Ron's rebuttal to Newt

[Brick-in-the-Wall]

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of 9/11, was a joint U.S.-Pakistan operation. We trusted them then, why can't we trust them now?

 

[Article V]

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!

Except that had Pakistan known about Bin Laden (and knew we knew) then decided to hand him over to us, then we probably would not have received all the intel from inside the Bin Laden compound. Whether or not you believe the intel was there, i.e. the plans for future terrorist bombings, lists of associates, etc., the neo-con response is that Pakistan--even in handing over Bin Laden--would have likely destroyed all that material or not been as effective in collecting the material before it was destroyed by Bin Laden's people, thus putting America in a position of greater threat of terrorist retaliation for the capture of Bin Laden using the plans that Bin Laden himself made.

In my opinion, Ron Paul should always dodge the Bin Laden issue as it relates to Pakistan and simply keep repeating the mantra, "I voted for the authorization to get Bin Laden. I urged us not to get distracted by nation building, so that we'd stay focused on getting Bin Laden. In addition to voting for the authorization to get Bin Laden, I proposed an alternative means of capturing/killing Bin Laden through the Constitutional means of letters of marque and reprisal, which has historically been the best method for capturing/killing enemies of America unassociated with specific foreign governments such as pirates and terrorists. Had I been President we would have captured/killed Bin Laden more quickly at a cheaper cost and the entire world would have been behind us, instead we're now in unending international conflicts bombing Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan to the tune of trillions of dollars and priceless American blood. We need a better method for capturing terrorists than endless undeclared wars against foreign governments. We can't afford the economic toll to our debt or the human toll to our people. I proposed a better method of justice, I fought for a better method of justice, and if I were President you can be certain the American people would have justice, along with the safety of our troops and our economy."

Then he maybe should quickly cap off the message with a: "San Dimas High School football rules!"

 

[helmuth_hubener]

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.

Other foreign governments can and do engage in conspiracies all the time. But the United States government never does. Just, by definition, and as part of its nature. It can't. It never has. It never will. That is the only "acceptable", "mainstream", non-"kooky" position.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of 9/11, was a joint U.S.-Pakistan operation. We trusted them then, why can't we trust them now?

Because he was arrested in 2003 and Bin Laden was killed in 2011. A lot changedd in our relationship with Pakistan between 2003 and 2011. I'm not saying they wouldn't have helped us, but the entire reliance on Pakistan is a side show, because the Marque & Reprisal that Dr Paul loves to mention allows for a cross-border police action raid, so why not just save himself the unpopular position and say "I would have done it differently but I approve of the Bin Laden raid because it was constitutional".

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

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?

Persons acting under letters are still operating under international law and the law of any country in which they conduct business.

 

[Revolution9]

Huh. Thanks for that +rep.

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

With no reprisal the team would be fucked in a firefight during capture.

Rev9

 

[dusman]

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!

If I recall, Pakistan did offer to disclose the whereabouts of Bin Laden if they could proof beyond a reasonable doubt he was responsible for 9/11. For some reason, we dropped the ball on it.

 

[Nathan Hale]

Persons acting under letters are still operating under international law and the law of any country in which they conduct business.

So there's no constitutional provision for America to conduct a police action overseas? I could have sworn the constitution allowed for police actions.