Utah Sen. Mike Lee approves of UBL raid

[Anti Federalist]

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

Posted by William Grigg on May 4, 2011 10:32 AM

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

Utah Republican Senator Mike Lee, co-founder of the Senate Tea Party Caucus, told reporters that “the United States was right to go into Pakistan without the country’s approval to find Osama bin Laden and that otherwise the al-Qaida leader may have escaped,” reports the Salt Lake Tribune.

“I’m glad that it was unauthorized and unilateral because if we had gone through the step of trying to get permission [from Pakistan], I strongly suspect that we would have lost the opportunity to take him out,” Lee said in a conference call following a meeting with military officials. In other words: If “we” hadn’t been willing to commit an act of criminal aggression against Pakistan, Dick Cheney’s proprietary death squad (sometimes referred to as Seal Team 6) wouldn’t have been able to murder an unarmed criminal suspect after he was in custody.

Such is the logic of Empire — and Lee apparently considers it his role to tutor Tea Party activists in such matters, lest their growing discontent with the Obama administration mature into principled opposition to the Regime and its apparatus of mass murder.

The son of former U.S. Solicitor General Rex E. Lee, Senator Mike Lee has served as general counsel to former Utah Governor (and aspiring Republican presidential candidate) Jon Huntsman, Jr., and been a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. He is a darling of the Federalist Society, which served as an incubator for the Bush administration’s fascist policy prescriptions concerning presidential “war powers.”

Like many Republicans who fetishize “the text and history of the Constitution,” Lee subscribes to the maxim inter arma, silent leges — in time of war, the laws fall silent. He has repeatedly called for putting the axe to the root of the Welfare State, while allowing the Warfare State to continue to grow unabated.

[anaconda]

BIG FAIL = MIKE LEE

Strike one, Mike. Three strikes and you're out.

[Zatch]

I'm confused. Didn't the authorization for use of force against the 9/11 terrorists allow the killing of Bin Laden? Also, it sounds like Ron Paul supports it: "A Narrow Targeted Mission, Under These Circumstances, Is Far Superior to Initiating Wars Against Countries Not Involved In The 9/11 Attacks."



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCg8HutBqYU

[Captain America]

I don't like that they assassinated OBL but we need to take out people like this, we should do it with co-ops, no invasion. Another way would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque

[Anti Federalist]

I'm confused. Didn't the authorization for use of force against the 9/11 terrorists allow the killing of Bin Laden? Also, it sounds like Ron Paul supports it: "A Narrow Targeted Mission, Under These Circumstances, Is Far Superior to Initiating Wars Against Countries Not Involved In The 9/11 Attacks."

I think the question falls to what authorization did we have, or is there no authorization needed, to send in a hit squad into an non combatant country, in this case Pakistan.

[tpreitzel]

Personally, I only approve of a congressional Declaration of War. I suspect if a country was harboring a criminal that they'd throw the criminal's head over the border if they knew 100% that they'd be decimated in the process. Target countries (harboring individuals), not individuals.

[Brett85]

I'm glad that Mike Lee supports a policy of targeting individual terrorists rather than nation building in Afghanistan. Mike should have his own sub forum here.

[Brett85]

By their standards Rand is also on the "Imperialist Wing of the Tea Party."

[Maximilian American]

OBL should have been indited on Sept.12 2001 with evidence and charges of a crime in relation to the Sept.11th 2001 events, and then an immediate Marque and Reprisal should have been issues by the congress. If the country he was in was harboring him and not allowing us entry into their country or expedition of OBL based on our evidence and congressional issue of Marque and Reprisal then a congressional Declaration of War on that country would be justified in legality. Am I right or am I wrong?

[belian78]

OBL should have been indited on Sept.12 2001 with evidence and charges of a crime in relation to the Sept.11th 2001 events, and then an immediate Marque and Reprisal should have been issues by the congress. If the country he was in was harboring him and not allowing us entry into their country or expedition of OBL based on our evidence and congressional issue of Marque and Reprisal then a congressional Declaration of War on that country would be justified in legality. Am I right or am I wrong?

I'm no constitutional lawyer, but that sounds a hell of a lot more sensible and just than what actually happened.

[freshjiva]

I don't know. This is where you and I, AF, part ways. Lew Rockwell has somewhat of a terrible tendency to speak in extreme hyperbole, and this hit piece is pure evidence of that.

