Sunday, October 30, 2011
On Foreign Aid and Human Rights (of trial by jury)
[Notes are in bold]
1. Ron Paul - 'For me this is taking money from poor people and giving it to rich people and it becomes a weapon of war'
That aid often goes to war lords, dictators or politicians is well known (i.e. the rich of that area). That it often contributes to regional instability is less known publicly but is well known otherwise:
Rather, in countries ravaged by both humanitarian catastrophe and civil war, international aid may inflame or prolong the conflict. In a devastated country with no other income, the money spent by aid organisations in rent, per diem payments, taxes to governments or rebel warlords, bodyguards, gasoline, bars, whores and restaurants turns the "aid industry, supposedly neutral and unbiased, into a potentially lethal force the belligerents need to enlist". Even food becomes "a form of arms delivery". Polman gives a case of international NGOs (non-governmental organisations) paying warlords a tax on each child they vaccinate.
2. I would cut all foreign aid, I would treat everyone equally.
Giving more aid to one nation and less aid to another can cause jealousy and even create suspicions of favoritism which would make attempts at diplomacy during a crisis difficult (unless more aid is given... it's a vicious cycle)
We know its OK to treat siblings unequally but fairly. however, the US is not the parent to any other country nor should it assume such responsibilities (as being a 'world policeman' suggests, with 900 bases in 150 countries).
3. Issue of cutting aid to Israel
Israel would be better off without US aid anyways. Full explanation is here.
4. Would you condone Ronald Reagan's tactics of negotiating for hostages
(The not 'Soverign nation argument for negotiations', if accepted, does apply to Palestine as Israel was given statehood through the UN but Palestine wasn't, technically, accept it or not, Palestine is a 'state'.)
Among the most pressing foreign affairs problems facing the U.S. during Reagan's tenure was the activity of various rogue terrorist organizations. In 1980, Reagan campaigned on a pledge to take a firm stand on terrorism. Under his watch, he promised, the U.S. would never negotiate with terrorists. During Reagan's eight years in office hundreds of Americans, including 241 Marines stationed in Beirut, were killed by terrorist acts. Particularly troubling to Reagan was the plight of several U.S. citizens who had been kidnapped and tortured by Muslim extremists in Lebanon. In an effort to win release of the hostages, Marine Lt. Col. Oliver North, along with members of the National Security Council and the CIA, sold weapons to Iran. Iran, at the time engaged in a war with Iraq and considered a terrorist nation by the U.S., was believed to have influence with the hostage-takers. The Iranians were overcharged for the weapons, and North then funneled the extra proceeds from the arms sale to the contras in Nicaragua. The operation resulted in several direct violations of stated U.S. policy and congressional mandate.
5. Ron Paul distinguishes between 'suspects' and 'terrorists'
This is because...
Rand Paul remains committed to his belief that prisoners deserve trials and disposition not indefinite detention.
His stance remained unchanged even with political support for extra-judicial killings involving Muslim US Citizens.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Overview of Ron Paul's Plan to Restore America
[Extracts of Ron Paul's policies are from here]
SPENDING:
Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels.
Note: Please keep in mind that States can easily handle their own energy, education, commerce, land and housing plans (This plan is cutting out Federal Government NOT State Government and in many cases ONLY to 2006 levels!).
You solve the fairness by increasing property rights and individual rights (as opposed to group rights)...
If every individual has equal rights how could the land not get taken care of by the people?)
Ron Paul and Robert Reich On Larry King
Approx 3 min - Robert Reich, the bailing out the banks is a version of trickle down economics and it doesn't work (with the credit crunch that followed, this is true. If banks had started helping the consumers rather than stopping loans when they had made a huge profit on the money creation process through loans then this would have worked. But they didn't. They made a huge profit off assets that never existed, kept all the extra money that was made over the money created through the loans and sat on it. The fact that the money just went to the banks and its top employees proves that this actually was trickle down economics AND corruption in action)
At 4 mins: When no one is spending, the government is the spender of the last resort. In the Tarp plan there was no outflow and spending ended, thus a 'stimulus' was needed. Then, it turns out, the stimulus wasn't set up with infrastructure building or economic growth in mind, even the financial crisis of 2008 wasn't dealt with.
