Posted on 09/23/2007 10:47:55 AM PDT by LdSentinal
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul contends that the federal government has overreacted by limiting personal freedom in the wake of terrorist attacks six years ago, noting more people die on U.S. highways in less than a month’s time compared to the number who lost their lives on Sept. 11, 2001.
“We have been told that we have to give up our freedoms in order to be safe because terrorism is such a horrible event,” Paul said today to more than 1,000 supporters who attended a rally at a downtown Chicago hotel ballroom.
“A lot fewer lives died on 9/11 than they do in less than a month on our highways, but once again, who owns the highways? Do we own the highways? No. It’s a government institution you know. …We need to put all this in perspective.”
More than 2,970 people were reported dead in the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. Federal highway traffic statistics show an average of 3,509 people a month were killed on the nation’s highways in 2001.
(Excerpt) Read more at weblogs.baltimoresun.com ...
.
Bremen, Germany
It’s something you’d see if several girls came in together at Bobby V’s or other busy spots
Local codes I guess
Maybe not so local
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul contends that the federal government has overreacted by limiting personal freedom in the wake of terrorist attacks six years ago, noting more people die on U.S. highways in less than a month’s time compared to the number who lost their lives on Sept. 11, 2001.
Oh!!? in that case it makes it all right...
WTF???? Ron Paul is an equivocating Moron.
Ahh, I should have guessed from the “Lager” name on it!!
I haven’t a clue where Bobby V’s is either but I’ve hear it mentioned many times.
.
Bobby Valentine grew up and went to HS and starred in about everything in a CT town
He opened bars in TX & CT and a few other places I guess
I wonder if he opened one in Japan?
Greatest hamburgers with a wide selection of “stuff” on them, fantastic ribs, steak fries, salads, paranoid about clean kitchens, a few million TVs on sports, rodeo, racing channels up front
A huge projector TV in the back rooms
Bobby Valentine is quite sharp businessman and always has a gimmick like arm wrestling contests, shooting mini-hoops for prizes, karioki nights, you name it
(Send my check Bobby)
“The best thing for us to be free and safe is to recognize the principles of private property ownership and to respect and defend the second amendment” --Ron Paul
What a kook!
Obviously, giving up freedoms to the government is a much better approach...just ask FReepers!
Right. If conservatives disagree with you about Giuliani, those conservatives must be wrong. They can't have good reasons (because there are no good reasons to disagree with you). Therefore they must be basing it on superficial reasons alone.
And that means they are "letting 9/11 completely dictate everything we do".
Sure, there may have been some, like yourself, but I'm taking about, oh, 3/4ths of the people.
But, see, you're not talking about 3/4ths of the people. You're talking about imaginary people that you've made-up things about so you can paint them w/the broad brush. You can't point to actual, tangible people fitting your description. But you're pretty sure, sans evidence, that your unflattering description applies to "oh, 3/4ths of the people" who support Giuliani.
This is called a straw-man.
To be honest I'm not even sure how we got on the subject of Giuliani... lol
Giuliani being the front-runner was the example you stated which supposedly shows that we are "letting 9/11 completely dictate everything we do". Because, again, Giuliani being the front-runner is inexplicable unless people have fallen into a sort of mass hysteria; after all, you don't favor GIuliani (apparently), and obviously there are no possible valid, sincere, and rational reasons for anyone to disagree with you about something like that. Folks disagree with you about Giuliani and therefore they are "letting 9/11 completely dictate everything we do".
That's your argument as I understand it.
You know what's funny is how often it's the case that when someone makes a broad sweeping vague claim like that we're "letting 9/11 completely dictate everything we do", when I question their thinking just a little it turns out they've got some very very specific bee in their bonnet (such as "a lot of people favor Giuliani and I don't like that"). I always find it clarifies the discussion to learn what someone really has in mind. Thanks,
Actually, Ron Paul has submitted such a bill. It’s HR 3076 September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 (Introduced in the House); October 10, 2001. Here’s a link to the text:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=187856
There are several problems with such an act.
First, international law. You do remember in the last major debate Ron Paul argued that we have to follow international law? One can argue that such an Act violates international law. While the US was not a party to the Treaty of Paris ending the Crimea war, the US agreed during the Civil War and the Spanish American war to abide by it’s provisions that include not issuing such letters. Furthermore, the Hague Conventions of 1907, which the US did sign, made commissioning private war vessels against international law. This would limit any authority to land forces. However, this same Convention defined lawful and unlawful combatants.
