Hank
Posted on 09/07/2007 8:18:27 AM PDT by april15Bendovr
A police officer questioned us. We talked a few minutes about the campaign. He left with some literature and a generally favorable disposition toward Paul.
Even Peggy Noonan has noticed:
From the libertarian Ron Paul a blunt argument against the war: We never should have gone in and we should get out. "The people who say there'll be a blood bath are the same ones who said it would be a cakewalk. . . . Why believe them?" His foreign policy: "Mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend our country, defend our borders." After Mr. Paul spoke, it seemed half the room booed, but the other applauded. When a thousand Republicans are in a room and one man of the eight on the stage takes a sharply minority viewpoint on a dramatic issue and half the room seems to cheer him, something's going on.
--Peggy Noonan http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010568
Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.
--Bob Dylan
We went to the U.N. for the diplomatic process of spelling out the breakdown in the ability to secure the demands of the truce that had been imposed on Saddam - the demands of the coalition that imposed and obtained that truce - and to seek the SUPPORT of the Security Council; not to ask their “legal” PERMISSION, as if without it our actions would be “illegal”, because they would NOT and were NOT illegal, UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, with or without the support of the U.N. Security Council.
Mr. Chirac and his Russian and Chinese friends proved only one thing, and it has nothing to do with international law - the irrelevance of the U.N.
I heartily and totally disagree and, like Ron Paul, your position is philosophical, not factual, not based on the history and practical application of international law. Your citation:
Law of Nations Emmerich de Vattel
§ 8. It is immutable Since therefore the necessary law of nations consists in the application of the law of nature to states, — which law is immutable, as being founded on the nature of things, and particularly on the nature of man, — it follows that the Necessary law of nations is immutable.
.........
§ 9. Nations can make no change in it, nor dispense with the obligations arising from it. Whence, as this law is immutable, and the obligations that arise from it necessary and indispensable, nations can neither make any changes in it by their conventions, dispense with it in their own conduct, nor reciprocally release each other from the observance of it.
Does not produce any negative substance, in the factual application of international law, with respect to the subject at hand. Of course, quoting philosophy out of context of actual events can do that.
"How can a sovereign treaty away something that he holds in trust?
Again, you love philosophy but ignore the law. He (Saddam) did not violate his "trust". In international law, he (Saddam), for the benefit of the nation, placed his trust (move the focus of his trust) to the terms of the truce. He could have kept the focus of his trust in his own actions, risking the likelihood that he would lose the object of that trust - the nation. It is a poor ruler that places his own sovereignty - his personal rule - over the sovereignty of the nation. The nation did not lose its sovereignty, it was free to set a course completely against the truce at any time - which, secretly, as well as openly, Saddam constantly did; demonstrating that his word, his agreement in the truce was a fiction. And, just as Saddam was free to break the truce, which he did, the coalition that achieved that truce against him was free to acknowledge it was broken and discontinue the lull in fighting that the truce had given Saddam.
"It would be like you or I giving away our right to pursuit of happiness by contract............Its not possible."
How silly. You don't "give it away", but you do place it into the terms of a contract. In this country, it's called The United States Constitution; which becomes the legal instrument by which the philosophical right "pursuit of happiness" has a framework of action that you and your fellow citizens have agreed to follow. Law vs philosophy - again, something neither you nor Ron Paul seem to understand the distinctions of.
"No, the reason we let Saddam get away with his actions for so long is that we put him there."
More silliness. The diplomatic record is, in fact, that we did not "let Saddam get away with his actions". In fact, the diplomatic record, factually demonstrates that it was his actions that prevented the positive conclusion of the truce. There was never a time during the truce when diplomacy WAS NOT reminding Saddam of his violations of the truce. If we had allowed the lifting of the sanctions and limitations placed on Saddam, then we would have "let Saddam get away with his actions". That did not and was not going to happen.
"I also distinctly remember the US considering Saddam a tolerable ally at one point....Iraq-gate anyone?
The United States never considered Saddam a "tolerable ally". To have diplomatic relations with a nation and even to make agreements with them does not make them a "tolerable ally". We gave the Chinese Communists satellite intelligence on the Soviet Union towards the end of the Cold War. We believed those actions were for our benefit. We did view the Chinese Communists as a "tolerable ally".
Also, it was "Iran-gate" not "Iraq-gate". We gave the government of Iran equipment and we gave intelligence to Iraq. We sought to prevent either side from conquering the other. We achieved that. That did not make either nation a "tolerable ally".
