Saturday, November 21, 2009

Rand Paul and Guantanamo Roundup

Photo By: Gage Skidmore

Clarifying Rand's Position on Guantanamo
After expressing my concern about Rand Paul's statements regarding Guantanamo, I got a message yesterday from Rand Paul 2010 spokesman Chris Hightower (whom I know personally and for whom I can vouch as a really great guy). He wrote to clarify Rand's position, and I've posted his clarifications to the Daily Paul here.


RJ's response to Rand's recent comments
"Rand, please reconsider your position on this issue. It is clear to me that now that you are the front runner some neo-cons have infiltrated your inner circle and tricked you with a false dichotomy choice to say that we either try the Guantanamo prisoners in civilian courts or hold them indefinitely in Gitmo. My fellow Patriots, even the greatest General commits errors in the rage of battle. Please give Rand an opportunity to retract these comments and clarify his position. Such is the size and scope of our legal errors prosecuting the "War on Terror" that they are nearly insurmountable. But if we will return to our founding principles, codified in the Constitution, the Spirit of the Founders will light our way." (full article)


Disagrees with Rand's Position. Still Supports Him.
"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." (full article)


This is what the Establishment wants
"Please, this is what the establishment wants. Divide and concur. Please don't let them succeed.

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. And Rand, being a little green to the political process simply had trouble with handling it." (full thread)


Rand Paul and Gitmo Radio Show
Last night I did a radio show exclusively about this issue and talked with two callers about Guantanamo Bay. You can listen to the whole thing here.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wes,

A. Hightower's response did not answer the question. It avoided it. It's a simple question that deserves a simple answer.

B. The reality is, there has been no official declaration of war, nor will there be, even if Rand was in the Senate today. Therefore, military tribunals do not apply to these criminals.

C. A bunch of military lawyers have quit over Guantanamo because of issues and concerns with fairness, objectivity, etc. Check it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resignations_from_the_Guantanamo_military_commission

D. Have you read the WSJ article? He can't even give a direct answer to a war that is open-ended and brutally expensive. Actually, if he truly believes it is an unconstitutional war (not formally declared), then we should leave immediately, right? And he's made overtures to Sarah Palin, whose foreign policy is completely antithetical to the constitutional conservative position?

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/11/12/qa-with-rand-paul-shaking-up-the-kentucky-senate-race/

I smell politician here.

Anonymous said...

I believe Rand Paul is another manuevering politician and my impression is he is not in this because he believes deeply in libertarian principles -- he's in this for more selfish reasons. It makes no difference to me who his father is, he must prove himself apart from his father, who has spent a lifetime proving and demonstrating his character. Rand is a sell out on the prisoner/detainee issue and a few other issues as well.

W. E. Messamore said...

We can argue about the issue of Guantanamo bay and honestly because of all the legal and moral ambiguity (which there shouldn't have been in the first place, and which Dr. Paul would have acted to prevent had he been in the Senate), I am grappling with the issues myself.

But I do not for a second doubt that Rand Paul is not in this for selfish reasons. I live an hour away and have met with him and worked with his associates even before he was willing to make a run.

I know and witnessed first hand how hesitant he was to do so and how much he didn't want it- how much we had to really push a reluctant family man and small business owner to take advantage of what we saw as a great opportunity to help the cause.

So please, please, please reconsider your opinion of his motives and integrity even if you disagree with his position on this issue or his political strategy in Kentucky.

Anonymous said...

Did you say you'd vouch for Chris Hightower??
Oh really....

W. E. Messamore said...

Absolutely. And still do. I- like Rand Paul (who knew Chris even better then me)- have never heard a racist thing come out of Hightower's mouth, and I don't believe there's a single racist bone in his body. He's a good man. Someone else left a racist comment on his Myspace (which he simply hasn't looked at for years), something that he cannot control.

Post a Comment