Spokesman for Imperialist Wing of the Tea Party Approves of Presidential Death Squads

[skyorbit]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/87366.html

I'm hoping this is something Rand Paul will disagree with Mike Lee on.

[ronaldo23]

Honestly, I hope it's something that he'll agree with Mike Lee on. Individually taking people out is far superior to nation building and a military empire that cost trillions of dollars

[LibertyEagle]

Duplicate thread. AF already posted this. :)

[Brett85]

Rand already said that he approved of the mission, just as 95% of the American people do. Rand isn't a pacifist.

[tsai3904]

I think the problem is whether or not we can conduct military operations in a sovereign country without their permission. What is the limit? Are we going to conduct the same type of raid in a sovereign nation without permission on al qaeda's #2, #3, #4, #5, etc.?

As a hypothetical, suppose UBL was hiding in the border region between Pakistan and China and was technically in China. Would we have conducted the same type of raid without China's permission?

[t0rnado]

Rand already said that he approved of the mission, just as 95% of the American people do. Rand isn't a pacifist.

If Rand supports this then he's not a Constitutionalist.

[Mini-Me]

Honestly, I hope it's something that he'll agree with Mike Lee on. Individually taking people out is far superior to nation building and a military empire that cost trillions of dollars

Yes, it is, but Presidential death squads with no oversight are NOT the way to do it. Letters of Marque and Reprisal are far better. (The ideal solution is for it to be considered acting outside of official capacity, being put on trial for it each and every time, and only being acquitted if the jury believes the action was just.)

[Brett85]

If Rand supports this then he's not a Constitutionalist.

Sure he is. He simply isn't a pacifist like many here. Even Ron hasn't spoken out against killing Bin Laden, and he said he's glad that Bin Laden is dead. Rand believes in having a strong national defense, and he realizes that the war resolution that was passed after 9-11 gave us the right to kill Bin Laden and other Al-Queda members. We finally fulfilled the purpose of the resolution when we killed Bin Laden.

[Brett85]

Yes, it is, but Presidential death squads with no oversight are NOT the way to do it. Letters of Marque and Reprisal are far better. (The ideal solution is for it to be considered acting outside of official capacity, being put on trial for it each and every time, and only being acquitted if the jury believes the action was just.)

So basically our military can have no role at all in defending the United States, and we have to outsource that task to private citizens.

[Mini-Me]

So basically our military can have no role at all in defending the United States, and we have to outsource that task to private citizens.

The way I understand Letters of Marque and Reprisal, they would allow for special forces to do the job, not just private citizens. Even though they aren't my ideal solution (which I put in parentheses - I personally mistrust any a priori institutional immunity for violence), they're a far sight better than completely unchecked Presidential death squads targeting people at their own discretion.

In terms of the military at large, its Constitutional role would be fighting off invading armies/navies/etc. during times of war with another country. This would also include fighting off coordinated state attacks against merchant/passenger ships in international waters. (That said, I personally believe that peacetime standing armies are a horrible idea, because their existence is not only exorbitantly expensive but tempts politicians to find an excuse to use them.)

[Anti Federalist]

Sure he is. He simply isn't a pacifist like many here. Even Ron hasn't spoken out against killing Bin Laden, and he said he's glad that Bin Laden is dead. Rand believes in having a strong national defense, and he realizes that the war resolution that was passed after 9-11 gave us the right to kill Bin Laden and other Al-Queda members. We finally fulfilled the purpose of the resolution when we killed Bin Laden.

Let me ask what I asked in the other thread.

If a team of Russian Spetnaz landed on US soil, raided a private home that had a mix of Russian, US, and other foreign nationals living there, killed everybody and left, without our permission, knowledge or participation, what would our response be?

What should it be?

[Mini-Me]

Let me ask what I asked in the other thread.

If a team of Russian Spetnaz landed on US soil, raided a private home that had a mix of Russian, US, and other foreign nationals living there, killed everybody and left, without our permission, knowledge or participation, what would our response be?

What should it be?

