Topic: Ron Paul
Neal Boortz: Wrong on Ron Paul? Can Ron Paul Protect America from Islamic Terrorism and Still Be Constitutional?by EJ Moosa
(Libertarian)
Thursday, January 3, 2008
For months on end, I have listened to Neal Boortz claim that Ron Paul will not defend America, and that we must fight the terrorists over there rather than here.
Yet, I have not heard anything of substance from Boortz on why he believes this to be true. Ron Paul has stated repeatedly that he would just "follow the Constitution".
Is fighting terrorism unconstitutional in Boortz's eyes? It must be. Either that or Boortz ultimately believes that it is the role of the United States to police the world and remove perceived threats.
If a war on terrorism is Constitutional, I cannot grasp why Boortz continues to hammer Paul on this subject.
Do you believe we can fight a war against terrorism that is Constitutional, or is Boortz right? Do you know of anything within the Constitution that prohibits taking action?
I know this has been a major reason some individuals have not supported Ron Paul so far. There is a belief that we would not defend ourselves against real threats.
I believe following the Constitution would likely give a President greater ability to protect our nation by eliminating activities which increase our risk while providing us no tangible benefits. I also believe the American People would be firmly behind a President that used his powers wisely rather than with reckless abandon.
"The only proper way to go to war, the only legal way to go to war, the only constitutional way to go to war is to declare the war, by the congress, not by the president. The people should be behind it. "----Ron Paul
What do you think?
EJ
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 29 thumbs so far
2008 EJ Moosa, all rights reserved.
Published: Thursday, January 3, 2008
Last modified: Thursday, January 3, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of EJ Moosa only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. EJ Moosa is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Roger Hermann
Date: 2008-01-03 08:42:44
I could not agree more! Ron Paul voted to go after the 911 criminals. The Bush neo-cons are the ones who misused this authorization to start unjust wars. Ron Paul is strong on defense. He would not use terrorism as an excuse to attack Afghanistan to secure a future oil pipeline from the Caspian sea or nation build in Iraq to help sell more military hardware for big corporations. He would actually go after the criminals who perpetrated the 911 attack. Go Ron Paul.
Most of the so-called conservative talk show hosts are invested in Iraq. They jumped on the war bandwagon to prove how patriotic they are and now they are stuck. I'm sure they thought a quick victory was inevitable and that they could ride the victory to increased ratings. The Constitution they claim to love so much obviously means nothing to them. Now, if they reverse themselves they risk losing credibility and thus ratings and book sales. However, if I am an example they are already losing ratings. I used to listen to talk radio exclusively, but not anymore. Used to buy "conservative" themed books too. I'm done with those self-serving blowhards. Boortz is the worst of all.
Heh -- funniest description I've heard about Mr. Boortz is that he is a neoconservative who likes pot.
In addition to his imperialistic foreign policy, how else do you explain his ra-ra for introducing a new tax (the sales tax) to the federal government, and then turn the federal government into a giant welfare machine distributing cheques to the poor. This guy sounds more like Huckabee than a libertarian. I mean, geesh, in economics we learn that when you subsidize something (whether privately or publicly), you get more of it. Does Boortz want more poor people? And where is that cheque distribution nonsense in the U.S. Constitution?
Non-intervention, Constitutionally implemented, provides protection terrorists would be hard pressed to penetrate while defusing many of the igniting points terrorists use to recruit, IMHO.
There have been wide misconceptions that fighting terrorism is equal to or consistent with taking military action. Many have espoused this notion that if we “don’t fight them over there they will fight us over here”. The issue that must be closer examined is this: what is the nature of organizations like Al-Qaeda? How do they get their support and to what end is that support directed?
Fundamentally, organizations like Al-Qaeda seek to create theocratic governmental structures within the Islamic world. It is within these structures that they believe a truly Islamic society can be brought to fruition. One must realize that the whole of Islam is asking itself essentially, “what role does Islam play within government and society, how does that come about, and what does it look like when we have achieved it”. This notion that “they” “hate us cause we are free and powerful” although a nice sound-byte for the masses truly misrepresents the conflict and the nature of that conflict in Islam and within the Middle East.
