably one reason why this wasn't taken care of a long time ago. KLM (as far as we have been told) is a mixed bag, guilty of both civilian and war crimes.

If the only evidence they have is a torture confession, they are in trouble either way!

beazy

11-20-2009, 05:39 PM

I only read part of this thread but on that press release at the end he says:

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.

Is it just me or does he need to reword this whole phrase. I think I know what he is trying to say but he defiantly needs to clarify it further for the layman. War with Afghanistan? lol what ? That sounds like he wants to cement the war further, when his purpose was to force a vote to outline what the hell our mission is if we are going to continue to stay? Otherwise we should be home. But either way we wouldn't be going to war WITH the country of Afghanistan.

dannno

11-20-2009, 05:44 PM

This could be a catch-22. I'm not so keen on the enemy having so much information.

I think our government already has much of the information you are speaking of.

Also, wouldn't you want it to become public if it were found out that some of these terrorists were working directly in concert with CIA agents? Or do you want that information buried in a secret military tribunal?

dannno

11-20-2009, 05:54 PM

^(cont) I mean, didn't you hear about Karzai's brother who runs the biggest opium cartel in Afghanistan? He's been a paid CIA agent for 8 years!! They use the drug money to get weapons for one of their paramilitary forces. This is what we've been doing in South America for decades!

Why do we need to keep our government's crimes a secret?

Deborah K

11-20-2009, 06:00 PM

I think our government already has much of the information you are speaking of.

Also, wouldn't you want it to become public if it were found out that some of these terrorists were working directly in concert with CIA agents? Or do you want that information buried in a secret military tribunal?

No, I would not want that, nor am I ignorant of the fact that this gov't breaks its own laws in an effort to seek 'justice'. But trying this in NY turns it from being an enemy combatant being tried for acts of terror into the gov't putting itself on trial. Come on.....really????

If you want the CIA exposed, I don't think this is the way to do it.

Matt Collins

11-20-2009, 06:00 PM

YouTube - September 11th Attacks Were NOT An Act Of War! Judge Napolitano (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0cfENDJiWs&feature=player_embedded)

Deborah K

11-20-2009, 06:02 PM

I've seen that Matt. Don't agree with him. bin Laden declared a Fatwa. That is an act of war.

Matt Collins

11-20-2009, 06:12 PM

I've seen that Matt. Don't agree with him. bin Laden declared a Fatwa. That is an act of war.
Well in all fairness the Judge didn't get to explain his point fully because The Leprechaun cut him off. I would like to better understand why the Judge says that before I decide for myself.

bolidew

11-20-2009, 06:37 PM

I fail to see why this statement is such an issue.

People make me laugh.

This thread is an example of why this movement has not been more successful.

You failed to see the importance of this issue. It could be the tipping point of Rand's campaign, from upwards to downwards !

AuH20

11-20-2009, 07:24 PM

Like I've always said, I'll support anyone on the issues to which I am concerned (Nearly all that deal with liberty, which is essentially everything), that support the position that I take. That said, I'm not going to hesitate to point out contradictions in ones philosophy. Philosophy established the State, and Philosophy will dismantle the State. Philosophy is the only guiding light for politicians, correctly labeled -- Statesman --. So, yes, we can disagree, and I certainly do appreciate your support on issues that we agree on. However, I will not associate myself to people who do not have the same philosophical delineations that I do. This is why I am still a L, and not a R, and even then I do not like to be associated with the likes of Barr and W.A.R., and is why I associate myself with the LP Radical Caucus.

Natural Law is the crux and anyone who does not expressely support Natural Law in its logical entirety, well, we have a little problem. :D

Now, I say this with all due respect and courtesy. I cannot fathom however, one can logically believe that our rights are granted by a piece of paper, yet, then presuppose that they can then not be revoked. It only logically follows if one grants something then one can revoke it. So, in that sense a Constitutionalist is a clear contradiction, or in the only sense - without principles -. Now, there are of course exceptions (Gunny), but I think it is clear that Constitutionalists are not libertarians, or at least do not share the philosophy of libertarians. I am truly piqued as to why you do not believe that the Constitution merely enumerates our rights (Bill of Rights -- which came from the Anti-Fed's Jeffersonians (Mason, Henry, et al)) as humans. If you actually believe that the DoI was propaganda and not the cornerstone of Classical Liberalism (Natural Law), which was a highly respected intellectual philosophy and axiom for at least a hundred years prior, then I cannot say anything to displace that....

No offense taken. It's healthy to partake in discourse like this, so we can understand each other better

Now onto your point about inalienable rights. In principle, many of us subscribe to the notion that natural law supersedes geographical location, but not in the sense of operable, codified law. The DoI is not codified law like the U.S. Constitution. And if we were to expand the guaranteed rights outlined in the Constitution to every non-citizen, wouldn't we be essentially opening a Pandora's box of problems? (CC informed me of the court's ruling to my chagrin) To secure the blessings of liberty for other oppressed individuals around the world, we would have to violate other country's sovereignty and laws. That's an extremely slippery slope to embark upon. That's why most constitutionalists shy away from this 'Save the World, disregard borders' mantra. It's almost inadvertently justifying an interventionist foreign policy.

Remember how we were obligated to "bring democracy to Iraq"? That type of grandiose initiative is just a few degrees separated from this universal individual model so many libertarians advocate, as shocking as it sounds. Once you creak that door, there is no going back. Like Aristotle once said, we have to get back to promoting virtue among our citizenry, which in turn will lead to healthier, more vibrant republic. Arbitrarily reducing citizenship to an empty vessel does nothing to turn the tide in the right direction.

AuH20

11-20-2009, 07:37 PM

I really don't mean this to be insulting in any way, but all this indicates is that you haven't done your own due diligence.

The judiciary here in the US, at all levels up to and including the Supreme Court, has consistently held that the rights "protected" by the constitution and BoRs apply to everyone, citizen and non-citizen alike. It's one of the very few things that the judiciary has consistently gotten right.

Based off the 14th amendment? That's absolutely insane! Explains how illegal aliens can be awarded massive compensation in lawsuits, even if they hypothetically partook in criminal activity.

CCTelander

11-20-2009, 07:53 PM

Based off the14th amendment? That's absolutely insane! Explains how illegal aliens can be awarded massive compensation in lawsuits.

The precedents actually strech back well before the 14th amendment. They're usually based upon the principle that all rights are inherent in the individual, not granted by government. Any individual, citizen or not, that falls under the scrutiny of government in the US is entitled to the full protection of the constitution and BoR.

NYgs23

11-20-2009, 07:56 PM

If we never win elections then how can we restore the republic?

I told you: by winning in the free market of ideas, by changing hearts and minds. Governments only have the power that the people are willing to let them have. Once the people insist upon their freedom, government must come along. Government policy is not the cause of freedom; it is the effect of the freedom-mindedness of the people.

I fear that by focusing so much on winning elections and passing bills, we risk losing our principles to political pragmatism and factional loyalty. This has ruined ideological movements so many times before. You can support the guy if you want, but it should be a qualified support.

No one should be defended when they're wrong on something, no matter how right they are on other things or how important it is for a political victory. I don't agree with Ron Paul on immigration, for example, and I'm absolutely willing to say it. And I certainly don't agree with Rand Paul on Bushian kangaroo justice; it's a terrible position to take. His pro-civil liberties supporters should, at the very least, demand an explanation for this. They shouldn't circle the wagons around him. That sort of pragmatic political compromising is the death of any serious change.

CCTelander

11-20-2009, 08:00 PM

I told you: by winning in the free market of ideas, by changing hearts and minds. Governments only have the power that the people are willing to let them have. Once the people insist upon their freedom, government must come along. Government policy is not the cause of freedom; it is the effect of the freedom-mindedness of the people.

I fear that by focusing so much on winning elections and passing bills, we risk losing our principles to political pragmatism and factional loyalty. This has ruined ideological movements so many times before. You can support the guy if you want, but it should be a qualified support.

No one should be defended when they're wrong on something, no matter how right they are on other things or how important it is for a political victory. I don't agree with Ron Paul on immigration, for example, and I'm absolutely willing to say it. And I certainly don't agree with Rand Paul on Bushian kangaroo justice; it's a terrible position to take. His pro-civil liberties supporters should, at the very least, demand an explanation for this. They shouldn't circle the wagons around him. That sort of pragmatic political compromising is the death of any serious change.

