Video: No civilian trials for enemy combatants, says … Ron Paul’s son?
posted at 5:05 pm on February 3, 2010 by Allahpundit
Imagine how proud his pop must be, having spent decades railing against warmongering and militarization, to see his boy rolling this one out as the opening shot in the Kentucky GOP primary. (Who was the creative team behind the first 10 seconds? The Cheney family?) If you’re wondering why one of America’s most famous libertarians would start his campaign with an ad about terror instead of a cri de coeur about Obama’s statism, read this post by Sultan Knish and this one by Paul opponent Trey Grayson. Rand is an improvement over Ron, who once introduced a bill that would limit military tribunals to “places of active hostilities against the United States where an immediate trial is necessary to preserve fresh evidence or to prevent local anarchy,” but he ain’t much of an improvement and is deeply vulnerable on this issue in a state like Kentucky. In fact, watch the second clip below from 0:40 to around 1:50. Gitmo detainees who can’t be tried should be … dropped off in Afghanistan? What?
What he actually says in the ad, in fact, is that he opposes civilian trials for enemy combatants captured on the battlefield, which I guess would exclude Abdulmutallab. But what about KSM, who was nabbed while hiding in Pakistan? Was he captured “on the battlefield” or is “battlefield” limited to firefights involving American soldiers? Hmmm.
Update: Another wrinkle on defining the “battlefield”: Does it include theaters of conflict where Congress has already authorized the use of military force or any theater where the president has deployed American troops? It’s no idle question. Three U.S. soldiers were killed recently by a roadside bomb in Pakistan, a place they’re technically not supposed to be. If they’d stumbled upon Bin Laden and captured him, does he get a tribunal or a civilian trial?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Allahs in the house…
Amadeus on February 3, 2010 at 5:08 PM
I can’t see the vid at work, but I have a feeling the apple may not fall far from the tree.
Still, I’m willing to listen to him.
I’m just afraid he will turn into a nutbag like his father.
Ron Paul sounded so sane to me at first.
Until I kept listening to him.
It’s all downhill.
Badger40 on February 3, 2010 at 5:09 PM
We could actually botch this seat if this loon wins the primary. Not a smart endorsement by SP.
BuzzCrutcher on February 3, 2010 at 5:09 PM
DOCTOR Rand Paul to you. Don’t forget that he’s a DOCTOR.
Apologetic California on February 3, 2010 at 5:10 PM
More hope that Rand has thought for himself, and not just letting Daddy dictate shape his every belief.
Don’t let us down, Rand. Keep the sound doctrines of your father and toss the rest.
Dark-Star on February 3, 2010 at 5:10 PM
The “battlefield” IMO is anywhere we capture them…
d1carter on February 3, 2010 at 5:12 PM
Huzzzzzzzaaaaahhhhh!!!!!!! AllahP’s back in the house.
OmahaConservative on February 3, 2010 at 5:12 PM
Wait and see? He doesn’t seem as cooky as his father but then the apples don’t fall far from the trees sometimes.
upinak on February 3, 2010 at 5:12 PM
LOL get outta my head!
upinak on February 3, 2010 at 5:13 PM
I was just thinking to myself that this place could use more exit questions.
Maxpower on February 3, 2010 at 5:13 PM
THE SITUATION IS BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
txag92 on February 3, 2010 at 5:14 PM
Allah, do you really think Pakistan is going to say “No, bring Bin Ladin back”?
upinak on February 3, 2010 at 5:15 PM
If he is good enough for Sarah he is good enough for me.
lavell12 on February 3, 2010 at 5:16 PM
he is not saying anything difrent from his daddy’s :
” military tribunals to “places of active hostilities against the United States where an immediate trial is necessary to preserve fresh evidence or to prevent local anarchy”
runner on February 3, 2010 at 5:17 PM
I am a big fan of Rand Paul. He is sensible on foreign policy, unlike his father.
Ron Paul is to the extreme.