Ron Paul: Even manufacturing bombs can increase the GDP (True. Tiny companies can make huge profits making a countries economic growth positive even while its poverty rate and income inequality rate increases). The stimulus mostly helped Wall Street.
Ron Paul-Approx 6:30 - I want to bring money from abroad and let it flow here (in America)
Reich - 7 min 45 sec - "I wish I could be as optimistic as Ron Paul as the capacity of the country to just pull money out of national defense and bring it home and give it to consumers as tax breaks; it all sounds good but, I tell ya, I dont know too many Republicans who want to take money out of national defense"
Reich - It took the second world war to show everybody Keynesian was right. you gotta spend, and if you gotta go into debt to get people back to work that's better than not doing it.
My Take: Robert Reich admits bringing back troops would take care of the budget problem. I agree in principle with Reich on properly applied Keynesian economics to boost economic growth and stabilizing the job market (Ron Paul might say I have been trained by FED economists and he would be right as far as at least one of my past professors goes). However, I would like to point out that the Obama Administration applied basic economics ideas of macro-economics so badly that it screams corruption, at least, in a third world country. The occupy wall street movement might suggest that this view is shared by many in America as well.
ENTITLEMENTS:
Honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out. Block grants Medicaid and other welfare programs to allow States the flexibility and ingenuity they need to solve their own unique problems without harming those currently relying on the programs.
Note: Seniors are safe. There are still 3 branches of Government so if America's current social structure can't provide for it's elderly the States will find a solution and Federal assistance can be extended through the Congress till the States can take over. i.e. social safety nets will remain intact providing stability.
At 2min 30secs Ron Paul says church's etc couldn't handle the extra burden of healthcare because government has run up the costs.
CUTTING GOVERNMENT WASTE:
Makes a 10% reduction in the federal workforce, slashes Congressional pay and perks, and curbs excessive federal travel. To stand with the American People, President Paul will take a salary of $39,336, approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker.
TAXES:
Lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%, making America competitive in the global market. Allows American companies to repatriate capital without additional taxation, spurring trillions in new investment. Extends all Bush tax cuts. Abolishes the Death Tax. Ends taxes on personal savings, allowing families to build a nest egg.
Note: Closing corporate loopholes will actually increase revenue from corporations. Allowing capital to return could rebuild America's crumbling manufacturing sector and extending the Bush tax cuts won't matter if all bases and troops are withdrawn(also see Reich above)...
(900 bases 150 different countries - We have enough weapons to destroy world 25 times)
REGULATION:
Repeals ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley. Mandates REINS-style requirements for thorough congressional review and authorization before implementing any new regulations issued by bureaucrats. President Paul will also cancel all onerous regulations previously issued by Executive Order.
and
MONETARY POLICY:
Conducts a full audit of the Federal Reserve and implements competing currency legislation to strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation.
Having competing currency legislation would bring commodity based money to the market. As it is, the FED is privately owned (which I have been opposed to because of 'conflict of interest' for a long time), this will make them have to compete. As it is, bank monopolies have the same problems as media monopolies.
Ron Paul At The Bloomberg-Washingtong Post Debate on Federal Reserve Audit vs Herman Cain
1. The FED gave out trillions without any authorization (since this is not commodity backed money the only way to make all these bailouts was to print money - increasing the supply of money decreases its store of value and therefore its stability)
2. Herman Cain flip flops on what he said about the FED audit
3. Cain's solution is to follow the model of Alan Greenspan, a sample of his policies are outlined here.
Ron Paul - Federal Reserve and "End Overseas Empire" and War on Drugs
3 minutes 40 secs - My policy won't work unless you cut spending such as the one trillion dollars in the maintenance of our overseas empire, you can't keep printing money (i.e. increasing supply of money reduces its value, one of the reasons precious metals, such as gold and silver, keep their value is that they are limited in supply.)