Nothing but respect for you, AF. I consider you my brother I never personally met, but I don't really care about international laws of sovereignty when it comes to an actionable opportunity to bring a man who murdered 3,000 people to justice.

That being said, I don't want the President or any other authority having the power to unilaterally authorize assassination. My views are more in line with Judge Napolitano's, where he should've been captured alive and been given due process. But the whole argument that the operation in Pakistan was an "act of aggression" is ridiculous.

Also, if we're going to assign guilt to Mike Lee by association with the Federalist Society, which apparently is an "incubator for the Bush administration’s fascist policy prescriptions concerning presidential “war powers,” we might as well condemn Ron Paul to hell for being associated with the John Birch Society which has members who have links to racist organizations. Don't forget his "racist newsletters" too.

[pcosmar]

Actually the Judge laid it out very clearly.
There are three ways killing is justified.
In self defense directly.
In the course of a declared war and against combatants in that war.
and as a judgement for crimes after a trial and due process.

None of those three apply in this case.

[tpreitzel]

Actually the Judge laid it out very clearly.
There are three ways killing is justified.
In self defense directly.
In the course of a declared war and against combatants in that war.
and as a judgement for crimes after a trial and due process.

None of those three apply in this case.

I agree with the Judge in this case. If I get time, there are some good common sense reasons for this approach as well as being strictly constitutional.

[TIMB0B]

In other words: If “we” hadn’t been willing to commit an act of criminal aggression against Pakistan, Dick Cheney’s proprietary death squad (sometimes referred to as Seal Team 6) wouldn’t have been able to murder an unarmed criminal suspect after he was in custody.


Lew is putting words into Lee's mouth. He's assuming he's for death squads, but how do we know he wasn't just approving of the raid? Unfortunately, Lee couldn't say "capture" because they killed OBL, but I'd imagine his stance has more to do with the "Marque and Reprisal" proposal than assassinations.

[Anti Federalist]

Just to keep things straight, it's not a piece by Lew Rockwell, but by Will Grigg, posted on Lew's site.


I don't know. This is where you and I, AF, part ways. Lew Rockwell has somewhat of a terrible tendency to speak in extreme hyperbole, and this hit piece is pure evidence of that.

Nothing but respect for you, AF. I consider you my brother I never personally met, but I don't really care about international laws of sovereignty when it comes to an actionable opportunity to bring a man who murdered 3,000 people to justice.

That being said, I don't want the President or any other authority having the power to unilaterally authorize assassination. My views are more in line with Judge Napolitano's, where he should've been captured alive and been given due process. But the whole argument that the operation in Pakistan was an "act of aggression" is ridiculous.

Also, if we're going to assign guilt to Mike Lee by association with the Federalist Society, which apparently is an "incubator for the Bush administration’s fascist policy prescriptions concerning presidential “war powers,” we might as well condemn Ron Paul to hell for being associated with the John Birch Society which has members who have links to racist organizations. Don't forget his "racist newsletters" too.


Lew is putting words into Lee's mouth. He's assuming he's for death squads, but how do we know he wasn't just approving of the raid? Unfortunately, Lee couldn't say "capture" because they killed OBL, but I'd imagine his stance has more to do with the "Marque and Reprisal" proposal than assassinations.

[Anti Federalist]

FJ, let me ask this:


But the whole argument that the operation in Pakistan was an "act of aggression" is ridiculous.

If a spec ops team from Russia landed helicopters in the yard of somebody here in the US, that was charged with crimes in Russia, and killed everybody and left, what would our response be?

[The Dark Knight]

Rand appoved of it too, and so did I. That is, if it really happened which I have doubts.

[TIMB0B]

FJ, let me ask this:



If a spec ops team from Russia landed helicopters in the yard of somebody here in the US, that was charged with crimes in Russia, and killed everybody and left, what would our response be?
So are you saying you would have been okay with harboring the person who committed crimes in Russia?


Let me say this, though. I approved of the raid, but I wanted OBL alive. I'm not in favor of "death squads."

[Endgame]

When this news was released other day, the way the cattle were reacting to it was downright disturbing to me. Very fascist. The fact that the government isn't remotely close to telling us the truth about how this went down is also disturbing, but entirely expected.

At the same time, some of the pacifist responses I'm seeing here are equally disturbing. If China was staging an amphibious invasion of the west coast, some of you would still bitch about the military for trying to fight them off.

Occupying Iraq and Afganistan for a decade was bullshit. This however, is a proper use of the military as far as I can tell.

