Here's how you answer the OBL question--

[teacherone]

Q. You mean to tell me you wouldn't you wouldn't have sent a team into Paksitan to take out Bin Laden?

A. No. I respect each nation's sovereignty -- if you don't you get blowback -- sovereign people always despise invaders. Imagine if China flew helicopters and took out the Dali Lama while he was visiting San Francisco; they consider him an enemy of the state-- America would go to war!


Q. So you think that if we just asked Pakistan to hand OBL over they would do so?

A. Why not? They're our ally, we have given them over 18 Billion dollars since 9/11. Are you telling me we can't trust a nation we've handed 18 Billion dollars to?

If so, why in the world are we handing them all that money? We hand them 18 Billion dollars; we bomb them from drones, we pay for their military, and then still have to fly a team in, lose a top secret helicopter to the Chinese, to get one guy 10 years, trillions of dollars, and thousands of lives later?

Do you think it's over now? Or will 10 more rise up and take OBL's place?

We have to come to grips that not only is our foreign policy around the world bankrupting us, it causes blowback and resentment against us - we build new enemies with each action. We should be building our own nation; not building nations for people who despise us.

Bring the troops home, leave the Middle East to settle its own affairs, protect our borders, protect our nation.

[TheNcredibleEgg]

One facet missing from the debate:

The so-called secret agreement with Pakistan to allow the United States to conduct the raid.

If Ron Paul was Prez - and learned of the agreement - would his answer change? If there was such an agreement, the raid would no longer be against a sovereign country - but rather in cooperation. Secret cooperation, but still cooperation.

[doodle]

Standing up for principles that US Constitution is based on will help RP in the long run.

Few months from now, Obama's numbers will be lower than where they were before raid for target killing of OBL was publicized and RP's numbers will be up.

Lets check on this prediction 3-4 months from now. It might happen much sooner. People will give RP credit for being honest even if they disagreed with his view. That is what attracts so many to RP.


How did Bush despite huge Iraq blunder and saying he didn't think much about OBL still win an election defeating Kerry? Because many saw Kerry as an opportunist flip flopper and worse than Bush, people knew Kerry had voted for Irq war when it was popular and changed his view as public mood about the war changed.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMVdh8vdJfs&NR=1


Ron Paul is way way more logically consistent in his ideological stances and straight shooter than anyone in sight, he's the only man running who can defeat Obama in 2012 and best hope for America.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Call of duty 8

[GunnyFreedom]

Not true. We can send teams onto foreign sovereign soil under Marque and Reprisal. Thomas Jefferson did it against the Barbary Pirates in Tripoli with the US Marines. It's the methodology of M&R being profoundly different which led President Jefferson to defeat a similar but less deadly threat in 1804, after only a single year of boots on the ground.

Elite platoons, teams, and companies of special forces are precisely the type of US forces which would Constitutionally augment the use of Marque and Reprisal from a modern application of the timeless tool.

[ronpaulitician]

http://images.wikia.com/wikiality/images/c/cd/KhalidSheikhMohammedCaptured.jpg

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

Not true. We can send teams onto foreign sovereign soil under Marque and Reprisal. Thomas Jefferson did it against the Barbary Pirates in Tripoli with the US Marines. It's the methodology of M&R being profoundly different which led President Jefferson to defeat a similar but less deadly threat in 1804, after only a single year of boots on the ground.

Elite platoons, teams, and companies of special forces are precisely the type of US forces which would Constitutionally augment the use of Marque and Reprisal from a modern application of the timeless tool.

Wasn't Marque and Reprisal used in the 90s by Israel to stop some terrorist group? It was mentioned in some Ron Paul related article…

[teacherone]

Not true. We can send teams onto foreign sovereign soil under Marque and Reprisal. Thomas Jefferson did it against the Barbary Pirates in Tripoli with the US Marines. It's the methodology of M&R being profoundly different which led President Jefferson to defeat a similar but less deadly threat in 1804, after only a single year of boots on the ground.

Elite platoons, teams, and companies of special forces are precisely the type of US forces which would Constitutionally augment the use of Marque and Reprisal from a modern application of the timeless tool.