You argue that those operating under such Letters “wouldn’t be hindered by rules of engagement, military bureaucracy, diplomatic niceties etc..” These ‘privateers’ (that’s the official term for those operating under a LM&R) would have to follow the Hague Conventions which include respecting the “laws and customs of war” otherwise they would be treated as ‘unlawful combatants’ and subject to summary execution upon capture. This undermines your argument that how these persons operate would be up to them.
(As an aside, in the past, those operating under Letters of Marque, also called ‘privateers’, were normally treated as pirates when captured.)
Ron Paul’s act states: “The President of the United States is authorized and requested to commission, under officially issued letters of marque and reprisal, so many of privately armed and equipped persons and entities as, in his judgment, the service may require, with suitable instructions to the leaders thereof, to employ all means reasonably necessary to seize outside the geographic boundaries of the United States and its territories the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and of any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the air piratical aggressions and depredations perpetrated upon the United States of America on September 11, 2001, and for any planned future air piratical aggressions and depredations or other acts of war upon the United States of America and her people.”
Did you notice the phrase ‘reasonably necessary’? Exactly what does this mean? Does this authorize actions outside the ‘law and customs of war’ if ‘reasonably necessary’? Clearly, one can argue that this phrase violates the Hague conventions compelling ‘lawful combatants’ to respect the law and custom of war.
The US government would also incur an obligation to ensure that those receiving such a letter conform to the ‘laws and customs of war’. Ron Paul seems to recognize this requirement by requiring the President to issue specific instructions and to require the posting of a bond. Despite these provisions, it should be clear that the US could be responsible for any and all actions by the ‘privateers’ just as it is responsible for any actions by it’s military. Essentially, the impracticallity of ensuring ‘privateers’ follow these rules is the principal reasons the signing powers of the Treaty of Paris agreed to quit issuing such letters.
Second, the practical part. The Letter would authorize a private party to cross a border to kill or capture Al Qaeda operatives. Suppose Bill Bob and party encountered a group of natives within the ‘Territories’ where Bin Laden is said to be. When asked about their intentions, Billy Bob presents his Letter of Marque. Which do you think the most likely next step?
(A.) The natives invite BB and party to tea where they enter into a spirited discussion of the Ron Paul Revolution? After exchanging copies of the US Constitution and the Koran, the natives allow BB and party to proceed.
(B.) The natives invite BB and party to participate in the next ‘Jihad Beheadings Video’?
Finally. Using Ron Paul’s own logic, the act is un-Constitutional. I’m sure you’ll recall that Ron Paul claims that the Force Resolutions are un-Constitutional since the ‘delegate’ the war making powers of Congress to the President. Ron Paul also argues that any action not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is un-Constitutional.
This act provides the authority for the President to issue Letters of Marque to private individuals. The Constitution states that Congress, not the President, shall have the power to issue such letters. Using Ron Paul’s logic, there is nothing in the Constitution that specifically allows Congress to ‘delegate’ issuing Letters of Marque to the President. Therefore, his own act, by his own logic, is un-Constitutional.
There is one thing in this act that does have some merit. It allows the President to authorize a bounty of up to $40B for the capture of Bin Laden, etc. The current bounty set by Congress is $50M.
i think you are tring to be picky and misreprsenting my argument...
wow, thanks for finding all that, I didn’t know it was out there.
You make some very good points. And yes, by Paul’s own standards his act is unconstitutional as the Congress should be the one issuing the letters!
However, assuming his act was issued by Congress I think the other problems could be gotten around. First, a pretty high percentage of the total manpower in Iraq are private contractors, which is sort of an inbetween a state army and a letter of marque idea and there hasn’t appeared to be too many legal issues raised with at least this step.
I didn’t know the history of all those treaties you cited, my guess is that the US would have to pull out of those; sort of surprising we signed them if they contained laws restraining acts specifically authorized in our constituion...
I did cringe when I heard paul talk about ‘international law’ in the last debate, I don’t know if this was purposeful or a slip up, and the word is occasionally used by libertarians in discussing the soverignty of a nation state (a nation can go to war only after being attacked etc..), not a reference to the UN or international organizations, which, as you know, Paul would pull out of.
And I was mostly speaking of suspension of the ‘Rules of Engagement’, as easing the operational fluididity, not so much not following the laws of war and I doubt suspension of these laws is what Paul meant by ‘reasonably neccesary’. If these LM&R folks went in and started slaughtering civilians in a cleansing type fashion I’m sure the US gov wouldn’t stand for that. Yea and it would have to be worked out what would happen if these folks were captured, would the US gov military come after them? And I don’t think they would go around presenting letters of marq to natives, I think they would go in guns blazing!
“However, assuming his act was issued by Congress I think the other problems could be gotten around. First, a pretty high percentage of the total manpower in Iraq are private contractors, which is sort of an inbetween a state army and a letter of marque idea and there hasn’t appeared to be too many legal issues raised with at least this step.”
