Home / General / Rand Paul, M.D., America’s Most Fraudulent Alleged Champion Of Civil Liberties

Rand Paul, M.D., America’s Most Fraudulent Alleged Champion Of Civil Liberties

/
/
/
1 Views

Is Rand Paul planning to urge the Obama administration to read Tsarnaev his Miranda rights? Or to defend the decision not to declare Tsarnaev an enemy combatant against the opponents of the rule of law in his conference?* I hope, at this late date, that you know the answer:

A little over a month ago, Rand Paul embarked on an epic thirteen-hour filibuster over his concerns that an American president might one day use drones to kill an American citizen suspected of terrorist activities rather than provide him with the due process guarantees enshrined in the Constitution. And yet, as his colleagues have called on President Obama to commit a glaring act of executive overreach in the Tsarnaev case, Paul has been silent.

Or take a look at Texas senator John Cornyn. Last month, he made an appearance on the Senate floor during Paul’s filibuster to proclaim that “there isn’t any more delicate and important matter than the limitations placed on the government when it comes to dealing with our own citizens.” Today, Cornyn told Fox News that the Obama administration is stuck in a “pre-9/11 mentality” if it thinks Tsarnaev should enjoy the Constitutional protections afforded to any other American citizen charged with a crime.

A drone strike on an American terrorist sitting at a café in Houston was a hypothetical that will almost certainly never come to pass. The Tsarnaev case is happening, right now, and any Republican who purports to care about the Constitution and its limits on executive power should be speaking up now just as loudly as they were during the drone debate last month.

Again, the problem with Rand Paul isn’t that he’s a champion of civil liberties who has appalling positions on a variety of other issues. I’m the last person to demand purity from people making useful contributions.  The problem with Rand Paul is that his reputation as a champion of civil liberties is a transparent con, a vacuous mix of partisan posturing and irrelevant opposition to various implausible hypotheticals. It’s just reactionary identity politics, not any kind of civil libertarianism.

…John Ashcroft calls for Tsarnaev to be declared an enemy combatant. If only enough liberals had voted for Gary Johnson, we could have had a real champion of civil liberties like him in the Attorney General’s office again!

*To his credit, I was wrong about this: albeit after the fact, he did defend Obama against Graham and McCain.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Warren Terra

    Re urging that Tsarnaev should be read his Miranda rights: he already has been, by a federal judge.
    (and may have been read them before that, for example before he got his court-appointed lawyer, with whom he briefly met before the hearing transcribed at the link).

    None of this changes anything about Rand Paul being a grandstanding moron who doesn’t actually care about civil rights, and if he did care he should have denounced McCain and the other bedwatters. But your first sentence reads like there’s still some uncertainty about whether Tsarnaev might be read his rights at some point in the future.

    • He also doesn’t care about facts, either. He asked “Why did the current system allow two individuals to immigrate to the United States from the Chechen Republic in Russia, an area known as a hotbed of Islamic extremism, who then committed acts of terrorism?”

      Well, Randy, it didn’t. Because they’re not from Chechnya. They had Kyrgyz passports.

      • I also like “who then committed acts of terrorism,” like instead of years and years separating the two events, they arrived two weeks ago and went straight to Bloodbath and Beyond to buy pressure cookers.

      • Cody

        To be fair, I haven’t even heard of Krygyz before now.

        Although when I don’t know a place, I don’t just substitute some other region for it.

        • Hogan
        • sibusisodan

          In some ways it’s a shame that President Herman Cain isn’t dealing with this one. Dealing with the tasking orders for Ubekibekibekibekistanstan would be a hoot.

        • You also aren’t a member of the United States Senate (although I’m confident you’d do a better job for the country than Rand Paul is doing).

          BTW, besides being just to the east of Ubeki-beki-beki-stan, Kyrgystan has a USAF base, and that base was already there when the Tsarnaev family emigrated to the US.

