Congressman Paul supports the closure of Guantanamo Bay. He supports the return of habeas corpus rights to those imprisoned there. In a 2007 interview, Congressman Paul stated that the rationale at Guantanamo is based on the false premise that detainees are not entitled to due process protections and that the suspension of habeas corpus flies in the face of our civic and legal traditions as outlined in the Constitution. He stated that he sees no purpose for continuing the facility.
To deal with the prisoners being held there, Congressman Paul advocates for placing any prisoner that evidence exists against into the criminal court system. As justification for this, Congressman Paul cites the capture, imprisonment, and prosecution of the 1993 world trade center bombers.
Congressman Paul opposes the use of torture or enhanced interrogations. He has stated that a decent society never accepts or justifies torture as it dehumanizes both torturer and victim and seldom produces reliable intelligence. He also notes that it puts US civilians and servicemen in danger.
In addition to moral and retaliation arguments, Congressman Paul argues against torture through executive order is an unconstitutional expansion of powers. He has stated that It is precisely during times of relative crisis that we should adhere most closely to the Constitution, not abandon it. He notes that war does not justify the suspension of torture laws any more than it justifies the suspension of murder laws, the suspension of due process, or the suspension of the Second amendment.
Congressman Paul also opposed the Military Commissions Act. He states that the law fundamentally changed our country by establishing a system whereby the President of the United States can determine unilaterally that an individual is an ``unlawful enemy combatant'' and subject to detention without access to court appeal. He notes that nothing in the bill would prevent a United States citizen from being named an ``enemy combatant'' by the President and thus possibly subject to indefinite detention. Congress is making an enormous mistake in allowing such power to be concentrated in one person. Congressman Paul also argues against giving the President the exclusive authority to interpret parts of the Geneva Convention relating to treatment of detainees, to determine what does and does not constitute a violation of that Convention. The President's decision on this matter would not be reviewable by either the legislative or judicial branch of government. This provision has implications not only for the current administration, but especially for any administration, Republican or Democrat, that may come to power in the future. He argues that the legislation eliminates habeas corpus for alien unlawful enemy combatants detained under this act. Those thus named by the President will have no access to the courts to dispute the determination.
A Decent Society
In June of 2004, Congressman Paul issued a statement noting his views on torture, and the power of the executive branch. Congressman Paul notes that it is precisely in times of crisis that we must adhere to constitutional principles.
Torture, War, and Presidential Powers by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
A Wall Street Journal article last week detailed a Department of Defense memo that discusses the legality of interrogation and torture methods in the wake of events at Abu Gharib. The document reportedly advises that the president has authority to order almost any action, including physical or psychological torture, despite federal laws to the contrary. The Pentagon lawyers who drafted the memo were not shy about blatantly asserting that the Commander-In-Chief can break the law when necessary, as evidenced by this quote from the memo: “Sometimes the greater good for society will be accomplished by violating the literal language of the criminal law.”
The Justice department, for its part, is depressingly silent on the issue. Attorney General Ashcroft refuses to release an existing Justice department memo on the matter to Congress. Why can't the American people, much less Congress, see how the Justice department interprets presidential powers and federal torture laws? Why the secrecy? The Justice department is charged with enforcing federal laws, not suspending them or advising federal agencies to ignore them.
Legal issues aside, the American people and government should never abide the use of torture by our military or intelligence agencies. A decent society never accepts or justifies torture. It dehumanizes both torturer and victim, yet seldom produces reliable intelligence. Torture by rogue American troops or agents puts all Americans at risk, especially our rank-and-file soldiers stationed in dozens of dangerous places around the globe. God forbid terrorists take American soldiers or travelers hostage and torture them as some kind of sick retaliation for Abu Gharib.
The greater issue presented by the Defense department memo, however, is the threat posed by unchecked executive power. Defense department lawyers essentially argue that a president's powers as Commander-In-Chief override federal laws prohibiting torture, and the Justice department appears to agree. But the argument for extraordinary wartime executive powers has been made time and time again, always with bad results and the loss of our liberties. War has been used by presidents to excuse the imprisonment of American citizens of Japanese descent, to silence speech, to suspend habeas corpus, and even to control entire private industries.
