Ron Paul stands up for Julian Assange

[Enrique]

(...)

“In a free society we're supposed to know the truth,” Paul said. “In a society where truth becomes treason, then we're in big trouble. And now, people who are revealing the truth are getting into trouble for it.”

“This whole notion that Assange, who's an Australian, that we want to prosecute him for treason. I mean, aren't they jumping to a wild conclusion?” he added. “This is media, isn't it? I mean, why don't we prosecute The New York Times or anybody that releases this?”

Paul followed up with a post to his Twitter account Friday morning: "Re: Wikileaks — In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble."


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/45930.html#ixzz174m6VE87

[polichick]

1. Another thing I agree with Ron Paul on...

...in addition to ending America's permanent wars and auditing the Fed.

[Matariki]

18. And being one of the few in Congress speaking out against the new TSA searches.

[elehhhhna]

50. ...and hostile foreign invasions/ occupations, and our buhzillion foreign mil bases...

he has the courage to call it as many of us see it. He's nutsy on womens issues and etc., but he's got valid arguments about the MIC and the destruction of citizens rights.

In many ways he speaks for me much more than BO does.

Oh, and auditing the FedREs. That's a good initiative, too.

[Joanne98]

2. YAY

[GrpCaptMandrake]

3. What was Paul's take

on the release of REAL classified information by the Bush Administration (Scooter Libby & Count Dickula) when THEY outed Valerie Plame?

Paul's sincerity may be gauged on that balance, and I genuinely don't know the answer.

[gateley]

5. That would be interesting to know. nt

[phleshdef]

6. I vaguely recall him being the only one to acknowledge Libby as a criminal in the Rep. debates in 08

[gateley]

8. You're right --I just learned that after Googling. Good for him! nt

[gateley]

7. Here's our answer:

"...0 GOP candidates were asked if President Bush should pardon Libby. Rep. Ron Paul and former Virginia Gov. Jim Gillmore said they would not,..."

http://www.slate.com/id/2168450/

I also saw a YouTube clip - probably from the debate referenced in this article, and it was Paul saying "he was instrumental in allowing a war to happen that never should have" or something like that.

[tuckessee]

11. I dunno if this helps but here's what he said before Congress.....

.....on 02 November 2005.

"Scooter Libby has been indicted for lying. Many suspect Libby, and perhaps others, deliberately outed Joe Wilson's wife as a covert CIA agent. This was done to punish and discredit Wilson for bringing attention to the false information regarding Iraq's supposed efforts to build a nuclear weapon — information made public in President Bush's State of the Union message in January 2003. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was chosen to determine if this revelation regarding Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife, violated the Intelligence Identification Protection Act. The actual indictment of Libby did not claim such a violation occurred. Instead, he has been charged with lying and participating in a cover-up during the two-year investigation. I believe this is a serious matter that should not be ignored, but it is not an earth-shattering event.

This case, like almost everything in Washington, has been driven by politics — not truth, justice, or the Constitution. It's about seeking political power, pure and simple, not unlike the impeachment process during the last administration.

There are much more serious charges of lying and cover-ups that deserve congressional attention. The country now knows the decision to go to war in Iraq was based on information that was not factual. Congress and the people of this country were misled. Because of this, more than 2,000 U. S. troops and many innocent people have died. Tens of thousands have been severely wounded, their lives forever changed if not totally ruined.

The lies Scooter Libby may or may not have told deserve a thorough investigation. But in the scheme of things, the indictment about questions regarding the release of Valerie Plame's name, a political dirty trick, is minor compared to the disinformation about weapons of mass destruction and other events that propelled us into an unnecessary war. Its costs — in life, suffering, and money — have proven to be prohibitive.

The Libby indictment, unless it opens the door to more profound questions concerning why we went to war, may serve only as a distraction from much more serious events and lies.

The decision to go to war is profound. It behooves Congress to ask more questions and investigate exactly how the President, Congress, and the people were misled into believing that invading Iraq was necessary for our national security.

Why do we still not know who forged the documents claiming Saddam Hussein was about to buy uranium from Niger?