I was trying to write out a political answer to the question.

Marque and Reprisal? No one's heard of it. It sounds foreign and obscure. Involves bounty hunters and mercenaries.

And really? What's the difference between the US authorizing someone to invade a sovereign nation to seize or destruct assets VS the US sending soldiers to do so?

[goRPaul]

I would like to see Ron say that he asked Congress to issue a marque against OBL, and also asked the Congress to declare war. He has said that he "would've done it a different way" but he's not telling his interviewers about what he did in congress in 2001. I think this is making it harder for people to see his point of view.

[GunnyFreedom]

I was trying to write out a political answer to the question.

Marque and Reprisal? No one's heard of it. It sounds foreign and obscure. Involves bounty hunters and mercenaries.

And really? What's the difference between the US authorizing someone to invade a sovereign nation to seize or destruct assets VS the US sending soldiers to do so?


Marque and Reprisal was the tool created by the founders for pursuing international criminal and military matters short of war, such as piracy on the high seas. Ideological terrorism perpetrated in bloody reality is an extension of the piracy criminal enterprise, hijacking a people and forcing them into ideas instead of naval service.

It's the same tool for the same job, and it works. We would have been done with this nonsense and justice served by 2004 at the latest if we have followed Ron Paul in 2001. Bin Laden would have been a long dusty and decayed memory by now if we did what Ron Paul suggested in 2001. We went about it the wrong way, we spent too much money, and we made a mockery out of the formerly respectful discourse on national sovereignty.

And there is a huge difference between M&R and war. Criminy, Pakistan let us in to fight a WAR, you think they wouldn't have fully cooperated 100% with just 50 personnel, intelligence equipment, and $20 Billion with a mission to find and take down Bin Laden and Al Qaieda? We may could have had the whole org and Osama Bin Laden wrapped up in 2003 and for only $20 Bn if we did what Ron Paul said in 2001.

Not all foreign action by US military is war. The Barbary Pirates "War" was basically a gigantic rescue mission. I think part of the confusion stems from calling the Barbary Reprisals a "war."

To the founders, 9/11 would have literally been called "an act of piracy" and was the exact reason that M&R was put in the Constitution.

[teacherone]

Marque and Reprisal was the tool created by the founders for pursuing international criminal and military matters short of war, such as piracy on the high seas. Ideological terrorism perpetrated in bloody reality is an extension of the piracy criminal enterprise, hijacking a people and forcing them into ideas instead of naval service.

It's the same tool for the same job, and it works. We would have been done with this nonsense and justice served by 2004 at the latest if we have followed Ron Paul in 2001. Bin Laden would have been a long dusty and decayed memory by now if we did what Ron Paul suggested in 2001. We went about it the wrong way, we spent too much money, and we made a mockery out of the formerly respectful discourse on national sovereignty.

And there is a huge difference between M&R and war. Criminy, Pakistan let us in to fight a WAR, you think they wouldn't have fully cooperated 100% with just 50 personnel, intelligence equipment, and $20 Billion with a mission to find and take down Bin Laden and Al Qaieda? We may could have had the whole org and Osama Bin Laden wrapped up in 2003 and for only $20 Bn if we did what Ron Paul said in 2001.

Not all foreign action by US military is war. The Barbary Pirates "War" was basically a gigantic rescue mission. I think part of the confusion stems from calling the Barbary Reprisals a "war."

To the founders, 9/11 would have literally been called "an act of piracy" and was the exact reason that M&R was put in the Constitution.

good answer but...

the viewing public will have no idea what he's talking about. again - we need to enter political reality. talking about the barbary wars won't get us anywhere.

and -- i don't think you can defend against entering a sovereign nation to take out a suspect by saying we should have authorized citizens to enter a sovereign nation to take out a suspect.

practically and morally there's no difference.

[GunnyFreedom]

good answer but...

the viewing public will have no idea what he's talking about. again - we need to enter political reality. talking about the barbary wars won't get us anywhere.

and -- i don't think you can defend against entering a sovereign nation to take out a suspect by saying we should have authorized citizens to enter a sovereign nation to take out a suspect.

