x
Breaking News
More () »

Raw video of WQAD’s one-on-one interview with Senator Rand Paul

Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion of Iraq? “I think it was a mistake to invade Iraq and I think it’s an important que...

Knowing what we know now, would you have authorized the invasion of Iraq?

"I think it was a mistake to invade Iraq and I think it's an important question because it still reflects on the Middle East and what we should do in the Middle East today. By toppling Hussein, I think we destabilized the area; we made Iran stronger, we led to a chaotic region which is now still involved in civil war 15 years later and in which a radical Islamic group has risen out of the dust. So I think this is an important question to ask and that is whether or not it's a good idea to topple a secular dictator and what comes of that. But I think it's also an important question to ask Hillary Clinton, too: Was it a good idea to topple Gaddafi in Libya? By toppling Gaddafi in Libya, we now have chaos there, radical Islam, a third of Libya now pledges allegiance to ISIS as well. So, I think there's a consistent theme in the Middle East, so maybe it's not so good an idea to get involved, topple secular dictators or strong men because what comes of that may be worse than what we had before."

So what do you think the country's role should be in places like Syria and Yemen?

"I think to protect American interests. And then we have a debate in our country, what is in our interest? It's not always clear, it's not always easy, these are very confusing wars. We have have some Republicans that just want to bomb both sides of the war in Syria, they want to bomb ISIS and bomb Assad simultaneously. So I think it's important that we step back and as a physician we're taught to first do no harm, that means think through the consequences of your actions before you do them. I think now that ISIS has gotten stronger, ISIS is a threat. But I warned over a year ago that giving arms to the Islamic rebels in Syria would be counterproductive and the irony would be that we have to go back to fight against our own arms. Most of the arms that ISIS has now are American or Saudi or Qatari arms so I think it was a mistake to send so many arms into that civil war and now we're paying the price for that. But now I think we do have an interest in the sense that, we have an embassy in Baghdad and we have a consulate in Erbil, and I think it is the responsibility of the government to try to defend those embassies."

What do you think about the current policy with drone strikes, and today they authorized a movement in Syria. What do you think about the current U.S. policy?

"I think we have to do what it takes to defend American interests. We have to define what those American interests are and defend them. I think that the ultimate victory over there is going to be Arab boots on the ground. We have to have partners and we have to have a coalition over there that involves, I think the civilized aspects of Islam need to rise up and say ISIS does not represent our religion or our civilization and we're going to work to stamp it out.  I don't think ultimately the lasting piece comes with us being sort of the ultimate arbitrator of that, Turks need to be involved, Kurds need to be involved, Iraqis need to be involved and really frankly our allies like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, they need to be involved in a constructive way and not a deconstructive way.

Moving onto Iran, if a deal is finalized, what needs to be in it for your approval?

"I think the main problem I'm having with the deal right now is whether or not Iran is going to have credibility and sincerity to believe in the deal at all, cause the problem has been is that Iran continues to put out in English, when they talk about the interim deal, President Obama puts out what he believes the deal to mean, Iranians put out something in English saying they think it means a complete opposite, so it goes to their sincerity. The other thing that bothers me is that the President's press spokesman the other day said,  'Well of course they'll continue to foam at terrorism in the region in the midst of this agreement,' that kind of goes to sincerity as well. Some have argued that the analogy of North Korea where we negotiated in good faith with them, had an agreement which on the surface seemed like it was productive, but then they didn't turn out to be trustworthy, as far as negotiations. So negations are difficult, you don't really negotiate with your friends, you have to negotiate with your adversaries, you have to be able to verify the negations, verify compliance, so it's a very tricky situation. I'm going to wait and see what the final agreement is that's put forward."

The Patriot Act, are you going to filibuster it?

"Yes. The Patriot Act does a disservice to our country and to the people who fight for our country. I talk to young soldiers and they fight to protect the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights says you have a right to privacy, the papers, the things you have are yours and the government shouldn’t be able to look at them without a warrant signed by a judge with your name on the warrant. The problem with the Patriot Act and the problem with the bulk collection of phone calls is that we are collecting data without anyone’s name on it, just indiscriminately scooping up data of every American and that’s inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment and so I think it’s the court ruled that it’s illegal, I think it’s also unconstitutional."

What about the people that say it could hinder our fight against terrorism?

"They’re wrong. And I would say that we can use the Constitution, it worked well for us for several hundred years. You can catch terrorists, I’m all for looking at the papers and phone calls and anything of terrorists, but what you do is you say John Smith, we have evidence he has been talking to terrorists. You talk to a judge and he or she gives you a warrant, you look at John Smith's, John Smith called 100 people and four or five of them have been communicating with people who are suspicious in Pakistan or Yemen, you look at their phone calls. I don't care how deep in the weeds to go but you do it with warrants with someones name on it. What Snowden revealed is that the warrant currently has Verizon at the top of it and that just means they're collecting all of the phone calls of Verizon that's a general warrant and that's what we fought the revolution over, is not having generalized warrants or secret warrants, but they have to have someone's name on it, have probable cause they committed a crime. But a warrant's not hard to get. If someone in your community is accused of rape or murder and they're inside their house and the police show up and there's no evidence of an imminent danger, the police stand on the curb and they call the judge at 3:00 a.m. and say this is our evidence, will you let us go in and then they go in. They almost always get the permission, but we have that procedure to keep checks and balances so government doesn't grow so large and so government can't go from house to house looking in anybody's house indiscriminately."

 

Before You Leave, Check This Out