People on this forum actually support this guy?

[jabf2006]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRlGXuGHfrc

If he can be sold on the notion of Guantanamo staying open...what else will he sell out?

[Wren]

They'll make the excuse that Rand said the same thing when he ran for senate. The difference is Gary is running for president against Ron in the same race, but to say things like this is indication that he trying to perceive himself as 'tougher' than Ron to the average republican primary voter. Statements like these indicate that he's in this race to win or attempting to build name recognition, so he's to be considered direct opposition, not an ally unless there is actual proof he is one at this point.

[jabf2006]

If he wants to appear tougher, he should stop acting like a pussy and hiding behind "prominent libertarians". He stumbled his whole way through attempting to act tough.

RP's Texas straight-talk comes off far stronger.

[BamaFanNKy]

“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.”

So, I guess you two will never support Dr. Paul when he runs for President.

[Wren]

@BamaFan you mean Rand? No, I wouldn't support him for president if he ran on that position. Ron would never say such a thing. There might be a few actual suspects in there, but the majority of them are people that our government knew were either low risk or innocent civilians that opposed the illegal invasion.

[BamaFanNKy]

@BamaFan you mean Rand? No, I wouldn't support him for president if he ran on that position. Ron would never say such a thing. There might be a few actual suspects in there, but the majority of them are people that our government knew were either low risk or innocent civilians that opposed the illegal invasion.

Actually, both Gary and Rand Paul have a good position, IMHO. I think Ron's off on this position.

[jabf2006]

If Rand runs on this position, I would not support him for President.

[BamaFanNKy]

If Rand runs on this position, I would not support him for President.

No one is "running on this." Most I've read they all support having trials. My only problem with Ron's view, you can't force a state to take this trial in their state. Hell, even NYC bitched about having it there.

[specsaregood]

Actually, both Gary and Rand Paul have a good position, IMHO. I think Ron's off on this position.

I'm of split position here. I support Rand's position of military tribunals, but want to close guantanamo.
But did Rand actually say to keep guantanamo open? IIRC, he said keep terrorists off our soil, but I could be mistaken as it isn't a huge issue with me as long as they get a trial of some sort. Leaving them in a gulag indefinitely is the worst possible position and I i don't think any of them support that.

[BamaFanNKy]

I'm of split position here. I support Rand's position of military tribunals, but want to close guantanamo.
But did Rand actually say to keep guantanamo open? IIRC, he said keep terrorists off our soil, but I could be mistaken as it isn't a huge issue with me as long as they get a trial of some sort. Leaving them in a gulag is the worst possible position and I i don't think any of them support that.

I've heard both Rand and Gary say to do the trials but, if they are guilty they stay in GITMO., no?

[specsaregood]

I've heard both Rand and Gary say to do the trials but, if they are guilty they stay in GITMO., no?

I wouldn't think so; but who knows. There are plenty of military prisons, yes? I thought Gitmo was meant to be a temporary detention center. They aren't doing any rehabilitation there are they?

[BamaFanNKy]

I wouldn't think so; but who knows. There are plenty of military prisons, yes? I thought Gitmo was meant to be a temporary detention center. They aren't doing any rehabilitation there are they?

We do have some foreign based prisons. I just think Gitmo is more symbolism.

[speciallyblend]

They'll make the excuse that Rand said the same thing when he ran for senate. The difference is Gary is running for president against Ron in the same race, but to say things like this is indication that he trying to perceive himself as 'tougher' than Ron to the average republican primary voter. Statements like these indicate that he's in this race to win or attempting to build name recognition, so he's to be considered direct opposition, not an ally unless there is actual proof he is one at this point.

i agree,notice my sig, and i have to say he basically lost my support over foreign policy as a 2nd option! That pretty much leaves the gop with one candidate left in my eyes Ron Paul!!! If the gop cannot nominate Ron Paul? That might leave me with a 3rd party vote! If Gary was to be mccained in like mccain was last time. I would be like wtf? The only way the gop could win without Ron Paul on the ticket is if Jesus won the gop nomination and if he didn't pick Ron paul as the vp i might not vote for him either!! I might have to put that on my sig;)

[specsaregood]

We do have some foreign based prisons. I just think Gitmo is more symbolism.

So have you specifically heard Rand say he wants to keep GITMO open?

[BamaFanNKy]

So have you specifically heard Rand say he wants to keep GITMO open?

