TRUMP: I saw it on television. So did many other people. It was 14 years ago. But I saw it on television. I saw clips and many people saw it in person. I've had hundreds of phone calls to the Trump Organization saying, "We saw it. It was dancing in the streets." So many people saw it. And, so, why would I take it back? I'm not going to take it back.
CARSON: I agree that there's no such thing as political correctness when you're fighting an enemy who wants to destroy you and everything that you have anything to do with. And I'm not one who is real big on telling the enemy what we're going to do and what we're not going to do.
Q: But you would do that even though many consider waterboarding torture?
CARSON: As I said, I'm not real big on telling them what we would or would not do.
CARSON: Well, I said in the larger capacity that we should monitor anything -- mosques, church, school, you know, shopping center where there is a lot of radicalization going on.
Q But how would you know that is happening?
CARSON: Intelligence. We have intelligence on the ground already. We do need to enhance that. For instance, we've learned last week that the FBI seems to be only to be able to monitor 30 to 60 people at a time. And we know there's a lot more than that that needs to be monitored. We need to get very serious about our intelligence.
CARSON: Well, as you, I'm sure, know, there are a lot of people on that watchlist and they have no idea why they're on that list and they've been trying to get their names off of it and no one will give them information. You know, I am a big supporter of the Second Amendment, and I don't want to deprive people unnecessarily of that. There needs to be better due process. And that's one thing that I'm very interested in finding a way to make government more responsive to the people. It's really unfair that people can't get a real hearing. And they get put on a list and nobody can tell them why they're there, and they go through for years and years and they have to be tormented. It just doesn't make any sense.
CHRISTIE: I will highlight that we were wrong to cut back on the NSA's metadata collection and that its been destroying the morale of our intelligence officers. We need to rebuild that program. We need to support law enforcement, which this administration hasn't been doing. We need to do all those things first and foremost to protect the homeland, because the number one job of the president of the United States is to protect the safety and security of the American people. National security is not an option. It's a fundamental right. And that's what we will be focused on.
CHRISTIE: This is part of the problem with this administration. They're an imperial administration that just decides they're going to place people in individual states and not even inform the state of government of the fact that they have done it. And they're placing them through nongovernmental organizations and not giving any information to the state governments. We should set up a safe haven in Syria, so these folks don't have to leave their country in the first place. This is something that the president has created and now he wants the American people to absorb this crisis that he has created.
TRUMP: Well, we have to be strong. You know, they don't use waterboarding over there; they use chopping off people's heads. They use drowning people. I don't know if you've seen with the cages, where they put people in cages and they drown them in the ocean and they lift out the cage. And we're talking about waterboarding. I would bring it back, yes. I think waterboarding is peanuts compared to what they'd do to us, what they're doing to us, what they did to James Foley when they chopped off his head. That's a whole different level and I would absolutely bring back interrogation and strong interrogation.
TRUMP: Well, I don't want to close mosques; I want mosques surveilled. And all I would do, certainly there are certain hot spots and everybody knows they're hot spots. Good material was coming out of those mosques. We were learning a lot. And they were stopping problems and potential problems by learning what was happening. I don't want to close up mosques but things have to happen where, you have got to use strong measures or you're going to see buildings coming down all over New York City and elsewhere.
TRUMP: It did happen. I saw it. It was on television. There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations. They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down. I know it might be not politically correct for you to talk about it, but there were people cheering as those buildings came down. It was well covered at the time.
PAUL: I'm very worried about that because I think when you have a fearful time or an angry time, that people are coached into giving up their liberty. In the United States, all phone records are still being collected all the time and we still had the attacks. And realize that in France, they have bulk collection or surveillance of their citizens a thousand fold greater than what we have with very little privacy protections. They still didn't know anything about this. So what I would argue is that you can keep giving up liberty but in the end I don't think we'll be safer, but we may have lost who we are as a people in the process.
