Need Thoughts on This (Paul on War)

[purepaloma]

Having a friendly debate with a friend.

Any good responses to this. I'm looking it as well. Thanks in advance.

------------
Paul moans that Congress has given up it's authority to declare war and turned it into a simple majority vote authorizing the use of force. He says that the US should never go into battle without declaration of war from the US Congress.

Odd thing is that Congress (by simple majority) gave Jefferson the authority to use force without a declaration of war. Of course, Thomas Jefferson probably didn't understand the Constitution as well as Ron Paul.

[Oddball]

Care to be just a tad more specific??

[austin356]

Follow the JUST WAR theory.

[mesler]

Here is an article that you may be able to use:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods45.html

[Thatguyuknow]

Cite the many instances in history in which the people were led to believe they were fighting something that posed a significant threat to them, basically fear mongering. Say how the people then became consumed by paranoia and went into a mass killing spree. Cite the Nazi's... the Soviets, the Maoists, the Khmer Rogue, and the Japanese internment camps.

Then when they say that this IS a realistic threat. Say, "Ok, how can we expect to fight an enemy who doesn't use battle grounds, but instead shadows?" Al-Qaeda doesn't fight our troops in battle, they use gorilla tactics. Then they say, "well, the mere presence of our troops is stopping them from organizing." Then say, "No, the mere presence of our troops is encouraging more and more people to join the Jihad, and provides strong ideological ammunition that they strap bombs to themselves and annihilate their surroundings. They say, "well, that's just islam telling them to fight the christain west." Then say, "Ok, why haven't they attacked other christain countries then? Why only the countries that have been attacking them?" ..."Why has there been thousands of years of christain and Islamic people and they've lived without strong ideological hatred of one another?" They say, well you know.. i'd rather be safe than sorry.

Then say, "there are politicians like Newt Gringrich who advocate curtailing the freedom of speech to fight terrorism. There have been people who say that haebus corpus needs to be removed to fight terrorism... Secret spying, surveillance, martial law etc. When will there come a day when questioning your government becomes an act of terrorism? When does teaching evolution become an act of terrorism. When does writing philosophical essays become an act of terrorism? When does questioning the president become an act of terrorism? .... when?"

Cite the founding fathers.
Also say, that safety can be achieved if we work with foriegn governments to give them an incentive to curtail radical groups within their borders. That safety is best achieved when you reduce the need for others to attack you, not be trying to systematically control everything. Such a thing is impossible. And fails every time.

[ThePieSwindler]

here is a whole article on the incident.- that lew rockwell artcile mentions it, but heres an entire piece on the matter.




http://www.pccua.edu/keough/Thomas%20Jefferson%20and%20the%20Barbary%20Pirates .htm





and this little excerpt...


Jefferson undoubtedly was mindful of the Constitution's limitations on the President's war powers. In general, Jefferson had favored a strict interpretation of the Constitution, and he knew that as President he was limited to defensive measures without having approval from Congress to act offensively against the Pirates. He was bound by the "chains of the Constitution." Surprisingly, however, these thoughts did not stop Jefferson from dispatching Robert Dale to the Mediterranean, with orders to find out if any or all of the Barbary powers had declared war on the United States. If only the Bey of Tripoli had declared war, Dale was to blockade Tripoli's port. If any other of the Barbary states had declared war, then Dale was to deploy his troops as he saw fit in order to "protect our commerce and chastise their insolence-by sinking, burning or destroying their ships and Vessels wherever (he should) find them."(19) This order by President Jefferson authorized actions that clearly were beyond the line of "defensive" actions authorized by the Constitution.

.....break

Unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defence, the vessel, being disabled from committing hostilities, was liberated with its crew. The legislature will doubtless consider whether, by authorizing measures of offence also, they will place our force on equal footing with that of its adversaries.(21)

Congress did authorize the appropriate measures of allowing the navy and the President to capture and make prizes of Tripolitan vessels. The authorization led to a war effort the lasted for four years.

