Replies

"What I meant by the 'follow the law' statement was how some 'Libertarians' on this board were trying to apply domestic civil law to Saddam (i.e. not enough evidence)."

As every good Libertarian knows (I'm just making this up...what I mean is that *I* "know" it ;-))...there ARE only "domestic" laws. There's no such thing...to THIS Libertarian, at least...as "international" law. There ARE treaties...like the Geneva Convention...with which the U.S. federal government says it will comply. But there is no "controlling authority" (to borrow a phrase)...greater than the U.S. federal government.

I understand your frustration with what may seem to you to be an "obstruction" thrown in the way of "killing a bad man."

But the rules of the Constitution (that Congress MUST declare war...and that even Congress can't order the death of someone not convicted of a crime) protect US!

Who do you think is the most dangerous man in the world, right now?.......

OK, and who do you think *I* will name as the "most dangerous man in the world"?

...my nomination is for G.W. Bush. Why? Because G.W. Bush has so vastly much more POWER...and because he's already given abundant evidence that he will use that power illegitimately (in violation of the Constitution).

To give you an analogy: over Labor Day, I was back at my parents house. I was using a saber saw. A saber saw by itself is dangerous, simply because it's powerful. But my Dad's saw had a problem, where the saw blade would "stick"...and wouldn't start moving, if it was in certain positions. So I had to pull the blade down to a better position, and THEN turn on the saw. (But, of course, I didn't go an unplug the saw every time it "stuck"...which was about 1/2 the time I tried to turn it on.)

That's just really, really dangerous. I was very careful to avoid turning on the saw...but if I'd accidently--somehow--turned on the saw while I was pulling down that blade, I could have very easily lost a finger (or two).

Scary.

The United States military is, without question, the most powerful human force on earth. That means it must be used with only the most extraordinary caution. And it ESPECIALLY shouldn't be used in a way that violates The Law!

Everybody knows Saddam Hussein is a bad man. But what about Salah Idris? What about his custodian? And what about their sick customers?

You probably don't know who I'm talking about...but Salah Idris was the owner (private owner!) of the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. And his custodian (whose name I don't even know) was the poor devil who was killed in the U.S. cruise missile attack. And it's quite likely that literally THOUSANDS of sick people did in Sudan, because our country blew up that pharmaceutical plant.

But...if you don't care about innocent people outside our country, killed directly because of the wrongs WE did, what about:

1) the Branch Davidians?

2) Randy Weaver, and his family?

Those are the sort of things that happen when the U.S. government starts violating The Law.

"While I've considered myself a 'Libertarian', though I've never voted LP,..."

You can not be a Libertarian...or even a "libertarian" (small l), if you don't vote for the Libertarian Party. You can be a "freedom loving conservative" (to quote a certain FR poster)...but you can't be a Libertarian (or even libertarian).

There isn't any party even CLOSE to being libertarian, except for the Libertarian Party...which is purely libertarian.

If you really agree with the Libertarian Party (that the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect people from physical harm and fraud) you should be voting Libertarian. (Or, if in Ron Paul's district, you could vote for him. :-))

"OK, and who do you think *I* will name as the "most dangerous man in the world"?

...my nomination is for G.W. Bush. Why? Because G.W. Bush has so vastly much more POWER...and because he's already given abundant evidence that he will use that power illegitimately (in violation of the Constitution). "

Man, I'm starting to think you're losing it. True, Bush has more power than Saddam Hussein. But the fact of Saddam supporting terrorists who intentionally killed over 3,000 innocent civilians is vastly worse than Bush sidestepping his Constitutional authority. BTW, I reread the war clause and it's as follows:

Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

I don't how any authorization of force by congress doesn't comply with this? It just says declare war. I doesn't limit it to government, countries, actually using the words "declare war" (though they have a much more dramatic impact). How does a majority vote in congress authorizing force against Iraq not comply with this?

Why didn't you just unplug the saw? I mean it's not that tough. Also, if it kept jumping, just get it fixed. Much better than risking your fingers.

You can not be a Libertarian...or even a "libertarian" (small l), if you don't vote for the Libertarian Party. You can be a "freedom loving conservative" (to quote a certain FR poster)...but you can't be a Libertarian (or even libertarian).

Labels, labels. Hey, we can see the word two different ways. I differentiate a big L as an LP voting type of individual, and a little l as libertarian leaning Republican. Last time I checked, there was no hard and fast definintion.

Additionally, it's my belief, that our government hasn't really been following the Constitution for a while and won't for a long time to come. Too many pigs are at the trough.