Was this information concocted by those who were overly eager to go to war?

Why was CIA reluctance regarding this assessment ignored, allowing it to be presented by the President as a clincher for our need to go to war?

Other reasons used to justify the war deserve equal attention, since the results have been so painful for our country.

If lies were told to justify the invasion of Iraq, the American people deserve to know the truth. Congress has a responsibility to seek this truth and change our policies accordingly. The sooner this is done the better."

[SergeyDovlatov]

25. dupe - already been addressed by other posters

[rcrush]

34. Google it

[gateley]

4. He sums it up perfectly and succinctly:

"Re: Wikileaks — In a free society, we are supposed to know the truth. In a society where truth becomes treason, we are in big trouble."

[spin]

9. If the info leaked out ...

I blame those who were responsible for protecting the data, not Assange. It sounds to me like too many people had a "need to know" and the system was not set up to alert if data was being downloaded from a secure data base.

[tavalon]

49. Perhaps we shouldn't do things that when the light of day shines upon them,

they are illegal or immoral or both? Just a thought. Then, we wouldn't have to worry about all this classified stuff. We, being they, because I'm not losing a bit of sleep over it and I think there are quite a few corporaticans who are.

[T Wolf]

10. Whether Sen. Paul is a neck-stomping nutcase or not, like almost everyone, he has some views

that I do agree with. In the same way that many here have "some views" with which they disagree with Pres. Obama. Same thing.

That aside, I think there is benefit in enabling Paul to become as powerful as possible (e.g., Committee Chair) within the rethug power structure. The old guard repukes do not like him - they are trying to deny him a Chairmanship.

So, I consider him a loose cannon within the enemy's camp, causing chaos, and occasionally taking a stand that I like (e.g., Wikileaks).

I do not think the PTB in the GOP will ever let him achieve any real power. But they could have problems keeping him under control.

[Ichingcarpenter]

14. This is his father not the Senator son.

BTW.

[tuckessee]

15. This is Rep. RON Paul - not Sen. RAND Paul. n/t

[w8liftinglady]

16. That's one thing about Paul...he isn't wishy-washy.you know where he stands

He was a Libertarian before converting to the repub Party(you just about HAVE to in Texas).
Libertarians are what they are.They are certainly more open-minded than Repubs...except,of course,on the money flow.

[krabigirl]

28. That was his son, but i suspect he may share his father's views. He just plays the game more.

[closeupready]

12. This is actually a good point. Are Assange's publications covered by the First Amendment?

i.e., freedom of the press?

[LLStarks]

13. I don't think we need to protect Julian. Indifference is goode enough. Besides, he's not an American

[druidity33]

21. I think we do.

Especially since it's our government that is threatening him.

:shrug:

[LLStarks]

22. If docs leak, they leak. We should not be condoning through protection. nt

[Poboy]

17. recommend

[PBS Poll-435]

19. All hail LinkyWinks and Ron Paul

:crazy:

[girl gone mad]

36. This is what happens when you have two far right political parties.

The left has no political power or clout in this country. The current battle for our future is between anarcho-libertarians and police-state corporate communists.

Pick your poison. I know which I prefer, and it isn't the one that's trashing the value of my money, murdering civilians around the globe and empowering a modern day Stasi to protect themselves from the consequences of their corruption.

[pa28]

44. OK that one cracked me up.

"The current battle for our future is between anarcho-libertarians and police-state corporate communists."

Sometimes the truth of your own doom is just funny. You have to laugh.

[jwirr]

20. I think I am sick. This is the second thing in two days that I agree

with Ron Paul. I also like to see that he is not toeing the repug line whenever they say jump.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Wait. A republican defends freedom and a Democratic administration tries to strangle it?

The world turned upside down. :wtf:

[krabigirl]

29. Pretty sad.

[obxhead]

24. It disgusts me to say I wish Dems would listen to this

Republican.

It absolutely disgusts me.

[FSogol]

26. This just in: Broken clock correct twice a day.

Save the Valentines for someone more worthy than Ron Fucking Paul.

