declaration of war

[hvac ak47]

Ron says we should not go to war without a declaration from congress. Did congress declare war on afganistan? If not why did Ron vote for the war in afganistan?

 

[bbachtung]

No, Congress did not declare war against Afghanistan.

As for RP's vote to authorize the President to send troops in to capture or kill bin Laden and those behind 9/11, I don't think that RP did anything wrong. It was intended to be a search and destroy mission, not a nation-building, let the bad guys get away bloodbath of America's brave men and women.

As Michael Scheur pointed out in Imperial Hubris, the Pentagon had plans to invade and / or destroy nearly every country on Earth, yet had no plan or rapid-deployment forces to capture or kill bin Laden and the al Qaeda organization, so the President and the DoD spent over a month working to establish a "coalition" to attack in Afghanistan, all the while bin Laden and his forces were able to escape.

 

[pcosmar]

No declaration of war.
He voted to hunt down and punish criminals.
Not to attack, destroy, and then rebuild countries.

 

[johngr]

No declaration of war.
He voted to hunt down and punish criminals.
Not to attack, destroy, and then rebuild countries.

What is his excuse for disregarding as illegitimate the requests from the sovereign leaders of Afghanistan for evidence tying Osama Bin Laden to the attacks -- evidence which to this day is not forthcoming, despite Colin Powell's statement that a white paper on the subject would soon be published. They said they would hand him over if merely provided with evidence. Bush's attitude was "I don't need no stinking evidence" and he certainly didn't need it practically or politically. Imagine that -- they might have taken into custody the most notorious criminal in the world just by handing over some evidence.

My guess is that they have no evidence. Otherwise there would have been formal indictments.

Imagine it the other way around.

 

[pcosmar]

What is his excuse for disregarding as illegitimate the requests from the sovereign leaders of Afghanistan for evidence tying Osama Bin Laden to the attacks -- evidence which to this day is not forthcoming, despite Colin Powell's statement that a white paper on the subject would soon be published.

I am not sure, of the evidence available, or what was"disregarded".
Dr. Paul has said that he regrets that we did not target those involved but went into regime change and nation building instead.
What has been done was not what he voted for.

 

[johngr]

I am not sure, of the evidence available, or what was"disregarded".
Dr. Paul has said that he regrets that we did not target those involved but went into regime change and nation building instead.
What has been done was not what he voted for.

Your response is obfuscatory.

The Afghan gov't's requests for evidence against Bin Laden were disregarded.

I submit that the reason they didn't send an official and brief them on the evidence against against Bin Laden is that no such evidence existed. Powell's promised paper never materialized. There is no arrest warrant against Bin Laden -- no charges filed -- for 911. Is that because there is no evidence against him? If not, where is it?

It is incompatible with Dr. Paul's supposed willingness to talk to reps of other countries to just go and invade a country to catch a fugitive when its leaders expressed that they were willing to had him over and asked for the evidence that the fugitive actually committed the crimes.

 

[pcosmar]

This was not Ron Paul's decision.
His one vote was to go after and prosecute those responsible.

What was done was not Ron Paul's choice and he spoke out against it.
We did not declare war. Ron Paul did not vote to declare war.

Your response is obfuscatory.

I don't see how.
No war has been declared.
Our present actions are illegal.
Ron Paul has called the present actions illegal.
Ron Paul has opposed the action since before Bush was elected, before 9/11.
His vote to prosecute the criminals behind 9/11 was not a declaration of war.

 

[Artemus]

Think we're getting carried away into thinking what Ron Paul voted for. So here it is.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes (sic) any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Basicly Bush is suppose to go after the guys that attacked us, not completely miss and ignore his target and national build.

 

[hvac ak47]

Bump , in hope for a better answer.

 

[johngr]

His vote to prosecute the criminals behind 9/11 was not a declaration of war.

With no evidence?

 

[johngr]

Basicly Bush is suppose to go after the guys that attacked us, not completely miss and ignore his target and national build.

The authorization is for Bush to go after those he determines were responsible for the attack. He doesn't need any evidence. We don't know that Osama Bin Laden was behind the attacks and if they have evidence, they're not releasing it (and I have my suspicions as to why the secrecy).

 

[lx43]

Forgive my ignorance, how many votes are required for a declartion of war? I looked in the constition handbook I have. it said nothing about the number of votes needed to declare; therefore, I must surmize it means a simple majority. Should that be the case, it freightens me because I feel to plunge a nation into war should need atleast a 2/3 majority.

 

[pcosmar]

With no evidence?

I believe there was evidence. Was it presented in open court? No.
He was known to have been involved in the first bombing of the trade centers.
He was involved in the training and planing of other attacks.
He has stated since that he is responsible, and that he wants to attack again.
Whats your point. Exactly.

 

[johngr]

I believe there was evidence. .

Not good enough. Where is it?

He was known to have been involved in the first bombing of the trade centers.
He was involved in the training and planing of other attacks.

Of course, he makes an excellent boogeyman.

He has stated since that he is responsible, and that he wants to attack again.

So confession = crime solved but confession doesn't equal indictment. Okay. There was a newspaper report shortly after the attacks where he was quoted as denying involvement. Also shortly after the attacks the obviously fake "Fatty Bin Laden" tape fortuitously appeared. This cave find, as many other parts of the story do, has a fairy tale quality to it.

Whats your point. Exactly.

I don't trust gov't agents. The fact that they have lied to start a war is not exactly comforting to me. The fact that they're so secretive makes me wonder what they're hiding.


***
Some people think that anyone who doesn't think that gov't agents always have the best intentions and the welfare of their subjects a heart is paranoid. I think the opposite. I think anyone who trusts the people dba the gov't needs to have his head examined and is likely suffering from a syndrome the main symptom of which is to pathologically trust men and women who have clearly demonstrated that they are untrustworthy.

 

[johngr]

delete duplicate

 

[pcosmar]

I don't trust gov't agents. The fact that they have lied to start a war is not exactly comforting to me.

I don't trust them either. The war had nothing to do with Osama. Never did. I never said it did.
Going after the players in a crime, and going to war are TWO different things.

Ron Paul has NEVER voted for or supported this war.

 

[johngr]

I don't trust them either. The war had nothing to do with Osama. Never did. I never said it did.
Going after the players in a crime, and going to war are TWO different things.

Going after "the (ostensible) players in a crime" with evidence and going after them without evidence are two different things.

 

[pcosmar]

Going after "the (ostensible) players in a crime" with evidence and going after them without evidence are two different things.

Irrelevant

We (as a country) NEVER went after Bin Ladin, Bush instead went after the Taliban and set up another puppet government in it's place.
Ron Paul was against this.
Bush went after Saddam.
Ron Paul was against this.

We are in a conflict against our will. (most Americans Oppose the war)
We are trying to END it.

 

[johngr]

Irrelevant to whom? Not to me. Highly salient, actually. It is a matter of common courtesy if nothing else that you don't go around killing or kidnapping people using the excuse that they committed a crime without evidence that they committed the crime. I consider it relevant that the Afghanis asked for evidence and were rebuffed (and I also smell something fishy in that). They were ready to turn over Bin Laden.

You could probably do better than one shout-down word with nothing connected to it if you had an argument.

 

[pcosmar]

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RON PAUL!!!

Take it up with Bush and Co.

Ron Paul is AGAINST IT!!