There are some significant differences between our contractors in Iraq and LMR. First, the vast majority of those contractors are not involved in combat operations, cooks, maintenance, etc. But laying that aside, there are some who do get involved usually as convoy guards. The recent incident with Blackwater comes to mind. That said, these guys are directly under our control and are not free-lanceing in another sovereign country such as Pakistan. A group operating under LMR would be conducting independent operations especially if they were to satisfy your statements about not being bound, etc., That is where the legal issues would arise.
Withdrawing from those treaties would be far easier said than done. Can you imagine the outcry when the US announces that is no longer bound by the Geneva and Hague Conventions, ie, is operating outside of the customary law of war? While you may downplay the effect of that, how do you explain that one to the American people. I guess you could try: ‘President Ron Paul has decided that we are going to withdraw from the Hague and Geneva Conventions so he can hire privateers to conduct military operations’. Good luck on that one.
As for going in with ‘guns blazing’, you’re talking major combat operations. I remind you that the Pakistani army has been rather roughly handled by the natives in the ‘Territories’ and that was with air support, artillery, tanks, amoured personnel carriers, etc. Then there is the effect of such a military operation on the Pakistanis. I believe Barak Obama was rather roughly handled by all when he suggested just such an invasion of Pakistan by US Forces. Wonder what the reaction would be to our ‘privateers’. That is assuming that the privateers could mount such an operation. You’re talking thousands in support.
I guess one could mount some sort of sneak and snatch operation if one had the intelligence to precisely locate Bin Laden. Of course, if one had that kind of intelligence, there wouldn’t be much need for privateers would there?
“You make some very good points. And yes, by Paul’s own standards his act is unconstitutional as the Congress should be the one issuing the letters!”
I guess this highlights my issues with Ron Paul’s claims to be a staunch defender of the Constitution. I find him to be less a Constitutional scholor than a bomb-thrower. He seems to pick and choose the parts he defends and chooses his positions more for theatrical effect than for defending the Constitution.
It also highlights some of my other issues with Ron Paul. Some of the things he says sound good as long as you don’t look to closely at them.
well, I recognize that Paul’s ‘by the consitution’ slogan is nearly impossible to interpret literally and there is considerable debate, even amongst libertarians, about what exactly that means. However, if you consider it as a spectrum, with completely ignoring the constition on one side and this literal interpretation on the other, he is much closer to the literal than any modern American politician.
However, another example of the point you raise is with ‘judicial review’, funny enough asked by Hewit in that same interview with Paul about L&M. Judicial review, of course, is not in the constition, but came about, I believe, as Marbury vs Madison. I think the question caught Paul a bit off gaurd and I believe he had to admit he would keep judicial review...
I’m still not convinced of the folly of the L&M. I think we’d need to examine the provisions of those treaties and I’d bet the US could opt out of just those parts, or just ignore them w/out too much trouble or political hay.
The idea makes sense from an ideolgoical point of view, because although conservatives (generally) agree that government is incompetant w/ domestic issues, libertarians believe government is also incompetant in foreign policy and even the military. The private sector, individual Americans, can do it better.
And I’ve found the opposite, the closer I look at Paul’s various positions, the more merit I have found in them. Of course, I don’t agree with many too, but most of them yes.
I’ve always thought that the libertarian desire for LMR was based mostly on ideological grounds. I’m not sure that this idea is even a Ron Paul original. I remember an article posted here on Free Republic about the same time Ron introduced his Act espousing the same idea. The article was by Browne. Which came first? Don’t know. But I do think there are those of the libertarian persuasion who think the private sector would do a better job.
I think the appeal of privitizing the WOT, has two basic appeals to libertarians. First, as you point out, they think it would be more effective. Second, they would like to reduce the power of the state and they that includes the military.
There are several problems with private militaries that I think are too readily dismissed by libertarians.
First, I think most of them simply have no idea of what a military is or what an effective military requires. Too often I libertarians argue for a return to a militia based system. I think too few libertarians have the grasp of military history to know just how badly most militias fare in combat with regular forces. Think amateur football teams playing professionals and you get the picture. Sure amateurs win sometimes but most times they get destroyed. When was the last time the college all stars beat the pro team?
Second, I’m afraid that privitizing the military might be one of those ‘be careful what you asked for’ thingies. One of the classical problems with mercenary armies is the difficulty of maintaining control. How do you keep them in check and not allow them to go ‘rogue’? Granted, you have a similar problem with keeping the state in check and keeping it from going rogue too. Still with the state in control of the military, you only have one military to worry about and not a couple of dozen. You pick your poison and take your chances as they say.
