Would a libertarian leader have stuck with closing Gitmo and the hunt for Bi

[tangent4ronpaul]

Bin Laden?

Nightly Scoreboard hit piece - on now - FOX Business

[virgil47]

Bin Laden?

Nightly Scoreboard hit piece - on now - FOX Business

I'm afraid that gitmo would be closed and all of the terrorists released. Osama would be alive and well and laughing his ass off.

[JohnGalt1225]

I'm afraid that gitmo would be closed and all of the terrorists released. Osama would be alive and well and laughing his ass off.
Or dead many years ago which is a legitimate possibility. Either way, we've spent trillions of dollars, had our civil liberties stripped, lost thousands of servicemembers, and killed thousands of innocent civilians. For what? Ask yourself that. Are we really safer now? Has it all been worth it?

[jmdrake]

A lot hinges on how Ron Paul frames his statements on this. I sincerely hope he stresses his letters of marquee and reprisal plan from 2001 and not "blowback".

[Legend1104]

I'm afraid that gitmo would be closed and all of the terrorists released. Osama would be alive and well and laughing his ass off.

I hope your being funny. Closing gitmo does not equal releasing them all. They would all be put on trial, the innocent people would be freed, and the guilty would be jailed/executed.

[Dr.3D]

A lot hinges on how Ron Paul frames his statements on this. I sincerely hope he stresses his letters of marquee and reprisal plan from 2001 and not "blowback".

LOL, wasn't there a movie called "Blowback Mountain"?

Edit: Darn, you edited your post just as I posted this.

[virgil47]

I hope your being funny. Closing gitmo does not equal releasing them all. They would all be put on trial, the innocent people would be freed, and the guilty would be jailed/executed.

Tried? Really? Where? By whom? How would the supposedly innocent be divined?

[BrendenR]

Tried? Really? Where? By whom? How would the supposedly innocent be divined?

Right. We shouldn't need to try anyone. If we happen to throw taxi cab drivers into military prisons and subject them to torture, it's all in the name of freedom baby!

[virgil47]

Or dead many years ago which is a legitimate possibility. Either way, we've spent trillions of dollars, had our civil liberties stripped, lost thousands of servicemembers, and killed thousands of innocent civilians. For what? Ask yourself that. Are we really safer now? Has it all been worth it?

No you ask yourself! If we were not involved would there have been more and larger attacks against the U.S.? Would car bombings have become the norm here in the U.S. Is saving money worth the deaths of Americans? Our civil liberties have been stripped because our society does not have the balls to stand up for itself and most likely would have happened anyway. As far as the deaths of service members they are fully aware of the risks when they voluntarily join. The civilian deaths you bemoan are the results of war. If these same civilians did not support and actually opposed the terrorist factions the terrorism would stop very quickly. So you please explain and prove to me that we are not really safer now!

[Jay Tea]

I'm afraid that gitmo would be closed and all of the terrorists released. Osama would be alive and well and laughing his ass off.

There are probably a few options that fall in between closing Gitmo (or, really, just putting an end to torture) and throwing all the cell doors open while shouting, "Everybody out!" :p

And a libertarian president would have no problem fighting an unconventional, asymmetrical war against an unconventional, asymmetrical enemy, which sounds a whole lot better than trying two conventional, symmetrical wars against that enemy.

[Jay Tea]

Tried? Really? Where? By whom? How would the supposedly innocent be divined?

...the same way we "divine" how anyone else is innocent? Through things like evidence?

[sratiug]

No you ask yourself! If we were not involved would there have been more and larger attacks against the U.S.? Would car bombings have become the norm here in the U.S. Is saving money worth the deaths of Americans? Our civil liberties have been stripped because our society does not have the balls to stand up for itself and most likely would have happened anyway. As far as the deaths of service members they are fully aware of the risks when they voluntarily join. The civilian deaths you bemoan are the results of war. If these same civilians did not support and actually opposed the terrorist factions the terrorism would stop very quickly. So you please explain and prove to me that we are not really safer now!

Pakistan has nukes, [Mod : guys play nice ]

[virgil47]

There are probably a few options that fall in between closing Gitmo (or, really, just putting an end to torture) and throwing all the cell doors open while shouting, "Everybody out!" :p

And a libertarian president would have no problem fighting an unconventional, asymmetrical war against an unconventional, asymmetrical enemy, which sounds a whole lot better than trying two conventional, symmetrical wars against that enemy.

Perhaps that would be true then again perhaps it would not be true. It is my understanding that Letters of Marque have been outlawed by international treaty.

[jmdrake]

LOL, wasn't there a movie called "Blowback Mountain"?

Edit: Darn, you edited your post just as I posted this.