Very well said. I agree completely, except on the "qualified support" thing. These statements amount to a flat out repudiation of some of the most fundamental pillars of liberty, the presumption of innocence and due process. To me, that's way over the line.

NYgs23

11-20-2009, 08:03 PM

You could also say that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

No one here, with the principles that they have are in a position to change anything in the current system. What are you going to do about it?

We have a government pandering and enslaving an entire population to corporatism and the military industrial complex, and controlling monetary units of production to fund perpetual war. Are we going to be principled from the comfort of armchairs or are you going to do something to stop the machinery of an oppressive government. I am open to suggestions.

BTW, I will proclaim that I have my own way to wrestle back control of peoples liberties. Rand only being a nicety in the overall importance of things... think Barter Union and Time Dollars.

Changing peoples' minds is more important than politics. The ideological fight is more important than politics. Finding ways to break away from the established order is more important than politics. Politics is a mere trifle. Freedom can not and will not come through legislation. I've often thought that a lot of the people on this forum put way to much stock in political battles, hoping that if we just get the right people in...That strategy has never, never, never worked. Politics is good for educational purposes and, if you can role back some of the government's messes while you're at it, that's good as well. But once winning that election becomes the Holy Grail in your mind, it's a recipe for either despair or for assimilating into Establishment. I think the key reason Ron Paul's been so consistent is because he's always seen his political career primarily as a teaching tool; that is the key to his success.

RonPaulFanInGA

11-20-2009, 08:07 PM

You failed to see the importance of this issue. It could be the tipping point of Rand's campaign, from upwards to downwards !

Yeah, because the majority of registered Kentucky republicans want Gitmo closed down.

Explains Ron Paul's big 6.79% showing in 2008, right?

Deborah K

11-20-2009, 08:10 PM

I told you: by winning in the free market of ideas, by changing hearts and minds. Governments only have the power that the people are willing to let them have. Once the people insist upon their freedom, government must come along. Government policy is not the cause of freedom; it is the effect of the freedom-mindedness of the people.

That statement is only true in societies that are able to defend themselves against a tyrannical gov't. "Know guns - know freedom. No guns - no freedom."

I fear that by focusing so much on winning elections and passing bills, we risk losing our principles to political pragmatism and factional loyalty. This has ruined ideological movements so many times before. You can support the guy if you want, but it should be a qualified support.

It is a risk we take. But winning elections and passing bills is how our form of gov't is set up. And if we intend to force our gov't to adhere to the Constitution, then we have to challenge them by throwing them out and replacing them with people who are in line with our values. I just think it is misguided to use single issues as litmus tests when it comes to candidates not falling in line 100% of the time. It is idealistic to expect it as well as unrealistic. (no offense intended)

No one should be defended when they're wrong on something, no matter how right they are on other things or how important it is for a political victory. I don't agree with Ron Paul on immigration, for example, and I'm absolutely willing to say it. And I certainly don't agree with Rand Paul on Bushian kangaroo justice; it's a terrible position to take. His pro-civil liberties supporters should, at the very least, demand an explanation for this. They shouldn't circle the wagons around him. That sort of pragmatic political compromising is the death of any serious change

Demand? To what end? Even if they are able to convince him he is on the wrong side of the issue, all it will accomplish is to make him look like a panderer or worse, back peddling.

CCTelander

11-20-2009, 08:12 PM

Changing peoples' minds is more important than politics. The ideological fight is more important than politics. Finding ways to break away from the established order is more important than politics. Politics is a mere trifle. Freedom can not and will not come through legislation. I've often thought that a lot of the people on this forum put way to much stock in political battles, hoping that if we just get the right people in...That strategy has never, never, never worked. Politics is good for educational purposes and, if you can role back some of the government's messes while you're at it, that's good as well. But once winning that election becomes the Holy Grail in your mind, it's a recipe for either despair or for assimilating into Establishment. I think the key reason Ron Paul's been so consistent is because he's always seen his political career primarily as a teaching tool; that is the key to his success.

I couldn't agree more.

I'd add one more thought. Once enough people's minds are changed, political action will be completely unneccessary, since people will simply act in accordance with their new, more effective world views regardless of what the government has to say. I'd offer prohibition as an example.

NYgs23

11-20-2009, 08:28 PM

That statement is only true in societies that are able to defend themselves against a tyrannical gov't.

Even the most iron-fisted tyranny can't maintain itself without the passive consent of the people. Just look at the Soviet Union.

But winning elections and passing bills is how our form of gov't is set up. And if we intend to force our gov't to adhere to the Constitution, then we have to challenge them by throwing them out and replacing them with people who are in line with our values.

Political victories are secondary to the battle of ideas. The government will never adhere to anything unless the people adhere to it. You can't "force" it, if the people don't care. Once the people are with you, the government must come along. Elections are a trifle because they're little more then an indicator of where the minds of the people already are. We should be focusing on changing hearts and minds.

Furthermore, this isn't a minor issue; it's a question of human rights. It sounds like he doesn't care about basic rights of justice if applied to "terr'rists," using the same idiotic bogeyman rhetoric as every statist war hawk in history. He could just as well proclaim he's for a "public option" or "cap and trade" in my eyes.

Even if they are able to convince him he is on the wrong side of the issue, all it will accomplish is to make him look like a panderer or worse, back peddling.

Then I guess he's stuck with it. He may be better than the other guy, but his position on this is indefensible. There's just no way to whitewash it.

TheTyke

11-20-2009, 08:52 PM

I couldn't agree more.

I'd add one more thought. Once enough people's minds are changed, political action will be completely unneccessary, since people will simply act in accordance with their new, more effective world views regardless of what the government has to say. I'd offer prohibition as an example.

Right. This is why the anti-war movement helped elect Woodrow Wilson, who practically started our interventionist foreign policy, thrusting us headlong into World War I, and pushing the League of Nations.

This is why they helped elect Barack Obama, who has escalated our wars dramatically. 70% of Americans oppose the Iraq war, but we're still in there.

Changing minds doesn't do accomplish a blessed thing by itself. Only when that is channeled into effective political action and the right people are empowered by election can anything meaningful change.

That's Rand.

bolidew

11-20-2009, 08:53 PM

Yeah, because the majority of registered Kentucky republicans want Gitmo closed down.

Explains Ron Paul's big 6.79% showing in 2008, right?

This issue is hurting his national funding sources. Without their support, he can't win no matter how hard he try to pander those local votes.

BTW, senator race is not POTUS race, 2010 is not 2008. Even becoming John McCain's clone may not work.

CCTelander

11-20-2009, 08:56 PM

Right. This is why the anti-war movement helped elect Woodrow Wilson, who practically started our interventionist foreign policy, thrusting us headlong into World War I, and pushing the League of Nations.

This is why they helped elect Barack Obama, who has escalated our wars dramatically. 70% of Americans oppose the Iraq war, but we're still in there.

Changing minds doesn't do accomplish a blessed thing by itself. Only when that is channeled into effective political action and the right people are empowered by election can anything meaningful change.

That's Rand.

And yet, once lost liberty has NEVER been fully reclaimed, nor has even a significant portion of that lost been reclaimed, through electoral politics. Never. Not once in all of recorded history.

But hey, just go right ahead beating your head against that wall if youy like. I've been down that road myself for much of the last 40 years. Doesn't work. Never will.

The Key Master

11-20-2009, 08:56 PM

Without their support, he can't win no matter how hard he try to pander those local votes.

Then whose vote is he supposed to get?

bolidew

11-20-2009, 08:59 PM

Then whose vote is he supposed to get?

Why would those voters choose Rand if he holds same positions as Trey G?

The Key Master

11-20-2009, 09:02 PM

Why would those voters choose Rand if he holds same positions as Trey G?

Do you even know anything about this race up to this point?

RonPaulFanInGA

11-20-2009, 09:05 PM

BTW, senator race is not POTUS race, 2010 is not 2008. Even becoming John McCain's clone may not work.

Does John McCain (or Trey Grayson) oppose the PATRIOT act? Oppose torture? Oppose indefinite detentions? Because those are Rand Paul's positions.

NYgs23

11-20-2009, 09:05 PM

bolidew

11-20-2009, 09:11 PM

Do you even know anything about this race up to this point?
Yes. And why don't you quote my whole post?

