And now a word from our isolationist libertarian Republican leadership
by digby
In case anyone was wondering if Rand Paul would be as consistent a libertarian on matters of national security and war as he is on denying health care to sick people and lowering taxes on the rich, I think you have your answer:
Rand Paul's views on war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria continue to evolve. Speaking to reporters on the campaign trail Friday afternoon, the Kentucky senator didn't rule out supporting the deployment of U.S. combat troops on the ground in Iraq.
"Senator Rubio this week said that combat troops on the ground--American combat troops--could be a possibility if the current strategy doesn't work," one reporter said after a campaign event featuring Paul and New Hampshire senatorial candidate Scott Brown. "Senator Paul, would you support such a move?"
"I think some of it depends on what the events are. So events do change over time," Paul replied. "I'm a stickler for the Constitution, and the Constitution says Congress needs to determine these things." Back in June, Paul wrote in the Wall Street Journal that "we should not put any U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq, unless it is to secure or evacuate U.S. personnel and diplomatic facilities."
Yes, there's the good old process dodge. We need a vote! Ok Senator, but how would you vote? Uhm. We need a vote! (Also ,I need to be able to properly calculate the politics and how it would impact my presidential chances ...important stuff like that.)
Paul also told reporters that it would be legal for the U.S. military to target U.S. citizens with lethal force in Iraq and Syria if they are engaged in battle--a position consistent with his past statements. But Paul declined to say if it would be legal to kill a U.S. citizen and ISIS member who is only plotting a terrorist attack in Iraq and Syria.
"If you are engaged with battle against the United States, you really do not get due process on the battlefield. If you want to fight against the United States, you’re a target. Already, I think two Americans have been killed," Paul said.
Did I miss the constitutionally required vote to declare war Rand? Some stickler ...
Paul has been very critical of the Obama administration's decision to kill U.S. citizen and al Qaeda operative Anwar Awlaki in Yemen with a drone strike. The issue prompted him to wage a 13-hour filibuster with the sole purpose of getting the president to promise not to kill Americans with a drone strike "in a cafe in San Francisco" or anywhere else on American soil.
Earlier this year, Paul objected to the nomination of a judge over the issue. Paul wrote in the New York Times that he couldn't support a nominee without "fully understanding that person’s views concerning the extrajudicial killing of American citizens."
"Under our Constitution, [Awlaki] should have been tried — in absentia, if necessary — and allowed a legal defense," Paul wrote. "The Obama administration has established a legal justification that applies to every American citizen, whether in Yemen, Germany or Canada."
I asked Paul twice if it would be legal to target a U.S. citizen in Iraq or Syria who was in a similar situation to Awlaki's, but the senator didn't directly answer the quest
I asked Paul again if he could answer the question, reminding him of his 13-hour filibuster on the issue, but he was escorted out of the room by his press aides without answering the question.
This was the second press conference that Paul had abruptly ended on Friday. Earlier that morning, following a New Hampshire GOP unity breakfast in Manchester, Paul acknowledged for the first time that his views about going to war with ISIS have changed. But the senator, apparently displeased with the questions, ended the media availability after just two minutes and six seconds.
"Five years ago, if you asked me about ISIS, I would have said well you don’t need to do anything. So I mean obviously, the events do change your opinion. And your opinion of when a vital interest is being threatened is influenced by, you know, the beheading of two Americans," Paul said.
So there you have it. If anyone was counting on Paul to stand tall in the GOP and fight against their hawkish impulses, I think we can see how that's going to go. No, he won't be John McCain. But he won't be Ron Paul either. He can't be. Republicans are libertarian up to the point at which it requires Ameria to relinquish its status as a military empire. No modern Republican Senator, certainly not one from the South with its proud martial culture and heritage, can be an isolationist.
But then I suspect that most libertarians (the majority of whom are younger white males) are fine with that. Just don't make any laws and regulations that curtail their personal freedom or require them to pay money for something they don't immediately and directly benefit. That's where the real line is drawn.
War? Well, let's just say it's very convenient that the warmongers always say they're "protecting our freedom" regardless of whether our freedom is in any way at stake.
The good news for Republicans is that Senate hopeful Scott Brown was unequivocal:
"Let me jump in on that," Scott Brown interjected. "When people are in ISIS, then they’ve left their citizenship at the door."
"I agree with Senator Cruz," said Brown, a former Massachusetts senator, who had just been endorsed that day by Rand Paul. "I’m glad [Senator Cruz] filed the bill that I filed twice already to strip them of that citizenship. They should not be able to hide behind the rights and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution, especially when they’re looking to hurt and kill our citizens."
But what if these Americans are just planning attacks, not immediately fighting? "It doesn’t matter," Brown said. "They’ve left their citizenship at the door."
And we'll "know" who they are and what they're doing because ... how? Whatever. We just will.
Interesting that someone running statewide in New Hampshire feels good about evoking the name of Ted Cruz. He's quite the role model.
.