B
bbarrick8383
Guest
At this point either one of those are extremely rough guesses.
- Status
S
scipio337
Guest
So did Madison and Jefferson violate the Constitution with their military action against the Ottoman proxies in the Barbary States without a formal, Congressional Declaration of War?
R
rlg94086
Guest
This is the sort of comment that makes Ron Paul look daft IMO. Flying that drone over Iran makes complete sense, since they are becoming nuclear. They are a threat to many, and it behooves us to know what they are up to.
Is Ron Paul against the gathering of intelligence?
O
Orleans_Attny
Guest
That’s an interesting question. The Barbary War was, of course, America’s first war. And the Constitution doesn’t state the form in which a declaration from Congress must occur. The legality of Jefferson’s acts was highly debated at the time, and it bears note that the war was preceded by 15 years of tribute payments, which eventually reached the point that 17% of U.S. government revenue was being paid in “tribute” to pirates.
Immediately prior to Jefferson’s inauguration in 1801, Congress passed naval legislation that, among other things, provided for six frigates that ‘shall be officered and manned as the President of the United States may direct.’ … In the event of a declaration of war on the United States by the Barbary powers, these ships were to ‘protect our commerce & chastise their insolence — by sinking, burning or destroying their ships & Vessels wherever you shall find them.’"
On Jefferson’s inauguration as president in 1801, Yusuf Karamanli, the Pasha (or Bashaw) of Tripoli, demanded $225,000 from the new administration. Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused the demand. And as a consequence, on May 10, 1801, the Pasha declared war on the U.S., not through any formal written documents but in the customary Barbary manner of cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate.
In response, "Jefferson sent a small force to the area to protect American ships and citizens against potential aggression. Though Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed American vessels 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.”
In 1802, the American Congress passed “An act for the Protection of Commerce and seamen of the United States against the Tripolitan cruisers”, authorizing the President to “…employ such of the armed vessels of the United States as may be judged requisite… for protecting effectually the commerce and seamen thereof on the Atlantic ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas.” The statute authorized American ships to seize vessels belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, with the captured property distributed to those who brought the vessels into port.
(A few months ago I presented a talk on the history of piracy, and counter-piracy from the Colonia & U.S. point of view).
It’s certainly an interesting question, especially on the day where we’ve “ended” a 9-year long undeclared war in Iraq, a war predicated on WMD that didn’t exist against a country that has never attacked the United States, except over it’s own soil.
Pax,
OA
O
Orleans_Attny
Guest
I think Paul’s point is that it’s inconsistent with international law. There are many ways to collect intelligence, and many don’t require a violation of sovereignty.
The decision to violate international law for the purposes of intelligence collection is a policy decision - but let’s not pretend it’s not a violation of the law. And let’s not pretend it isn’t escalatory. And let’s certainly not pretent that Iran doesn’t have every right to shoot down a manned or unmanned flight over their airspace - particularly since we’ve been using dones to carry out strikes in Pakistan and Yemen and Afghanistan and Iraq and other countries…
Pax,
OA
G
Gift_from_God
Guest
I never thought I’d say this, but he’s kind of my favourite right now. I don’t like what he says about health care, minimum wage and income tax, but he is absolutely right on civil liberties and American involvement in war. I think America is on a bad road right now and I will never call myself a supporer of his, but Ron Paul is probably the best the US can get at the moment, next to Buddy Roemer, who has no real chance of winning, unfortunately.
Ron Paul also seems to be the only honest and ideologically consistent politician out there
Ron Paul also seems to be the only honest and ideologically consistent politician out there
R
rlg94086
Guest
I see. So, he is against covert intelligence gathering. Got it.
And, people actually want someone like this to run the country?
O
Orleans_Attny
Guest
Do you know the difference between covert and clandestine?I see. So, he is against covert intelligence gathering. Got it.
And, people actually want someone like this to run the country?
Pax,
OA
O
Orleans_Attny
Guest
This.
Hopefully his campaign will finally cause the Republican base to (1) become better educated, and (2) reevaluate long-held (but probably harmful) beliefs.
We can only hope.
Pax,
OA
R
rlg94086
Guest
Sure. What’s your point?
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
What if it was your house the government was gathering intelligence covertly on?I see. So, he is against covert intelligence gathering. Got it.
And, people actually want someone like this to run the country?
I’ve got a friend whose son was shot dead because the covert intelligence on him was that he was a drug dealer.
Turned out he only smoked pot, he didn’t sell it. I forgot how many bullet holes they put in him after they kicked in his door. Now, his response to them justified the use of force, but had they gotten the intelligence right the first time he’d still be alive.