PAUL: If you're doing surveillance on religious institutions, yes. I think surveillance, though, has lower threshold for individuals. I think the discussion should be, "will we have surveillance, will we follow people who we think are a risk?" That's even a lower threshold than getting a search warrant. So, yes, we should follow people who are a risk. Should we talk to their neighbors and friends? Should we talk to their imam? Sure, all of that is legitimate. But should we target mosques and have a database of Muslims? Absolutely not. And I think that's really disqualifying for both Donald Trump and Marco Rubio to say that we're going to close down every place that potentially has a discussion that might lead to extremism. That would require some sort of religious czar that I think isn't consistent with our freedom.
BUSH: I would listen to the military commanders and give them the mission, which is, how do we destroy ISIS? It is Islamic terrorism. It's not a law enforcement engagement. And listen to them and then develop a clear strategy. I can't tell you the force levels required to do this. I do know that it has to be done in unison with our allies. We can't do this alone, but we must lead.
TRUMP: Well, you know, we could be politically correct, if you want. But, certainly, are you trying to say we don't have a problem? We do have a problem with radical Muslims. As I have already said; I have tremendous people that I know that are Muslims.
A: One of the things I would do is fix the hospitals. What I'm going to do is make sure that they will be able to go out and use private doctors and we will pay the private doctors. We're going to do a bit of a free market thing so that veterans can get immediate service and good treatment.
A: I first of all think that we need to expand the voucher program so a veteran can get the health care they need as soon as they can possibly get it and should not be just limited to the VA hospitals. Secondly, my sense is you're going to have to decentralize the VA.
A: If you look at my record as a government official, when I was secretary of the Navy, I opened up more billets to women than any secretary of the Navy in history. And I am totally comfortable now with the military being able to make these decisions in a way that it goes to performance and I am very proud to see these two women who are West Point graduates. And the military should be able to decide how they will be used.
A: I would be working to get other countries to jump in and join us. I don't want to go alone. Let me tell you what I would do. Firstly, I would have supported the rebels in Syria that were in there to topple Assad. Secondly, I would have a coalition of other countries, including us, on the ground beginning to degrade and destroy ISIS, because, as you begin to do it, that whole caliphate beings to fall apart.
A: I don't think there's any instance in which we found that the indiscriminate bulk collection of records have helped us. Three independent commissions looked at this, every one said that no terrorist has been caught through bulk collection. So I do want more individualized investigations. The Fourth Amendment says you can collect records, you just have to name the target, have some suspicion that you present to a judge. But I don't want the blanket surveillance of all Americans. I'm not willing to give up on the Bill of Rights in order to say, "I can feel more safe". We've been doing this for ten years. Not one terrorist has been caught through this program. When you look and you say, "is it illegal?" The courts have said it's illegal. Many scholars are saying it's unconstitutional.
TRUMP: I would be inclined to be very strong, because I have no doubt that that works. I have absolutely no doubt. Waterboarding used to be such a big controversial subject, and I haven't heard that term in a year now. Because when you see the other side chopping off heads, waterboarding doesn't sound very severe.
PAUL: There was a poll not too long ago in Iowa that asked, do you think we should be more involved in foreign wars, like John McCain, who wants to be everywhere all the time, or do you think we should be less involved or more judicious and only go to war when we have a threat to an American interest, like Rand Paul? And it polls equally in Iowa. So I think the party is split on some of these things. I do want to defend America. In fact, I think we are distracting ourselves from the real terrorist threat by collecting so much information that we get inundated by the information and we get distracted. I want to collect more information on terrorists, but I want to do it according to the 4th Amendment--which puts forward that suspicion should be individualized and there should be a warrant with a judge's name on it.
CHRISTIE: I've had to review applications under the PATRIOT Act. I know what it's like to interact with the FISA court. We can do this and protect civil liberties. And, of course, we want to track terrorists' phone numbers. We're not listening to anybody's conversations. We're not looking at their emails without the type of search warrants that the court is talking about. What we're saying, though, is, if you're a known terrorist outside this country, and you're calling numbers inside this country, we'd like to know who those people are.
Q: What do you say to those that feel that their government may have them under attack?
CHRISTIE: We should engage in vigorous congressional oversight over our intelligence community, and our Justice Department should prosecute any intelligence officer who violates the law. We have those safeguards available to us.