In case he doesn't answer, I will:
Realistically speaking, I don't think the US would go to war with Russia immediately; there would be a lot of diplomatic tension first, possibly leading up to war. If it were not Russia but some third world country without nukes, we'd almost certainly invade.

Personally, I think it would be a good idea to issue [revocable] Letters of Marque and Reprisal against specific Russian leaders involved. It would demonstrate "mild displeasure" with their personal arrogance without threatening the lives of our or their armies of 18-year-old kids. ;)

[Brett85]

The way I understand Letters of Marque and Reprisal, they would allow for special forces to do the job, not just private citizens. Even though they aren't my ideal solution (which I put in parentheses - I personally mistrust any a priori institutional immunity for violence), they're a far sight better than completely unchecked Presidential death squads targeting people at their own discretion.

In terms of the military at large, its Constitutional role would be fighting off invading armies/navies/etc. during times of war with another country. This would also include fighting off coordinated state attacks against merchant/passenger ships in international waters. (That said, I personally believe that peacetime standing armies are a horrible idea, because their existence is not only exorbitantly expensive but tempts politicians to find an excuse to use them.)

I didn't realize Letters of Marque and Reprisal applied to the armed forces as well. I'll have to look into it more.

[Brett85]

Let me ask what I asked in the other thread.

If a team of Russian Spetnaz landed on US soil, raided a private home that had a mix of Russian, US, and other foreign nationals living there, killed everybody and left, without our permission, knowledge or participation, what would our response be?

What should it be?

Your analogy might be more apt if an American citizen had been responsible for murdering over 3,000 Russian citizens on a single day.

[Mini-Me]

I didn't realize Letters of Marque and Reprisal applied to the armed forces as well. I'll have to look into it more.

I think it's important to note that if the President does not have Constitutional authority to direct special forces in the presence of Letters of Marque and Reprisal, he would similarly lack such authority in their absence. Either way, Seal teams operating under the authority of the Letters would be preferable to unchecked Seal teams operating at the President's sole discretion. Anyone who argues in favor of unilateral Presidential action should have no problem interpreting Letters of Marque and Reprisal loosely, and the same would go for anyone arguing that a Congressional "authorization of force" is just as good as a declaration of war. ;)

Very strict Constitutionalists might argue that sending in any special forces at all is still unconstitutional without a declaration of war (even with Letters of Marque and Reprisal). If that is the case, I would support amending the Constitution to officially strengthen Letters of Marque and Reprisal, because they provide a better alternative to carte blanche or war, both declared and undeclared. In the meantime, strict Constitutionalists aren't in charge anyway, and I'd much prefer a government with checks and balances to a government without them.

[Whildman]

Hmmm, anyone know or want to surmise how many Iraqi civilians were killed during the initial days of the invasion?

[Anti Federalist]

Your analogy might be more apt if an American citizen had been responsible for murdering over 3,000 Russian citizens on a single day.

Let's assume that was the case (I don't of course, being a "truther) but let's just assume that was the case.

[Galileo Galilei]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/87366.html

I'm hoping this is something Rand Paul will disagree with Mike Lee on.

Lee already voted against the Patriot Act and to end the war upon Libya. What Lee said here is just rhetoric, it is not a vote.

[steph3n]

Lew rockwell is one of the most divisive figures due to exactly these type of asinine statements.

sure he has the freedom to speak his mind, but obviously lacks the wisdom to know when to speak it.

[AuH20]

Lew rockwell is one of the most divisive figures due to exactly these type of asinine statements.

sure he has the freedom to speak his mind, but obviously lacks the wisdom to know when to speak it.

Lew likes to incite trouble if you haven't noticed. I like him nevertheless.

[steph3n]

Lew likes to incite trouble if you haven't noticed. I like him nevertheless.

I like him, he's just like a steel wool pad, but he doesn't seem to get rusty on the attacks.

[ronaldo23]

Let's assume that was the case (I don't of course, being a "truther) but let's just assume that was the case.

so you think bin laden was just taking credit for the attacks for the lulz?