Saturday, October 15, 2011
On Foreign Policy, War, Suicide Bombings and Iran
Notice how Ron Paul is ignored especially when it comes to his foreign policy ideas...
Moving on: Ron Paul views on a Fox News debate...
"Sanctions are not diplomacy. They are a precursor to war and an embarrassment to a country that pays lip service to free trade." Ron Paul
Ron Paul's Views on Iran is Based in Careful Research...
About 5 minutes into the video Ron Paul is asked about Jihad/Suicide Attacks and he highly recommends the research done by Robert Pape
Take a look at the research he is talking about (or, watch a presentation of his on C-Span)...
Ron Paul Is Consistently Against War...
Ron Paul vs Mitt Romney on Foreign Policy and Iran and War Preparation
Ron Paul with Sean Hannity on Iran i e Warmongering and Foriegn Policy
Note: 2 minutes and 15 seconds - Hannity asks 'you want to eliminate the CIA?' Answer by Ron Paul is yes, "They do allot of mischief"
Ron Paul in Congress - Foreign Policy - War Spending and Propaganda makes Us Unsafe
Ron Paul on Georgia and Military Provocation of Russia
Also read "Ron Paul On Foreign Policy, War and Nation Building"
[Note: Ron Paul is against invasion/war and doesn't attempt to brush the lies of Iraq war under the rug. Also, the media anchors all following a similar script has been dubbed 'echo chamber' and is written about here and here. ]
Moving on: Ron Paul views on a Fox News debate...
"Sanctions are not diplomacy. They are a precursor to war and an embarrassment to a country that pays lip service to free trade." Ron Paul
Ron Paul's reply to Rick Santorum : 'We have been in Iran since '53 not '79'
----------------------
Added October 17 - 2011
AND to Newt Gingrich below...
---------------------
True.
Extract from a New York Times Article:
The Central Intelligence Agency's secret history of its covert operation to overthrow Iran's government in 1953 offers an inside look at how the agency stumbled into success, despite a series of mishaps that derailed its original plans.
Written in 1954 by one of the coup's chief planners, the history details how United States and British officials plotted the military coup that returned the shah of Iran to power and toppled Iran's elected prime minister, an ardent nationalist.
Extract from George Washington University's Archive:
Long-sought by historians, the Wilber history is all the more valuable because it is one of the relatively few documents that still exists after an unknown quantity of materials was destroyed by CIA operatives – reportedly “routinely” – in the 1960s, according to former CIA Director James Woolsey. However, according to an investigation by the National Archives and Records Administration, released in March 2000, “no schedules in effect during the period 1959-1963 provided for the disposal of records related to covert actions and, therefore, the destruction of records related to Iran was unauthorized.” (p. 22) The CIA now says that about 1,000 pages of documentation remain locked in agency vaults.
Ron Paul's Views on Iran is Based in Careful Research...
About 5 minutes into the video Ron Paul is asked about Jihad/Suicide Attacks and he highly recommends the research done by Robert Pape
Take a look at the research he is talking about (or, watch a presentation of his on C-Span)...
The Logic of Suicide Terrorism: It’s the occupation, not the fundamentalism
The American Conservative: Your new book, Dying to Win, has a subtitle: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Can you just tell us generally on what the book is based, what kind of research went into it, and what your findings were?
Robert Pape: Over the past two years, I have collected the first complete database of every suicide-terrorist attack around the world from 1980 to early 2004. This research is conducted not only in English but also in native-language sources—Arabic, Hebrew, Russian, and Tamil, and others—so that we can gather information not only from newspapers but also from products from the terrorist community. The terrorists are often quite proud of what they do in their local communities, and they produce albums and all kinds of other information that can be very helpful to understand suicide-terrorist attacks.
This wealth of information creates a new picture about what is motivating suicide terrorism. Islamic fundamentalism is not as closely associated with suicide terrorism as many people think. The world leader in suicide terrorism is a group that you may not be familiar with: the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.