Whether we are looking at concepts like Pan-Arabism, Nasserism in the 1960’s, the rise of Ba’thism in Syria and Iraq, theocracy in Iran, or secularism in Turkey after World War One and the fall of the Ottoman Empire there has been no consistency of thought among Muslims as to the answers of these most central questions regarding the structure and scope of Islam within government and society.
Yet, one thing is clear: it is widely accepted among Muslims that whatever structure and scope Islam takes within the Middle East it has to be truly Islamic. That denotes the fact of why many of “them” “hate us”. It is because they cannot find Islamic “solutions” to their “problems”; rather it is because they see the influence of western powers within their own countries as preventing them from forming stable Islamic governments and from rising above the depths of poverty and humiliation. So this notion that “they” “hate us cause we are free and powerful” is not true. Rather, a foreign policy of non-intervention and trade, as purported by Dr. Paul would be the greatest asset to us against the “War on Terror”.
One might then say, “but if we left the Middle East alone Al-Qaeda would take over”. If we take the example of Al-Qaeda and its presence in Iraq before and after the U.S. lead invasion we will see some understanding as to the global consciousness of most modern day Iraqi’s as well as Muslims within the Middle East. Al-Qaeda, as confirmed by the Central Intelligence Agency, had no real presence in Iraq before the invasion. Now that we are there the hatred of western influence is greater than the opposition to radical Islamic understandings among Iraqi’s. It is not that somehow Al-Qaeda has strongholds and bastions of recruitment within Iraq to further its fundamental Islamic vision, rather its ranks have swelled in response to perceived tyrannical action by western powers. Remember, though in the minds of westerners it may not seem tyrannical, to a Muslim who is trying to figure out the role of Islam within society it most certainly does.
The future of the Middle East is certainly uncertain. We do not face some grave and horrible threat from hordes of Muslims that soon will unite under one common banner. Rather, the drawing back of our forces, allowance for self-determination, and trade are our greatest weapons in the “War on Terror”. Borrowing a line from President Bush, “we must stay the course…” in trade and diplomacy and not allow ourselves to be consumed with pride and ignorance which leads us to action that sustains our enemy’s recruitment and validates his message. Only then is it possible to “win” this “War on Terror”.
Boortz is a libertarian of convenience. If it is convenient for him, he will be voice the libertarian side. Yet, if it is something he wishes for personally, he is willing to use the power of government to get that way.
He has no problem taxing people through Hartsfield-Jackson airport for sewer repairs in the city of Atlanta now that he lives there. And he has no trouble telling private property owners that they should not cut down trees on their own property.
These are not the beliefs of a true Libertarian. A true Libertarian will not use the power of the government to force you to do something EVEN IF they want it done.
Hhhmm ... the best way to combat "Islamo-fascism", or ANY fascism for that matter, is to have a limited federal government and a strong military sworn to defend the Constitution. How can anyone take over and control the US people by infiltrating our government if our government doesn't have the power to control it's people? As long as we are paying the federal government big bucks (ie, income tax OR fair tax) to run overarching and controlling social and economic programs, we are at risk of fascism, and even "Islomo-fascism".
The Constitution provides for the means to "go after" extra-national criminals, and it is a method that Paul could support. "Terrorism," in the form of Barbary Coast pirates, was a problem that the Founders had to deal with as well. (There really isn't anything new under the Sun.) The constitutional means for attacking terrorism is called a Letter of Marque and Reprisal and the use of such in going after bin Laden would likely have been significantly cheaper (in dollars and lives) and more effective than the current fiasco.
the tragic irony is that a successful Ron Paul administration would leave the USA in a situation where we are under much less threat of attack, where we would command much greater respect and induce foreign governments to want to take steps to mitigate any potential threats to our security from manifesting from within their borders; as well as leave us a much more economically prosperous nation that would confer great benefits upon all those nations that trade with us as well.
The Neal Boortz's and Glenn Beck's in this country don't care much to think rationally and logically about the points Dr. Paul makes. I think that they, on some level, probably recognize that Dr. Paul's policy positions actually would diminish the threats posed to us by Islamic terrorists. But I think that this fact probably serves to repel them from Dr. Paul's message. I think they would actually prefer that the "Islamofascist" threat remain, because that gives them the self-rationalized moral justification for advocating virtually endless war against Muslims. I think that Boortz and Beck actually desire a "war of civilizations;" and a relative peace that would certainly result from a Paul presidency would greatly reduce the popular support and perceived "justification" for engaging in such a war.
