Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

LNC endorses "measured" military strikes
Libertarian Party National Committee ^ | October 15, 2001 | Libertarian Party National Committee

Posted on 10/15/2001 6:07:29 PM PDT by Justin Raimondo

The following statement was adopted by the Libertarian National Committee at its meeting in Atlanta, Georgia on October 14, 2001:

On Sunday, October 7, the United States launched military action against Osama bin Laden, the terrorist believed to be responsible for the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The U.S. military also struck military bases controlled by the Taliban regime of Afghanistan, which has sheltered and reportedly assisted bin Laden.

While the Libertarian Party has been a consistent voice against reckless foreign interventionism by the U.S. government, we support action against the perpetrators responsible for the terrorist attacks. The vicious and barbaric attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, which bin Laden allegedly masterminded, cost 5,000 innocent Americans their lives. Such horrific crimes cannot go unpunished.

A fundamental role of the United States government, as defined in the U.S. Constitution, is to protect American citizens against foreign attack. Therefore, it is proper for the government to take forceful action against terrorists who have already killed thousands of Americans, and who have threatened to kill more. Such criminals must be rooted out and destroyed before more innocent people die. Their training camps and weapons must be eliminated. Their supply infrastructure must be shattered.

At the same time, the United States' response must be appropriate and measured. Every precaution must be taken to minimize injury or death to innocent civilians and non-combatants -- in Afghanistan and in other nations. To do otherwise is not only a violation of America's ideals, it would also create future enemies for our nation and continue the cycle of violence and revenge.

We also call on the United States government to publicly reveal the evidence that conclusively links bin Laden and his terrorist network to the September 11 terrorist attacks. While much circumstantial evidence is available, and while bin Laden has made statements condoning the September 11 attacks, the U.S. government has an obligation to conclusively demonstrate that he is guilty of mass murder. Such evidence would not only help swing world opinion firmly behind the United States' actions, it would make a clear and compelling case that justice is being served by the recent military actions.

The Libertarian Party must take a more cautious stance about the military attacks on Afghanistan's Taliban government. Yes, there is considerable evidence that this totalitarian regime has aided bin Laden, and, yes, it refuses to assist the U.S. government in bringing bin Laden to justice. But it is a sovereign nation, and a military strike against it is an act of war. According to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, only the United States Congress has the power to declare war.

If military action against the government of Afghanistan is indeed appropriate, then the U.S. Congress should establish this by debating and passing an official declaration of war. Such an action would make the attack constitutionally legitimate, and protect the vital separation of powers upon which this nation's government was founded. The United States government should also announce clear, measurable, and finite goals for this War on Terrorism. Any military action must not be allowed to turn into an endless, global war against numberless,shadowy targets. America's best interests will be served by decisive action that targets the guilty, spares the innocent, and ends as quickly as possible.

Finally, the United States has an obligation to consider a new,positive approach to foreign policy for the future. Years ago, President Thomas Jefferson articulated a foreign policy that consisted of "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Such a foreign policy -- deeply rooted in American tradition and principle -- would reduce the chance that terrorists will ever again want to strike a bloody blow at America.

As our nation embarks on this new war, the words of Thomas Jefferson echo down the centuries, and point in the direction of an America that can be at peace with the world -- and have less to fear from foreign enemies.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
An excellent statement, which I agree with entirely. Gee, it almost makes me want to re-join the Libertarian Party....
1 posted on 10/15/2001 6:07:29 PM PDT by Justin Raimondo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Justin Raimondo
REALLY. Maybe they would agree we NEED a military.
BIG CHANGE for them /sarcasm>
2 posted on 10/15/2001 6:10:37 PM PDT by ScholarWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justin Raimondo
This libertarian doesn't have a problem with using nukes and nerve gas.

L

3 posted on 10/15/2001 6:11:05 PM PDT by Lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justin Raimondo
America's best interests will be served by decisive action that targets the guilty, spares the innocent, and ends as quickly as possible.

And we all live happily ever after with no innocent bloodshed anywhere... how much better the Libertarian dream world is than reality.

Unfortunately the nature of the insane group that has attacked the US will inevitably NOT "end as quickly as possible" and there will be INEVITABLE collateral damage, including innocents. Is that our fault? Is there any alternative action presented by the libertarians that would be any better?

This fluff reminds me of the one that said "where's the exit strategy?" Whoever wrote this seems to live in a dream world. The mess that Clinton left us is deep, Al-Qaeda is operating in many countries, and it will take sacrifice over a long period of time to properly respond to this.

Easy to sit on your butt and say "it should be short and sweet, instant and painless"... but very far from a realistic solution.

4 posted on 10/15/2001 6:19:37 PM PDT by EaglesUpForever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justin Raimondo
How many of the single issue Libertarians were on the panel who came up with this nonsense? Mustn't mess with the poppy fields less we feel their wrath in 2002 at the ballot box.

Before any of you get the flame throwers out. notice I said SINGLE ISSUE, and yes it is sarcasm.

5 posted on 10/15/2001 6:28:15 PM PDT by SCHROLL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justin Raimondo
Its good to see some realists are alive and well within the official Libertarian Party.
6 posted on 10/15/2001 6:34:00 PM PDT by Paradox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paradox
Its good to see some realists are alive and well within the official Libertarian Party.