Even if he changes more positions to please those "mainstream" past voters, without strong funding, do you think he can beat the Sec. of State?

TheTyke

11-20-2009, 09:11 PM

Perhaps they voted for Wilson and Obama because they were too focused on electoral politics and getting a decent guy in there. Perhaps they should have withdrawn their support. If everyone were to withdraw their support, the state couldn't do anything.

Yes, I can see where electing Treyson will put an end to the wars quickly, and teach that evil old Rand Paul a lesson!

NYgs23

11-20-2009, 09:20 PM

Yes, I can see where electing Treyson will put an end to the wars quickly, and teach that evil old Rand Paul a lesson!

Don't you understand that winning some silly Senate election is not a fraction as important as remaining true to principle? This is how all movements get assimilated into the Establishment: a little compromise here, a little compromise there...

rp08orbust

11-20-2009, 09:40 PM

Remember how we were obligated to "bring democracy to Iraq"? That type of grandiose initiative is just a few degrees separated from this universal individual model so many libertarians advocate, as shocking as it sounds. Once you creak that door, there is no going back.

There is no slippery slope from individualism to interventionism at all. The obligation to provide a fair trial arises only *after* one has intervened and denied a suspected criminal of their liberty. No libertarian is claiming that anyone is obligated to intervene in the first place.

You also misunderstand the libertarian argument against the invasion of Iraq. The invasion was not wrong because it violated Iraqi "national sovereignty" (which libertarians do not recognize), but because it violated the *individual* sovereignty of all those non-combatants killed, and all those whose property was damaged, in the course of the mission to arrest the mass murderer Saddam Hussein.

A libertarian could have no moral objections to a group of privately funded individuals arresting Saddam Hussein for murder, regardless of what country they came from, provided no one else was harmed in the process and Saddam Hussein was allowed access to legal defense, habeus corpus, a fair trial etc.

Malachi

11-20-2009, 09:41 PM

Don't you understand that winning some silly Senate election is not a fraction as important as remaining true to principle? .

Maybe we don't all see things the same way, just maybe we are individuals and some of us don't agree with Ron Paul on ever single issue. Maybe?

hueylong

11-20-2009, 10:12 PM

You can whine about principle all you want, but there is an OCEAN of difference between Rand, and anyone else in that race. In fact, there's a huge difference between Rand, and anyone running for congress anywhere in America (except for Ron).

So, in this race, there is nowhere else to go. You might as well let the man run the race as best he can.

Slutter McGee

11-20-2009, 10:18 PM

rp08orbust

11-20-2009, 10:19 PM

So, in this race, there is nowhere else to go.

Nowhere to go, *in this race*. But there are other races to go to. I'm done donating to Rand, and will now give Kokesh, Harris and others a more serious look.

RonPaulFanInGA

11-20-2009, 10:22 PM

Edit

CCTelander

11-20-2009, 10:24 PM

Don't you understand that winning some silly Senate election is not a fraction as important as remaining true to principle? This is how all movements get assimilated into the Establishment: a little compromise here, a little compromise there...

Sadly it seems like there are plenty here that don't get the fact that the whole battle is, first and foremost, philosophical in nature. Many will choose what they mistakenly view as pragmatism over principle. But, at this point it's obviously a waste of time to argue with them, so I'm moving on to other efforts.

CCTelander

11-20-2009, 10:27 PM

You fuckers have inspired me. I used to bitch and moan about the conspiracy theorists. But I was wrong. The problem with the movement is not those guys. They may be nuts, but they know when to shut their mouths to help the concept of liberty, at least more than the fucking libertarian anarcho-capitalist purists. Go read some more fucking Hayak and masturbate to some fucking Rothbard. And while you guys are busy being loserfuckingtarians...yes the stresses in the words allow for a perfect infix of the word fucking....I am going to get drunk and donate another 25 dollars to Rand.

25 aint much...but if I do it every time I get drunk...Rand is gonna win hands down.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Right. Silly little things like the presumption of innocence and due process, you know, two of the fundamental pillars upon which the very concept of liberty rests, are unimportant. All that matters is to win.

Let me know how that works out for you if you ever happen to be in need of one of those silly little things.

Deborah K

11-20-2009, 10:38 PM

Even the most iron-fisted tyranny can't maintain itself without the passive consent of the people. Just look at the Soviet Union.

Are you making my point for me?

Political victories are secondary to the battle of ideas. The government will never adhere to anything unless the people adhere to it. You can't "force" it, if the people don't care. Once the people are with you, the government must come along. Elections are a trifle because they're little more then an indicator of where the minds of the people already are. We should be focusing on changing hearts and minds.

Why not do both? Why does it have to be one or the other?

Furthermore, this isn't a minor issue; it's a question of human rights. It sounds like he doesn't care about basic rights of justice if applied to "terr'rists," using the same idiotic bogeyman rhetoric as every statist war hawk in history. He could just as well proclaim he's for a "public option" or "cap and trade" in my eyes.

You are presuming Rand wants the terrorists to be tried by the military because he doesn't want them to have basic rights to a fair trial. How did you come to that conclusion?

Then I guess he's stuck with it. He may be better than the other guy, but his position on this is indefensible. There's just no way to whitewash it

There's no whitewash coming from me - I happen to agree with his stance on this.

Deborah K

11-20-2009, 10:39 PM

Right. Silly little things like the presumption of innocence and due process, you know, two of the fundamental pillars upon which the very concept of liberty rests, are unimportant. All that matters is to win.

Let me know how that works out for you if you ever happen to be in need of one of those silly little things.

Are you too, implying that Rand doesn't think KSM et al. deserve a fair trial?

rp08orbust

11-20-2009, 10:42 PM

You are presuming Rand wants the terrorists to be tried by the military because he doesn't want them to have basic rights to a fair trial. How did you come to that conclusion?

He said they, as foreigners and presumed (by him) terrorists, do not deserve the protections of the US Constitution. I.e., protections from an unfair trial.

Deborah K

11-20-2009, 10:45 PM

Changing minds doesn't do accomplish a blessed thing by itself. Only when that is channeled into effective political action and the right people are empowered by election can anything meaningful change.

^ This.

CCTelander

11-20-2009, 10:46 PM

He said they, as foreigners and presumed (by him) terrorists, do not deserve the protections of the US Constitution. I.e., protections from an unfair trial.

Exactly. It's not in the least vague or ambiguous.

Deborah K

11-20-2009, 10:46 PM

He said they, as foreigners and presumed (by him) terrorists, do not deserve the protections of the US Constitution. I.e., protections from an unfair trial.

Not the same thing as denying habeas corpus. He has not denied habeas corpus.

anaconda

11-20-2009, 10:48 PM

Grow the fuck up people. You are acting like a bunch of twelve year olds who are pissed that there are not enough fucking sprinkles on your chocolate cake.

So instead you call your mother a sell-out for making it, because shitloads of sprinkles is how it has to be done, and it doesn't matter if already has far more sprinkles than any other cake around. It is the only right way. Of course you completely ignore the fact that your mother made it that way because everyone else at the fucking party doesn't absolute love a million sprinkles and she wanted other people to eat some of her cake too.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Well then I commend those 12-yr. olds for questioning a foreign policy that empowers a corrupt military/industrial complex, a corrupt Congress that enables them, senselessly murders scores of innocent foreigners, and does so at the expense of the taxpayers. The Revolution platform aint that complicated. I'm surprised that Rand is legitimizing the role of "enemy combatants." Does not mean I wouldn't vote for him or donate money. It just confuses me about his understanding of foreign policy. Where did he get this idea? He might be saying it to get more votes in KY. I thought, perhaps naively, that his platform was his father's.

rp08orbust

11-20-2009, 10:53 PM

Not the same thing as denying habeas corpus. He has not denied habeas corpus.

That is not the sole ingredient of due process, and has nothing to do with the trial itself.

Slutter McGee

11-20-2009, 10:57 PM

Right. Silly little things like the presumption of innocence and due process, you know, two of the fundamental pillars upon which the very concept of liberty rests, are unimportant. All that matters is to win.

Let me know how that works out for you if you ever happen to be in need of one of those silly little things.

And since I addressed those issues earlier, when I was fucking sober, YOU can go look them up.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Malachi

11-20-2009, 11:00 PM

Deborah K

11-20-2009, 11:01 PM

That is not the sole ingredient of due process, and has nothing to do with the trial itself.