LOL. Since I took that out because on second thought I figured it was too controversial. But yea, "blowback" sounds gay. (No offense to gays). Ron Paul can be as right on this as the fact that 2 + 2 = 4. But he's got to go with something that connects with people on an emotional level. Saying "Ask Osama Bin Laden why he attacked us" just didn't for most people. Yeah I know, we crow and pat ourselves on the back about how he "told off" Rudy Giuliani. But that moment, more than any other, most likely cost him the nomination in 2008. The average "joe 6 pack" just isn't tuned in enough to get it. Another good thing Ron Paul could have said is "I'm not blaming America. I'm blaming the foreign policy of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Carter for creating Afghanistan jihadism and Clinton for actively funding them in Kosovo long after the cold war excuse was done. Do you support Carter and Clinton's gaffs?"

[virgil47]

Pakistan has nukes, dumbass.

Your point ignorant one?

[SimpleName]

Yes, PLEASE RON! Do not answer a question about this matter with "blowback". We do not need to lose all conservative support on one response.

[jmdrake]

Your point ignorant one?

Probably that if Pakistan is even more destabilized by this then we're not really "safer".

Anyway, I assumed you were joking initially, but I see you're serious. I could give a LPC (libertarian politically correct) Ron Paul 2008 answer. But I think this could be a teachable moment for others. If you're not sold on that even after 1,072 posts, it's likely the general GOP voter isn't sold either. It's time to at least repackage the message. How about this. Do you really think that our funding Al Qaeda linked militants in Lybia is making us safer? Do you think that a shiite Islamic republic in Iraq that is aligned with Iran makes us safer? Also do you think that focusing on capturing OBL back in 2001 through Ron's plan that involved the same kind of paramilitary action that (supposedly) took down OBL yesterday somehow would have made us less safe? I'm seriously interested in your answer. We have to focus group our message with people that don't agree with the LPC party line if we are going to change minds.

[JohnGalt1225]

No you ask yourself! If we were not involved would there have been more and larger attacks against the U.S.? Would car bombings have become the norm here in the U.S. Is saving money worth the deaths of Americans? Our civil liberties have been stripped because our society does not have the balls to stand up for itself and most likely would have happened anyway. As far as the deaths of service members they are fully aware of the risks when they voluntarily join. The civilian deaths you bemoan are the results of war. If these same civilians did not support and actually opposed the terrorist factions the terrorism would stop very quickly. So you please explain and prove to me that we are not really safer now!

All right let me ask myself...okay I'm done. No, we wouldn't have daily car bombings widespread terror. Stop listening to Sean Hannity, turn off Fox News and actually think about the reason 9/11 happened. 9/11 happened due in large part to our meddling in world affairs and telling everyone else what to do with their national affairs. So your answer to all of this is to redouble our meddling and increase our role as world police?

Yeah, 9/11 was blowback. We should have paused, evaluated our choices and foreign policy and took a new course of action in foreign policy, you know what that old crazy bastard Thomas Jefferson said, "Peace, commerce and friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Yeah we had to go track down the bastards who committed 9/11 but I think we can both agree that there are smarter courses of action to take than invading Iraq and nation building in Afghanistan.

[trey4sports]

No you ask yourself! If we were not involved would there have been more and larger attacks against the U.S.? Would car bombings have become the norm here in the U.S. Is saving money worth the deaths of Americans? Our civil liberties have been stripped because our society does not have the balls to stand up for itself and most likely would have happened anyway. As far as the deaths of service members they are fully aware of the risks when they voluntarily join. The civilian deaths you bemoan are the results of war. If these same civilians did not support and actually opposed the terrorist factions the terrorism would stop very quickly. So you please explain and prove to me that we are not really safer now!

uhmmm, why are you here, and how did you get 1k posts at RPF?

[virgil47]

All right let me ask myself...okay I'm done. No, we wouldn't have daily car bombings widespread terror. Stop listening to Sean Hannity, turn off Fox News and actually think about the reason 9/11 happened. 9/11 happened due in large part to our meddling in world affairs and telling everyone else what to do with their national affairs. So your answer to all of this is to redouble our meddling and increase our role as world police?

Yeah, 9/11 was blowback. We should have paused, evaluated our choices and foreign policy and took a new course of action in foreign policy, you know what that old crazy bastard Thomas Jefferson said, "Peace, commerce and friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Yeah we had to go track down the bastards who committed 9/11 but I think we can both agree that there are smarter courses of action to take than invading Iraq and nation building in Afghanistan.

I am so glad that you are able to make such definitive statements and I do not watch or listen to that Hannity guy. Do you really believe that the confrontation we are now having with the practitioners of Islam is all about blow back? Maybe you think it is about oil? The Jefferson quote is a nice touch however I believe he had a different response to the Barbary pirates.