This is a Marxist group, a completely secular group that draws from the Hindu families of the Tamil regions of the country. They invented the famous suicide vest for their suicide assassination of Rajiv Ghandi in May 1991. The Palestinians got the idea of the suicide vest from the Tamil Tigers.
TAC: So if Islamic fundamentalism is not necessarily a key variable behind these groups, what is?
RP: The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign—over 95 percent of all the incidents—has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.
TAC: That would seem to run contrary to a view that one heard during the American election campaign, put forth by people who favor Bush’s policy. That is, we need to fight the terrorists over there, so we don’t have to fight them here.
RP: Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us.
Ron Paul Is Consistently Against War...
Ron Paul vs Mitt Romney on Foreign Policy and Iran and War Preparation
Ron Paul with Sean Hannity on Iran i e Warmongering and Foriegn Policy
Note: 2 minutes and 15 seconds - Hannity asks 'you want to eliminate the CIA?' Answer by Ron Paul is yes, "They do allot of mischief"
Ron Paul in Congress - Foreign Policy - War Spending and Propaganda makes Us Unsafe
Ron Paul on Georgia and Military Provocation of Russia
Also read "Ron Paul On Foreign Policy, War and Nation Building"
Ron Paul on Freedom - Legalizing Drugs, Prostitution - Government vs State Law
Ron Paul's Stance: Get Government Out of Our Lives and Let The States Decide for Themselves
Extract from Article published here:
Legalize Drugs and Prostitution?
In the interview, we discussed prostitution, drug use and gay marriage. Paul says these are not things that the federal government should try to control.
"I think the government's role should not be involved in personal habits. When you defend freedom, you defend freedom of choice, and you can't be picking and choosing how people use those freedoms . . .whether it's personal behavior or economic behavior, I want people to have freedom of choice," Paul asserted.
He believes the constitution says such issues should be left to the states to decide, and if a state chooses to legalize marijuana, cocaine, heroin and/or prostitution, so be it.
"I would get the government out of regulating all those substances," Paul said. "I think the government's role should not be involved in personal habits. I believe those rules should protect children who are below the age of making good judgments. So, I have no problem with state laws that would protect children from the use of these drugs."
Ron Paul's position on War on Drugs and its accuracy is explained in the Introduction.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
On Property Rights & Role of Goverment
Ron Paul on Property Rights
Approx 1 minute into video: Anyone polluting your land or river (from upstream) should be able to be taken to court. Government can protect property through private property rights.... individuals have the right to recourse for
In the following video you will see evidence of a factory polluting a stream and the extremely high incidence of cancer (including lung cancer in individuals who don't smoke) in the town nearby. Koch industries is supporting legislation to keep the EPA out (i.e. under the guise of 'government reduction'). By the way, note how many of the people supporting anti-people legislation (or anti-epa/government legislation) are getting money from the Kochs.
With Ron Paul as President the EPA might get thrown out but property rights implemented through the courts (and the ability to sue for your basic rights) will take the place of the EPA. It is no wonder that the media has been downplaying Ron Paul's campaigning even though he is consistently doing well.
In other words, all the campaigning done by Koch Industries to destroy government and prop up business while decreasing the rights of the American people will backfire!
[Note: Please keep in mind that Ron Paul intends to have a transition to help balance the economic and legal situation until the economic and political structure can be balanced i.e. everything you like or depend upon will not dissapear over night, in some cases in it will into transition, in some cases alternative solutions will be found.]
Added October 15, '11 - Extract from this article
Government's Role
When Paul is asked to count off the major responsibilities of the federal government should have, he arrives at a surprisingly short list.
"Protect our freedoms. Have a strong national defense. Look and take care of our borders. Have a sound currency. … Protect our environment through private property rights. … That's it," Paul said.
Paul notes that when our country was founded, the role of the government was to protect the general welfare, enforce the rule of law in court, maintain property rights and allow for free markets and free trade — "not to run our lives, and run everything in the economy."