"The tactic and strategy which took out Bin Laden in 2011 was what Ron Paul suggested in a decade earlier 2001. Ron Paul had the right plan from Day 1, and would have served justice at a fraction of the blood and treasure."

M&R would work mostly with local permissions, probably similar to Interpol. Just like there are valid reasons to break down some doors - murder kidnapping suspect whatever - there are valid reasons to break into some sovereign nations for purposes other than war. That's why the Constitution contains a method for doing so, because our founders and framers foresaw high piracy.


practically and morally there's no difference.

Constitutionally there is, and that's all I care about. When it comes to an actual vote on the subject, I would #1 go back to my district and #2 align the facts presented with just war and NAP. I don't see any conflict with just war or NAP in specifically rounding up Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaieda after 9/11, providing that the organization actively, logistically, materially, and significantly aided and propelled the plan to carry out the attack.

If a nation gave us permission to snatch up Bin Laden great! Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan. We were in Pakistan with permission. I think out method of acquiring permission currently stinks, but if we do it as friendly and sovereign nations the permissions can still be had.

National sovereignty has basically been a legal fiction in Afghanistan for most of the last century. the closest thing to actually sovereign in Afghanistan are valleys and villages. With Pakistan's permission and the aid of minute teams of US Special forces, I would see no problems launching bounties into Afghanistan for primary AQ members, and augmenting those local teams with special forces when going after highest value targets like OBL. Even if he is in Afghanistan and we can't find a local government to ask permission first.

I've got no problem with that legal, moral, or Constitutional. Again, provided that this actually was the org that perpetrated 9/11, which in a free society would have come fully out in the trials.

[GunnyFreedom]

Wasn't Marque and Reprisal used in the 90s by Israel to stop some terrorist group? It was mentioned in some Ron Paul related article…

Yes, I think you are right, but I can't help with the reference any. It's an incredibly versatile tool for all kinds of "piracy" because it's written and detailed by Congress and delivered to the President to execute. It's like miniature war declaration, not against sovereign nations but against specific criminals. We don't even have to be nice and let sovereign nations get in the way of our pursuit of justice, although for righteousness sake permission and cooperation should be actively sought at every level.

[teacherone]

"The tactic and strategy which took out Bin Laden in 2011 was what Ron Paul suggested in a decade earlier 2001. Ron Paul had the right plan from Day 1, and would have served justice at a fraction of the blood and treasure."

M&R would work mostly with local permissions, probably similar to Interpol. Just like there are valid reasons to break down some doors - murder kidnapping suspect whatever - there are valid reasons to break into some sovereign nations for purposes other than war. That's why the Constitution contains a method for doing so, because our founders and framers foresaw high piracy.



Constitutionally there is, and that's all I care about. When it comes to an actual vote on the subject, I would #1 go back to my district and #2 align the facts presented with just war and NAP. I don't see any conflict with just war or NAP in specifically rounding up Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaieda after 9/11, providing that the organization actively, logistically, materially, and significantly aided and propelled the plan to carry out the attack.

If a nation gave us permission to snatch up Bin Laden great! Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan. We were in Pakistan with permission. I think out method of acquiring permission currently stinks, but if we do it as friendly and sovereign nations the permissions can still be had.

National sovereignty has basically been a legal fiction in Afghanistan for most of the last century. the closest thing to actually sovereign in Afghanistan are valleys and villages. With Pakistan's permission and the aid of minute teams of US Special forces, I would see no problems launching bounties into Afghanistan for primary AQ members, and augmenting those local teams with special forces when going after highest value targets like OBL. Even if he is in Afghanistan and we can't find a local government to ask permission first.

I've got no problem with that legal, moral, or Constitutional. Again, provided that this actually was the org that perpetrated 9/11, which in a free society would have come fully out in the trials.

If what you say is true then both you and Ron Paul should agree with Obama's decision to send a small tactical team to go in to Pakistan and assassinate OBL.

[libertyfan101]

Let's not forget this.....

Pakistan says told US about compound in 2009

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-05-04/news/29509179_1_compound-time-bin-pakistani-official

[IDefendThePlatform]

Q. So you think that if we just asked Pakistan to hand OBL over they would do so?




A. They helped us catch Khalid Shiek Muhammed.

[GunnyFreedom]

If what you say is true then both you and Ron Paul should agree with Obama's decision to send a small tactical team to go in to Pakistan and assassinate OBL.