It came out recently they have equipment that is 30 years old. They don't know if it worked. And I thought it was horrible when it was broadcast on television, because boy, does that send signals to Putin and all of the other people that look at us and they say, "That is a group of people, and that is a nation that truly has no clue. They don't know what they're doing."
"I'm not talking about being bellicose--but saying 'here are the consequences of your actions', that would deter the kind of bad outcome we don't want to see."
Bush said signaling what further sanctions Russia could face, and reassuring Poland & the Baltic states that the US would meet its NATO obligations to view an attack on one member state as an attack against the whole alliance, could halt Putin's aggression. "If he thinks we're resolute, that's the greatest possibility of restricting any kind of further aggressions." However, he said, it was essential to ensure that the US did not isolate Moscow to such an extent that it ended up in the arms of China.
Soon afterward, several GOP candidates seized the opportunity to attack Obama while touting their own foreign policy platforms. A spokesman for Ben Carson wrote that "Dr. Carson believes that ISIL presents a very clear, very real threat and the U.S. should be aggressive and committed to ISIL's destruction."
Foreign policy will likely be a key issue in the 2016 race. All of the GOP candidates, with the exception of Sen. Rand Paul, are hawks (and even the Kentucky senator has supported airstrikes against ISIS).
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who is currently on a tour of Germany, Estonia, and Poland, tweeted, "In Germany, Obama admitted again what has been clear for a while, he has no ISIS strategy. A serious effort to defeat them is needed."
Many GOP candidates had criticized Obama's ISIS strategy even before the president's made his comments. Bush appeared last week on CBS's "Face the Nation" and called for a more aggressive approach to ISIS--though one that would limit American military ground support to mostly an advisory role. "We need a strategy. We don't have a strategy right now," he said.
"The threat posed by ISIL is growing exponentially, and President Obama's lack of a strategy is Commander-in-Chief malpractice," Lindsey Graham said in a statement. The South Carolina senator, who chairs several Senate subcommittees related to foreign affairs, has emphasized his credentials in an attempt to stand out from his opponents. He is a vocal advocate of a more aggressive policy in the Middle East that includes sending troops to Iraq.
SANDERS: I may well be voting for it. It doesn't go as far as I would like it to go. I voted against the original Patriot Act, and I voted against its reauthorization. Look, we have got to be vigorous in fighting terrorism and protecting the American people. But we have to do it in a way that protects the constitutional rights of the American people. And I'm very, very worried about the invasion of privacy rights that we're seeing not only from the NSA and the government but from corporate America, as well. We're losing our privacy rights. It's a huge issue.
Q: The government is going to be asking corporate America to keep this data under the USA Freedom Act. You're comfortable with that?
SANDERS: No, I'm not. But we have to look at the best of bad situations. The question is whether the NSA keeps it, the question is whether it is transferred to the phone companies, who already keep records for an extended period of time.
SANTORUM: Look, I think the Patriot Act has worked very well. I'm not aware of any abuses of the Patriot Act that cause any undue fear about invasion of privacy. But at this point, it's likely that what the House passed is really the version that has viability. And I would vote for it if I was in the U.S. Senate. As president, I would sign it. So I'm encouraging everyone to let that bill become law. And we can move forward from there and judge to whether that provides us sufficient security going forward.
A supporter of calling a vote, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), said it accommodated privacy concerns by restricting the set of records related to terrorism investigations that the government can request from telecommunications companies, while still giving the government the powers it needed to stop terrorism.
A bill opponent, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said the bill failed to require companies to maintain telecommunications records for long enough to make investigations effective. The vote was 57 yeas to 42 nays, with 3/5 majority required to call a vote.
YEAS: Scott R-SC
NAYS: Graham R-SC
A: The Constitution already provides what we should do. If you have probable cause, you go to a judge, you get a warrant, and then you listen in on his calls, now you've got the other branch of government that's constitutionally required to be a part of that process. You don't just give the executive branch unlimited power.
Q: Do you support NSA bulk collection of metadata?
Q: 225 different terrorist plots over the past years since 9/11 and so far, not one of them has been tied directly to the NSA's collection of metadata. So, if this is so effective, how come it hasn't resulted in the foiled terrorist plots? Those have been foiled by old fashion good police work, old-fashioned human intelligence. It seems like we're spending billions of dollars on whiz-bang technology and not enough money on human resources, which really is proven to be the most effective way of stopping terrorism.