Monday, October 10, 2011
On Foreign Policy, War and Nation Building
Notes:
-Shows a video clip of Bush and the claim that 1-2 years was the longest anyone thought the Iraq war would last
-There is a great deal of war weariness
-Romney says he will listen to the Generals (who mostly seem to want to stay) and he wants to leave sooner that Obama wants to, so he has staked contradictory positions.
To say that nobody knew that Iraq could last a long time is inaccurate. In 1994 Dick Cheney said that 'if we removed Saddam, what would we put in it's place?', even went so far as calling it a quagmire...
Even worse, an investigation shows that the evidence suggests that the Bush Administration 'exaggerated and misrepresented' the case for war against Iraq...
ABC News Interview (Foreign Policy - Wars)
Ron Paul: 'America is not the worlds policeman'.
On The O'Reilly Show on National Security and Terrorism
Mind blowing: Islamic radicals attacked on 9/11 for having military bases in the Holy Land NOT for the United States people's 'freedom'. This is true. the stated reason by Al-Qaeda for attacking the United States is the military bases in the Holy Land (Saudi Arabia) and the support of tyraniccal regimes in the middle east. With the Arab Spring one reason is beginning to dissolve the other reason would dissolve with Ron Paul's Presidency as he would remove all bases saving a ton of money and there would be non of the nonsense that Al-Qaeda is attacking America's because of their 'freedom' or 'way of life' - that never was, and still isn't, a stated purpose of the terrorists. It was a Bush Administration slogan, which was incorrect as many other statements (see above)
Every normal analysis begins with the knowledge of America's history in the middle east and actual grieviences about ACTIONS taken in the middle eastern countries... this is the source of terrorism as Ron Paul obviously realizes (or he has done some general reading on the topic over the years)...
(Note: Ron Paul also makes a comparison of how it would feel if China invaded US - a method even professionals use to encourage empathy and understanding)
Clarification of Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Position
Ron Paul believes in non-interventionism NOT isolationism. In other words, Ron Paul's positions on dealing with other countries is primarily about diplomacy and only going to war when attacked but NEVER getting involved in nation biulding.
Dick Cheney vs. Ron Paul
There have been many headlines during the last 24 hours concerning the former Vice President’s dismissive attitude toward Ron Paul, and similarly, Paul’s dismissive attitude toward Dick Cheney.
No doubt, both Republicans represent starkly different GOP brands—on domestic policy, foreign policy and just about everything else you can imagine.
Cheney is the consummate Bush Republican and everything that represents. Paul is the thorough constitutionalist, in the tradition of the Founding Fathers and everything they represented.
But for all practical purposes in this election, the debate between the two essentially breaks down to this:
Dick Cheney: “Deficits don’t matter.”
Ron Paul: “We’re broke.”
Whether voters choose someone more like George W. Bush or George Washington in 2012—whether in the Republican primaries or the general election—will tell us which statement voters take more seriously.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
On Anwar al-Awlaki
[Added October 17, 2011]
Extract from here:
The United States should be encouraging non-violence in Yemen, respect for human rights and the rule of law. Instead, we have engaged in lawless violence, denying our own citizens fundamental due process.
Recent escalation...
--------------------------------------
Here is an interview with Ron Paul right after Anwar al-Awlaki was assassinated:
Ron Paul is pointing to the Fifth Amendment as the reason for the killing being illegal:
Amendment 5 to the Constitution (Part of the Bill of Rights)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
[Added Oct 10, '11]
Those who say that Anwar al-Awlaki was a traitor to the United States as a Citizen of the US are correct:
Article 3 - Section 3 of the Constitution
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.
Anwar al-Awlaki did encourage war against his country so it did count as treason yet he is not exempt from the law (even in Article 3 Section 3, its obvious the founding fathers thought traitors would be tried in open court).
