May 12, 2011
Professional Idiot Ron Paul Would Not Have Authorized Bin Laden Mission
Proving yet again why this messiah to the dim and half-baked is simply unfit for the job he wants.
Ron Paul says he would not have authorized the mission that led to the death of Osama bin Laden, and that President Barack Obama should have worked with the Pakistani government instead of authorizing a raid."I think things could have been done somewhat differently," Paul said this week. "I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he's been in prison. Why can't we work with the government?"
Asked by WHO Radio's Simon Conway whether he would have given the go-ahead to kill bin Laden if it meant entering another country, Paul shot back that it "absolutely was not necessary."
"I don't think it was necessary, no. It absolutely was not necessary," Paul said during his Tuesday comments. "I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. What if he'd been in a hotel in London? We wanted to keep it secret, so would we have sent the airplane, you know the helicopters into London, because they were afraid the information would get out?"
The correct answer is damn right you send the Blackhawks into London, and fire on Britain's throngs of disloyal Bin Laden supporters if necessary.
What Ron Paul doesn't get—and will never get—is that it is easy to be an ideologue when you don't have any real responsibilities. Obama is being exposed to this reality the hard way, which is why he's been dragged kicking and screaming into many of the (correct) foreign policy and military decisions undertaken by his predecessors, despite his unrealistic campaign promises.
Ron Paul sought letters of marque to get OBL Constitutionally 10 YEARS ago and again since then. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h107-3076 Obama is not KING
Posted by: JK at May 12, 2011 10:53 AMThe problem is that the USA does not have a legal process for assassination. So when we do one, it causes more problems than it solves. Though I am OK with killing OBL... just this once. but don't let it happen again.
Posted by: Professor Hale at May 12, 2011 12:15 PMYou are wrong on 2 counts.
Ron proposed using the Constitutional Letters of Marque and Reprisal which I don't agree with after reading this http://emsnews.wordpress.com/2011/05/10/ron-paul-wrong-on-letter-of-marque-and-reprisal/ This would amount to the same result of a captured or dead OBL and probably sooner and a trillion $ cheaper.
Secondly he said that he did not think it Constitutional to send a team in to kill a foreign national within a foreign nation. He thinks this is unconstitutional and allows the Executive to much freedom which I agree with. At some point perhaps after another McVeigh event the will haul us off and say they were 'terrrrrists'. People will ask to see the evidence or the bodies and they will say 'no' due to national security.
The glaring logical inconsistency (which you missed) in Paul's position in this case is that he advocates the same activity that transpired to get Osama but under the banner of providing a Constitutional method to do so rather than executive decree. Maybe he thinks it's cool if private contractors rather than state actors do the bounty hunting. In the long view I'm OK with that. It would be cheaper but it won't happen because it doesn't provide 'jobs' or massive government contracts. Still though the question remains in either case whether or not justice is served without bringing a person to trial, presenting evidence and cross examining witnesses rather than star chambers and secret prisons. Slippery slopes and all that. Look out below.
Posted by: chuck at May 12, 2011 02:32 PMI am not surprised by Ron Paul's statement. As a Libertarian I would expect him to avoid foreign entanglements. National defense is where I part company with Libertarians, but Ron Paul is completely consistent with that statement.
Posted by: Rick Caird at May 12, 2011 08:59 PMRon Paul has already crapped the bed with his long term association with Nazis, damn it. I don't give a rat's ass what he says after that, how intelligent or stupid it is, the Nazi association is a deal breaker.
As for Letters of Marque, they are illegal in nearly every nation on the planet except the US. Does anyone seriously expect another nation to shrug and say "What can we do? As Americans they aren't bound by the Treaty of Paris?" Like most Libertarian ideas it only seems smart at two in the morning in the dorm room bull session.
And as for the Bin Laden being an "assassination," bullshit. He was a legitimate military target, and only a moron would refuse to believe that.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at May 12, 2011 09:35 PMHe can be both. Look it up.
Posted by: Professor Hale at May 13, 2011 01:47 AM
