Posted on 10/16/2001 5:25:12 PM PDT by Demidog
That is stupid. I'm not positive that it's constitutional though.
Bingo! Military unitis and intelligence are easily breached..not so a tightly knit ban,that also has plausibly deniability.
My guess is that both answers will be affirmative after enough debate and activism on the issue.
Exactly. The well-financed and trained group you speak of is the U.S. military.
If the cowboys want to go to Iraq or Iran or Libya or Lebanon, then that's where they ought to go. And more power to them.
It already has seen the light of day. Your prediction has already failed.
You seem to be making these mean-spirited statements out of spite. Why are you so angry?
And you just got through saying that Clinton didn't fund them enough. How long will Bush be in his term before he's responsible for CIA failures? This was what? 9 months into his term? Did he do anything in those 9 months to improve the situation?
Er, if you're the one claiming there's a treaty, it's your job to prove to demidog that there is one, not his job to prove to you that there isn't.
So, the Army Rangers who might be tracking and trailing a terrorist hoping that he would lead them to bin Laden wouldn't mind some Reward Rambos dropping in and killing the guy?
It's not a question of fitness or desire. It's a matter of having the best armed forces in the world, provided with classified intel, not being interfered with by very patriotic, but less-informed, people.
It has not.
This legislation will not be voted on, because it will not be taken up.
And I'll bet you $1,000 on that one.
BTW, I'm not angry. I just think your posting this unneeded legislation TWICE on Free Republic is a waste of bandwidth.
There is no support for it in Congress, and Bush wouldn't sign it if it were, through some miracle of God, to reach his desk.
I'm sure you're proud of yourself that you got Paul to introduce this. Maybe it would be better if you wasted your time on stuff like this rather than ridicule the pledge of allegiance, as you've been doing all day.
I didn't see anything in the proposed legislation that said that the mercs had to be American citizens. Did you?
It's possible, and maybe even probable (thanks to Lincoln Lover's post) that it never reached Treaty status and was voted on by the Senate. I simply can't find a lot of evidence on that. Nor can I find much evidence about the signing particulars of the Geneva Convention, which we seem to hold dear.
I think I've shifted the burden through what I've posted. Some here, possibly including you, apparently disagree.
The terrorists have none of this. They can move on the spur of the moment and the military can't. We're not fighting a terror war, we're fighting the gulf war all over again. Bomb them til he pops up. Only, he ain't poppin. And the govt has no clue where he is at and afganis aren't likely to be talking to the mohawked guy hiding in the bush with information either.
Fine, let the military try. But I just don't minds to be closed to the availability of this course of action in case the military fails to flush him out.
Bump for a free enterprise solution.
The first spending bills of President Bush's term were do to be passed THIS month. There wasn't anything he could do to change priorities in the last nine months of the previous budget cycle.
What this legislation does is tell the world that our military sucks, and we need pirates.
Same argument that Maxine Waters uses for every bill she introduces.
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.