A personal blog dedicated to supporting and reporting on Rand Paul's US Senate Campaign. And electing a true, honest, small government, Constitutional Conservative to the US Senate from Kentucky.
This is what the establishment wants. Divide and conquer. Please don't let them succeed. Personally I don't agree with Rand on this particular issue, but he's still miles more free market, and non-interventionist then anybody else currently in the US Senate.
Trey Grayson attacked Rand on the issue because he knew it would be divisive. Trey new Paul either had to say one thing, and make the people of Kentucky very unhappy, or say another thing and cause problems in much of his national base.
Please read the two articles I've put together. This is definitely a very well orchestrated event by the Trey Grayson camp.
The problem then, seems to be the lack of any official declaration of war, like I've blogged about before. Had Rand been in the US Senate at the time, he would have forced an official declaration and there wouldn't be any question about whether or not these are prisoners of war and what their rights are vs regular citizens or "enemy combatants" (which seems to mean whatever Bush wanted it to mean).
But the fact is the Afghanistan war wasn't done properly and constitutionally, and now we have to figure out the best way to unscramble an omelet. I will state for the record that I disagree with Rand on the issue, but I do think it's possible for libertarians and anti-war people to disagree on the best way to unscramble the evils of the state. Murray Rothbard and Frederick Hayek disagreed on the best way to unscramble the central bank, but they were both classified as solid Libertarians. read the rest
To summarize, I think that infighting among activists w/Rand Paul is meaningless. He believes in free minds and markets. He would be a clear distinct voice for capitalism and freedom. To me it is nearly meaningless if he wishes to try terrorists here or there, anywhere. That is not the issue that I want him in the Senate to tackle.
There's a lot of angles to this. We need a filibustering, small government Constitutionalist in the Senate. Rand's the only viable candidate we've got. Please consider pledging to our Tea Party Moneybomb this December 16th.
From the media reports, and the liberty blogs you'd think the only thing Rand Paul talked about was Guantanamo. It wasn't. Apparently it was actually a pretty successful night for Rand Paul. I don't have video of the entire night, but here's footage of a fairly bold move on Rand's part. If Rand keeps working hard like this, he'll be a US Senator.
W. E. Messamore who writes for The Humble Libertarian has some good comments about the recent Guantanamo discussion regarding the Rand Paul race at The Daily Paul. From Rand's press release he quotes:
He wrote to clarify some of Rand's position, and I'm posting the text of his clarification below with some of my own emphasis on certain parts:
The orginal post did not say that Rand Paul wanted to try the terrorists in the US but the Grayson campaign falsely asserted that it did. The question of closing down GITMO is a separate question.
Rand Paul feels that more important than the location of the prison is whether or not we should be detaining anyone, anywhere without a judicial hearing.
Rand Paul remains committed to his opposition to fighting "undeclared" wars. Rand Paul remains committed to the belief that we should not torture prisoners of war. Rand Paul remains committed to his belief that prisoners deserve trials and disposition not indefinite detention.
This current controversy, though, stems from whether or not prisoners of war should be treated identically to US Citizens. Should we read Miranda rights to prisoners captured on the battlefield? Should we release KSM because he was tortured? There are reports that a great number of detainees at GITMO were detained not on the battlefield but were turned in by competitors for their positions. The US should not detain anyone indefinitely anywhere whether in the US or otherwise.
While military tribunals may appear to some to be unjust, we currently try our own GI's in military court when they are accused of crimes such as rape and murder. Military court provides legal representation for the accused.
Rand Paul is opposed to the policy of scooping up people from around the globe and holding them in indefinite detention. Rand Paul believes that most of the detainees could have been tried, convicted, and or released long ago. Those whom the military has deemed untriable, like the Uighurs, should be deported to where they were captured not relocated in the South Pacific. Detainees who return to the battlefield and are captured should be imprisoned in the country in which they are captured.
Messamore believes there are 2 main points coming out of this clarification.
1. Rand Paul unequivocally opposes indefinite detention.
2. Military tribunals are good enough for our troops, so they're good enough for theirs.
The problem then, seems to be the lack of any official declaration of war, like I've blogged about before. Had Rand been in the US Senate at the time, he would have forced an official declaration and there wouldn't be any question about whether or not these are prisoners of war and what their rights are vs regular citizens or "enemy combatants" (which seems to mean whatever Bush wanted it to mean).
But the fact is the Afghanistan war wasn't done properly and constitutionally, and now we have to figure out the best way to unscramble an omelet. I will state for the record that I disagree with Rand on the issue, but I do think it's possible for libertarians and anti-war people to disagree on the best way to unscramble the evils of the state. Murray Rothbard and Frederick Hayek disagreed on the best way to unscramble the central bank, but they were both classified as solid Libertarians.
Grey Grayson just released a press release regarding the recent debate calling Rand Paul a flip flopper. Other then the fact that Rand Paul makes pancakes to raise money for his charity though, Grayson doesn't have a whole lot to go on.
www.treygrayson.com/news/post/rand-paul-vs.-himself
This isn't a live link because I don't want to increase his link popularity.
First of all, I'm flattered that Grayson used my idea. But I find it rather humorous that Grayson, who's entire campaign has been one big flip/flop (I'm not the establishment candidate./I AM the establishment candidate.) is now attacking Rand for it.
But the attack isn't even really true.
For instance one of the lines Greyson quotes in attacking Rand is,
I think they should mostly be sent back to their country of origin or to tell you the truth I'd drop them back off into battle ... you're unclear, drop 'em off back into Afghanistan. It'd take them a while to get back over here. - YouTube video of Rand Paul speaking in Paducah, KY, 5/8/09.
Let's watch that you-tube video.
Trey's quote leave out this entire sentence. "If you're not going to convict them and you can't convict them or you're unclear then drop them off back in Afghanistan"
The ONLY Reason Rand gave for letting the detainees go is left out of the ellipsis.
Rand's entire quote is thus:
I think they should mostly be sent back to their country of origin or to tell you the truth I'd drop them back off into battle. If you're not going to convict them and you can't convict them or you're unclear, drop 'em off back into Afghanistan. It'd take them a while to get back over here.
Now doesn't that make more sense?
This first quote is full of similar ellipses.
The fact is, in order to use my "Trey Grayson Vs Trey Grayson" idea on Rand Paul, he had to chop up his quotes to DELIBERATELY misrepresent Paul's statement.
I've got to say that's a pretty dirty tactic. But, that's what we're up against now.
I just means Rand needs to raise a lot more money on TeaParty day.
I don't have any footage of the event yet, but the only issue the media is reporting on is Rand Paul's stance on Guantanamo Bay.
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.
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
issues debated.
