Posted on 09/19/2001 6:23:08 PM PDT by Uriel1975
Richard Shelby R-Ala., vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on Saturday noted that the war on terrorism should include a freer hand to assassinate foreign enemies and hire more unsavory covert operatives. He also said there's little difference between targeting an enemy in a bombing raid and trying to kill him with a hit squad. The bombing would be legal while a hit squad would be banned by a 25-year-old presidential order prohibiting foreign assassinations. President Bush needs to review the presidential ban that was signed by former President Gerald Ford, Shelby said in an interview.
President Bush may not have to review anything. And if Congress is afraid to make a formal declaration of war they do have another option. The US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, The congress shall have Power "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”
A letter of Marque is defined by Webster’s 1828 dictionary as, "a private ship commissioned or authorized by a government to make reprisals on the ships of another state.
2. That which is taken from an enemy to indemnify an owner for something of his which the enemy has seized. Reprisals may consist of persons or of goods. Letters of marque and reprisal may be obtained in order to seize the bodies or goods of the subjects of an offending state, until satisfaction shall be made.
3. Recaption; a retaking of a man's own goods or any of his family, wife, child or servant, wrongfully taken from him or detained by another. In this case, the owner may retake the goods or persons wherever he finds them.
Letters of marque and reprisal, a commission granted by the supreme authority of a state to a subject, empowering him to pass the frontiers [marque,] that is, enter an enemy's territories and capture the goods and persons of the enemy, in return for goods or persons taken by him.
4. The act of retorting on an enemy by inflicting suffering or death on a prisoner taken from him, in retaliation of an act of inhumanity."
So it would seem that the solution that would shed very little, if not any, American blood has been provided by the founding fathers. ~~~ nunya bidness
As you've probably heard, Bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist organization is estimated at as many as 20,000 followers in a loose-knit collective spanning as many as 37 countries. While Federal military action is entirely justified against the actual nation-States proven to be active sponsors and harbors of organized terrorist operations, surely we do not expect to declare National War on all of these countries where recruitment, support, and training cells exist. Nor should we trust the (shall we say, not 100% perfect) resources of US counter-terrorist Intelligence, hamstrung in their operations by the "rules of engagement" imposed upon them by the nature of their work and by their host countries to effectively eliminate these cancers. So -- what are we to do?
The Issuance of Letters of Marque and Reprisal is a fully-Constitutional Federal Power which was specifically intended for the prosecution of Vengeance against the "stateless terrorists" of the Founder's day -- Pirates, Brigands, private armies, military adventurers, etc.
The purpose of a Letter of Marque and Reprisal is to create a financial incentive for private-sector military professionals -- trained mercenaries with an ability to travel individually or in small groups without detection -- to bring justice to those "stateless terrorists" identified as enemies of the citizenry. To gather intelligence on the ground, hunt these individuals down where they are hiding, and apprehend or eliminate them in their nests. The advantages of these private, paramilitary units (which are NOT mutually exclusive to a purposeful and directed Military response against defined physical targets) may suggest themselves already; so let's address the disadvantages first:
-- so does the US Criminal Justice system, every year... but we still prosecute Murder, because Murders must be avenged. But - bearing in mind for a moment that this is not a perfect world - ask yourself this: Who is likely to kill more innocent people -- a private mercenary unit who is looking for a specific individual so that they'll get paid, and knows that getting caught "in-country" could leave them at the mercies of a hostile foreign kangaroo court if they hit the wrong target..... or a B-52 bomber at 20,000 feet??
-- They already did try to kill the President (and Congress, too), and the soon-to-be-coming mass bombing raids against diverse and sundry Jihadistans aren't very likely to make them cozy up to us and play nice.
-- September 11, 2001. And what is stopping them from doing it again, using different tactics, against different civilian targets is... what? The point is bloody well moot.
