Ron Paul - Homeland Security

Summary

Congressman Paul opposed the PATRIOT Act and it's re-authorization. He was one of three Republicans to vote against it. He opposes warrant-less wiretaps and the use of torture on prisoners. He has been an outspoken critic on the weakening of habeas corpus rights in the US and has consistently advocated for the repeal of the PATRIOT Act.

In 2001, Congressman Paul spoke against the PATRIOT Act and noted that there was much the US could do within the law to address terrorism. Congressman Paul notes that the PATRIOT Act is not limited to acts of terrorism, but can be applied to many normal crimes within the US. He also states that the provisions centralizing the power to issue writs of habeas corpus to federal courts located in the District of Columbia. He states that habeas corpus is one of the most powerful checks on government and anything which burdens the ability to exercise this right expands the potential for government abuses of liberty.

One item that Congressman Paul has consistently pointed to in addressing the flaws in the PATRIOT Act is the sunsetting of certain provisions. He notes that if these provisions (such as wiretapping) are not violations of civil liberties, then there is no need to sunset them. If they do violate civil liberties, then they should not be enacted as the loss of liberty in war time is never reasserted in peace time. The fact that the "war on terror" will have no definitive end is further cause for concern.

Since the passage of the PATRIOT Act, Congressman Paul has warned of an emerging police state in America. He notes the rise of government power and the use of the war on terror to create a department of Homeland Security - a department he urged strongly not to create. He asserts that most police states are elected by the people with the understanding that they are necessary at the time, but newly enacted provisions will eventually subside. He states that terror and fear are used to achieve complacency and obedience, especially when citizens are deluded into believing they are still a free people. The changes, they are assured, will be minimal, short-lived, and necessary, such as those that occur in times of a declared war. Under these conditions, most citizens believe that once the war is won, the restrictions on their liberties will be reversed. For the most part, however, after a declared war is over, the return to normalcy is never complete. In an undeclared war, without a precise enemy and therefore no precise ending, returning to normalcy can prove illusory. This reasoning is part of Congressman Paul's opposition to the PATRIOT Act and it's reauthorizations.

Congressman Paul also opposed the FISA amendments in 2005 that gave immunity to telecommunications companies that gave the government user's data, and further authorized bulk data collection. Congressman Paul stated that the legislation clearly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the federal government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens’ communications without a search warrant. He also noted that the measure deprived Americans who have had their rights violated by telecommunication companies involved in the Administration’s illegal wiretapping program the right to seek redress in the courts for the wrongs committed against them.

In November of 2010, Congressman Paul introduced the Traveler's Rights Act to prohibit TSA screening, prevent a TSA from touching a traveler, and prevent the use of scanners. He notes that a person does not cede their rights when they buy a plane ticket. Congressman Paul also notes that the government's job is to protect our rights and not to prevent every possible accident or tragedy.

Congressman Paul opposed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, which provided the President with the authority to arrest and detain US citizens who are suspected of being terrorists.

Floor Remarks on the PATRIOT Act

During the discussions on the PATRIOT Act, Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor and discussed the PATRIOT Act and his views that it could be detrimental to American Security. These remarks were taken from the Thomas system for October 12, 2001 (H6768).

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the shocking attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have reminded us all that the primary responsibility of the federal government is to protect the security and liberty of our nation's citizens. Therefore, we must do what we can to enhance the ability of law enforcement to prevent future terrorist attacks. For example, the federal government can allow enhanced data-sharing among federal agencies that deal with terrorism. The federal government should also forbid residents of countries which sponsor terrorism from receiving student visas as well as prohibit residents of terrorist countries from participating in programs which provide special privileges to immigrants. In fact, I have introduced my own anti-terrorism legislation, the Securing American Families Effectively (SAFE) Act, which strengthens the ability of law enforcement to track down and prosecute suspected terrorists as well as keep potential terrorists out of the country.

There is also much the federal government can do under current existing law to fight terrorism. The combined annual budgets of the FBI, the CIA and various other security programs amount to over $30 billion. Perhaps Congress should consider redirecting some of the money spent by intelligence agencies on matters of lower priority to counterrorism efforts. Since the tragic attacks, our officials have located and arrested hundreds of suspects, frozen millions of dollars of assets, and received authority to launch a military attack against the ring leaders in Afghanistan. It seems the war against terrorism has so far been carried our satisfactorily under current law.

Still, there are areas where our laws could be strengthened with no loss of liberties, and I am pleased that HR 3108 appears to contain many common sense provisions designed to strengthen the government's ability to prevent terrorist attacks while preserving constitutional liberty.

However, other provisions of this bill represent a major infringement of the American people's constitutional rights. I am afraid that if these provisions are signed into law, the American people will lose large parts of their liberty--maybe not today but over time, as agencies grow more comfortable exercising their new powers. My concerns are exacerbated by the fact that HR 3108 lacks many of the protections of civil liberties which the House Judiciary Committee worked to put into the version of the bill they considered. In fact, the process under which we are asked to consider this bill makes it nearly impossible to fulfill our constitutional responsibility to carefully consider measures which dramatically increase government's power.

Many of the most constitutionally offensive measures in this bill are not limited to terrorist offenses, but apply to any criminal activity. In fact, some of the new police powers granted the government could be applied even to those engaging in peaceful protest against government policies. The bill as written defines terrorism as acts intended ``to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.'' Under this broad definition, should a scuffle occur at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration the sponsoring organization may become the target of a federal investigation for terrorism. We have seen abuses of law enforcement authority in the past to harass individuals or organizations with unpopular political views. I hope my colleagues consider that they may be handing a future administration tools to investigate pro-life or gun rights organizations on the grounds that fringe members of their movements advocate violence. It is an unfortunate reality that almost every political movement today, from gun rights to environmentalism, has a violent fringe.

I am very disturbed by the provisions centralizing the power to issue writs of habeas corpus to federal courts located in the District of Columbia. Habeas corpus is one of the most powerful checks on government and anything which burdens the ability to exercise this right expands the potential for government abuses of liberty. I ask my colleagues to remember that in the centuries of experience with habeas corpus there is no evidence that it interferes with legitimate interests of law enforcement. HR 3108 also codifies one of the most common abuses of civil liberties in recent years by expanding the government's ability to seize property from citizens who have not yet been convicted of a crime under the circumvention of the Bill of Rights known as ``asset forfeiture.''

Among other disturbing proposals, H.R. 3108 grants the President the authority to seize all the property of any foreign national that the President determines is involved in hostilities against the United States. Giving the executive branch discretionary authority to seize private property without due process violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the fifth amendment to the Constitution. Furthermore, given that one of the (unspoken) reasons behind the shameful internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry in the 1940s was to reward favored interests with property forcibly taken from innocent landowners, how confident are we that future, less scrupulous executives will refrain from using this power to reward political allies with the property of alleged ``hostile nationals?''

H.R. 3108 waters down the fourth amendment by expanding the federal governments ability to use wiretaps free of judicial oversight. The fourth amendment's requirement of a search warrant and probable cause strikes a balance between effective law enforcement and civil liberties. Any attempt to water down the warrant requirement threatens innocent citizens with a loss of their liberty. This is particularly true of provisions which allow for nationwide issuance of search warrants, as these severely restrict judicial oversight of government wiretaps and searches.

Many of the questionable provisions in this bill, such as the expanded pen register authority and the expanded use of roving wiretaps, are items for which law enforcement has been lobbying for years. The utility of these items in catching terrorists is questionable to say the least. After all, terrorists have demonstrated they are smart enough not to reveal information about their plans when they know federal agents could be listening.

This legislation is also objectionable because it adopts a lower standard than probable cause for receiving e-mails and Internet communications. While it is claimed that this is the same standard used to discover numbers dialed by a phone, it is also true that even the headings on e-mails or the names of web sites one visits can reveal greater amounts of personal information than can a mere telephone number. I wonder how my colleagues would feel if all of their e-mail headings and the names of the web sites they visited were available to law enforcement upon a showing of mere ``relevance.'' I also doubt the relevance of this provision to terrorist investigation, as it seems unlikely that terrorists would rely on e-mail or the Internet to communicate among themselves.

Some defenders of individuals rights may point to the provisions establishing new penalties for violations of individual rights and the provisions ``sunsetting'' some of the government's new powers as justifying support for this bill. Those who feel that simply increasing the penalties for ``unauthorized'' disclosure of information collected under this act should consider that existing laws did not stop the ineffectiveness of such laws in preventing the abuse of personal information collected by the IRS or FBI by administrations of both parties. As for ``sunsetting,'' I would ask if these provisions are critical tools in the fight against terrorism, why remove the government's ability to use them after five years? Conversely, if these provisions violate American's constitutional rights why is it acceptable to suspend the Constitution at all?

As Jeffery Rosen pointed out in the New Republic, this proposal makes even the most innocuous form of computer hacking a federal offense but does not even grant special emergency powers to perform searches in cases where police have reason to believe that a terrorist attack would be imminent. Thus, if this bill were law on April 24, 1995 and the FBI had information that someone in a yellow Ryder Truck was going to be involved in a terrorist attack, the government could not conduct an emergency search of all yellow Ryder Trucks in Oklahoma City. This failure to address so obvious a need in the anti-terrorism effort suggests this bill is a more hastily cobbled together wish list by the federal bureauracy than a serious attempt to grant law enforcement the actual tools needed to combat terrorism.

H.R. 3108 may actually reduce security as private cities may not take necessary measures to protect their safety because ``the government is taking care of our security.'' In a free market, private owners have great incentives to protect their private property and the lives of their customers. That is why industrial plants in the United States enjoy reasonably good security. They are protected not by the local police but by owners putting up barbed wire fences, hiring guards with guns, and requiring identification cards to enter. All this, without any violation of anyone's civil liberties. In a free society private owners have a right, if not an obligation, to ``profile'' if it enhances security.

The reason this provision did not work in the case of the airlines is because the airlines followed federal regulations and assumed they were sufficient. This is often the case when the government assumes new powers or imposes new regulations. Therefore, in the future, once the horror of the events of September 11 fade from memory, people will relax their guard, figuring that the federal government is using its new powers to protect them and thus they do not need to invest their own time or money in security measures.

In conclusion, I reiterate my commitment to effective ways of enhancing the government's powers to combat terrorism. However, H.R. 3108 sacrifices too many of our constitutional liberties and will not even effectively address the terrorist menace. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and instead support reasonable common-sense measures that are aimed at terrorism such as those contained in my SAFE Act.

