chmst1999
06-09-2011, 11:50 AM
For those of you struggling to answer the questions from neo-cons regarding Dr. Paul's foreign policy, look at this description, originally published in the Eau Claire Journal (http://www.eauclairejournal.com/):
Targeting Bin Laden Constitutionally: Letters of Marque and Reprisal
The killing of Osama Bin Laden by a team of Navy SEALS has been reported in this way; OBL's location was surmised from a mistake made by one of his couriers. He had been hiding in Pakistan for some time, maybe years. Without notifying Pakistani authorities, the US inserted a team of elite Navy commandos into and around a compound where OBL was believed to be hiding. He was located on the third floor of the main building where he was shot and killed. According to reports, the SEALS spent time to sweep the compound for intelligence and then took the body which was dumped into the ocean.
Cause - OBL was the inspiration for the attacks on 911. He also made it clear that he supported those attacks and continuing attacks on America.
The Bush Administration identified the connection between the 911 attackers and OBL's Al Qaeda. The Taliban, in control of Afghanistan, protected Al Qaeda and its leader OBL. So, the Bush administration invaded Afghanistan in order to punish the Taliban and to capture or kill OBL.
The Sunday following the 911 attacks, my pastor addressed them by saying only, ``God will accept justice, not vengeance.'' I expected more somehow. Still, after a short period of reflection what he said was as comforting as anything else could have been. I will never forget that elegantly brief and powerful segment of sermon. It was with a sense of guilt that I felt the relief and elation over the news that OBL had been killed. There was a also an understandable sadness as I remembered those people who had been killed by the 911 attacks. It felt to me like those people who died had been avenged. I don’t think I was alone in this. How does the killing of OBL pose a problem for Americans? That depends entirely on one's definition of justice. In the words of my pastor, God would accept justice. So, was the killing of OBL justice? Does it matter? We may never know, but we should be told the whole truth, no matter what it is. I would offer that OBL’s death was not justice. And it matters so fundamentally that Americans must know the truth of the entire operation. Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I have to confess that if I had had a shot at OBL I would have taken it enthusiastically. I have no sympathy for OBL, his family, or anyone else who celebrated the 911 attacks. It is simply that I have much more regard for our principles than a thirst for revenge. So, what would have been justice in this case? An arrest, trial based on irrefutable evidence, doubtless conviction, then an appropriate punishment. If in the course of the arrest it would become necessary to use deadly force, then so be it. And no tears would have been shed. Let's look at OBL’s death more closely.
Were OBL's crimes somehow worse than those committed by the Nazis convicted at Nuremberg, or the Japanese war criminals executed at the end of WW2? Why were they captured, tried, convicted, and put to death rather than simply killed? In the case of the Nazis or Japanese, virtually no one would have objected to summary executions of these monsters. They were still put on trial. Perhaps there is a different historical example that we could reference. In the Pacific Theater in WW2, the overall commander of Japanese forces, Isoroku Yamamoto was assassinated on April 18, 1943 in the Solomon Islands. Americans knew him as the man who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor. The codename for the attempt to assassinate him was, interestingly enough, Operation Vengeance. Do the killings of these two men have enough in common to warrant the first justifying the second? There are similarities. But there are two important differences. There was no realistic way to capture Yamamoto for trial and there may have been that opportunity with OBL. Also, we were fighting a war against Yamamoto’s Japan that the US Congress declared. The process makes a difference legally and morally.
Killing an enemy during a declared war is justifiable. Extralegal actions are not, regardless of motive. Even in World War II, the United States felt the need to follow the law with regard to private individuals taking action on behalf of this country. A Letter of Marque was granted to a submarine hunting blimp, the Resolute, in order that the Constitution be followed to the letter. Letters of Marque are written permissions to private individuals to go beyond the borders of their country to carry out some kind of act of war on behalf of the issuing authority. A letter of marque is specifically authorized in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11. Letters of marque should particularly describe what action is authorized and what offense initiated the issuing of it. In this case it should have been relatively clear what action was authorized, who the target was, and what offense initiated its issue. What would a counter argument consist of? In the case of OBL, a Letter of Marque could have been issued to the US forces in order to blunt the complaints of Pakistan about the lack of notification and permission.
As we all know, the 9/11 attack was initiated by a group of individuals rather than a country. Historically, countries only declared war on other countries, and therefore this situation created a problem for federal legislators. However, if they looked to the founding fathers, they would have noticed the similarities between al qaeda and pirates, both of whom acted without state sponsorship. Congressman Ron Paul noticed this similarity in October, 2001, and wrote House Resolution 3076 to target al qaeda Constitutionally. He proposed a similar bill in 2007. Congressman Paul suggested that the attacks were equivalent to air piracy, and invoked the Letters of Marque and Reprisal accordingly.