-- Yes, and I'm proposing to pay them a heck of a lot more than the average 18-year old infantryman we're about to put into harm's way - and only if they volunteer for the mission, at that.
-- Puh-leeze. Congress just busted the budget to the tune of $40 Billion for what may turn out to be the preliminary battles in a long war. We could bounty the heads of every single al-Qaeda operative at $1/2 million apiece for a quarter of that. And amounts averaging that level are probably appropriate, given a desire for swift and effective retribution, and the dangers that private contractors will face.
Those objections addressed, let's now consider a proposal.
RESOLVED, That the Senators and Representatives of the United States in Congress Assembled, acting by the Powers granted them under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution of the United States of America, do hereby issue and grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal against those agents and operatives of the Al-Qaeda Terrorist Organization, such as the Department of Defense acting on the direction of the President in consultation with this Congress, shall specify. Terms:
In support of the prosecution of these Letters of Marque and Reprisal, the Congress of the United States directs the Department of Defense to provide registered contractors with such armaments, equipment, logistical support, and intelligence as the contractors shall reasonably require; and may provide such discrete transportation and assistance in the prosecution of these contracts as the Department of Defense shall deem appropriate. However, in the case of capture by a hostile agency, the Department of Defense shall have the right to disavow any knowledge of, or responsibility for, the contractors in question; especially in the case of any contractor action against targets not specified for Reprisal by the Department of Defense. Furthermore, action against any targets not specified for Reprisal by the Department of Defense, shall render the Contractor subject to any such criminal charges, or extradition for trial, as the Department of Justice shall consider appropriate.
Having discussed the Disadvantages of this proposal, herein and in a prior thread, it is now appropriate to consider the advantages which this proposal may offer:
Upon the passage of such a proposal by Congress, private paramilitary contractors may immediately begin locating and neutralizing (by apprehension or termination) those individuals identified by the Department of Defense as terrorists and abettors of terrorism. There is no need for private mercenary contractors to wait for the completion of a massive military build-up and formation of a vast (and likely cumbersome) diplomatic coalition; retribution by private Contractors can begin within days, or at most a few weeks, after the issuance of Letters of Marque and Reprisal by the Congress. This will result in an immediate and progressive reduction of the threat of terrorism against the United States citizenry, as each terrorist cell eliminated by private contractors represents the liquidation of a potential group of hijackers, bombers, mass murderers, or saboteurs. In addition, the rapid liquidation of terrorist cells by private mercenary contractors offers the hope of bolstering American citizen morale, and delivery of a powerful psychological-warfare blow against active terrorists and their organizational networks, and potentially their recruitment, training, and planning operations.
The issuance of Letters of Marque and Reprisal offers the United States the opportunity to significantly increase, by private, paramilitary contracts, the amount of manpower available for eliminating terrorist threats. As has been noted previously, Bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda terrorist organization may number as many as 20,000 followers in some 37 countries – some estimates place this number even higher, and Bin Laden is no doubt recruiting new followers everyday. Attempting to deal with all of these individual cells at once may prove extremely difficult for the Intelligence and Counter-terrorist capabilities of the US Government, against an enemy which, if not dealt with in the most expeditious possible fashion, may soon deliver additional and terrible blows against the American citizenry – and the diversion of Intelligence resources from pre-assigned missions could critically deplete US human-intelligence gathering capabilities in numerous areas (to offer a very rough example, when is the last time a national military successfully attempted to attack in 37 different directions at once?). The issuance of financially-bountied Letters of Marque and Reprisal would make immediately available a pool of scores, even hundreds, of resourceful and self-motivated private paramilitary teams – dramatically and favorably changing the dynamic of US Counter-terrorist operations.
Official United States Intelligence assets operate under certain “rules of engagement” which may tend to hamstring their effectiveness in operation against a great number of isolated, small, and hidden terrorist cells. Private paramilitary contractors, OTOH – taking upon themselves the risks and responsibilities of their operations -- are under no such constraints. There will be no “standard operating procedure” for terrorist cells to identify and prepare themselves against – private mercenaries will be able to hunt them “behind the lines and under cover of night”, from a number of different directions and utilizing dozens of unique methodologies.
