What is the point of such grand-standing?
A quick clarification, if I may:
When people like Bill Clinton and Jesse Jackson contort and revise their "principles" if doing so affords them opportunities to keep themselves in the public eye, it's grandstanding.
When Ron Paul, who has been an aggressive champion of the Constitution, personal liberty, and the Rule of Law acts (as he has thousands of times over the years) on his beliefs, it's being principled.
Same for terrorists. A bounty hunter who lives for the chase is willing to cross from jurisdiction to jurisdiction to track someone down. Quite routinely bounty hunters will go to Mexico to grab someone who jumped bail in California or Texas. They're more efficient than cops, who would have to notify local Mexican authorities, argue extradition, etc. Red tape dissolves when privateers are around.
I think this is appropriate. I think further, that there may well be some enterprising ex-military folks who may find that this is a lucrative business for them to pursue.
They are long standing, effective means of bringing the total impact of war to the enemy.
They are also effective "force multipliers", to use some modern terminology. These free up military assets to pursue the military assets of the enemy, unencumbered by other distractions. At the same time, lower value assets of the enemy can be captured as prizes of war by privateers and the citizen militias.
How much can we get for some of those Toyota trucks the Taliban are always roaring around the countryside in?
To gain support from constituents of future sponsors. To influence the populace (and therefore their representatives) at a time when a bill like this may get to a floor vote. To sink any Rat who votes against it.
Ron Paul is not grandstanding. He is our friend. Paul continually exposes the hypocrisy of both Republicans and Democrats and they hate him for it. There have been several instances where Paul was cutoff from asking tough questions because people know the answers would embarass them.
This happened recently when a House committee suddenly terminated a hearing with Colin Powell. Why? Because Paul's turn to ask questions was next. Immediately after the session ended, the congressman who was the last to ask questions turned to him and said: "I'll bet you had some really tough questions to ask."
It also happened recently in the well of the House, where the speaker ignored Paul's call for a recorded vote. The speaker had Paul's microphone turned off. Yet, Paul screamed as loud as he could to request a recorded vote. The parliamentarian finally realized what was happening and intervened - informing the speaker (a Republican!) that he was out-of-order. Paul got his recorded vote on the bill and Democrats and Republicans were fuming because it was the education bill that no one wanted to have their name attached to.
In other words, Paul cut through the B.S. and shenanigans of both political parties and they hate him for it. Both parties are trying to get rid of him because he reminds them every day (through his actions) that they are breaking their oath of office. BOTH parties. Those that think Pubbies are better are naive. It's all about power. Both parties love it ... and both parties want it ... and will do whatever is necessary to get it ... and keep it.
If this bill were being introduced by Jesse, you'd think it was a great idea.
All of the actions taken by the Bush Administration to date are unconstitutional. The President cannot legally declare a war. Nor can he wage war, legally, w/o a declaration of same.
The Bush Administration has also created a potential threat to all of our freedoms with this department of Homeland Security. The former Soviet Union had such a department as do most, if not all, police states. I don't wish to see our nation become such a place.
Perhaps to illustrate to some that there still is a U.S. Constitution!