Ron Paul Civil Liberty's Last Hope
Bring on the drones. Did we learn anything else from last nights
GOP debate on CNN? Well, once again, it appears as if Republican
presidential hopeful Ron Paul is the only candidate that wants to
protect the liberties of Americans.
DAR Constitution Hall in Washington DC Tuesday night, Paul and his
peers discussed the topics of national security and foreign policy.
While its been no secret that some of the more hawkish candidates
are crazy for increasing defense spending and upping the American
military presence overseas, Texas Congressman Ron Paul once again
managed to separate himself from the rest of the pack by coming
off as perhaps the only candidate truly committed to keeping liberty
and freedom in place for Americans.
the get-go, Paul used the allotted time to introduce himself to
the audience by saying that the issues on hand last night were of
great importance to the country. According to the congressman, Americas
wars which he deemed needless and unnecessary
not just add to the deficit of the country but also undermine
the prosperity and liberty of America.
detrimental to those ways of American life, however, is the Patriot
Act. While Newt Gingrich rallied to extend the legislation longer
and Rick Perry and Herman Cain also offered their support for the
controversial bill, Paul put himself apart from his fellow candidates
by condemning the act.
the Patriot Act is unpatriotic because it undermines our liberty,
Paul said. I'm concerned, as everybody is, about the terrorist
attack . . . Terrorism is still on the books, internationally and
nationally, it's a crime and we should deal with it. Paul
added, however, that the framers of the Constitution warned the
country not to sacrifice liberty for security, yet Today
it seems too easy that our government and our congresses are so
willing to give up our liberties for our security.
a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security.
You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights,
added Paul, to which the candidate was met with a round of applause.
former House speaker Newt Gingrich, however, there can be a happy
medium where Americans only lose some of those liberties.
try to find that balancing act between our individual liberties
and security, said Gingrich.
Paul went on to say that that establishing such a tyrannical regime
over the American people could be an efficient way of curbing crime,
it would also be a great way to end freedom.
prevent crimes by becoming a police state, Paul said. So
if you advocate the police state, yes, you can have safety and security
and you might prevent a crime, but the crime then will be against
the American people and against our freedoms.
other candidates, however, those sacrifices are necessary for the
protection against terrorism, something they made out to be a constant
threat. The terrorists have one objective that some people
don't seem to get. They want to kill all of us, said Herman
Cain. To handle that threat, Cain proposed that we should
use every mean possible to kill them first or identify them first.
to specify what he did actually want to do first kill suspected
terrorists or identify them but others made it clear that
in-depth analyses of alleged terrorists wasnt really necessary
for the safety and security of American citizens. Instead, rather,
the government should just go after Muslims.
by moderator Wolf Blitzer on how to deal with ethnic profiling,
former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum said that such a practice
was crucial in the War on Terror, and that the government should
not just continue to profile people, but specifically go after Muslims.
that are most likely to be committing these crimes, Santorum
suggested should be the target of profiling. Obviously Muslims
would be someone youd look at, absolutely.
Cain proposed what he called targeted identification.
While he would not come out and say that Muslims specifically need
to be profiled (although he has attacked them in the press repeatedly),
he did declare that If you take a look at the people who have
tried to kill us, it would be easier to figure out exactly what
that identification profile looked like.
To Paul, however,
none of these tactics for a war on terror seem like an appropriate
digging a hole for ourselves, said Paul. What if they
look like Timothy McVeigh? You know, he was a pretty tough criminal.
we're using too much carelessness in the use of words that we're
at war. I don't remember voting on on a declared declaration
of war. Oh, we're against terrorism. And terrorism is a tactic.
It isn't a person. It isn't a people. So this is a very careless
use of words. What about this? Sacrifice liberties because there
are terrorists? You're the judge and the jury? No, they're suspects.
that the executive powers established through the Patriot Act and
other War on Terror legislation has made American citizens vulnerable
to assassination, hinting at the reason execution of two US
men with alleged al-Qaeda ties that were killed by drone strikes
The War on
Terror isnt the only unnecessary according to Paul, either.
Responding to Texas Governor Rick Perrys support of the War
on Drugs, Paul said, Thats another war we ought to cancel
. . . And thats where the violence is coming from.
the federal war on drugs is a total failure.
drug war is out of control, added Paul. I fear the drug
war because it undermines our civil liberties. It magnifies our
problems on the borders. We spend like, over the last 40
years, $1 trillion on this war. And believe me, the kids can still
get the drugs. It just hasn't worked.
with permission from Russia