Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I've made clear that I've got problems with Ron Paul's ties to reconstructionist and neo-confederate groups, but let's also not forget that he's one of the very few politicians willing to take a bold stand on the unconstitutionality of many Bush programs. While the Democrats are caving in to Bush's demands on FISA and refusing to put a stop to warrantless wiretapping and much more, Paul is putting out bills like the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007.
This bill would repeal the Military Commissions Act of 2006, restore full habeas corpus requirements, prohibit the use of secret evidence under all circumstances, and end the practice of rendition to other countries to torture terrorism suspects. It also would grant standing to Congress to sue the President over any signing statement that proposes that the President may ignore any provision of the legislation for any reason. An extraordinarily important bill that, sadly, has no chance of passing.
Comments
It's true: a lot of politicians, who take an oath of office to uphold the Consitution, only seem occasionally interested in doing so when it's politically expedient. I guess most people are complacent enough to not feel personally threatened yet, or are willing to give in for "security."
Ron Paul's campaign seems in some ways like the Perot campaign, but with less money. Perot also had a lot of weird ideas, and was even less suited to actually be president, but was able to make the deficit and the debt a big issue in the campaign, just be harping on it incessantly until people started to realize it actually needed thinking about. If Paul could do the same with Constitutional issues, maybe he'd have an effect.
Posted by: Moopheus | October 23, 2007 10:06 AM
Wow, that bill sounds like my fantasy wishlist for putting this nation back on some semblance of a moral footing. Pity that the "crazy" candidate is the only one taking these sorts of stances.
This nation has never been perfect, but we've fallen so far in such a short time...I never would have thought it possible.
Posted by: Dan McCausland | October 23, 2007 10:20 AM
I hope his candidacy survives long enough for him to raise Constitutional holy hell at the Republican convention.
Posted by: fuzz | October 23, 2007 10:25 AM
Pity that the "crazy" candidate is the only one taking these sorts of stances.
Pity that the "crazy" candidate is still part of the party that is solely responsible for all of the atrocities he claims to oppose. Maybe if he actually went back to the Libertarian Party, or started working with the Democrats, he'd be worth taking seriously.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 23, 2007 10:34 AM
6) Experience demonstrates that global terrorism can be thwarted, deterred, and punished through muscular application of law enforcement measures and prosecutions in Federal civilian courts in lieu of military commissions or military law.
Of course Kerry was "crazy" for suggesting that the war on terror was a law enforcement rather than military issue. It seems convenient that this legislation is presented a year before an election cycle in which the Republicans have a significant chance of losing the White House.
Posted by: dogmeatib | October 23, 2007 12:16 PM
So, Paul's religious buddies will disdain the use of wiretapping when trying to determine whom to stone for adultery or homosexuality. I'm so pleased.
/over-the-top
Posted by: xebecs | October 23, 2007 12:33 PM
Actually, Paul has been working with the Dems in the House who do care about civil liberties to try to get reforms passed for a while. See this bill for example.
Paul also voted against passing the Patriot Act. The only other '08 presidential candidate to vote against it was Kucinich. Edwards, Clinton, and Biden all voted for it.
Posted by: MattXIV | October 23, 2007 1:12 PM
Kerry also voted for it. The only senator to vote against it was Feingold.
Posted by: MattXIV | October 23, 2007 1:14 PM
Everbody knows the Democrats are just as much whores of the corporations as the Republicans.
So are atheist scientists...Dawkins tells us most scientists are atheists...who keep providing better and newer nukes any government with the means to pay.
Posted by: Goldenshower | October 23, 2007 3:14 PM
Spectacular piece of reasoning there.
Posted by: Alex, FCD | October 23, 2007 3:29 PM
Alex: what sort of reasoning did you expect from someone who calls himself "Goldenshower?" Lots of piss-artistry, to be sure, but not much reasoning.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 23, 2007 3:35 PM
"What percentage of scientists, exactly, do you think are working on developing nuclear weapons for the United States? I don't know either, but I bet you could count them on two hands. I would think that the number of atheists and scientists who are working on getting rid of the damn things is much higher."
Actually a lot of them are the same guys. Without an active testing program (and I am truly amazed that the Bush administration has stuck to the testing moratorium) weapons design is not a growth industry, so "stockpile stewardship" and disarmament are keeping the funds flowing at the DOE labs. 'Course they're still trying to flog missile defense, too.
Are we OT yet?
Posted by: Moopheus | October 23, 2007 10:48 PM
If a terrorist was holding your family hostage, and could give you their location, and torture was the only way to get the info out of him...
would you torture?
Sam Harris, of The End of Faith fame, says he would.
IN the right circumstances, torture may be the only way...if for example, government offcials knew a nuke was in an American city, and it was later found out they did not use EVERY means to find out where it was, they would be torn to pieces by mobs.
Posted by: Harris | October 24, 2007 7:16 AM
"if for example, government offcials knew a nuke was in an American city, and it was later found out they did not use EVERY means to find out where it was,"
Isn't this a pretty unlikley scenario? It assumes that somehow we got reliable information, presumably without torture, that a nuke was about to go off somewhere, but didn't find out where, and at the same time, we had under our control a torturable suspect who we thought could give us the correct answer and that his answers would also be reliable. If the time frame were very short (like a day or two) it isn't inconceivable that the suspect could hold out long enough or keep agents on a wild goose chase until it was too late?
I think if someone poses you this question, it is fair to ask, how did you get the first bit of information, and if there was no torture, then why does it follow that torture is the only way to get the second bit?
Posted by: Moopheus | October 24, 2007 8:38 AM
Red State has responded, in a mature and well considered manner, to the threat Ron Paul represents to the government's power to violate our laws: by banning any supporting posts or comments about him:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/leon_h_wolf/2007/oct/22/attention_ron_paul_supporters_life_is_really_not_fair
Posted by: Misanthrope | October 24, 2007 8:46 AM