[virgil47]

Probably that if Pakistan is even more destabilized by this then we're not really "safer".

Anyway, I assumed you were joking initially, but I see you're serious. I could give a LPC (libertarian politically correct) Ron Paul 2008 answer. But I think this could be a teachable moment for others. If you're not sold on that even after 1,072 posts, it's likely the general GOP voter isn't sold either. It's time to at least repackage the message. How about this. Do you really think that our funding Al Qaeda linked militants in Lybia is making us safer? Do you think that a shiite Islamic republic in Iraq that is aligned with Iran makes us safer? Also do you think that focusing on capturing OBL back in 2001 through Ron's plan that involved the same kind of paramilitary action that (supposedly) took down OBL yesterday somehow would have made us less safe? I'm seriously interested in your answer. We have to focus group our message with people that don't agree with the LPC party line if we are going to change minds.

I think our involvement in Lybia is foolish and unnecessary. Iran has been a problem for years. As far as Iraq goes we should have captured/killed Saddam and then left immediately. Ron's idea of paramilitary action was portrayed as involving Letters of Marque which it is my understanding have been outlawed by international treaty. You of course are not suggesting that a small American force could locate and kill Osama without substantial intel are you?

[Brett85]

Or dead many years ago which is a legitimate possibility. Either way, we've spent trillions of dollars, had our civil liberties stripped, lost thousands of servicemembers, and killed thousands of innocent civilians. For what? Ask yourself that. Are we really safer now? Has it all been worth it?

There's a middle ground between doing nothing at all in response to the 9-11 attacks, which seems to be what many people here advocate, and spending trillions of dollars on foreign occupations and nation building projects. We face an unconventional enemy, and having conventional land wars won't cause any harm to them and will simply bankrupt us. Rather than invade individual countries and occupy them, a much better strategy is to target and take out individual terrorists with special operation forces like we did in the Bin Laden situation.

[jmdrake]

I think our involvement in Lybia is foolish and unnecessary. Iran has been a problem for years. As far as Iraq goes we should have captured/killed Saddam and then left immediately. Ron's idea of paramilitary action was portrayed as involving Letters of Marque which it is my understanding have been outlawed by international treaty. You of course are not suggesting that a small American force could locate and kill Osama without substantial intel are you?

I took foreign affairs law last semester and I'm 100% certain that letters of marque have not been outlawed. Besides, treaties cannot (legally) usurp constitutional power. (Not that the NWO scum haven't tried that).

Capturing and killing Saddam? Why? That only resulted in the death and/or displacement of 700,000 Iraqi Christians. Do you not care about the plight of Iraqi Christians? Saddam was not a threat. He had no WMD stockpiles (even Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld admit that). He had no connection to 9/11 (even Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld admit that too).

Lastly, you are not suggesting that the war in Iraq was necessary to get intel on Osama Bin Laden are you? For that matter the war in Afghanistan wasn't necessary to locate OBL. CNN correspondent Peter Bergen located and interviewed OBL prior to 9/11. But that was after OBL was on the FBI's most wanted list. It has been well documented that on more than one occasion prior to 9/11 the U.S. had OBL in its sights, but chose not to deal with him for various and sundry reasons. After 9/11 we had OBL cornered in Tora Bora. CIA operative Gary Bernstein asked for 6 to 8 hundred army rangers to cut off Al Qaeda's escape. The request was denied.

See: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5162925

Before that, the Bush administration purposefully delayed the attack on Afghanistan long enough to let Pakistan pull out its troops that were fighting WITH the Taliban.

See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340165/ns/world_news-brave_new_world/

Now remember, Ron Paul voted for the initial AUMF. He was okay with a limited U.S. attack on Afghanistan with the sole purpose of capturing or killing OBL. But instead Bush gave us a general attack on Afghanistan, designed to topple the Taliban, that was specifically hamstrung from capturing or killing OBL. So a Ron Paul presidency in 2001 would have meant the Afghan war would have ended sooner and more likely with OBL's capture along with the rest of the core of AQ, and there would have been no diversion into Iraq. Further Ron Paul would have been more reasonable to the Taliban and allowed them to turn over OBL to the Hague or some other third party as a face saving gesture. (The Taliban did offer that).

Edit: Oh, and are you aware of the fact that Iran helped us drive out the Taliban[1], offered to cooperate with us against Al Qaeda[2] and offered Bush a "grand bargain"[3] where they would have agreed to even give up nuclear program peaceful or otherwise just to get guarantees that we wouldn't attack? They were basically asking for the deal that Qadaffi initially got. Of course with us stabbing Qadaffi in the back, and siding with Al Qaeda against Qadaffi, no leader in their right mind will deal with us.

