Friday, November 20, 2009

Rand Paul: Neocon Totalitarian

Posted by
Ron Paul's son goes neocon:

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.”

Wow. Rand Paul is a fascist, and totally ignorant to boot. "Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution" is a completely nonsensical statement. First, because we do not know they are terrorists (that would be the entire point of that pesky "trial" thing). Second, because there's no reason why "foreigners" should be denied the same protection as everyone else. Third, because it makes zero sense to try criminals in military tribunals.

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.

Yeah, a "Constitutional declaration" ought to make the bloodbath in Afghanistan A-OK.

Is this guy for fucking real?
at 2:07 AM
Labels: , , ,

7 comments:

  1. You're kidding me!? What a tool.

    Principles.
    Window.
    Out.
    ReplyDelete
  2. I fail to see how taking a position on the location of trying Gitmo detainess (at Gitmo vs. in the continental US) or calling for a Constitutional declaration of war constitutes a severe crisis of principles.

    Rand Paul is allegedly a neocon totalitarian because of this? How about a little perspective please?
    ReplyDelete
  3. You don't see anything wrong with having the military 'try' (suspected) criminals in some sealed-off US torture dungeon/kangaroo court? The US should have the standards of a third-world country?

    The fact is, Rand Paul toes the neocon/"law-n-order" line on civil rights. He is pandering to the GOP's piss-ignorant anti-Arab base and eviscerating the Constitution (particularly the sixth amendment) in the process.
    ReplyDelete
  4. Gee, that's a loaded question. Gitmo only has about 200 detainees left - hundreds have been released without charge already. Federal prisons hold about 95,000 people on _drug_ offenses alone. So what makes Federal prisons and courts so superior? Or is Gitmo just some real hot-button issue for you, like Tibet or Darfur?

    The bottom line is that Rand is no neocon and it's intellectually dishonest and inaccurate to call him so based on his response to Grayson. Again, you need some perspective here.
    ReplyDelete
  5. hundreds have been released without charge already

    Imagine that! But according to Rand Paul, they're all "terrorists." Thanks for making my point.

    So what makes Federal prisons and courts so superior?

    What makes habeas corpus superior to military-run kangaroo courts in US torture facilities? You're actually asking?
    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm guessing you agree with Rand that military spending should be the country's "top priority" and that the US should be in Afghanistan?

    This is neoconservatism, through and through.
    ReplyDelete
  7. I would interpret the "top priority" statement as viewing defense as one of the few legitimate functions of government; I don't interpret that as a call to spend more and more and more. It's campaign language, not material for a scholarly essay on foreign policy. Obviously, he is trying to appear hawkish. I don't care for it personally, but I'm not running his campaign.

    I think US Afghan strategy should have been, or should be, limited to rooting out Al Qaeda and foreign fighters. This should have been done in 1998, but then again, if I had had the option of changing anything about US foreign policy, it would have been disengagement from all Middle Eastern conflicts. The question remains are the people the US government apprehends to be disposed of in a military or civilian court. The lines to me aren't so clear.

    Even if I was in favor one one approach over the other, I wouldn't resort to calling people I differ on that issue with to be "neocon totalitarians." That's like those ultraconservatives I often run into who say "Obama is a baby-killing, America-hating Marxist, and if you don't agree with that, you are too!"

    From what I have seen about Rand, I agree with. He would have opposed the Iraq War, Patriot Act, etc.. If he were to reverse his positions on those things, I wouldn't support him, but just because I don't know about his Gitmo statement doesn't mean I'm going to spend time dragging him through the mud.
    ReplyDelete

Spam will be filtered out or deleted.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Related Posts with Thumbnails