The Police State

In June of 2002, Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor about the emerging police state in America. The speech is very long, and we have not been able to find video to accompany it.

Is America a Police State?
Congressman Ron Paul U.S. House of Representatives June 27, 2002

Mr. Speaker:

Most Americans believe we live in dangerous times, and I must agree. Today I want to talk about how I see those dangers and what Congress ought to do about them.

Of course, the Monday-morning quarterbacks are now explaining, with political overtones, what we should have done to prevent the 9/11 tragedy. Unfortunately, in doing so, foreign policy changes are never considered.

I have, for more than two decades, been severely critical of our post-World War II foreign policy. I have perceived it to be not in our best interest and have believed that it presented a serious danger to our security.

For the record, in January of 2000 I stated the following on this floor:

Our commercial interests and foreign policy are no longer separate...as bad as it is that average Americans are forced to subsidize such a system, we additionally are placed in greater danger because of our arrogant policy of bombing nations that do not submit to our wishes. This generates hatred directed toward America ...and exposes us to a greater threat of terrorism, since this is the only vehicle our victims can use to retaliate against a powerful military state...the cost in terms of lost liberties and unnecessary exposure to terrorism is difficult to assess, but in time, it will become apparent to all of us that foreign interventionism is of no benefit to American citizens, but instead is a threat to our liberties.

Again, let me remind you I made these statements on the House floor in January 2000. Unfortunately, my greatest fears and warnings have been borne out.

I believe my concerns are as relevant today as they were then. We should move with caution in this post-9/11 period so we do not make our problems worse overseas while further undermining our liberties at home.

So far our post-9/11 policies have challenged the rule of law here at home, and our efforts against the al Qaeda have essentially come up empty-handed. The best we can tell now, instead of being in one place, the members of the al Qaeda are scattered around the world, with more of them in allied Pakistan than in Afghanistan. Our efforts to find our enemies have put the CIA in 80 different countries. The question that we must answer some day is whether we can catch enemies faster than we make new ones. So far it appears we are losing.

As evidence mounts that we have achieved little in reducing the terrorist threat, more diversionary tactics will be used. The big one will be to blame Saddam Hussein for everything and initiate a major war against Iraq, which will only generate even more hatred toward America from the Muslim world.

But, Mr. Speaker, my subject today is whether America is a police state. I'm sure the large majority of Americans would answer this in the negative. Most would associate military patrols, martial law and summary executions with a police state, something obviously not present in our everyday activities. However, those with knowledge of Ruby Ridge, Mount Carmel and other such incidents may have a different opinion.

The principal tool for sustaining a police state, even the most militant, is always economic control and punishment by denying disobedient citizens such things as jobs or places to live, and by levying fines and imprisonment. The military is more often used in the transition phase to a totalitarian state. Maintenance for long periods is usually accomplished through economic controls on commercial transactions, the use of all property, and political dissent. Peaceful control through these efforts can be achieved without storm troopers on our street corners.

Terror and fear are used to achieve complacency and obedience, especially when citizens are deluded into believing they are still a free people. The changes, they are assured, will be minimal, short-lived, and necessary, such as those that occur in times of a declared war. Under these conditions, most citizens believe that once the war is won, the restrictions on their liberties will be reversed. For the most part, however, after a declared war is over, the return to normalcy is never complete. In an undeclared war, without a precise enemy and therefore no precise ending, returning to normalcy can prove illusory.

We have just concluded a century of wars, declared and undeclared, while at the same time responding to public outcries for more economic equity. The question, as a result of these policies, is: "Are we already living in a police state?" If we are, what are we going to do about it? If we are not, we need to know if there's any danger that we're moving in that direction.

Most police states, surprisingly, come about through the democratic process with majority support. During a crisis, the rights of individuals and the minority are more easily trampled, which is more likely to condition a nation to become a police state than a military coup. Promised benefits initially seem to exceed the cost in dollars or lost freedom. When people face terrorism or great fear- from whatever source- the tendency to demand economic and physical security over liberty and self-reliance proves irresistible. The masses are easily led to believe that security and liberty are mutually exclusive, and demand for security far exceeds that for liberty.

Once it's discovered that the desire for both economic and physical security that prompted the sacrifice of liberty inevitably led to the loss of prosperity and no real safety, it's too late. Reversing the trend from authoritarian rule toward a freer society becomes very difficult, takes a long time, and entails much suffering. Although dissolution of the Soviet empire was relatively non-violent at the end, millions suffered from police suppression and economic deprivation in the decades prior to 1989.

But what about here in the United States? With respect to a police state, where are we and where are we going?

Let me make a few observations:

Our government already keeps close tabs on just about everything we do and requires official permission for nearly all of our activities.

One might take a look at our Capitol for any evidence of a police state. We see: barricades, metal detectors, police, military soldiers at times, dogs, ID badges required for every move, vehicles checked at airports and throughout the Capitol. The people are totally disarmed, except for the police and the criminals. But worse yet, surveillance cameras in Washington are everywhere to ensure our safety.

The terrorist attacks only provided the cover for the do-gooders who have been planning for a long time before last September to monitor us "for our own good." Cameras are used to spy on our drug habits, on our kids at school, on subway travelers, and on visitors to every government building or park. There's not much evidence of an open society in Washington, DC, yet most folks do not complain- anything goes if it's for government-provided safety and security.

If this huge amount of information and technology is placed in the hands of the government to catch the bad guys, one naturally asks, What's the big deal? But it should be a big deal, because it eliminates the enjoyment of privacy that a free society holds dear. The personal information of law-abiding citizens can be used for reasons other than safety- including political reasons. Like gun control, people control hurts law-abiding citizens much more than the law-breakers.

Social Security numbers are used to monitor our daily activities. The numbers are given at birth, and then are needed when we die and for everything in between. This allows government record keeping of monstrous proportions, and accommodates the thugs who would steal others' identities for criminal purposes. This invasion of privacy has been compounded by the technology now available to those in government who enjoy monitoring and directing the activities of others. Loss of personal privacy was a major problem long before 9/11.

Centralized control and regulations are required in a police state. Community and individual state regulations are not as threatening as the monolith of rules and regulations written by Congress and the federal bureaucracy. Law and order has been federalized in many ways and we are moving inexorably in that direction.

Almost all of our economic activities depend upon receiving the proper permits from the federal government. Transactions involving guns, food, medicine, smoking, drinking, hiring, firing, wages, politically correct speech, land use, fishing, hunting, buying a house, business mergers and acquisitions, selling stocks and bonds, and farming all require approval and strict regulation from our federal government. If this is not done properly and in a timely fashion, economic penalties and even imprisonment are likely consequences.

Because government pays for much of our health care, it's conveniently argued that any habits or risk-taking that could harm one's health are the prerogative of the federal government, and are to be regulated by explicit rules to keep medical-care costs down. This same argument is used to require helmets for riding motorcycles and bikes.

Not only do we need a license to drive, but we also need special belts, bags, buzzers, seats and environmentally dictated speed limits- or a policemen will be pulling us over to levy a fine, and he will be toting a gun for sure.

The states do exactly as they're told by the federal government, because they are threatened with the loss of tax dollars being returned to their state- dollars that should have never been sent to DC in the first place, let alone used to extort obedience to a powerful federal government.

Over 80,000 federal bureaucrats now carry guns to make us toe the line and to enforce the thousands of laws and tens of thousands of regulations that no one can possibly understand. We don't see the guns, but we all know they're there, and we all know we can't fight "City Hall," especially if it's "Uncle Sam."

All 18-year-old males must register to be ready for the next undeclared war. If they don't, men with guns will appear and enforce this congressional mandate. "Involuntary servitude" was banned by the 13th Amendment, but courts don't apply this prohibition to the servitude of draftees or those citizens required to follow the dictates of the IRS- especially the employers of the country, who serve as the federal government's chief tax collectors and information gatherers. Fear is the tool used to intimidate most Americans to comply to the tax code by making examples of celebrities. Leona Helmsley and Willie Nelson know how this process works.

Economic threats against business establishments are notorious. Rules and regulations from the EPA, the ADA, the SEC, the LRB, OSHA, etc. terrorize business owners into submission, and those charged accept their own guilt until they can prove themselves innocent. Of course, it turns out it's much more practical to admit guilt and pay the fine. This serves the interest of the authoritarians because it firmly establishes just who is in charge.

Information leaked from a government agency like the FDA can make or break a company within minutes. If information is leaked, even inadvertently, a company can be destroyed, and individuals involved in revealing government-monopolized information can be sent to prison. Even though economic crimes are serious offenses in the United States, violent crimes sometimes evoke more sympathy and fewer penalties. Just look at the O.J. Simpson case as an example.

Efforts to convict Bill Gates and others like him of an economic crime are astounding, considering his contribution to economic progress, while sources used to screen out terrorist elements from our midst are tragically useless. If business people are found guilty of even the suggestion of collusion in the marketplace, huge fines and even imprisonment are likely consequences.

Price fixing is impossible to achieve in a free market. Under today's laws, talking to, or consulting with, competitors can be easily construed as "price fixing" and involve a serious crime, even with proof that the so-called collusion never generated monopoly-controlled prices or was detrimental to consumers.

Lawfully circumventing taxes, even sales taxes, can lead to serious problems if a high-profile person can be made an example.

One of the most onerous controls placed on American citizens is the control of speech through politically correct legislation. Derogatory remarks or off-color jokes are justification for firings, demotions, and the destruction of political careers. The movement toward designating penalties based on the category to which victims belong, rather the nature of the crime itself, has the thought police patrolling the airways and byways. Establishing relative rights and special penalties for subjective motivation is a dangerous trend.

All our financial activities are subject to "legal" searches without warrants and without probable cause. Tax collection, drug usage, and possible terrorist activities "justify" the endless accumulation of information on all Americans.

Government control of medicine has prompted the establishment of the National Medical Data Bank. For efficiency reasons, it is said, the government keeps our medical records for our benefit. This, of course, is done with vague and useless promises that this information will always remain confidential- just like all the FBI information in the past!

Personal privacy, the sine qua non of liberty, no longer exists in the United States. Ruthless and abusive use of all this information accumulated by the government is yet to come. The Patriot Act has given unbelievable power to listen, read, and monitor all our transactions without a search warrant being issued after affirmation of probably cause. "Sneak and peak" and blanket searches are now becoming more frequent every day. What have we allowed to happen to the 4th amendment?