I’m not against the gathering of intelligence, but does the ends justify the means?
R
rlg94086
Guest
You are comparing my house to Iran? :whacky:
E
eo_chibears
Guest
No, he cannot.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
This day and age, give them one good reason.
O
Orleans_Attny
Guest
There’s nothing wrong with collecting intelligence. Indeed, it’s quite necessary. The question is how one does it, and the risk to reward ratio.
We’ve overthrown governments on either side of Iran.
Many of our politicians publically pound the war drums about Iran on a daily basis.
We even have Republican candidates openly advancing “regime change.”
We are conducting drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan and Afghanistan and Iraq…at least.
So when one considers how to collect intelligence against Iran, one must consider the method of collection and the downside to getting caught in terms of international fallout and excaberating a potentially tense situation. And then one must weigh those risks against the benefit of having that intelligence.
We can, and do, collect intelligence on Iran day after day without flying drones over their territory.
One of the relevant question is this: If you assume the worst, and Iran develops a weaponized nuclear weapon, how much does that increase the risk to the U.S. homeland? Answer: Almost nothing.
Pax,
OA
S
scipio337
Guest
You are talking about a government that has had its population chant “death to America”, every Friday, for almost 40 years. A government that backed the killing 200+ Marines in Beirut. A government that stormed our embassy, and held US citizens as hostage for how long?
And some here have called for “regime change”?
Oh, the humanity!
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
Can Ron Paul win?
I certainly hope and pray so. Right now he’s the only candidate I am sure I can vote for. The biggest things he has going against him are consistency, principle, and intellectual honesty. I’m not sure Americans really want those things in their leaders. We might say we do, but if we did how else do you explain the historical record of who we have elected?
Will it happen? Who knows other than God. Stranger things can happen. Remember that last time around at this point everyone was penciling in a Clinton Vs. Gulianni general election.
Pax Christi
I certainly hope and pray so. Right now he’s the only candidate I am sure I can vote for. The biggest things he has going against him are consistency, principle, and intellectual honesty. I’m not sure Americans really want those things in their leaders. We might say we do, but if we did how else do you explain the historical record of who we have elected?
Will it happen? Who knows other than God. Stranger things can happen. Remember that last time around at this point everyone was penciling in a Clinton Vs. Gulianni general election.
Pax Christi
L
_L
Guest
I’m afraid it looks like Ron Paul can’t win this election, and it is a shame. Ron Paul is perhaps one of the only politicans I have seen that has been consistent his entire career, he has his principles and he sticks to them. I believe he severely underestimates the fanatacism of militant Muslims in Iran and throughout the M.E. but this is really the only major area where I disagree. (His stance on drug legalization as well, but Iran and nuclear weapons is much graver obviously) But I just like the fact that during debates he actually relies on reasoned arguments with evidence rather than resorting to rhetoric and cliches like most of the other candidates, and no one relies on cliche and rhetoric more than Obama. Ron Paul is the only one with the views that will truly fix the economy, and return America to the rule of law that it established, the Constitution. This economy will never be fixed while we have the oligarchy that is the federal reserve making decisions that rule peoples’ lives financially.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
The flip flopping has already been done. Reference 2004 when he (along with G.W. Bush) campaigned for Arlen Spectre- the pro-abortion, pro-big governement, pro-gun control- Arlen Spectre. Basically Santorum worked for someone who was againts everything he says he supports and worked againts Pat Toomey who at least sounded like someone Santorum would be closely aligned with. Why? Because when push came to shove, he decided party and power mattered more than principles.
Another thing that draws me to Paul…
It is amazing how many “conservatives” are now supporting not only the policy of the Bush and Obama administration that American citizens overseas can be assasinated simply because the President deems them an enemy of the state, but are now in favor of granting the military the power to seize American citizens on American soil and hold them indefinitely without a trial or even a warrant.
The Bill of Rights is a dead letter, at least to the establishment of both major parties.
Pax Christi
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
The only poll that Rob Paul is actually showing promise in is in Iowa.
Even if he were to win Iowa, keep in mind two facts, the winners of Iowa in the past have been,
Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee.
Neither won the GOP nomination.
With these kind of results, I wonder why we put so much emphasis on the Iowa caucus?
Jim
Even if he were to win Iowa, keep in mind two facts, the winners of Iowa in the past have been,
Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee.
Neither won the GOP nomination.
With these kind of results, I wonder why we put so much emphasis on the Iowa caucus?
Jim
- Status