This is the best write up in mainstream media(CNN) on this topic (in my opinion):
Killing Awlaki was illegal, immoral and dangerous
Extrajudicial killing of terrorists suspects, however, is no more efficacious, lawful or moral than torture. President Obama campaigned against the use of torture, the “global war on terror” and the senseless war in Iraq. He promised to restore America’s standing in the world. He spoke of the importance of adhering to the rule of law and our values in facing the challenge of terrorism and other problems.
In 2001, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, stated on Israeli television the U.S. position regarding Israeli targeted killing of suspected terrorists: “The United States government is very clearly on the record as against targeted assassinations. They are extrajudicial killings, and we do not support that.”
How could we? Killing in war is justifiable morally and legally because of the extraordinary situation of real hostilities. In the limited zones on the planet where two or more contending armed groups fight for territorial control, people are on notice of the danger. In such zones, the necessity to kill without warning is understood. Still, even in combat, there are rules. Civilians may not be directly targeted; principles of necessity and humanity restrain.
Where no such intense armed fighting is occurring, killing is only justified to save a human life immediately. Peacetime human rights and criminal law prevail. The actual facts of fighting determine which rules govern killing. The president has no override authority.
Nor should he want it. These rules apply globally. The U.S. should not weaken them, providing a basis for Russia, Iran, China or Pakistan to declare war against opponents, killing them anywhere with missiles and bombs.
And what about within the U.S.? If the president can target suspects in Yemen, why not here? And why just the president? Why can’t governors order missile strikes on suspected terrorists and other criminals?
The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki and several persons with him on Friday in Yemen did not occur in a battle zone. The killings occurred in a country in the midst of upheaval with various armed and unarmed factions struggling for control. The United States should be encouraging non-violence in Yemen, respect for human rights and the rule of law. Instead, we have engaged in lawless violence, denying our own citizens fundamental due process.
A debate between Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich:
From Wolf Blitzer's Blog;
When it comes to President Obama’s decision to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul couldn’t disagree more. Gingrich says the president did the right thing; Paul says he’s open to trying to impeach the president.
“The fact is, Congressman Paul is wrong about the law,” the former House speaker told me. “He’s wrong about the Constitution.”
Insisting that al-Awlaki was an “enemy combatant,” Gingrich added: “The president was exactly right legally and he was exactly right morally in killing somebody who was a threat to everybody.”
Paul strongly disagrees. He says the president violated the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
“It’s pretty clear that you can’t take a life without due process of law, especially of an American citizen,” Paul told me. “We’ve never had a policy that said we can put somebody on an assassination list by a secret tribunal.”
Note: Ron Paul has called for an impeachment but, "He added, however, that he believed every U.S. president had committed impeachable offenses, and said the success of a push for impeachment would depend on the political conditions in Washington." - Personally, if there is an impeachment process, I think it needs to include allot more people in the trial than just Obama, for example, a member of the last administration who set up secret assassination squads, at least this killing was announced publicly though it leaves the door open for secret assassination squads in the future returning to the scene. in a sense, it was the secret squads that came before the official ones. In other words, transparency in the government's 'war on terror' is another problem.
From 'The Colbert Report': Cheney's Secret Assassination Squad
It's hard to believe Dick Cheney had the time to command a secret lawless assassination squad with all the secret lawless torture. (02:10)
Extract from here:
The United States should be encouraging non-violence in Yemen, respect for human rights and the rule of law. Instead, we have engaged in lawless violence, denying our own citizens fundamental due process.
Recent escalation...
--------------------------------------
Here is an interview with Ron Paul right after Anwar al-Awlaki was assassinated:
Ron Paul is pointing to the Fifth Amendment as the reason for the killing being illegal:
Amendment 5 to the Constitution (Part of the Bill of Rights)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without
[Added Oct 10, '11]
Amendment 6
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. ]
Those who say that Anwar al-Awlaki was a traitor to the United States as a Citizen of the US are correct:
Article 3 - Section 3 of the Constitution
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.
