Ron Paul: Libertarian Apostle

Pittsburgh City Paper ^ | SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 | CHARLIE DEITCH

[mnehring]

I see, tactic #3, marginalize those who oppose you.. I predict, tactic #4 will be... say "FR is no different than DU, they are so extreme Right Wing they loop back around and both form a fascist alliance.."
(of course, I know the debate on that is mixed because some of the Paulites think that makes Paul look too much like a moderate versus making other Republicans look to 'in the middle'...

[KDD]

Ron Paul has never once demonstrated any ‘eroding of civil rights’ although he talks about it as though its ‘real’ in every speech. He cannot cite a single instance as related to the Patriot Act, for example. He can’t name a single US citizen thats been ‘victimized’ in such a fashion by the Federal Government

In Padilla interrogation, no checks or balances

Page 1 of 3

When admitted 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed complained in a Guantánamo Bay hearing earlier this year that he'd been tortured by US interrogators, the presiding military officer assured him the charges would be investigated.

Two US senators who watched the hearing later praised the officer's action. "Allegations of prisoner mistreatment must be taken seriously and properly investigated," Sens. Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina and Carl Levin (D) of Michigan said in a joint statement. "To do otherwise would reflect poorly on our nation."

In contrast, when alleged Al Qaeda operative Jose Padilla, a US citizen, claimed in 2006 that he had been tortured, no similar effort was undertaken.

No senators called for an investigation or a hearing. No one promised a Defense Department inspector general inquiry or a Justice Department probe. The federal judge then presiding over Mr. Padilla's criminal case in Miami refused to permit further inquiry into the torture allegation, and instead ordered Padilla's lawyers not to raise the issue during trial.

The difference between Mr. Mohammed's experience and Padilla's experience highlights a near total lack of independent oversight involving the secret military detention and interrogation of a US citizen on American soil.

It is unlikely anyone outside a select group of military officials knows the full story of exactly what was done, or wasn't done, to Padilla in the name of national security.

But instead of aggressively examining the torture allegation, the Bush administration has fought hard to keep Padilla's treatment in military custody veiled in secrecy.

"The treatment of Padilla ranks as one of the most serious abuses after 9/11," says Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School in Washington. "This is a case that would have shocked the Framers. This is precisely what many of the drafters of the Constitution had in mind when they tried to create a system of checks and balances."

Human rights activists, too, are alarmed by what they see as the continuing lack of oversight and accountability. "What happened to [Padilla] in military custody will be seen by history as one of the more shameful acts this country has taken against one of its own citizens," says Hina Shamsi, deputy director of the Law and Security Program at Human Rights First.

Padilla was held without charge in military custody at the US Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, S.C., for more than 3-1/2 years. He was allegedly subjected to prolonged isolation, sensory deprivation, and stress positions, among other harsh interrogation tactics. Mental-health experts who have examined Padilla say the coercive techniques left him with severe psychological damage that may be permanent. Their observations are detailed in three reports filed in Padilla's criminal case.

[Badeye]

‘I hate to let you know but most folks outside the group think that FR is a contrarian site, or worse “crazy.” How does it feel to be a loony in the eyes of most “normal” folks?”

ROTFLMAO! You make this way too easy.

Lets see, in your previous post you proclaimed ‘not going with the crowd’ is a Great Thing as it relates to Ron Paul.

But here, you want to claim (erroneously in my opinion, but I’ll play along for a moment) that because ‘most others outside the group think FR is contrarian...” I should ‘go along’ with THAT GROUP THINK?

(chuckle)

When you can offer up something that isn’t completely and totally irrational, ping me. Til then....you just lay there on the floor bleeding from your self inflicted wounds.

[mnehring]

That accusation was shown to be full of crap a long time ago.. Thompson signed up to lobby on behalf of the democratically elected government that was overthrown only ten days before by a military coup.

1)Aristide took office on February 7, 1991, becoming Haiti’s first democratically elected leader. The previous election held by the military dictatorship of Leslie Manigat was not democratic.