          • Technically Manas is now a transport center rather than a base. The name change occurred during negotiations with the Bakiev regime when the former dictator was trying to balance relations with the US and Russia to his own advantage.

        • Vance Maverick

          A short scan of a standard reference such as Gravity’s Rainbow would have prepared you.

        • Well during Tsarist times they were called Kara-Kyrgyz (Black Kyrgyz)and the Kazakhs were called Kyrgyz.

      • True and Kyrgyzstan is not a hotbed of Islamic extremism. My wife has a Kyrgyz passport.

        • Cody

          No wonder you couldn’t find work in the US!

          Why are you a terrorist J. Otto?

          • Hey you really should not even be joking about that. I have flight in a couple of months to Kyrgyzstan to go see my wife and kids. The baby will be three this summer.

            • Hogan

              Many happy returns. And travel safely.

      • John

        There’s not even such a thing as a Chechen passport

        • True, but the old Soviet passports had natsionalnost listed on line five. So the designation Chechen would appear there. I have not seen the new Russian Federation passports, but they too may have natsionalnost listed. The internal Kyrgyz passports (looks like an ID card) have natsionalnost listed, but the international (external) ones do not now.

          • Hogan

            It appears they now use “Russian Federation” as the nationality info for everyone.

            • What about on internal id documents? Kyrgyzstan still has a line for natsionalnost on its internal passports which is separate from the citizenship entry. Hence one can officially be a Kyrgyz citizen of Chechen nationality. Or more commonly a Kyrgyz citizen of Uzbek nationality or Russian nationality.

              • Hogan

                Per Wikipedia, it doesn’t include nationality (it has place of birth, but that wouldn’t seem to be much of a clue any more).

                Turns out they’re in the process of replacing the internal passports with ID cards.

  • oldster

    C’mon, Scott: Rand Paul’s position here is perfectly consistent.

    Right now, Tsarnaev is the world’s scariest swarthy foreigner, so the gloves come off.

    Last month, the world’s scariest swarthy foreigner was Obama, so ditto.

    The important thing is: the white race must protect itself from the foreign menace! This means making sure that we have our rights, and making sure they don’t have theirs!

    • Airborne Simian

      Uh, Tsaranaev is “swarthy”? On what planet?

      • sparks

        Planet Photoshop.

      • Incontinentia Buttocks

        Swarthy is a state of (non-Christian) mind.

        • Airborne Simian

          The vast majority of Christians in the world are black or brown.

          • FLRealist

            For the most part, American Christians don’t recognize that.

            • Airborne Simian

              [citation needed]

              • mds

                I have a better idea. Why don’t you simply wait until Sunday, seek out the nearest Southern Baptist Church, and go in and ask them about the travails of Palestinian Christians? If you survive that mission, we can look into American fundamentalist Protestant views on the current President of the United States. Maybe do a little bit of reading from John Hagee or Hal Lindsay about the filthy murderous Arabs and their evil religion …

                … Oh, wait. You were subtly pointing out that “American Christians” was too sweeping a term, since, e.g., it was precisely because northern Baptists weren’t pro-slavery racists that the Southern Baptist denomination was created. I haven’t encountered many UCC congregants who are openly racist, either. So it’s conservative American Christians who tend to be racist, misogynist, reactionary firearm-fondlers. Your point is well taken. I hope FLRealist is more precise with terminology in the future.

                • Airborne Simian

                  Most conservative Christians, worldwide, are nonwhite. Overwhelming numbers, in fact.

                  Go read a book.

                • Which has what to do with mds’ observation on conservative American Christians?

                • Malaclypse

                  Why doesn’t mds discuss Real True Christians in Ghana?

                • Airborne Simian

                  BTW, can’t speak for Southern Baptists but my congrgatin had a prayer for Middle Eastern and African Christians who are facing persecution just last week.

                  But that’s mostly at the hands of Muslims so that MUST BE RACIST right?

                • Malaclypse

                  BTW, can’t speak for Southern Baptists but my congrgatin (sic) had a prayer for Middle Eastern and African Christians who are facing persecution just last week.

