Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

[Starving Steve]

Re: Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

Think of these air strikes as the first installment of pay-back for the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1993.

There comes a time in the life of every tin-pot dictator where they have to be taught respect. In farm days, it was called "a tune-up" or a good olde-fashioned, "ass-kicking". Qadaffi is now going to be taught the pecker-order, and if he is smart, he would accept the lesson and maybe retire in riches on some island and leave the job of governing Libya to the new generation of tech-heads.

Note to the Islamic World: The internet has changed everything. You can't hold-back change or enlightenment, at least not forever..... It's one unified world now.

[goodrich4bk]

Re: Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

As I suspected, Steve. Instead of addressing the Constitutional issue, you jump to "ends justifies the means". When enough people begin to think like you, America and its promise will be lost forever. From that moment on, we will be living under the rule of men, not law. For some people, perhaps you, that's just fine because they think they will always be on the side of the powerful. Hitler's Nazi's, Mussolini's brownshirts, Lenin's proletariate, Mao's cultural revolutionaries --- all of those people thought as you do. I assure you there were many "honorable" people among their followers who believed that their leader would only fight the "good fight", i.e., give their enemies a "tune-up" or a good olde-fashioned "ass-kicking".

The U.S. military is not for your or my entertaintment. But if your little smiley man believes that nothing but good can come from a Tomahawk missile slaming into an apartment building full of people, may you live to see one up close and personal.

[chr5648]

Re: Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

Actually, if there are any lessons to be learned so far from Libya, it is all on the 'tin pot dictator' side:

The West isn't your friend. No matter how you reform, they'll get you in the end if given an opening.

So if you get a rebellion, smack it right away with all your armored forces and aircraft.

Don't be restrained, crush rebellions ASAP and with all possible force.

Don't let the 'UN' or the 'Forces of Democracy' have the time to send in special forces to target all your installations.

Don't rely on what any of the West says, it is all just posturing.

Don't rely on equal or greater unrest in other tin pot dictator nations.

Don't rely on happy economic setups with western multinationals, with cooperative agreements on trade, etc etc.

Just do 'it' as quickly as possible.

Pure game theory just accelerating each time it is played.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

I think the written law that the U.S. is employing is that international treaty law is sacrosanct. It trumps all domestic law, even constitutional law. I just went over this with the Canada Revenue Agency and the I.R.S. in the U.S. Whatever the U.S. signs in treaty is international treaty law, and such law prevails in all related matters, thereafter. Therefore, the war measures in Libya are legal, between U.S. treaty signatories, including NATO members, Canada, Europe, even including the U.S. Congress.

I blame the brainwashing in the American schools for producing people who can read but can not think! You can carry a copy of the Constitution in your shirt-pocket to your heart's content, but the Constitution does not prevail over international treaty law. (Sorry.)

In the air strikes against Giddafi's forces, the U.S. and its allies are acting on behalf of the UN Security Council to uphold a Security Council resolution. That S.C. resolution is now international law among the U.S. and its allies, also among all members of the U.N.

I would never live in Texas!

[DToM67]

Re: Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

I think the written law that the U.S. is employing is that international treaty law is sacrosanct. It trumps all domestic law, even constitutional law. I just went over this with the Canada Revenue Agency and the I.R.S. in the U.S. Whatever the U.S. signs in treaty is international treaty law, and such law prevails in all related matters, thereafter. Therefore, the war measures in Libya are legal, between U.S. treaty signatories, including NATO members, Canada, Europe, even including the U.S. Congress.

I blame the brainwashing in the American schools for producing people who can read but can not think! You can carry a copy of the Constitution in your shirt-pocket to your heart's content, but the Constitution does not prevail over international treaty law. (Sorry.)

If I called shit chocolate, does that make it so?
What if a bunch of 'schollars' and business men agree with me?
What if congress and POTUS also agree?
How about the UN?
Does shit suddenly become chocolate?

Better hope this alchemist thinking doesn't turn your gold into shit.


Perhaps you just watched Arnold the Terminator a few too many times?
FYI
There are no time machines. Cyborgs and humans cannot travel backwards in time to undo such things as the constitution.... No, Dick Cheney does not count as a cyborg/terminator.

The Founding Fathers did not amend the constitution, nor make provision for external interests to supersede those of these United States of America/ her people.

Enjoy your chocoalte!

[goodrich4bk]

Re: Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

If you are Canadian, I forgive your ignorance of American jurisprudence. But as an attorney, I can tell you flat out that there is no treaty requiring America to use military force in Libya. Therefore, the rest of your post is gibberish. Our use of force must follow the War Powers Act. If it does not, the President has exceeded his authority. Period.

[goodrich4bk]

Re: Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

Oh, and as to the Constitutionality of unilateral military action, here is Candidate Obama, who you may recall was a Professor of Constitutional Law:

“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Mr. Obama told The Boston Globe in December 2007.

For the record, I voted for the man in 2008 and will never, ever vote for a Conservative Republican. I might vote for a conservative independent or a conservative Democrat, but never a Conservative Republican. Still, he who owns a Nobel Peace Prize and a bar license has some 'plainin' to do.

[BigBagel]

Re: Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

Oh, and as to the Constitutionality of unilateral military action, here is Candidate Obama, who you may recall was a Professor of Constitutional Law:

“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Mr. Obama told The Boston Globe in December 2007.

For the record, I voted for the man in 2008 and will never, ever vote for a Conservative Republican. I might vote for a conservative independent or a conservative Democrat, but never a Conservative Republican. Still, he who owns a Nobel Peace Prize and a bar license has some 'plainin' to do.

