The Iowa caucuses are less than 14 days away and three new polls show Representative Ron Paul is the new frontrunner in the Hawkeye state—leading the GOP field in Iowa by anywhere from three to six points. Should Paul come out on top when the caucuses convene next month, Iowa Republicans will have given their endorsement to a presidential nominee who just yesterday announced that he opposes the killing of Osama bin Laden.
That’s right. ABC News reports:
Rep. Ron Paul… explained to a Iowa radio station why he would not have ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden. The answer seemed to catch Iowa radio host Simon Conway off guard; he asked Paul to repeat it.
Paul was unequivocal: “No, not the way it took place,” Paul said of the killing of bin Laden.
Why?
“It was absolutely not necessary and I think respect for the rule of law, international law—what if he’d been in a hotel in London?” Paul asked. “We wanted to keep it secret. Would we have sent the helicopters into London? Because they were afraid the information would get out. No you don’t want to do that.”
It has long been clear that Ron Paul has nutty views when it comes to foreign policy. (In one presidential debate earlier this year, he explained that America had brought the 9/11 attacks upon itself.) But what is most surprising is that his objection to the killing of Osama bin Laden rests on his contention that our actions showed a lack of respect for “international law.” Not long ago, Paul was much more dismissive of international law. Back in 2002, he wrote in a column that “America must either remain a constitutional republic or submit to international law, because it cannot do both. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the conflict between adhering to the rule of law and obeying globalist planners is now staring us in the face.” Now, he claims, international law constrains us from killing the man responsible for the most brazen attack our country since Pearl Harbor—and who was actively plotting another attack to match or exceed the magnitude of 9/11? Since when do libertarians believe that international law has the power to prevent a sovereign nation like the United States from defending itself against foreign aggressors?
Ron Paul is no conservative—indeed, his views on the war on terror put him on the far left of the political spectrum when it comes to national security. It would bring shame on the state of Iowa if the state’s Republicans made a man who opposes the killing of Osama bin Laden their choice for the president of the United States.
print this page
Is Marc Thiessen attacking Ron Paul when he (Paul) is completely RIGHT? Let’s remember that Bin Laden hadn’t been judged, therefore his killing would be illegal (or it should be) under any law of any civilized country.
I’m from the “far left of the political spectrum” when it comes to pretty much everything. However I believe that everyone from any place of the political spectrum would agree that killing anyone without trial and due process is dangerous (think Patriot Act that Ron Paul and the “far left” opposes), since everyone from Marc Thiessen to ourselves can be in the killing list for no good reason.
Osama Bin Laden thousands of Americans. Ron Paul believes in the death penalty yet for some reason when the death penalty requires some intervention on the part of the government he seems incapable of supporting the death penalty. It seems that the inconsistency is on the part of the person constantly asserting his own consistency rather inconsistent is it not? Moreover, Paul asserts that the United States should effectively only enter wars that are legal and declared often provoked by an attack against the United States. Despite this fact our official declaration is the only thing missing, after all we were attacked by Al Quaeda and it is our sovereign right to defend ourself. Also, if we are ever attacked in such a way that requires immediate retaliation do we have to hold a committee prior to such retaliation? This need to declare war nonsense is semantics brought upon by an idiot. A war is a war whether we declare or
not and the re-election or loss on the part of the leader who supports the war is a check on his or her power even when there is no official legal declaration of war. Effectively, Ron Paul’s arguments are just silly.
oped pieces.
At least R Paul is consistent in advocating small govt to the point of being anti war especially anti a new war with Iran. How can the others be anti debt, anti spending and yet pro war? The Republican warmongers have caused bigger govt, bigger spending, and more debt than any Democrat since Jimmy Carter, in spite of all their retoric to the contrary. You can’t be pro war and pro less spending. That’s impossible!
Lessons From the bin Laden Killing
by Rep. Ron Paul, May 10, 2011
| Print This | Share This | Antiwar Forum
Last week marked an important milestone in the war on terrorism for our country. Osama bin Laden applauded the 9/11 attacks. Such deliberate killing of innocent lives deserved retaliation. It is good that bin Laden is dead and justice is served. The way in which he was finally captured and killed shows that targeted retribution is far superior to wars of aggression and nation-building. In 2001 I supported giving the president the authority to pursue those responsible for the vicious 9/11 attacks. However, misusing that authority to pursue nation-building and remaking the Middle East was cynical and dangerous, as the past 10 years have proven.
It is tragic that it took 10 years, trillions of dollars, tens of thousands of American casualties, and many thousands of innocent lives to achieve our mission of killing one evil person. A narrow, targeted mission under these circumstances was far superior to initiating wars against countries not involved in the 9/11 attacks, and that is all we should have done. This was the reason I emphasized at the time the principle of marque and reprisal, permitted to us by the U.S. Constitution for difficult missions such as we faced. I am convinced that this approach would have achieved our goal much sooner and much cheaper.