I didn't claim that was the sole ingredient but it definitely does have to do with the trial. I'm simply refuting the argument that just because Rand doesn't want to see them tried in federal court, doesn't mean he thinks they don't deserve their day in court. The issue has to do with the venue and nothing more. Enemy combatants do NOT deserve Constitutional rights. I've already stated why in this thread.

And, as I have also stated, everyone deserves certain basic rights like a fair trial. I will need some evidence that they won't get one with a military tribunal. Trying them in NY is ridiculous on so many levels. I've already stated why I think so in this thread.

CCTelander

11-20-2009, 11:02 PM

And since I addressed those issues earlier, when I was fucking sober, YOU can go look them up.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Not in this thread you didn't. Maybe in a different one, haven't looked and not going to bother.

CCTelander

11-20-2009, 11:06 PM

I didn't claim that was the sole ingredient but it definitely does have to do with the trial. I'm simply refuting the argument that just because Rand doesn't want to see them tried in federal court, doesn't mean he thinks they don't deserve their day in court. The issue has to do with the venue and nothing more. Enemy combatants do NOT deserve Constitutional rights. I've already stated why in this thread.

And, as I have also stated, everyone deserves certain basic rights like a fair trial. I will need some evidence that they won't get one with a military tribunal. Trying them in NY is ridiculous on so many levels. I've already stated why I think so in this thread.

"Enemy combatants" is a bullshit term invented by lawyers under the Bush Admin. for the sole purpose of circumventing that constitution you claim to hold in such high regard.

rp08orbust

11-20-2009, 11:13 PM

Enemy combatants do NOT deserve Constitutional rights. I've already stated why in this thread.

I've looked over your posts in this thread and see no reasons provided for this statement at all. Perhaps you stated them in another thread.

And, as I have also stated, everyone deserves certain basic rights like a fair trial. I will need some evidence that they won't get one with a military tribunal.

If military tribunals are just as fair as regular trials by jury of peers, then why do we spend the vast amounts of money we do on regular civilian trials? Why don't we just abolish the jury and cut taxes?

Trying them in NY is ridiculous on so many levels. I've already stated why I think so in this thread.

It could be that it is not possible for them to get a fair trial anywhere. If that's what the judges decide, then the terrorist suspects must be released.

heavenlyboy34

11-20-2009, 11:14 PM

You fuckers have inspired me. I used to bitch and moan about the conspiracy theorists. But I was wrong. The problem with the movement is not those guys. They may be nuts, but they know when to shut their mouths to help the concept of liberty, at least more than the fucking libertarian anarcho-capitalist purists. Go read some more fucking Hayak and masturbate to some fucking Rothbard. And while you guys are busy being loserfuckingtarians...yes the stresses in the words allow for a perfect infix of the word fucking....I am going to get drunk and donate another 25 dollars to Rand.

25 aint much...but if I do it every time I get drunk...Rand is gonna win hands down.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

"loserfuckingtarians". :rolleyes: Congratulations, you get to MAYBE win ONE seat out of 100 which MIGHT make some difference SOMEDAY if PERHAPS the American people SOMEDAY become smart enough to listen. And that's just assuming you get lucky. :p I'd rather be a "loserfuckingtarian" and make a difference in the long run than an ignorant sellout and government-worshiping slave any day. ;)

senatorpjt

11-20-2009, 11:14 PM

I'm cringing a little bit reading all these comments. No, the constitution does not apply to foreigners. It also doesn't apply to US citizens. It applies to the federal government. Specifically, the bill of rights says mentions certain things which the government cannot do.

CCTelander

11-20-2009, 11:16 PM

"loserfuckingtarians". :rolleyes: Congratulations, you get to MAYBE win ONE seat out of 100 which MIGHT make some difference SOMEDAY if PERHAPS the American people SOMEDAY become smart enough to listen. And that's just assuming you get lucky. :p I'd rather be a "loserfuckingtarian" than an ignorant sellout and government-worshiping slave any day. ;)

Here! Here! I've been sitting on my hands trying NOT to respond in kind, but I'm glad sombody did.

Deborah K

11-20-2009, 11:27 PM

"Enemy combatants" is a bullshit term invented by lawyers under the Bush Admin. for the sole purpose of circumventing that constitution you claim to hold in such high regard.

I don't really care what word you wish to replace it with. A rose by any other name..... Nit pick much? :rolleyes:

I don't "claim" to hold the Constitution in high regard - I declare it! And because I do, I am not going to accept that some American hating POS is going to get the same protections from it as I do. They would just as soon spit on it. I highly doubt the people who fought and died to give us our own sovereignty intended for us to waste it on people who could care less about it or us.

Maybe you should watch Daniel Pearl's beheading. KSM bragged about being the one who did it to an Al-jazeera interviewer before he was ever caught. He also bragged about orchestrating 9/11 and much more.

You can proceed through life stifled by your strict interpretation of natural rights, blah, blah, blah I don't care, but when your philosophy is so far fetched that it can't be realistically put into practise, then maybe you need to re-think your views. And that goes for the rest of you who think those who have declared a fatwa against us deserve Constitutional rights.

Deborah K

11-20-2009, 11:31 PM

If military tribunals are just as fair as regular trials by jury of peers, then why do we spend the vast amounts of money we do on regular civilian trials? Why don't we just abolish the jury and cut taxes?

What kinds of questions are these? I don't understand your argument. Civilian trials are for civilians. Military trials are for the military and military action, like acts of war or terror. Are you suggesting that military tribunals by their very nature are not fair? And that no one ever gets fair treatment by them? If so, please provide evidence.

It could be that it is not possible for them to get a fair trial anywhere. If that's what the judges decide, then the terrorist suspects must be released

This is absolutely insane thinking.

CCTelander

11-20-2009, 11:32 PM

I don't really care what word you wish to replace it with. A rose by any other name..... Nit pick much? :rolleyes:

I don't "claim" to hold the Constitution in high regard - I declare it! And because I do, I am not going to accept that some American hating POS is going to get the same protections from it as I do. They would just as soon spit on it. I highly doubt the people who fought and died to give us our own sovereignty intended for us to waste it on people who could care less about it or us.

Maybe you should watch Daniel Pearl's beheading. KSM bragged about being the one who did it to an Al-jazeera interviewer before he was ever caught. He also bragged about orchestrating 9/11 and much more.

You can proceed through life stifled by your strict interpretation of natural rights, blah, blah, blah I don't care, but when your philosophy is so far fetched that it can't be realistically put into practise, then maybe you need to re-think your views. And that goes for the rest of you who think those who have declared a fatwa against us deserve Constitutional rights.

It's not, primarily, for their benefit that those rights should be rigorously enforced. It's for YOURS. And mine. And any other individual's who may, at some point through no fault of their own, ru afoul of government at some level or other. But if you can't see that, there's no point in further discussion.

Go ahead and have your "pound of flesh." Just don't complain to me when it comes back and bites you, as it ALWAYS does.

Deborah K

11-20-2009, 11:35 PM

It's not, primarily, for their benefit that those rights should be rigorously enforced. It's for YOURS. And mine. And any other individual's who may, at some point through no fault of their own, ru afoul of government at some level or other. But if you can't see that, there's no point in further discussion.

Go ahead and have your "pound of flesh." Just don't complain to me when it comes back and bites you, as it ALWAYS does.

If you think any body in the world is entitled to our Constitutional rights, then do you believe that we have the same rights as their citizens do? If so, then tell the Mexican gov't that I want to buy some coast land.

If you believe that, then you are what Obamarama calls: a global citizen.

skyorbit

11-20-2009, 11:37 PM

Well, Slutter. I happen to BE an AnCap.

I still support Rand Paul :)

Huey -- you're wrong.

There's a GALAXY of difference between Rand and even the best people currently in the US Senate.

Tracy

CCTelander

11-20-2009, 11:44 PM

If you think any body in the world is entitled to our Constitutional rights, then do you believe that we have the same rights as their citizens do? If so, then tell the Mexican gov't that I want to buy some coast land.

If you believe that, then you are what Obamarama calls: a global citizen.

ANYONE who is subject to any action by the government here in the US IS entitled to the full "protection" afforded by the constitution and the BoR. The courts have ruled so consistently for close to 200 years now. If they're subject to any kind of prosecution, the rights stand.