Not realists, but Objectivists.

7 posted on 10/15/2001 9:25:09 PM PDT by The Shootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The Shootist
good to see some realists are alive and well within the official Libertarian Party.

Not realists, but Objectivists.

Haha!

8 posted on 10/15/2001 9:46:27 PM PDT by Paradox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Justin Raimondo
I'm a relatively new registrant to FR, but I've lurked here for about a year (since the Presidential campaign) and know a little about the family feud between Libertarians and Conservatives on some issues. Given that, I realize that what follows below will likely piss off some percentage of y'all, principally those of a Libertarian persuasion. No apologies for that, either.

"While the Libertarian Party has been a consistent voice against reckless foreign interventionism by the U.S. government, we support action against the perpetrators responsible for the terrorist attacks. The vicious and barbaric attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, which bin Laden allegedly masterminded, cost 5,000 innocent Americans their lives. Such horrific crimes cannot go unpunished."

Well, so far, so good... but just had to get in that dig about "reckless foreign interventionism" huh?

"A fundamental role of the United States government, as defined in the U.S. Constitution, is to protect American citizens against foreign attack. Therefore, it is proper for the government to take forceful action against terrorists who have already killed thousands of Americans, and who have threatened to kill more. Such criminals must be rooted out and destroyed before more innocent people die. Their training camps and weapons must be eliminated. Their supply infrastructure must be shattered."

Yes, but...

"At the same time, the United States' response must be appropriate and measured. Every precaution must be taken to minimize injury or death to innocent civilians and non-combatants -- in Afghanistan and in other nations. To do otherwise is not only a violation of America's ideals, it would also create future enemies for our nation and continue the cycle of violence and revenge."

"Appropriate and measured"? Like hell it ought to be "measured"... our reponse should be one that not only takes care of the immediate problem, but provides a profound incentive for these terrorists to *not* attack U.S. soil ever again. I'm not saying that we should indiscriminately bomb non-combatants - that would be barbaric and beneath us - but neither should we slip into the incrementalist mindset that got our heads handed to us in Vietnam. We should not let ourselves become paralyzed over concerns that we might accidently frag a civilian or two and as a result fail to act against the enemy in an effective manner. War is hell -- fight appropriately.

"We also call on the United States government to publicly reveal the evidence that conclusively links bin Laden and his terrorist network to the September 11 terrorist attacks. While much circumstantial evidence is available, and while bin Laden has made statements condoning the September 11 attacks, the U.S. government has an obligation to conclusively demonstrate that he is guilty of mass murder. Such evidence would not only help swing world opinion firmly behind the United States' actions, it would make a clear and compelling case that justice is being served by the recent military actions."

So now the American Libertarian Party is joining the Taliban in demanding proof? Bin Laden and his Al Queda organization have made it perfectly clear that they have declared war on the United States.

"The Libertarian Party must take a more cautious stance about the military attacks on Afghanistan's Taliban government. Yes, there is considerable evidence that this totalitarian regime has aided bin Laden, and, yes, it refuses to assist the U.S. government in bringing bin Laden to justice. But it is a sovereign nation, and a military strike against it is an act of war. According to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, only the United States Congress has the power to declare war."

Maybe the Libs haven't noticed, but war has been declared on us, and we either fight or suffer more. I mean, what kind mushy-headedness is this -- "But it is a sovereign nation, and a military strike against it is an act of war"? Of *course* it's an act of war -- one that's been declared on us and we either fight and win or capitulate and live in fear until further notice. At least by fighting back and treating this as the war it most certainly is, we control our destiny to the extent that maybe we can do something about the fanatical whackos that want to destroy us, and project strength instead of weakness and indecision.

"If military action against the government of Afghanistan is indeed appropriate, then the U.S. Congress should establish this by debating and passing an official declaration of war. Such an action would make the attack constitutionally legitimate, and protect the vital separation of powers upon which this nation's government was founded."

And if not, are the Libs saying that this is an illegitimate war? Just want to get that part on the record...

'Bout time for the fence-sitters to take a side... being undecided at this point ain't the 'virtue' it was thought to be during the elections when everybody was celebrating the moderate, undecided middle-of-the-road wafflers.

9 posted on 10/15/2001 10:43:58 PM PDT by AfghanAirShow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AfghanAirShow
Welcome aboard...good post.
10 posted on 10/16/2001 1:41:15 AM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Justin Raimondo
Hmmm. If you did, how would you reconcile particular contradictions that the LP party has trouble with? For example, would you advocate doing away with all licensing (for, say, airline pilots!)? Would you encourage dissolution of the CDC? FBI? CIA? Doing away with INS? (immigration for all!) Last I knew, the LP advocated resolving many issues in the courts and privatizing or doing away with all federal agencies. Don't you think this philosophy is contradictory? at all?
11 posted on 10/16/2001 2:12:47 AM PDT by unsycophant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unsycophant
The LNC also advocates totally open borders and unrestricted immigration, which would lay the nation wide open to terrorist attacks. Nice of them to give the President their blessing now to defend the nation, as long as it's in a "measured" way.

It's this kind of grandious announcement that makes the LNC a political joke and will insure it's demise.

12 posted on 10/16/2001 2:34:29 AM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson