t0rnado
05-15-2011, 01:46 AM
http://www.unelected.org/president-paul-would-have-killed-bin-laden-earlier
The Founding Fathers of the United States included a passage in the Constitution, which allowed for a solution to problems like the ones the US faced after the attacks on 9/11. Rather than invading multiple countries in search of a ragtag crew of air pirates, Letters of Marque and Reprisal would have allowed for the President to pursue the individuals responsible for the attack in a precise manner.
After the attacks on 9/11, Congressman Ron Paul introduced a bill in the Congress, which would have specified the scope for a mission to take down the terrorists responsible for the attacks on 9/11. First and foremost, the proposal was Constitutional and secondly, it was highly targeted and wouldn’t have resulted in thousands of Americans being killed senselessly. Had Congressman Ron Paul’s proposal for letters of Marque and Reprisal been passed by the United States Congress in October of 2001, trillions of dollars and thousands of lives would not have been lost in the search for Osama bin Laden.
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.
As early as 2007, Ron Paul predicted that Pakistan harbored Osama bin Laden and in a speech on the floor of Congress, stated,
The foolishness of our foreign policy has us spending money in Pakistan, a military dictatorship with nuclear weapons, which is harboring Osama Bin Laden. The irony that taxpayers are paying to help protect Osama Bin Laden is astounding.
It goes without say that President Paul would have killed Osama bin Laden far quicker and with more finesse than both George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
To claim that the mission to kill bin Laden was successful is tantamount to suggesting that getting an ‘A’ on a test after attempting it every day for 10 years deserves a pat on the back. It doesn’t deserve a pat on the back, no, it deserves a punch in the face. The decade long mission only served to expose the incompetence of the United States to the international community. Invading over 3 countries, killing over one hundred thousand innocent civilians, losing thousands of soldiers, and squandering trillions of dollars for a single man hiding in compound, in a nation which had been given billions of taxpayer dollars, was not worth it. The aforementioned were only the foreign consequences of the mission to kill bin Laden. Domestic consequences of the War on Terror include the passage of the PATRIOT Act, which violates the 4th and 5th Amendments, the inception of the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA, torture at Guantanamo Bay, and other gross violations of civil liberties.
Sure, the end goal was achieved, but it was achieved with the dexterity of a heavily armed 5 year old child.
Both in foreign policy and economics, progressives believe that throwing massive sums of money and human bodies at problems solves them. Progressives cannot solve problems, but only enlarge them because neither the Constitution nor logic fit into their socialist philosophy. The only American, Constitutional solution for finding bin Laden after 9/11 was offered by true conservatives like Ron Paul.
The Founding Fathers of the United States included a passage in the Constitution, which allowed for a solution to problems like the ones the US faced after the attacks on 9/11. Rather than invading multiple countries in search of a ragtag crew of air pirates, Letters of Marque and Reprisal would have allowed for the President to pursue the individuals responsible for the attack in a precise manner.
After the attacks on 9/11, Congressman Ron Paul introduced a bill in the Congress, which would have specified the scope for a mission to take down the terrorists responsible for the attacks on 9/11. First and foremost, the proposal was Constitutional and secondly, it was highly targeted and wouldn’t have resulted in thousands of Americans being killed senselessly. Had Congressman Ron Paul’s proposal for letters of Marque and Reprisal been passed by the United States Congress in October of 2001, trillions of dollars and thousands of lives would not have been lost in the search for Osama bin Laden.
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.
As early as 2007, Ron Paul predicted that Pakistan harbored Osama bin Laden and in a speech on the floor of Congress, stated,
The foolishness of our foreign policy has us spending money in Pakistan, a military dictatorship with nuclear weapons, which is harboring Osama Bin Laden. The irony that taxpayers are paying to help protect Osama Bin Laden is astounding.
It goes without say that President Paul would have killed Osama bin Laden far quicker and with more finesse than both George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
To claim that the mission to kill bin Laden was successful is tantamount to suggesting that getting an ‘A’ on a test after attempting it every day for 10 years deserves a pat on the back. It doesn’t deserve a pat on the back, no, it deserves a punch in the face. The decade long mission only served to expose the incompetence of the United States to the international community. Invading over 3 countries, killing over one hundred thousand innocent civilians, losing thousands of soldiers, and squandering trillions of dollars for a single man hiding in compound, in a nation which had been given billions of taxpayer dollars, was not worth it. The aforementioned were only the foreign consequences of the mission to kill bin Laden. Domestic consequences of the War on Terror include the passage of the PATRIOT Act, which violates the 4th and 5th Amendments, the inception of the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA, torture at Guantanamo Bay, and other gross violations of civil liberties.
Sure, the end goal was achieved, but it was achieved with the dexterity of a heavily armed 5 year old child.
Both in foreign policy and economics, progressives believe that throwing massive sums of money and human bodies at problems solves them. Progressives cannot solve problems, but only enlarge them because neither the Constitution nor logic fit into their socialist philosophy. The only American, Constitutional solution for finding bin Laden after 9/11 was offered by true conservatives like Ron Paul.