It may be true that the average American does not feel intimidated by the encroachment of the police state. I'm sure our citizens are more tolerant of what they see as mere nuisances because they have been deluded into believing all this government supervision is necessary and helpful- and besides they are living quite comfortably, material wise. However the reaction will be different once all this new legislation we're passing comes into full force, and the material comforts that soften our concerns for government regulations are decreased. This attitude then will change dramatically, but the trend toward the authoritarian state will be difficult to reverse.

What government gives with one hand- as it attempts to provide safety and security- it must, at the same time, take away with two others. When the majority recognizes that the monetary cost and the results of our war against terrorism and personal freedoms are a lot less than promised, it may be too late.

I'm sure all my concerns are unconvincing to the vast majority of Americans, who not only are seeking but also are demanding they be made safe from any possible attack from anybody, ever. I grant you this is a reasonable request.

The point is, however, there may be a much better way of doing it. We must remember, we don't sit around and worry that some Canadian citizen is about to walk into New York City and set off a nuclear weapon. We must come to understand the real reason is that there's a difference between the Canadians and all our many friends and the Islamic radicals. And believe me, we're not the target because we're "free and prosperous".

The argument made for more government controls here at home and expansionism overseas to combat terrorism is simple and goes like this: "If we're not made safe from potential terrorists, property and freedom have no meaning." It is argued that first we must have life and physical and economic security, with continued abundance, then we'll talk about freedom.

It reminds me of the time I was soliciting political support from a voter and was boldly put down: "Ron," she said, "I wish you would lay off this freedom stuff; it's all nonsense. We're looking for a Representative who will know how to bring home the bacon and help our area, and you're not that person." Believe me, I understand that argument; it's just that I don't agree that is what should be motivating us here in the Congress.

That's not the way it works. Freedom does not preclude security. Making security the highest priority can deny prosperity and still fail to provide the safety we all want.

The Congress would never agree that we are a police state. Most members, I'm sure, would argue otherwise. But we are all obligated to decide in which direction we are going. If we're moving toward a system that enhances individual liberty and justice for all, my concerns about a police state should be reduced or totally ignored. Yet, if, by chance, we're moving toward more authoritarian control than is good for us, and moving toward a major war of which we should have no part, we should not ignore the dangers. If current policies are permitting a serious challenge to our institutions that allow for our great abundance, we ignore them at great risk for future generations.

That's why the post-9/11 analysis and subsequent legislation are crucial to the survival of those institutions that made America great. We now are considering a major legislative proposal dealing with this dilemma- the new Department of Homeland Security- and we must decide if it truly serves the interests of America.

Since the new department is now a forgone conclusion, why should anyone bother to record a dissent? Because it's the responsibility of all of us to speak the truth to our best ability, and if there are reservations about what we're doing, we should sound an alarm and warn the people of what is to come.

In times of crisis, nearly unanimous support for government programs is usual and the effects are instantaneous. Discovering the error of our ways and waiting to see the unintended consequences evolve takes time and careful analysis. Reversing the bad effects is slow and tedious and fraught with danger. People would much prefer to hear platitudes than the pessimism of a flawed policy.

Understanding the real reason why we were attacked is crucial to crafting a proper response. I know of no one who does not condemn the attacks of 9/11. Disagreement as to the cause and the proper course of action should be legitimate in a free society such as ours. If not, we're not a free society.

Not only do I condemn the vicious acts of 9/11, but also, out of deep philosophic and moral commitment, I have pledged never to use any form of aggression to bring about social or economic changes.

But I am deeply concerned about what has been done and what we are yet to do in the name of security against the threat of terrorism.

Political propagandizing is used to get all of us to toe the line and be good "patriots," supporting every measure suggested by the administration. We are told that preemptive strikes, torture, military tribunals, suspension of habeas corpus, executive orders to wage war, and sacrificing privacy with a weakened 4th Amendment are the minimum required to save our country from the threat of terrorism.

Who's winning this war anyway?

To get popular support for these serious violations of our traditional rule of law requires that people be kept in a state of fear. The episode of spreading undue concern about the possibility of a dirty bomb being exploded in Washington without any substantiation of an actual threat is a good example of excessive fear being generated by government officials.

To add insult to injury, when he made this outlandish announcement, our Attorney General was in Moscow. Maybe if our FBI spent more time at home, we would get more for the money we pump into this now- discredited organization. Our FBI should be gathering information here at home, and the thousands of agents overseas should return. We don't need these agents competing overseas and confusing the intelligence apparatus of the CIA or the military.

I'm concerned that the excess fear, created by the several hundred al Qaeda functionaries willing to sacrifice their lives for their demented goals, is driving us to do to ourselves what the al Qaeda themselves could never do to us by force.

So far the direction is clear: we are legislating bigger and more intrusive government here at home and are allowing our President to pursue much more military adventurism abroad. These pursuits are overwhelmingly supported by Members of Congress, the media, and the so-called intellectual community, and questioned only by a small number of civil libertarians and anti-imperial, anti-war advocates.

The main reason why so many usually levelheaded critics of bad policy accept this massive increase in government power is clear. They, for various reasons, believe the official explanation of "Why us?" The several hundred al Qaeda members, we were told, hate us because: "We're rich, we're free, we enjoy materialism, and the purveyors of terror are jealous and envious, creating the hatred that drives their cause. They despise our Christian-Judaic values and this, is the sole reason why they are willing to die for their cause." For this to be believed, one must also be convinced that the perpetrators lied to the world about why they attacked us.

The al Qaeda leaders say they hate us because:

-We support Western puppet regimes in Arab countries for commercial reasons and against the wishes of the populace of these countries.

-This partnership allows a military occupation, the most confrontational being in Saudi Arabia, that offends their sense of pride and violates their religious convictions by having a foreign military power on their holy land. We refuse to consider how we might feel if China's navy occupied the Gulf of Mexico for the purpose of protecting "their oil" and had air bases on U.S. territory.

-We show extreme bias in support of one side in the fifty-plus-year war going on in the Middle East.

What if the al Qaeda is telling the truth and we ignore it? If we believe only the official line from the administration and proceed to change our whole system and undermine our constitutional rights, we may one day wake up to find that the attacks have increased, the numbers of those willing to commit suicide for their cause have grown, our freedoms are diminished, and all this has contributed to making our economic problems worse. The dollar cost of this "war" could turn out to be exorbitant, and the efficiency of our markets can be undermined by the compromises placed on our liberties.

Sometimes it almost seems that our policies inadvertently are actually based on a desire to make ourselves "less free and less prosperous"- those conditions that are supposed to have prompted the attacks. I'm convinced we must pay more attention to the real cause of the attacks of last year and challenge the explanations given us.

The question that one day must be answered is this:

What if we had never placed our troops in Saudi Arabia and had involved ourselves in the Middle East war in an even-handed fashion. Would it have been worth it if this would have prevented the events of 9/11?

If we avoid the truth, we will be far less well off than if we recognize that just maybe there is some truth in the statements made by the leaders of those who perpetrated the atrocities. If they speak the truth about the real cause, changing our foreign policy from foreign military interventionism around the globe supporting an American empire would make a lot of sense. It could reduce tensions, save money, preserve liberty and preserve our economic system.

This, for me, is not a reactive position coming out of 9/11, but rather is an argument I've made for decades, claiming that meddling in the affairs of others is dangerous to our security and actually reduces our ability to defend ourselves.

This in no way precludes pursuing those directly responsible for the attacks and dealing with them accordingly- something that we seem to have not yet done. We hear more talk of starting a war in Iraq than in achieving victory against the international outlaws that instigated the attacks on 9/11. Rather than pursuing war against countries that were not directly responsible for the attacks, we should consider the judicious use of Marque and Reprisal.

I'm sure that a more enlightened approach to our foreign policy will prove elusive. Financial interests of our international corporations, oil companies, and banks, along with the military-industrial complex, are sure to remain a deciding influence on our policies.

Besides, even if my assessments prove to be true, any shift away from foreign militarism- like bringing our troops home- would now be construed as yielding to the terrorists. It just won't happen. This is a powerful point and the concern that we might appear to be capitulating is legitimate.

Yet how long should we deny the truth, especially if this denial only makes us more vulnerable? Shouldn't we demand the courage and wisdom of our leaders to do the right thing, in spite of the political shortcomings?

President Kennedy faced an even greater threat in October 1962, and from a much more powerful force. The Soviet/Cuban terrorist threat with nuclear missiles only 90 miles off our shores was wisely defused by Kennedy's capitulating and removing missiles from Turkey on the Soviet border. Kennedy deserved the praise he received for the way he handled the nuclear standoff with the Soviets. This concession most likely prevented a nuclear exchange and proved that taking a step back from a failed policy is beneficial, yet how one does so is crucial. The answer is to do it diplomatically- that's what diplomats are supposed to do.

Maybe there is no real desire to remove the excuse for our worldwide imperialism, especially our current new expansion into central Asia or the domestic violations of our civil liberties. Today's conditions may well be exactly what our world commercial interests want. It's now easy for us to go into the Philippines, Columbia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, or wherever in pursuit of terrorists. No questions are asked by the media or the politicians- only cheers. Put in these terms, who can object? We all despise the tactics of the terrorists, so the nature of the response is not to be questioned!

A growing number of Americans are concluding that the threat we now face comes more as a consequence of our foreign policy than because the bad guys envy our freedoms and prosperity. How many terrorist attacks have been directed toward Switzerland, Australia, Canada, or Sweden? They too are rich and free, and would be easy targets, but the Islamic fundamentalists see no purpose in doing so.

There's no purpose in targeting us unless there's a political agenda, which there surely is. To deny that this political agenda exists jeopardizes the security of this country. Pretending something to be true that is not is dangerous.

It's a definite benefit for so many to recognize that our $40 billion annual investment in intelligence gathering prior to 9/11 was a failure. Now a sincere desire exists to rectify these mistakes. That's good, unless, instead of changing the role for the CIA and the FBI, all the past mistakes are made worse by spending more money and enlarging the bureaucracies to do the very same thing without improving their efficiency or changing their goals. Unfortunately that is what is likely to happen.