It is precisely during times of relative crisis that we should adhere most closely to the Constitution, not abandon it. War does not justify the suspension of torture laws any more than it justifies the suspension of murder laws, the suspension of due process, or the suspension of the Second amendment.
We are fighting undeclared wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and an open-ended war against terrorism worldwide. If the president claims extraordinary wartime powers, and we fight undeclared wars with no beginning and no end, when if ever will those extraordinary powers lapse? Since terrorism will never be eliminated completely, should all future presidents be able to act without regard to Congress or the Constitution simply by asserting “We're at war”?
Conservatives should understand that the power given the president today will pass to the president's successors, who may be only too eager to abuse that unbridled power domestically to destroy their political enemies. Remember the anger directed at President Clinton for acting “above the law” when it came to federal perjury charges? An imperial presidency threatens all of us who oppose unlimited state power over our lives.
A strong separation of powers is at the heart of our constitutional liberties. No branch of government should be able to act unilaterally, no matter how cumbersome the legislative process may be. The beauty of the Constitution is that it encourages some degree of gridlock in government, making it harder for any branch to act capriciously or secretly. When we give any president — one man — too much power, we build a foundation for future tyranny.
June 15, 2004
Military Commissions Act
In September of 2006, Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor concerning his opposition to the Military Commissions Act. (H7554)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strongest opposition to this ill-conceived legislation. Once again, the House of Representatives is abrogating its Constitutional obligations and relinquishing its authority to the executive branch of government.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation will fundamentally change our country. It will establish a system whereby the President of the United States can determine unilaterally that an individual is an ``unlawful enemy combatant'' and subject to detention without access to court appeal. What is most troubling is that nothing in the bill would prevent a United States citizen from being named an ``enemy combatant'' by the President and thus possibly subject to indefinite detention. Congress is making an enormous mistake in allowing such power to be concentrated in one person.
Additionally, the bill gives the President the exclusive authority to interpret parts of the Geneva Convention relating to treatment of detainees, to determine what does and does not constitute a violation of that Convention. The President's decision on this matter would not be reviewable by either the legislative or judicial branch of government. This provision has implications not only for the current administration, but especially for any administration, Republican or Democrat, that may come to power in the future.
This legislation eliminates habeas corpus for alien unlawful enemy combatants detained under this act. Those thus named by the President will have no access to the courts to dispute the determination and detention. We have already seen numerous examples of individuals detained by mistake, who were not involved in terrorism or anti-American activities. This legislation will deny such individuals the right to challenge their detention in the court. Certainly we need to prosecute those who have committed crimes against the United States, but we also need to be sure that those we detain are legitimately suspect.
I am also concerned that sections in this bill dealing with protection of U.S. personnel from prosecution for war crimes and detainee abuse offenses are retroactively applied to as far back as 1997.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will leave the men and women of our military and intelligence services much more vulnerable overseas, which is one reason many career military and intelligence personnel oppose it. We have agreed to recognize the Geneva Convention because it is a very good guarantee that our enemy will do likewise when U.S. soldiers are captured. It is in our own interest to adhere to these provisions. Unilaterally changing the terms of how we treat those captured in battle will signal to our enemies that they may do the same. Additionally, scores of Americans working overseas as aid workers or missionaries who may provide humanitarian assistance may well be vulnerable to being named ``unlawful combatants'' by foreign governments should those countries adopt the criteria we are adopting here. Should aid workers assist groups out of favor or struggling against repressive regimes overseas, those regimes could well deem our own citizens ``unlawful combatants.'' It is a dangerous precedent we are setting.