[ronaldo23]

Lew rockwell is one of the most divisive figures due to exactly these type of asinine statements.

sure he has the freedom to speak his mind, but obviously lacks the wisdom to know when to speak it.

the more I read rockwell's hyperbole, the less I believe him that he didn't write Ron's newsletters

[steph3n]

the more I read rockwell's hyperbole, the less I believe him that he didn't write Ron's newsletters

Agree fully, I am 99% sure Lew wrote those newsletters and not man enough to admit it. He'd rather Ron be skewered than his own name 'tarnished' but he's doing a fine job of that himself.

[jmdrake]

Your analogy might be more apt if an American citizen had been responsible for murdering over 3,000 Russian citizens on a single day.

Let's say it was someone who blew up a Cuban plane and killed 73 people on board and bragged about it and was initially given asylum, but now thanks to international pressure is being given a show trial that will at most end up with a slap on the wrist?

See: http://www.thenation.com/article/157510/former-cia-asset-luis-posada-goes-trial

[jmdrake]

so you think bin laden was just taking credit for the attacks for the lulz?

Actually OBL never took credit for the attacks. And if you've been listening to Ron Paul lately you'll notice that he always says OBL was "happy" about the attacks. Since OBL's "death" I've never heard Ron Paul say OBL planned or took responsibility for the attacks.

[ronaldo23]

Actually OBL never took credit for the attacks. And if you've been listening to Ron Paul lately you'll notice that he always says OBL was "happy" about the attacks. Since OBL's "death" I've never heard Ron Paul say OBL planned or took responsibility for the attacks.

the December 3, 2001 tape (which can be found on youtube), Osama Bin Laden took full credit for the attacks, and here is the transcript. I suppose the conspiracy theory is that the person in the tapes isn't really bin laden, or that the audio was fabricated, but that seems pretty far fetched to me...but I suppose that is up to the individual to decide for himself what they choose to believe. Plus, I don't buy that the subtitles are wrong, as surely someone who speaks the language would have objected when the DoD published it publicly, if they were using a false translation.

And even if the US was lying about what Bin Laden said/fabricated audio (which I don't believe), why wouldn't Bin Laden just make additional tapes to give to Al Jazeera or Pakistani muslim stations post 2001 that would specifically deny his involvement in 9/11. He would be the first to want to expose the US government for making up lies about him. Or does the conspiracy go even further up, that Bin Laden has really been dead for the whole decade and this is some other clown in the tapes?

Also, there is absolutely zero evidence that Ron believes OBL may not have been responsible for the attack. Why would he go out of his way to say OBL caused 9/11? That's just common knowledge that goes unstated by most people, which Ron doesn't feel the need to reiterate.


http://www.defense.gov/news/Dec2001/d20011213ubl.pdf

[Galileo Galilei]

the December 3, 2001 tape (which can be found on youtube), Osama Bin Laden took full credit for the attacks, and here is the transcript. I suppose the conspiracy theory is that the person in the tapes isn't really bin laden, or that the audio was fabricated, but that seems pretty far fetched to me...but I suppose that is up to the individual to decide for himself what they choose to believe. Plus, I don't buy that the subtitles are wrong, as surely someone who speaks the language would have objected when the DoD published it publicly, if they were using a false translation.

Also, there is absolutely zero evidence that Ron believes OBL may not have been responsible for the attack. Why would he go out of his way to say OBL caused 9/11? That's just common knowledge that goes unstated by most people, which Ron doesn't feel the need to reiterate.


http://www.defense.gov/news/Dec2001/d20011213ubl.pdf

The translation is not accurate, it was done by the Pentagon. A friend of mine who translates says the tape makes no admission, someone merely talked about an event they saw on TV. This is consistent with the fact that bin Laden issued 3 official press releases condemning the attacks. A real terrorist would not do that.

[jmdrake]

The translation is not accurate, it was done by the Pentagon. A friend of mine who translates says the tape makes no admission, someone merely talked about an event they saw on TV. This is consistent with the fact that bin Laden issued 3 official press releases condemning the attacks. A real terrorist would not do that.

^This. OBL never admitted it. That's why the FBI never put 9/11 on his wanted poster. But people love believing in fairy tales.