No. I haven't heard either way. Also, as I said elsewhere. I'd rather the Chinese Muslim Wiegers stay in Gitmo than pay for their Island housing.

[specsaregood]

//

[BamaFanNKy]

Then why would you say this:


Since you admit to never hearing Rand say he would not close Gitmo?

Because his stance is that he would have all of them do a military trial. He never states what he would do with the convicted prisoners. Obvious move is they would remain in Gitmo thus, not closing it.

[BamaFanNKy]

"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."

[specsaregood]

Because his stance is that he would have all of them do a military trial. He never states what he would do with the convicted prisoners. Obvious move is they would remain in Gitmo thus, not closing it.

But you are assuming on Rand, vs. confirmation with GJ. So until Rand says it, then there would be no reason to drop support for him because of that specific issue. :) Like I said, I would assume that if convicted the would go to a longterm military prison.

[erowe1]

If he can be sold on the notion of Guantanamo staying open...what else will he sell out?

I support RP over GJ. But if it turns out that RP is not in the race and GJ is when my state has its primary, I'll probably support him. And if RP drops out and GJ actually has a shot at winning, I'll probably donate to him too. There are definitely a handful of gripes I have about GJ. But neither this nor any of the others are deal breakers for me. I have much more serious gripes about every single other GOP candidate that probably would be deal breakers.

I also don't want to try to apply some kind of emotional pressure to those who do support GJ or who are undecided between the two to make each side feel like it would be treacherous to go over to the other. The time will probably come when only one of the two will still be standing, and when that time comes we don't want a situation where we've made them and their supporters enemies of each other. An endorsement from someone who was a fellow candidate can be a very nice boon to whichever one gets it.

[jmdrake]

I'm of split position here. I support Rand's position of military tribunals, but want to close guantanamo.
But did Rand actually say to keep guantanamo open? IIRC, he said keep terrorists off our soil, but I could be mistaken as it isn't a huge issue with me as long as they get a trial of some sort. Leaving them in a gulag indefinitely is the worst possible position and I i don't think any of them support that.

I'm curious. Why would you want to close Gitmo but support keep military tribunals? I could care less where someone's kept, I only care how they are treated.

Anyway, here's the play by play on Rand's position on Gitmo and MTC.

At a rally in Padukah KY he was asked about the prisoners at Gitmo and he said that's a tough question that he hadn't thought a lot about, but if we aren't going to try them and if we can't try them then we should send them back to Afghanistan because it would take them a while to get back over here.

His website initially said that he was committed to closing Guantanamo Bay. Rand apparently was unaware of this. Trey Greyson started saying that Rand had promised to close Gitmo and Rand said Trey was lying and Trey said "Look at his website". Rand disavowed what was on his website, the site was changed and that staffer eventually resigned. (Not sure if it was related to this gaff or not).

Rand and Ron had a joint interview. They were both asked about Gitmo and military commissions. Ron say close Gitmo and no MTC. Rand said he'd leave Gitmo open until we decided what to do with the prisoners. He also said that he wanted the detainees tried in a military court. He pointed out that our soldiers if they do something wrong are tried in military court. He pointed out that military court doesn't have all the same protections as civilian court and he was worried that if KSM was tried in civilian court a judge might say "You didn't do everything right, you tortured him" that the confession would be thrown out and "that would be a problem". He also said that if you pick someone up in the battle field you don't have a microphone from a helicopter reading someone their Miranda rights. What Rand got wrong here is that military tribunals are more likely to reject a tortured confession than are civilian courts. In military court you can't "confess" to a capital crime for fear that it may be coerced. The UCMJ specifically says coerced testimony cannot be admitted. So why did Rand make this "mistake"? It could be that he didn't know. Or it could be that he was being slick and making a mockery of the "difference" between his dad and himself on the issue. The bottom line is, if you want KSM to pay for 9/11 he has a better chance of being convicted in civilian than in military court. But most teocons don't realize that.

Oh, and in that same interview Rand fully endorsed Ron's position on "blowback" (unlike Gary Johnson) and he went on to talk about how we created Afghan jihadism to fight the Soviet Union. This interview used to hack me off, but now I get it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xESKwpeMfsw

[TheTyke]

That "quote" of Rand's was written and published within minutes to respond to an attack... LIVE in the middle of an event. The wording is terrible, presumes guilt, and I don't think Rand would ever talk like that. It's his responsibility for approving, but we have to understand the circumstances which originated it... they say never to respond with undue haste in campaigns, and I think that's a prime example.

