"So if we have an American citizen, and he’s willing to take it, uh,
take the consequences and practice civil disobedience, say “This is what
our government’s doing!” Should he be locked up and in prison? Or
should we, you know, see him as a political hero? Maybe he is a true
patriot who reveals what’s going on in government."
- Ron Paul
Two Points:
1. Because I am a lawyer, I will say that Manning only "allegedly" violated 18 U.S.C. § 793 & § 798.
2.
There is no "civil disobedience" in the military. Manning is NOT a
civilian. In the military, troops do not even have full First Amendment rights, for example. A man seeking to be CIC should know the difference between
civilian and military. Obviously, he doesn't, which disqualifies him.
In response to Sophia H, who emailed me to accuse me of being a "warmonger, Israel Firster, Bilderberger, NWOer, blah, blah, blah, etc., etc., etc., who didn't know history because, according to Ron Paul, Germany wasn't an enemy of America in the Second World War, because I have said that I believe that the United States probably played a proper role in only one war in the last 97 years and that would be WWII, let me just ask:
WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU CALL A COUNTRY THAT DECLARES WAR ON YOU FIRST?
A FRIEND?
AN ALLY?
A CUDDLY BUNNY WITH FUZZY WHISKERS?
The revisionist history of Ron Paul is another reason why he is unfit for command. Another example of his revisionism is his claim that Israel created Hamas. What a bloody fool! Hamas was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood in response to Arafat's negotiations with Israel for peace not because he wasn't negotiating with Israel. In other words, the Bruthas were pissed off that Yasser was yakking with the infidels at all.
Ron Paul on World History: Epic Banjax.
If she thinks we live in a dangerous world, she ought to
think back when I was drafted in the 1962 with nuclear missiles in Cuba. And
Kennedy calls Khrushchev and talks to them, and talks them out of this so we
don’t have a nuclear exchange.
- Ron Paul, Sioux City Republican Presidential Debate,
President Kennedy didn't call Khrushchev and talk him out of a nuclear exchange. First of all, obviously, Paul has no clue as to the fact that Khrushchev thought that Kennedy was a joke and had made a complete fool of him the previous year in Vienna. Secondly, there was never any phone call...unless it was done on the super-secret, tinfoil-encrusted shoe phone. In fact, while there were negotiations between emissaries, it was not dialogue that prompted Khrushchev to issue a message on Radio Moscow on 28 October advising the world that the USSR was stepping back from the precipice. Rather, it was the United States' advisory to NATO that "the situation is growing shorter... the United States may find it necessary within a very short time in its interest and that of its fellow nations in the Western Hemisphere to take whatever military action may be necessary" in the early morning hours of 27 October, followed by the CIA's notification that missiles in Cuba were ready and the American Navy's dropping of depth charges on a Soviet submarine carrying nuclear-tipped missiles at the quarantine line that caused the shoe-banger to blink. Following Moscow's statement, the Kennedy administration agreed to withdraw the Jupiter missiles in Turkey in exchange for the removal of the Soviet bombers from Cuba. While it appeared that Kennedy emerged victorious at the time, it was later felt that Castro was strengthened by the crisis. For certain, there are some liberals that do not consider JFK a brilliant president nor either the Vienna or the Cuban Missile Crisis a détente coup ... or should that be a coup détente? :-)
Now, remember, this is the man, who wants to be the Commander in Chief of the United States' Military. Shouldn't he, at least, know something about military history? Seriously, it is embarrassing. The Cuban Missile Crisis happened long before I was born and I know more about it than the guy, who was drafted during it.
Lastly, Thomas Jefferson
and James Madison, who is called the "Father of the Constitution" for a reason, probably had a better grasp on the intent of the Founders as it pertains to the clause in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which requires that must "declare war." According to Dr Paul, both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are illegal because Congress never declared war on either country. Further, he maintains that Korea and Vietnam were unconstitutional because there were no formal declarations of war. The fact of the matter is that neither the Constitution nor Federal law
stipulate the form in which a declaration of war from Congress must
take. So, it is sort of strange that there were no
DECLARATIONS of WAR for the First Barbary War, which occurred during Jefferson's Presidency, and the Second
Barbary War, which occurred during Madison's administration. In both cases (like both Afghanistan and Iraq), Congress
granted prior AUTHORISATION to the President to wage war for both.
"Mr. MADISON and Mr. GERRY moved to insert 'declare,' striking out 'make' war, leaving to the executive the power to repel sudden attacks."
- Minutes from the Constitutional Convention, 17 August 1789
The Framers' entire purpose by substituting "declare" for "make" was to prevent the Executive from waging war without authorisation and unilaterally. As you can see from the following quote, Charles Pinkney was in the minority arguing for the placement of unilateral power to make war to be placed in the hands of the President solely.
"Mr Pinkney opposed the vesting this power in the Legislature.