Yes the best way to defeat Statism and ensure your libertarian ideals is to ignore the problem. Nevil Chamberlin knew this, and look at how well that it worked for him. This is what I love about Ron Paul, he knows that ignoring injustice in the rest of the world would solve so many problems. It is obvious that he does not like fighting for the freedom of non Anglo-Saxson whites, in fact he probobly wishes that the Orientals and the Messicans would stay on there side of the fence because this is the land of the whites. (the blacks just happen to be here because we didn't have a big enough boat to send them to Liberia)
Posted By: Charles Thompson
Date: 2008-01-04 14:34:24
EJ,
Before answering your questions I would like to address certain perceptions I believe are held by Mr. Boortz and many of my fellow citizens. These are:
a) Terrorists attack us because they hate us for our freedoms.
b) Terrorists threaten our way of life and/or the continued existence of the United States.
c) We have to fight and defeat terrorists in Iraq or they’ll follow us home and we’ll be fighting them inside the United States.
I believe that Mr. Boortz and many others hold to these views mainly because President Bush asserted them as truths. Afterward, his administration and many in the media frequently repeated these claims over the years as if they were facts. People who disagreed with these claims were and still are ignored by the media (and therefore not heard by citizens), ridiculed (and therefore dismissed by citizens), or labeled unpatriotic and in some cases “pro-terrorist” (thereby renounced by our citizens). I also believe that an alarming lack of investigative journalism coupled with the media’s exclusion of alternative explanations has predisposed the average citizen to gradually accept the continuously repeated “official” claims made by President Bush and his administration’s officials.
I find these claims factually baseless, and therefore the President and his administration’s assertions are at best irresponsibly inaccurate and at worst dangerously simplistic. I believe that the President has access to some of the most accurate and up to date information available. However, President Bush’s assertions and actions indicate to me that he either did not have factual information or he decided to ignore it. Having listened to him basically disregard and then “creatively” interpret the latest National Intelligence Estimate confirming the non-existence of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, I’m certain President Bush readily rejects intelligence inconsistent with his objectives.
Here are the three claims made by President Bush and response(s) to each.
a) President Bush: “Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.” (Source: Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, September 20th, 2001)
Responses: “The suicidal assassins of September 11, 2001, did not "attack America," as our political leaders and the news media like to maintain; they attacked American foreign policy.” “Terrorism by definition strikes at the innocent in order to draw attention to the sins of the invulnerable.” “On the day of the disaster, President George W. Bush told the American people that we were attacked because we are "a beacon for freedom" and because the attackers were "evil." In his address to Congress on September 20, he said, "This is civilization's fight." This attempt to define difficult-to-grasp events as only a conflict over abstract values--as a "clash of civilizations," in current post-cold war American jargon--is not only disingenuous but also a way of evading responsibility for the "blowback" that America's imperial projects have generated.” (Source: Chalmers Johnson’s article Blowback, in the 2001 October issue of The Nation)
“The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.” (Source: The American Conservative 2005 Interview with Professor Robert Pape, Author of Dying to Win; the Logic of Suicide Terrorism)
b) President Bush: “But the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows.” “Terror, unanswered, can not only bring down buildings, it can threaten the stability of legitimate governments.”
