Search for...
OnTheIssuesLogo

Alan Keyes on Homeland Security

Republican challenger for IL Senate; previously Candidate for President


Develop a plan that will get us away from our oil dependence

We'll be able to have a win on national security, because we will stop feeding dollars to Arab states who use those dollars to fund schools where people are taught to engage in terrorism, and use those dollars to support the cadre and infrastructure of terrorism. It's very important that we move ahead, and we do so vigorously and urgently, to develop a plan that will get us away from our dependence on oil, as the primary resource, and move us down the road that is going to be the 21st century pattern.
Source: IL Senate Debate Oct 26, 2004

Send a clear message to the entire terror network

It was absolutely essential to send a clear message to the entire terror network that we were not going to allow safe havens, that we were not going to allow states that aided and abetted the terrorists off the hook. This has had its desired effect with the Libyans backing away from their commitment, with Syria now talking as if it wants to reach an accommodation. It's a failure of strategic understanding if one isolates the Iraqi situation and does not see it in the context of what must be the larger mission of the US to deal with the entire global infrastructure of terror. We have also created for ourselves a clear base of operations in the Middle East that will then have further implications for others, including Iran that might want to stir up trouble in the future. We have to be persistent, deal first & foremost with the national security challenge & with others when it comes to the political arrangements for Iraq-but we must put first the safety of the people of the US as we deal with terror
Source: IL Senate Debate, Illinois Radio Network Oct 12, 2004

Take preemptive action only if a probable threat exists

Q: How strongly would you consider preemptive action against those nations?

A: One of the brilliant things about the Iraq decision is that you go after those things most susceptible to the right kinds of action. Iraq was susceptible to direct military action, and so Bush acted. If you're talking about North Korea, you have to look at the entire context in which we deal with the North Korean threat. That includes relationships with the Chinese and the possibility that you're talking about something that could escalate into a larger war. We also have mechanisms preexisting for bringing international pressure to bear on both the North Koreans and the Iranians, when it comes to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons We consider the possibility of direct action in an appropriate form only if we have evidence that there is a probably threat, and that they are moving on that threat.

Source: IL Senate Debate, Illinois Radio Network Oct 12, 2004

Set aside the ABM treaty and build SDI

Where nuclear weapons are concerned, we have put our own strategic safety first. I think it is very important that we take the anti-missile defense treaty and set it aside in order to rapidly develop and deploy an anti-missile defense for the US. It’s time we gave the American people and the allies of this country the assurance that can come from our superior technology, make use of it to secure ourselves against rogue states and their missiles, as well as against the communist Chinese threat.
Source: GOP Debate on the Larry King Show Feb 15, 2000

Rapidly develop & deploy an anti-missile defense system

Q: What about nuclear weapons? A: I think it is very important that we take the anti-missile defense treaty and set it aside in order to rapidly develop and deploy an anti-missile defense for the US. It’s time we gave the American people and the allies of this country the assurance that can come from our superior technology, make use of it to secure ourselves against rogue states and their missiles, as well as against the communist Chinese threat that this administration has contributed to.
Source: GOP Debate on the Larry King Show Feb 15, 2000

What you see is what you get over “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Q: What is your opinion of “Don’t ask, don’t tell?” A: It is typical of the Clinton administration. It is a dishonest, shameful, dishonorable policy that winks and nods at gay folks to get them into the military, leaves the regulations on the books so that people in authority, if they come into information that somebody has violated those regulations, don’t know whether they should or should not enforce them ...Military people should be “what you see is what you get,” not “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Source: GOP Debate on the Larry King Show Feb 15, 2000

Ban homosexuals in the military

One of the nice things about military people is. Ask a question, get a straight answer. What you see is what you get, doesn’t mean dissemble. It doesn’t mean “Don’t ask, don’t tell.” It means stand forward and be what you are. If we think that having homosexuals in the military is bad for discipline, bad for morale, then we ought to stand against it. I know that rank and file military people do and I pledge that I will return to the ban on homosexuals in the military.
Source: Republican Debate in Durham, NH Jan 6, 2000

Missile defense umbrella including Taiwan

I would put in place the kind of anti-missile defenses that can be extended as an umbrella to protect Taiwan when they come under threats [from China]. Self-determination, allowing people to decide their own destiny, has been fundamental to American foreign policy for decades. We should certainly stand for it where the Taiwanese are concerned. We should make it clear that any [attack by] the Communist Chinese would, in fact, mean a military confrontation with the United States.
Source: (X-ref China) New Hampshire GOP Debates Dec 3, 1999

Keep some forces abroad, but avoid globalism

We obviously are a global power, we have interests all over the world. And I think that in many regions of the world, we do have forces deployed where their deployment makes a definite contribution to regional peace and stability and to the defense of our own interests. I wouldn’t suggest that we withdraw forces from Korea or from Europe or elsewhere, where I think that they do serve a useful purpose in both maintaining our presence and defending our interests. On the other hand, I think our principle ought to be very clear. It ought to be that when we are using those forces, deploying them, it serves our interests, not some abstract agenda of globalism, global sovereignty, global left-wing interventionism.
Source: Arizona Republican Primary Debate Nov 21, 1999