Most scholars point to Jefferson's address to Congress as support for Congress' exclusive right to engage in hostilities. This seems only partially true. Jefferson did not want to "act in such a way that might compromise the power to declare war assigned exclusively to Congress by the Constitiution "(22) but at the same time he wanted to advance the goals of his administration, such as reducing the national debt and the budget. Had Congress made this a constitutional issue, Jefferson might have responded that his actions were based on "a question of expediency," rather than on a technical question of constitutionality; the nation had to react quickly to the Bey's declaration of war and Congress was not in session at the time. His actions were for the good of the nation and not to satisfy a personal fervor for power. This would not make his actions constitutional, but it would make them forgivable. Jefferson further hoped that his actions would not be a signal for other Presidents to bypass the Constitution and its provisions for war-making. He believed that the "good sense" of the people would not allow this precedent to be one that would continue.(23) That is he believed that if other presidents abused their power, the people would pressure Congress for an impeachment. This is an argument that would parallel his justification of the Louisiana Purchase.


So, our calls to impeach Bush are perhaps justified? ;) What jefferson did was indeed unconstitutional, and he admits it, though he has a justifcation. Was that wrong of him? Yes, he says so, and says he would leave it up to the good sense of the people to take the responsibility of impeaching a president they felt abused the constitution to expand federal power. That is what many want to do with Bush (i dont want him impeached because then Cheney... and then Pelosi are next in line. Second (third, fourth) is the worst, same as the first. But the idea still stands. I think the point is that he had to be decisive and act because war had been declared on the US, and congress was not in session to return the declaration. This is a very different case from Bush - Congress was in session, and simply allowed him to go to war without debating it, and declaring it themselves. He also used it and the war on terrorism to expand the executive branch and seriously undermine civil liberties - Jefferson did not do this at all, in fact ironically administration's agenda was to limit government and debt and balance the budget (sound familiar?). Jefferson was certainly not in the right, but he knew it, and was very responsible in taking the blame and understanding that what he did went against the constitution.

[ARealConservative]

Having a friendly debate with a friend.

Any good responses to this. I'm looking it as well. Thanks in advance.

------------
Paul moans that Congress has given up it's authority to declare war and turned it into a simple majority vote authorizing the use of force. He says that the US should never go into battle without declaration of war from the US Congress.

Odd thing is that Congress (by simple majority) gave Jefferson the authority to use force without a declaration of war. Of course, Thomas Jefferson probably didn't understand the Constitution as well as Ron Paul.


This discussion with Jefferson's actrions involves naval combat exclusively - and only in defense. I've seen this ploy used before.. The constitution certainly differentiates between Army and Naval powers outside of war time.

--------------------------
On Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, Yussif Karamanli, the
Pasha (or Bashaw) of Tripoli demanded $225,000 from the new
administration. (In 1800, Federal revenues totaled a little over $10
million.) Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused
the demand. Consequently, in May of 1801, the Pasha declared war on the
United States, not through any formal written documents, but by cutting
down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate. Morocco, Algiers, and
Tunis soon followed their ally in Tripoli.

In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American
interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress
never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the
President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United
States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also
to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as
the state of war will justify."


The USS Enterprise defeated the 14-gun Tripolitan corsair Tripoli, after
a fierce but one-sided battle on August 1, 1801. With none of her crew
being injured, Enterprise released the battered pirate in shame into
Tripoli under a single old sail.

The American navy went unchallenged in the sea, and as yet the question
remained undecided. Jefferson pressed the issue the following year, with
an increase in military force and deployment of many of the navy's best
ships to the region throughout 1802. USS Argus, USS Chesapeake, USS
Constellation, USS Constitution, USS Enterprise, USS Intrepid, USS
Philadelphia and USS Syren all saw service during the war under the
overall command of Commodore Edward Preble. Throughout 1803, Preble set
up and maintained a blockade of the Barbary ports and executed a
campaign of raids and attacks against the cities' fleets.
-------------------------------------------