2) Raoul Cédras seized power in a coup September 30, 1991. There was a large-scale exodus of boat people after Aristide was overthrown. Tens of thousands attempted to flee the Cedras regime, the United States denied refugee status to these boat people.

Fred signed this 10 days (Oct 10th 1991) after a coup of someone democratically elected, where Haitians fears Cedras more and were willing to invade our country.

..but I’m sure you Paul Supporters would have been glad to leave Cedras in power.. sure Aristide was a POS, but Cedras was 100 times worse.

Oh, and according to Fox (lobbying firm), all of this lobbying Thompson made consisted of one phone call to discuss the embargo, nothing else.

But you knew all this because you were one of the early people to bring up this here, of which you were smacked down each time..

I’ll just put you down as supporting Cedras.

[Harvey105]

For all of the bashing that Paul gets here, he is still closer to Reagan’s principles than the ‘top tier’ of GOP candidates and some of the 2nd tier as well.

While you may not want to think of him as a Republican in some ways, who is all that proud of the pubbies after what they have done over the last 6 years?

I like Paul, but I believe that he is wrong on the war and thus will not vote for him. Duncan Hunter gets my vote, so far. I just think that you are all doing yourselves and your favored candidate and the GOP a disservice by being so nasty to his supporters. Assuming even as he does that he will not get the nomination, those voters will vote for someone. Don’t you want to win them to your side?

[Badeye]

Ron Paul cited this?

btw, Padilla is in prison if I’m not mistaken.

[mnehring]

So, pointing out that Paul says one thing and votes for another, is being ‘nasty to his supporters’..hmmm...

[KDD]

Consider the history of the Padilla case. U.S. citizen Jose Padilla was long denied the opportunity to meet with his lawyers. Roughly a week before the Supreme Court first agreed to hear his case in 2004, the government allowed him to meet with his lawyers. At the time it said it was “allowing Padilla access to counsel as a matter of discretion and military authority. Such access is not required by domestic or international law and should not be treated as a precedent.” This was a carefully determined tactic. By granting Padilla access to a lawyer, the government was trying to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on whether they had to provide Padilla with a lawyer.

The Supreme Court decided not to rule on Padilla’s case in 2004, sending it back to lower courts to spend over a year working its way back to the top. Now his case has made it back to the Supreme Court. Again, the Supreme Court is about to decide whether to hear his case. And, again, the government has decided that, at its discretion, it will grant Jose Padilla his constitutionally guaranteed rights.

The strategy is clear. The government will now try to convince the Supreme Court and that Padilla’s claims are irrelevant because he’s been charged with a crime. By doing so, the government will retain its self-appointed power to lock you up without a lawyer or criminal charges until the Supreme Court rules on your case, which we’ve seen can take years.

To sum it up: Padilla got a trial so that you won’t when they come for you.

[uxbridge]

The PBS bill simultaneously provided $100mm to PBS and cut other spending by $101mm. Why would anyone who really wants smaller government object to that?

BTW...funding for PBS is certainly unconstitutional...but I don't think that is what people are talking about when they mention pork

On the Jobs and Economic Growth bill of 02...I looked through the full text of the bill...I may have missed it but I did not see any pork.

HR 2 -108th Cong.

[KDD]

“If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” —
George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

[Harvey105]

Forgive me. I meant to post to ‘all’.

In general, do you not see how nasty his detractors are, both in their attacks on Paul and those who support him?

The comments don’t stop at ‘he’s wrong’ or ‘you’re wrong’. Almost every post gets nasty and personal. Do you not see how that might come into play when real votes are needed to support your candidate? Why antagonize these potential voters?

No, hardly any of them would switch from Paul to Rudy, but what about to Fred or Duncan?

All I am saying is stick to issues and leave out the nastiness (generally speaking, not personally to you) that is unless you believe that who ever the GOP candidate is can overcome the Dem onslaught and voter fraud on his own. Can you afford to piss off the Paul supporters, even if there are only 1000 of them in any given state?

[mnehring]

I like Paul, but I believe that he is wrong on the war and thus will not vote for him.

