Rep. Ron Paul opposed to raid on Bin Laden's compound

[Bullwhip]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/[abbreviated profanity deleted] ... -laden-hit

IMHO, when Dr. Paul makes some statement that the media finds wildly whacky, there's generally a Constitutional basis for his position.

Yeah, that darn Constitution is so darn pesky, it gets in teh way of a lot of stuff the goverment wants to do to people.

Rule of law, or not? I guess it's just a national/international version of "he needed killin", AKA murder with popular support.

[Charles L. Cotton]

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/[abbreviated profanity deleted] ... -laden-hit

IMHO, when Dr. Paul makes some statement that the media finds wildly whacky, there's generally a Constitutional basis for his position.

Yeah, that darn Constitution is so darn pesky, it gets in teh way of a lot of stuff the goverment wants to do to people.

Rule of law, or not? I guess it's just a national/international version of "he needed killin", AKA murder with popular support.

I'm seeing a lot of vague and general comments about Ron Paul and the Constitution; how about some specifics? Show us where Paul's votes are upholding his version of the Constitution. How does the constitution demand that firearms manufacturers be treated differently from every other manufacturer? How did killing Bin Laden violate the constitution. Please don't give general statements; point us to the specific constitutional provisions.

Chas.

[The Annoyed Man]

Does Ron Paul remember who Thomas Jefferson was? THE Thomas Jefferson? The one who certainly understood the Constitution better than Ron Paul does, and who as President of the United States sent the Marines ashore at Tripoli? THAT Thomas Jefferson?

Apparently not.

Based on Ron Paul's utterances, he would lecture Thomas Jefferson—one of the fathers of the Constitution—on the constitutionality of foreign interventions. I'm afraid that Ron Paul's assertions of constitutional proprieties are entirely too convenient. And based on his voting against a bill that would equalize the tax filing burden arbitrarily placed on the firearms and ammunition industries with the burden placed on all other industries, AND based on his non-support of incorporating the 2nd as an individual right—both very well documented positions—he doesn't give a tinker's dang about the Constitution except when it suits him as a tool to lecture others; and he certainly doesn't care enough about your RKBA to stand up and be counted when it counts.

He's not only a tool and an idiot, he's a fraud. Please don't be deluded by him.

[M2K]

I guess Ron Paul forgot that Pakistan had graciously invited the U.S. of A. to pursue the Taliban and terrorists within its borders after 9/11.

Of course that graciousness only came about as war gaming scenarios, kind suggestions, and supposed statements like "we will carpet bomb you back to the stone age" were presented.

It's really, all about diplomacy.

[The Mad Moderate]

M2K said

Of course that graciousness only came about as war gaming scenarios, kind suggestions, and supposed statements like "we will carpet bomb you back to the stone age" were presented.

that would be an upgrade.

[mgood]

Does Ron Paul remember who Thomas Jefferson was? THE Thomas Jefferson? The one who certainly understood the Constitution better than Ron Paul does, and who as President of the United States sent the Marines ashore at Tripoli? THAT Thomas Jefferson?

Fighting Muslim terrorism for over two centuries.

I just posted this a couple weeks ago: Victory in Tripoli.

[The Annoyed Man]

Does Ron Paul remember who Thomas Jefferson was? THE Thomas Jefferson? The one who certainly understood the Constitution better than Ron Paul does, and who as President of the United States sent the Marines ashore at Tripoli? THAT Thomas Jefferson?

Fighting Muslim terrorism for over two centuries.

I just posted this a couple weeks ago: Victory in Tripoli.

Cool. I didn't see your thread, but I've been using the Jefferson/Tripoli comparison for years now whenever a Ronulan starts going on about the unconstitutionality of foreign interventions. I should add, I've never received a coherent answer to that challenge. The reason is.... there isn't one. You have to make stuff up to counter it.

[randomguy]

You should re-read your history-books if you're having trouble understanding Jefferson's role in executive & the First Barbary War. Then, after, seek its relevance and relation to current issues.

I am by no means a Ron Paul fanatic. He's batty on a lot of things, especially the Founder Fathers. However, I do take insult when people misinterpret history, mis-read the Constitution, and straw-man Dr. Paul for circumstances that could be no more disparate in current times.

