[Petronski]

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

PAUL PING

[JTN]

[JTN]

Letters of marque and reprisal: This constitutional tool can be used to give President Bush another weapon in the war on terrorism. Congress can issue letters of marque against terrorists and their property that authorize the President to name private sources who can capture or kill our enemies. This method works in conjunction with our military efforts, creating an incentive for people on the ground close to Bin Laden to kill or capture him and his associates. Letters of marque are especially suited to the current war on terrorism, which will be fought against individuals who can melt into the civilian population or hide in remote areas. The goal is to avail ourselves of the intelligence of private parties, who may stand a better chance of finding Bin Laden than we do through a conventional military invasion. Letters of marque also may help us avoid a wider war with Afghanistan or other Middle Eastern nations.

[lfrancis]

Sounds like a loon. “Immigration restrictions” that’s crazy talk.

[George W. Bush]

	Ron's weekly message [5 minutes audio, every Monday] • Podcast • Weekly archive • Toll-free 888-322-1414 •
	Free Republic Ron Paul Ping List: Join/Leave

Pingeroo!

[George W. Bush]

End legal preferences for terrorist suspects: Congress should clarify all federal criminal statutes to insure that so-called "extralegal" preferences for criminal terrorist suspects are eliminated. In some past terrorist investigations, federal rules have been interpreted to require law enforcement to show something more than standard probable cause to obtain warrants. Law enforcement officials should never have to demonstrate anything more than standard probable cause when seeking a warrant in the war on terrorism.

Ron Paul is exactly correct on this matter regardless of how you view the occupation of Iraq and its outcome. The bar for investigating and prosecuting terrorists in this country should never be set higher than for ordinary domestic mass murderers. The current law places the government at a disadvantage when prosecuting these mass murderers.

Similarly, the provisions for letters of marque and reprisal are more fitting in this current action in the Mideast because we have never before employed such a huge mercenary force in our history. Current estimates of total forces in Iraq alone are over 300,000. So we certainly are using mercenary forces very widely. While I have no objection to using armed civilians to support our troops, escort their supplies or provide other security, I do think the president should have the option to employ such persons directly to fulfill specific military missions legally.

My expectation is that we are likely to see some incident embarrassing or damaging to the Bush administration prior to 2009 because these methods were not authorized and used.

[Wolfie]

I would have expected all of these (especially the first two) to have been passed on 9/12. The fact that they weren’t is why I don’t really pay any attention to the “War on Terrorism”. Its obviously just another tool of the elite ruling class, used to scare the sheep into submission. And of course, the Kool-Aid drinkers lap it up.

[lormand]

Stenchhippy Cameltoes for Paul - Ping!

[ejonesie22]

Ok, TrippE, I’ll play...

“Letters of marque and reprisal”

Please explain to me why this would work in this day and age.

I ask this in light of the fact that no merry band of mercenaries as taken up our government's offer of 50 Million Dollars for Osama’s head. That’s pretty good scratch for a solider of fortune and his men.

[SnakeDoctor]

Many of his proposals sound reasonable to enhance the current War on Terrorism. A couple of problems ...

>>> Burdensome regulations and bureaucratic turf wars hamper the ability of federal law enforcement personnel to share information about terrorists. My proposal would slash regulations and make sure the CIA, FBI, State department, Justice department, and military work together to coordinate anti-terrorism efforts.

First of all - did Ron Paul not say that he wanted to disband the CIA ... now he wants to strengthen the CIA? Which is it? Inconsistency, or backpedaling?

Secondly, this is precisely what the PATRIOT Act does - an act that has drawn some derision from Rep. Paul.

Overall - I like most of the proposals he’s given here ... they seem reasonable additions to the current counterterrorist playbook. These proposals, however, are not a comprehensive counterterriorist plan, cannot replace the current (relatively effective) counterterrorist measures implemented by the Bush Administration, and are not a reasonable substitute for an international, offensive counterterrorist strategy.

However, he implies (or perhaps states outright) that we’re currently infringing on the civil liberties of American citizens, and that the American people can and should feel threatened by the current counterterrorism measures that have been adopted. What a bunch of ACLU nonsense. The rights of the American people have not been abridged in the current War on Terrorism.

Ron Paul has some reasonably good ideas here and there ... unfortunately, he’s also got some monumentally stupid ideas as well. The reasonableness of these proposals cannot make up for previous nonsense spouted by the congressman.

H

[Old 300]

Immigration Restrictions: Common sense tells us that we should not currently be admitting aliens from nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists.

Such as Saudi Arabia. We have pretty much open immigration and freedom of movement from there at this point. Yet the Saudis fund more extremist ideology across the world than just about anyone else. They provide a disproportionate number of jihadis fighting us in Iraq, as well.