That being said, if they weren't terrorists when we imprisoned them, after years at GITMO, they probably are now... so I can sympathize with those who don't want them brought to their state/town, even if I'm not entirely comfortable with military tribunals...

Edit: To add on and clarify Jmdrake's comment - The draft Rand Paul website had blogs and assumed his positions on things, including a snippet on closing GITMO, and his campaign eventually took over the website. Grayson printed quotes from the website, published before Rand actually had any connection with the website. It had nothing to do with the staffer departures, and also Rand insisted people there should be at least TRIED - a veiled way of opposing indefinite detention ala Obama/Bush.

[specsaregood]

I'm curious. Why would you want to close Gitmo but support keep military tribunals? I could care less where someone's kept, I only care how they are treated.

I would close GITMO because of image reasons and how it came to be and has been used. Closing it would represent change, it is a GULAG where people have been detained indefinitely. It needs to go eventually.

As to why I would keep the military tribunals? It ties into this:


The bottom line is, if you want KSM to pay for 9/11 he has a better chance of being convicted in civilian than in military court

I've said it before, I think the detainees have a better chance of getting a fair trial with a jury full of military professionals. Hopefully some that have been in war and could imagine themselves on the other side. I think they might have a better chance of telling the difference between some goat herder defending his home or that got caught up at the wrong place/wrong time versus a determined terrorist. I envision a civilian court jury with freepers/brainwashed public and wouldn't want that.



Rand said he'd leave Gitmo open until we decided what to do with the prisoners. He also said that he wanted the detainees tried in a military court.
That seems to imply to me that he would want to have it closed eventually and would not support keeping it open indefinitely.

[doodle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRlGXuGHfrc

If he can be sold on the notion of Guantanamo staying open...what else will he sell out?

This guy is toast... basic human liberties/rights do not apply to people of different nations and only to citizens of certain country/countries?

What a dumb arrogant guy.

[erowe1]

basic human liberties/rights do not apply to people of different nations and only to citizens of certain country/countries?


What basic human rights do you mean?

[doodle]

What basic human rights do you mean?

Right to be not tortured/imprisoned indefinitely without a fair trial. Many innocent pwople were sent to gitmo in the fog of ignorance, malice, revenge etc.

[erowe1]

Right to be not tortured/imprisoned indefinitely without a fair trial.

What part of what GJ says indicates that he thinks those basic rights don't apply to some people?


Many innocent pwople were sent to gitmo in the fog of ignorance, malice, revenge etc.

Yeah, but the decisions of the next president will be about what to do now that those things already happened. I don't think GJ is necessarily saying he would have supported the policies that led to it in the first place.

[doodle]

What part of what GJ says indicates that he thinks those basic rights don't apply to some people?



Yeah, but the decisions of the next president will be about what to do now that those things already happened. I don't think GJ is necessarily saying he would have supported the policies that led to it in the first place.

He was explicitly asked about indefinite detentions outside rule of law, his answer & terminology he used indicate that this guy may not believe in equal human rights for all people. He sounds worse than Obams and a closet neocon at least on this issue.

Where does he stand on US support for foreign oppressors, foreign aid to Israel that enables occupation of Palestinians, enhanced gropings of American girls, kids, women and men by Obama agencies, on Obama's other executive orders that seem to authorize assassination of US citizens without a trial?

I really don't know much about his stances on key US liberties, foreign spending, torture other than on open herion cilinics. Maybe he is not a closet neocon like Obama but so far he does not comes acroos as someome how believe in liberties for all people.

[brandon]

Seriously. I wonder who the prominent libertarians are? Bob Barr and W.A.R?

[specialkornflake]

I was first drawn strongly to Ron Paul because of his fiscally-conservative credentials. I quickly conformed to adopt all of his same positions. Since the campaign I've discovered anarcho-capitalism as a more accurate set of positions. Clearly Ron Paul doesn't share these beliefs, but when he speaks he defaults to speaking from a position of Liberty. When Rand Paul speaks it appears to me as if he defaults to a position of conservatism or a form of political correctness. I haven't heard Gary Johnson speak much but clearly from that video he doesn't default to a position of Liberty. As an anarcho-capitalist I have little interest in changing the system through political action because it's ineffective. So, I can support Ron Paul because I know he will represent the position of Liberty without getting led much astray by politics.

[Dreamofunity]

Seriously. I wonder who the prominent libertarians are? Bob Barr and W.A.R?

lol +rep