Rand has my support. I’m glad Sarah Palin is supporting him.
cubachi on February 3, 2010 at 5:17 PM
This is a global battlefield… If they’re not a US citizen, it doesn’t matter if they’re captured on the steps of the Supreme Court…
In fact, civilian trial exposes the judge and prosecutors to claims of ‘war crimes’ according to the Geneva Conventions
phreshone on February 3, 2010 at 5:20 PM
I thought we are fighting a “Global War” on terror…
Which I take as the terrorists can strike any where, any time, against innocent women and children, usually dressed in civilian clothes, hiding among civilians.
The whole world is the battlefield…
Military Trials for all!
Seven Percent Solution on February 3, 2010 at 5:22 PM
Is Rand ‘Mounds’ to his daddy’s ‘Almond Joy’????
Some times you feel like a nut. Some times you don’t
phreshone on February 3, 2010 at 5:22 PM
As a KY resident, I’m laying back on the Paul vs. Grayson issue at the moment. The only people crazier than RON Paul are his asshat supporters. It’s not fair to hold that against the son and Trey Grayson is a little too cute and polished for me. Sarah Palin’s endorsement counts for a lot.
Dukeboy01 on February 3, 2010 at 5:23 PM
I think by “battlefield” – his definition includes (but isn’t limited to) … Anyone who’s captured by our military forces. He could mean others also – but I’m pretty sure he means anyone captured by our military – in Pakistan, or in Afghanistan, or in Shangri La … What have you.
HondaV65 on February 3, 2010 at 5:25 PM
This is an unfortunate position by Rand, but the alternatives (Obama-Democrat And ProWar/Deficit-Republican) are so much worse. We can’t afford more Democrats or Gingrich Republicans and their profligacy. We can’t afford more wars and torture which affect our standing around the world.
We can’t afford deficits and spending as far as the eye can see. That’s why Rand is the only choice over in Kentucky, despite flaws on this and a couple other issues.
The Dean on February 3, 2010 at 5:26 PM
Second look at that Palin endorsement?
davek70 on February 3, 2010 at 5:27 PM
May I ask why?
We’re talking about hostile soldiers, not rock-throwing teenbrats.
Totally agree. Now if he’d just run for POTUS…but the time isn’t right for that. The Anti-Obama sentiment is only going to get stronger and Palin may well ride that wave to office. Maybe in 2016.
Dark-Star on February 3, 2010 at 5:30 PM
Rand Paul is a lot like his father in many ways but on foreign policy issues he has his own mind. This has caused some disputes between them and has caused chaos in the Paulite camp before.
Rand has shown a much greater grasp of reality then his father but still stumbles on a few points and makes the same mistakes as the elder Dr. Paul. Personally my favored candidate in the Kentucky race is Bill Johnson. I haven’t seen anything from him since Jan. though. Has he dropped out?
Shogun144 on February 3, 2010 at 5:31 PM
I think an airplane becomes a battlefield when some jihadi boards with a groin full of explosive, intent on killing or maiming hundreds of people.
scalleywag on February 3, 2010 at 5:33 PM
Welcpme back AllaH! You were missed.
katy the mean old lady on February 3, 2010 at 5:33 PM
Welcome back, big guy.
Although the guest bloggers did sterling work, it just wasn’t the same.
Uncle Pinky on February 3, 2010 at 5:33 PM
OT: Warning: Ace has his butterscotch pudding out.
Don’t look, in the name of all that’s holy, don’t.
SteveMG on February 3, 2010 at 5:34 PM
I hope they do us all a favor and “discover his body” after he just committed suicide.
barnone on February 3, 2010 at 5:36 PM
You owe me a new computer screen! I’m embarrassed that I actually know what that means.
conservative pilgrim on February 3, 2010 at 5:36 PM
yes, and that terrible global warming that US has created for which OBL and other muslims hates us
runner on February 3, 2010 at 5:37 PM
His common sense comes down the maternal line.
katy the mean old lady on February 3, 2010 at 5:38 PM
*hate us*
runner on February 3, 2010 at 5:38 PM
Inevitable. I looked. I feel like I just stuck my head out of the car window going 75 mph. WOW. So Ace, tell me how you really feel….
conservative pilgrim on February 3, 2010 at 5:38 PM
Forget Rand Paul, support conservative Bill Johnson for the Kentucky US Senate seat. The conservative grassroots movement should support him.