One of the major shortcomings that led to the 9/11 tragedies was that the responsibility for protecting commercial airlines was left to the government, the FAA, the FBI, the CIA, and the INS. And they failed. A greater sense of responsibility for the owners to provide security is what was needed. Guns in the cockpit would have most likely prevented most of the deaths that occurred on that fateful day.

But what does our government do? It firmly denies airline pilots the right to defend their planes, and we federalize the security screeners and rely on F16s to shoot down airliners if they are hijacked.

Security screeners, many barely able to speak English, spend endless hours harassing pilots, confiscating dangerous mustache scissors, mauling grandmothers and children, and pestering Al Gore, while doing nothing about the influx of aliens from Middle-Eastern countries who are on designated watch lists.

We pump up the military in India and Pakistan, ignore all the warnings about Saudi Arabia, and plan a secret war against Iraq to make sure no one starts asking where Osama bin Laden is. We think we know where Saddam Hussein lives, so let's go get him instead.

Since our government bureaucracy failed, why not get rid of it instead of adding to it? If we had proper respect and understood how private property owners effectively defend themselves, we could apply those rules to the airlines and achieve something worthwhile.

If our immigration policies have failed us, when will we defy the politically correct fanatics and curtail the immigration of those individuals on the highly suspect lists? Instead of these changes, all we hear is that the major solution will come by establishing a huge new federal department- the Department of Homeland Security.

According to all the pundits, we are expected to champion this big-government approach, and if we don't jolly well like it, we will be tagged "unpatriotic." The fear that permeates our country cries out for something to be done in response to almost daily warnings of the next attack. If it's not a real attack, then it's a theoretical one; one where the bomb could well be only in the mind of a potential terrorist.

Where is all this leading us? Are we moving toward a safer and more secure society? I think not. All the discussions of these proposed plans since 9/11 have been designed to condition the American people to accept major changes in our political system. Some of the changes being made are unnecessary, and others are outright dangerous to our way of life.

There is no need for us to be forced to choose between security and freedom. Giving up freedom does not provide greater security. Preserving and better understanding freedom can. Sadly today, many are anxious to give up freedom in response to real and generated fears..

The plans for a first strike supposedly against a potential foreign government should alarm all Americans. If we do not resist this power the President is assuming, our President, through executive order, can start a war anyplace, anytime, against anyone he chooses, for any reason, without congressional approval. This is a tragic usurpation of the war power by the executive branch from the legislative branch, with Congress being all too accommodating.

Removing the power of the executive branch to wage war, as was done through our revolution and the writing of the Constitution, is now being casually sacrificed on the altar of security. In a free society, and certainly in the constitutional republic we have been given, it should never be assumed that the President alone can take it upon himself to wage war whenever he pleases.

The publicly announced plan to murder Saddam Hussein in the name of our national security draws nary a whimper from Congress. Support is overwhelming, without a thought as to its legality, morality, constitutionality, or its practicality. Murdering Saddam Hussein will surely generate many more fanatics ready to commit their lives to suicide terrorist attacks against us.

Our CIA attempt to assassinate Castro backfired with the subsequent assassination of our president. Killing Saddam Hussein, just for the sake of killing him, obviously will increase the threat against us, not diminish it. It makes no sense. But our warriors argue that someday he may build a bomb, someday he might use it, maybe against us or some yet-unknown target. This policy further radicalizes the Islamic fundamentalists against us, because from their viewpoint, our policy is driven by Israeli, not U.S. security interests.

Planned assassination, a preemptive strike policy without proof of any threat, and a vague definition of terrorism may work for us as long as we're king of the hill, but one must assume every other nation will naturally use our definition of policy as justification for dealing with their neighbors. India can justify a first strike against Pakistan, China against India or Taiwan, as well as many other such examples. This new policy, if carried through, will make the world much less safe.

This new doctrine is based on proving a negative, which is impossible to do, especially when we're dealing with a subjective interpretation of plans buried in someone's head. To those who suggest a more restrained approach on Iraq and killing Saddam Hussein, the war hawks retort, saying: "Prove to me that Saddam Hussein might not do something someday directly harmful to the United States." Since no one can prove this, the warmongers shout: "Let's march on Baghdad."

We all can agree that aggression should be met with force and that providing national security is an ominous responsibility that falls on Congress' shoulders. But avoiding useless and unjustifiable wars that threaten our whole system of government and security seems to be the more prudent thing to do.

Since September 11th, Congress has responded with a massive barrage of legislation not seen since Roosevelt took over in 1933. Where Roosevelt dealt with trying to provide economic security, today's legislation deals with personal security from any and all imaginable threats, at any cost- dollar or freedom-wise. These efforts include:

-The Patriot Act, which undermines the 4th Amendment with the establishment of an overly broad and dangerous definition of terrorism.

- The Financial Anti-Terrorism Act, which expands the government's surveillance of the financial transactions of all American citizens through increased power to FinCen and puts back on track the plans to impose "Know Your Customer" rules on all Americans, which had been sought after for years.

-The airline bailout bill gave $15 billion, rushed through shortly after 9/11.

- The federalization of all airline security employees.

-Military tribunals set up by executive order-undermining the rights of those accused- rights established as far back in history as 1215.

- Unlimited retention of suspects without charges being made, even when a crime has not been committed- a serious precedent that one day may well be abused.

- Relaxation of FBI surveillance guidelines of all political activity.

- Essentially monopolizing vaccines and treatment for infectious diseases, permitting massive quarantines and mandates for vaccinations.

Almost all significant legislation since 9/11 has been rushed through in a tone of urgency with reference to the tragedy, including the $190 billion farm bill as well as fast track.

Guarantees to all insurance companies now are moving quickly through the Congress. Increasing the billions already flowing into foreign aid is now being planned as our interventions overseas continue to grow and expand.

There's no reason to believe that the massive increase in spending, both domestic and foreign, along with the massive expansion of the size of the federal government, will slow any time soon. The deficit is exploding as the economy weakens. When the government sector drains the resources needed for capital expansion, it contributes to the loss of confidence needed for growth.

Even without evidence that any good has come from this massive expansion of government power, Congress is in the process of establishing a huge new bureaucracy, the Department of Homeland Security, hoping miraculously through centralization to make all these efforts productive and worthwhile.

There is no evidence, however, that government bureaucracy and huge funding can solve our nation's problems. The likelihood is that the unintended consequences of this new proposal will diminish our freedoms and do nothing to enhance our security.

Opposing currently proposed and recently passed legislation does not mean one is complacent about terrorism or homeland security. The truth is that there are alternative solutions to these problems we face, without resorting to expanding the size and scope of government at the expense of liberty.

As tempting as it may seem, a government is incapable of preventing crimes. On occasion, with luck it might succeed. But the failure to tip us off about 9/11, after spending $40 billion annually on intelligence gathering, should have surprised no one. Governments, by nature, are very inefficient institutions. We must accept this as fact.

I'm sure that our intelligence agencies had the information available to head off 9/11, but bureaucratic blundering and turf wars prevented the information from being useful. But, the basic principle is wrong. City policeman can't and should not be expected to try to preempt crimes. That would invite massive intrusions into the everyday activities of every law-abiding citizen.

But that's exactly what our recent legislation is doing. It's a wrong-headed goal, no matter how wonderful it may sound. The policemen in the inner cities patrol their beats, but crime is still rampant. In the rural areas of America, literally millions of our citizens are safe and secure in their homes, though miles from any police protection. They are safe because even the advantage of isolation doesn't entice the burglar to rob a house when he knows a shotgun sits inside the door waiting to be used. But this is a right denied many of our citizens living in the inner cities.

The whole idea of government preventing crime is dangerous. To prevent crimes in our homes or businesses, government would need cameras to spy on our every move; to check for illegal drug use, wife beating, child abuse, or tax evasion. They would need cameras, not only on our streets and in our homes, but our phones, internet, and travels would need to be constantly monitored- just to make sure we are not a terrorist, drug dealer, or tax evader.

This is the assumption now used at our airports, rather than allowing privately owned airlines to profile their passengers to assure the safety for which the airline owners ought to assume responsibility. But, of course, this would mean guns in the cockpit. I am certain that this approach to safety and security would be far superior to the rules that existed prior to 9/11 and now have been made much worse in the past nine months.

This method of providing security emphasizes private-property ownership and responsibility of the owners to protect that property. But the right to bear arms must also be included. The fact that the administration is opposed to guns in the cockpit and the fact that the airline owners are more interested in bailouts and insurance protection mean that we're just digging a bigger hole for ourselves- ignoring liberty and expecting the government to provide something it's not capable of doing.

Because of this, in combination with a foreign policy that generates more hatred toward us and multiplies the number of terrorists that seek vengeance, I am deeply concerned that Washington's efforts so far sadly have only made us more vulnerable. I'm convinced that the newly proposed Department of Homeland Security will do nothing to make us more secure, but it will make us all a lot poorer and less free. If the trend continues, the Department of Homeland Security may well be the vehicle used for a much more ruthless control of the people by some future administration than any of us dreams. Let's pray that this concern will never materialize.

America is not now a ruthless authoritarian police state. But our concerns ought to be whether we have laid the foundation of a more docile police state. The love of liberty has been so diminished that we tolerate intrusions into our privacies today that would have been abhorred just a few years ago. Tolerance of inconvenience to our liberties is not uncommon when both personal and economic fear persists. The sacrifices being made to our liberties will surely usher in a system of government that will please only those who enjoy being in charge of running other people's lives.

Mr. Speaker, what, then, is the answer to the question: "Is America a Police State?" My answer is: "Maybe not yet, but it is fast approaching." The seeds have been sown and many of our basic protections against tyranny have been and are constantly being undermined. The post-9/11 atmosphere here in Congress has provided ample excuse to concentrate on safety at the expense of liberty, failing to recognize that we cannot have one without the other.

When the government keeps detailed records on every move we make and we either need advance permission for everything we do or are penalized for not knowing what the rules are, America will be declared a police state. Personal privacy for law-abiding citizens will be a thing of the past. Enforcement of laws against economic and political crimes will exceed that of violent crimes (just look at what's coming under the new FEC law). War will be the prerogative of the administration. Civil liberties will be suspended for suspects, and their prosecution will not be carried out by an independent judiciary. In a police state, this becomes common practice rather than a rare incident.

Some argue that we already live in a police state, and Congress doesn't have the foggiest notion of what they're dealing with. So forget it and use your energy for your own survival. Some advise that the momentum towards the monolithic state cannot be reversed. Possibly that's true, but I'm optimistic that if we do the right thing and do not capitulate to popular fancy and the incessant war propaganda, the onslaught of statism can be reversed.