[krabigirl]

30. Like who?

[w8liftinglady]

31. I'm as dem as they come,but Paul has come out on several things we can mutually agree on

Like I said-I'll disagree with him on finaces,freedom of choice and education until the cows come in-but he has been one who stands beside his beliefs


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

Nonintervention
Paul's stance on foreign policy is one of consistent nonintervention,<6><7> which opposes war of aggression and entangling alliances with other nations.<8>

Paul advocates bringing troops home from U.S. military bases in Korea, Japan, and Europe, among others.<9> He also proposes that the U.S. stop sending massive, unaccountable foreign aid.<10> The National Journal labeled Paul's overall foreign policies in 2006 as more conservative than 20% of the House and more liberal than 77% of the House (28% and 72%, respectively, in 2005).<11><12><13> For 2008, his ratings were 57% more conservative and 42% more liberal (48% and 52%, respectively, in 2007).<14>

In an October 11, 2007 interview with The Washington Post, Paul said, "There's nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today... I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we're acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapons." <15>



Iraq
Paul was the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have objected to and voted against the Iraq War Resolution,<16><17> and continues to oppose U.S. presence in Iraq, charging the government with using the War on Terror to curtail civil liberties. He believes a just declaration of war after the September 11, 2001, attacks should have been directed against the actual terrorists, Al-Qaeda, rather than against Iraq, which has not been linked to the attacks.<18> In 2003, Paul said that when America seeks war, it must be sought only to protect citizens, it must be declared by the U.S. Congress, and it must be concluded when the victory is complete as previously planned, which would allow all resources to be dedicated to victory; he added, "The American public deserves clear goals and a definite exit strategy in Iraq."<19> However, the original authorization to invade Iraq (Public Law 107-243), passed in late 2002, authorized the president to use military force against Iraq to achieve only the following two specific objectives: "(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."<20> Accordingly, Paul introduced legislation to add a sunset clause to the original authorization.<21>

During the 2003 invasion, he found himself "annoyed by the evangelicals being so supportive of pre-emptive war, which seems to contradict everything that was taught as a Christian".<22> Paul's consistent opposition to the war expanded his conservative and libertarian Republican support base<23> to include liberal<24> Democrats.<25><26> Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly criticized Paul's stance on the issue when Paul appeared on The O'Reilly Factor by claiming Paul "dodged the question" about what he would do to stop Iran from filling the potential power vacuum that could result from an American withdrawal.<27>



PATRIOT Act
Paul broke with his party by voting against the PATRIOT Act in 2001; he also voted against its 2005 enactment.<158> He has said, "Everything we have done in response to the 9-11 attacks, from the Patriot Act to the war in Iraq, has reduced freedom in America."<64> He has spoken against federal use of what he defines as torture and what he sees as an abuse of executive authority during the Iraq War to override Constitutional rights.<159><160>

REAL ID Act
Paul voted against the REAL ID Act of 2005, an Act to create federal identification-card standards, which has been challenged as violating the Constitutional separation of powers doctrine, and other civil liberties.<161><162> Enforcement of the Act has been postponed until 2011.<163[br />
Domestic surveillance
Paul has spoken against the domestic surveillance program conducted by the National Security Agency on American citizens. He believes the role of government is to protect American citizens' privacy, not violate it.<164> He has signed the American Freedom Agenda pledge not to violate Americans' rights through domestic wiretapping and to renounce autonomous presidential signing statements, which rely on unitary executive theory.<157> In December 2007, he stated his opposition to the US House Resolution 1955, arguing that it "focuses the weight of the US government inward toward its own citizens under the guise of protecting us against violent radicalization."<165>

Conscription
Paul is strongly opposed to reintroducing the draft.<166><167><168><169><170> In 2002, he authored and introduced a resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives expressing that reinstatement of a draft would be unnecessary and detrimental to individual liberties, a resolution that was endorsed by the American Civil Liberties Union.<171> In the 110th Congress, he has proposed a bill which would end Selective Service registration.<172>