Government counter-terrorist expenditures carry little “guarantee” of results – monies are expended and operations executed, but even if the operation is a complete failure (see “Desert One” in Iran, 1979), the money has still been spent – and if the failure is publicized, American morale could suffer significantly. By contrast, private contractors may maximize counter-terrorist “bang for the buck”, as Bounties are disbursed only upon successful neutralization of the “marqued” target -- that is, private mercenaries will be paid to get results (See H. Ross Perot’s private mercenary operations in Iran, 1979). In addition, Government military action may have little accountability for innocents killed – a bombed village is a bombed village, whether you killed the Taliban terrorist-recruiter you’re aiming for, or not. By contrast, Letters of Marque and Reprisal do not necessarily exempt the private Contractor from prosecution in the case of unnecessary killing of civilians – which the Contractor wants to avoid anyway, as it calls hostile attention to his presence and compromises his effectiveness, not to mention the danger to his own life.
The successful employment of Letters of Marque and Reprisal by private mercenary Contractors creates the potential for a resurgence of confidence in the virtues of what the Founders called the “Liberty Teeth” of a free society – an Armed Citizenry. The value of this restoration of Citizen self-confidence in their own arms, their own power of self-defense, cannot be overstated.
By the employment of a fully Constitutional methodology for facilitating private Citizen action against Enemy terrorist elements, the Issuance of Letters of Marque and Reprisal offers the opportunity to accomplish significant retribution and elimination of terrorist threats without, in and of itself, any restriction whatsoever on existing liberties.
Timeline thus far….
Mr, Speaker,
Sadly we find ourselves today dealing with our responsibility to provide national security under the most difficult of circumstances. To declare war against a group that is not a country makes the clear declaration of war more complex.
The best tool the framers of the Constitution provided under these circumstances was the power of Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisals, in order to narrow the retaliation to only the guilty parties. The complexity of the issue, the vagueness of the enemy, and the political pressure to respond immediately limits our choices. The proposed resolution is the only option we're offered and doing nothing is unthinkable.
There are a couple of serious points I'd like to make.
For the critics of our policy of foreign interventionism in the affairs of others the attack on New York and Washington was not a surprise and many have warned of its inevitability. It so far has been inappropriate to ask why the U.S. was the target and not some other western country. But for us to pursue a war against our enemies it's crucial to understand why we were attacked, which then will tell us by whom we were attacked. Without this knowledge, striking out at six or eight or even ten different countries could well expand this war of which we wanted no part. Without defining the enemy there is no way to know our precise goal nor to know when the war is over. Inadvertently more casual acceptance of civilian deaths as part of this war I'm certain will prolong the agony and increase the chances of even more American casualties. We must guard against this if at all possible.
Too often over the last several decades we have supported both sides of many wars only to find ourselves needlessly entrenched in conflicts unrelated to our national security. It is not unheard of that the weapons and support we send to foreign nations have ended up being used against us. The current crisis may well be another example of such a mishap. Although we now must fight to preserve our national security we should not forget that the founders of this great nation advised that for our own sake we should stay out of entangling alliances and the affairs of other nations.
We are placing tremendous trust in our president to pursue our enemies as our commander-in-chief but Congress must remain vigilant as to not allow our civil liberties here at home to be eroded. The temptation will be great to sacrifice our freedoms for what may seem to be more security. We must resist this temptation.
Mr. Speaker we must rally behind our president, pray for him to make wise decisions, and hope that this crisis is resolved a lot sooner than is now anticipated.
Further Background: Text of past example of Congressional Letters of Marque and Reprisal provided by Demidog.