RedRobin145 on February 3, 2010 at 5:39 PM
I am a Kentuckian for Rand Paul. I assure you that he is the genuine article, and I have no doubts about his commitment to national security and against terror.
Comments tying him to Dad Ron’s opinions on the war on terror are not fair. They disagree.
As for Bill Johnson, he is still in the race. I attended a rally in Lexington, KY this past Sunday night to hear him speak. Allen Keyes was the lead speaker. Johnson pushes all the right buttons.
In any event, I will be for the GOP nominee in November even if it is the “squish” #3.
DavidAllen on February 3, 2010 at 5:41 PM
Ron Paul is a step up from his father, okay. Since AP didn’t bring it up in the post, let me ask the obvious: how does Ron Paul’s positions jive with Palin, who endorsed him?
conservative pilgrim on February 3, 2010 at 5:41 PM
Apparently, true conservatives, er dip, and one is a RINO if one doesn’t.
Where’s that “Susan Collins for President” bumper sticker when you need it?
SteveMG on February 3, 2010 at 5:41 PM
Oops–I meant RAND Paul is a step up from his father.
conservative pilgrim on February 3, 2010 at 5:42 PM
Let’s not forget that one of Paul’s opponents, Trey Grayson, was hand-picked by Mitch McConnell and is backed by the NRSC. Who do you think Allah will back? Allah needs to come clean.
NoNails on February 3, 2010 at 5:47 PM
+1000
Norwegian on February 3, 2010 at 5:51 PM
The strict Constitutional position for KSM is that since 9/11 was committed on America soil in New York, than that is where the trial by jury should take place. And sice he committed the crime here, then he falls under the BoR.
As far as Gitmo generall, the whole point of it being set up was to house these guys for years without an ounce of legal protection or a fair trial for a long time. It would even be a stretch to call some of the former detainees even “suspects” who sat in a cell without a case against them. Morally, it’s a disaster and it’s too bad Rand would stick up or pretend to stick up for them.
And if Rand is cynically pretending to hold this position, then that just makes him like every politician in Washington. The reason people got in with Ron is that he said what he believed even when it was deeply unpopular (now it’s semi-popular) and it is consistent with classical conservative principles (what USED to be mainstream conservative thought).
This shows me that although Rand is conservative, he is less so that his father. There’s only one Ron Paul, and it’s too bad that some are saying he is getting too old to run for President in 2012, just as his ideas are becoming slowly but surely more accepted by the American people.
The Dean on February 3, 2010 at 5:52 PM
Excellent! I really like Bill Johnson, and have since I read Alan Keyes’ endorsement of him. Dr. Keyes really pointed out the flaws of the libertarian platform of both Drs. Paul. That sealed it for me.
Go Bill!
*Just so you know: I don’t live in Kentucky but I have strong familial ties to the state so I take an interest in what goes on down there.*
Shogun144 on February 3, 2010 at 5:52 PM
That’s never been the standard we’ve ever used in any war.
The Japanese pilots who attacked Pearl Harbor should have been tried in American civilian courts?
I do not believe a single Founding Father would have agreed with that.
In fact, during the War of 1812, no British soldier captured here was given a civilian try. The President at that time was the author of the Bill of Rights, James Madison.
SteveMG on February 3, 2010 at 6:03 PM
Rand is who his father would be if his father were more rational and a realist. Pragmatism has its benefits.
Red Cloud on February 3, 2010 at 6:10 PM
You lie. Military Commissions Act – an Act of Congress signed into law was developed to deal specifically with “those guys” in mind, i.e. alien unlawful enemy combatants. Aliens – person who are not citizens of the US. Therefore, the Strict Constitutional Position would be to follow that law.
runner on February 3, 2010 at 6:10 PM
Rand isn’t a loon. Hell of a lot better than some establishment GOP toolbag.
Anyone who isn’t an uberhawk is a loon!
therightwinger on February 3, 2010 at 6:12 PM
I’m afraid he doesn’t. He actually believes the stuff he says.
It’s this Rothbardian anarchism among the Paulians. They truly believe that government – especially the US one – is just thoroughly evil. Not potentially evil (it is); but evil in itself.
SteveMG on February 3, 2010 at 6:13 PM
Oh Thank God! Allah’s back!