The elimination of Osama bin Laden should now prompt us to declare victory and bring our troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq. Al-Qaeda was never in Iraq, and we were supposedly in Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden. With bin Laden gone, there is no reason for our presence in the region—unless indeed it was all about oil, nation-building, and remaking the Middle East and Central Asia.
Hopefully bin Laden does not get the last laugh. He claimed the 9/11 attacks were designed to get the U.S. to spread its military dangerously and excessively throughout the Middle East, bankrupting us through excessive military spending as he did the Soviets, and to cause political dissension within the United States. Some 70 percent of Americans now believe we should leave Afghanistan, yet both parties seem determined to stay. The best thing we could do right now is prove bin Laden a false prophet by coming home and ending this madness on a high note.
Tragically, one result may be the acceptance of torture as a legitimate tool for pursuing our foreign policy. A free society calling itself a republic, grounded in the rule of law, should never succumb to such evil.
At the very least, we should all be able to agree that foreign aid to Pakistan needs to end immediately. The idea that bin Laden was safely protected for 10 years in Pakistan, either willfully or through incompetence, should make us question the wisdom of robbing American citizens to support any government around the world with foreign aid. All foreign aid and intervention needs to end.
Our failed foreign policy is reflected in our bizarre relationship with Pakistan. We bomb them with drones, causing hundreds of civilian casualties, and we give them billions of dollars in foreign aid for the privilege to do so, all while they protect America’s enemy number one for a decade.
It is time to consider a sensible noninterventionist foreign policy as advised by our Founders and authorized by our Constitution. We would all be better off for it.
Marc Thiessen – how are things going to end up in PK as a result of the assassination?
According to Paul, we had the full legal right to take him into custody.
Calling people crazy doesn’t work anymore. 9/11 was an inside job, everyone knows it – Ron Paul is the real deal. You might stop him, but not the ideas he stands for. AEI is a corporate funded think tank that works FOR corporate financier interests – NOT the people. Why should we care what its hired pens think? As if you represent the will of America? Clearly you don’t. If Ron Paul was such a “nut” he would never have gotten this far – the name calling indicates fear, weakness, and intellectual slobbery.
Not sure if you’re serious or parodying a Ron-bot… but, for the sake of discussion, point by point:
A) Name-calling and ad hominem attacks do work. They always have. Particularly when there’s substance behind the so-called attack to make other people pause and consider.
B) 9/11 was not an inside job. Nobody serious believes it was.
C) I thought Evander Holyfield was the Real Deal.
D) Republican voters will have the opportunity to stop/not stop Ron Paul starting in Iowa, and the first few primaries will demonstrate whether his ideas resonate with more than a fringe of the electorate.
E) ‘Corporate-funded’ is bad, then? AEI should be ‘publicly funded’ by the government? What business model do you recommend AEI pursue in the future to avoid any criticism of being ‘shills’ for whatever source of funding they actually have? (Also, I’m not part of AEI, and have no idea where their funding comes from.)
F) Hired pens… so Mr. Thiessen, a regular contributor to both AEI and NRO (and several other outlets) and a veteran of DC political circles, was paid (presumably by Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich?) to write a vicious and hateful opinion piece regarding Ron Paul’s response during an interview, for the insidious purpose of exposing Ron Paul’s … shall we say, ‘unorthodox’ views on Bin Laden. Views Mr. Paul expressed during a live radio broadcast. This is the most plausible scenario? Really?
G) I missed the part where Mr. Thiessen claimed to speak for the ‘will of America’, or even for the Republican Party. I doubt he’d claim to speak for the mainstream conservative, or that his views are necessarily in lockstep with AEI’s ‘corporate opinion’.
H) Lots of ‘nuts’ make waves in political circles. Dennis Kucinich is another perennial presidential candidate, and Jesse Ventura went from the governor’s seat to hosting a show on wacky conspiracy theories.
I) The only ‘name calling’ I can find in this column is ‘nutty views’. Or, perhaps ‘Ron Paul is no conservative.’ Both of which are true, if you happen to be a conservative. Ron Paul has always been a staunch Libertarian, which is fine. But from the conservative worldview, libertarians have some ‘nutty ideas’. Just as libertarians would call a conservative’s support for federal drug laws ‘dangerous’ or ‘nutty’ (as an example).
But, hey, I get it. An opinion column takes issue with something Ron Paul says, so it’s imperative that Ron Paul’s supporters rush in to attack the writer, rather than defend Ron Paul’s actual statements.