Posted under Election 2012 & Interventionism & Ron Paul & TEA Parties
Judson Phillips announces in his headline that Ron Paul is an “idiot.” Apparently he disagrees with Paul’s concerns about the drone killing of al-Awlaki. Here is the reply I posted.
Mr. Phillips, calling someone an idiot in the headline does not bolster your credibility as a serious commentator. (In the heat of passion I have done it in the past on my blog [mostly in response to interventionists and other Paul haters], but I now regret doing so because it is childish and harms whatever point I was trying to make.) Would it not be better to just declare that you think Rep. Paul is wrong?
In the past we had a terrorism problem with Puerto Rican nationalists? Did we bomb Puerto Rico in response? Did we treat it as a military problem? Or did we treat it as a law enforcement (and intel I’m sure) issue?
As you say yourself “Al-Qaeda and the other Muslim terrorists are not a traditional army.” This is why it cannot be dealt with by traditional military means. Bombing far off nation states does not deal with stateless domestic terrorism at home. The way to deal with domestic terrorism is with immigration restriction, border control, intel, and law enforcement.
Sempronius on 01 Oct 2011 at 12:07 am #
“In the past we had a terrorism problem with Puerto Rican nationalists? Did we bomb Puerto Rico in response? Did we treat it as a military problem? Or did we treat it as a law enforcement (and intel I’m sure) issue?”
Redster, you’re forgetting something. Yahweh’s Master Race doesn’t have a running dispute with Puerto Ricans. Mystery solved.
The Libertarian: Ron Paul criticizes the assassination of Al-Awlaki on 01 Oct 2011 at 4:31 am #
[...] [...]
Aaron on 01 Oct 2011 at 5:05 am #
I didn’t read the article you linked to because you have to log in.
You’re combining two separate questions: (1) Was this guy a combatant in a war or a criminal? (2) Is this kind of killing a good way to prosecute the war/law enforcement? Answering one question does not completely answer the other.
I don’t know anything about the Puerto Rican nationalists, but al Qaeda is an enemy in a war, not a gang of criminals. The Puerto Rican nationalists would be an enemy in a war, too, if they were a political organization. This is a conservative view: William Lind is a conservative.
Assassinating this guy in Yemen is not “bombing far off nation states,” whether or not one approves. Supposing that this is a war and not a police incident, as a US citizen this guy was still entitled to be tried for treason if that was feasible. Barring that, there should be some extra process involved because of the fact that he’s a citizen. But given all that, what’s wrong with killing him? Same with Puerto Rican terrorists in Puerto Rico, by the way, if that was a war.
Everyone here agrees that the US should stop giving terrorists reason to hate us. Osama bin Laden offered a truce on pretty reasonable terms. But as long as we’re at war, we should fight it as a war, not as law enforcement. That doesn’t mean bombs and invasions. It might just mean intel, infiltration, and assassinations. But legally and morally, it’s a war.
Aaron on 01 Oct 2011 at 5:14 am #
I just read a report of what Ron Paul said. Apparently I was agreeing with him here. He called this an assassination (true), and he said we should not “casually” accept assassinations of US citizens but should “think hard” about it. That’s what I said above. And given all that, we should go ahead and assassinate US citizens when that’s still the right thing to do. Ron Paul doesn’t seem to rule that out either.
Patroon on 01 Oct 2011 at 3:54 pm #
Who again is this Judson Phillips fellow and why should I care what he says?
RedPhillips on 01 Oct 2011 at 4:28 pm #
Patroon, Judson Phillip’s thoughts are echoed by many in the “Tea Party Movement” judging by the comments. Therefore it is in our best interests to answer them.
RedPhillips on 01 Oct 2011 at 4:36 pm #
Aaron, I didn’t agree or disagree with what Ron Paul said. My comment was directed toward what Judson wrote. He wrote as if it was unthinkable to deal with terrorism as a law enforcement matter. I was pointing out that there is much precedent for dealing with terrorism as a law enforcement issue.
RedPhillips on 01 Oct 2011 at 4:47 pm #
This is what I was replying to.
“…If an enemy decides to bomb the United States, we do not send the FBI after them, we send the Marines. We do not go out to arrest them, we go out to destroy them…
…What would happen if Ron Paul were President? It would be the nightmare scenario. He would treat terrorism as if it were a criminal justice problem…”
It isn’t obvious that terrorism isn’t a law enforcement issue. Did we treat the first World Trade Center bombing attempt as a law enforcement issue? We didn’t bomb nation states after that. We arrested people and had trials.
RonL on 01 Oct 2011 at 8:37 pm #
Puerto Rico is part of the US and the terrorists were operating in the US, so of course it was a law enforcement issue. It is also utterly moot.
Aaron on 02 Oct 2011 at 7:15 am #
We should have treated the first World Trade Center bombing as an act of war. That’s what Andrew McCarthy, one of the lead prosecutors in that trial, says now. He says that their approach was mistaken, in retrospect, because it was all new to them at the time.
Again, war doesn’t necessarily mean bombs and missiles. This Phillips guy who’s advocating just that sounds like a real fool, and of course you’re right to call him on that. My point is that you’re setting up a false dichotomy: either it’s war (“real” war), or it’s intel, infiltration, etc. But war can mean arrests and trials – military trials, generally – as well as infiltration, lawsuits, all kinds of things.
Given the fact that war can look a lot like police work, I do think it’s clear, though admittedly not obvious, that the fight against this kind of terrorism is war and not law enforcement. It’s an armed conflict carried out between political organizations against public enemies. The police-like actions you recommend should be carried out in that framework of war, with all that implies legally and morally.
Besides William Lind, another really good book I’ve read is Martin van Creveld, The Transformation of War.
RedPhillips on 02 Oct 2011 at 5:26 pm #
Aaron, we should have declared war against Al-Qaeda then they could be dealt with as irregular combatants under the laws of armed conflict. (There isn’t an entirely clean way to deal with this because everyone in Al-Qaeda is an irregular combatant, and it would be unusual to declare war against something other than a nation state.)
But declaring war against Al-Qaeda should not be so we can continue our meddling ways. It should be as we are disengaging from the region.
Aaron on 02 Oct 2011 at 7:14 pm #
As I said above, Osama bin Laden offered a truce on pretty reasonable terms. We should have accepted it. As I’ve said a million times, I think the US should gradually disengage from the region. I’ve thought that long before 9/11.
Sempronius on 03 Oct 2011 at 10:25 pm #
It’s too late to disengage. We must “reverse engage”. I have a few ideas on how we might go about doing that…
Interesting article on the war on terror here:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29273.htm
Sean Scallon on 06 Oct 2011 at 5:38 am #
No Red they are echoed by many who believe they “lead” the Tea Party movement who then tell those who are sincere followers that this is the message of the inner party for you to follow along and if you don’t you’ll be cut off from the sugar daddy’s funding.