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

[hirundo82]

What's the constitutional basis for not supporting incorporation of the Second Amendment to the states?

My first guess is that he would assert that incorporation via the Due Process clause is the wrong approach from a textualist perspective. Of course this ignores the 150 years of precedent which the McDonald court was loath to overturn.

FWIW, I oppose the bin Laden raid from a foreign relations perspective (sendind troops into an allied country without their authorization), but don't see a constitutional issue with it as there is a valid declaration of war against Al Qaeda (that's what the 9/2001 AUMF is for all intents and purposes).

[clarionite]

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.

AR,

In general I've agreed with most of the posts of yours I've read. And while I agree that there's a difference between a soldier and a police officer, the POV of the quotes you've posted don't sit well with me.
I think OBL should have died a long time ago. But the whole kill order thing sits wrong with me. While I agree that he had forfeited any rights he might have had, I think that we should have held ourselves to a higher standard. I've got no problem with the fact that he died, and that it was one of ours that killed him. And if he wouldn't have come along without a struggle, that's OK. But I would have much rather seen him put on trial in NYC. A trial is as much about the victim as it is the criminal. I think we deserved our day in court, and I think that it was "Cleaner" for some that are higher up to not have that happen.

I'll wave the flag with the best of them. I love my country, and I love my wife. I'm just not happy with everything either one does. I won't be leaving either one of them any time soon. But this action just sat wrong with me. Not because of OBL, but because I think we lowered the bar for ourselves in doing what we did. I may be naive, but I like to be able to look at myself in the mirror and look my children in the eyes and tell them I did what I felt was right and for the right reasons. If I had ordered an execution without the benefit of a trial... I don't think I could do that. Even my 13 YO told me when the news was in full swing that it sounded more like vengeance to him than justice. I told him that sometimes they can be the same thing, but celebrating a man's death was never right. And we left it at that.

[The Annoyed Man]

I don't have a problem with his having been shot down like the rabid dog that he was, armed or not, arms raised or not, and I'm glad he's dead. But, I HATE that anybody celebrated in the streets over it. He was one man, albeit an important one to Al Qaeda, and killing him did not bring the WOT to a close. There is still a grim task ahead of us; more young Americans are going to die in the effort; and killing OBL was merely a small victory in a long, hard war. We didn't kill Satan. We killed one of his helpers. Those things need to be remembered to keep the whole picture in perspective.

Clarionite, I have to disagree about a preference for trying him in NYC, for the same reason that I don't think any of them should be tried in NYC. IF there was to be a trial, it should have been by a military tribunal (which is where he would get the fairest trial), and it should have been held at Gitmo (which is best equipped to handle the security nightmare of such a trial). Then he should have been hung for crimes against humanity.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Civilized conduct is only possible when all parties are willing to act civilly. Terrorists do not act with civility, nor do governments that support, harbor, or train terrorists. Bin Laden lived in Pakistan for 5 to 6 years and no one believes their government's claim that they didn't know he was there. Even the Pakistani people don't buy it.

Pakistan ignored international law by harboring the world's most wanted terrorist and in my view that waived any legitimate claim to sovereignty over their borders, at least as to the U.S. effort to eliminate Bin Laden. We're not talking about a drug dealer, white collar crime, or even a murderer. Bin Laden was the most wanted terrorist on the planet and he was a mass murderer. Many thousands of terrorists looked to him for inspiration erroneously believing he was invincible. Now they know better; we can get anyone anywhere, it's only a matter of time.

I wish we would adopt the Israeli approach; kill one of us and we'll kill 100 of you. We would prefer to coexist and live in peace, but remember, we can also live in peace with you gone.

I know, very unlawyer-like of me.

Chas.

[Purplehood]

The best message we ever could have sent to any group of Terrorists was the one delivered to Bin Laden.

[sjfcontrol]

The best message we ever could have sent to any group of Terrorists was the one delivered to Bin Laden.

Sent "Special Delivery, Return Receipt Requested!"

[Bullwhip]

The best message we ever could have sent to any group of Terrorists was the one delivered to Bin Laden.

Best to them or best for us.?

[Keith B]

The best message we ever could have sent to any group of Terrorists was the one delivered to Bin Laden.

Best to them or best for us.?

I have very close ties with the counterterrorism community. Trust me, this was long overdue and sends a clear message to the terrorists that we will not stop until we eliminate the threat. And, the intel gained with a raid on any headquarters is a VERY a big deal.

I personally think one of the the biggest things this raid did was show how much we can't trust our relationship with the country that was no doubt hiding him. The fact they would do this IMO means we should sever any diplomatic ties and consider them a hostile country and government.

[Middle Age Russ]

I agree with you that we should absolutely sever diplomatic ties with regimes which harbor terrorists. Unfortunately, I would be surprised -- more like shocked -- to see the current administration sever ties in this manner. Doing so might appear that we are unsympathetic with our supposed Islamist friends and we can't have that, now can we, despite the danger they represent.

I do not rejoice in UBL's death, but I do rejoice that he will no longer be able to cause the deaths of others. I also do not rejoice that we are spending wads of cash fighting the war on terror, but the alternative is certainly less palatable yet.

[Purplehood]

The best message we ever could have sent to any group of Terrorists was the one delivered to Bin Laden.

Best to them or best for us.?

Yes.

The Afghans themselves (at least the Villagers that I interacted with in Paktika province) think that Pakistan is their worst enemy. The arrest of those Pakistani's that aided the CIA in getting Bin Laden though justified from a national security perspective (Pakistan perspective), is a clear message to the USA that they are probably our enemy also.

[Dave2]

Trust me, this was long overdue

Yep

and sends a clear message to the terrorists that

GAAAHH!! PET PEEVE!!! Why can't we just use email to send messages? It's way cheaper.

we will not stop until we eliminate the threat. And, the intel gained with a raid on any headquarters is a VERY a big deal.

I personally think one of the the biggest things this raid did was show how much we can't trust our relationship with the country that was no doubt hiding him. The fact they would do this IMO means we should sever any diplomatic ties and consider them a hostile country and government.

Yep

[The Mad Moderate]

Looks like Rep. Paul is not going to run for re-election, great news as far as I'm concerned.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... hpt=hp_bn4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[PracticalTactical]

Just for sake of argument, I'm going to assume neoconservatives are right about Ron Paul being wrong about the Bin Laden raid. On top of that, I'm going to assume that the neoconservatives are right about foreign interventions. There are good arguments going both ways, and we could sit here all year arguing the point, so let's just skip it and assume he's dead wrong about it.

If it came down to Ron Paul vs. Mitt Romney, which would you pick? Keep in mind that Mitt signed a permanent AWB in Massachusetts. I'm not so afraid of not invading foreign countries that I'll vote for a gun grabber.

I guess I have my priorities set a little differently than most.