Ron Paul: Questions That Won't Be Asked About Iraq

House Floor ^ | 10 Sept 02 | Dr. Ron Paul

[Zviadist]

Did this character Isle of CA say he was in the Navy?

Only the Village People navy.

[Zviadist]

Well done!

[Mark Bahner]

">>>Harry Browne should sue Paul for plagiarism."

"Ain't it the truth!"

No, it's simply a case of, "great minds think alike."

[Mark Bahner]

Thanks.

Oh, on second reading, I see I wrote "them 'enemies'". This was from coming back to something I'd started much earlier. The correct phrase would actually be something like:

1) "them ('enemies')", or

2) "those 'enemies'", or, of course,

3) "them thar 'enemies'"

;-)
Mark

[Mark Bahner]

"His ratings are dropping like a stone. That 85% is based on his 11 years in office. He has gone from 76 to 70 in two years. If he is re-elected, and that is no lock, he will be at the same level as Kennedy by the end of his term. The man is losing it."

No, what's happening is that the American Conservative Union is becoming even more disgustingly socialistic and authoritarian than they already are.

[AppyPappy]

I didn't make the statement so why should I defend it?

Let me guess: you rode the short bus here.

[jjm2111]

Mark writes: "What Congress CAN do, legitimately, is to declare "war" on the Saddam Hussein government of Iraq, and to authorize the President to wage that war according to the Constitution and appropriate treaties (e.g. the Geneva Convention). "

I agree with the Libertoids there. Congress should declare war on on the GOVERNMENT of Iraq. (and Syria, and Iran, and Saudi)...

Mark also writes: "Such a declaration of war would ALLOW the President to kill Saddam Hussein...but Saddam Hussein would have to be given the opportunity to surrender himself, to be tried in a U.S. court, as a "suspect" in 9/11/01."

Why??? Declare war and then kill him. Quick and clean. He's not a US citizen with rights. He's a foreign despot. If we declare war and some private puts a bullet between his eyes, good!

[jjm2111]

I used to be a Libertarian until I heard Browne on Hannity right after 9-11 spewing the "root causes" garbage. I almost puked all over my steering wheel. No wonder Libertarians cannot win political office, they have creeps like Browne running for office. I almost pulled the lever for him too...</shudder>

[Mark Bahner]

"They can say they are Buicks, but this doesn't mean you can drive them to work."

Touche'! I yield.

"I started to say that,but the whole 'issue letters of Marquis' thing confuses me,and I was too tired to try to think my way through it. I see the LOM as authorizing civilians to fight against selected groups of people,..."

I agree (at least it authorizes them to fight, if the group whose assets are being seized refuses to yield those assets without a fight). (Which most understandably wouldn't do.)

But LOMs have nothing to do with "war"...so it's irrelevant to present discussion (if I remember what the present discussion is...which I'm not sure I do).

To summarize: I was objecting to your use of the word "nations"...because, to me, "nations" includes everyone in that country. So I wanted you to use the word "governments"...that the Constitution allows the U.S. government to make war on other "governments," but not individuals or groups of people.

To really, really summarize: I think we're in perfect agreement on this matter, and I regret if my love of words made caused unnecessary friction.

Oops! Lunchtime's over!

[jjm2111]

I know you know this, but the gov't hasn't followed the Constitution in years. Why start now?

[Mark Bahner]

Oops, lunch is over, but I need to respond to this:

"I agree with the Libertoids there."

Good. Because we're right. On virtually everything. (At least if "right" is used in the meaning of "far right.") ;-)

"Why??? Declare war and then kill him. Quick and clean."

That is against The Law. The Law (the Constitution) prohibits "Bills of Attainder." Congress can't give the President permission to kill anyone, anywhere...without that person having the opportunity to surrender himself for trial in a court of law.

"He's not a US citizen with rights."

Saddam Hussein's "rights" are not the issue, here. The issue is that The Law (of the U.S.) prohibits Congress from allowing the President to direct the military to kill someone, without that someone being given an opportunity to surrender for trial. No "Bills of Attainder." Period. Case closed.

[Mark Bahner]

Oops. This is it (#@$%, now I'll have to take PTO to cover this):

"I know you know this, but the gov't hasn't followed the Constitution in years. Why start now?"

I assume this is a rhetorical question?

If I told you that I have been sinning for years, would you tell me, "That's OK...why stop now?"

[iconoclast]

This can't be done.

Pete, I agree with you as often as I do with anyone on here, but I respectfully disagree on this.

First, I really feel we have no choice. And, second, I believe it is possible for several reasons"

1)I'm not talking Special Ops of the type demonstrated in Afghanistan. The operations would involve (in many if not most instances) very small groups (at times individuals) engaging in assassination, arson, and demolition ... decidedly NOT street fighting, cave crunching and larger scale Afghan type operations.

2) The seeking out and identification of sites would be carried out by (vastly improved and better financed) CIA operatives.

3 I am still laboring under the impression that we are talking about a mission of very long duration.

Nope, can't do it. Illegal, and a war crime.

Gotta disagree again Pete. This is TOTALLY new ball game requiring 180 turnarounds in thinking. The old rules applied to warring NATIONS not pockets of insane terrorists. Which is more humane, my proposition or the bombing of innocent civilians? The fire- bombing of past wars or the assassination of evil individuals? We, the civilized, are being forced to think the unthinkable ... example the bombing of certain Mosques!

[jjm2111]

Of course it's a rhetorical question. It was also sarcasm.

[jjm2111]

"Because we're right. On virtually everything. " Uhhh...no.

BTW, if a U.S. soldier ACCIDENTALLY shoots Saddam, oh well, can't be helped, war is hell, case closed.

One thing Libertarians do which drives me nuts is they cheer people who carry handguns against the law, or smoke weed against the law (all of which may or may not have merit) as a form of protest. "It's resistance," they say. However, when some dictator is threatening American Citizens they bring up the Law saying stuff like, "No, you cannot kill Saddam, it's against the Bill of Attainment clause in the Constitution.

Either it's okay to break the law at times or it isn't you cannot have it both ways.

Also, I'm not saying YOU'RE like this Mark, but many Libertines seem to be.

[jjm2111]

What's PTO and don't get messed up at work on my account.

[jjm2111]

What's PTO and don't get messed up at work on my account?

[Isle of sanity in CA]

That the founders included an amendment process proves that they saw the need for the constitution to evolve over time. One problem is that we haven't used the amendment process in far too long. Take abortion for example. If there was a constitutional amendment legalizing abortion it would be 'constitutional' (it would still be morally wrong, but that's a different argument.) But the judiciary has done an end-run around the amendment process by interpreting rights into the constitution that do not clearly exist. I respect the constitution and the men who created it; they were clearly ahead of their time. But I WILL NOT treat either the constitution or the founders as deities or insist that they were capable of perfect creation. There were obvious flaws in the constitution when it was created (slavery?) and there are flaws in it now (income tax.) Jefferson's message was general in which he pointed out the obvious fact that times change. The constitution has and should change with the times. It should just do so in a more above board manner than judicial fiat...

BTW - Zviadist, go pester somebody else you little insignificant twit.. Your mama's calling you.

[Zviadist]

"The constitution is just a piece of paper"
--Isle of sanity in CA

[Isle of sanity in CA]

Did this character Isle of CA say he was in the Navy?

Yes. And you ask this because...?