                  Heavy fucking lifting there. A regular Médecins Sans Frontières you all are.

                • the original spencer

                  BTW, can’t speak for Southern Baptists but my congrgatin had a prayer for Middle Eastern and African Christians who are facing persecution just last week.

                  Hey, that’s great. Does your congregation have plans to help those Christians in any real, tangible way, or is your assistance limited to sending them good vibes?

                • sharculese

                  So, Jenny, when did you stop pretending to be an atheist?

                • Helmut Monotreme

                  Of course, supporting nominal Christians without knowing anything about those Christians, has given us wonderful things like the Tai Ping rebellion, the Uganda ‘kill the gays’ bill. So, you know that never backfires or anything.

              • Malaclypse
      • the original spencer

        Planet Twitchy.

        • Airborne Simian

          Really? The ones most ready to scream BROWN AND SWARTHY
          seem to be liberals. Because in the race-obsessed liberal mind Muslims are always “brown” somehow..Always

          • Uncle Kvetch

            The ones most ready to scream BROWN AND SWARTHY
            seem to be liberals.

            [citation needed]

            • Airborne Simian

              Look upthread.

      • IM

        On planet russia. caucasians = blacks

        • Mark D’ski

          so what your saying is , black is white.

          • Warren Terra

            Quite the opposite; he’s saying white is black.

      • In Russia all Caucasians and Central Asians are generally referred to as Chernie (Black) even the Christian ones like Armenians and Georgians.

      • The Russian word “smuglyi” (swarthy) is often used to describe Caucasians and Central Asians.

    • DrDick

      Rand is steadfastly defending our precious bodily fluids with wholesome dairy products!

    • Robbert

      That’s just the point, isn’t it; Rand Paul isn’t even knowingly being hypocritical, he just doesn’t think of a Muslim immigrant as one of “our own citizens”, US passport or not.

  • c u n d gulag

    The only thing Rand Paul champions, is Rand Paul.

  • arguingwithsignposts

    HE’S BEEN MIRANDIZED! STFU ABOUT IT ALREADY! GOD, THIS IS USELESS BEDWETTING AT THIS POINT!

    • the original spencer

      THE POINT OF THE POST ISN’T THE MIRANDIZING OR LACK THEREOF BUT IS INSTEAD THE HYPOCRISY OF RAND PAUL!

    • oldster

      Wait–bedwetting is useless?

      Now you tell me….

    • Scott Lemieux

      RAND PAUL COULD HAVE CALLED FOR IT BEFORE THE JUDGE MIRANDIZED HIM! IF HE ACTUALLY GAVE A SHIT ABOUT CIVIL LIBERTIES! WHICH HE DOESN’T!

  • More red meat for your commenters. You never change.

    • Malaclypse

      What a remarkably content-free bit of snark.

      • Morbo

        Look at the bright side, he kept it under 300 words.

        • Malaclypse

          On the other hand, if he had written 5000 words on just exactly how his imaginary date with Lemieux would have gone, that would have been pretty epic.

          • We know how that would end: Freddie Unfucked.

            • RedSquareBear

              “Freddy (didn’t) Got Fingered”

      • DrDick

        Pretty damned deBoering as well. Just what I expect from a brainless libertard.

      • Quality free as well.

    • Oh no, libruls don’t like Rand Paul? THIS IS HORRIBLY PARTISAN OF US.

      A better question would be why you seem to like Rand Paul, as he’s done nothing that would benefit you or anyone else..

    • [BONERS]

      • DrDick

        Something I am sure you are completely unfamiliar with.

    • While all I can really think of when I see that byline is [BONERS], I am really surprised by this…it’s a defense, yes? Of Rand Paul and the whatever sort of support it is that leftier-than-thous think he is due for being so Very Brave to Speak What Is Never Spoken Of in such a way to introduce it into the national conversation.

