My thoughts on your Ron Paul thoughts:
1.) He opposed the Iraq War for the same reason we never should have gone in there in the first place; Hussein was not harboring or supporting al-Qaeda. (a fact that Bush later admitted to!) He opposed the war because then-President Bush only had the authority to take action against terrorists, yet he went into Iraq because of "WMD's". He did not have the authority to do so. And yes, he opposed a potential war with Iran much for the same reason. We have no business going in there, and we have not tried diplomacy when dealing with them.
2.) You really think that torture does not fall under the "cruel and unusual punishment" category? Really?
3.) Your point about the habeas corpus I find rather false. First off, you only took a small excerpt from the Constitution and took whatever that excerpt said as its meaning. The habeas corpus excerpt is written in Article I, which specifically lays out the powers of CONGRESS. So no, the President cannot suspend the writ of habeas corpus for anyone, at any time, no matter what.
4.) I'm pretty sure that 18 USC Chapter 37 was not meant for journalists and newspapers. I think it was meant to punish someone who was trying to help a foreign government with malevolent intentions towards ours, but that could just be my interpretation. Could you show the supreme court cases which you were talking about?
5.) "Wikileaks has no right to publish US secrets"- I'm sorry, but you've got it all wrong. The US government has no right to keep secrets from us in the first place, and Wikileaks has every right as a "newspaper" to publish them because that's the newspaper's job; to keep the populace informed. Also, isn't this just a case of killing the messenger? Regardless of the debate surrounding Private Manning, when someone in our state department or someone on the federal level get into trouble for what they've been doing?
Keep up the great work.
1) I can not fathom why Ron Paul would oppose Operation Iraqi Freedom because Al Qaeda was there and Saddam was harbouring them. FACT. WMD’s were beside the point.
And Bush DID have the authority; Authorisation for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists was all the authority he needed. However he seeked, and attained, an additional act of congress [Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq] and was it 14 UN Resolutions? [the exact number escapes me]
2) Yes, torture does fall under “cruel and unusual punishment”. Not to be confused with “Enhanced Interrogation.”
3) I took “only a small excerpt from the Constitution”? I don’t know what you mean by that. The First Amendment is a small excerpt, no?
And yes, the Congress does have the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, you are correct. However, under the before mentioned “Authorisation for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists”, Congress recognised Al Qaeda as enemies of the United States and thus all captured combatants are effective prisoners of war and thus excluded from habeas corpus.
4) Wikileaks is not a news paper; it is a hostile entity who’s sole purpose is to undermine the strategic and diplomatic standing of the United States. It’s not like the Washington Post received an anonymous tape; Julian Assange lives and breathes to undermine our position.
5) No, sir, you are wrong. The US Government has every right to withhold certain information from the general public. I refer you again to 18 USC Chapter 37 SS 798
Furthermore, Wikileaks has failed to unveil any genuine cases of illegal activity and has more or less vindicated the US of any ulterior motives
This will be brief, as my opinion of Ron Paul is not very complex; I don’t like him and, furthermore, I don’t can’t take him seriously. Every time I hear him speak, I feel sick inside.
There are several polices that he opposes that I feel makes him a radical and dangerous candidate for President. They are;
1) Opposition to Iraq invasion, 2003
2) Opposition to Potential war with Iran
3) Opposition to Use of Enhanced Interrogation
4) Avocation for hebeas corpus for POW’s
5) Approval for Wikileaks
What bothers me in particular, apart from the fact he’s wrong and the fact that these polices generally identify Republicans, is the fact he justifies these polices on flawed interpenetration of the Constitution.
On points 1 and 2, Paul has contradicted himself. He voted in favor of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in 2001, which gave the President the power to pursue all terrorists involved with the 9/11 attacks and those that harboured them where ever they may be. An yet he opposed the use of military action against Iraq in 2002! That is a contradiction and a half!
On point 3, there is nothing the the United States Constitution that prohibits the use of Enhanced Interrogation on high-priority prisoners. Nothing. The Constitution does provide rights for those being detained by US authorities during the course of a criminal investigation, but there are no provisions preventing Enhanced Interrogation on high-value prisoners. Furthermore, the is nothing in the US Code preventing it either.
Now, maybe Ron Paul just doesn’t like Enhanced Interrogation and thinks it constitutes “torture.” Fine. I don’t mind if he thinks it’s wrong, but don’t go around saying its unconstitutional. That is a fallacy.
Furthermore, his claim that Al Qaeda and affiliate POW’s are subject to habeas corpus is also false. The Consitution specifically 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.” Article One, Section 9.
The last one really set me off. I couldn’t believe my ears when I heard that Ron Paul, a United States Congressman, approves of Wikileaks! I can’t believe it…..I just can’t! Wikileaks has no right to publish US secrets! It is an act of espionage. Ron Paul took the moronic argument that this is about freedom of speech…..which it is not. Don’t believe me? 18 USC Chapter 37 § 798 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000798——000-.html)
This section has been challenge several times in the Supreme Court. Each time the Court ruled that this does not constitute a violation of First Amendment rights.
If this man is elected President, America will face unprecedented security risks. No exaggeration.
If he gets the GOP nomination, God help me, Barrack Obama is starting to look real good to me.
“Osama bin Laden was (a) killed by a unit overseen by Dick Cheney’s “executive assassination ring,” [what the left wing used to call SEAL Team Six] (b) sent into action based on intel derived from now-outlawed “enhanced interrogation techniques” (c) used on detainees captured during Bush’s term, who were (d) held in now-outlawed “secret prisons” or Gitmo.”—
“Earlier this evening, President Obama called to inform me that American forces killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of the al Qaeda network that attacked America on September 11, 2001. I congratulated him and the men and women of our military and intelligence communities who devoted their lives to this mission. They have our everlasting gratitude. This momentous achievement marks a victory for America, for people who seek peace around the world, and for all those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001. The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done.”—George W Bush
This is something I wrote about a year ago at the peak of Park 51 site debate:
Doesn’t get any more touchy then this does it?