The Apologist on February 3, 2010 at 6:16 PM
Where was the declaration of war? Just because we say there is a war, does not make it so. Congress must declare war. We have a war on drugs, are we going to toss drug dealers in Gitmo and have Military tribunals? The White House said they were at war with Fox News? Could they throw Rupert Murdoch or Roger Alies in some hole somewhere? We were at war with Japan, so tribunals would be appropriate. It would be a different story if there was a declaration of war by congress? Do you see how dangerous this is? Do you realize this country has been taken over by a GANG?
nazo311 on February 3, 2010 at 6:17 PM
You mean theres a successor to Ron Paul? Oh no… that means that the threat wont pass away with Ron.
TonyR on February 3, 2010 at 6:17 PM
I’m sure Rand loves his Dad, and that is Ok, but as a poltician his Dad is, well, way out in some field that does not include doing what is necessary to fight the Islamists that are threatening the world. Rand, if he has any chance, needs to run from that position clearly and unabiguously.
But look, we also have Glenn Beck saying that the Founding Fathers were “isolationists” which is just a foolish statement as well as being a-historical. The Founding Fathers were fully supportive protecting liberty in this country. Where people like Glen Beck and Ron Paul go wrong is that they fail understand that technology and modern commerce have made the world physicially much smaller when it comes to threats to nations and peoples and their governments. Thomas Jefferson was a Founding Father and sent ships to Libya to kill prirates. Basically, that is what we are doing by chasing and hopefully killing the Islamists
georgealbert on February 3, 2010 at 6:19 PM
Rand is a frequent guest of the Alex Jones show. That alone makes Palin’s endorsement a WTF?
SnarkVader on February 3, 2010 at 6:23 PM
Sorry, I just disagree with this argument. Congress authorized the President to use military force against AQ and its affiliated groups.
In my view – I’m sure you’ll disagree – Congress authorizing the Commander in Chief to use the military is a declaration of war. Congress doesn’t have to say, “We declare war” in order for one to be authorized.
Are you saying that on December 7, 1941 – before Congress declared war – that Japanese pilots we captured (if we had captured some) had to be given civilian rights that we give criminals?
SteveMG on February 3, 2010 at 6:23 PM
Overseas Contingency Operation. GWOT is sooooo 2008. C’mon 7% get up with the times or be left in the trash heap of Jersey Shore Snooki-ness.
/s
alohapundit on February 3, 2010 at 6:29 PM
Authorization to use force isn’t a declaration of war, no matter how you try and spin it. They are two different things. We declared war the next day on December 8, 1941 so the captured pilots would have been tried in a military tribunal (like captured Nazi saboteurs were). It isn’t me that is making this argument, it is the Constitution, we can’t just ignore the Constitution because we think it is a good idea. We would be no different from the liberals. Our personal opinions are irrelevant, we must follow the Constitution, or amend it. Otherwise, what is the point of having a Constitution?
nazo311 on February 3, 2010 at 6:37 PM
Go Grayson!
terryannonline on February 3, 2010 at 6:43 PM
We need to get RINOS out!
nazo311 on February 3, 2010 at 6:45 PM
Rand Paul + Austrian economics= win.
therightwinger on February 3, 2010 at 6:45 PM
Where does the constitution say you have to make a formal declaration of war through congress in order to engage in war? It doesn’t. All it says is that the government has the ability to declare war.
Narutoboy on February 3, 2010 at 6:46 PM
Really?!?! I must have missed the part where Jefferson sent the Marines into occupy Tripoli, and spend the rest of his Presidency, not to mention a good chunk of the Treasury, trying to turn Libya into a Jeffersonian democratic republic.
Those rascally textbook authors…
JohnGalt23 on February 3, 2010 at 6:49 PM
And JD Hayworth has a nasty habit of appearing with chris Matthews. Would that fact invalidate a Palin endorsement?