Eminent domain
Paul opposes eminent domain. He wishes to "stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches." He opposes "regulatory takings .... Governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of their properties — all without paying 'just compensation'.”<173>

(Which is how many Arlington residents lost their homes when the Cowboy Stadium was built)

Capital punishment
Paul stated in August 2007 that at the state level "capital punishment is a deserving penalty for those who commit crime," but he does not believe that the federal government should use it as a penalty.<208>

In Tavis Smiley's All-American Forum debate at Morgan State in September 2007, Paul stated: "Over the years I've held pretty rigid to all my beliefs, but I've changed my opinion of the death penalty. For federal purposes I no longer believe in the death penalty. I believe it has been issued unjustly. If you're rich, you get away with it; if you're poor and you're from the inner city you're more likely to be prosecuted and convicted, and today, with the DNA evidence, there've been too many mistakes, and I am now opposed to the federal death penalty."<209>

Marijuana
Paul favors the use of marijuana as a medical option. He was cosponsor of H.R. 2592, the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act.<235> He is currently a supporter of the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2008.<236>

Paul has joined prominent liberal Democrats in urging that states be allowed to permit farmers to grow industrial hemp, which currently is defined as a controlled substance.<221> He contends that this would help North Dakota and other agriculture states, where farmers have requested the ability to farm hemp for years.<221>

In 2005 and 2007 he introduced the Industrial Hemp Farming Act "to amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of marijuana, and for other purposes";<237> it currently has eleven cosponsors. This bill would give the states the power to regulate farming of hemp. The measure would be a first since the national prohibition of industrial hemp farming in the United States. The Economist wrote that his support for hemp farming could appeal to farmers in Iowa.<238>

Drug prohibition
Paul contends that prohibition of drugs is ineffective and advocates ending the War on Drugs.<239><240><241> "Prohibition doesn’t work. Prohibition causes crime." He believes that drug abuse should be treated as a medical problem, "We treat alcoholism now as a medical problem and I, as a physician, think we should treat drug addiction as a medical problem and not as a crime." The Constitution does not enumerate or delegate to Congress the authority to ban or regulate drugs in general. He believes the war on drugs is a racist policy against African Americans, who are affected disproportionally.

Paul believes in personal responsibility, but also sees inequity in the current application of drug enforcement laws, noting in 2000, "Many prisoners are non-violent and should be treated as patients with addictions, not as criminals. Irrational mandatory minimal sentences have caused a great deal of harm. We have non-violent drug offenders doing life sentences, and there is no room to incarcerate the rapists and murderers."<242>

When asked about his position on implementing the tenth amendment, Paul explained, "Certain medical procedures and medical choices, I would allow the states to determine that. The state law should prevail not the Federal Government." Speaking specifically about Drug Enforcement Administration raids on medical marijuana clinics Paul said, "They’re unconstitutional," and went on to advocate states' rights<243> and personal choice: "You’re not being compassionate by taking medical marijuana from someone who’s suffering from cancer or AIDS .... People should have freedom of choice. We certainly should respect the law and the law says that states should be able to determine this."

Ballot access
As a former Libertarian Party candidate for President, Paul has been a proponent of ballot access law reform, and has spoken out on numerous election law reform issues.

In 2003, he introduced H. R. 1941, the Voter Freedom Act of 2003, that would have created uniform ballot access laws for independent and third political party candidates in Congressional elections. He supported this bill in a speech before Congress in 2004.<246> In 2007 he reintroduced a similar version of the bill.

[krabigirl]

27. Good for him!!

[malaise]

32. He's right

K&R

[AlabamaLibrul]

33. The country's moved so far right, Ron Paul seems like a raging leftist.

The world has gone crazy.

[mmonk]

35. He's pretty much correct on that.

[pettypace]

37. Anyone know if Ron Paul is an agnostic/atheist?

Something tells me he doesn't follow the disciple of Jebus.

[w8liftinglady]

38. he is VERY pro-life(unlike other Libs)...so i have a feeling he is Christian..just a guess

[krabigirl]

47. No, he is a Christian.

[roamer65]

39. This the part of Libertarianism that I agree with....

then they start up that "America 1928" social darwinist crap and they piss me off.