I'll ignore your argumentum ad absurdum and ad hominem and simply suggest that you either educate yourself on constitutional law, or simply refrain from advocating positions you don't fully understand.

rp08orbust

11-20-2009, 11:47 PM

What kinds of questions are these? I don't understand your argument. Civilian trials are for civilians. Military trials are for the military and military action, like acts of war or terror. Are you suggesting that military tribunals by their very nature are not fair?

Of course I am. They lack many of the features of civilian trials that exist for the purpose of protecting the innocent. Why don't you explain why military tribunals are just as fair *without* these extra features?

If those extra features are superfluous, then why don't we model civilian trials on military tribunals and save a ton of time and money?

This [letting suspects go when a fair trial is impossible] is absolutely insane thinking.

OK, tell me what the sane solution is when a fair trial for a suspect is impossible? Just hang 'em and let God sort them out?

Deborah K

11-20-2009, 11:51 PM

ANYONE who is subject to any action by the government here in the US IS entitled to the full "protection" afforded by the constitution and the BoR. The courts have ruled so consistently for close to 200 years now. If they're subject to any kind of prosecution, the rights stand.

I'll ignore your argumentum ad absurdum and ad hominem and simply suggest that you either educate yourself on constitutional law, or simply refrain from advocating positions you don't fully understand.

Just because my views differ from yours does not mean that I don't fully understand. I fully understand that they should be tried by a military tribunal for war crimes or acts of terrorism. They aren't illegal mexicans who killed someone while driving drunk. If that were the case, then you would be correct. Apples and oranges.

Deborah K

11-20-2009, 11:53 PM

Of course I am. They lack many of the features of civilian trials that exist for the purpose of protecting the innocent. Why don't you explain why military tribunals are just as fair *without* these extra features?

If those extra features are superfluous, then why don't we model civilian trials on military tribunals and save a ton of time and money?

OK, tell me what the sane solution is when a fair trial for a suspect is impossible? Just hang 'em and let God sort them out?

Please get out of the realm of philosophy and debate the reality?

rp08orbust

11-20-2009, 11:57 PM

Please get out of the realm of philosophy and debate the reality?

There are more polite ways of admitting that you have gotten in over your head.

I don't think this is mere philosophy to those who have been rotting in solitary confinement for eight years, at least *some* of whom are surely innocent of terrorism.

CCTelander

11-20-2009, 11:58 PM

Just because my views differ from yours does not mean that I don't fully understand. I fully understand that they should be tried by a military tribunal for war crimes or acts of terrorism. They aren't illegal mexicans who killed someone while driving drunk. If that were the case, then you would be correct. Apples and oranges.

Not according to the actual law. Go ask judge Nap. In any event, it's obvious that you don't care about the facts, so I'm done.

bolidew

11-20-2009, 11:59 PM

Every time the Mods move a meaningful discussion to "Off Topic", we ought to pause it and resume in a new thread in the right forum, with a URL to refer the continuance.

Let's keep the Mods busy ;)

Icymudpuppy

11-20-2009, 11:59 PM

Rand is rightly pushing for a declaration of war, because he knows that the constitution's 5th amendment only authorizes a military tribunal in time of WAR. Without a declaration of War, the accused is treated like any other criminal and is subject to protections granted in the 6th amendment.

Obama (amazingly) is actually obeying the constitution by insisting we follow the constitution's guidelines for trying an accused criminal in the district in which the crime was committed. Unfortunately, our last president did not afford the criminal a speedy trial, but Obama is making okay time since he's only been in office for 10 months. That is acceptably speedy for a case of mass murder.

This is a great opportunity to expose the cowardice of congress and the consequences of passing the buck on military action to the office of the President instead of making a declaration of war.

I don't like the way it's happening, but I believe Rand is making the right decisions on this one for both his campaign, and the constitution. Difficult waters indeed.

Deborah K

11-21-2009, 12:04 AM

Deborah K

11-21-2009, 12:07 AM

There are more polite ways of admitting that you have gotten in over your head.

I don't think this is mere philosophy to those who have been rotting in solitary confinement for eight years, at least *some* of whom are surely innocent of terrorism.

Some of whom are "surely" innocent??? You're positive of this? I guess the consensus is when someone doesn't agree with you then that means you are the brilliant one and they don't know what they are talking about. Whatever.

LibertyEagle

11-21-2009, 12:07 AM

Every time the Mods move a meaningful discussion to "Off Topic", we ought to pause it and resume in a new thread in the right forum, with a URL to refer the continuance.

The thread was moved to the Philosophy subforum.

Let's keep the Mods busy ;)
Let's not. :)

Icymudpuppy

11-21-2009, 12:09 AM

Isn't it enough that the accused have declared war on us?

No. We have to formally recognize a state of war for the capital crimes clause to go into effect.

Deborah K

11-21-2009, 12:10 AM

Not according to the actual law. Go ask judge Nap. In any event, it's obvious that you don't care about the facts, so I'm done.

You would be wrong. I care about the facts. I have a strong opinion about this and so far you and others have not convinced me that I am wrong in my belief that those who would declare a fatwa and commit acts of war or terror against us should be kept out of our civilian courts and tried by a military tribunal.

rp08orbust

11-21-2009, 12:12 AM

Some of whom are "surely" innocent???

Well, it's theoretically possible that all 300 or so of those detained at Guantanamo Bay are guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. However, you insist that we talk about "reality" and not "philosophy". So practically speaking, the probability that they are ALL guilty is zero.

Deborah K

11-21-2009, 12:13 AM

No. We have to formally recognize a state of war for the capital crimes clause to go into effect.

If that is what it takes for them to be tried by a military tribunal then so be it. My guess is it is troublesome to declare war against an idea, since we weren't attacked by a country. Creates a dilemma.

Deborah K

11-21-2009, 12:16 AM

Icymudpuppy

11-21-2009, 12:17 AM

If that is what it takes for them to be tried by a military tribunal then so be it. My guess is it is troublesome to declare war against an idea, since we weren't attacked by a country. Creates a dilemma.

You don't have to declare war on a country. You can declare war on an organization. We can declare war on Al-Quaida.

But we won't. It is too late. It should have been done in autumn 2001.

rp08orbust

11-21-2009, 12:24 AM

Well since the thread has been moved to the philosophy forum - have at it.

The probability that they are guilty is zero??? :confused:

Sorry, I left out a key word: The probability that ALL (EVERY ONE) of them is guilty is zero.

Deborah K

11-21-2009, 12:24 AM

You don't have to declare war on a country. You can declare war on an organization. We can declare war on Al-Quaida.

But we won't. It is too late. It should have been done in autumn 2001.

Yes, it should have been. I am solidly against the accused being tried in federal court. It will be a circus, people's safety will be at risk because of the loons that are roaming here free. People think a trial in NY will expose the gov'ts evil doings as if the gov't will put itself on trial. In Moussaoui's trial the judge wouldn't allow evidence to be made public. Besides, how does anyone think they will get an impartial jury of their peers?

Icymudpuppy

11-21-2009, 12:29 AM

Yes, it should have been. I am solidly against the accused being tried in federal court. It will be a circus, people's safety will be at risk because of the loons that are roaming here free. People think a trial in NY will expose the gov'ts evil doings as if the gov't will put itself on trial. In Moussaoui's trial the judge wouldn't allow evidence to be made public. Besides, how does anyone think they will get an impartial jury of their peers?

Yep. It'll be a Kangaroo court for sure. It'll be a constitutional Kangaroo court though.

The government will only be exposed if we speak out about why this trial is being held in New York.

Rand is making steps in the right direction with his call for a declaration of war. It is only a matter of time before he makes the connection between the declaration and military tribunals held in Gitmo, but he can't come out with it right now, or it'll ruin his chances of election. He has to wait until after this Trial is exposed for the circus it will surely be.

I can see how Rand is playing this. What worries me is how this course works to the benefit of Mr. Obama.

Icymudpuppy

11-21-2009, 12:32 AM

It will be a circus, people's safety will be at risk because of the loons that are roaming here free.

What makes you think anyone will be roaming around free? Even if they are acquitted, they won't be released in the streets of America. Acquittal will not result in legal residence. They'll be sent back to their home countries.

Deborah K

11-21-2009, 12:34 AM

What makes you think anyone will be roaming around free? Even if they are acquitted, they won't be released in the streets of America. Acquittal will not result in legal residence. They'll be sent back to their home countries.