If these bills had been passed, we would have been able to target Bin Laden and al qaeda in a similar manner to Ross Perot’s hostage event in 1979. As wikipedia states, ``Just prior to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the government of Iran imprisoned two EDS employees in a contract dispute. Perot organized and sponsored their rescue. The rescue team was led by retired U.S. Army Special Forces Colonel Arthur D. ``Bull'' Simons. When the team was unable to find a way to extract their two prisoners, they decided to wait for a mob of pro-Ayatollah revolutionaries to storm the jail and free all 10,000 inmates, many of whom were political prisoners. The two prisoners then connected with the rescue team, and the team spirited them out of Iran via a risky border crossing into Turkey.'' By granting Letters of Marque and Reprisal, we would have been able to administer targeted actions similar to our successful Bin Laden action in Pakistan, but without starting two wars with countries that posed no threat to the U.S. Alas, those bills were not passed.
I frankly don't understand the dismissive attitude toward the Constitution shown by those whose job it is to know and follow it. In any event, OBL is dead, his body disposed of, and the opportunity to demonstrate the principles our country was founded on lost. Imagine for a moment how powerful the image would have been of the United States trying one of our most hated enemies in court. Instead, the men and women who make these decisions on our behalf decided to invade a sovereign nation, (driving it incidentally further into the embrace of China), without a declaration of war and without notice or permission, killed a man without charge and without due process, dropped his body into the sea, and declared this justice.
The most powerful nation in the world can certainly afford to promote justice and practice it as well, so why do we insist on behaving in ways that violate our stated principles? If we believe in the rule of law and due process, where is the moral courage to follow these principles in our elected representatives? It is their job to temper our thirst for blood vengeance with justice. And if we don't believe in the rule of law and due process, why don't we simply admit this? Our behavior doesn’t have to change, just the cynical and self-deceiving moral pronouncements must. Finally, this must be understood - it is not our standing or our reputation in the world that concerns me. In many ways I couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks of us. It is our own vision of ourselves that concerns me and should concern you. Are we the kind of country that consistently chooses injustice? We must hold our elected representatives to the standards we espouse. And, we must hold ourselves to this standard. The world desperately needs the United States to act with the moral authority of our principles. More importantly, America needs its government to act this way as well. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, ``Justice is indivisible. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.''
For a formatted version of this article to link to, please consult this essay (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxkZW1pbmdsaWJlcnR5cGxhdGZv cm18Z3g6NDU1M2RlNDZjN2E4ZTAwNg).
Targeting Bin Laden Constitutionally: Letters of Marque and Reprisal
The killing of Osama Bin Laden by a team of Navy SEALS has been reported in this way; OBL's location was surmised from a mistake made by one of his couriers. He had been hiding in Pakistan for some time, maybe years. Without notifying Pakistani authorities, the US inserted a team of elite Navy commandos into and around a compound where OBL was believed to be hiding. He was located on the third floor of the main building where he was shot and killed. According to reports, the SEALS spent time to sweep the compound for intelligence and then took the body which was dumped into the ocean.
Cause - OBL was the inspiration for the attacks on 911. He also made it clear that he supported those attacks and continuing attacks on America.
The Bush Administration identified the connection between the 911 attackers and OBL's Al Qaeda. The Taliban, in control of Afghanistan, protected Al Qaeda and its leader OBL. So, the Bush administration invaded Afghanistan in order to punish the Taliban and to capture or kill OBL.
The Sunday following the 911 attacks, my pastor addressed them by saying only, ``God will accept justice, not vengeance.'' I expected more somehow. Still, after a short period of reflection what he said was as comforting as anything else could have been. I will never forget that elegantly brief and powerful segment of sermon. It was with a sense of guilt that I felt the relief and elation over the news that OBL had been killed. There was a also an understandable sadness as I remembered those people who had been killed by the 911 attacks. It felt to me like those people who died had been avenged. I don’t think I was alone in this. How does the killing of OBL pose a problem for Americans? That depends entirely on one's definition of justice. In the words of my pastor, God would accept justice. So, was the killing of OBL justice? Does it matter? We may never know, but we should be told the whole truth, no matter what it is. I would offer that OBL’s death was not justice. And it matters so fundamentally that Americans must know the truth of the entire operation. Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I have to confess that if I had had a shot at OBL I would have taken it enthusiastically. I have no sympathy for OBL, his family, or anyone else who celebrated the 911 attacks. It is simply that I have much more regard for our principles than a thirst for revenge. So, what would have been justice in this case? An arrest, trial based on irrefutable evidence, doubtless conviction, then an appropriate punishment. If in the course of the arrest it would become necessary to use deadly force, then so be it. And no tears would have been shed. Let's look at OBL’s death more closely.
