Posted on 01/22/2008 11:41:45 AM PST by BGHater
The more I listen to and read about Ron Paul, the more I realize he’s not a pacifist by any stretch of the imagination. He was deadly serious in the debate about the Iranian boats threatening the US Navy. Paraphased, no reason to be upset, the Navy could blow them out of the water :) and I expect as President he would have authorized that type action.
Your right.
Now let me see, which candidate out there is against illegals, against nafta, proLife and has served in the military?
We haven’t used this tool in a long time, time to use it now.
If Mitty can change what he said about killing innocent unborn babies... can Pual change what he said about Iraq?
SLIM PICKINS IS WHAT WE HAVE
“And in essence, was a back up rather than disavowing all knowledge type thing if the contractor/bounty hunter/special forces team were caught. I may have that wrong though. “
It would be difficult to deny with the LoM in hand. Without the LoM, the contractor would be just another pirate/terrorist.
Why would anyone seek to protect Bin Laden? Why not issue a LoM for him? What’s their (deceivers) problem? They don’t want to do everything within our power to capture Bin Laden?
Who are these people?
Let’s say you are a government agent that gets a letter from the US that says give this group free passage to find Bin Laden. Otherwise we will take it that you are against us and protecting him. We only have to act once before others take us seriously.
Speak softly and carry a big stick.
Personally, I think Bin Laden is dead and has been since Tora Bora. Also I think the President knows it or is pretty sure that it is a fact.
Yes, exactly :) Go to war with Pakistan or show them a LoM? What can they do except cooperate? Kind of cool when you think about it.
So, in other words, you anticipate the following scenario:
Freddie the bounty hunter applies to Congress for a letter of marque and reprisal.
Freddie then heads out to Afghanistan or the border area of Pakistan.
Freddie is somehow able to track down Osama Bin Laden - perhaps he has taken a crash course in Pashto or something.
Freddie seizes Bin Laden, cuffs him and then brings him to an airport in Kabul or Islamabad and when the local authorities stop him and say: "Sorry, pal, but he is our prisoner now" - Freddie will call up the local US consulate and complain that his letters are not being recognized.
The US consulate will then respond: "Even though you failed to inform the US military of Bin Laden's whereabouts and have created a delicate international situation, we will declare war against Hamid Karzai's government or Pervez Musharraf's government on your account. We will begin bombing our nuclear-armed regional ally in five minutes. You're the man, Freddie."
The number of FReepers who think through the implications of their comments is dwindling.
How dare you blame America!!!!11!1!
Everybody knows we had to pay tribute because the Muslim princeling hated us for our freedoms . . . just ask Giuliani or Hannity.
Since all the foucs of this thread has been on the Letters of Marquis, I guess that means we all agree about this second proposal.
It's pretty clear that I blamed Jefferson for the inadequacy of his initial response - not America for being harassed by predators.
Everybody knows we had to pay tribute because the Muslim princeling hated us for our freedoms
The Muslim princeling in question asserted that he had a right to kidnap and murder American seafarers and exact tribute from America because Americans were infidels.
Pretty much the precise arguments made by Al-Qaeda today to justify their actions.
I know, but don't you see how easy it is for someone to take what you thought was a clear statement and turn it into something you never meant to say?
The Muslim princeling in question asserted that he had a right to kidnap and murder American seafarers and exact tribute from America because Americans were infidels.
Pretty much the precise arguments made by Al-Qaeda today to justify their actions.
So it's okay for you to take the Muslim princeling at his word but when someone else does that today they are accused of being traitorous scum who is giving aid and comfort to the enemy?
You are engaged in special pleading in order to smear someone you don't agree with politically.
If the U.S. Armed Forces aren’t intimidating enough, an armed yokel with a sniperscope and a piece of paper with some 18th Century words on it isn't going to get the job done.
You may think that Americans are the Lords Of The Earth and that the lesser peoples (i.e. non-Americans of all nationalities) only exist to toady to them. Isn't the way the rest of the world see it. Except in the Fantasyland that Ron Paul inhabits.
My statement was quite perspicuous. The inability of hypothetical others to read is not my problem.
So it's okay for you to take the Muslim princeling at his word but when someone else does that today they are accused of being traitorous scum who is giving aid and comfort to the enemy?
I'm not taking the princeling at his word. His word was that he had a right to attack American citizens because they were not Muslims. Far from taking him at his word, I am saying that he was completely wrong, that he had no such right, and that for asserting such a fictional right he needed a straight-up ass whupping.
Osama Bin Laden says that he is justified in doing what he does because Americans are infidels and their foreign policy isn't to his taste. That's his word. Far from taking him at his word, I am saying that Bin Laden is also completely wrong, that his fictional justification is no justification at all, and for asserting such a fictional justification he and his friends need a good killing whenever found.
I would characterize as traitorous scum anyone who believed that Bin Laden's reasoning was a factual analysis of reality and anyone who would advocate altering American policy to conform to Bin Laden's grievances.
There is no special pleading at all.
Jefferson's initial policy of paying tribute to Muslim terrorists in the form of cash was colossally stupid, and his subsequent policy of proactively taking the fight to them on their own ground and unleashing the US military on them was wise.