Sharpen your Liberty Teeth… Call or Email your Representatives and Senators today and ask them to support Representative Ron Paul’s call for the Congressional Issuance of Letters of Marque and Reprisal against Osama Bin Laden and supporting Terrorist organizations!!
You're probably thinking of Medieval Venice. Also the Byzantine Empire, at least post-1000 AD. I believe (if memory serves) that both Venice and Byzantium depended on unreliable foreign mercenaries -- to their misfortune.
But I don't think that the analogy applies here, as Letters of Marque and Reprisal approve the armament and Bounty-payment of the US's own citizenry. That's an entirely different matter. Mercenaries, yes, but of the home-grown variety. They live here. Their homeland is the same country -- the US of A -- for which they fight, and from which they collect Bounty.
A domestic armed citizenry? I consider that a good thing. In fact, I bet you do too.
Also I hope you got my message about a neighbor of yours who may find this issue "close to home."
However the animal has no way to get out on its own.
Only by the decision of the Property Owner.
If, OTOH the Property Owner takes his animal outside the Fence, he is 100% responsible for any harms his animal commits.
Likewise, he is 100% responsible for any harms he commits.
This would have to be the case in a person on hard drugs.
Hard Drugs like Everclear?
'Fraid Not. The Bible provides no justification for State invasion of Property when the Property-Owner commits no Harm, and restrains his Potential Harm to within his Fence. OTOH, if the Property Owner brings the potential Harm outside the Fence, the Bible admits of no reduction in his "Personal Responsibility" whatsoever.
You see, I have you several ways now. Hard drug users would have to be restrained and observed, if their drug were legalize (which you fight SOOOO hard for).
Chain up all vodka-users??
Biblically, no justification for that idea whatsoever. Rather, they are permitted to drink themselves silly, or allow their pit-bulls to roam free, within their Fence. And held 100% responsible for their actions, or the actions of their pit-bull, if they should bring the Potential Harm outside the Fence.
The Bible treats both Property Rights and Personal Responsibility as absolute.
You give your consent to the law by choosing to live in your community that outlaws it.
Just as Paul advises Slaves to tolerate their situation with meek-ness.
Unless, of course, they have (as all citizens of a Republic do), the opportunity to change the Law.
If a Christian has the opportunity to change the Law, he must seek to bring it into conformity with Biblical Law. Period.
I tell ya Uriel, if you put HALF the effort into spreading the good news to the unsaved that you do on trying to Biblically legitimize the legalization o drugs, this world would be a much better place.
The Biblical question is not "legalization" of intoxicants, but whether there is any Non-Covenantal justification for State prohibition of intoxicants in the first place. (There isn't).
As to my "efforts", I spend an awful lot of time defending Sound Christian Doctrine, as all too many professing "christians" don't even really know what the Good News is. We can hardly preach it if we don't get it right ourselves.
Also, there's the matter of my sponsorship of a call for the Federal issuance of Letters of Marque and Reprisal against the terrorists responsible for the September 11 attack, a proposal which -- thanks in large part to the efforts of several other Libertarian FReepers and some personal friends of my own (mainly my friend Murray Sabrin, National Vice-Chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus) -- has already been brought to Congressional attention on the floor of the House of Representatives (see TimeLine, above).
At this point, we're somewhat at the mercy of Congress to move forward. But if we are able to move this thing forward.... I might have a few more tricks up my sleeve.
To wit:
I have already acknowledged on Free Republic that thanks to a friendship I established back in early 2000, I am now "two degrees of separation" from US Representative Ron Paul -- I am good friends with Murray, and Murray is good friends with Ron Paul. What I haven't previously acknowledged publicly is that I am also only "two degrees of separation" from billionaire H. Ross Perot, one of the few American individuals in recent history (Iran, 1979, "On Wings of Eagles") to carry out a 100% successful mercenary conuter-terrorist infiltration operation -- while the Government, as Governments often do, completely failed (Iran, 1979, "Desert One").