      If so, perhaps we should have the courtesy of the actual defence? You know, written out long style (and heaven attests, you do know long).

      • sharculese

        If you were a better feminist his point would have been immediately obvious.

        • I’m not that good a feminist for sure and I’m also not a good enough feminist to fuck Freddie…never, ever, EVER.

          I’ve been reading and rereading that Doyle piece and damn…it gets better every time!

          (I also found this excellent bit of Freddie cluelessness:

          Number three, I am involved in feminism because I am involved in mankind

          Says it all, really.)

          (And [BONERS])

          • Freddie’s point is that Freddie is a principled, sensitive, and powerfully analytic fellow who is anguished by the muddled failure of others to acknowledge his greatness.

    • sharculese

      Who would have guessed that Freddie DeBoer would be whiny, self-righteous, and totally unable to say anything of substance.

    • I’m so pure that even my humility is suspect

      Dude… by all means do continue to write your high minded pensees over at La Hotty. I’m a regular reader and partial admirer. But please give up the crusade of trying to influence would be compatriots to stop whining and snarking. Change the world from the other end of the political spectrum already, will ya?

    • Scott Lemieux

      Look, I’m sorry you fell for such a transparent con, but no need to take it out on me.

  • I mean hey, it’s not like the guy was trying to run an unregulated fertilizer plant next to a school or anything.

    I’m sure if he was Rand would be the first to speak out in his defense.

  • 7iron

    if I recall correctly, a US citizen has all of those rights whether they are read out loud to him or not.

    • Warren Terra

      Actually, anyone on US custody has those rights – except apparently under the military commissions act, which says a non-citizen (but not a US citizen) can be detained on US soil, held as an enemy combatant, and denied their full civil rights.

  • ISmellGood

    I’m no Rand Paul fan, but I’m pretty sure Tsarnaev not being Mirandized infringes upon his constitutional rights only if any statements made are admitted in court – Public Safety Exception aside.

    So until trial, nobody has an argument to make either way.

    • oldster

      Well, exactly. Also, torture: if the cops rip your toe-nails out and saw off your shin with a rusty hacksaw, but don’t use your confession in court, then in what sense have you been “compelled to be a witness against yourself”? No use in court, no violation of the Fifth.

      So until trial, anyone saying “boo-hoo my constitutional rights have been violated!” just doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

      • ISmellGood

        Colorful. But – and I’m no lawyer – sawing off a shin might be illegal in its own right. My point stands: nobody has violated anything at this point.

        • Malaclypse

          Especially since he’s actually been Mirandized.

      • Cheap Wino

        Hah! I see what you did there.

      • John

        There are other constitutional rights besides the right against self-incrimination.

        I’d guess this clause might cover it:

        No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

        or maybe

        Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted

        I’d also guess that police brutality of this sort is explicitly illegal by statute, and subject to criminal and civil penalties.

  • Pseudonym

    How dare you, Scott Lemieux, as a contributor to an all-straight-white-male blog featuring such straight white males as Dr. Kenneth Noisewater, criticize anything Rand Paul has to say. You are totally ignoring the voices of women and people of color in this discussion, which is a far worse sin than accusing certain women of color of supporting, nay enjoying, Obama’s rape of innocent nuns.

    • Incontinentia Buttocks

      (Though this idiotic line of argument was actually initiated by LGM’s brief pushing of the “brogressives” meme, which did such a great job accounting for sausage-fests like Firedoglake.)

      • witless chum

        “Brogressives” describes David Sirota to a fucking T, whatever it’s usefulness beyond that. Tough guy writers need to be mocked until they’re too embarrassed to post.

        • the original spencer

          Yeah, this. There most certainly are writers to whom the term is applicable. Sirota’s not the only one.

        • Have we declared Harold Ramis an enemy combatant yet?

      • Do you mean “prompted”? “Initiated” suggests that “brogressive” is a kind of such argument.

        But also, isn’t the “You don’t REALLY CARE about brown people because you support the Mulsim-baby killer, Obama!” line a definite instance of this, and antedates it?