If I may jump on a soapbox here, I think you've hit on the core of this. For most Conservatives, we believe that the #1 responsibility of the government is national defense. If it wasn't for this issue, I doubt many would scrutinize Paul in the slightest, but, because he has made his opposition to our current national defense position the centerpiece of campaign platform, it draws into question the legitimacy of his conservative values, versus, being a populist. If this were any other year, in peacetime, with nothing going on of major importance, then Paul may not get the scrutiny from Conservatives. But, because Paul is so vocally against something we hold as a fundamental issue, it makes us question his sincerity on the other stances he takes. What we are finding, is, like with the earmark issue, Paul takes a populist position, taking every side of the issue, and tweaking the way he approaches it so he is all things to all people. That seems to be the case with many other things. On abortion, he is pro-life, yet he can make the pro-choice people not worry too much as he has voted against some federal restrictions (such as taking minors across State lines and making killing an unborn in the coruse of a crime illegal.) This way he can tell the pro-abortionists, don't worry, I'm not a radical right-winger, I'll let you take care of the issue.

Basically, IMHO, he is a populist who talks like a Constitutionalist.

That's enough of my soapbox... I've promised it before but I just read something that has made me decide to stop challenging Paulites.. it seems, according to their internal forums, that they want these fights because it is attention and gets them high Google ratings and one of their strategies is to 'egg people on' to get the fights to continue...and thus, the attention to continue on Paul

[Badeye]

Again, has Ron Paul ever cited the Padilla case ‘in point’?

[uxbridge]

If it wasn't for this issue, I doubt many would scrutinize Paul in the slightest, but, because he has made his opposition to our current national defense position the centerpiece of campaign platform, it draws into question the legitimacy of his conservative values, versus, being a populist

Let me ask you...do you believe that a conservative can honestly and legitimately believe that the war in Iraq was a mistake and has worked to our disadvantage in the war on Islamic jihadism?

Not asking whether you agree with the statement...just whether someone could honestly take that position without being anti-American...or a traitor? (just two of the things that Paul is routinely called on here)

[SoldierDad]

I’ll answer your question. Yes, someone can be deluded enough to actuall believe that clap trap. By virtue of their delusions they can also be anti-American and/or a traitor. Any questions?

[Austin Willard Wright]

Lets see, in your previous post you proclaimed ‘not going with the crowd’ is a Great Thing as it relates to Ron Paul.

But here, you want to claim (erroneously in my opinion, but I’ll play along for a moment) that because ‘most others outside the group think FR is contrarian...” I should ‘go along’ with THAT GROUP THINK?

Let's make peace. I'll concede that your out-of-the- mainstream contrarianism (just like Ron Paul's) is based on principle.

[George W. Bush]

it seems, according to their internal forums, that they want these fights because it is attention and gets them high Google ratings and one of their strategies is to 'egg people on' to get the fights to continue...and thus, the attention to continue on Paul

Of course. That is merely our public strategy, to force you to help our Google rankings and such. We can't have routine threads here at FR with 300, 500 even 2000 posts without your help.

But our ulterior motive is to spread this rumor about our motives in order to make you stop attacking us so we can spread the Revolution unchallenged.

So, which of our two dastardly plots will you fall for?

[wideawake]

"We're just printing money out of thin air, and that's strictly prohibited by the Constitution," Paul says.

Proving once again that Ron Paul's Constitution is an imaginary document completely unrelated to the actual US Constitution adopted by the Framers at the Philadelphia Convention.

[jmc813]

Ron Paul has never once demonstrated any ‘eroding of civil rights’ although he talks about it as though its ‘real’ in every speech.

Gun control laws?

[Badeye]

‘Let’s make peace. I’ll concede that your out-of-the- mainstream contrarianism (just like Ron Paul’s) is based on principle.’

No contrarianism here. I understand that Ron Paul has zero chance of being the GOP nominee, just as I understand the odds are when he’s rejected and finally realizes it, his ego will force him to run as a third party candidate, in much the same way a spoiled child throws a temper tantrum.

If its Thursday, Ron Paul is a libertarian, unless there is a GOP fundraiser he will benefit from financially.