Apparently Rand Paul does have a more conservative stance on the issue then his father does. Obviously, all those claims by the Grayson camp of Paul being a libertarian trying to hijack the Republican Party are unfounded.
Rand later released the following press release. Rand Paul: Try, Convict and Lock Up Terrorists In Guantanamo
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 have to admit, personally I'm a bit disappointed by this statement. To me, until they've had a fair trial determining that they are indeed terrorists, we don't KNOW that they're terrorist undeserving of Constitutional Protections. Watch Judge Andrew Napolitano go toe to toe with Bill O'Riley over this issue.
On the other hand, I do agree with Rand Paul that we shouldn't release innocent people in Guantanamo Bay into the United States. I mean, if they didn't hate us before, they do now. Rand's position on the issue is much more nuanced then the typical Republican. Watch the following exchange starting at :40 for example.
Bottom line, this is something Rand Paul's thought a lot about.
I know we all hate the lessor of two evils argument. But seriously. If Rand is only 1% evil, and Grayson is 85% evil, forgive me if I'm going to root for and support Rand Paul.
He's light-years more non-interventionist and anti-police state as his Republican opponent. He wants to bring the troops home from Iraq. He's opposed to the Patriot Act. He's opposed to the NSA illegal spying. He's a freaking DOVE compared to his opponent.
And he's certainly miles more fiscally conservative then his opponent -- who's headed to go accept more bribes (I mean donations) at another Bailout Ball.
This is a very different race from typical ones where both candidates are about the same amount evil. Rand Paul really is a real choice.
And the reality is Guantanamo IS messy precisely because there was no formal declaration of war to begin with, which Rand Paul would have forced.
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. Jmdrake over at Rand Paul Forums posted the following comment.
The confusion surrounding this all goes back to the fact that we haven't had a formal declaration of war. So there's been this ongoing question of what status these prisoners have. Before going any further president Obama should go back to congress and request a formal declaration of war that lays out a clear plan of what our objectives are and what "victory" looks like. Until then anything done to the detainees is just political posturing. Also special consideration needs to be given the Oighurs. The military long ago deemed they weren't terrorists, and even the worst claims against them were not that they hated America but that they opposed communism in China. I can't imagine president Reagan keeping such men locked up indefinitely.
We need to remember that even IF there was a certain military action that Rand Paul supported, Rand would actually force a declarations of war. Because of this Rand would still filibuster the military conflicts that lead to these kinds of messes. He would refuse to vote for any action with-out first declaring war, which means he's be opposing and preventing ALL current military action as it's processed currently -- even if he DID support a particular war. The mess of Guantanamo wouldn't have happened if we'd had a Rand Paul in the senate to force formal declaration at the time. (And yes. ONE Senator does have a lot more clout then one House Rep. Especially in an evenly divided Congress, I have no doubt a principled Senator could force the issue.)
So when Rand Paul wins the US Senate race, he will be HANDS DOWN the most Small Government, non-interventionist individual in the US Senate.
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 Senate currently. I've still got a chance to get a true Constitutional Conservative in the US Senate. And I'm going to work to get it.
PS, I'll post more when I get more footage and details on the rest of the
Clinton backer turned GOPer Grayson calling Rand Paul "Flip flopper"
Clarifying Rand's Position on Guantanamo
More of the 11/19 Rand Paul/Trey Grayson debate.
Divide and conquer: It's What The Establishment Wants
Carol Paul, Ron Paul's Wife Weighs in.