GOP National Security Debate Roundup

The Republican presidential candidates debated national security and foreign policy issues last night in Washington. Ritika teed up the debate here with links to the Post’s preview of issues to watch and a synopsis of the candidates’ positions from CNN’s Security Clearance blog. CNN’s liveblog of the debate is here, a transcript is here, and a video is here (short clips that include Santorum on profiling, Romney on defense spending, and a compilation of “memorable moments” are here). CBS offers fact-checking here. CNN reports that the debate “exposed deep fault lines within the GOP over how to grapple with the nation’s challenges overseas.” Here are the candidates on a few topics of interest to Lawfare readers: The Patriot Act – in short, all except Ron Paul want the Act extended. In detail:

• Herman Cain: "[I]f there are some areas of the Patriot Act that we need to refine, I'm all for that. But I do not believe we ought to throw out the baby with the bathwater for the following reason. The terrorists have one objective that some people don't seem to get. They want to kill all of us. So we should use every mean possible to kill them first or identify them first."
• Newt Gingrich: “[T]he key distinction for the American people to recognize is the difference between national security requirements and criminal law requirements. I think it's desperately important that we preserve your right to be innocent until proven guilty, if it's a matter of criminal law. But if you're trying to find somebody who may have a nuclear weapon that they are trying to bring into an American city, I think you want to use every tool that you can possibly use to gather the intelligence. The Patriot Act has clearly been a key part of that. And I think looking at it carefully and extending it and building an honest understanding that all of us will be in danger for the rest of our lives. This is not going to end in the short run. And we need to be prepared to protect ourselves from those who, if they could, would not just kill us individually, but would take out entire cities. . . . I would not change [The Patriot Act]. I'm not aware of any specific change it needs. And I'd look at strengthening it, because I think the dangers are literally that great."
• Jon Huntsman: "[W]e'll try to find that balancing act between our individual liberties and security. But we also have to remember. . . . that we have partnerships with governors and mayors, that this is a national effort. No longer can we compartmentalize intelligence. Those are the old days. Today we've got to share."
• Ron Paul: "I think the Patriot Act is unpatriotic because it undermines our liberty. I'm concerned, as everybody is, about the terrorist attack. . . . But why I really fear it is we have drifted into a condition that we were warned against because our early founders were very clear. They said, don't be willing to sacrifice liberty for security. Today it seems too easy that our government and our congresses are so willing to give up our liberties for our security. I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security. You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights."
• Rick Perry: ". . . I agree with most of my colleagues here on the stage when we talk about the Patriot Act. And we need to keep it in place. We need to have -- strengthen it if that's what's required, to update it with new technologies as they come along, Newt. But here's the other issue that I think we've really failed at, and that is in our ability to collect intelligence around the world. And this administration in particular has been an absolute failure when it comes to expending the dollars and supporting the CIA and the military intelligence around the world, to be able to draw in that intelligence that is going to truly be able to allow us to keep the next terrorist attack from happening on American soil."
• Mitt Romney: "There are different categories here. There's crime and there are rights that are afforded to American citizens under our Constitution and those that are accused of crime. Then there's war. And the tool of war being used today in America and around the world is terror. There's a different body of law that relates to war. And for those that understand the difference between the two, they recognize that we need tools when war is waged domestically to ensure that, as president of the United States, you can fulfill your first responsibility, which is to protect the life, liberty and property of American citizens and defend them from foes domestic and foreign. And that means, yes, we'll use the Constitution and criminal law for those people who commit crimes, but those who commit war and attack the United States and pursue treason of various kinds, we will use instead a very different form of law, which is the law afforded to those who are fighting America.”
• Rick Santorum: "We are at war. The last time we had a -- we had a threat at home like this -- obviously, it was much more of a threat at home -- was during the Civil War. And, of course, Abraham Lincoln ran right over civil rights. Why? Because we had a present domestic threat. In the previous wars that we've had, we haven't had this type of threat that we have here in the homeland. And we have to deal with it differently."
• Michele Bachmann: ". . . We have to realize we're in a very different war, with very different techniques that are used for that war, and very different bad actors than we've had before in the terrorists and their motivations are very different. We can't forget that technology is completely different. . . . And we have to completely change the way that we go about investigating. . . . When the bomber -- or the attempted bomber over Detroit, the underwear bomber was intercepted, he was given Miranda warnings within 45 minutes. He was not an American citizen. We don't give Miranda warnings to terrorists, and we don't read them their rights. They don't have any.”