Anwar al-Awlaki did encourage war against his country so it did count as treason yet he is not exempt from the law (even in Article 3 Section 3, its obvious the founding fathers thought traitors would be tried in open court).
This is the best write up in mainstream media(CNN) on this topic (in my opinion):
Killing Awlaki was illegal, immoral and dangerous
Extrajudicial killing of terrorists suspects, however, is no more efficacious, lawful or moral than torture. President Obama campaigned against the use of torture, the “global war on terror” and the senseless war in Iraq. He promised to restore America’s standing in the world. He spoke of the importance of adhering to the rule of law and our values in facing the challenge of terrorism and other problems.
In 2001, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, stated on Israeli television the U.S. position regarding Israeli targeted killing of suspected terrorists: “The United States government is very clearly on the record as against targeted assassinations. They are extrajudicial killings, and we do not support that.”
How could we? Killing in war is justifiable morally and legally because of the extraordinary situation of real hostilities. In the limited zones on the planet where two or more contending armed groups fight for territorial control, people are on notice of the danger. In such zones, the necessity to kill without warning is understood. Still, even in combat, there are rules. Civilians may not be directly targeted; principles of necessity and humanity restrain.
Where no such intense armed fighting is occurring, killing is only justified to save a human life immediately. Peacetime human rights and criminal law prevail. The actual facts of fighting determine which rules govern killing. The president has no override authority.
Nor should he want it. These rules apply globally. The U.S. should not weaken them, providing a basis for Russia, Iran, China or Pakistan to declare war against opponents, killing them anywhere with missiles and bombs.
And what about within the U.S.? If the president can target suspects in Yemen, why not here? And why just the president? Why can’t governors order missile strikes on suspected terrorists and other criminals?
The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki and several persons with him on Friday in Yemen did not occur in a battle zone. The killings occurred in a country in the midst of upheaval with various armed and unarmed factions struggling for control. The United States should be encouraging non-violence in Yemen, respect for human rights and the rule of law. Instead, we have engaged in lawless violence, denying our own citizens fundamental due process.
A debate between Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich:
From Wolf Blitzer's Blog;
When it comes to President Obama’s decision to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul couldn’t disagree more. Gingrich says the president did the right thing; Paul says he’s open to trying to impeach the president.
“The fact is, Congressman Paul is wrong about the law,” the former House speaker told me. “He’s wrong about the Constitution.”
Insisting that al-Awlaki was an “enemy combatant,” Gingrich added: “The president was exactly right legally and he was exactly right morally in killing somebody who was a threat to everybody.”
Paul strongly disagrees. He says the president violated the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
“It’s pretty clear that you can’t take a life without due process of law, especially of an American citizen,” Paul told me. “We’ve never had a policy that said we can put somebody on an assassination list by a secret tribunal.”
Note: Ron Paul has called for an impeachment but, "He added, however, that he believed every U.S. president had committed impeachable offenses, and said the success of a push for impeachment would depend on the political conditions in Washington." - Personally, if there is an impeachment process, I think it needs to include allot more people in the trial than just Obama, for example, a member of the last administration who set up secret assassination squads, at least this killing was announced publicly though it leaves the door open for secret assassination squads in the future returning to the scene. in a sense, it was the secret squads that came before the official ones. In other words, transparency in the government's 'war on terror' is another problem.
From 'The Colbert Report': Cheney's Secret Assassination Squad
It's hard to believe Dick Cheney had the time to command a secret lawless assassination squad with all the secret lawless torture. (02:10)
Friday, October 7, 2011
Introduction
Watch the first 50 seconds of the following video and you will notice that one particular person (Ron Paul) is ignored even though he came within 200 votes of winning the straw poll...
The media consistently treats Ron Paul like 'he is the thirteenth floor in a hotel', yet he is the one that planted the grassroots that the establishment republicans are benefiting from now. Why is that? [Note: The media anchors all following a similar script has been dubbed 'echo chamber' and is written about here and here. ]
Later Ron Paul did an interview on The Daily Show;
Part 1
[Note: Ron Paul has been consistent over many many years!]