Mr. Speaker, we must seek out, detain, try, and punish if found guilty anyone who seeks to attack the United States. We in Congress have an obligation to pass legislation that ensures that process will go forward. What Congress has done in this bill, though, is to tell the President ``you take charge of this, we reject our Constitutional duties.'' I urge my colleagues to reject this ill-conceived piece of legislation.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, Congress has an obligation under the Constitution to enact legislation that creates fair trials for accused terrorists that will be upheld by the courts. We also have an obligation to protect our troops that fall into enemy hands, and to uphold American values and the rule of law. Finally, even during wartime, the President must work with Congress and the courts to uphold our Constitution. In June, the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld struck down the President's military commissions , since they violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. The Court noted that Congress, not the president, has the authority under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to ``define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations.''
I strongly support our government's efforts to isolate, track down, and ultimately kill or capture suspected terrorists who are planning terrorist attacks against the United States. We must bring these terrorists to justice swiftly. We must also strengthen our efforts to protect the homeland by providing additional resources to law enforcement and emergency services personnel who are charged with disrupting and responding to a terrorist attack in the United States. As a former member of the Homeland Security Committee, I have fought hard to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and to distribute our homeland security funds on the basis of actual threats and vulnerabilities.
I am therefore extremely disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that the House leadership failed to reach out to members on both sides of the aisle in crafting this legislation. We should heed the warning given by our former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who states that ``the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.''
The 9/11 Commission recommended that ``the United States should engage its friends to develop a common coalition approach toward the detention and humane treatment of captured terrorists. New principles might draw upon Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions ..... Allegations that the United States abused prisoners in its custody make it harder to build the diplomatic, political, and military alliances the [U.S.] government will need.'' This legislation today undermines the protections of the Geneva Convention, and by weakening our moral authority makes it harder for us to work with allies to win the war on terrorism and protect Americans.
I share the concerns of the many current and former military officers that testified to Congress that any weakening of these protections will place American soldiers at risk if they are captured overseas. I am pleased that last December Congress adopted Senator McCain's legislation and outlawed the use of torture, and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment by U.S. personnel, which would endanger the treatment of our American soldiers overseas. I am disappointed, therefore, that this legislation allows the use of statements obtained by some this prohibited behavior to be admissible in court.
Finally, this legislation eliminates the fundamental legal right of habeas corpus, which would permit our government to hold detainees indefinitely without charge, trial, or the right to an independent hearing to weigh the evidence against the accused terrorist.
We must join with our allies to win the war on terrorism and bring terrorists to justice. Our Constitution contains the very values we hold dear and that makes us proud to be Americans, and which motivate our soldiers to lay down their lives in defense of this country. I have sworn to uphold and defend our Constitution and to protect our democracy. This legislation takes a step backward, is inconsistent with the rule of law, and will make it harder to work with our allies to build an effective coalition to defeat terrorism. I therefore will vote against this legislation.
Five years after the 9/11 attacks, it is inexcusable that not a single one of the terrorists who planned the 9/11 attacks has been brought to trial. I am hopeful that the Senate will improve this legislation as Congress continues to discharge its constitutional duty to create military commissions that are consistent with the rule of law and that will result in convictions of terrorists that will be upheld by our courts.
Muckraker Report Interview
In June of 2007, Congressman Paul was interviewed by muckrakerreport.com and responded to a question about Guantanamo Bay by stating that it should be shut down.
Shut it down. The current rationale at Guantanamo is based on the false premise that detainees are not entitled to due process protections. I support court decisions recognizing fundamental human rights, such as habeas corpus. Again, this is an issue that flies in the face of our civic and legal traditions as outlined in the Constitution. As such, I see no purpose for continuing the facility.
Values Voter Debate
In September of 2007, Congressman Paul spoke at the Values Voter debate. In his closing remarks, Congressman Paul spoke about the need to rely on the rule of law and to ensure that rights such as habeas corpus are observed.
MSNBC Appearance
In June of 2008, Congressman Paul appeared on MSNBC and was asked about the base at Guantanamo Bay. He stated that the base should be closed and the people put into the court system.
Ending Torture
In May of 2009, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" address to discuss "enhanced interrogation" and other facets of the torture issue.