I'm talking about loons who live here, like the one who went postal at Ft Hood. Something like this gives the loons ideas.

Edit: shouldn't have used the word "free" in that post.

Icymudpuppy

11-21-2009, 12:36 AM

I'm talking about loons who live here, like the one who went postal at Ft Hood. Something like this gives the loons ideas.

Now we're getting into the realm of pre-crime and thought-crime. Unless they actually do something they are free individuals just like you and I.

Danke

11-21-2009, 12:37 AM

Deborah K

11-21-2009, 12:38 AM

Yep. It'll be a Kangaroo court for sure. It'll be a constitutional Kangaroo court though.

The government will only be exposed if we speak out about why this trial is being held in New York.

Rand is making steps in the right direction with his call for a declaration of war. It is only a matter of time before he makes the connection between the declaration and military tribunals held in Gitmo, but he can't come out with it right now, or it'll ruin his chances of election. He has to wait until after this Trial is exposed for the circus it will surely be.

I can see how Rand is playing this. What worries me is how this course works to the benefit of Mr. Obama.

Interesting take.

Icymudpuppy

11-21-2009, 12:43 AM

Has the U.S. ever identified the structure of "Al-Quaida"? Organization, Leadership, Logistics, Funding, etc?

Yes. I've seen pretty detailed military reports on the subject. A lot of it is SECRET Classified, and I can't divulge any specifics. Bad mojo for me.

Deborah K

11-21-2009, 12:44 AM

Has the U.S. ever identified the structure of "Al-Quaida"? Organization, Leadership, Logistics, Funding, etc?

Google Michael Scheuer. He was the head of the bin Laden unit from 96-99. He's written a few really good books too.

Danke

11-21-2009, 12:45 AM

Yes. I've seen pretty detailed military reports on the subject. A lot of it is SECRET Classified, and I can't divulge any specifics. Bad mojo for me.

lol. "SECRET Classified" So there goes due process.

CCTelander

11-21-2009, 12:46 AM

You would be wrong. I care about the facts. I have a strong opinion about this and so far you and others have not convinced me that I am wrong in my belief that those who would declare a fatwa and commit acts of war or terror against us should be kept out of our civilian courts and tried by a military tribunal.

Well then, how much actual research have you done, since last advocating this position, into the actual law on the matter? My guess is none.

Yet you've been made aware of the fact that the actual law that applies guarantees them the "protection" in question. If you, in fact, have not yet done your own research on it, then you clearly don't care enough about the actual facts to do so before continuing to advocate a position that's in error.

You don't even have to take my word for it. Judge Nap has said the same thing, certainly a credible source.

Again, you've been made aware. Do you then think something like: "It's possible that I'm wrong on this. So, before I continue to advocate a position that might prove dangerous to my own rights and the rights of others, I'd better look into it and find out for sure."?

No, you don't. You instead continue to obdurately maintain your position. Even worse, you demand that others spend their valuable time and resources to "prove you wrong," rather than doing your own due diligence.

I'm sorry, but that pretty much leads me to the ineluctable conclusion that you don't really care about the facts. Not really.

Deborah K

11-21-2009, 12:50 AM

Now we're getting into the realm of pre-crime and thought-crime. Unless they actually do something they are free individuals just like you and I.

Only if people are brought in on suspicion of something without cause. I am merely theorizing based on recent events and the climate. Wanting a different venue for precautionary reasons doesn't exactly fit the mold of pre-crime or thought-crime if no one in particular is being accused of something.

Icymudpuppy

11-21-2009, 12:54 AM

No, you don't. You instead continue to obdurately maintain your position. Even worse, you demand that others spend their valuable time and resources to "prove you wrong," rather than doing your own due diligence.

CC, you'll catch more flies with honey.

Go back and read the last page. Deborah understands why military tribunals aren't legal without a declaration of war. She recognizes why the trial will be held in New York. She still doesn't like it, and she is entitled to that opinion.

She is also correct in that a trial held in New York will probably be less fair than a tribunal held in GITMO. Where will they find an unbiased Jury in NY?

Icymudpuppy

11-21-2009, 12:56 AM

Only if people are brought in on suspicion of something without cause. I am merely theorizing based on recent events and the climate. Wanting a different venue for precautionary reasons doesn't exactly fit the mold of pre-crime or thought-crime if no one in particular is being accused of something.

Okay, so to prevent some crazy, there will have to be significant security surrounding the trial. Maybe this is Obama's motive that I've been searching for.

A perfect opportunity to use his domestic security forces perhaps?

Maybe an opportunity to allow an event to happen so that people will clamor for him to employ domestic security forces...

CCTelander

11-21-2009, 01:01 AM

CC, you'll catch more flies with honey.

Go back and read the last page. Deborah understands why military tribunals aren't legal without a declaration of war. She recognizes why the trial will be held in New York. She still doesn't like it, and she is entitled to that opinion.

She is also correct in that a trial held in New York will probably be less fair than a tribunal held in GITMO. Where will they find an unbiased Jury in NY?

You're probably right. My bad.

They won't find an impartial jury anywhere, probably. But an open trial in US courts will definitely help reveal how truly malignant the whole "War on Terror" actually is, and maybe, just maybe it'll open a few eyes.

Deborah K

11-21-2009, 01:05 AM

Well then, how much actual research have you done, since last advocating this position, into the actual law on the matter? My guess is none.

Yet you've been made aware of the fact that the actual law that applies guarantees them the "protection" in question. If you, in fact, have not yet done your own research on it, then you clearly don't care enough about the actual facts to do so before continuing to advocate a position that's in error.

You don't even have to take my word for it. Judge Nap has said the same thing, certainly a credible source.

Again, you've been made aware. Do you then think something like: "It's possible that I'm wrong on this. So, before I continue to advocate a position that might prove dangerous to my own rights and the rights of others, I'd better look into it and find out for sure."?

No, you don't. You instead continue to obdurately maintain your position. Even worse, you demand that others spend their valuable time and resources to "prove you wrong," rather than doing your own due diligence.
I'm sorry, but that pretty much leads me to the ineluctable conclusion that you don't really care about the facts. Not really.

Wowie! I didn't know I had that much power! I demand it do I?

I happen to agree with Rand on this issue. And I stated this stance on another thread before this one was posted, and before I even knew what his stance was. I also stated that I didn't agree with Nap on this.

Your issue is that everyone on earth is entitled to America's Constitutional rights. I don't agree. And you haven't sufficiently proven to me why I should agree. And contrary to your accusations of me, I don't demand that you do so.

Since you have decided to degrade this debate (you threw the first punch), let's just call it quits.

Icymudpuppy

11-21-2009, 01:07 AM

lol. "SECRET Classified" So there goes due process.

Not sure I understand your comment.

SECRET is the second of three levels of Classifed documents.

1. CONFIDENTIAL: typically things like personal information, police reports, Technical manuals on military equipment like SINCGARS radios and other low level things to protect the privacy of service people and the security of day to day operations.

2. SECRET: Troop movements, Enemy Intelligence, and technical information about newer technology such as digital battlefield tracking systems.

3. TOP SECRET: High level intelligence, privileged equipment, and special projects.

Deborah K

11-21-2009, 01:08 AM

Okay, so to prevent some crazy, there will have to be significant security surrounding the trial. Maybe this is Obama's motive that I've been searching for.

A perfect opportunity to use his domestic security forces perhaps?

Maybe an opportunity to allow an event to happen so that people will clamor for him to employ domestic security forces...

OMG! You really think he'd do that?

CCTelander

11-21-2009, 01:13 AM

Well, it's theoretically possible that all 300 or so of those detained at Guantanamo Bay are guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. However, you insist that we talk about "reality" and not "philosophy". So practically speaking, the probability that they are ALL guilty is zero.

Here's some info on how many of them are actually guilty of anything at all:

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters, "If you think of the people down there [at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba], these are people, all of whom were captured on a battlefield. They're terrorists, trainers, bomb-makers, recruiters, financiers, [Osama bin Laden's] bodyguards, would-be suicide bombers, probably the 20th 9/11 hijacker."

Yet two recent reports, based on the Defense Department's own documentation, reach conclusions that are dramatically different than Rumsfeld's. And amid the millions of words journalists have written about Guantanamo Bay during the past few years, the mainstream press has largely ignored these new reports.