Its proceedings were too slow. It wd. meet but
once a year. The Hs. of Reps. would be too numerous for
such deliberations. The Senate would be the best depositary,
being more acquainted with foreign affairs, and most
capable of proper resolutions. If the States are equally
represented in Senate, so as to give no advantage to large
States, the power will notwithstanding be safe, as the small
have their all at stake in such cases as well as the large
States. It would be singular for one authority to make war,
and another peace."
- Minutes from the Constitutional Convention, 17 August 1789
Were those "illegal" wars? Were Jefferson and Madison "war
criminals," too, Dr Paul? Did they commit impeachable offences? Not according to the minutes from the Constitutional Convention.
Madison reported that in the Federal Convention of 1787,
the phrase "make war" was changed to "declare war" in order to
leave to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks, but not to
commence war without the explicit approval of Congress.
The Barbary Wars aren't the only pre-Korean War examples of
"non-declared" wars either. The Indian Wars lasted 46 years and were
fought against the Apache Nation without a declaration of war and never
more than a 90 day respite in all of the time. The Philippine-American
War of 1898-1903 was "authorised," but never formally "declared."
One can disagree as to whether or not we should have gone to either Afghanistan or Iraq, but neither was an illegal or unconstitutional war. If you have caselaw proving otherwise, then produce it. We would all like to read it.
Finally, for the pièce de résistance, Paul Pot joined forces with Barney Frank on a proposal to gut national defence via a panel of experts, quite a few of whom were tied to George Soros. On the Paul-Frank Task Force, "9 out of 14 members were linked to
Soros’s organs. Two were affiliated with the Cato Institute. One is
indeterminate.
Ron Paul proposed to put a bunch of Soros-funded think tank experts in charge of dismantling the US military. Think about that for a moment. Ron Paul supporters can see conspiracies in a glass of water; can they see anything wrong with this picture? Can they see anything wrong with having a man from a group that was investigated for its Communist ties in the driver’s seat on national defense?
The task force’s proposals included cutting nuclear deterrence; reducing the fleet by 57 ships, including two carriers; canceling the Joint Strike Fighter; “severely curtail missile defense” — and that is a direct quote from the report — retiring four Marine battalions; reducing the military by 200,000 personnel; cutting defense research spending by 50 billion over ten years; and increasing health care fees for members of the military.
Not only did Paul join forces with Barney Frank to slash military
preparedness, but he ended up putting the experts of a foreign
billionaire with global ambitions in charge of the project. And that was
what he did as a congressman. Can anyone imagine what he would do as
president?"
Those, who refuse to learn history and the law, are doomed to
fall for Ron Paul's bullshit.
PS: Hmmmm....the Cuban Missile Crisis was in 1962 and Paul Pot said during the debate in Iowa that he had been drafted in 1962, but his campaign website says that he served in the USAF between 1963 and 1965 then the United States Air National Guard between 1965 and 1968.
I guess he was a draftee sitting on an imaginary ship in 1962 when Kennedy made that imaginary phone call to Khrushchev to talk him back from the precipice. Except....a Presidential panel studying the military manpower issue reported in
1970, “The Navy and Marine Corps have occasionally issued draft calls to
meet temporary shortfalls, but the Air Force has never used the draft.”
Allah, I hate when that happens!
RELATED READING:
1 comment:
While I opposed the Iraq War and the ground war in Afghanistan, NEITHER was illegal or unconstitutional. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, who is called the “Father of the Constitution” for a reason, probably had a better grasp on the intent of the Founders as it pertains to the clause in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which requires that must “declare war” and they did not agree that a “formal declaration of war” was necessary. The Constitution lays out no form that Congress must take in “declaring” war.
According to those that believe that both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are illegal, they are such because Congress never “declared war” on either country. The fact of the matter is that neither the Constitution nor Federal law stipulate the form in which a declaration of war from Congress must take.
There were NO DECLARATIONS OF WAR for the First Barbary War, which occurred during Jefferson’s Presidency, and the Second Barbary War, which occurred during Madison’s administration. Instead, in both cases (just like Afghanistan and Iraq), Congress granted AUTHORISATION to the President to WAGE WAR war for both. The authorisation for the First Barbary War was passed on 6 February 1802 and the one for the Second Barbary War was passed on 10 May 1815.
While it is true that Jefferson acted against the Barbary pirates before the AUMF, he did so DEFENCIVELY, which IS PERMITTED under the Constitution. The Pascha of Tripoli declared war on the US on 10 May 1801 by chopping down a flagpole. (Yes, this was his declaration of war). Jefferson sought PRIOR AUTHORISATION before offencively “waging war” against him. This is exactly what Bush did when he secured the AUMFs for both Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Framers’ entire purpose by substituting “declare” for “make” was to prevent the Executive from waging war without authorisation and unilaterally (see: Minutes from the Constitutional Convention, 17 August 1789).
Post a Comment