Torturing the Rule of Law
While Congress is sidetracked by who said what to whom and when, our nation finds itself at a crossroads on the issue of torture. We are at a point where we must decide if torture is something that is now going to be considered justifiable and reasonable under certain circumstances, or is America better than that?
“Enhanced interrogation” as some prefer to call it, has been used throughout history, usually by despotic governments, to cruelly punish or to extract politically useful statements from prisoners. Governments that do these things invariably bring shame on themselves.
In addition, information obtained under duress is incredibly unreliable, which is why it is not admissible in a court of law. Legally valid information is freely given by someone of sound mind and body. Someone in excruciating pain, or brought close to death by some horrific procedure is not in any state of mind to give reliable information, and certainly no actions should be taken solely based upon it.
For these reasons, it is illegal in the United States and illegal under Geneva Conventions. Simulated drowning, or water boarding, was not considered an exception to these laws when it was used by the Japanese against US soldiers in World War II. In fact, we hanged Japanese officers for war crimes in 1945 for water boarding. Its status as torture has already been decided by our own courts under this precedent. To look the other way now, when Americans do it, is the very definition of hypocrisy.
Matthew Alexander, author of “How to Break a Terrorist” used non-torture methods of interrogation in Iraq with much success. In fact, one cooperative jihadist told him, "I thought you would torture me, and when you didn't, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That's why I decided to cooperate." Alexander also found that in Iraq “the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq.” Alexander’s experiences unequivocally demonstrate that losing our humanity is not beneficial or necessary in fighting terror.
The current administration has reversed its position on releasing evidence of torture by the previous administration and we must ask why. A great and moral nation would have the courage to face the truth so it could abide by the rule of law. To look the other way necessarily implicates all of us and would of course further radicalize people against our troops on the ground. Instead, we have the chance to limit culpability for torture to those who were truly responsible for these crimes against humanity.
Not everyone who was given illegal orders obeyed them. Many FBI agents understood that an illegal order must be disobeyed and they did so. The others must be held accountable, so that all of us are not targeted for blowback for the complicity of some.
The government’s own actions and operations in torturing people, and in acting on illegally obtained and unreliable information to kill and capture, are the most radicalizing forces at work today, not any religion, nor the fact that we are rich and free. The fact that our government engages in evil behavior under the auspices of the American people is what poses the greatest threat to the American people, and it must not be allowed to stand.
Glenn Beck Appearance
In May of 2009, Congressman Paul appeared on the Glenn Beck Program which was hosted by Judge Napolitano. He discussed the need to close Guantanamo Bay and his views that the people there should be tried in a civilian court.
Judge Napolitano: Lawmakers say that the President has not presented a solid plan for what to do with the prisoners. Congressman Ron Paul Republican from Texas joins me now, Congressman Paul welcome to the show. Should Guantanamo Bay be closed as a prison camp for detainees? Why?
Congressman Paul: Yes. Sure it should be closed because we don't need it. It was unnecessary, the way these prisoners were captured was very questionable. They haven't had really due process. So, the real thugs that need to be tried, they ought to be tried. But, they've deleted the funding mainly because the Republicans have really won the argument. They've turned it into "If you don't support the continuation of these military tribunals and you don't support Guantanamo, maybe you support sending these people into your district and they'll be your neighbors."
The Democrats were convinced that [the Republicans] won the PR fight, and so therefore, [the Democrats] all became squeamish. And even the president backed down. That's why there's no funding for closing Guantanamo, and I guess it will be open for an indefinite future.
Judge Napolitano: Now I visited Guantanamo about three years ago. As a physical plant, it is extraordinary. It is better than many prisons. ... The issue is not the physical plant, the issue if not the physical plant, the issue is why are these people there and how can we keep them without proving that they've done something wrong in some legitimate recognized court of law?
Congressman Paul: I think that's the key to it. And so far, they don't have an answer, because they're not allowing them to be tried in a legitimate court of law.