Not that I know Ross personally. I don't. But he's the personal friend of a personal friend -- which is all I care to tell the likes of you, Tex. (The only reason I am mentioning this now is to give my fellow libertarians an idea of where I'm hoping to go with this "Marque and Reprisal" thing -- and because I'm a little offended at the idea of a third-rate slap-fighting midget questioning my "efforts"). IF the Free Republic Liberty Caucus can get this proposal to a Congressional Vote, then I might be able to swing Perot's backing... depending on whether or not he'd be interested in private paramilitary counter-terrorist operations again, or not (heck, it might be right up his alley). If I can pull that together... expect fireworks. (Time will tell).
So, in response to your challenge, yes, I keep myself busy -- with a range of different projects that engage my attention. Responding to the incessant Logical and Theological fallacies of a little Texas-Aggie wanna-be G-banger yappy-dog, nipping at my heels and crying for my attention, is (at least you got at least that much right) probably a waste of my time (I don't get enough sleep as it is). But , I'll admit -- I'm a sucker for a chance to educate my fellow-citizen. "The Best Defense of Liberty is an Informed Citizenry", Jefferson is reputed to have opined; if someone doesn't impel you to honest self-criticism of the MTV-educated pablum you call your "thought process", how will you ever learn to actually think??
But the United States never signed the treaty.
Our delegates rejected the treaty on the grounds that, at that time, the US Navy was completely dependent upon Private paramilitary participation via Marque and Reprisal to protect US shipping.
The Marque and Reprisal option is open and available for us, if we can get it to a vote.
But the dog is not allowed to roam free. Therefore, as I said, the user would have to be observed at ALL times and LOCKED into his own property, as the dog. And I quite like the analogy of a hard drug user being a dog. They should enjoy the same amount of freedom while intoxicated. And no hard liquor does not qualify.
And the good news is SALVATION, not living under a perfect gov. Do you really think that God is concerned because our gov. does not allow crack heads to legally enjoy their habit? If you do, you are sick.
God is more concerned about our SPIRITUAL lives than our political ones. The government we live under is of very little concern to him, compared to our SPIRITUAL freedom. You focus your efforts on social LIBERALISM and you go against God.
As for Ron Paul, he was my moms OBGYN. RP is a great family man and is not arrogant and conceded as you are. You are nothing but a mouth, backed by nothing.
Perhaps if you focus more on SPIRITUAL life and not political, you may actually have a chance to do something worth while.
Oh, BTW Demidog is banned.
Nope. Biblically, a Human Being is not a dog.
Biblically, humans are always treated as being 100% responsible for their actions at all times.
And yes, vodka, Bacardi 151, and Everclear are hard drugs, and as likely as almost any other hard drug (and moreso than many) to affect a man's tendency towards inflicting Harm on his neighbor.
If you don't know this, you don't know vodka.
And the good news is SALVATION, not living under a perfect gov. Do you really think that God is concerned because our gov. does not allow crack heads to legally enjoy their habit? If you do, you are sick.
I think that God is concerned that the Government violates Biblical Law for the purpose of seizing those non-violent "hard drug" users who have not Harmed their neighbors (only themselves) and throwing them in a prison to become victims of homosexual rape, members of violent criminal gangs, and proficient street thugs unable to get a job because of a criminal record but completely calloused towards human life, yes.
I have no difficulty whatsoever supposing that God sees that as a violation of His Law for Government. And guess what, TexHypocrite79: it is.
God is more concerned about our SPIRITUAL lives than our political ones. The government we live under is of very little concern to him, compared to our SPIRITUAL freedom. You focus your efforts on social LIBERALISM and you go against God.
Gnostic Heresy, TexAggie (look it up, maybe you'll understand).
The Spiritual Life is the Political Life. The Political Life is the Spiritual Life. You are never allowed to take off your "Christian Hat", it applies to all aspects of your life, equally and at all times.