On one hand, we have the obvious heartache and pain from the survivors and families of those who perished in the attack. They [and many other Americans] find this Mosque, or “community center”, an insult to the memories of those who perished in the attack.
On the other hand, we have the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution which guarantees their right to worship and build what ever the hell they want [with respect to building codes and what not].
Here we have a wound that still hurts, But on the other, we have the very foundations of what our nation is founded on.
To the credit of the planners, the new community center planned for Park 51 will include:
•outstanding recreation spaces and fitness facilities (swimming pool, gym, basketball court)
•a 500-seat auditorium
•a restaurant and culinary school
•cultural amenities including exhibitions
•a library, reading room and art studios
•a mosque, intended to be run separately from Park51 but open to and accessible to all members, visitors and our New York community
•a September 11th memorial and quiet contemplation space, open to all”
On these grounds; what is planned and on the grounds of the Constitution and Equal Protection, I am 100% for the construction of this Mosque. I can see nothing inflammatory about the actual planned facility. I think that the actual community centre would be a great contribution to the area and had the potential to begin a healing process.
However, today I was forced to re-evaluate the situation regarding this Mosque/community centre. It had nothing to do with what was planned or even the controversial Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. It’s tha fact that the Park 51 Community Center is being portrayed by radical Muslims in the middle-east as a triumph.
Mosque’s in general, in Muslim society, are great symbols and the location of this particular Mosque is no lost on Middle-Eastern Muslims. For example, when Israel withdrew from Gaza and other regions, Synagogues were converted into Mosques within hours! This was done as sort of a victory celebration.
Now for a little history lesson. This story comes from a land that was plagued with sectarian violence and religious show-boating: Ireland.
Every year, all over Northern Ireland, there is a so-called “marching season” in which Unionist [and, therefore, predominately Protestant] groups such as the Orange Order and the Apprentice Boys of Derry organise a number of marched all over Northern Ireland to celebrate the Protestant William of Orange’s victory over the Catholic King James II at the Siege of Derry.
During this Siege, the Protestants defiantly told the Catholics [who were laying siege on the walled city] “No Surrender” which has since become the battle cry of Unionist-Protestants. Ultimately, the Siege was broken and the Protestants were victorious. William of Orange went on to win the war, thus making the British Crown exclusively Protestant.
Following this victory, and in response to the growing popularity of the Nationalist movement which was very popular among Catholics, the Orange Order and the Apprentice Boys of Derry began organising victory marches that went through Catholic neighborhoods to intimidate Catholic Nationalists.
These activities intensified after 1921 after the Irish War of Independence when Ireland was partitioned. Keeping with the “No Surrender” mentality, Protestant Unionists marches into Catholic areas became bigger and the scene became tenser.
Tensions climaxed during “The Troubles” from 1960-1980 when Protestant Marches was the motivating factor behind a lot of sectarian violence.
Sound familiar? This is what really alarms me. Now I see what other Americans see. Though the majority of American Muslims don’t see this a triumphantalist and that may not be the intent the organisers, Muslims around the world involved in the “Jihad” against the United States see 51 Park as salt in the American wound. This is exasperated by the fact that people ARE hurting over this community center/mosque.
For these reasons, I strongly feel that this facility should be located elsewhere. I feel for American Muslims who, let’s be honest, have had to put up with a lot of crap recently. I know that they mean no harm with the proposed Park 51 Community Center, but I sincerely hope they realize the heartache and symbolic significance of this Mosque. It’s simply bad PR.
What I suggest: the American Muslim community withdraws it’s application to build on 51 Park and build it elsewhere or change what they plan to build. Maybe turn it into an out & out, secular memorial or ecumenical center.
Let me be the first to say I do not like President Obama. I do not like his policies and I am not particularly fond of the manner in which he carries out the the Office of the President of the Unites States. I look forward to the day he leaves office.
Furthermore, I very much enjoy watching the hags on “The View” get their knickers in a twist when someone who doesn’t agree with them appear on their show. Though Donald Trump didn’t get the same reaction from Woppi Goldberg that Bill O’Reilly did, I loved how she said “how dare you” when Trump questioned the legitimacy of Obama’s birth certificate.
However, that is all the pleasure I get, or should I say ‘got’, from the birth certificate debate. Personally, I was never inclined to think that Obama was not a native-born citizen of the United States. I am pretty sure that the Federal Election Committee would cover that basic requirement. It is one of the simpler things on their to-do list.
What I don’t understand is how people can genuinely believe that the FEC could miss such an obvious error. I know that lack of faith in any and all government bodies is the trendy thing theses days but surely the FEC realise the importance of validating a candidate’s legitimacy in a federal election. After all, they’re civil servants and the number one rule in the civil service is CYA; cover your ass. Surely the individual in charge of that particular detail would see to confirm the birth status of every candidate even if it was out of pure self-preservation. Because if he didn’t and it came out that Obama was actually born outside the US [for the sake of argument], the subsequent investigation would point out that individual and he/she would face dismissal and/or criminal charges.
Now I understand that doesn’t completely rule out the possibility of such an occurance; mistakes are made, after all. But given the basic nature of the task the FEC would have to do and the gravity around it, I have always been certain that Obama was born in the United States and has been, regrettably, eligible to run for President.