        “Brogressive” was mildly amusing if a bit tired (“bro-” is definitely overdone). The phenomenon of sexism in the leftist movement (both overt and more subtle) is definitely worth comment.

        • Incontinentia Buttocks

          I have no problem discussing sexism within the progressive movement.

          What I’m sick of is folks (including, e.g. Erik Loomis and Glenn Greenwald) who unfairly attribute others’ opinions (idiotic and otherwise) to their race, class, gender, sexuality, etc.

          Last year, when a tiny fringe of the left was arguing that it didn’t matter whether Obama or Romney won, we were greeted with the assertion on this blog that the only people who could possibly make such an argument were white, middle-class, males. In fact, this tiny fringe included people of color.

          Similarly, the people described on this blog as “brogressives” include plenty of women (e.g. Jame Hamsher).

          That doesn’t make either group at all worth paying attention to. But it does suggest that the “you’re all just a bunch of privileged white guys” is a lazy and inaccurate accusation in both cases.

          So, yes, Glenn Greenwald’s empty identity politics attack on this blog deserves to be sent up. But a number of the bloggers at LGM engaged in such attacks before GG did.

          • Incontinentia Buttocks

            Jane*

          • Last year, when a tiny fringe of the left was arguing that it didn’t matter whether Obama or Romney won, we were greeted with the assertion on this blog that the only people who could possibly make such an argument were white, middle-class, males. In fact, this tiny fringe included people of color.

            If you mean this one, well, it’s not ideal but it’s also not as you describe:

            Connor Friedersdorf writes the kind of political essay I can’t see anyone but a privileged white person writing. Going as far as to nearly (but not quite he says!) compare President Obama to an apologist for slavery, he can’t stomach voting for Obama because of his policies in Pakistan, drones, etc.

            Let’s not over rely on the “I can’t see” vs “there is no” distinction, though it is there. I think the white was all more an intensifier rather than a literal claim.

            [snip]

            But given that Friedersdorf probably doesn’t have to worry much about his next paycheck or be concerned about having an unwanted fetus in his body, it’s a luxury for him to be a one-issue voter on this particular issue. It’s all too typical of a lot of angry left-wing white men from Glenn Greenwald on down who live privileged enough lives that they can find the one issue where there really aren’t any differences on the two parties and instead suggest alternatives that completely ignore the poor in this country, whether being Paul-curious to not voting to voting for a whacko like Gary Johnson. That doesn’t solve any problems and it goes back to the worthlessness of politics to make a point I talked about last week.

            Even this doesn’t require that no unprivileged person could or would make those arguments. But that they would doesn’t remove it as a common characteristic of privileged folks. And not the focus isn’t on having an opinion or expressing it, but the content thereof.

            Similarly, the people described on this blog as “brogressives” include plenty of women (e.g. Jame Hamsher).

            Citation? Erik’s post:

            Sirota is the typical brogressive, as Stan and Megan Carpentier call them–hypermasculinized self-described progressive men like Greenwald who trivialize any concern outside of their own definition of what is important and then taunt everyone who disagrees with their tactics as apologists for killing Yemeni babies, falsifies their arguments, papers over nuance in favor of denunciation, and generally channels sexist and misogynistic values of shouting and exclusion over debate and inclusion.

            I don’t see how this describes Jane Hamsher. It specifically calls out men.

            I’m not really endorsing these particular bits, but I don’t really find the similarity between this and Greenwald’s “I’d never contribute to a sexist venue like LGM” comments.

          • sharculese

            Except that the Friedersdorf piece that started all of this showed a remarkable (if typical for him) lack of perspective, and privilege was the most obvious explanation.

            There is maybe a discussion to be had about whether the word privilege gets tossed around too much on the internet, but this is not the best jumping off point.

            • Do we not have de[BONERS] in this very thread to exemplify how privilege works.