To do so, we as a people will once again have to dedicate ourselves to establishing the proper role a government plays in a free society. That does not involve the redistribution of wealth through force. It does not mean that government dictates the moral and religious standards of the people. It does not allow us to police the world by involving ourselves in every conflict as if it's our responsibility to manage a world American empire.

But it does mean government has a proper role in guaranteeing free markets, protecting voluntary and religious choices and guaranteeing private property ownership, while punishing those who violate these rules- whether foreign or domestic.

In a free society, the government's job is simply to protect liberty- the people do the rest. Let's not give up on a grand experiment that has provided so much for so many. Let's reject the police state.

Opposition to the Creation of the Department of Homeland Security

In July of 2002, Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor about his opposition to the creation of a department of homeland security (H5094).

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Homeland Security, who needs it? Mr. Speaker, everyone agrees the 9-11 tragedy confirmed a problem that exists in our domestic security and dramatized our vulnerability to outside attacks. Most agree that the existing bureaucracy was inept. The CIA, the FBI, the INS, and Customs failed to protect us.

It was not a lack of information that caused this failure; they had plenty. But they filed to analyze, communicate, and use the information to our advantage.

The flawed foreign policy of interventionism that we have followed for decades significantly contributed to the attacks. Warnings had been sounded by the more astute that our meddling in the affairs of others would come to no good. This resulted in our inability to defend our own cities, while spending hundreds of billions of dollars providing more defense for others than for ourselves. In the aftermath, we were even forced to ask other countries to patrol our airways to provide security for us.

A clear understanding of private property and an owner's responsibility to protect it has been seriously undermined. This was especially true for the airline industry. The benefit of gun ownership and second amendment protections were prohibited. The government was given the responsibility for airline safety through FAA rules and regulations, and it failed miserably.

The solution now being proposed is a giant new Federal department, and it is the only solution we are being offered, and one which I am certain will lead to tens of billions of dollars of new spending.

What is being done about the lack of emphasis on private property ownership? The security services are federalized. The airlines are bailed out and given guaranteed insurance against all threats. We have made the airline industry a public utility that gets to keep its profits and pass on its losses to the taxpayers, like Amtrak and the post office. Instead of more ownership responsibility, we get more government controls.

Is the first amendment revitalized, and are owners permitted to defend their property, their passengers, and personnel? No, no hint of it, unless you are El Al airlines, which enjoys this right, while no others do.

Has anything been done to limit immigration from countries placed on the terrorist list? Hardly. Have we done anything to slow up immigration of individuals with Saudi passports? No, oil is too important to offend the Saudis.

Yet, we have done plenty to undermine the liberties and privacy of all Americans through legislation such as the PATRIOT Act. A program is being planned to use millions of Americans to spy on their neighbors, an idea appropriate for a totalitarian society. Regardless of any assurances, we all know that the national ID card will soon be instituted.

Who believes for a moment that the military will not be used to enforce civil law in the near future? Posse comitatus will be repealed by executive order or by law, and liberty, the Constitution, and the Republic will suffer another major setback.

Unfortunately, foreign policy will not change, and those who suggest that it be strictly designed for American security will be shouted down for their lack of patriotism. Instead, war fever will build until the warmongers get their wish and we march on Baghdad, making us even a greater target of those who despise us for our bellicose control of the world.

A new department is hardly what we need. That is more of the same, and will surely not solve our problems. It will, however, further undermine our liberties and hasten the day of our national bankruptcy.

A common sense improvement to homeland security would allow the DOD to provide protection, not a huge, new, militarized domestic department. We need to bring our troops home, including our Coast Guard; close down the base in Saudi Arabia; stop expanding our presence in the Muslim portion of the former Soviet Union; and stop taking sides in the long, ongoing war in the Middle East.

If we did these few things, we would provide a lot more security and protect our liberties a lot better than any new department ever will, and it will cost a lot less.

On July 26, 2002, Congressman Paul again spoke on the House floor about his opposition to the reorganization of various departments into the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, the move to create a federal Department of Homeland Security was initiated in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 and subsequent revelations regarding bureaucratic bungling and ineptness related to those attacks. Leaving aside other policy initiatives that may be more successful in reducing the threat of future terror attacks, I believe the President was well-intentioned in suggesting that a streamlining of functions might be helpful.

Mr. Speaker, as many commentators have pointed out, the creation of this new department represents the largest reorganization of federal agencies since the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947. Unfortunately, the process by which we are creating this new department bears little resemblance to the process by which the Defense Department was created. Congress began hearings on the proposed department of defense in 1945--two years before President Truman signed legislation creating the new Department into law! Despite the lengthy deliberative process through which Congress created the new department, turf battles and logistical problems continued to bedeviled the military establishment, requiring several corrective pieces of legislation. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Goldwater-Nicholas Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (PL 99-433) was passed to deal with problems stemming from the 1947 law! The experience with the Department of Defense certainly suggests the importance of a more deliberative process in the creation of this new agency.

This current proposed legislation suggest that merging 22 government agencies and departments--compromising nearly 200,000 federal employees--into one department will address our current vulnerabilities. I do not see how this can be the case. If we are presently under terrorist threat, it seems to me that turning 22 agencies upside down, sparking scores of turf wars and creating massive logistical and technological headaches--does anyone really believe that even simple things like computer and telephone networks will be up and running in the short term?--is hardly the way to maintain the readiness and focus necessary to defend the United States. What about vulnerabilities while Americans wait for this massive new bureaucracy to begin functioning as a whole even to the levels at which its component parts were functioning before this legislation was taken up? Is this a risk we can afford to take? Also, isn't it a bit ironic that in the name of ``homeland security'' we seem to be consolidating everything except the government agencies most critical to the defense of the United States: the multitude of intelligence agencies that make up the Intelligence Community?

Opposing the PATRIOT Act

In 2003, Congressman Paul spoke at a political event and discussed the PATRIOT Act at length. He notes that as a Congressman, the chief duty is to abide by the Constitution.

Reconsidering the PATRIOT Act

In May of 2005, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" edition to address the reconsidering of the PATRIOT Act. He notes that the PATRIOT Act waters down the fourth amendment.

Reconsidering the Patriot Act
May 2, 2005

When Congress passed the Patriot Act in the emotional aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks, a sunset provision was inserted in the bill that causes certain sections to expire at the end of 2005. But this begs the question: If these provisions are critical tools in the fight against terrorism, why revoke them after five years? Conversely, if these provisions violate civil liberties, why is it acceptable to suspend the Constitution for any amount of time? Congress is scheduled to review those sections this year, but there is little chance any portion of the Act will be allowed to lapse. If anything, many members of Congress are eager to expand federal police powers.

Supporters of the Patriot Act argue that its provisions have not been abused since its passage in 2001. In essence, Justice Department officials are claiming, “Trust us-- we’re the government and we say the Patriot Act does not threaten civil liberties.” But this argument misses the point. Government assurances simply are not good enough in a free society. The overwhelming burden always must be placed on government to justify any new encroachment on our liberty.

Now that the emotions of September 11th have cooled, the American people are less willing to blindly accept terrorism as an excuse for expanding federal surveillance powers. Many of the most constitutionally offensive measures in the Act are not limited to terrorist offenses, but apply to any criminal activity. In fact, some of the new police powers could be applied even to those engaging in peaceful protest against government policies. The bill as written defines terrorism as acts intended “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.” Under this broad definition, a scuffle at an otherwise peaceful pro-life demonstration might subject attendees to a federal investigation. We have seen abuses of law enforcement authority in the past to harass individuals or organizations with unpopular political views. Congress has given future administrations a tool to investigate pro-life or gun rights organizations on the grounds that fringe members of such groups advocate violence.

The Patriot Act waters down the Fourth amendment by expanding the federal government's ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight. The requirement of a search warrant and probable cause strikes a balance between effective law enforcement and civil liberties. Any attempt to dilute the warrant requirement threatens innocent citizens with a loss of their liberty. This is particularly true of provisions that allow for issuance of nationwide search warrants that are not specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight. The Act makes it far easier for the government to monitor your internet usage by adopting a lower standard than probable cause for intercepting e-mails and internet communications. I wonder how my congressional colleagues would feel if all of their e-mail headings and the names of the web sites they visited were available to law enforcement upon a showing of mere “relevance.”

It's easy for elected officials in Washington to tell the American people that government will do whatever it takes to defeat terrorism. Such assurances inevitably are followed by proposals either to restrict the constitutional liberties of the American people or spend vast sums from the federal treasury. We must understand that politicians and bureaucrats always seek to expand their power, without regard to the long-term consequences. If you believe in smaller government, ask yourself one simple question: Does the Patriot Act increase or decrease the power of the federal government over your life? The answer is obvious to those who understand that freedom cannot be exchanged for security.

Don't Reauthorize the PATRIOT Act

In July of 2005, Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor about his desire to see the PATRIOT Act ended.

Don't Reauthorize the Patriot Act
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 21, 2005

Mr. Speaker, the USA PATRIOT Act and Terrorism Prevention Act (HR 3199) in no way brings the PATRIOT Act into compliance with the Constitution or allays concerns that the powers granted to the government in the act will be used to abuse the rights of the people. Much of the discussion surrounding this bill has revolved around the failure of the bill to extend the sunset clauses.

However, simply sunsetting troublesome provisions does not settle the debates around the PATRIOT Act. If the PATRIOT Act is constitutional and needed, as its proponents swear, why include sunset provisions at all? If it is unconstitutional and pernicious, why not abolish it immediately?

The sunset clauses do perform one useful service in that they force Congress to regularly re-examine the PATRIOT Act. As the people’s representatives, it is our responsibility to keep a close eye on the executive branch to ensure it does not abuse its power. Even if the claims of HR 3199’s supporters that there have been no abuses of PATRIOT Act powers under this administration are true, that does not mean that future administrations will not abuse these powers. HR 3199 continues to violate the constitution by allowing searches and seizures of American citizens and their property without a warrant issued by an independent court upon a finding of probable cause. The drafters of the Bill of Rights considered this essential protection against an overreaching government. For example, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, popularly known as the library provision, allows Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts, whose standards hardly meet the constitutional requirements of the Fourth Amendment, to issue warrants for individual records, including medical and library records. HR 3199 does reform this provision by clarifying that it can be used to acquire the records of an American citizen only during terrorist investigations. However, this marginal change fails to bring the section up to the constitutional standard of probable cause.