Part 2
[Note: Ron Paul believes the War on Drugs is NOT working. This view has historical precedent, see below the PBS show on Prohibition]
Part 3
[Note: Ron Paul believes in 'free markets' yet there are strong views on regulations that protect property - i.e. this isn't the pure market economy as envisioned in the economic models of perfect competition, market economy and Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Ron Paul has also mentioned, in other interviews, that there would need to be a transition. In other words, a model has to be discussed and implemented to help the country move to the way the constitution originally envisioned it 'according to Ron Paul'. Also note that the constitution provides for 3 branches of government and all the States with the freedom to move around in its own internal regulatory structure would create a unique market structure that would approach the ideas of free markets as long as the rest of the economic structures remain the same (i.e. across the world). Plus, avoiding empire/nation biulding seems to be written into the constitution, and that would save allot of money!]
Historical precedent for War on Drugs creating more druggies;
More information (and videos) about PBS's Prohibition:
PROHIBITION is a three-part, five-and-a-half-hour documentary film series directed by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick that tells the story of the rise, rule, and fall of the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the entire era it encompassed.
Prohibition was intended to improve, even to ennoble, the lives of all Americans, to protect individuals, families, and society at large from the devastating effects of alcohol abuse. But the enshrining of a faith-driven moral code in the Constitution paradoxically caused millions of Americans to rethink their definition of morality.
Note: The Eighteenth amendment was an example of an amendment to the constitution that didn't work properly. The first 10 amendments are part of the Bill of Rights which can be considered to be part and parcel of the original constitution (at least, I haven't heard any arguments that would explain - with evidence - otherwise).
Related matters:
The Financial Crisis explanation with PBS and The Daily Show
Learn more about Government Inefficiency here.
Learn more about Corporations here.
The media consistently treats Ron Paul like 'he is the thirteenth floor in a hotel', yet he is the one that planted the grassroots that the establishment republicans are benefiting from now. Why is that? [Note: The media anchors all following a similar script has been dubbed 'echo chamber' and is written about here and here. ]
Later Ron Paul did an interview on The Daily Show;
Part 1
[Note: Ron Paul has been consistent over many many years!]
Part 2
[Note: Ron Paul believes the War on Drugs is NOT working. This view has historical precedent, see below the PBS show on Prohibition]
Part 3
[Note: Ron Paul believes in 'free markets' yet there are strong views on regulations that protect property - i.e. this isn't the pure market economy as envisioned in the economic models of perfect competition, market economy and Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Ron Paul has also mentioned, in other interviews, that there would need to be a transition. In other words, a model has to be discussed and implemented to help the country move to the way the constitution originally envisioned it 'according to Ron Paul'. Also note that the constitution provides for 3 branches of government and all the States with the freedom to move around in its own internal regulatory structure would create a unique market structure that would approach the ideas of free markets as long as the rest of the economic structures remain the same (i.e. across the world). Plus, avoiding empire/nation biulding seems to be written into the constitution, and that would save allot of money!]
Historical precedent for War on Drugs creating more druggies;
The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive
More information (and videos) about PBS's Prohibition:
PROHIBITION is a three-part, five-and-a-half-hour documentary film series directed by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick that tells the story of the rise, rule, and fall of the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the entire era it encompassed.
Prohibition was intended to improve, even to ennoble, the lives of all Americans, to protect individuals, families, and society at large from the devastating effects of alcohol abuse. But the enshrining of a faith-driven moral code in the Constitution paradoxically caused millions of Americans to rethink their definition of morality.
Note: The Eighteenth amendment was an example of an amendment to the constitution that didn't work properly. The first 10 amendments are part of the Bill of Rights which can be considered to be part and parcel of the original constitution (at least, I haven't heard any arguments that would explain - with evidence - otherwise).
Related matters:
The Financial Crisis explanation with PBS and The Daily Show
Learn more about Government Inefficiency here.
Learn more about Corporations here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)