RP: It's good to have a contrarian voice that's thoughtfully engaging in a process like that. Now from my perspective, it is very, very important for us to be able to have a technological advantage, and use every advantage that we have to be able to identify these people that would come into our country or would put our allies in jeopardy. We've been a country that always balanced our civil liberties against protecting our citizens. But I will always err on the side of defending our citizens' safety, but again being very mindful that our civil liberties don't need to be trampled on. And if there are agencies or people that are abusing that, they need to be held accountable, and use every bit of the power of this country to punish anyone who is using the Patriot Act in a way that is not appropriate.
RP: No, it's not. When you start looking at what she's doing from the standpoint of this Clinton Foundation, there is a clear quid pro quo about speeches her husband has given. I mean, $30 million dollars in the last year and a half for speeches? Then when you look back at when she was Secretary of State, the places that Bill Clinton went to give speeches, I just think this thing is getting so smelly.
HH: Hillary appears to have forgotten that she used a lot of different emails on her private server.
RP: The fact is this is not a lapse of one's memory. This is a lapse of one's ethics. There are real ethical questions that must be answered by the Clintons from the Foundation through the Secretary of State. And we haven't even gotten into this entire Benghazi issue. And as we peel back the layers of the onion, if you will, this becomes more and more rotten.
PAUL: No, I would actually keep the NSA. In fact, I would have the NSA target their activities, more and more, towards our enemies. I think if you're not spending so much time and money collecting the information of innocent Americans, maybe we could've spent more time knowing that one of the Tsarnaev boys, one of the Boston bombers, had gone back to Chechnya. We didn't know that, even though we'd been tipped off by the Russians. We had communicated, we had interviewed him, and still didn't know that. Same with the recent jihadist from Phoenix that traveled to Texas, and the shooting in Garland; we knew him. We had investigated him and put him in jail. I want to spend more time on people we have suspicion of, and we have probable cause of, and less time on innocent Americans. It distracts us from the job of getting terrorists.
A: Well, I don't believe the drone program ought to be run out of the CIA. The CIA is an intelligence-gathering operation. The drone program should be operated exclusively out of the Pentagon. You know, the Air Force has the capability of doing extensive targeting. You don't have those capabilities in the CIA. And I have talked to former CIA people who have told me this.
SANDERS: What I do believe is that there is enormous waste in military. The Department of Defense can't even audit itself--massive cost overruns. Of course, ISIS is a terrible organization that has to be defeated. And, of course, we need a strong military. But just as with every other agency of government, you know what, the military also has got to get rid of waste and fraud and cost overruns. So, I want a strong military. But I do not believe, among other things, that without an audit, we should be throwing tens of billions of dollars more into the Department of Defense.
PAUL: I have proposed several 5-year budgets. And for me, the most important thing of the 5-year budgets has been to balance. The last one I produced did actually increase defense spending above the military sequester. But I did it by taking money from domestic spending. My belief has always been that national defense is the most important thing we do, but we shouldn't borrow to pay for it.
Q: But by proposing an increase in military spending before you announce for president, it could look like pandering.
PAUL: Well, 3 or 4 years ago, we did the same thing. So we have been for quite some time proposing increases in military spending, but always the point is that I believe any increase in spending should be offset by decreases in spending somewhere else.
It's all part of a campaign strategy to eliminate the widespread suspicion that Paul is an isolationist. But to many foreign-policy conservatives, Paul's past expressions of skepticism about US intervention abroad and support for sweeping cuts to the defense and foreign-aid budgets speak more loudly than his words on the campaign trail.
Paul's advisers insist that his views have matured since being elected to the Senate. He has educated himself on international affairs, and he's developed a "conservative realist" vision of America's role in the world that is not isolationist but still judicious about U.S. entanglements overseas.
