But there was no declaration of war. Ron Paul authorized military action against the internationally recognized soverign nation of Afghanistan without a declaration of war. And then he claims that this was unconstitutional in regards to Iraq.
Ron Paul separates it this way as best I understand (he spoke directly about it the other day):
- The president has the right and duty to protect the country with unlimited unilateral action including preemptive strikes in the event of a credible imminent threat without consulting Congress. (Or the United Nations.)
- When going to war against a recognized sovereign power with an organized military, the Constitution prescribes that Congress alone must declare a war.
- When taking action against terrorists, irregular forces under no national flag, pirates, etc., the president should seek the support of Congress before acting if there is no imminent threat that requires immediate action to protect our people or nation or trade.
At any rate, it's a pretty reasonable standard and one that works pretty well when reading the Founders and our early history and some of the history of the dispute of war powers between the legislative branch and the executive. It is not an unreasonable position. Well, unless only a dictator makes you feel safe but I think we all know how the Founders felt about those dangers.
Contrary to the wild assertions made against Dr. Paul, it is a good standard. If you believe that the Constitution is just some archaic curiosity or that "It's just a damned piece of paper", then you really need to go with a dictator. For that, you can choose from leaders like the Xlintons. Or that leftwing autocratic mayor. These are the sorts of persons easily corrupted by power and who rapidly will become a law unto themselves, in short, exactly the sort of classic tyrant which was our Founders' greatest single fear.
Dr. Paul's reliance on the Constitution may seem quaint. But you either rely upon it as our safeguard or you have opened the door to relativism, to penumbras and emanations and other mischief. And then voting for Bush just for the judges was just a joke because the text and history and intent of the Framers is an irrelevant history.
I trust the Constitution. And I keep in mind that someday, perhaps in 2009, a radical and/or dangerous Democrat may hold the presidency and we will need the Constitution more than ever. Destroying it as the basis of our rule of law is not in the interest of conservatives. Ever.
Radicals? You mean like Abu Abbas, a convicted Palestinian terrorist who masterminded the 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered a wheelchair bound Amreican? Oh, wait, Saddam provided safe haven for international terrorists like Abbas.
I think you know I was referring to al-Qaeda within Iraq
prior to our invasion (which created a power vacuum into which they poured to kill our soldiers). Yes, Saddam did harbor a major Pali terrorist and, like many Arab businessmen and rulers and Saudi princes, he rewarded the families of terror bombers with subsidies. But the Pali terrorist we caught in Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda or 9/11.
How about Al Qaeda in Iraq, whose excess barbarism is repelling even other Muslims? Oh wait, we can’t fight them there can we, because there was no declaration of war (even though we are fighting the same enemy in Afghanistan without a declaration of war).
I've read of no organization called "Al Qaeda in Iraq". There is another factional ROP group that recently changed its name to "al-Qaeda In Mesopotamia" (an old name for the Iraq region prior to and during the British colonial administration). They are not affiliated with Bin Laden's operation. "al-Qaeda" has become a generic brand name for terrorism and jihad, adopted by a number of self-radicalized groups around the world. They may be thugs or homegrown terrorists but they are not the real al-Qaeda network which committed 9/11 and still exists, probably in the tribal areas of Pakistan where many of us believe Bin Laden still is, well, if he's still alive.
“At any rate, it’s a pretty reasonable standard “
It’s a double standard. One is applied to Al Qaeda in Afganistan, and a different one applied to Al Qaeda in Iraq. Fighting al qaeda in Afganistan is constitutional, even without a declaration of war. But fighting al qaeda in Iraq is unconstitutional, because there was no declaration of war.
“Well, unless only a dictator makes you feel safe....then you really need to go with a dictator.”
No, just because I don’t believe Operation Iraqi Freedom violates our constitution doesn’t mean I want to live under a dictator. That is fallacious.
” Destroying it as the basis of our rule of law is not in the interest of conservatives. Ever.”
There is nothing of substance to these fallacious arguements. Nowhere did I advocate destroying the constitution. I was talking about Paul’s double standard regarding Iraq and Afganistan.
“I think you know I was referring to al-Qaeda within Iraq prior to our invasion (which created a power vacuum into which they poured to kill our soldiers). “
You were? I was responding to your statement that “Saddam executed Islamic radicals out of hand as a danger to his regime just as other Arab dictators do.” Since you now claim that you were referring to Al Qaeda, what Al Qaeda radicals did Saddam execute? Saddam harbored terrorists. This in and of itself puts him in violation of our cease fire agreement. What would have Ron Paul done to enforce Saddam’s compliance to this agreement in regards to terrorism?
“I’ve read of no organization called “Al Qaeda in Iraq”. “
This explains alot.lol