While the Tea-Party, Glenn Beck, and Paul dance around Thomas Jefferson, he was largely a buffoon; especially when it came to his presidency. Given his principles and the merits of his founding arguments, it made the Barbary War (among other events during his term) insanely difficult to explain to his friends and colleagues. Jefferson believed in strict-construction and heavy limits (expressed powers only) on federal power. This military action was completely opposite his beliefs.

Incidently, Hamilton was the real genius, although he never gets his due credit. Irrelevant.

Despite his dilemma, Jefferson received the proper authority from Congress. Full authorization was given to use means necessary to protect the fleet and insure their safety, given the threat and declaration of war from the Pasha of Tripoli. If you have any dignity in your soul, I urge you not to loosely compare this fully mandated authority of Congress to the War Powers Act of '73, and the continuing misuse of that '73 Act in, what.. 5, 6 wars now? But who remembers Kosovo, anyways.

I would even go as far as to say the War Powers Act is largely constitutional, but given the misuse/abuse of the executive, it should be severely curtailed. I would say Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Pakistan (others I won't list) were largely mistakes; if you think killing a freakishly tall mastermind recluse made us safer, you're more dangerous than his replacement. And while the emergence of National Security, Military Intelligence, CIA, and others make it impossible for sovereign individuals (like ourselves) to form cogent answers based upon unknown variables, we are still charged to make sense of it all because the simplest solutions are usually the best ones. Plus, its our civic duty.

Call me insensitive. I lost loved ones in both Towers, but I have more pride than to force a US police officer in camouflage to patrol the desert looking for death. If you own a gun, you should understand that you don't wear your gun on the outside and patrol the bad parts of town, looking for trouble or looking to help drug addicts.

Paul reads his Constitution (at times badly), but that's more than I can say for most other politicians.

I hope I've been helpful.

[A-R]

One of the best counter-arguments I've read to the specious claim that killing bin Laden was somehow a violation of international law ...

http://articles.latimes.com/print/2011/ ... n-20110516" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No soldier had a duty to take the slightest risk to his own life because Osama bin Laden promised to be good from now on.

If Bin Laden wanted to surrender, he could and should have done it sometime in the last decade. He could not do it by raising his hands during an attack on his compound.

It is pure foolishness to suggest that by going in on the ground, the U.S. turned its soldiers into policemen required to give Bin Laden "due process," place him "under arrest" and read him his Miranda rights.

Surrender isn't a human right. It's a privilege of lawful combat. Terrorists ... forfeit the special rights earned by lawful combatants, including the right to stop the shooting by raising one's hands in purported surrender.

Men who make war on innocent civilians and behead their prisoners live by a different law. They should expect to die by it as well.

[flb_78]

I'll bump this real quick and maybe someone can answer my original question.

Mr. Cotton, could you explain to me what this paragraph means.

SEC. 3. ASSESSMENT OF CERTAIN CRIMINAL RESTITUTION.
(a) In General- Subsection (a) of section 6201 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
‘(4) CERTAIN ORDERS OF CRIMINAL RESTITUTION-
‘(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall assess and collect the amount of restitution under an order pursuant to section 3556 of title 18, United States Code, for failure to pay any tax imposed under this title in the same manner as if such amount were such tax.
‘(B) TIME OF ASSESSMENT- An assessment of an amount of restitution under an order described in subparagraph (A) shall not be made before all appeals of such order are concluded and the right to make all such appeals has expired.
‘(C) RESTRICTION ON CHALLENGE OF ASSESSMENT- The amount of such restitution may not be challenged by the person against whom assessed on the basis of the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability in any proceeding authorized under this title (including in any suit or proceeding in court permitted under section 7422).’.
(b) Exception From Certain Restrictions on Assessment and Collection-
(1) NO PETITION TO TAX COURT, NO RESTRICTION ON FURTHER DEFICIENCY LETTERS, ETC- Subsection (b) of section 6213 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
‘(5) CERTAIN ORDERS OF CRIMINAL RESTITUTION- If the taxpayer is notified that an assessment has been or will be made pursuant to section 6201(a)(4)--
‘(A) such notice shall not be considered as a notice of deficiency for the purposes of subsection (a) (prohibiting assessment and collection until notice of the deficiency has been mailed), section 6212(c)(1) (restricting further deficiency letters), or section 6512(a) (prohibiting credits or refunds after petition to the Tax Court), and
‘(B) subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to the amount of such assessment.’.
(2) TIME LIMITATIONS ON ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION- Subsection (c) of section 6501 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
‘(11) CERTAIN ORDERS OF CRIMINAL RESTITUTION- In the case of any amount described in section 6201(a)(4), such amount may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for the collection of such amount may be begun without assessment, at any time.’.
(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to restitution ordered after the date of the enactment of this Act..