FIORINA: Well, I think it was part of the plan all along that the Clintons had. Look, I think it was very deliberate that they had a private server. I think it was very deliberate that she used a personal e-mail account. I think this clearly was a deliberate effort to shield her communications. We need a nominee who will bring this up in the general election. The reason Benghazi was not enough of an issue in the 2012 election is because, unfortunately, our nominee pulled his punches when he had an opportunity to remind the American people of the Benghazi tragedy and scandal.
Q: So, you won't pull your punches on Hillary?
FIORINA: Oh, I will not pull my punches--not now and not in a general election.
The move completes a stunning reversal for Paul, who in May 2011, released his own budget that would have slashed the Pentagon, a sacred cow for many Republicans. Under Paul's original proposal, defense spending would have dropped from $553 billion in 2011 to $542 billion in 2016. But under Paul's new plan, the Pentagon will see its budget authority swell by $76 billion to $696 billion in fiscal year 2016. The boost would be offset by a $106 billion cut to funding for aid to foreign governments, climate change research and reductions to the budgets of the EPA, HUD, and the departments of Commerce and Education.
"I worried about this from day one. I'm sick to my stomach. And here is the first thing I would do if I were President of the United States: I wouldn't let Congress leave town until we fix this. I would literally use the military to keep them in if I had to. We're not leaving town until we restore these defense cuts. We're not leaving town until we restore the intel cuts. Killing terrorists is the only option other than capturing them, because they're not deterred by death."
The military line was "not to be taken literally," according to a Graham spokesman. But [many newspapers] covered the Graham joke as a serious proposal; [one wrote]: "If taken literally, Graham is basically announcing his plan to stage a coup."
Walker sought to convince [his audience] that if he were elected president, "I would listen to the chain of command. I would listen to the generals in the field, not just those in the joint chiefs. I would listen to the secretary of state, to the secretary of defense and to the national security adviser."
GRAHAM: Yeah, we should be doing more. But Boko Haram doesn't represent the threat to the homeland in my view that ISIL does and Al Nusra and other groups in Syria and Iraq. But this problem is spreading throughout the world. The next stage of the fight I think is Africa. But if we could show some resolve in Syria and Iraq and reset the table and go after these guys in Syria and Iraq with success, I think it would change the landscape throughout the world. Success anywhere breeds success everywhere. Failure in any one spot hurts you everywhere. But you're right, 2,000 people were killed in one weekend in Nigeria and the world basically ignored the story.
| |||
| 2020 Presidential contenders on Homeland Security: | |||
|
Democrats running for President:
Sen.Michael Bennet (D-CO) V.P.Joe Biden (D-DE) Mayor Mike Bloomberg (I-NYC) Gov.Steve Bullock (D-MT) Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D-IN) Sen.Cory Booker (D-NJ) Secy.Julian Castro (D-TX) Gov.Lincoln Chafee (L-RI) Rep.John Delaney (D-MD) Rep.Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) Sen.Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) Gov.Deval Patrick (D-MA) Sen.Bernie Sanders (I-VT) CEO Tom Steyer (D-CA) Sen.Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) Marianne Williamson (D-CA) CEO Andrew Yang (D-NY) 2020 Third Party Candidates: Rep.Justin Amash (L-MI) CEO Don Blankenship (C-WV) Gov.Lincoln Chafee (L-RI) Howie Hawkins (G-NY) Gov.Jesse Ventura (I-MN) |
Republicans running for President:
V.P.Mike Pence(R-IN) Pres.Donald Trump(R-NY) Rep.Joe Walsh (R-IL) Gov.Bill Weld(R-MA & L-NY) 2020 Withdrawn Democratic Candidates: Sen.Stacey Abrams (D-GA) Mayor Bill de Blasio (D-NYC) Sen.Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) Sen.Mike Gravel (D-AK) Sen.Kamala Harris (D-CA) Gov.John Hickenlooper (D-CO) Gov.Jay Inslee (D-WA) Mayor Wayne Messam (D-FL) Rep.Seth Moulton (D-MA) Rep.Beto O`Rourke (D-TX) Rep.Tim Ryan (D-CA) Adm.Joe Sestak (D-PA) Rep.Eric Swalwell (D-CA) | ||
|
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
Click for details -- or send donations to: 1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140 E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org (We rely on your support!) | |||