No, Obama's decision to use the type of force he did in the way he did had nothing to do with the Constitution whatsoever, it was probably just some kind of whim having remembered a cool scene in a movie for all I know. I support the Constitutional Congressionally approved use of letters of Marque and Reprisal. I do not support some random President with a Napoleonic complex flipping biscuits with Special Forces in a dozen countries playing with f'n history.

[Bama Boy]

This is a total losing position for RP. I wish he would not get off on these tangents that are total losers with the public.

Keep taxes low, end the wars, legalize freedom. Why waste time talking about a successful mission to kill OBL???

[Bruno]

This is a total losing position for RP. I wish he would not get off on these tangents that are total losers with the public.

Keep taxes low, end the wars, legalize freedom. Why waste time talking about a successful mission to kill OBL???

Successful how?

He was possibly executed.
He was unarmed.
He was never convicted of a crime to which there is question of his involvement.
Pakistan is outraged.
We dumped his body in the ocean and many don't believe he is dead (or was already).
We lost military technology in the raid.
We lost the opportunity to question him for intel.
80 people were killed in the first of many retalitory attacks.
The war on terror sees no end.
We are already told we will lose more freedoms as a result of his death.

How was that successful?

Oh, and welcome back. ;)

[TIMB0B]

I think if anyone asks these questions you go back as far as possible to RP's proposal in 2001, because it would've avoided the costly 10 years of war, thousands of lives, and gotten our man. I agree with Gunny. Don't let them corner you with the Pakistani jargon. It should have never gotten to that point.

[heavenlyboy34]

Marque and Reprisal was the tool created by the founders for pursuing international criminal and military matters short of war, such as piracy on the high seas. Ideological terrorism perpetrated in bloody reality is an extension of the piracy criminal enterprise, hijacking a people and forcing them into ideas instead of naval service.

It's the same tool for the same job, and it works. We would have been done with this nonsense and justice served by 2004 at the latest if we have followed Ron Paul in 2001. Bin Laden would have been a long dusty and decayed memory by now if we did what Ron Paul suggested in 2001. We went about it the wrong way, we spent too much money, and we made a mockery out of the formerly respectful discourse on national sovereignty.

And there is a huge difference between M&R and war. Criminy, Pakistan let us in to fight a WAR, you think they wouldn't have fully cooperated 100% with just 50 personnel, intelligence equipment, and $20 Billion with a mission to find and take down Bin Laden and Al Qaieda? We may could have had the whole org and Osama Bin Laden wrapped up in 2003 and for only $20 Bn if we did what Ron Paul said in 2001.

Not all foreign action by US military is war. The Barbary Pirates "War" was basically a gigantic rescue mission. I think part of the confusion stems from calling the Barbary Reprisals a "war."

To the founders, 9/11 would have literally been called "an act of piracy" and was the exact reason that M&R was put in the Constitution.
+a zillion. Excellent answer^^ However, I think that it will be over the heads of most Americans at this time. :( I've tried to point this out to warhawks a few times, to no avail. Perhaps there will be a new enlightenment in regards to this issue in the future, but I'm not optimistic about it anytime soon.

[GunnyFreedom]

+a zillion. Excellent answer^^ However, I think that it will be over the heads of most Americans at this time. :( I've tried to point this out to warhawks a few times, to no avail. Perhaps there will be a new enlightenment in regards to this issue in the future, but I'm not optimistic about it anytime soon.

NOW is the time to make that argument. While it is still very early and Bin Laden is fresh in people's minds. At this point it doesn't matter if they understand it or not. Repetition is the key to political motivation. The more this point is heard NOW and this early, then in February of 2012 when the question comes up, people's ears will be more used to the term, and the explanation will make a lot more sense.

[PreDeadMan]

I'll answer... no i wouldn't because i have no enemies the us federal government's actions are not MY actions. They create the enemies that they currently or in the past have fought. My actions are peaceful and voluntary contrary to the us government's actions... =p