September 9, 2007
Remember back when we offered up serious contenders for the office of President of the United States? Once was the time that wishy washy candidates like Jimmy Carter or Ron Paul we laughed out of any serious contention.
As we know, Democrat Jimmy Carter went on to win the Presidency in 1976 and by the time he was replaced in 1980 by Republican Ronald Reagan, the country had slid into trouble, especially that starting of the current wave of Radical Islamist Jihadists desiring to rule the world under their misguided interpretation of Islam’s Holy Book, the Qu’Ran.
Another potential Jimmy Carter is vying for the Republican nomination in the 2008 election, self professed lifelong Libertarian, Dr. Ron Paul, Congressman from Texas’s 14th District. Dr. Paul is the lone anti-war candidate vying for the Republican nomination out of a field of candidates that see the necessity of fighting the radical Jihadists that have continually attacked our foreign interests and us for nearly three decades now.
In the past, Dr. Paul came under fire for an article that appeared in his newsletter, ‘Ron Paul Survival Report.’ The 1992 article bearing his name claimed President Clinton had fathered illegitimate children, used cocaine and called fellow Representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist." The article advocated government lowering the legal age for prosecuting youths as adults saying, "black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." His newsletter also claimed that "only about 5 percent of blacks had sensible political opinions," and "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be," adding "95 percent of the black males in Washington, D.C. are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
Much later, Dr. Paul admitted the words were in an article in his newsletter with his name attached to it, but said he didn’t write them, someone else did and it did not represent his views.
If I were serving citizens as a prominent Representative and publishing a newsletter, I would ensure what was sent out was representative of my views so voters in my district knew who and what they had voted into office. To me, it is incredibly naïve to allow a newsletter under my name to be sent out with no idea of what was in it, only to have to later have to try to slither my way out of what was published under my name.
In 2001 and again in 2007, Dr. Paul introduced legislation authorizing the President to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal as a tool to combat terrorists.
A Letter of Marque and Reprisal is an archaic facility written into our Constitution way back when that basically allowed Congress, when we had a small Military, to “hire out” agents to go after those who may have committed violations against us and our laws. European nations had this ability long before we were formed as a nation, resulting in what we today often call ‘Pirates’ or ‘Privateers.’ Today, one might refer to them as ‘Bounty Hunters’ or even ‘Mercenaries.’
In 1856 European nations, like France and Britain, abolished their use with the ratification of the Treaty of Paris that ended the Crimean War. America was not a signatory and did not ratify that treaty, leaving them legal in the U.S.
Although legal, would their use be practical today, as Ron Paul thinks?
To me, no, they wouldn’t. First of all, in regards the Letters of Marque and Reprisals, our Constitution says in Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 11, “The Congress shall have Power to … To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”
Therein lies the first problem for Paul, an admitted staunch Constitutionalist. His legislative proposals would grant the President, through Congress, the authority to issue such Letters of Marque and Reprisals. Our Constitution only grants Congress that authority. Douglas Kmiec, Dean of the Columbus School of Law at The Catholic University of America in 2002 said,
“Letters of Marque and Reprisal are grants of authority from Congress to private citizens, not the President. Their purpose is to expressly authorize seizure and forfeiture of goods by such citizens in the context of undeclared hostilities. Without such authorization, the citizen could be treated under international law as a pirate. Occasions where one's citizens undertake hostile activity can often entangle the larger sovereignty, and therefore, it was sensible for Congress to desire to have a regulatory check upon it. Authorizing Congress to moderate or oversee private action, however, says absolutely nothing about the President's responsibilities under the Constitution.”
Even if Paul’s proposed legislation were to be modified and only Congress were to grant ‘Letters of Marque and Reprisal,” can you imagine the worldwide outcry above and beyond what we now hear? The left and even Paul himself have bellyached about breaking “international Law” in this current war. In the September 5, 2007 GOP Primary Debate, Paul said, “We should not go to war without a declaration. We should not go to war when it's an aggressive war. This is an aggressive invasion. We've committed the invasion of this war. And it's illegal under international law.” If the war is illegal under international law, what do you think hiring bounty hunters to enter sovereign nations to seize, intercept, detain or kill individuals who committed acts of war against us would be considered?
And, what would these bounty hunters accomplish against the rest of Al Qaeda and radical Jihadists groups like them?
How naïve would it be for a President to “outsource” our security to hired guns faithful only to a reward of money? They are guns for hire and loyalties lie with whoever pays them more money. Could wealthy Muslims like bin Laden or Zawahiri counter offer the hired guns Paul proposes and turn them back against us, or against the President?
The left and many others cry today about “atrocities” committed by our Professional Troops. Would hired guns, mercenaries, be more cautious in regards ‘collateral damage? I think not. To get the target, my money says they would kill anything in their way.
Thinking on it, can you imagine someone like Wayne ‘The Dog’ Chapman traipsing around Pakistan, Afghanistan and Tora Bora seeking to blend in with locals to even get close to bin Laden?
I cannot think of anything more naïve for someone thinking they could be President to propose than the outsourcing of the security and protection of our nation to bounty hunters and mercenaries.
Paul additionally whined in the recent debate, “This whole idea that we're supposed to sacrifice liberty for security, we're advised against that. Don't we remember that when you sacrifice liberty for security, you lose both? That's what's happening in this country today.”
I’m surprised that man of his supposed caliber would stoop to such a misrepresentation of the words of one of our founders, Benjamin Franklin. If someone as blue collar and common as me can so easily discover the truth of the quote “Those Who Would Give Up A Little Liberty To Gain A Little Security,” why is that it so readily escapes one as learned as Dr. Ron Paul, in his tenth session of Congress? Could a man who doesn’t understand the meaning of the words our Founders left us be trusted to properly lead the country today? I think not!
Paul wrapped his whining up with cry of, “We have -- we have a national ID card on our doorsteps, it is being implemented right now. We have FISA courts. We have warrantless searches. We've lost habeas corpus. We've had secret prisons around the world and we have torture going on. That's un-American, and we need to use the power of the presidency to get it back in order, in order to take care of us and protect this country and our liberties.”
Everything he whines about has been found to be legal and in the case of the suspension of Habeas Corpus, constitutional. In the case of Habeas Corpus, Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 2 states, “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
If he cannot see that public safety comes before battlefield detainees supposed right to a speedy trial, he is even more incredibly naïve than I ever thought.
Rabid Paulites who blindly fall in behind someone like Paul, mostly, in my personal estimation, because they are afraid that one day they may be called to fight these radical Jihadists who threaten us. They cry they would fight if our shores were breeched and we were threatened at home.
What the hell do they think happened on September 11, 2001?
Were we to pull back and follow the isolationalist policies advocated by Dr. Paul and were soon invaded again by roving sleeper cells of Muslims radicals or others, I doubt these rabid cowards would stand up then, either. My money says they would cry it is someone else’s job or try to make deals with the radicals, just as did the Quakers who would not join in with protecting the frontier of the Pioneer Front from roving murderers that prompted the above quote often given by them from Benjamin Franklin.
Dr. Ron Paul is just too incredibly naïve to ever be trusted with the reigns of leadership over the Free World.
UPDATE: A Brit adds his comments seeing Ron Paul as a phony who does not deserve the GOP nomination The Clue Is In The Party