One of the unfortunate aspects to my man Tommy-J’s later life is that he didn’t always act in accordance with his ideals. Many of his actions were blatantly in conflict with his earlier statements, including unconstitutional acts.
Of course, it’s also pointed out that the Barbary Pirates were using Islam as a cover for their acts, which they perpetrated even when then conflicted with Islamic principles.
It had been so quite and peaceful too...
I was going to go get a hair cut and a massage...
Shoot first, ask questions later.
>Given the fact that these actions were authorized and conducted by the same men who wrote the Constitution, are these actions instructive...
Penetrating question.
Ron Paul has no chance at this run. No chance at all.
I have it on good authority that if Ron Paul gets the nomination, he will choose Jerry Brown as his running mate. Thereby assuring the entire kook populations vote.
i vaguely remember voting for ronpaul back in college. peyote is a hell of a drug.
http://www.attackcartoons.com/article.php?story=20070806090652721
Ron Paul, That Big Tall Strong Texan, is the Man for the Job....
the key here is that pirates attacked and hijacked american ships. Jefferson authorized limited military action to protect american trade from piracy. that is a legitimate, constitutional use of limited military powers-—as was the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, in response to an attack and a direct threat.
Yes, I signed up just to answer this question. I am a Constitutional Conservative who can’t even believe he is posting at what is essentially a NeoCon site. But your ? was asked in good faith, and with all due respect, so I feel you deserve an answer.
The direct answer to your question is that there was no American policy or action that led to this attack. The answer to your implied question - “aren’t all Muslims going to hate and attack us no matter what we do?” is, most emphatically, no.
I have traveled all over the world, including many Arab Muslim countries, and many countries that are Islamic without being Arabic. The VAST majority of Muslims either (1) couldn’t care less about America, or (2) have a passive mistrust or suspicion of America, but not one that would lead them to strap bombs to their children and send them off to kill other people in suicide attacks.
Despite what people around here say, the large majority of Muslims are not itching to kill any non-Muslims and impose Sharia law. I say this as a committed and devout Christian. Most Muslims would, frankly, rather fight people from neighboring tribes or clans. Our backing of tyrannical regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Yemen, and our support for Israel (who is our “ally” for reasons that no one can explain without using circular logic) are the DIRECT reason for the hatred that radical Muslims have for America.
Yes, the Koran says to spread Islam by the sword. The Christian Bible says to love your enemies, and when someone attempts to rob you, you should willingly and happily hand over your property. I don’t see too many Christians doing that.
To answer your question, sir - Had Paul been President on 9/11, there's no doubt that he would have immediately asked Congress for a full declaration of war. None of this going to the UN or waiting to see what the "international community" thinks. I'm sure Paul would have done the same in the 1700s, since these were American interests being attacked.
But what do I know. I'm just a kook. Time for me to hit the bong.
I’m a Ron Paul supporter but I don’t think the war is illegal. It’s a little rediculous to claim that when Congress authorized the action like you stated. But the actions of muslims back then are not really that applicable to recent times. Do Christians still burn people at the stake for being witches? No. So just because one thing is true back then doesn’t mean it still is.
Either way, I can stomach pulling out of Iraq to fix our government back home.
Please report back after you get an answer from Dr. Paul's campaign, won't you?
Thanks
You should have asked why Ron Paul has voted repeatedly against the Patriot Act.
Ron Paul was the first representative to submit a bill to attack the Taliban after 9/11.
His bill was a directly taken from the Letters of Marque and Reprisal put forth by Jefferson’s bloc during the Congressional session prior to the US Navy entering the fray to put a stop to the Barbery piracy.
As many Paul detractors have correctly pointed out, Letters of Marque and Reprisal are only possible if both the United States, and the country government where the targets are located both agree the Letters are valid. Obviously if you take on the face that the Taliban were at the time the rightful government of Afghanistan, this wasn’t the case.
BUT, the CIA and US Special Ops forces were quickly ramping up on the ground working with the Northern Alliance, handing out supplies and large sums of money to NA commanders who were willing to attack the Taliban, some of this as early as the last week of Sept. 2001. In essence, while Paul’s bill “H.R. 3076 - The September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001” would have had the Legislative branch authorise the funding of the Northern Alliance, the Congress instead moved onto a dangerous path and gave the Executive unlimited “war like” powers, without formally declaring war, nor formally declaring Afghanistan a war zone. This tactic came back to bite the Republicans in the arse recently, as the Democrats attempted to de-authorize the wars in a political stunt to placate their domestic wingnut constituencies.
There is a lot more to this discussion, ...
A recent update...
Ron Paul has once again brought forth a Letter of Mrque and Reprisal bill, you can read more abou tit
here.... http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0707/Ron_Paul_brings_back_a_whacky_post_911_bill.html
All in all, Paul attempted to put forth a strict Constructionist position to allow the invasion of Afghanistan and support of the Northern Alliance, in theory and in essence keeping with Jeffersonian principles regarding foreign wars.
I didn’t touch the obvious problems of theory meeting up against hard cold reality on the ground and pragmatic approaches to warfare on the other side of the globe, but I don’t at all discount that.
Hope that helps... I’m sure Freepers will jump on me to pick up all the loose ends on this half arsed narrative.