Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
The Politico: The Crypt's Blog-Ron Paul brings back a wacky post 9/11 bill
politico.com — Rep. Ron Paul wants President Bush to issue "letters of marque or reprisal" against Osama bin Laden.
- 23 diggs
- digg it
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9What a great idea. The author of that piece is a total idiot. He hates America and wants it to continue going bankrupt (median real wages are lower now than they were 35 years ago, savings rates are at their lowest they've ever been, democrats and republicans are two sides of the same neo-corporate coin, ignoring the illegal invasion of immigrants, ignoring the unhealthy influence of Israel on US politics, and giving in to offering the masses socialist policies that bankrupt future generations just to get elected today).
- chowda, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9The comments are overwhelming in favor of Paul... natch... and here is The Campaign's response:
http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_paul_2008/2007/07/wise-not-wacky.html - mosmom3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Dr. Paul once again shows me that he knew from the beginning what should have been done to take care of this issue! He amazes me with his knowledge of the Constitution and always having the correct solution for each issue!
Ron Paul is RIGHT! - Herkimer56, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3Yeah, Ron Paul had it right from the beginning. Instead of doing this the right and proper way, let's just hire some assassins and let them handle it. How morally bankrupt of you.
- chowda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8You are so confused it's scary. Trashing 2 entire countries and tens of thousands of people was clearly the "moral" path. Nice work Gandhi.
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5lol at Gandhi.
- chowda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8You are so confused it's scary. Trashing 2 entire countries and tens of thousands of people was clearly the "moral" path. Nice work Gandhi.
- vrtsflipflop, on 10/10/2007, -9/+1Ron Paul is a complete freakazoid, and unelectable from either party, but this is a pretty cool idea.
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You're a complete retard, so really you have no idea what you're talking about, lol.
- Kewlduderules, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Well I'll be... sounds like politico has come 9/11 truthers. I guess we really do not need to go after Bin Laden.
- Swmorgan77, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Using a Constitutional method to fight terrorism is "wacky?" If the President and Congress were really sincere about fightint "terrorism" I would think they would want to use EVERY method available... even the ones that DON'T undermine the Constitution and destroy our liberty. Apparently, not. Only the insane, demonstrably ineffective methods that we have used so far ("they hate us for our freedom... so get rid of our freedom") should be on the table according to this writer!
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2What Ron Paul proposes would essentially be giving Blackwater or other private security firms free license to run a privatized war in Pakistan. And people actually think this is a good idea? Using Iraq as an example, security contractors, upon committing a crime, are immediately extradited to the US, where they are legally protected from having any charges brought against them. So you get cases like Blackwater contractors VIDEOTAPING themselves randomly shooting civilian cars off the road on the freeway in Baghdad, with zero accountability. Can you imagine what this would do for our international relations if this were happening, on a large scale, with government approval, in a country such as Pakistan which is considered an ally?
- Swmorgan77, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Well except that the purpose of their involvement would be very narrowly defined and for a limited duration, and they would have competition so they would have an incentive to accomplish their goal instead of drag out their involvment to milk government junket payouts like in Iraq.
- swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You call this "narrowly defined?????" to seize outside the geographic boundaries of the United States and its territories the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and of any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the air piratical aggressions and depredations perpetrated upon the United States of America on September 11, 2001,” or future attacks.
- Kewlduderules, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1What?! First of all, Ron Paul would not be caught giving government contracts to Black Water. Government has no business in private industry!!! Instead, he would use the military, CIA, and other covert operations to seek out Osama Bin Laden
- Kewlduderules, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Whoops! Nevermind. Sorry. I'm wrong. I cannot agree with ron paul and private mercenaries.
- beansac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Aren't all mercenaries private? Because wouldn't they be soldiers otherwise?
- thecoolestguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1In the 19th century privateers were bonded by the government to follow the rules of war (e.g. treated POW's properly) when they were contracted to work for the government. Similar things could be done in this situation.
- Tommyhawk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0First of all, the reward would not come until after Osama bin Laden's kill or capture. Secondly, the purpose as stated would be narrowly defined to killing or capturing Osama bin Laden. Anything outside that would not be justified. If some company like Blackwater tried to run a private war they would have to spend their own money and their actions would not be supported by the US. There would be no "private war". If you want to see a "private war" you have to look no further than the War in Iraq.
- Swmorgan77, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Well except that the purpose of their involvement would be very narrowly defined and for a limited duration, and they would have competition so they would have an incentive to accomplish their goal instead of drag out their involvment to milk government junket payouts like in Iraq.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our