Which brings us to judicial review. The problem with doing away with judicial review is who determines what the Constitution says? Even if one throws out the concept of the ‘living Constitution’, a concept I think should have a stake driven through it’s heart, you still have to have one authority to ‘interpret’ the Constitution.
Oh, I know some say that the words are plain for everyone to read and understand. But different people can read the same words and find different ‘understandings’. I simply don’t see how you get around judicial review.
Opt out of parts? Sure, that’s done all the time with Treaties. States sign treaties and submit a document called, I believe, an ‘understanding’ which simply states that this state or that ‘understands’ a certain meaning to a certain part of a treaty or they simply say we agree with all the treaty except...
The problem with opting out is this. And, this applies to many of Ron Paul’s ideas, is it’s very difficult to explain in simple words why it is necessary. I guess you’ve noticed that Ron Paul has difficulties in the debates in conveying parts of his message. I don’t blame him for that because a 30 second segment is not how you explain some of his ideas. The unfortunate part is that unless they can be explained quickly and concisely, they will be demaguaged unmercifully. I supplied an example (‘President Ron Paul has decided that we are going to withdraw from the Hague and Geneva Conventions so he can hire privateers to conduct military operations’) Stuff like that will get you killed in a Presidential Campaign.
Some radical libertarians believe in not even having a state military. Paul doesn’t fall under this, he believes a state military should exist for the national defense. I think if the US was attacked by another nation he would favor full retaliation by the US military.
However, since 9/11 was not precepitated by a state (as far as we know), but by a stateless entity, Paul thought that private rebuttal would be appropriate and that the risk of neverending intervention by the state plus the monetary cost would edge out in the cost benefit ratio.
I also agree on the difficulty in explaining some of these complex and out of mainstream theories, certainly not sound bite stuff, aka the ‘blowback’ concept in one of the debates. This may be why Paul has such devoted followers, even if somewhat small in number, because they find these non politician answers both refreshing and valid.
I'm short on time and eloquence. I must insist that you watch starting with part #2, Judge Andrew Napolitano's speech to the Future of Freedom Foundation in 2007. See Civil Liberties in Wartime.
I do not agree with him 100%, but our perspectives are close enough so that his speech would only duplicate what ever I might write here.
One place I strongly differ with him: in my opinion, the Constitution and the bill of rights, while based on universal principles, and while these liberties should usually apply to all legal residents of the United States of America, should not apply to illegal aliens, nor visitors who can be shown to have misrepresented their intentions in any way. Citizens, on the other hand, deserve every protection available. If you agree, then you'll see why I do not believe our best interests are currently being served, since illegal aliens continue to enter the country in massive waves. If we have to lose our liberties because of them, then that should cause further concern on our part.
I strongly differ with the notion that these abridgments of liberty are confined to foreigners and those who have connections to foreigners. The most certainly are not limited to non-citizens. Whether we here fall under the jurisdiction of these new "interpretations" of the Constitution or not is purely up to the whims of current and future leaders.
Watch the videos to the end. I'll try to check back here in a week or so to see what you've had to say. I'll only be interested in what you might have to say about Judge Napolitano's opinions. Mine aren't as significant as his, as I am far less educated regarding the law than he is.
This line of "reasoning" exposes a severe cognitive deficit. I don't really care what you think, but if Ron Paul follows this same twisted "logic" then I call into question his fitness to serve not only in the oval office but in Congress as well.
This line of "reasoning" exposes a severe cognitive deficit. I don't really care what you think, but if Ron Paul follows this same twisted "logic" then I call into question his fitness to serve not only in the oval office but in Congress as well.
Wow! This guy is even crazier than I thought - and that’s saying something!
The highway argument has made the rounds in wacko lefty circles for years.
I defy your "insistence". Couldn't you just name one "liberty" yourself? I don't have much time either you know. I'm not going to watch a video on the web because you're too lazy to type one extra sentence (which is all it would take, if you really had an example on your mind). One would've figured that since you felt the loss of these liberties so deeply, you'd actually be able to - y'know - say what at least some of them are. Guess not. One is left to conclude that you don't have any tangible examples at all.
<Part one of a two part reply)
I watched it all.
I am short on eloquence myself, so I’ll react in a few pithy statements.
1. WTH is wrong with deporting foreigners without a trial? We (collectively) should be able to kick out anybody we decide we don’t like, for any reason. We have borders ostensibly to keep everybody out unless we let them in; it’s a good start to be able to expel them when we want to without going through a court process.
2. I like that the government listens and watches foreign communications that pass through or go to US equipment or people.
(To be continued; gotta go to work.)
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.