JohnGalt23 on February 3, 2010 at 6:58 PM
and that part where Barbary pirates were screwing around with those nasty gaseous substances that have an unfortunate consequence of wiping out whole countries
runner on February 3, 2010 at 7:04 PM
The Founding Fathers would’ve tried the Paul’s for Treason and hung them.
jp on February 3, 2010 at 7:05 PM
What??? Why?
therightwinger on February 3, 2010 at 7:07 PM
Read this by Consitutional Scholar Robert Turner to see how Deceitfull stupid the Paul’s are in slandering the Constitution
http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/PubID.106/pub_detail.asp
they either know these things and playing a game are are idiots.
The Founders would’ve never, ever, given Terrorist and Outlaw Regimes(Saddam, Taliban) the dignity of a Formal “Declaration of War”. Which is obvious with the First and Second Barbary Wars and others, and in context of 18th century language on the subject.
Though if it ever went to court, I’m sure it would be argued that the “Iraq WAR Resolution” is defact the same as a “War Declaration”, given there are no contextual requirements.
That said, the Paul’s are with the left in wanting to shred the Constitution by striping away the Article II powers Originally Intended.
jp on February 3, 2010 at 7:08 PM
for aiding the enemy, slandering them, etc.
Imagine a politician in their era claiming the Barbary Pirates were attacking our ships(and TRADE ROUTES) and demanding bribes because “We Made them do it”. Its absurd and very leftist.
These guys are Rothbardian nutjobs, check out what Jonah Goldberg has on that today at The Corner
jp on February 3, 2010 at 7:10 PM
Rand Paul is a RINO, of a very deictful and dangerous stripe.
its why William F. Buckley blackballed Rothbard and the birchers out of the GOP to begin with.
jp on February 3, 2010 at 7:11 PM
So, which nations exactly had caches of weapons capable of wiping out whole countries?
Oh, you must mean when we invaded the Soviet Union, occupied Moscow, and turned them into a democratic republic.
No… wait… we never did that. So you must mean when we did that to the People’s republic of China. That must be it.
Oh… that’s right… we didn’t invade them either. Hmmmm.
Oh, you must mean North Korea. Yeah. That’s the ticket.
What’s that? We didn’t invade North Korea and teach them the virtues of democratic republicanism?
So you must mean the one nation in Central Asia that does have weapons capable of wiping out entire nations… Iran.
No… we didn’t even do that.
It would appear that by your standards, our government has been most remiss in their duties.
JohnGalt23 on February 3, 2010 at 7:18 PM
So you would be in favor of giving the President unlimited authority to declare war on whomever he wants to? The framers of the Constitution feared letting the president alone decide with whom we are at war, and thus permitting him to trigger for his own purposes the military tools reserved for wartime.
nazo311 on February 3, 2010 at 7:18 PM
Wherever there is a jihadi, there is a battlefield.
Squeeze ‘em dry and hang ‘em high.
profitsbeard on February 3, 2010 at 7:20 PM
But that’s not what happened. He got approval for what he did. Only after things start going badly did people, Democrats in particular, start disassociating themselves with the war. And I don’t even understand this argument about not getting a formal declaration of war. That is just a talking point and you know it. Because, even if he did formally declare war, you would just find something else to whine about.
I’m fine with the war on terrorism and war in Iraq. :-)
Narutoboy on February 3, 2010 at 7:31 PM
we did not have to – the wall came down just in time. You can thank that warmonger Reagan.
Don’t worry , when you grow up you will understand the difference between capabilities and intent
Yeah.. Clinton screwed up there – now they have those weapons of mass destruction – and it is too late for us to do anything. But you know , it is not too late for Iran.
Go show off your Ron Paulian best to someone else, victim.
runner on February 3, 2010 at 7:39 PM
You are missing the point. You need a congressional declaration of war. What they did was unconstitutional and they did it so they didn’t have to take responsibility for it. If there was a declaration of war all congress would be responsible and not the just President. Again, it is not me saying this, it is the Constitution. If we are going to ignore the Constitution when we don’t like it, then why even abide by it? I’m fine with going after those who attacked us, but we should do it the right way. We should have declared war, sent a million troops, killed the guys responsible, and get out. Unfortunately, we don’t have the stomach for that kind of war in this day and age. These national building exercises are going to bankrupt our country and we aren’t even getting any oil out of it.
nazo311 on February 3, 2010 at 7:44 PM
Wow. You’re as persistent as the duracell bunny. Let me guide you back to the straight and narrow. Regarding the Pauls, Ron Paul boasts a perfect score of 100 from the Freedom Index, both higher than Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, 2 well-known arch-conservatives. Moreover, you keep referring to the Pauls as RINOs when they’re far too the right of their own party. They’re stridently against illegal immigration, the welfare state, unconstitutional bailouts, the tax system, and violations made against the bill of rights. So please get your facts straight, unless Mitch McConnell, one of the 15 most corrupt politicians in the U.S., has you employed in his payroll.