Were OBL's crimes somehow worse than those committed by the Nazis convicted at Nuremberg, or the Japanese war criminals executed at the end of WW2? Why were they captured, tried, convicted, and put to death rather than simply killed? In the case of the Nazis or Japanese, virtually no one would have objected to summary executions of these monsters. They were still put on trial. Perhaps there is a different historical example that we could reference. In the Pacific Theater in WW2, the overall commander of Japanese forces, Isoroku Yamamoto was assassinated on April 18, 1943 in the Solomon Islands. Americans knew him as the man who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor. The codename for the attempt to assassinate him was, interestingly enough, Operation Vengeance. Do the killings of these two men have enough in common to warrant the first justifying the second? There are similarities. But there are two important differences. There was no realistic way to capture Yamamoto for trial and there may have been that opportunity with OBL. Also, we were fighting a war against Yamamoto’s Japan that the US Congress declared. The process makes a difference legally and morally.
Killing an enemy during a declared war is justifiable. Extralegal actions are not, regardless of motive. Even in World War II, the United States felt the need to follow the law with regard to private individuals taking action on behalf of this country. A Letter of Marque was granted to a submarine hunting blimp, the Resolute, in order that the Constitution be followed to the letter. Letters of Marque are written permissions to private individuals to go beyond the borders of their country to carry out some kind of act of war on behalf of the issuing authority. A letter of marque is specifically authorized in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11. Letters of marque should particularly describe what action is authorized and what offense initiated the issuing of it. In this case it should have been relatively clear what action was authorized, who the target was, and what offense initiated its issue. What would a counter argument consist of? In the case of OBL, a Letter of Marque could have been issued to the US forces in order to blunt the complaints of Pakistan about the lack of notification and permission.
As we all know, the 9/11 attack was initiated by a group of individuals rather than a country. Historically, countries only declared war on other countries, and therefore this situation created a problem for federal legislators. However, if they looked to the founding fathers, they would have noticed the similarities between al qaeda and pirates, both of whom acted without state sponsorship. Congressman Ron Paul noticed this similarity in October, 2001, and wrote House Resolution 3076 to target al qaeda Constitutionally. He proposed a similar bill in 2007. Congressman Paul suggested that the attacks were equivalent to air piracy, and invoked the Letters of Marque and Reprisal accordingly.
If these bills had been passed, we would have been able to target Bin Laden and al qaeda in a similar manner to Ross Perot’s hostage event in 1979. As wikipedia states, ``Just prior to the 1979 Iranian Revolution, the government of Iran imprisoned two EDS employees in a contract dispute. Perot organized and sponsored their rescue. The rescue team was led by retired U.S. Army Special Forces Colonel Arthur D. ``Bull'' Simons. When the team was unable to find a way to extract their two prisoners, they decided to wait for a mob of pro-Ayatollah revolutionaries to storm the jail and free all 10,000 inmates, many of whom were political prisoners. The two prisoners then connected with the rescue team, and the team spirited them out of Iran via a risky border crossing into Turkey.'' By granting Letters of Marque and Reprisal, we would have been able to administer targeted actions similar to our successful Bin Laden action in Pakistan, but without starting two wars with countries that posed no threat to the U.S. Alas, those bills were not passed.
I frankly don't understand the dismissive attitude toward the Constitution shown by those whose job it is to know and follow it. In any event, OBL is dead, his body disposed of, and the opportunity to demonstrate the principles our country was founded on lost. Imagine for a moment how powerful the image would have been of the United States trying one of our most hated enemies in court. Instead, the men and women who make these decisions on our behalf decided to invade a sovereign nation, (driving it incidentally further into the embrace of China), without a declaration of war and without notice or permission, killed a man without charge and without due process, dropped his body into the sea, and declared this justice.
The most powerful nation in the world can certainly afford to promote justice and practice it as well, so why do we insist on behaving in ways that violate our stated principles? If we believe in the rule of law and due process, where is the moral courage to follow these principles in our elected representatives? It is their job to temper our thirst for blood vengeance with justice. And if we don't believe in the rule of law and due process, why don't we simply admit this? Our behavior doesn’t have to change, just the cynical and self-deceiving moral pronouncements must. Finally, this must be understood - it is not our standing or our reputation in the world that concerns me. In many ways I couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks of us. It is our own vision of ourselves that concerns me and should concern you. Are we the kind of country that consistently chooses injustice? We must hold our elected representatives to the standards we espouse. And, we must hold ourselves to this standard. The world desperately needs the United States to act with the moral authority of our principles. More importantly, America needs its government to act this way as well. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, ``Justice is indivisible. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.''
For a formatted version of this article to link to, please consult this essay (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxkZW1pbmdsaWJlcnR5cGxhdGZv cm18Z3g6NDU1M2RlNDZjN2E4ZTAwNg).