[slipslidingaway]

40. One thing about Ron Paul is you know where he stands on an issue, this 2003 speech....

is a good example. You can go through any speech and know whether you disagree or agree with a particular item, the idea that we have to either accept or reject the entire person just allows people to be manipulated ... IMHO.

How many Dems talked about the rise of the Neocons and their agenda.

:shrug:


Neo – CONNED ! - Speech on the House Floor - July 10, 2003

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/slipslidingaway/20

In addition to the PNAC thread and the Paul Craig Roberts thread the Neo-conned speech by Ron Paul is an interesting read. While I do not agree with all of his policies, he laid out the rise of the neocons in this 50 minute speech.

"...Since the change of the political party in charge has not made a difference, who’s really in charge?

...The philosophic and political commitment for both guns and butter—and especially the expanding American empire—must be challenged. This is crucial for our survival.

...How did all this transpire? Why did the government do it? Why haven’t the people objected? How long will it go on before something is done? Does anyone care?

...In addition to publications, multiple think tanks and projects were created to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) led the neocon charge, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) another organization helped by the Bradley Foundation. This occurred in 1998 and was chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. They urged early on for war against Iraq, but were disappointed with the Clinton administration, which never followed through with its periodic bombings. Obviously, these bombings were motivated more by Clinton’s personal and political problems than a belief in the neocon agenda.

...Let there be no doubt, those in the neocon camp had been anxious to go to war against Iraq for a decade. They justified the use of force to accomplish their goals, even if it required preemptive war. If anyone doubts this assertion, they need only to read of their strategy in “A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” Although they felt morally justified in changing the government in Iraq, they knew that public support was important, and justification had to be given to pursue the war. Of course, a threat to us had to exist before the people and the Congress would go along with war. The majority of Americans became convinced of this threat, which, in actuality, never really existed. Now we have the ongoing debate over the location of weapons of mass destruction. Where was the danger? Was all this killing and spending necessary? How long will this nation building and dying go on? When will we become more concerned about the needs of our own citizens than the problems we sought in Iraq and Afghanistan?


...Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. A few have, and others will continue to do so, but too many—both in and out of government—close their eyes to the issue of personal liberty and ignore the fact that endless borrowing to finance endless demands cannot be sustained. True prosperity can only come from a healthy economy and sound money. That can only be achieved in a free society."

Edit: The old link to the full speech is no longer active, this is an alternate link.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html

[Fleshdancer]

41. All I know is that things are really f*cked when I agree with Ron Paul.

It started happening during the W Administration and it just won't stop. Not happy about it.

[somone]

42. Damn right

The old man makes a lot of sense on some days.

[hedgetrimmer]

43. Agreed

[Liberal Left]

45. I like Paul

I don't agree with him on social issues but he's great on everything else.

[FooshIt]

46. The man is a known racist. Can we stop supporting him? Enough said.

[krabigirl]

48. He isn't, so whatever.

[Uzybone]

57. from the Ron Paul newsletter

"order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

Of course you'll say he didn't technically write it so he is excused.

[nxylas]

59. "He didn't write it" is hardly a "technicality"

I've no idea whether he is a racist or not, but that's because all the racist quotes attributed to him were written by other people. I've edited a newsletter and I sometimes published statements I personally disagreed with. I probably wouldn't have published the comment you quote, but a libertarian like Paul could quite easily invoke the Voltaire defence: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

[Uzybone]

53. dupe

[Uzybone]

54. dupe

[Uzybone]

55. dupe

[Uzybone]

56. DU is an aimless place now, supporting racists like Ron Paul

[lunasun]

60. and anti choice = no women's rights a concern for the cheering crowd either

[tekisui]

51. He is right.

[indimuse]

52. well said!! n/t

[sce56]

58. Just goes to show you can find some good in most people! Even if you dissagree with 99% of him!

[Glassunion]

61. 90%... I'm starting to believe that he is not a republican.