Pitchforker on February 3, 2010 at 7:49 PM
Ah yes. That’s right. Just in time. Otherwise, it was clear… absolutely clear… that the Soviet union was planning to use VX gas on West Germany in 1992.
Whew… good thing that the wall came down… JUST IN TIME!!
That argument is not just fail… it is in fact EPIC FAIL.
Oh, I know all about capabilities. China has the capability. North Korea (probably) has the capability.
Iraq had no such capabilities, contrary to what you and the lying neocon scum had to say about it.
As far as intent, given their lack of capability “of wiping out whole countries”, that would render their “intent” to do so rather moot, now wouldn’t it.
Maybe when you get old enough to stop cowering at these threats, you’ll see how one affects the other.
Oh, but Iraq allegedly had those weapons, but it wasn’t too late for us to do something about it.
Once again… EPIC FAIL.
JohnGalt23 on February 3, 2010 at 7:55 PM
If he opposes indefinite detention, at least that is a start.
If he supports indefinite detention, the I don’t want anything to do with him.
Spathi on February 3, 2010 at 8:02 PM
I’m not comfortable with the military tribunals thing either…
Spathi on February 3, 2010 at 8:03 PM
I tell you. That Ron Paul is a dangerous crazy leftist!!! LOL Hint. Folks, don’t believe all the trash that’s thrown around the internet. Listen to the man in his own words!
Ron Paul on Immigration & Borders:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U4RgUh5G38
“I support the nullification of the 14th amendment.”
Ron Paul on abortion and stem-cell research:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8
“I consider abortion an act of violence.”
Ron Paul on Healthcare:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foXQbmZxWYY
Ron Paul on the Free Market:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jx9aRgibY6c
Ron Paul’s foreign policy views. He’s not anti-semitic!!!
Part 1:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block88.html
Part 2:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block89.html
Pitchforker on February 3, 2010 at 8:09 PM
No. You are distorting what the constitution says. The constitution DOES NOT say you need congress to issue a formal declaration of war to engage war. I asked you to show me proof that the constitution doesn’t and you didn’t. Why? Because I’m right. Again, all the constitution says is that the government CAN declare war. Everything else you’re saying is made up.
Narutoboy on February 3, 2010 at 8:21 PM
but…but…but…He’s kooky or something!
/ignoramus
fossten on February 3, 2010 at 8:33 PM
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress….
nazo311 on February 3, 2010 at 9:40 PM
Let’s just hope he stays away from his father.
RobertInLexington on February 3, 2010 at 10:04 PM
So, AP is back from the seminar, huh? I noticed the piercing strawmen attack for the ‘Son of Paul’. But, I wonder if it has anything to do with a recent endorsement. HMMMMMM?
Blacksmith8 on February 3, 2010 at 10:36 PM
RE:
Narutoboy, you’re right. No mention of a required format. Congress clearly authorizes the war as evidenced by its votes on the subject as well as its continued funding of the effort.
JohnTant on February 3, 2010 at 10:40 PM
I attended a Rand Paul town hall. He seemed a bit of an isolationist favoring a Congressional declaration of war for US military action in foreign countries. I asked him, “if we elect you and enough GOP candidates to take over Congress or the Senate, would you repeal the Dems health care takeover, cap & trade, etc.?” He said that once these bills are passed, they are so entrenched & affect other legislation that nothing can done. Obviously, I did not like his answer. How can something six months old, or less, be entrenched?
However, I did like his accessibility & it was the first time I was ever able to ask a candidate a question. He is a very hard worker. As a dr., he had good ideas for health care reform. He would be a great defender of the Constitution, gun laws & liberty. He seemed very conservative and sensible (unlike daddy). I was impressed enough to buy a “this Rand is your Rand” t-shirt.