Requiring a showing of probable cause before a warrant may be issued will in no way hamper terrorist investigations. For one thing, federal authorities still would have numerous tools available to investigate and monitor the activities of non-citizens suspected of terrorism. Second, restoring the Fourth Amendment protections would in no way interfere with the provisions of the PATRIOT Act removing the firewalls that prevented the government’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies from sharing information.

The probable cause requirements will not delay a terrorist investigation. Preparations can be made for the issuance of a warrant in the event of an emergency, and allowances can be made for cases where law enforcement does not have time to obtain a warrant. In fact, a requirement that law enforcement demonstrate probable cause may help law enforcement focus their efforts on true threats, thus avoiding the problem of information overload that is handicapping the government’s efforts to identify sources of terrorist financing.

The requirement that law enforcement demonstrate probable cause before a judge preserves the Founders’ system of checks and balances that protects against one branch gathering too much power. The Founders recognized that one of the chief dangers to liberty was the concentration of power in a few hands, which is why they carefully divided power among the three branches. I would remind those of my colleagues who claim that we must set aside the constitutional requirements during war that the founders were especially concerned about the consolidation of power during times of war and national emergences. My colleagues should also keep in mind that PATRIOT Act powers have already been used in non-terrorism related cases, most notably in a bribery investigation in Nevada.

Mr. Speaker, HR 3199 does take some positive steps toward restoring respect for constitutional liberties and checks and balances that the original PATRIOT Act stripped away. However, it still leaves in place large chunks of legislation that threaten individual liberty by giving law enforcement power to snoop into American citizens’ lives without adequate oversight. This power is unnecessary to effectively fight terrorism. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.

The PATRIOT Act - Four Years Later

In July of 2005, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to address the PATRIOT Act four years after it's passage. He notes that the PATRIOT Act was recently reauthorized for another 10 years.

The Patriot Act Four Years Later
July 25, 2005

Congress passed legislation last week that reauthorizes the Patriot Act for another 10 years, although the bill faced far more opposition than the original Act four years ago. I’m heartened that more members of Congress are listening to their constituents, who remain deeply skeptical about the Patriot Act and expansions of federal police power in general. They rightfully wonder why Congress is so focused on American citizens, while bin Laden and other terrorist leaders still have not been captured.

The tired arguments we’re hearing today are that same ones we heard in 2001 when the Patriot Act was passed in the emotional aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks. If the Patriot Act is constitutional and badly needed, as its proponents swear, why were sunset provisions included at all? If it’s unconstitutional and pernicious, why not abolish it immediately? All of this nonsense about sunsets and reauthorizations merely distracts us from the real issue, which is personal liberty. America was not founded on a promise of security, it was founded on a promise of personal liberty to pursue happiness.

One prominent Democratic opined on national television that “most of the 170 page Patriot Act is fine,” but that it needs some fine tuning. He then stated that he opposed the ten-year reauthorization bill on the grounds that Americans should not have their constitutional rights put on hold for a decade. His party’s proposal, however, was to reauthorize the Patriot Act for only four years, as though a shorter moratorium on constitutional rights would be acceptable! So much for the opposition party and its claim to stand for civil liberties.

Unfortunately, some of my congressional colleagues referenced the recent London bombings during the debate, insinuating that opponents of the Patriot Act somehow would be responsible for a similar act here at home. I won’t even dignify that slur with the response it deserves. Let’s remember that London is the most heavily monitored city in the world, with surveillance cameras recording virtually all public activity in the city center. British police officials are not hampered by our 4th amendment nor our numerous due process requirements. In other words, they can act without any constitutional restrictions, just as supporters of the Patriot Act want our own police to act. Despite this they were not able to prevent the bombings, proving that even a wholesale surveillance society cannot be made completely safe against determined terrorists.

Congress misses the irony entirely. The London bombings don’t prove the need for the Patriot Act, they prove the folly of it. The Patriot Act, like every political issue, boils down to a simple choice: Should we expand government power, or reduce it? This is the fundamental political question of our day, but it’s quickly forgotten by politicians who once promised to stand for smaller government. Most governments, including our own, tend to do what they can get away with rather than what the law allows them to do. All governments seek to increase their power over the people they govern, whether we want to recognize it or not. The Patriot Act is a vivid example of this. Constitutions and laws don’t keep government power in check; only a vigilant populace can do that.

Domestic Surveillance

In December of 2005, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to address domestic surveillance and the PATRIOT Act.

Domestic Surveillance and the Patriot Act
December 26, 2005

Recent revelations that the National Security Agency has conducted broad surveillance of American citizens' emails and phone calls raise serious questions about the proper role of government in a free society. This is an important and healthy debate, one that too often goes ignored by Congress. Public concerns about the misnamed Patriot Act are having an impact, as the Senate last week refused to reauthorize the bill for several years. Instead Congress will be back in Washington next month to consider many of the Act's most harmful provisions.

Of course most governments, including our own, cannot resist the temptation to spy on their citizens when it suits government purposes. But America is supposed to be different. We have a mechanism called the Constitution that is supposed to place limits on the power of the federal government. Why does the Constitution have an enumerated powers clause, if the government can do things wildly beyond those powers-- such as establish a domestic spying program? Why have a 4th Amendment, if it does not prohibit government from eavesdropping on phone calls without telling anyone? We're told that September 11 th changed everything, that new government powers like the Patriot Act are necessary to thwart terrorism. But these are not the most dangerous times in American history, despite the self-flattery of our politicians and media. This is a nation that expelled the British, saw the White House burned to the ground in 1814, fought two world wars, and faced down the Soviet Union. September 11th does not justify ignoring the Constitution by creating broad new federal police powers. The rule of law is worthless if we ignore it whenever crises occur.

The administration assures us that domestic surveillance is done to protect us. But the crucial point is this: Government assurances are not good enough in a free society. The overwhelming burden must always be placed on government to justify any new encroachment on our liberty. Now that the emotions of September 11th have cooled, the American people are less willing to blindly accept terrorism as an excuse for expanding federal surveillance powers. Conservatives who support the Bush administration should remember that powers we give government today will not go away when future administrations take office. Some Senators last week complained that the Patriot Act is misunderstood. But it's not the American public's fault nobody knows exactly what the Patriot Act does. The Act contains over 500 pages of detailed legalese, the full text of which was neither read nor made available to Congress in a reasonable time before it was voted on- which by itself should have convinced members to vote against it. Many of the surveillance powers authorized in the Act are not clearly defined and have not yet been tested. When they are tested, court challenges are sure to follow. It is precisely because we cannot predict how the Patriot Act will be interpreted and used in future decades that we should question it today.

SAFE Port Act

In May of 2006, Congressman Paul released a press statement noting his support for the SAFE Port Act.

Paul Votes to Strengthen Port Security
Legislation Authorizes $8.9 Billion for U.S. Ports over 5 Years

May 9, 2006

Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul voted last week to strengthen port security, as the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the SAFE Port Act. The SAFE Port Act authorizes nearly $9 billion between 2007 and 2011 for port grant programs, Coast Guard equipment and officer retention programs, new port inspectors and cargo scanning technology, and radiation monitoring.

“I’m pleased Congress finally decided to spend money securing America’s ports, which is a proper constitutional function of government,” Paul stated. “We need to focus on securing our own borders and coastlines instead of spending so much money overseas guarding other nations. Just a tiny fraction of our overseas military budget could provide tremendous help at our borders and ports. If we’re serious about combating terrorism, port security in Galveston and Freeport must be a higher priority than nation building abroad.”

Specific authorizations contained in the SAFE Port Act include the following: -$1.9 billion for the Coast Guard’s Deepwater Program to replace aging ships and aircraft; -$400 million in dedicated grant programs for state and local port authorities; -200 new federal port-of-entry inspectors; -more stringent identification requirements for port workers; -new scanning technology to detect nuclear material or radiation in cargo containers; -new standards for inspecting a greater percentage of cargo containers; and -expanded Coast Guard officer training programs.

Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act

In September of 2006, Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor in opposition to the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act.

Mr. Speaker, Congress is once again rushing to abandon its constitutional duty to protect the constitution balance between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government by expanding the executive's authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps without approval from either a regular federal court or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court. Congress's refusal to provide any effective checks on the warrantless wiretapping program is a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment and is not necessary to protect the safety of the American people. In fact, this broad grant of power to conduct unchecked surveillance may undermine the government's ability to identify threats to American security.

Instead of creating standards for warrantless wiretapping, H.R. 5825 leaves it to the President to determine when ``imminent'' threat requiring warrantless wiretapping exists. The legislation does not even define what constitutes an imminent threat; it requires the executive branch to determine when a threat is ``imminent.'' By passing this bill, Congress is thus abdicating its constitutional role while making it impossible for the judiciary to perform its constitutional function.

According to former Congressman Bob Barr, thanks to Congress' failure to establish clear standards for wiretapping, under H.R. 5825 Ð``.....simply making an international call or sending an e-mail to another country, even to a relative (or a constituent) who is an American citizen, will be fair game for the government to listen in on or read. Moreover, this legislation allows the government to conduct secret, warrantless searches of American citizens' homes in a broad range of circumstances that are essentially undefined in the legislation.''

Mr. Speaker, I do not deny that there may be certain circumstances justifying warrantless wiretapping. However, my colleagues should consider that current law allows for warrantless wiretapping in emergency situations as long as a ``retroactive'' warrant is sought within 72 hours of commencing the surveillance or the warrantless surveillance commences within 15 days after Congress declares war. If there are legitimate reasons why the current authorization for warrantless wiretapping is inadequate, then perhaps Congress should extend the time allowed to wiretap before applying to the FISA court for a ``retroactive'' warrant. This step could enhance security without posing the dangers to liberty and republican government contained in H.R. 5825 .

The requirement that, except in extraordinary circumstances, a warrant be obtained from the FISA court does not obstruct legitimate surveillance efforts. It is my understanding that FISA judges act very quickly to consider applications for search warrants, even if the applications are faxed to their houses at three in the morning. Applications for FISA warrants are rarely rejected. In 2005, the administration applied for 2,074 warrants from the FISA court. Of those 2 where voluntarily withdrawn and 63 where approved with modifications; the rest were approved. The FISA court only rejected four applications for warrants in the past four years; and one of those rejected warrants was subsequently partially approved.

