Ron's rebuttal to Newt

[JJ2]

Newt said that Pakistan had to have known that Bin Laden was there, and implied that if we had asked them to hand him over (as Paul said we should have done) that they would have sneaked Bin Laden away or something. Unfortunately, Paul didn't refute this, which he easily could have done by pointing out that the CIA was right there watching the Bin Laden compound and would have known if the Pakistan government tried anything funny. And once Pakistan knew that we knew Bin Laden was there, of course they would have handed him over to us. They would not have risked retaliation from the US!

 

[rp2012win]

The crowd might have assassinated him if he said that. I was beginning to worry someone was going to shoot him

 

[bluesc]

Unfortunately, Paul didn't refute this, which he easily could have done by pointing out that the CIA was right there watching the Bin Laden compound and would have known if the Pakistan government tried anything funny. And once Pakistan knew that we knew Bin Laden was there, of course they would have handed him over to us. They would not have risked retaliation from the US!

Letters of Marque with a description of what they are is the only safe option for Ron on this topic. If they love their hypothetical questions so much, Ron can give his hypothetical answer: "I introduced a bill issuing letters of Marque and Reprisal after 9/11 to capture or kill Bin Laden and others responsible for the terrorist act. If it would have been passed, Bin Laden would have been dead before he had a chance to cross the border into Pakistan."

 

[olsonly]

Letters of Marque with a description of what they are is the only safe option for Ron on this topic. If they love their hypothetical questions so much, Ron can give his hypothetical answer: "I introduced a bill issuing letters of Marque and Reprisal after 9/11 to capture or kill Bin Laden and others responsible for the terrorist act. If it would have been passed, Bin Laden would have been dead before he had a chance to cross the border into Pakistan."

Right..... Unfortunatley that is not what he said. If I didn't know better and I was like most repubs, I would have thought that Ron wanted to let Bin Laden go so as not to mess with Pakistan's sovereignty.

 

[milo10]

It's funny how Newt can engage in conspiracy theory there and nobody calls him out on it. I guess conspiracy theory is only bad when it applies to any power structures in the Western world.

Newt's answer implies that the Pakistani government, going up to the top, had full knowledge of Osama's whereabouts. Maybe, but that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense in terms of the political dynamics there.

 

[milo10]

Right..... Unfortunatley that is not what he said. If I didn't know better and I was like most repubs, I would have thought that Ron wanted to let Bin Laden go so as not to mess with Pakistan's sovereignty.

I felt like some of Ron's arguments against the Anwar Al Alaki killing were spilling over into his response on Osama. They were both problematic issues, but quite different circumstances and reasons.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I felt like some of Ron's arguments against the Anwar Al Alaki killing were spilling over into his response on Osama. They were both problematic issues, but quite different circumstances and reasons.

Yeah, but like it or not, he said it was wrong to kill Osama, too. He tried to deflect that and ended up reiterating his stance from earlier in the year.

Which I'm cool with, but he needs to go all in if he's going to go that way.

 

[Darthbrooklyn]

Its almost as if the entire R base likes to run around holding their ears going LA LA LA LA LA LA LA.... They just dont want to hear anything other than "We are awesome and we will bomb you if you dont agree"

 

[Voluntary Man]

It's funny how Newt can engage in conspiracy theory there and nobody calls him out on it.

Might as well assume that the US government knew about and supported the al-Qaeda training camps in Alabama. Makes a much sense.


Here's how the whole "you're just a ' Conspiracy Theorist'" meme works:

Wife/husband catches husband/wife sneaking back into the house, late at night. "Go back to sleep, baby. You know I'd never cheat on you, sweety. That's crazy talk. You're just being paranoid, sugar."

 

[unknown]

Right..... Unfortunatley that is not what he said. If I didn't know better and I was like most repubs, I would have thought that Ron wanted to let Bin Laden go so as not to mess with Pakistan's sovereignty.

But its never been said that he "should have been let go", repeating that he voted for the authority to get after the guy.

He is simply saying theres a proper way to go about it.

The average Republicon really doesn't get this?

 

[MsDoodahs]

The average Republicon really doesn't get this?

Correct. The average Republican really doesn't get this.

Or much of anything else. The average GOP guy just wants to be told everything will be okay and his SS bennies and Medicare won't take a hit.

 

[bigronaldo]

edit: wrong thread

 

[SovereignMN]

He needs to remind people that after 9/11 the US asked the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden before we embarked on a mission to capture/kill. So we had respect enough for Afghanistan's sovereignty under the Taliban in late 2001 but no respect to do the same to our "ally" Pakistan in 2011?

 

[priest_of_syrinx]

Letters of Marque with a description of what they are is the only safe option for Ron on this topic. If they love their hypothetical questions so much, Ron can give his hypothetical answer: "I introduced a bill issuing letters of Marque and Reprisal after 9/11 to capture or kill Bin Laden and others responsible for the terrorist act. If it would have been passed, Bin Laden would have been dead before he had a chance to cross the border into Pakistan."

Why did he stop pushing Letters of Marque and Reprisal? That was such an awesome answer with a great foundation in the Constitution, and was a large part of what broke me away from the neocons. He needs to get back to that point.