[AuH20]

When this news was released other day, the way the cattle were reacting to it was downright disturbing to me. Very fascist. The fact that the government isn't remotely close to telling us the truth about how this went down is also disturbing, but entirely expected.

At the same time, some of the pacifist responses I'm seeing here are equally disturbing. If China was staging an amphibious invasion of the west coast, some of you would still bitch about the military for trying to fight them off.

Occupying Iraq and Afganistan for a decade was bullshit. This however, is a proper use of the military as far as I can tell.

+1776. There is a use for the military.

[pcosmar]

So are you saying you would have been in favor of the person who committed crimes in Russia?


Let me say this, though. I approved of the raid, but I wanted OBL alive. I'm not in favor of "death squads."
That is what extradition is for.
The Afghan government (Taliban) offered to do so on presentation of evidence.
Pakistan is an ally. He could have been extradited if he was there.

And no, I don't believe any of this cock and bull story.

[Brett85]

Occupying Iraq and Afganistan for a decade was bullshit. This however, is a proper use of the military as far as I can tell.

+Rep.

[Brett85]

http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/rep-ron-paul-on-bin-laden-im-delighted/

Texas Rep. Ron Paul said Tuesday that he was delighted to hear of the death of Osama bin Laden.

[Marenco]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi7l_ezTVTg

[anaconda]

OBL should have been indited on Sept.12 2001 with evidence and charges of a crime in relation to the Sept.11th 2001 events, and then an immediate Marque and Reprisal should have been issues by the congress. If the country he was in was harboring him and not allowing us entry into their country or expedition of OBL based on our evidence and congressional issue of Marque and Reprisal then a congressional Declaration of War on that country would be justified in legality. Am I right or am I wrong?

What evidence? Just curious.

[freshjiva]

FJ, let me ask this:

If a spec ops team from Russia landed helicopters in the yard of somebody here in the US, that was charged with crimes in Russia, and killed everybody and left, what would our response be?

No authority should ever have the power to unilaterally authorize the assassination of anyone. I'm with you on that. But to authorize an invasion of a country specifically for the purposes of capturing an indicted criminal is perfectly in accordance with Constitutional law.


When this news was released other day, the way the cattle were reacting to it was downright disturbing to me. Very fascist. The fact that the government isn't remotely close to telling us the truth about how this went down is also disturbing, but entirely expected.

At the same time, some of the pacifist responses I'm seeing here are equally disturbing. If China was staging an amphibious invasion of the west coast, some of you would still bitch about the military for trying to fight them off.

Occupying Iraq and Afganistan for a decade was bullshit. This however, is a proper use of the military as far as I can tell.

+1. Agreed 100%.

[Brian4Liberty]

This seems to be the legal due process:


A "letter of marque and reprisal" would involve permission to cross an international border to effect a reprisal (take some action against an attack or injury) authorized by an issuing jurisdiction to conduct reprisal operations outside its borders.
...
after ratification of the Constitution, Congress authorized and the President signed Letters of Marque...
...
The issue of marque and reprisal was raised before Congress after the September 11 attacks[30] and again on July 21, 2007, by Congressman Ron Paul. The attacks were defined as acts of "air piracy" and the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 was introduced, which would have granted the president the authority to use letters of marque and reprisal against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state. The terrorists were compared to pirates in that they are difficult to fight by traditional military means.[31] Congressman Paul also advocated the use of letters of marque to address the issue of Somali pirates operating in the Gulf of Aden on April 15, 2009. However, the bills Congressman Paul introduced were not enacted into law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque

[pcosmar]

RE: Letters of Marque and Reprisal

For someone to be granted letters, they would have to show a direct loss of property or direct injury by the party they were naming.
This is NOT a military operation in any way, shape, manner or form.
This grants a private individual (Privateer) the authority to act to reclaim property and profit.

[Anti Federalist]

No authority should ever have the power to unilaterally authorize the assassination of anyone.

That's all Grigg and I are saying on this.

[Mach]

No authority should ever have the power to unilaterally authorize the assassination of anyone. I'm with you on that. But to authorize an invasion of a country specifically for the purposes of capturing an indicted criminal is perfectly in accordance with Constitutional law.

But an indictment from 1998? Why didn't they hunt him down 13 years ago?

Because it just didn't fit their agenda.... yet.