Warrantless wiretapping may hinder the ability to identify true threats to safety. This is because experience has shown that, when Congress makes it easier for the federal government to monitor the activities of Americans, there is a tendency to collect so much information that it becomes impossible to weed out the true threats. My colleagues should consider how the over-filing of ``suspicious transaction reports'' regarding financial transactions hampers effective anti-terrorism efforts. According to investigative journalist James Bovard, writing in the Baltimore Sun on June 28, ``[a] U.N. report on terrorist financing released in May 2002 noted that a `suspicious transaction report' had been filed with the U.S. government over a $69,985 wire transfer that Mohamed Atta, leader of the hijackers, received from the United Arab Emirates. The report noted that `this particular transaction was not noticed quickly enough because the report was just one of a very large number and was not distinguishable from those related to other financial crimes.' '' Congress should be skeptical, to say the least, regarding the assertion that allowing federal bureaucrats to accumulate even more data without having to demonstrate a link between the data sought and national security will make the American people safer.

In conclusion Mr. Speaker, because H.R. 5825 sacrifices liberty for the illusion of security, I must oppose this bill. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Campaign Video

In 2007, the Ron Paul campaign issued a video discussing the Real ID and the PATRIOT Act.

FISA Amendments

In March of 2008, Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor about the proposed FISA Amendments. He asked that the legislation be rejected.

Statement on FISA Amendments
Statement on H.R. 3773 - FISA Amendments Act of 2008
14 March 2008
Rep. Ron Paul, M.D.

Mr Speaker, I rise in opposition to this latest attempt to undermine our personal liberties and violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. This bill will allow the federal government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens’ communications. In effect, it means that any American may have his electronic communications monitored without a search warrant.

As such, the bill clearly violates the Fourth Amendment, which states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The assurances in this bill that Americans will not have their communications monitored without warrant are unconvincing. The bill merely states that the government should do its best to avoid monitoring Americans if possible. We have seen how meaningless such qualified prohibitions have been as we recount the abuses over the past several years.

Just today, we read in the news that the federal government has massively abused its ability to monitor us by improperly targeting Americans through the use of “national security letters.” Apparently some 60 percent of the more than 50,000 national security letters targeted Americans, rather than foreign terrorists, for surveillance.

This is what happens when we begin down the slippery slope of giving up our constitutional rights for the promise of more security. When we come to accept that the government can spy on us without a court order we have come to accept tyranny.

I urge my colleagues to reject this and all legislation that allows Americans to be spied on without a properly issued warrant.

Passage of FISA Amendments

After the passage of the FISA amendments, Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor about his disappointment in their passage.

Statement on FISA
Statement on HR 6304, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments
20 June 2008
Rep. Ron Paul, M.D.

Madam Speaker, I regret that due to the unexpected last-minute appearance of this measure on the legislative calendar this week, a prior commitment has prevented me from voting on the FISA amendments. I have strongly opposed every previous FISA overhaul attempt and I certainly would have voted against this one as well.

The main reason I oppose this latest version is that it still clearly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by allowing the federal government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens’ communications without a search warrant. That US citizens can have their private communication intercepted by the government without a search warrant is anti-American, deeply disturbing, and completely unacceptable.

In addition to gutting the fourth amendment, this measure will deprive Americans who have had their rights violated by telecommunication companies involved in the Administration’s illegal wiretapping program the right to seek redress in the courts for the wrongs committed against them. Worse, this measure provides for retroactive immunity, whereby individuals or organizations that broke the law as it existed are granted immunity for prior illegal actions once the law has been changed. Ex post facto laws have long been considered anathema in free societies under rule of law. Our Founding Fathers recognized this, including in Article I section 9 of the Constitution that “No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” How is this FISA bill not a variation of ex post facto? That alone should give pause to supporters of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, we should understand that decimating the protections that our Constitution provides us against the government is far more dangerous to the future of this country than whatever external threats may exist. We can protect this country without violating the Constitution and I urge my colleagues to reconsider their support for this measure.

The Emerging Surveillance State

In April of 2008, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to address the emerging state of continual surveillance in the United States.

The Emerging Surveillance State

Last month, the House amended the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to expand the government’s ability to monitor our private communications. This measure, if it becomes law, will result in more warrantless government surveillance of innocent American citizens. Though some opponents claimed that the only controversial part of this legislation was its grant of immunity to telecommunications companies, there is much more to be wary of in the bill. In the House version, Title II, Section 801, extends immunity from prosecution of civil legal action to people and companies including any provider of an electronic communication service, any provider of a remote computing service, “any other communication service provider who has access to wire or electronic communications,” any “parent, subsidiary, affiliate, successor, or assignee” of such company, any “officer, employee, or agent” of any such company, and any “landlord, custodian, or other person who may be authorized or required to furnish assistance.”

The Senate version goes even further by granting retroactive immunity to such entities that may have broken the law in the past. The new FISA bill allows the federal government to compel many more types of companies and individuals to grant the government access to our communications without a warrant. The provisions in the legislation designed to protect Americans from warrantless surveillance are full of loopholes and ambiguities.

There is no blanket prohibition against listening in on all American citizens without a warrant. We have been told that this power to listen in on communications is legal and only targets terrorists. But if what these companies are being compelled to do is legal, why is it necessary to grant them immunity? If what they did in the past was legal and proper, why is it necessary to grant them retroactive immunity?

In communist East Germany , one in every 100 citizens was an informer for the dreaded secret police, the Stasi. They either volunteered or were compelled by their government to spy on their customers, their neighbors, their families, and their friends. When we think of the evil of totalitarianism, such networks of state spies are usually what comes to mind. Yet, with modern technology, what once took tens of thousands of informants can now be achieved by a few companies being coerced by the government to allow it to listen in to our communications. This surveillance is un-American.

We should remember that former New York governor Eliot Spitzer was brought down by a provision of the PATRIOT Act that required enhanced bank monitoring of certain types of financial transactions. Yet we were told that the PATRIOT Act was needed to catch terrorists, not philanderers. The extraordinary power the government has granted itself to look into our private lives can be used for many purposes unrelated to fighting terrorism. We can even see how expanded federal government surveillance power might be used to do away with political rivals. The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution requires the government to have a warrant when it wishes to look into the private affairs of individuals. If we are to remain a free society we must defend our rights against any governmental attempt to undermine or bypass the Constitution.

On the Bloated Intelligence Bureaucracy

In July of 2010, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" address to note the effects of the oversized intelligence agencies.

On the Bloated Intelligence Bureaucracy

I have often spoken about the excessive size of government, and most recently how waste and inefficiency needs to be eliminated from our military budget. Our foreign policy is not only bankrupting us, but actively creating and antagonizing enemies of the United States, and compromising our national security. Spending more and adding more programs and initiatives does not improve things for us; it makes them much much worse. This applies to more than just the military budget.

Recently the Washington Post ran an extensive report by Dana Priest and William M. Arkin on the bloated intelligence community. They found that an estimated 854,000 people hold top-secret security clearances. Just what are all these people up to? By my calculation this is about 11,000 intelligence workers per al Qaeda member in Afghanistan. This also begs the question - if close to 1 million people are authorized to know top secrets, how closely guarded are these secrets?

They also found that since the September 11 attacks, some 17 million square feet of building space has been built or is being built to accommodate the 250 percent expansion of intelligence organizations. Intelligence work is now done by some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private contracting companies in about 10,000 locations in the United States.

The former Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, has asserted that US intelligence now has the authority to target American citizens for assassination without charge or trial. How many of these resources are being devoted to spying on American citizens for nefarious reasons at home rather than targeting foreign enemies abroad?

It has been pointed out how much information we had about the impending attacks on 9/11, but because of layers upon layers of bureaucratic inefficiencies, our intelligence community was unable to act meaningfully on that information. Obviously we needed drastic change. But it was pretty clear that we did not need more bureaucracy, more confusion, more expenditures and more government.

It is even claimed by some leaders that the intelligence community has grown this way by design; that it is advantageous to have more than one set of eyes looking at the same information. With this logic, is there any number of intelligence employees at which we achieve diminishing returns? Can there ever be too many cooks in the kitchen, in their view?

Are there any problems at all that the government wouldn’t attempt to solve by throwing more money at them? Even now, the government is trying to solve our economic problems related to too much government spending and debt, with more government spending and debt.

The problem with our intelligence community before 9/11 was not an inability to collect information. Therefore, the post-September 11 build-up of the surveillance state does nothing to enhance safety. Instead what Americans have gotten in return for the billions of tax dollars spent on security is a surveillance state that reads our e-mails, wiretaps us without warrants, and strip searches grandmothers at airports. This is yet another instance in which Americans would be safer, richer and freer if our government would simply look to the Constitution and respect the boundaries it has set.

Are All Air Travelers Suspects

In November of 2010, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" to discuss the growing opposition to TSA pat downs and scanners in airports.

Are Air Travelers Criminal Suspects?

The growing revolt against invasive TSA practices is encouraging to Americans who are fed up with federal government encroachment in their lives. In the case of air travelers, this encroachment is quite literally physical. But a deep-seated libertarian impulse still exists within the American people, and opposition to the new TSA full body scanner and groping searches is gathering momentum.

I introduced legislation last week that is based on a very simple principle: federal agents should be subject to the same laws as ordinary citizens. If you would face criminal prosecution or a lawsuit for groping someone, exposing them to unwelcome radiation, causing them emotional distress, or violating indecency laws, then TSA agents should similarly face sanctions for their actions.

This principle goes beyond TSA agents, however. As commentator Lew Rockwell recently noted, the bill “enshrines the key lesson of the freedom philosophy: the government is not above the moral law. If it is wrong for you and me, it is wrong for people in government suits… That is true of TSA crimes too.” The revolt against TSA also serves as a refreshing reminder that we should not give in to government alarmism or be afraid to question government policies.

Certainly, those who choose to refuse the humiliating and potentially harmful new full body scanner machines may suffer delays, inconveniences, or worse. But I still believe peaceful resistance is the most effective tool against federal encroachment on our constitutional rights, which leads me to be supportive of any kind of “opt-out” or similar popular movements.

After all, what price can we place on our dignity, personal privacy, and physical integrity? We have a right not to be treated like criminals and searched by federal agents without some reasonable evidence of criminal activity. Are we now to accept that merely wishing to travel and board an aircraft give rise to reasonable suspicion of criminality?