"As a further historical note, the basis for Mideast 'stabilization' is this insidious piece of work passed in 1957."
"..............Middle East Stabilization...................Pub. L. 85–7, §§ 1–6, Mar. 9, 1957, 71 Stat. 5, set out as chapter 24A (§ 1961 et seq.) of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse, authorizes the President to provide economic and military assistance, and, if he determines it necessary, to use armed forces under certain circumstances to maintenance of national independence in the Middle East."
If you understood, or would read some history, maybe you would find the context, in "insidious" world events, related to the basis of your citation.
"Or where Congress gets its ability to take an authority delegated to it and pass that authority to another branch?
One could ask the same question, more often, with respect to the Presidency, but in either case, the answer is not in legal theory but in legal practice and the political will (more often lack of political will) to press a legal view into practice. In this Presidency we finally have a POTUS that recognizes that the supreme law of the land is the Constitution, not the Congress and that "independence" is enshrined in the powers of all three major branches of government, delineated by the limited powers each branch has. "Indepedence" is not the lone peorgative of the Judiciary. If we had a Judiciary that recognized that its true final client is the Constitution, not the will of Congress, and not the will of the ACLU, we would be in much better shape.
Yes, I do.
And that means Dr. Paul supports the views of a few nutjobs who are trying to exploit his campaign?
A few???? ROFL
Do you have any sources to bolster your assertion that the facts posted were incorrect, or are you one of the myriad of posters who just decide they are right without a single piece of evidence to back it up?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1851411/posts
Why Ron Paul is disqualified
WND ^ | 6-15-07 | Joe Farah
Posted on 06/16/2007 5:30:07 PM EDT by Anti-Bubba182
For a long time, I have considered Ron Paul to be among a small handful of principled members of the U.S. Congress.
I respect the fact that he reveres the Constitution and takes it seriously.
He and I were virtually alone on the national stage in calling on Congress to debate a declaration of war before invading Iraq. Had we done so back then, it would be a little more difficult for people like John Edwards and Hillary Clinton to dismiss so cavalierly their previous votes to authorize combat.
If I were in Congress, my voting record would be closest to the voting record of Ron Paul – no question about it.
But I want to be clear about why I oppose Ron Paul’s bid to become president.
The main reason is this: He is clueless about the nature of the threat we face from Islamo-fascism. He is clueless about the nature of the conflict in the Middle East, a subject I have studied intensely for 30 years.
Paul actually blames American interventionism in the Middle East for our problems with Islamo-fascism and the attacks of Sept. 11. In the May 15 Republican debate in South Carolina, Paul said it was America’s history of interventionism in the Middle East that sparked our problems with terrorism.
“They attack us because we’ve been over there,” he said. “We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East [for years]. I think [Ronald] Reagan was right. We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics.”
Paul called this “blowback.” He illustrated his point by blaming the 1979 Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini revolution on CIA involvement in installing the shah 26 years earlier, not on U.S. undermining of the shah in his last days in power.
While I am not a defender of the way the war in Iraq has been waged by President Bush, Paul essentially calls for running up the white flag of surrender to an enemy that seeks America’s destruction. It is a wholly untenable position he shares with people like Rosie O’Donnell and Bill Maher.
He also flirts with many of those who believe 9-11 wasn’t really an attack by Islamo-fascists at all but an inside job by the U.S. government. While I take a backseat to no one in my distrust of government, these conspiracy theorists Paul courts are, quite simply, doing the propaganda work of America’s fiercest enemies.
America has made many foreign policy mistakes in my lifetime. We have indeed intervened militarily too often. I have preached non-interventionism many times. However, America is under siege from Islamo-fascist enemies. We’ve been attacked – the worst ever in our history. This is no time to back down or even to appear to be weak.
It would be disastrous if we cut and run now as Ron Paul suggests.
Let me tell you something else that disturbed me about Paul’s position on amnesty for illegal aliens.
In the most recent debate, he implied amnesty wouldn’t be such a bad idea if we could stop attracting illegal aliens with welfare-state programs.
This demonstrates, again, a fundamental misunderstanding of why illegal immigration is so threatening to our country.
Hardened criminals come to the U.S. illegally.
Terrorists come to the U.S. illegally.
Drunk drivers come to the U.S. illegally.
Millions of low-skilled workers come to the U.S. illegally and transform our culture.
