He also looks like a typical warmongering Republican. http://www.randpaul2010.com/issues/h-p/national-defense/

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

^Agreed. You can't be selective about the application of the law - habeus corpus must apply. It's been 8 or 9 years of imprisonment without a trial. I would expect this from someplace like North Korea - but it's unacceptable in a democratic republic.

blankfist, you're nuts. He's not a warmonger, he's very aware of the military industrial complex and only acknowledges that the federal government's top priority should be national defense. It used to be the only reason we actually needed a federal government.

Foreign terrorists don't deserve the protection of our Constitution because they're not american citizens, they're prisoners, it doesn't apply to them. Doesn't that make any sense to you?

Like his father, he realizes that US military interventionism was the reason 9/11 happened. Ron Paul was also in favor of going into Afghanistan (and voted likewise). The problem is that it turned into occupation, instead of the military just going after Al Qaeda and those responsible for the attacks.

I think the constitution as a further complication/extension on what we consider basic human rights. They ought to apply to all humans within the country, terrorists or not. Being a citizen not should give you the rights, being human should.

word.

@gtjwkq

It's important to understand that the Constitution does not give any of us our rights. It protects them by limiting human government. Human rights are understood to be natural or inalienable.

That goes for all people. According to the Constitution, the US government doesn't have the ability to give or take away rights of man whether you think that man is a terrorist or he's born on US soil or not.

You guys should talk about human rights then, it would be very interventionist to consider all humans entitled to the protection of the US Constitution.

I'm guessing Rand Paul considers the prisoners in Guantanamo as prisoners of war. If that's the case, the Constitution does not apply to them, it's not meant to restrict government against war enemies.

>> ^gtjwkq:
You guys should talk about human rights then, it would be very interventionist to consider all humans entitled to the protection of the US Constitution.
I'm guessing Rand Paul considers the prisoners in Guantanamo as prisoners of war. If that's the case, the Constitution does not apply to them, it's not meant to restrict government against war enemies.


So we should cherry pick who gets to live and die?



Ok..

It only effects you when you are at the McDonalds und kommen sie und sagen, dass Ihre Papiere, bitte. (I like to say this out loud, because it has more meaning when it is spoken. Entschuldigung für die Beleidigung Deutschland und die schlechte Grammatik. I'm a linguistic noob when it comes to spoken or written language, and yes I did seek the help of google translate.)

The application of the law is the only place where I feel that Coercive Egalitarianism is important. If one person gets Habeus because of a special interest, and the other doesn't where does that leave the spirit of the law?

So my attempts to passive aggressively Godwin this post have come to fruition. Also, I have met my goal of arguing from absurdity today! Cheers!

You made me think of http://www.videosift.com/video/Family-Guy-Imagine-if-Hitler-were-still-alive nordlich.

>> ^gtjwkq:

I don't understand how what anyone is saying has any relevance to interventionism. Understanding human government shouldn't interpret rights of man is the foundation of the Constitution and the Declaration, and it has no relevance to interventionism in the slightest.

The Constitution is an enumeration of powers and limitations of government. It's not a document intended to spread democracy, nation-build or intervene in foreign politics. It's also not a document that says it's irrelevant during times of war.

In the end it's about upholding a certain standard, a sense of right and wrong. In the end it is wrong to treat fellow human beings as being without any rights whatsoever. It is wrong according to the basic human rights that most, if not all, of is agree to. Right to life, right to a fair trial, right to a certain level of decency.

If we as the more developed (or 'better', if you will) people don't uphold this standard, then two things follow: the response from enemies will be even worse; and we lose morally.

Real power is to spare a life when you could have taken it with no consequence, the same goes for rights. By giving all people, no matter creed or place of birth, we gain humanity, by taking it away we become monsters.