Also, let’s not forget that TSA was created in the aftermath of 9/11, when far too many Americans were clamoring for government protection from the specter of terrorism. Indeed it was congressional Republicans, the majority party in 2001, who must bear much of the blame for creating the Department of Homeland Security and TSA in the first place. Congressional Republicans also overwhelmingly supported the Patriot Act, which added to the atmosphere of hostility toward civil liberties in the name of state-provided “security.”

But as we’ve seen with TSA, federal “security” has more to do with humiliation and control than making us safe. It has more to do with instilling a mindset of subservience, which is why laughable policies such as removing one’s shoes continue to be enforced. What else could explain the shabby, degrading spectacle of a long line of normally upbeat Americans shuffling obediently through airport security in their stocking feet?

TSA may be merely symbolic of much bigger problems with the federal government, but it is an important symbol and we have a real chance to do something about it. We must seize this opportunity, before TSA offers some cosmetic compromise or the media spotlight fades. If you don’t live in my congressional district, please consider contacting your member of Congress and asking him or her to cosponsor HR 6416, the American Traveler Dignity Act of 2010. With enough help, we can push the bill to a vote early next year. Unless grassroots Americans take action, federal agencies like TSA will continue to bully us and ignore our basic constitutional freedoms.

Traveler's Dignity Act

In November of 2010, Congressman Paul appeared on CNN and spoke about the Traveler's Dignity Act.

Opposition to TSA Actions

In January of 2011, Congressman Paul used his "Texas Talk" address to discuss the 2011 congress and the need to stand up against the actions of the TSA.

Recipe for a Successful 2011
The year 2011 brings in a host of opportunities and challenges to America. Will we accelerate toward economic insolvency by continuing the policies that have created this crisis, or will a new Congress elected on the energy of the Tea Party movement find the courage to change course?

With the new Republican majority in the House I will have the opportunity as a subcommittee chairman to take a careful look at our domestic monetary policy. I am excited by the prospect of real oversight of the Federal Reserve, but I also hope to focus on the important ways in which our foreign policy and monetary policy are related. Just last week the Financial Times reported that the limited oversight of the Federal Reserve allowed by the passage of a watered-down version of my Audit the Fed bill revealed that approximately 55 percent of the loans made available under the largest Federal Reserve bailout program, the Term Auction Facility, went to foreign banks! This is but one example of the real cost to Americans of maintaining its empire overseas, and it cries out for more transparency and oversight.

This is why it is key for us to understand that our foreign policy and current economic crisis go hand in hand. Some have promised to lead us back to fiscal responsibility while asserting that any reduction in our foreign and military spending is off the table. They would like us to believe that we should not only continue spending as much on the military as the rest of the world combined, but they actually call for an even more aggressive US policy abroad. They believe we should continue to bomb Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, and elsewhere; that we must impose even more crippling sanctions on countries like Iran while moving steadily on to yet another Middle East war that is not in our interest. They represent the failed policies of the past and they would like to lead us down a dead-end street. We must resist the temptation of their neo-con inspired scare-mongering.

There will be much work for us to do in the next year and in the next Congress. We need look no further than the grossly unconstitutional and immoral policies of the Transportation Security Administration – demanding that we either be irradiated or fondled to travel in our own country – to see that those who would deprive us of our civil liberties on the empty promise of full security will not be giving up easily. We must continue standing up to them and we must not compromise. We must not allow the out-of-control Department of Homeland Security to impose an East German-like police state in the US, where neighbors are encouraged by big brother or big sister to inform on their neighbors. We must not accept that government authorities should hector us via television screens as we go about our private lives like we are living in Orwell’s 1984.

I am optimistic that the incoming Members of Congress understand the importance of what they have been entrusted with by the American people. But I do hope that those who elected them will watch their actions -- and their votes in Congress – carefully. An early indication will be the upcoming vote on re-authorization of the anti-American PATRIOT Act. Defeat once and for all of this police-state legislation will be a great way to start 2011 and the 112th Congress. We must move ahead with confidence. Our numbers are growing. Happy New Year! 

Reauthorization of Certain Aspects of the PATRIOT Act

In February of 2011, Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor about the 4th amendment and possible reauthorization of certain aspects of the PATRIOT Act.

CNN National Security Debate

On November 22, 2011 Congressman Paul participated in the CNN debate on national security. He stated that he did not agree with the PATRIOT Act and that the US should not trade liberty for security.

BLITZER: Congressman Paul, I suspect you disagree.

PAUL: I do.

BLITZER: Tell us why.

PAUL: I think the Patriot Act is unpatriotic because it undermines our liberty. I'm concerned, as everybody is, about the terrorist attack. Timothy McVeigh was a vicious terrorist. He was arrested. Terrorism is still on the books, internationally and nationally, it's a crime and we should deal with it.

We dealt with it rather well with Timothy McVeigh. But why I really fear it is we have drifted into a condition that we were warned against because our early founders were very clear. They said, don't be willing to sacrifice liberty for security.

Today it seems too easy that our government and our congresses are so willing to give up our liberties for our security. I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security. You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: I want to bring others in, but do you want to respond, Mr. Speaker?

GINGRICH: Yes. Timothy McVeigh succeeded. That's the whole point.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: Timothy McVeigh killed a lot of Americans. I don't want a law that says after we lose a major American city, we're sure going to come and find you. I want a law that says, you try to take out an American city, we're going to stop you.

(APPLAUSE)

PAUL: This is like saying that we need a policeman in every house, a camera in every house because we want to prevent child- beating and wife-beating. You can prevent crimes by becoming a police state. 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. And we will throw out so much of what our revolution was fought for. So don't do it so carelessly.

...

BLITZER: Congressman Paul?

PAUL: That's digging a...

(APPLAUSE)

That's digging a hole for ourselves. What if they look like Timothy McVeigh? You know, he was a pretty tough criminal.

I think 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.

(APPLAUSE)

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.

And they have changed the -- in the -- in DOD budget they have changed the wording on the definition of al-Qaeda and Taliban. It's anybody associated with organizations, which means almost anybody can be loosely associated so that makes all Americans vulnerable.

And now we know that American citizens are vulnerable to assassination.

So I would be very cautious about protecting the rule of law. It will be a sacrifice that you'll be sorry for. (APPLAUSE)

Huckabee Forum

In December of 2011, Congressman Paul participated in the Huckabee Presidential Forum. The forum was not a debate, each candidate was asked questions separately on the constitution, the PATRIOT Act, and other items. During that forum, he noted his opposition to the PATRIOT Act, stating that it would not have passed had it been named appropriately as the repeal of the fourth amendment.

CBS Foreign Policy Debate

In Novemebr of 2011, Congressman Paul participated in the CBS foreign policy debate. He was asked about his support for waterboarding and responds that he does not support the tactic.

Major Garrett: Congressman Paul, my spidey sense tells me we have a debate about to get launched here. I know you have an opinion you'd like to weigh in.

Ron Paul: Yes. Tor-- torture is illegal. And-- by our laws. It's illegal by international laws.

Major Garrett: How do you-- how do you define torture, sir?

Ron Paul: Well, waterboarding is torture. And-- and many other-- it's ill-- it's illegal under international law and under our law. It's also immoral. The-- and it's also very impractical. There's no evidence that you really get reliable evidence. Why would you accept the position of torturing 100 people because you know one person might have information? And that's what you do when you accept the principal of a-- of-- of-- of torture. I think it's-- I think it's uncivilized and prac-- and has no practical advantages and is really un-American to accept on principal that we will torture people that we capture. 

2012 NDAA

In January of 2012, Congressman Paul spoke on the House floor about his opposition to the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act.

Campaign Website Statements 

ISSUE - War and Foreign Policy

”The only proper way to go to war, the only legal way to go to war, the only constitutional way to go to war is to declare the war, by the congress, not by the president. The people should be behind it.”

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.
We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

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.

Protect America Act of 2007

The Protect America Act of 2007 was a bill that sought to allow electronic surveillance of people reasonable believed to be outside of the United States. The bill lists the requirements for initiating surveillance and gives it a 1 year limitation. The bill passed in the House in a 227-183 vote. Ron Paul cast a "No Vote"

Military Commission Act of 2006

The Military Commissions Act passed in response to a supreme court ruling which stated that stated that military tribunals established by the Bush administrations did not align with the UCMJ. The Act defined unlawful enemy combatants and allowed for the military tribunals to be held. It passed the House 250-170. Ron Paul voted against the Military Commission Act of 2006.

USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006

The USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006 was a bill that sought to allow electronic surveillance of people reasonable believed to be outside of the United States. The bill lists the requirements for initiating surveillance and gives it a 1 year limitation. The bill passed in the House in a 227-183 vote. Ron Paul voted against reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act.

The Homeland Security Act of 2002

In July 2002, the House passed the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Among other things, the act created the Department of Homeland Security, and set forth the jurisdiction of that department. In the vote, almost all Republicans supported the legislation and a moderate percentage of Democrats supported it.

The Patriot Act

In October of 2001, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act. Although the act passed the senate with moderate support from Democrats, it has become one of the more divisive pieces of legislation. This is partly due to the expansion of governmental wiretapping privileges. Ron Paul voted against the PATRIOT Act.

Sponsored and Cosponsored Legislation

Military Tribunals for Terrorists Act 2011 - Prime Sponsor

Requires trial only by a military commission for any foreign national who: (1) engages or has engaged in an offense relating to a terrorist attack against persons or property in the United States or U.S. government property or personnel outside the United States; and (2) is subject to trial for that offense by a military commission under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

American Anti-Torture Act of 2009 - Cosponsor

Amends the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to prohibit any person in the custody or control of the United States (under current law, the Department of Defense) from being subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the U.S. Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations. Makes such prohibition inapplicable with respect to any person in the custody or control of the United States (under current law, the Department of Defense) pursuant to a U.S. criminal or immigration law.

Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 - Cosponsor

To provide for the implementation of the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

American Anti-Torture Act of 2007 - Cosponsor

Amends the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to prohibit any person in the custody or control of the United States (under current law, the Department of Defense) from being subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the U.S. Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.

American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 - Prime Sponsor

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.

User Comments

• Representatives

  • Summary
  • Election Results
  • Voting Statistics
  • Sponsored Bills
  • Controversies
  • Political Positions
  • Speeches / Debates

  • Enter Zip Code