              • sharculese

                In all fairness, Friedersdorf is not the terminal case de[Boners] is. His privilege seems to mostly manifest as cluelessness, not the petulant bullying that Freddie has perfected.

  • sibusisodan

    You’re being terribly unfair here to poor John Cornyn. I doubt the poor fellow’s aware that anything he says made be later used against him in the court of public opinion…

  • witless chum

    Again, the problem with Rand Paul isn’t that he’s a champion of civil liberties who has appalling positions on a variety of other issues. I’m the last person to demand purity from people making useful contributions. The problem with Rand Paul is that his reputation as a champion of civil liberties is a transparent con, a vacuous mix of partisan posturing, and irrelevant opposition to various implausible hypotheticals. It’s just reactionary identity politics, not any kind of civil libertarianism.

    But if Rand Paul’s vacuous mix of partisan posturing about fantasy drone strikes on Louisville gets caricatured in the media as principled opposition to the real drone strikes abroad, which it did, the cause of opposition to the drone campaign gets furthered rhetorically, at least a little bit. Compared to trying to explain black history to people who know a lot more about it (and probably everything) than Rand Paul, it’s a good use of his time.

  • tt
    • Uncle Kvetch

      Good for him. Credit where due.

      • Indeed, although:

        “Here’s the distinction, I have never argued against any technology being used against having an imminent threat or an act of crime going on,” he said. “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”

        This wasn’t exactly the anti-drone view I understood to be praise worthy.

        • Cheap Wino

          Wow. He’s pro-death penalty for petty burglary. Good to know. And really, it’s not so much that he’s anti-drone to begin with, it’s that he’s pro-good political theater, especially as it relates to his political fortunes (which I suspect are the centerpiece of his ethos).

          • Charity suggests that the scenario should be “If the guy with the weapon refuses to surrender such that it would justify shooting him, it doesn’t matter whether it was a police officer or a drone that did the shooting.”

            Paul needs a lot of charity.

            • Cheap Wino

              Okay, we’ll give alms to the poor senator. I’m sure he’ll be more clear about his lack of empathy for people in the future.

            • Incontinentia Buttocks

              I’ve tended to think that Rand Paul is less the bad-faith, Machiavellian political genius and more the semi-good-faith, schmibertarian idiot.

              • Either way, where’s his utility? I’m pretty sure John McCain sincerely believes every nonsense thing omit out of his mouth. That generally makes him less useful when he happens to approach rightness. Still, at least he proposed legislation.

    • witless chum

      Oh, dear. Senator Hey Blacks, You Should Vote For Me Because James G. Blaine?, R-Kentucky, from the the link:

      What he objects to, he said, is constant surveillance in the absence of any evidence of criminal activity. “But it’s different if they want to come fly over your hot tub, or your yard just because they want to do surveillance on everyone, and they want to watch your activities.”

      Drones spying on Rand’s hot tub reads like an Onion parody of libertarianism.

      • To be fair, I don’t really think that “as much surveillance as technology will allow just because” is actually that fanciful of a possibility to be concerned about.

        • Uncle Kvetch

          To be fair, I don’t really think that “as much surveillance as technology will allow just because” is actually that fanciful of a possibility to be concerned about.

          I agree. (I also agree that the “hot tub” thing brings just the right soupçon of weirdness…right or wrong, dude’s still a world class fruitcake.)

          • witless chum

            This is what I was getting at. It’s a reasonable point, but because he’s Rand Paul he makes it sound as lame and Republican Who Wants To Smoke Pot Libertarian as possible.

            • It does a bit of an emerging meme flavor to it, but on the other hand I did have a hot tub once upon a time and, honestly, if you said “constant government surveillance of you outside of your house but still on your property,” let’s just say that would, in fact, have been one of the first places that came to mind…

      • kg

        Too hot!

        • the original spencer

          Is it gonna make me sweat?

    • This is indeed imminently reasonable, so kudos.