[1] See: http://www.afghanistannewscenter.com/news/2001/march/mar19f2001.html
India joins anti-Taliban coalition
By Rahul Bedi - Jane's - Intelligence Review 15 March 2001

India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime.


[2]See: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1913323,00.html

[3]See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/themes/grandbargain.html

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

nt

[TNforPaul45]

The future of our country depends on Ron Pauls performance on thursday night. Its really that serious now.

Both dems and repubs have been on tv building uip the war drums for pakistan. We keep hearing aboug rogue nukes in the us that al qeada are going to detonate. The war mongering superstate has saved face. The millitary worship has hit a peak.

I have a bad feeling that there will be no logic in place on thhursday night, only a big millitary state worship pep rally. Ron Paul's functioning brain is going to stick out to the like a sore thumb.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Perhaps that would be true then again perhaps it would not be true. It is my understanding that Letters of Marque have been outlawed by international treaty.

We never signed that treaty. The US has full authority to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal. The question is a non-sequitor in the first place...if we had a libertarian country we would have never initiated the aggression which lead to their response. I'm tired of the statist absurdities I encounter daily. Now, if a libertarian has to clean up the mess of the Statist, the answer is again quite clear. Leave and come home.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I am so glad that you are able to make such definitive statements and I do not watch or listen to that Hannity guy. Do you really believe that the confrontation we are now having with the practitioners of Islam is all about blow back? Maybe you think it is about oil? The Jefferson quote is a nice touch however I believe he had a different response to the Barbary pirates.

Jefferson signed Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Two marines and a handful of contracted mercenaries ended the Barbary Pirate problem. One does not send 100,000 men to go after a few thousand. If you want to support US socialism abroad through State-Nation building -- be my guest, but you should know that you are hypocritical at the core if you do not then advocate for socialism and Nation-Building domestically.

[virgil47]

Jefferson signed Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Two marines and a handful of contracted mercenaries ended the Barbary Pirate problem. One does not send 100,000 men to go after a few thousand. If you want to support US socialism abroad through State-Nation building -- be my guest, but you should know that you are hypocritical at the core if you do not then advocate for socialism and Nation-Building domestically.

You are so full of yourself! Letters of mark are banned by international treaty so either the military does the job or it doesn't get done. I guess you would be for the latter.

[low preference guy]

You are so full of yourself! Letters of mark are banned by international treaty so either the military does the job or it doesn't get done. I guess you would be for the latter.

who gives a fuck about international treaties? they don't supersede the constitution. if the constitution says congress has the authority to do it, congress does have that authority.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You are so full of yourself! Letters of mark are banned by international treaty so either the military does the job or it doesn't get done. I guess you would be for the latter.

As I said, the US has never signed a treaty which banned Letters of Marque and Reprisal...., and if I am not mistaken, treaties cannot usurp Constitutional powers and protections. Just like Senators and Congressman cannot legally violate the First Amendment, they cannot also, legally violate it by signing Treaties trying to 'over-ride' the First Amendment / Bill of Rights. Then again, might makes right to DC, so legality, natural rights, or anything else doesn't matter to them.

[jmdrake]

You are so full of yourself! Letters of mark are banned by international treaty so either the military does the job or it doesn't get done. I guess you would be for the latter.

Please name the treaty in question, or admit you're just making this up.

[jmdrake]

As I said, the US has never signed a treaty which banned Letters of Marque and Reprisal...., and if I am not mistaken, treaties cannot usurp Constitutional powers and protections. Just like Senators and Congressman cannot legally violate the First Amendment, they cannot also, legally violate it by signing Treaties trying to 'over-ride' the First Amendment / Bill of Rights. Then again, might makes right to DC, so legality, natural rights, or anything else doesn't matter to them.

You're right on both counts. Treaties that violate the constitution are void on their face. Furthermore the SCt will interpret treaties as to avoid constitutional conflicts.

[BrendenR]

I am so glad that you are able to make such definitive statements and I do not watch or listen to that Hannity guy. Do you really believe that the confrontation we are now having with the practitioners of Islam is all about blow back?

Yes, it is blowback. The terrorists themselves tell us WHY they are attacking us. It's not because we like to buy oil.

[pcosmar]

You are so full of yourself! Letters of mark are banned by international treaty so either the military does the job or it doesn't get done. I guess you would be for the latter.

I studied the laws concerning Letters of Marque in the 80s and they were fully in effect, though the law had not been used.
I never heard of any mention again till Ron Paul suggested it as an alternative.

It is valid law and still in effect, whether it is used or not.
I find that most people discussing them have absolutely no concept of their meaning nor implementation.