...

Compiled from declassified Defense Department evaluations of the more than 500 detainees at the Cuba facility, the report says just 8 percent are listed as fighters for a terrorist group, while 30 percent are considered members of a terrorist group and the remaining 60 percent were just "associated with" terrorists.

...

According to the report, 55 percent of the detainees are informally accused of committing a hostile act. But the Defense Department's descriptions of their actions range from a high-ranking Taliban member who tortured and killed Afghan natives to people who possessed rifles, used a guesthouse, or wore olive drab clothing.

...

The second report, written by Corine Hegland for the fiercely nonpartisan National Journal (NJ), was based on a review conducted by the magazine of files on 132 prisoners who have asked the courts for help, and a thorough reading of heavily censored transcripts from the Combatant Status Review Tribunals conducted in Guantanamo for 314 prisoners.

Its conclusion: Most of the "enemy combatants" held at Guantanamo – for four years now – are simply not "the worst of the worst" of the terrorist world:

"[S]ome, perhaps many, are guilty only of being foreigners in Afghanistan or Pakistan at the wrong time. And much of the evidence – even the classified evidence – gathered by the Defense Department against these men is flimsy, second-, third-, fourth- or 12th-hand. It's based largely on admissions by the detainees themselves or on coerced, or worse, interrogations of their fellow inmates, some of whom have been proved to be liars."

...

It added, "Much of the evidence against the detainees is weak. One prisoner at Guantanamo, for example, has made accusations against more than 60 of his fellow inmates; that's more than 10 percent of Guantanamo's entire prison population."

...

"By the fall of 2002, it was common knowledge around CIA circles that fewer than 10 percent of Guantanamo's prisoners were high-value terrorist operatives, according to Michael Scheuer who headed the agency's bin Laden unit through 1999 and resigned in 2004."

Even as the CIA was deciding that most of the prisoners at Guantanamo didn't have much to say, Pentagon officials were getting frustrated with how little the detainees were saying. So they ramped up the pressure and gave interrogators more license... (emphasis mine)

Read the whole article here:

http://www.antiwar.com/ips/fisher.php?articleid=8585

The actual reports are linked to from the article. I suggest reading them them too.

Icymudpuppy

11-21-2009, 01:15 AM

OMG! You really think he'd do that?

Bush and Cheney had the CIA intelligence to know that 9/11 was going to happen, yet they did nothing. I don't think the Democrats are any different than the Republicans.

"The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out
acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their
personal security is threatened".
-- Josef Stalin

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives
people harder than a fear of sudden death."
-- Adolf Hitler

Deborah K

11-21-2009, 01:18 AM

Bush and Cheney had the CIA intelligence to know that 9/11 was going to happen, yet they did nothing. I don't think the Democrats are any different than the Republicans.

I agree but that would be soooooo stupid!! He would be the first one to be blamed for it. I'm beginning to wonder if they realize that the accused won't be able to get an impartial jury of their peers in NY (as if they deserve it), and they're planning on that to happen.

CCTelander

11-21-2009, 01:24 AM

Here's some more info on guilt or innocence:

...

"There is no smoking gun," said John Chandler, a partner in the Atlanta office of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan. One of his Guantanamo clients, picked up in Pakistan, is designated an enemy combatant in part because he once traveled on a bus with wounded Taliban soldiers in Afghanistan. The prisoner denies it, saying it was only a public bus. But then there's the prisoner's Casio watch. According to the Defense Department files, his watch is similar to another Casio model that has a circuit board that Al Qaeda has used for making bombs. The United States is using the Qaeda-favored Casio wristwatch as evidence against at least nine other detainees. But the offending model is sold in sidewalk stands around the world and is worn by one National Journal reporter. The primary difference between Chandler's client's watch and the Casio in question is that the detainee's model hasn't been manufactured for years, according to the U.S. military officer who was his personal representative at the tribunal.

...

Read the rest here:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0203nj4.htm

Icymudpuppy

11-21-2009, 01:27 AM

I agree but that would be soooooo stupid!! He would be the first one to be blamed for it. I'm beginning to wonder if they realize that the accused won't be able to get an impartial jury of their peers in NY (as if they deserve it), and they're planning on that to happen.

The sheep will be too busy clamoring for more and stricter security laws to worry about who's fault it was. By the time they start to question, it will be too late, just like it was for Bush.

Iran or Pakistan will be blamed this time.

Deborah K

11-21-2009, 01:30 AM

As to Military Tribunals:

Three cases had been commenced in the new system, as of June 13, 2007. One detainee, David Matthew Hicks plea bargained and was sent to Australia to serve a nine-month sentence.[5] Two cases were dismissed without prejudice because the tribunal believed that the men charged had not been properly determined to be persons within the commission's jurisdiction on June 4, 2007, and the military prosecutors asked the commission to reconsider that decision on June 8, 2007. [6] One of the dismissed cases involved Omar Ahmed Khadr, who was captured at age 15 in Afghanistan after having allegedly killed a U.S. soldier with a grenade. The other dismissed case involved Salim Ahmed Hamdan who is alleged to have been Osama bin Laden's driver and is the lead plaintiff in a key series of cases challenging the military commission system. The system is in limbo until the jurisdictional issues addressed in the early cases are resolved.

I think it is a weak argument to claim that military tribunals for the accused will be unfair based on the above.

Deborah K

11-21-2009, 01:32 AM

The sheep will be too busy clamoring for more and stricter security laws to worry about who's fault it was. By the time they start to question, it will be too late, just like it was for Bush.

Iran or Pakistan will be blamed this time.

I dunnooo....almost half of this country can't stand him....

Deborah K

11-21-2009, 01:36 AM

Icymudpuppy

11-21-2009, 01:38 AM

Such was the case for Bush in mid 2001. After 9/11/2001, his showing in the polls climbed to something like 80% even as he was authoring the most intrusive anti-liberty legislation in history.

Icymudpuppy

11-21-2009, 01:46 AM

Icy have you seen this? What is your opinion of it?

YouTube - Lindsey Graham DESTROYS Obama's Leftist Clown and Black Panther Supporter Eric Holder (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg3ZitCAbUE&feature=related)

Lindsey Graham asked at the beginning about "Enemy Combatants".

Only during the Bush administration has there been any military tribunals at all since WWII.

Legally, you must have a declaration of War to have an Enemy Combatant.

We all agree, I think, that Bush stepped all over the constitution, and made shit up as he went along. Calling people picked up during his false "War on Terrorism" Enemy combatants doesn't make his military tribunals any more constitutionally valid. Eric Holder is an idiot whose only real purpose is to push the Anti-gun agenda. I could have handled that line of questioning better than he did.

As for if Osama Bin Laden was picked up, the answer is that since according to the FBI website the only thing OSB is wanted for is the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, then his criminal trial should be held in Lebanon. Unless we make a declaration of war against his Al-Quaida organization of which he is the recognized leader, then we could hold a military tribunal for war crimes anywhere we damn well please. Geneva or Nuremburg would be good neutral locations with a fine history of such cases.

Deborah K

11-21-2009, 01:56 AM

Lindsey Graham asked at the beginning about "Enemy Combatants".

Only during the Bush administration has there been any military tribunals at all since WWII.

Legally, you must have a declaration of War to have an Enemy Combatant.

We all agree, I think, that Bush stepped all over the constitution, and made shit up as he went along. Calling people picked up during his false "War on Terrorism" Enemy combatants doesn't make his military tribunals any more constitutionally valid. Eric Holder is an idiot whose only real purpose is to push the Anti-gun agenda. I could have handled that line of questioning better than he did.

As for if Osama Bin Laden was picked up, the answer is that since according to the FBI website the only thing OSB is wanted for is the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, then his criminal trial should be held in Lebanon. Unless we make a declaration of war against his Al-Quaida organization of which he is the recognized leader, then we could hold a military tribunal for war crimes anywhere we damn well please. Geneva or Nuremburg would be good neutral locations with a fine history of such cases.

Agreed. What did you think about what Graham said at the end with regard to a 'perversion of the justice system' - i.e. terrorists who go after the military get a tribunal trial and terrorists who go after civilians get a federal trial...? Seems inconsistent.