I think that a good example was set with the individuals that were involved with the bombing of the towers in 1993. I mean, we even went into Pakistan, arrested them, brought them over here, tried them in our court system, and they're not our neighbors. They are in a federal prison and nobody feels threatened by them. So, I'm not so sure why they are so determined not to pursue the law.
We Are Less Safe
In May of 2009, Congressman Paul issued a video on torture for the campaign for liberty. He spoke about foreign policy and torture, He noted that whenever we torture someone and other people find out, it creates more enemies for us to fight.
NeoConservative Policies
In June of 2009, Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor about a number of subjects. Within that speech, Congressman Paul spoke about indefinite detention, the loss of habeas corpus, and torture. (comments start at 3:06)
South Carolina Debate
In May of 2011, Congressman Paul participated in the Republican debate in South Carolina. He spoke about his view that detainees should receive trials and that torture should be ended at these facilities.
CBS Foreign Policy Debate
In November of 2011, Herman Cain participated in the CBS foreign policy debate. He was asked about the Guantanamo Bay and discusses his opposition to torture and to assassination.
Scott Pelley: Congressman Paul, one minute to you, sir.
Ron Paul: I think that-- this is a mess. It's a mess because we have a bad foreign policy. We're pretending we're at war. We haven't declared the war, but we're at war against a tactic. And therefore-- there's no limits to it. So we create these monstrosities. And we do think outside the law. We come up with assassination, allowing the president to decide who's going to be assassinated?
And-- lo and behold, three Americans now have been on the list. They've been assassinated. But they don't talk about the second one, because the second one happened to be a 16 year old son of Awlaki. So what are we doing here to accept this idea that our president, and this lawlessness, to pursue? And that-- we some day will be subject to those same courts.
So no, you don't. You want to live within-- in the law and obey the law. Because-- otherwise, it's going to be very bad for all-- all of us. And-- this whole idea that-- now we can be assassinated by somebody that we don't even like to run our medical care, and giving this power to the president to be the prosecutor, the executor, the judge and the jury, we better look at that carefully before you automatically endorse something like that.
...
Major Garrett: Congresswoman, thank you. I know, Ron Paul, you want to jump in.
Ron Paul: Yes.
Major Garrett: Please.
Ron Paul: I voted for the authority to go after bin Laden. I was upset because it took ten years because we-- we were diverted from-- going after him and doing the job. But that's a lot different than assassinating American citizens. I mean he-- he wasn't a citizen.
But I do wanna remind you that over 300 individuals were tried in civilian courts here that were charged with terrorism here. Most of 'em are in jail. And I don't think we should give up so easily on our rule of law.
Scott Pelley: Congressman Paul, thank you very much.
Voting Record
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010
In October of 2010, the House voted on a funding bill for Homeland Security. Buried within that legislation was language to prevent any funds from being used to transfer detainees from Guantanamo Bay to the US or to their home nation. Also in that funding bill was a definition that made photos taken of prisoners at Guantanamo bay classified and unable to be released. The act passed the House 258-163. Ron Paul voted against the act which prevented the movement of prisoners from Gitmo and classified photos of detainees.
Ron Paul voted against the act which prevented the movement of prisoners from Gitmo and classified photos of detainees.
Military Commissions Act of 2006
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 established the authority to hold military tribunals for unlawful enemy combatants. It also defined that term and several others. The legislation was passed 253-168 in September of 2006. Ron Paul voted against the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
Ron Paul voted against the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
Repeals the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Authorizes the President to establish military commissions for the trial of war crimes only in places of active hostilities against the United States where an immediate trial is necessary to preserve fresh evidence or to prevent local anarchy. Prohibits the President from detaining any individual indefinitely as an unlawful enemy combatant absent proof by substantial evidence that the individual has directly engaged in active hostilities against the United States. Prohibits the detention of any U.S. citizen as an unlawful enemy combatant. Entitles any individual detained as an enemy combatant by the United States to petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Prohibits any civilian or military tribunal of the United States from admitting as evidence statements extracted from the defendant by torture or coercion.