[SimpleName]

I do not read Rockwell for this reason. "Spokesman for the Imperialist Wing of the Tea Party." Are you kidding me? For supporting the killing of a mass murdering terrorist who planned an attack on our country and those who aided him? Don't get me wrong. The mission was 100% illegal and only furthered hatred toward us amongst Pakistanis. It was silly and based in emotion, not logic. And heck, Lee is quite well in support of the illegal war in Afghanistan. Still, not an imperialist. And FOR SURE, not the spokesman for imperialists. How many times are we going to stoop to the level of the mainstream media and burn bridges?

[Aldanga]

I love Rockwell, but I agree that this was over the top. Lee is a good ally on many, many issues. He recognizes the cost of the wars and our interventionism, but is not yet totally convinced of the rightness of non-intervention. This is a detractor, but it's a possibility he might yet be convinced.

Still, if you've been around as long and seen as many slimy politicians as Rockwell has, you're bound to become cynical about these sorts of things.

[Maximilian American]

What evidence? Just curious.

If there is evidence, if not then there is no case for the allegations against him and therefore no reason to commit in anyway. I want proof and due justice for my granting of any authorization, for I as a citizen of this Republic am entitled to it by law.

[AuH20]

What does Rockwell expect Lee to say? :mad:

[The Dark Knight]

I still generally like Mike Lee and i don't judge people on one or even two issues. Out of the 100 senators he is the 2nd best so I give him props.

[freshjiva]

I do not read Rockwell for this reason. "Spokesman for the Imperialist Wing of the Tea Party." Are you kidding me? For supporting the killing of a mass murdering terrorist who planned an attack on our country and those who aided him? Don't get me wrong. The mission was 100% illegal and only furthered hatred toward us amongst Pakistanis. It was silly and based in emotion, not logic. And heck, Lee is quite well in support of the illegal war in Afghanistan. Still, not an imperialist. And FOR SURE, not the spokesman for imperialists. How many times are we going to stoop to the level of the mainstream media and burn bridges?


I love Rockwell, but I agree that this was over the top. Lee is a good ally on many, many issues. He recognizes the cost of the wars and our interventionism, but is not yet totally convinced of the rightness of non-intervention. This is a detractor, but it's a possibility he might yet be convinced.

Agreed on all fronts. It's these kinds of unabashed attacks that ostracizes Ron Paul supporters from the rest.
In my honest opinion, if you're with us on auditing/ending the Fed's banking cartel and for replacing the greenback with gold/silver backed currency, you're by default an ally of the Liberty movement. Lee supports sound money and Fed audit, so that does it for me.

Then again, that's just my opinion.

[Brian4Liberty]

RE: Letters of Marque and Reprisal

For someone to be granted letters, they would have to show a direct loss of property or direct injury by the party they were naming.
This is NOT a military operation in any way, shape, manner or form.
This grants a private individual (Privateer) the authority to act to reclaim property and profit.

I'm no expert on this, so I'll take Ron's word that it was appropriate.

Whether or not the US military can be used to execute Letters of Marque and Reprisal is an interesting question.

It seems that going into another country like this can be taken as an act of war. The criteria of Congress approving and the President signing a LMP would be the same criteria for declaring war, which would be consistent. Obviously, this would take a special case. A standard extradition process would be much easier.

[Brett85]

Agreed on all fronts. It's these kinds of unabashed attacks that ostracizes Ron Paul supporters from the rest.
In my honest opinion, if you're with us on auditing/ending the Fed's banking cartel and for replacing the greenback with gold/silver backed currency, you're by default an ally of the Liberty movement. Lee supports sound money and Fed audit, so that does it for me.

Then again, that's just my opinion.

Lee is also the only Senate Republican besides Rand who opposes the Patriot Act.

[pcosmar]

I'm no expert on this, so I'll take Ron's word that it was appropriate.

Whether or not the US military can be used to execute Letters of Marque and Reprisal is an interesting question.

It seems that going into another country like this can be taken as an act of war. The criteria of Congress approving and the President signing a LMP would be the same criteria for declaring war, which would be consistent. Obviously, this would take a special case. A standard extradition process would be much easier.

Ron Paul mentioned and recommended it.( I was impressed that he knew of it and spoke of it openly) But he never explained it or discussed the mechanics of it.
He also supports the Constitutional Militia. But has not gone into depth of what that really means.

I did study the law concerning Letters of Marque, many years ago, when I was considerably more mercenary than I am today.
It is a valid and still recognized (though unused) law.
But it does not mean what some here want to think it means.