Icymudpuppy

11-21-2009, 02:12 AM

Agreed. What did you think about what Graham said at the end with regard to a 'perversion of the justice system' - i.e. terrorists who go after the military get a tribunal trial and terrorists who go after civilians get a federal trial...? Seems inconsistent.

He has a point. It is inconsistent. But this is also the first time that the current administration has gotten involved in the process. So the inconsistencies are really just inconsistencies between Bush and Obama, which are to be expected.

It could also be because Obama's administration is using this situation to further their authoritarian agenda in the methods described above.

I can only speculate about the motives here.

Personally, for me, the solutions here are clearly defined.

Option 1: Declare war with a clear end-state objective, and have military tribunals for accused war criminals, and hold others as POWs in accordance with Geneva convention rules until their leadership surrenders and the war they fought in is over, and then release them Just as we released German POWs when Himmler surrendered, and later released Japanese POWs when Hirohito Surrendered. Obviously some GITMO prisoners would be released already even with a declation of war if this were the case.

Option 2: Provide criminal trials for accused terrorists and release any suspects back to their homes for which you have no evidence admissible in a court of law as would be done with any criminal arrested in the US for which there is insufficient evidence for an arraignment.

We have to also recognize that an objective with a declaration of war is usually to force the opposing leadership to admit defeat and surrender. Since Al-Quaida has effectively been driven out of Afghanistan, we would have no more business there, and could leave. Nation-building has nothing to do with a declaration of war. If we want to extend our declaration of war to include the Taliban, then we could remain until the Taliban surrenders. Pakistan would be the next country to be worked on as harboring the leadership of the terrorist organization. They either stand aside while we scour the mountains of their NW borders, or they become complicit as an ally of Al-quaeda. Meanwhile, Afghanistan can reestablish without our monetary support. Next time maybe they'll be wise enough not to support a multi-national terrorist organization.

Brian4Liberty

11-21-2009, 04:10 PM

Lindsey Graham DESTROYS Obama's Leftist Clown and Black Panther Supporter Eric Holder

I agree with Graham in that it is not practical to use civilian police rules in a combat zone (search warrants, for example). And soldiers are not police officers or detectives.

At the same time, Graham openly admits that his only reason for not giving POWs any "rights" is so that he can torture them. Perhaps I am mistaken, but doesn't the Geneva Convention prohibit torture? Name, rank, serial number? Oh yeah, Graham and his handlers throw inconvenient laws and treaties out the window whenever they feel like it.

Flash

11-21-2009, 04:27 PM

Rand Paul's job in the Senate will be to represent the people of Kentucky not the Libertarian Party platform.

tremendoustie

11-21-2009, 06:50 PM

Rand Paul's job in the Senate will be to represent the people of Kentucky not the Libertarian Party platform.

His job would be to do the right thing. No one can represent two people with differing views, let alone a state full of them.

BuddyRey

11-21-2009, 07:04 PM

Smooth move, Rand. Wait 'til your father finds out about this!

anaconda

11-21-2009, 11:45 PM

They can have their God given rights in a tribunal just as well.

All of this talk about whether they should be tried as enemy combatants or in civil court is completely missing the point and falling into the tired old left-right paradigm nonsense. I am surprised at the discourse on this thread. The U.S. paid the northern alliance $5K per head for "any terrorists captured." Give me a break. So these people round up a bunch of goat herders, male prostitutes, and various persons they have a grudge against, and we take the lot of them, lock them up in Cuba for some kind of propaganda show, and then begin a national debate about where to try them? This is beyond silly. The only trials should be for the persons representing the U.S. that have participated in this fraud and pathetic charade in the name of our country. CIA, military officers, Rumsfeld, Bush, et al. The outrage should be only that we did this to these innocent Afghannis in the first place.

Nathan Hale

11-22-2009, 12:56 AM

But how many more of these minor concessions to the GOP establishment are to come before he "wins"?

Better a good plan today than a better plan tomorrow.

Nathan Hale

11-22-2009, 12:59 AM

I'd like to retract my own concession to Nathan Hale that this is a "minor" issue.

You either believe in natural law/God-given rights (whatever you want to call it), or you don't. Claiming that certain people are more "deserving" of due process and legal defense according to their citizenship status implies that such rights are government-given. If that is Rand's philosophy, then we can expect more of these concessions to follow.

That's not his argument. He's arguing that this is a situation governed by the rules of war. He's made no bones about the fact that he believes we should be at war with Al Qaeda, so it's not about a belief on his part that some people are more deserving of rights than others.

jmdrake

11-22-2009, 01:12 AM

All of this talk about whether they should be tried as enemy combatants or in civil court is completely missing the point and falling into the tired old left-right paradigm nonsense. I am surprised at the discourse on this thread. The U.S. paid the northern alliance $5K per head for "any terrorists captured." Give me a break. So these people round up a bunch of goat herders, male prostitutes, and various persons they have a grudge against, and we take the lot of them, lock them up in Cuba for some kind of propaganda show, and then begin a national debate about where to try them? This is beyond silly. The only trials should be for the persons representing the U.S. that have participated in this fraud and pathetic charade in the name of our country. CIA, military officers, Rumsfeld, Bush, et al. The outrage should be only that we did this to these innocent Afghannis in the first place.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed is not some goat herder arrested in Afghanistan. For one thing he was arrested in Pakistan. For another there is a paper trail linking him to Mohammed Atta. Now maybe you don't believe the official 9/11 story. (I certainly don't). But if you do accept it (Ron and Rand officially do) then there is the possibility that KSM is actually guilty. Rand already said that people that you haven't and/or can't charge with anything should be released. That would be your goatherders picked up for a bounty.

anaconda

11-22-2009, 04:20 PM

Khalid Sheik Mohammed is not some goat herder arrested in Afghanistan. For one thing he was arrested in Pakistan. For another there is a paper trail linking him to Mohammed Atta. Now maybe you don't believe the official 9/11 story. (I certainly don't). But if you do accept it (Ron and Rand officially do) then there is the possibility that KSM is actually guilty. Rand already said that people that you haven't and/or can't charge with anything should be released. That would be your goatherders picked up for a bounty.

Well spoken, JMDrake. But, the unlawful kidnapping of innocents and their draconian detention for eight years is a monstrous crime. The fact that no one in the political leadership is screaming loud and clear about this is telling and disturbing. What justice will the released goatherders have for being robbed of eight years of their lives and the abuse suffered therein? And, will those who committed these ill deeds in the name of our country bear any responsibility whatsoever?

http://www.dictatorshipwatch.com/2007/06/02/khalid-sheikh-mohammed-operation-911-and-isi.html

Flash

11-22-2009, 06:05 PM

His job would be to do the right thing. No one can represent two people with differing views, let alone a state full of them.

The people of Kentucky aren't Libertarians. Rand Paul is the closest thing to a Libertarian that the people of Kentucky will ever elect, and this is a win for our cause.

RevolutionSD

11-22-2009, 06:18 PM

The people of Kentucky aren't Libertarians. Rand Paul is the closest thing to a Libertarian that the people of Kentucky will ever elect, and this is a win for our cause.

Which people?
Some are libertarians, some are not.

Collectivizing people also will not bring us liberty. :(

LibertyEagle

11-22-2009, 06:21 PM

Well spoken, JMDrake. But, the unlawful kidnapping of innocents and their draconian detention for eight years is a monstrous crime. The fact that no one in the political leadership is screaming loud and clear about this is telling and disturbing. What justice will the released goatherders have for being robbed of eight years of their lives and the abuse suffered therein? And, will those who committed these ill deeds in the name of our country bear any responsibility whatsoever?

http://www.dictatorshipwatch.com/2007/06/02/khalid-sheikh-mohammed-operation-911-and-isi.html

Rand cannot do anything about it until he gets elected. That's the fact.

Baptist

11-23-2009, 07:49 AM

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.

I take a break from following the news and NWO crap for a week and come back to find this! This is very, very disappointing. I just traveled to Kentucky a few weeks ago to campaign for Rand and rally the family that I have there. This release by Rand makes me rethink everything.

How can you claim to believe that people have inalienable rights, and then go on say that other people don't?

Logic fail, does not compute.

Exactly! I held Rand's position on this issue until I saw a tea party video of Pastor A. out in Arizona giving a speech. He made the point that you did and converted me over. Did I like it? No. But you cannot argue with it once you hear it. If we have natural rights, the feds can't pick and choose who gets them.

Major fail Rand.