Campaign Status
Texas Representative Ron Paul declared his candidacy on March 12, 2007.
Also See:
War on Terrorism
Paul has been consistent in calling the war on terrorism a vaguely defined conflict, similar to a "war on drugs" or a "war on crime" . This vagueness is dangerous, in the view of Paul, in part because it permits those who want to expand government to do so in the name of needing extra resources for a war. As a libertarian who believes in small government, Paul is opposed on principle to such expansion.According to Paul, in March 2007:
We have accepted this notion that you can make this vague declaration. It’s not a real declaration. You don’t know who the enemy is. For people who like the state to grow during wartime, it’s easy just to declare a war. Whether it’s a war on drugs, a war on illiteracy, or a war on whatever, people say “well, it’s a war; we have to be willing to sacrifice our liberties and let the government take care of us.” It’s a contest between those who want to or enjoy being dependent on the government – or are frightened into it both physically and economically – versus those who believe and understand how a free society is safer and wealthier.
War in Iraq
Paul is opposed to the war in Iraq. He voted against it, and has consistently spoken of it as a mistake that does not represent the American will. In a September 5, 2007 Republican debate, Paul said the war was not unified effort: "The American people didn't go in. A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservatives hijacked our foreign policy.''
Paul's views combine the principle that the U.S. did not have a legal justification for war, and an effort to get at the causes of the 9/11 attacks, an issue he has addressed more than once. In the same September 2007 debate, he expressed both views:
Q: [to Paul]: Your position on the war is pretty simple: Get out.
I would leave completely. Why leave the troops in the region? The fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia was one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9/11. So why leave them in the region? They don't want our troops on the Arabian Peninsula. We have no need for our national security to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula.
Q: You're basically saying that we should take our marching orders from Al Qaida? If they want us off the Arabian Peninsula, we should leave?
PAUL: No! I'm saying we should take our marching orders from our Constitution. We should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it's an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We've committed the invasion of this war. And it's illegal under international law. That's where I take my marching orders, not from any enemy.
Homeland Security
Paul has strenuously opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security as a form of wasteful bureaucracy, saying that the U.S. had the resources to prevent the 9/11 attacks in 2001, but bureaucratic inefficiency stopped them.
On his campaign website, Paul does not explicitly address "homeland security." Instead, what may be called homeland security issues are incorporated into his views on immigration and borders, and "privacy and personal liberties." There, he argues that the government should immediately, physically, secure U.S. borders and limit immigration. He is against the Patriot Act, because it expands the government's ability to access people's private information.