(Source: Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, September 20th, 2001)
Responses: “I believe that Western governments in general, and the United States government in particular, have overplayed both the dangers of most forms of terrorism and the possibilities of controlling it. They have done this largely by claiming that insurgent terrorism poses a real threat to the existence of democratic societies…. In reality, whilst insurgent or domestic terrorism poses or has posed severe problems of public security in some countries… there is a strong case for the argument that it cannot fundamentally threaten a democracy (unless it be by forcing the state to betray its own values by overreacting). (Source: Terror as an Instrument of Foreign Policy by Grant Wardlaw)
“Bin Laden is out to drastically alter U.S. and Western policies toward the Islamic world, not necessarily to destroy America, much less its freedoms and liberties. He is a practical warrior, not an apocalyptic terrorist in search of Armageddon. Should U.S. policies not change, the war between America and the Islamists will go on for the foreseeable future. No one can predict how much damage will be caused by America's blind adherence to failed and counterproductive policies, or by the lack of moral courage now visible in the thirty-year-plus failure of U.S. politicians to review Middle East policy and move America to energy self-sufficiency and alternative fuels.” (Source: Imperial Hubris by Michael Scheuer)
c) President Bush: “We will fight them over there so we do not have to face them in the United States of America” (Source: President Bush addressing the 89th Annual National Convention of the American Legion in August of 2007)
Responses: “Once the occupying forces withdraw from the homeland territory of the terrorists, they often stop—and often on a dime.” “The evidence shows that the presence of American troops is clearly the pivotal factor driving suicide terrorism.” “Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us.” “The central motive for anti-American terrorism, suicide terrorism, and catastrophic terrorism is response to foreign occupation, the presence of our troops. The longer our forces stay on the ground in the Arabian Peninsula, the greater the risk of the next 9/11, whether that is a suicide attack, a nuclear attack, or a biological attack.” (Source: The American Conservative 2005 Interview with Professor Robert Pape, Author of Dying to Win; the Logic of Suicide Terrorism)
As you can see EJ, few studied people outside the Bush administration believe the president’s rhetoric. In fact, many disagree with his claims entirely. Unfortunately, only a minority of United States citizens are aware of the actual facts, studies, or even alternative theories. Congressman Paul is one of these people. The majority of our leaders and citizens, much like Mr. Boortz, have had their minds filled with the repeated claims of our president.
Now, here are your questions.
“Do you believe we can fight a war against terrorism that is Constitutional, or is Boortz right? Do you know of anything within the Constitution that prohibits taking action?”
First, winning a war against a millennia-old tactic is unrealistic and impossible. I would drop the phrase “war on terror” and replace it with realistic language. “Terror” did not attack us on September 11th, 2001 (or at any other time). Terrorism is a tactic - not a tangible enemy. Identifying our enemies and settling upon the most effective method of dealing with them is possible and achievable. It is possible under the Constitution and in keeping with the Bill of Rights, if done correctly.
Although I am not nearly a military expert, I do have a couple of ideas. These have been heavily influenced by some of the authors I’ve quoted above. Here’s what I wrote to someone this past August:
If we remove our forces from the region the violent minded people who resent us being there (“hate our occupation”) will have far less ability to get willing followers, especially suicide bombers. All the reliable evidence indicates that the motivation won’t be there. Our special forces could be improved and trained to intervene anywhere in the world to “remove” terrorist leaders/key members wherever and whenever they crop up. Conventional warfare is useless against terrorism, and in fact can spur it on.
After we leave their countries, I think it’s a matter of treating the various nations with basic respect and as equals so that we make them allies or at least allies in trade. Prosperous and free nations rarely wage war on one another. When you have common economic interests you certainly don’t want violent members of your society killing people from your trade partner’s country. You’d clamp down on them rather quickly. You wouldn’t need nor would you want the other country to send in their troops or bomb your people.
There will probably always be a group from a given population who want to undermine peace and cause harm to their neighbor but if the majority of the leaders and populations want prosperous lives for themselves and their children (and the same for their neighbors) they’ll “self-regulate” and prevent these violent groups from achieving their objectives. If the common interest is prosperity for all concerned most everyone will work to achieve it. Those who desire hardship for their neighbor will rightly be seen as working against the common good and eliminated as a threat before they can threaten the prosperous future of all concerned.
Charles Thompson
the real problem is that we can not continue fighting "islamofascists" without money. We have more than 50 trillion in future obligations... where will the money come from? We are bankrupt.
i forgot to mention... Ron Paul has said he would use the Constitutional law of Mark and Reprisal to go after the terrorists. Originally this was written by the founders to go after pirates without starting wars... hmm... imagine that... get the bad guys without a war... those founders must have been NUTS... I'm so mad at neal Boortz for coming down on the other side of the issue. Who knows... maybe someone who has something to do with writing his check said he can't support Ron Paul on the air.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 EJ Moosa, all rights reserved.