As for Ron Paul, he was my moms OBGYN. RP is a great family man and is not arrogant and conceded as you are. You are nothing but a mouth, backed by nothing.
Ron Paul is a great Man, largely because he is a great Libertarian.
He has an iron-clad set of rock-solid Biblical Principles guiding his life, and thereby, infusing his libertarianism.
You, of course, do not.
Perhaps if you focus more on SPIRITUAL life and not political, you may actually have a chance to do something worth while.
Perhaps your entire conception of man is flawed.
God demands our whole souls -- spirit and flesh. For the Christian, the Political and the Spiritual ought never be considered as separate affairs. To do so, results in the sort of "moral compartmentalization" preached by those who know that it would be sinful for them to trespass onto a neighbor's property and shoot him for ingesting the "wrong" kind of intoxicant, but imagine that by "voting" for such Assault and Battery, it becomes morally "Okay".
As I said -- that's just the result of the anti-Christian Gnostic heresy at work in your thought processes. The fact is, you can never take off your "Christian Hat" to approve of Violence which you would not commit yourself when you "put your Christian Hat back on". Never.
Oh, BTW Demidog is banned.
Currently.
I'm actually ashamed of how much I personally do know it, and other hard liquors. The majority of everyone I knew and my worst reaction from it was passing out and being VERY sick.
become victims of homosexual rape, members of violent criminal gangs, and proficient street thugs So because our prison system is out of control we need to allow criminals to walk? And yes hard drug users are criminals, they use an illicit drug, deemed illicit by their community and they also thereby endanger their neighbors.
The Spiritual Life is the Political Life.
You know what, as much as I hate the notion of paying for other people's irresponsibility, i.e. medicare, welfare, ect. I don't think God gives a good crap. THERE are billions of unsaved lives out there, and God is going to be concerned that some guy is freeloading off the gov? You have your priorities WAY screwed up.
Ron Paul is a great Man, largely because he is a great Libertarian.
But he is also a realistic man, by running within the Rep. party. He is also a reasonable man because you hardly hear any crap about legalizing drugs from him. That is nowhere near the top of his list. And he does not go around telling people how much he "outclasses" them.
but imagine that by "voting" for such Assault and Battery, it becomes morally "Okay".
You guys are SOO propaganda driven. Should we commit assault and battery on a person that does not pay his traffic tickets? But we should arrest them right? Your analogy is horrendously off.
I have not ever promoted breaking into user's houses.
The fact is, you can never take off your "Christian Hat" to approve of Violence
As I said, I think people who do not pay their traffic tickets should be arrested, but not have violence committed upon them. You are entering another red herring.
The only times I've ever seen him the least bit out of line is after he's been repeately attacked with personal insults.
I'm entirely in favor of bringing him back, and find it hard to believe he did anything which justified banning him even temporarily.
But there might be a different reaction. You might become violent. You might become an adict(alcoholic) and rob houses to get your alcohol. So, if you're treating potential harms as crimes in addition to actual ones, you have to punish drinkers. Not just of the hard stuff, but of all alcoholic drinks, since they do the same thing lower levels.
BTW, Vodka's good, but Jager's really good.
And yes hard drug users are criminals, they use an illicit drug, deemed illicit by their community and they also thereby endanger their neighbors.
Are you really prepared to say that anything deemed illicit by the community should be illegal?
You guys are SOO propaganda driven. Should we commit assault and battery on a person that does not pay his traffic tickets? But we should arrest them right? Your analogy is horrendously off.
...
As I said, I think people who do not pay their traffic tickets should be arrested, but not have violence committed upon them.
What do you think happens if you don't want to be arrested, and attempt to avoid it?
Most people react similarly to opium, heroin, etc... actually they just "zone out", and you'd be lucky if you could get them to kill a cockroach, let alone a human being.