[Charles L. Cotton]

I have no idea and I don't have time to research it. Are you saying this had something to do with Rep. Paul's vote?

Chas.

I'll bump this real quick and maybe someone can answer my original question.

Mr. Cotton, could you explain to me what this paragraph means.

SEC. 3. ASSESSMENT OF CERTAIN CRIMINAL RESTITUTION.
(a) In General- Subsection (a) of section 6201 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
‘(4) CERTAIN ORDERS OF CRIMINAL RESTITUTION-
‘(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall assess and collect the amount of restitution under an order pursuant to section 3556 of title 18, United States Code, for failure to pay any tax imposed under this title in the same manner as if such amount were such tax.
‘(B) TIME OF ASSESSMENT- An assessment of an amount of restitution under an order described in subparagraph (A) shall not be made before all appeals of such order are concluded and the right to make all such appeals has expired.
‘(C) RESTRICTION ON CHALLENGE OF ASSESSMENT- The amount of such restitution may not be challenged by the person against whom assessed on the basis of the existence or amount of the underlying tax liability in any proceeding authorized under this title (including in any suit or proceeding in court permitted under section 7422).’.
(b) Exception From Certain Restrictions on Assessment and Collection-
(1) NO PETITION TO TAX COURT, NO RESTRICTION ON FURTHER DEFICIENCY LETTERS, ETC- Subsection (b) of section 6213 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
‘(5) CERTAIN ORDERS OF CRIMINAL RESTITUTION- If the taxpayer is notified that an assessment has been or will be made pursuant to section 6201(a)(4)--
‘(A) such notice shall not be considered as a notice of deficiency for the purposes of subsection (a) (prohibiting assessment and collection until notice of the deficiency has been mailed), section 6212(c)(1) (restricting further deficiency letters), or section 6512(a) (prohibiting credits or refunds after petition to the Tax Court), and
‘(B) subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to the amount of such assessment.’.
(2) TIME LIMITATIONS ON ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION- Subsection (c) of section 6501 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
‘(11) CERTAIN ORDERS OF CRIMINAL RESTITUTION- In the case of any amount described in section 6201(a)(4), such amount may be assessed, or a proceeding in court for the collection of such amount may be begun without assessment, at any time.’.
(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to restitution ordered after the date of the enactment of this Act..

[Charles L. Cotton]

You should re-read your history-books if you're having trouble understanding Jefferson's role in executive & the First Barbary War.

However, I do take insult when people misinterpret history, mis-read the Constitution, and straw-man Dr. Paul for circumstances that could be no more disparate in current times.

. . . if you think killing a freakishly tall mastermind recluse made us safer, you're more dangerous than his replacement.

Don't post again until you read the forum rules, and then only if you can follow them.

Chas.

[40khammer]

I support Ron Paul

[flb_78]

I have no idea and I don't have time to research it. Are you saying this had something to do with Rep. Paul's vote?

Chas.

How can you criticize Rep. Paul on his vote when even you admit to not knowing what the bill is entirely about?

BTW, I have no idea why he voted against it.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I have no idea and I don't have time to research it. Are you saying this had something to do with Rep. Paul's vote?

Chas.

How can you criticize Rep. Paul on his vote when even you admit to not knowing what the bill is entirely about?

BTW, I have no idea why he voted against it.

I do know why he voted against it, that's why. I know what contacts were made and responses given.

Your motive is clear; you throw something out that has nothing to do with his vote and you belatedly admit that you know nothing about his motivation. You did that only after I asked if you were claiming that the IRS provisions were the basis of his vote.

He has a history of casting votes against gun owners and as one Member pointed out, he didn't/wouldn't sign a pro-incorporation amicus brief in McDonald. He is my Representative and in all his years in Washington, he has accomplished absolutely nothing, other than building a large campaign war chest by claiming he's running for President.

I see you are in Kentucky; don't let your love of Rand Paul seep into a discussion about Ron Paul. You better pray this acorn fell far from the tree.

Chas.