 

[speciallyblend]

He needs to remind people that after 9/11 the US asked the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden before we embarked on a mission to capture/kill. So we had respect enough for Afghanistan's sovereignty under the Taliban in late 2001 but no respect to do the same to our "ally" Pakistan in 2011?

great point

 

[Babylon]

Newt said that Pakistan had to have known that Bin Laden was there, and implied that if we had asked them to hand him over (as Paul said we should have done) that they would have sneaked Bin Laden away or something. Unfortunately, Paul didn't refute this, which he easily could have done by pointing out that the CIA was right there watching the Bin Laden compound and would have known if the Pakistan government tried anything funny. And once Pakistan knew that we knew Bin Laden was there, of course they would have handed him over to us. They would not have risked retaliation from the US!

Guys, don't become zealots (not just you JJ2.. I just happened to jump in on your post.)

The bottom line is that Ron Paul most likely would not have given the order to send in Seals to kill the guy.
I tend to disagree with this position.
So what?

If you agree with 100% of what Ron Paul says then you are in fact a zealot, and you are not thinking rationally.
If you try to re-interpret Ron Paul's statements to make them fit what you WISH he believed, then you sound foolish.

We're involved in two wars over there (maybe three if you count the bombings in Pakistan).

Obviously, our invasion and occupation of the Middle East has nothing to do -- at this point -- with Osama bin Laden.

Whether he is dead or alive is irrelevant.

If I knew where he was, I would have taken him out. Maybe.
But, then again, I also would have known that it would be meaningless either way... His death hasn't changed jack-squat.
It was a public relations coup for the President... that's about it.

Ten years after 9/11 and I'm supposed to think that killing bin Laden amounts to some great victory?

It doesn't.

Bin Laden is moot.

So, if Ron Paul says he woudln't have taken him out, I'm cool with that.
At this point, taking him out serves nothing but vengeance, and a foreign policy based on vengeance is pretty silly.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Letters of Marque with a description of what they are is the only safe option for Ron on this topic. If they love their hypothetical questions so much, Ron can give his hypothetical answer: "I introduced a bill issuing letters of Marque and Reprisal after 9/11 to capture or kill Bin Laden and others responsible for the terrorist act. If it would have been passed, Bin Laden would have been dead before he had a chance to cross the border into Pakistan."

To be clear, did he issue both a letter of marque AND reprisal, or just a letter of marque? I would think a letter of reprisal would be a bad idea considering the treasure trove of information that was there.

 

[bluesc]

To be clear, did he issue both a letter of marque AND reprisal, or just a letter of marque? I would think a letter of reprisal would be a bad idea considering the treasure trove of information that was there.

Here is the full text of the bill. Dead or Alive.

A BILL

To authorize the President of the United States to issue letters of marque and reprisal with respect to certain acts of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, and other similar acts of war planned for the future.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) That the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 upon the United States were acts of air piracy contrary to the law of nations.

(2) That the terrorist attacks were acts of war perpetrated by enemy belligerents to destroy the sovereign independence of the United States of America contrary to the law of nations.

(3) That the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks were actively aided and abetted by a conspiracy involving one Osama bin Laden and others known and unknown, either knowingly and actively affiliated with a terrorist organization known as al Qaeda or knowingly and actively conspiring with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, both of whom are dedicated to the destruction of the United States of America as a sovereign and independent nation.

(4) That the al Qaeda conspiracy is a continuing one among Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and others known and unknown with plans to commit additional acts of air piracy and other similar acts of war upon the United States of America and her people.

(5) That the act of war committed on September 11, 2001, by the al Qaeda conspirators, and the other acts of war planned by the al Qaeda conspirators, are contrary to the law of nations.

(6) That under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, Congress has the power to grant letters of marque and reprisal to punish, deter, and prevent the piratical aggressions and depredations and other acts of war of the al Qaeda conspirators.

SEC. 3. AUTHORITY OF PRESIDENT.

(a) The President of the United States is authorized and requested to commission, under officially issued letters of marque and reprisal, so many of privately armed and equipped persons and entities as, in his judgment, the service may require, with suitable instructions to the leaders thereof, to employ all means reasonably necessary to seize outside the geographic boundaries of the United States and its territories the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and of any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the air piratical aggressions and depredations perpetrated upon the United States of America on September 11, 2001, and for any planned future air piratical aggressions and depredations or other acts of war upon the United States of America and her people.

(b) The President of the United States is authorized to place a money bounty, drawn in his discretion from the $40,000,000,000 appropriated on September 14, 2001, in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorists Attacks on the United States or from private sources, for the capture, alive or dead, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator responsible for the act of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, under the authority of any letter of marque or reprisal issued under this Act.

(c) No letter of marque and reprisal shall be issued by the President without requiring the posting of a security bond in such amount as the President shall determine is sufficient to ensure that the letter be executed according to the terms and conditions thereof.

 

[ShaneEnochs]

Here is the full text of the bill. Dead or Alive.

Huh. Thanks for that +rep.

I'm still confused why he wanted to issue letters of reprisal, though.

 

[Nathan Hale]

I'll admit to not understanding Paul's insistence on putting himself into a tight spot with this question. Letters of Marque and Reprisal allow for crossing borders to conduct police operations. Why not just approve of the attack under that paradigm of information?