I think Grayson is a RINO and would be leery of anyone McConnell endorses.
HellCat on February 3, 2010 at 11:49 PM
Rand Paul still has the over simplistic views as his father on domestic policy, which are fine if you support that Libertarian view. Some of us just happen to believe that killing of unborn children is wrong, no matter what state you live in. Some of us believe that drugs are bad no matter what state you live in. There are other issues but you get the point. And it is only recently that Paul has taken this moderate turn to Conservatism. Up until a few weeks ago, he was much more like the second video, which has led to a senior staffer resigning. He has put a gag order on his staff to play nice with McConnell and other Republican Establishment types such as McCain. He may turn out ok but why take the chance when there is a clear Conservative running against him.
Bill Johnson is the true Conservative here. He does not have the money or the network that Paul and Grayson have but he is also not playing to gain favors. He is a military veteran and very common sense oriented. He is not the most charismatic but is very true to his principles. So ask yourself, what is more important, money and appeal or common sense principles?
http://kentuckybill.com/
jparks1972 on February 4, 2010 at 9:27 AM
If we were attacked on 09/11, in a huge way. Not to mention Ft. Hood and others.
Why is US Soil not considered “the battlefield” ??? Their aim is to attack us here. I don’t get it.
bridgetown on February 4, 2010 at 10:24 AM
Authorization to use force isn’t a declaration of war, no matter how you try and spin it. They are two different things.
nazo311 on February 3, 2010 at 6:37 PM
Oh my holy god, are you really this stupid?
Congress passed the AUMF, which stands for the authorization for the use of military force. Surely we can agree on this, right?
To suggest that the authorization for the use of military force could NEVER be considered a declaration of war is exactly the same thing as saying that the USE of military force could NEVER be considered an ACT OF WAR!
If you truly want us all to think so little of your intellect, that’s entirely up to you. Dummy.
runawayyyy on February 4, 2010 at 12:50 PM
Oh, and comparing 9-11 to pearl harbor fails because Hawaii wasn’t a state at that time.
runawayyyy on February 4, 2010 at 12:50 PM
Ok you win. Let’s just give the President the Authorization to use force in future engagements and ignore the Constitution. Think about it: If the president could declare war on any person or entity or group simply by calling his pursuit of them a “war,” there would be no limit to the government’s ability to use the tools of war to achieve its ends. We have a “war” on drugs; can drug dealers be tried before military tribunals? We have a “war” on the Mafia; can mobsters be sent to Gitmo and tried there?
The rules of war apply only to those involved in a lawfully declared war, and not to something that the government merely calls a war. Only Congress can declare war — and thus trigger the panoply of the government’s military powers that come with that declaration. I guess you are too entrenched on defending the Bush administration, you can’t see how the Obama admin could abuse this power. We could go without the personal attacks too.
nazo311 on February 4, 2010 at 4:44 PM
Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem. CONGRESS passed the AUMF, the President merely signed it. This is in fact how the Constitution outlines how it is to be done, and this is how it was done. Cry all you like about it, but remember, a majority of senate democrats voted for it.
Obama is perfectly within his powers to use that exact same AUMF, again passed by CONGRESS, to extend this war (and it is a war, not just cuz the govt calls it one). Dummy.
runawayyyy on February 4, 2010 at 6:26 PM
Apparently, you’re the one with the problem. The authorization to use force was unconstitutional. I don’t care if 100% of the senators voted for it, the President doesn’t have the authority to make war with whomever he chooses. Just because the authorization to use force passed, does not make it constitutional. Just like the health care bill, it passed the house/senate, but it is blatantly unconstitutional. Alas, that’s how things are done these days congress feels it can pass any law it wants, right any wrong, with no regard for the Constitution. Why do we even have them swear an oath to uphold it?
You still didn’t address my concerns about war on drugs, mafia, etc and this administration potential abuse of this power. Do you realize what’s going on here? Do you realize that our country has been taken over by a GANG from Chicago? Maybe you should stick to the Kool-Aid.
nazo311 on February 5, 2010 at 8:54 AM