Yes, I would like to dismantle the welfare state, too. But it would still be no substitute for securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws.
The defense of the country is a paramount issue in a presidential election. It is the most important responsibility of the executive branch of government. Yet, Paul’s positions on the key defense and security issues of the day are closer to those of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry than Ronald Reagan.
That’s why, for me, he’s disqualified – even if he had the support necessary to win, which he doesn’t and never will.
Read post 113
That might explain 1/2 the room cheering
If most Libertarians had to make a choice between supporting the troops or legalizing marijuana what would they most likely pick?
No freedom loving American is scared of Mr. Paul, his claiming to be a Republican, however, is extremely offensive. I’d sooner vote for Butch than for him.
The main reason why Farah opposes Paul is that he'd be out of a job.
I can't answer that because it's a loaded question. Most libertarians aren't the pot-smoking, troops-hating hippies that you imagine them to be.
What facts do you contest, and on what basis?
Have you/did you not ever read the U.S. diplomatic record regarding either the first Gulf War, the truce agreement Saddam signed to obtain a lull in the fighting, the US diplomatic record at the United Nations Security Council deliberations on Iraq’s constant breach of that truce for 12 years, the international history of wars and truce and peace treaty agreements related to them and the actions taken by nations when those agreements have failed and the record of the active diplomacy of the offended nations at the time. Within those record, within that history you will find the practical application of accepted terms of international law. Throughout that record you will find the exercise and practical application of what nations have respected in international law, and what they have not.
No where in that record can you find one nation successfully standing on the inviolability of their “sovereignty”, against their having abrogated a truce, as accepted grounds in international law for that truce having no legal standing against them. If you can find one, let me know.
No where in that record can you find those who obtained a truce against a belligerent, giving up their right to pursue, by any means needed, the enforcement of that truce if it has been broken, as their legal right in international law. If you can find one, let me know.
The problem that most people have with regard to Iraq is their divorcing the final acts of the play from its opening act - “Gulf War I”, and ignoring that the only applicable terms that respect the totality of international law must observe the entire play as a continuum, and not as isolated events.
“Not enough to justify the PATRIOT act.”
You have an economic standard as a basis to justify or deny some aspect of national security?
I would think that the form, substance and level of a threat and not the “cost” of the most recent events related to that threat, would come closer to what any conservative saw as part of the standards for what is or is not appropriate for national security.
But your minimization of the threat based on some current “cost” is ridiculous. Even when you buy insurance the “cost” considerations are related to the worst that could happen, not the least that has happened (although I don’t know how anyone could term the destruction, and the venues of the destruction of 9/11 as the least).
With your cost considerations about security, you should move to a private island in the pacific ocean some where. I doubt if any government of any nation, other than the tiniest and least consequential would accept your “cost” terms for its security.
The history and language regarding a “declaration of war” in U.S. history does not require a statement that says “we declare war”. The idea that it does is a fiction. When Congress authorizes the President to use military force, in a foreign theatre of operations, they are fulfilling the Constitutional requirement for the President to obtain their approval for that action. The approval of the President’s request for military action stands as a declaration of war, in the substance of what it authorizes the President to do.
I am not sure than Ron is being totally truthful about his intentions, with regard to his attempt to get a “declaration of war”.
My concern is based on what he seems to have been saying since the war started - he’s against it and thinks we should not have done it.
So I suggest that his true intentions with his attempt to get a “declaration of war” was that he expected such a “declaration” would be defeated, which, I suspect, is what he wanted. To use it now as a claim that he was not against the war, initially, is, I believe, disengenuous to the circumstances - his resolution would not have been passed and he knew it.
Hank
“We went to the U.N. for the diplomatic process of spelling out the breakdown in the ability to secure the demands of the truce that had been imposed on Saddam - the demands of the coalition that imposed and obtained that truce - and to seek the SUPPORT of the Security Council; not to ask their “legal” PERMISSION, as if without it our actions would be “illegal”, because they would NOT and were NOT illegal, UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, with or without the support of the U.N. Security Council.”
And this is precisely why we did not declare war. Declaring war would have been illegal under international law. Lawyers suck and international law is bogus.
I know what you’re saying; I’d actually say his problem more is that his elevator doesn’t come down to the bottom floors. You know, the ones where theory meets reality?
Jim, you cannot possibly even begin to realize how ecstatically happy that simple, straightforward declaration of common sense on your part makes the vast majority of us posting here. ;) As always: thank you, sir!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.