Defend human rights & self-govt within national interests

A Keyes administration would be based on an understanding that we serve the national interests of our people. Part of that interest is our leadership in the world, it is our defense of human rights around the world, it is our maintenance and sustenance of people’s commitment to self-government around the world. But it ought to be a clear commitment to our national interest first, not to globalism and internationalism.
Source: Arizona Republican Primary Debate Nov 21, 1999

Kosovo sets precedent for more future intervention

Tony Blair and Bill Clinton have said that the NATO action in Yugoslavia is just the beginning. They view this war as a precedent for a new internationalism, and expect similar interventions to happen regularly. Our “victory” in Yugoslavia, should it occur, will be worse than hollow -- it will be ripe with the seeds of greater evil to come, now that America has begun to teach the world that the end justifies the means.
Source: WorldNetDaily “Terrorism -- American style” Jun 4, 1999

Supports missile strikes against terrorists abroad

I believe that the [missile strikes against Sudan and Afghanistan] last week does serve the best interest of the country. Terrorism is not just a threat to our physical lives; it is also a threat to our way of life. We can already see this threat in the security that must surround people in our government, and the increasing presence of physical barriers in our public places. The real nature of the terrorist threat is the gradual shutting down the processes of an open society.
Source: WorldNetDaily “Why I support missile strikes” Aug 28, 1998

Citadel and VMI should remain all male

Q: Should the Citadel and Virginia Military Institute be allowed to remain all male? A: The Citadel and VMI should be allowed to remain all male. This arrangement preserves esprit de corps, maintains rigorous fitness standards for combat personnel, and keeps barracks life free from sexual distractions.
Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education, “Seven Questions” Feb 23, 1996

No women in combat

Though I believe strongly in the equality of the sexes, I resist with similar conviction the idea that equality means that the sexual difference makes no difference. I would restore fully the exemption of women from involuntary service in land combat units, and institute an in depth review and re-examination of the policy of assigning female volunteers to combat duty. Our military forces are not fit subjects for questionable social experimentation. Military preparedness should be the top priority.
Source: sandh.com/keyes/AKSTND.HTM “Women in Combat” Jun 30, 1995

  • Click here for definitions & background information on Homeland Security.
  • Click here for policy papers on Homeland Security.
  • Click here for SenateMatch answers by Alan Keyes.
  • Agree? Disagree? Voice your opinions on Homeland Security in The Forum.
Other candidates on Homeland Security: Alan Keyes on other issues:
IL Gubernatorial:
Rod Blagojevich
IL Senatorial:
Barack Obama
Carol Moseley-Braun
Jack Ryan
James Durkin
Paul Simon
Peter Fitzgerald
Richard Durbin

Presidential:
George W. Bush
(Republican for President)
V.P.Dick Cheney
(Republican for V.P.)
Sen.John Kerry
(Democratic nominee for Pres.)
Sen.John Edwards
(Democratic nominee for V.P.)
Ralph Nader
(Reform nominee for Pres.)
Peter Camejo
(Reform nominee for V.P.)
David Cobb
(Green nominee for Pres.)
Michael Badnarik
(Libertarian nominee for Pres.)
Michael Peroutka
(Constitution nominee for Pres.)
2004 Senate Races:
(AK)Knowles v.Murkowski v.Sykes
(AR)Holt v.Lincoln
(AZ)McCain v.Starky
(CA)Boxer v.Jones v.Gray
(CO)Coors v.Salazar v.Randall v.Acosta
(CT)Dodd v.Orchulli
(FL)Castor v.Martinez
(GA)Isakson v.Majette v.Buckley
(IA)Grassley v.Small v.Northrop
(IL)Obama v.Keyes
(IN)Bayh v.Scott
(KY)Bunning v.Mongiardo
(LA)John v.Vitter v.Kennedy
(MD)Mikulski v.Pipkin
(MO)Bond v.Farmer
(NC)Bowles v.Burr
(ND)Dorgan v.Liffrig
(NH)Granny D v.Gregg
(NV)Reid v.Ziser
(NY)Schumer v.Mills v.McReynolds
(OH)Fingerhut v.Voinovich
(OK)Carson v.Coburn
(OR)Wyden v.King
(PA)Hoeffel v.Specter v.Summers
(SC)DeMint v.Tenenbaum
(SD)Daschle v.Thune
(UT)Bennett v.Van Dam
(VT)Leahy v.McMullen
(WA)Murray v.Nethercutt
(WI)Feingold v.Michels
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Jobs
Principles
Social Security
Tax Reform
Technology
War/Peace
Welfare

Other Senators
House of Representatives
SenateMatch (matching quiz)
HouseMatch
Senate Votes (analysis)
House Votes