But some people react to hard drugs by getting violent. And hard liquor is certainly as powerful a contributor to their violent tendencies as most any other kind of "hard drug" (and as mentioned above, moreso than most).
But the Bible does not justify any State invasion of their Property. None whatsoever. They are held responsible for violent actions, not intoxication.
become victims of homosexual rape, members of violent criminal gangs, and proficient street thugs ~~ So because our prison system is out of control we need to allow criminals to walk? And yes hard drug users are criminals, they use an illicit drug, deemed illicit by their community and they also thereby endanger their neighbors.
The same could be said of 190-proof Everclear, because you have no rational reason whatsoever for excluding it from the community of "hard drugs".
You choose to make "hard drugs" (defined as, "any drugs other than the ones which Texaggie79 has used") illegal upon Private Property -- a choice for whcih you have no Biblical Justification whatsoever -- and thereby "sanctify" your choice to subject non-violent users of "hard drugs" (defined as, "any drugs other than the ones which Texaggie79 has used") to become victims of homosexual rape, members of violent criminal gangs, and proficient street thugs unable to get a job because of a criminal record but completely calloused towards human life -- while you wash your hands of the whole mess and say, "I didn't do it, I just voted for it!".
Nuthin' for nuthin', but that attitude is Pharisiacally sanctimonious, Ethically hypocritical, and downright sick.
The Spiritual Life is the Political Life. ~~ You know what, as much as I hate the notion of paying for other people's irresponsibility, i.e. medicare, welfare, ect. I don't think God gives a good crap. THERE are billions of unsaved lives out there, and God is going to be concerned that some guy is freeloading off the gov? You have your priorities WAY screwed up.
You think that God doesn't "give a good crap"?
That's nuts.
God is intimately concerned with every sparrow that falls in the woods. He is intimately concerned with the revolution of every electron around every proton in the universe.
Yes, tex, He most certainly does "give a crap" about how we subject our Political Philosophy to Biblical Law (much as you hate that notion).
Ron Paul is a great Man, largely because he is a great Libertarian. t he is also a realistic man, by running within the Rep. party. He is also a reasonable man because you hardly hear any crap about legalizing drugs from him. That is nowhere near the top of his list.
Bullhockey.
Ron Paul's speeches contain plenty of condemnations of the insanities of the "War on (some) Drugs". I could post a dozen such excerpts if you liked, but you know how to use a search engine, and you know I'm right.
And he does not go around telling people how much he "outclasses" them.
Ron needs your vote.
I don't.
I don't mind telling you that you're dead wrong.
but imagine that by "voting" for such Assault and Battery, it becomes morally "Okay". You guys are SOO propaganda driven. Should we commit assault and battery on a person that does not pay his traffic tickets? But we should arrest them right? Your analogy is horrendously off.
Traffic tickets are the result of an individual's refusal to obey the "usage rules" of public property -- essentially, they are trespassing.
Biblically, not only can you ethically employ Force against a trespasser, you could even shoot them if they resisted.
By contrast, you are trying to pretend that you may ethically trespass onto another man's property, and commit Assault against him thereupon because he is using "hard drugs" (defined as, "any drugs other than the ones which Texaggie79 has used"), so long as you "vote" that action to be morally "Okay".
That attitude is Pharisiacally sanctimonious, Ethically hypocritical, and downright sick.
I have not ever promoted breaking into user's houses.
So police may not break into user's houses?
So in other words, the police may not invade a man's Property - ever - unless they have reason to believe that the individual is committing an Aggressive Harm against aomeone else thereupon?
Then what are you whining about? I've already acknowledged that so long as Public Commons are Public Property, you may legislate "usage rules" concerning "public intoxication" even without unanimous covenant, on the basis of public ownership.
If you believe, OTOH, that police should not break into user's houses, then you are admitting the Biblical sanctity of Private Property -- which essentially grants my entire argument.
In which case, glad you finally came around to the Biblical position. Thanks for the debate.
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.