Bush's initial policy of proactively taking the fight to them on their own ground and unleashing the US military on them was also wise.
Paul's proposed policy of paying tribute to Muslim terrorists in the form of foreign policy alterations is colossally stupid - and insofar as it proposes a transfer of moral authority over US policy from America's elected government to a foreign terrorist, traitorous.
Smear? Disagree?
It goes well beyond that. It goes well beyond despise. It’s a hatred so inflamed I expect to bear witness to multiple episodes of spontaneous combustion any day now.
Then, like our enemies, you laugh and you don’t believe America is great. Honestly get real, our wondrous military defeated and captured saddam in 9 months and reduced a country to it’s knees in less then 3 weeks. From that ability alone we project enough power that should cause tremendous fear in our enemies.
It is only when we attempt to create friends from enemies, rebuild what we destroyed, that we end up spending any spoils and lose what huge momentum we may have gained.
Remember:
Getting Bin Laden was the original goal.
Regime change in Afghanistan was the original goal.
Regime change in Iraq was the original goal.
We have shown that enabling Regime change is easy for us, it cost 50 billion to capture Saddam and it was quick, relatively painless and easy. But for some reason, getting Bin Laden is not. We should be able to use the threat of regime change to help those that may be hiding him make a decision. Either go get him for us or let our privateers in to get him. That is a win win situation, they don’t get invaded and they don’t lose face by letting our military go get him, looking like an invasion. Beware Mr. Tin Pot dictator this letter (Which could be email these days), indicates that getting rid of that man is that important to us.
BTW, LOM are not given to ‘Armed Yokels’, never was. Which show’s your level of understanding on it. Typically in the old days the LOM included not only the backing of the government but Money, Arms and ships. The petitioner of the LOM could also come back for more if it was needed. Congress didn’t always grant it, if it wasn’t in the best interests or if the LOM holder showed no results. It is not about giving an average joes this power. In todays world it’s more like giving Blackwater the ability and sanction of the people of the US to go after UBL.
I’m saying that there won’t be people who ignore this letter, but if they do then they already have been put on notice and can expect the full wrath of the US to be put against them. Others will learn quickly.
And compared to what we the tax payers have spent thus far on the WOT which was started by Bin Laden, a 50 million dollar bounty is nothing. Make it a billion (which Paul has also suggested) and you might get someone ready to hunt him down.
But go ahead, keep doing it the way we are doing it. It works well. We have defeated Al Queda and killed Bin Laden and our children are safe from those who would attack. You are right, LOM is so 18th century and doesn’t apply anymore just like that other 18th century document it comes from...
/s
You would think a libertarian would understand the concept of, “I don’t care that you have a piece of paper from the government, get off my land!!! I don’t care that you’ve got a piece of paper for the government, get out of my country!!!” Doubled and redoubled and in trumps when that piece of paper is not from your own government, but from some foreign government, like the U.S. in this case. Or, as a libertarian, do you believe that libertarian principles only apply to Americans, and not to lesser mortals?
If we ask politely and point out that their interests coincide with ours, they may cooperate with us, and even help us. The whole concept of a Letter of Marque, besides being obsolete in the modern world, is rude and demeaning. It's just begging for a refusal to cooperate. You might as well declare war on every other country on the planet.
And you might want to realize that most privateers were only one step above pirates, anyway, and often were charged with forgetting the difference. Look into how privateer crews were compensated. There's a reason that they aren't used in warfare anymore.
And we come back to the basic fact, the full wrath of the United States hasn’t gotten Bin Ladin, but some someone who says, “See here, I have an official piece of paper from the United States Government! See, it has the Seal of the United States on it and everything!”, that’s going to get the job done? Well, if you want to believe that, go right ahead.
Personally, I would recommend growing up and realizing how the real world works.
“If we ask politely and point out that their interests coincide with ours, they may cooperate with us, and even help us.”
Sure, that should be the first step. And I believe we’ve tried that.
Next step should be, look if you are not going to help us then we actually believe that you are against us and you don’t really want to be against us. Look what happened to the Taliban who refused to turn Bin Laden over. Look what happen to Saddam. Let our contractors go into your country and we will pick the pig up.
Next step. Well you didn’t listen, sorry we can’t work with you and your government you are toast, the bombs start in 10 minutes. Sorry you couldn’t understand and cooperate with us in the beginning.
Next regime: You gonna go get bin laden for us or let us find him with your 100% support? Gaining our gratitude and thanks. What do you think the answer will be. ‘Get off my land?’
Don’t forget why are asking for this permission. It must be a just reason, like our country being attacked. I would never suggest we use it to go get a common criminal or to take and hold land or resource.
“Personally, I would recommend growing up and realizing how the real world works.”
And with that said, how many other articles in our Constitution are you willing to write off as unfit for your “real world?”
Your feign arguments against issuing these letters suggest a revulsion regarding Constitutional principles.
Hang international law, it's a Constitutional option and our Constitution is OUR "Supreme law of the Land". The "crazy Uncle" is right on this one. It is a tool we should be using.
Or isn't that "compassionate" enough for you? Or is that "too hardline" or "not inline with what the International Community" thinks we should do?
Maybe you think we should just let the UN handle it all...
Get real...
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.