‘president’ ron paul would not have ordered bin laden’s death [mod - meme not correct]

[cindy25]

the headline, as well as the tone, seems to indicate Beck back to neo-con

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/president-ron-paul-would-not-have-ordered-bin-ladens-death/

[TIMB0B]

One of the comments...

he’s very much out of step with the American people on this issue.
Actually, it's quite the opposite. The American people are very much out of step on this issue. An eye for an eye is not justice. It's wrath. A deadly sin. And I thought this was a Christian nation.

[trey4sports]

God damnit, this is going to blow up....

[sailingaway]

This meme is just stupid. Ron, in October 2001 introduced a bill to issue letters of marque to go after bin Laden. THAT would have been Constitutional. I actually think Obama could have articulated a weak 'fleeing enemy' case against bin Laden (except Obama had the tip in what, August? as I understand it). However, Ron opposes the president just deciding on his own to go into a country where there is no Constitutional authority to go at all (like Libya and without even the 'authorization' Iraq and Afghanistan had), and 'take out' someone, on Constitutional and due process grounds.

My response to this issue is 'Right. He would have done it, Constitutionally, ten years ago, and tried to.'

[acptulsa]

Anyone know the session and House bill number of that Letter of Marque? Can we still link to the record of it? That would shut Beck's big, fat, brainless mouth in a hurry.

[sailingaway]

Anyone know the session and House bill number of that Letter of Marque? Can we still link to the record of it? That would shut Beck's big, fat, brainless mouth in a hurry.

Yeah, it's still around. I'll find it.

[sailingaway]

H.R. 3076 September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 in the 107th Congress:

10/10/2001--Introduced.
September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 - Authorizes and requests the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal to commission privately armed and equipped persons and entities to seize outside of the United States the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, including any similar planned acts against the United States in the future. Authorizes the President to place a bounty, from amounts appropriated on September 14, 2001, in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorists Attacks on the United States or from private sources, for the capture, dead or alive, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator responsible for the act of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h107-3076&tab=summary

full text:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h107-3076

[Chester Copperpot]

theres nothing wrong with that interview.. Ron Paul makes perfect sense.

[Valli6]

And remember how they ridiculed him for it, because they were too ignorant to see beyond the "Yarrrr Pirates!" connotation?

Here is the press release from 10/11/01:


FOR RELEASE: October 11, 2001

Paul Offers President New Tool in the War on Terrorism

Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul today presented Congress with the "Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001," legislation designed to give President Bush an additional tool in the fight against terrorism. He also introduced legislation that changes the federal definition of "piracy" to include air piracy.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal when a precise declaration of war is impossible due to the vagueness of the enemy. Paul's bill would allow Congress to authorize the President to specifically target Bin Laden and his associates using non-government armed forces. Since it is nearly impossible for U.S. intelligence teams to get close to Bin Laden, the marque and reprisal approach creates an incentive for people in Afghanistan or elsewhere to turn him over to the U.S.

"The President promised the American people that the federal government would use every available resource to defeat the global terror network," Paul stated. "Congress should immediately issue letters of marque and reprisal to add another weapon to the U.S. arsenal. The war on terrorism is very different from past wars, because the enemy is a group of individuals who do not represent any nation. Western intelligence in the Middle East is exceedingly limited, so we should avail ourselves of the assistance of those with better information to track, capture, or kill Bin Laden."

The Act allows Congress to narrowly target terrorist enemies, lessening the likelihood of a full-scale war with any Middle Eastern nations. The Act also threatens terrorist cells worldwide by making it more difficult for our enemies to simply slip back into civilian populations or hide in remote locations.
"Once letters of marque and reprisal are issued, every terrorist is essentially a marked man," Paul concluded. "Congress should issue such letters and give the President another weapon to supplement our military strikes."

http://www.paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=710&Itemid=28

He brought it up again in 2009 to deal with Somali pirates.
Ron Paul's plan to fend off pirates
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090415/pl_politico/21245

[jmdrake]

Yeah. You know that, and I know that and we can try to make sure others no that. But will Ron Paul push this? He didn't push this much back in 2008 and he should have. He should have mentioned it in the radio interview. Change the damn rules Ron!


This meme is just stupid. Ron, in October 2001 introduced a bill to issue letters of marque to go after bin Laden. THAT would have been Constitutional. I actually think Obama could have articulated a weak 'fleeing enemy' case against bin Laden (except Obama had the tip in what, August? as I understand it). However, Ron opposes the president just deciding on his own to go into a country where there is no Constitutional authority to go at all (like Libya and without even the 'authorization' Iraq and Afghanistan had), and 'take out' someone, on Constitutional and due process grounds.

My response to this issue is 'Right. He would have done it, Constitutionally, ten years ago, and tried to.'

[Valli6]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSP9NteApqI

[AmericaFyeah92]

Wouldn't this raid be justified under the 2001 authorization of force (that RP voted for)? It gave the Prez authority to go after anyone responsible for the attacks

[AuH20]

Mouth insert Foot.

[acptulsa]

Mouth insert Foot.

Whatever. Many Republicans love to criticize Obama on any pretext, and truth be known, Paul is one of the few Republicans smart enough to come up with a way for them to do it.