    • mds

      Whoa, okay, good on him to make the argument, on Fox Business, no less. This certainly partially obviates his letter to the Senate Majority Leader complaining about scary immigrants being let into this country:

      “I think we can still preserve the Bill of Rights,” Paul told Neil Cavuto. “I see no reason why our Constitution isn’t strong enough to convict this young man, with a jury trial, with The Bill of Rights. We do it to horrible people all the time. Rapists and murders – they get lawyers, they get trials with juries and we seem to do a pretty good job of justice, so I think we can do it through our court system.”

      He actually agrees with the Obama administration on this one. As does Rep. Amash. Both of which are “Man bites dog” news, as opposed to the ranking Democrat on the House homeland security committee, or Senator Feinstein, coming out against enemy combatant status. So welcome to the club, Messrs. Paul and Amash. Hey, why aren’t any Democrats pushing back against this?

      Anyway, it wouldn’t be the WaPo without something like this:

      Given Tsarnaev was a U.S. citizen allegedly engaged in terrorism on home soil, there continued to be disagreement about whether he can be held as an enemy combatant

      The 2009 law that Lindsey Graham helped write is actually not particularly ambiguous or open to “disagreement.” US citizenship and US soil mean game over, as I suspect Graham is aware, since he’s about as powerless on this as decent people are on federal gun control legislation.

    • So, as I understand it we had a no comment (though…sourced?) on Apr 20th and then the interview on Apr 22.

      I’m don’t know what caused the delay (could be benign; could be that there was pressure).

      It is interesting that while coming out right on Tsarnaev he does backpedal (in some way) on the filibuster.

      And now I’ve spent too much time on this!

      • Here goes some more.

        So, clearly, Rand Paul will say stuff that has the form of something useful. He’ll mix it in with the anti-useful and the sheer crazy, but he’ll say stuff that is of the form of useful.

        Is there anything useful to be gotten out of this behavior?

        This is the part I don’t understand. Assuming that ignoring him doesn’t harm anything, what possible advance of civil rights do we get from Paul’s words? Does his “support” give any cover to the administration treating its prisoners correctly? WIll it shut McCain up?

        What’s event the hypothetical benefit?

      • sharculese

        we had a no comment (though…sourced?) on Apr 20th … I’m don’t know what caused the delay

        Maybe he was worshipping Aqua Buddha?

  • Pingback: Even when he’s right, he’s wrong - Lawyers, Guns & Money : Lawyers, Guns & Money()

  • Hey, why aren’t any Democrats pushing back against this?

    ummm, I believe the White House did. Last time I checked, a Democrat lived there.

    But as to the other ones; I dunno, maybe because the slots on the Sunday talkies are taken up by Rand Paul, Peggy Noonan, Lindsey Graham, and John McCain?

    • IM

      Thats was snark.

  • Jesse Levine

    I really don’t understand this obsession with Rand Paul. On occaison he offers up an opinion we “civil liberties extremists” agree with, but so what? He is a jerk 99% of the time, and I can think of no reason to constantly refer to him except as an opportunity to discredit the argument of we “extremists” by association.

  • Pingback: How tough is Rand Paul, really? | iVoter.com()

  • Small government rhetoric from a southern conservative!

    http://krebscycle.tumblr.com/post/46523795443/standing-with-rand-back-through-history

  • mds

    …John Ashcroft calls for Tsarnaev to be declared an enemy combatant.

    Ashcroft: I Would Try Boston Bombing Suspect As An Enemy Combatant.

    Wow, in explicit violation of federal law, no less. It’s inconceivable to me that this guy was George W. Bush’s first AG.

    Hey, John, wouldn’t you have to wait until you had repeatedly blown off Boston-area FBI agents, further defunded the counterterrorism squad, and had your boss ignore a memo “Lone Wolves Determined to Bomb Boston Marathon”? Then you could feed the Constitution through your paper shredder again.

    • drkrick

      Not to mention cancelling your plans to attend the Boston Marathon without informing the general public of the threat.

It is main inner container footer text