I won't vote for a Republican either. I was a Republican but that party has become an embarrassment. I will not vote for President Obama either. I refuse to play their either or game.

[tsetsefly]

Re: Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

Yes, incredible is one word.

We already went through this in 2008.

What makes you think anything has changed? He'll be in the debates, they'll ask him one or two questions and he'll receive marginal media coverage. Most of the conservative voters in the US are with the neo-cons on foreign policy. They could never vote for Ron Paul when it really counts.

I think there is more hope than there was last time. He has more support, peopl ealready know who he is, the economy still sucks and he basically is the only anti-war candidate seeing as how the democrats have kept all fronts open, expanded some and started others. Since Obama has the dem nomination in the bag we might get younger crossover voters to vote for Paul, hopefully...

[flintlock]

Re: Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

The real question here for Steve is , WWSD? Or "What would Stalin do?"

[charliebrown]

Re: Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

Someone who's opinion I respect told me that there is dichotomy between the power vested in the presidency (commander-in-chief) with the power of the congress to make a declaration of war. And the War Powers Resolution of 1973 may actually be unconstitutional. Hence I must rethink my earlier position.

Still in the grave nature of military conflict, even though the president has the power, in order to promote good will he needs to engage the congress and the people.

[Mn_Mark]

Re: Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

I do not think it is possible for any nation to close-off the entire world or to intervene uni-laterally. This is now a unified world, to the dismay of many, including many of those in the Islamic World, isolationist Texans, and Ron Paul.

What nonsense.

The world is perhaps less "unified" than it has ever been. In what important sense is the world "unified"? Because there's an internet that allows us to send an email instead of making a phone call, or sending a telegram? Big deal. That kind of thing excites socialists who want the U.N. to rule the world. The reality is that the internet, if anything, is making it more clear all the time how very different our interests are and how fractured we are. When there were only three major news networks and a few national-level newspapers that controlled the agenda of public discussion, the fissures in the body politic could be hidden and a faux consensus generated. No more. No, the world is not only NOT more unified than ever, it is actually splitting into smaller and smaller entities as each particular identity group in the world demands the right to control their own destiny.

And talk about red herrings - who proposed that the U.S. "close off the entire world or intervene uni-laterally"? No one. What people object to is a President who seems to think the U.S. army is his personal imperial guard to be sent off on whatever mission he deems necessary.

Obama's real sentiments about the way the world should be run are showing here. He's a transnational progressive who privately thinks the U.S. has no moral right to take action without the approval of the international community. I would not be surprised to learn that it actually did not occur to him that he needed to get Congressional approval, because he got U.N. approval, and to a transnational progressive, the U.N. is the highest governing authority. As he sees it, why would he need Congressional approval if the U.N. approves?

The whole thing is degenerating into just the kind of fiasco you'd expect from a fellow with no executive experience and a faulty understanding of the way the world works. You can't leave national defense to a progressive because fundamentally they don't believe the U.S., as (in their view) the source of so much aggression, imperialism, and oppression, has the moral right to engage in military action. So when they find themselves in the role of military decision-maker, they either overdo it or vacilate and invite aggression. They have no instincts for it because they always expected "conversation" and "dialog" to solve the problem. When it comes time to use force, they look like a girl with the hood of her car up at the side of the road, looking at the smoke billowing out of the engine with bewilderment and hoping someone comes along to save them.

[Master Shake]

Re: Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

Spot on, Mark.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

What nonsense.

The whole thing is degenerating into just the kind of fiasco you'd expect from a fellow with no executive experience and a faulty understanding of the way the world works. You can't leave national defense to a progressive because fundamentally they don't believe the U.S., as (in their view) the source of so much aggression, imperialism, and oppression, has the moral right to engage in military action. So when they find themselves in the role of military decision-maker, they either overdo it or vacilate and invite aggression. They have no instincts for it because they always expected "conversation" and "dialog" to solve the problem. When it comes time to use force, they look like a girl with the hood of her car up at the side of the road, looking at the smoke billowing out of the engine with bewilderment and hoping someone comes along to save them.

[GRG55]

Re: Ron Paul: "insulting that this authority comes from the United Nations, and not the Congress"

Actually, if there are any lessons to be learned so far from Libya, it is all on the 'tin pot dictator' side:

The West isn't your friend. No matter how you reform, they'll get you in the end if given an opening.

So if you get a rebellion, smack it right away with all your armored forces and aircraft.

Don't be restrained, crush rebellions ASAP and with all possible force.

Don't let the 'UN' or the 'Forces of Democracy' have the time to send in special forces to target all your installations.

Don't rely on what any of the West says, it is all just posturing.

Don't rely on equal or greater unrest in other tin pot dictator nations.

Don't rely on happy economic setups with western multinationals, with cooperative agreements on trade, etc etc.

Just do 'it' as quickly as possible.

And to this I would add:

"Every one of these situations is different..."

The broad brush media line that this is some sort of regional "Arab awakening" might sell papers but it is lazy journalism.

Even lazier is the use of the term "pro-democracy protestors". I continue to find it amusing that western journalists, most of whom couldn't be bothered to open a Bible purely out of curiosity, interest or knowledge, find themselve qualified to explain to the rest of us a region where their religion is intimately intertwined with their politics and legal system. In some obvious and notable cases these protestors are about as "pro-democracy" as Hassan Nasrallah...