0 votes

The Way Forward in the "War on Terror." RJ's response to Rand's recent comments.

By RJ Harris, U.S. Congressional Candidate Oklahoma 4th District
The Ethics of Liberty Apply to All or to None

Our Constitution allows Congress under Article I sec 8 to "...define and punish Offences against the Law of Nations…" within the confines of the Due Process and Equal Protection required for all PERSONS, not only citizens, under our jurisdiction. Using the Necessary and Proper clause, we have codified the Due Process and Equal Protection required for prisoners of war through the Uniform Code of Military Justice. At a minimum enemy combatants must be afforded notice and an opportunity to be heard. However, since there has been no declaration of war against any foreign sovereigns, nor Letters of Reprisal issued against persons or activities, then the prisoners we are currently holding have been denied notice of their legal jeopardy as potential prisoners of war rather than as civilian criminals. The other critical element of Due Process is an opportunity to be heard. Yet to date barely a handful of the Gitmo detainees have received a trial. Due Process is always able to be provided so long as the law which underpins it has not itself been broken. We must then be very careful when weighing the arguments of those responsible for the breakdown in the enforcement of our law for to concede that we are not capable of providing Due Process is to admit that we have broken our own law. Providing these things, to the worst of humanity, is what separates the law abiding from the pirate and the terrorist.

Guantanamo Bay is a stain upon our National Honor. Within its walls we denied other human beings the same Due Process we gave to Nazi's guilty of genocide. Within it’s walls we committed torture in the name of convenience. Within it's walls our government abandoned the Ethics of Liberty for the cheap bauble of expediency. It must be closed and what went on there must never be repeated.

The opportunity to declare war on the Taliban government of Afghanistan has long since passed. The un-declared and therefore illegal war there was won when the Taliban Government was ousted and a new government was seated. What is going on there now is an occupation centered around nation building and the continued promulgation of an illegal empire.

Constitutionally speaking the way forward in the "War on Terror" is clear. 1. We must withdraw conventional occupation forces from any sovereign that has not had a Congressional Declaration of War issued against it (which is all foreign nations wherein conventional forces are currently garrisoned). 2. Those groups and individuals that have in the past and continue to this day to use violence to infringe upon the lives, liberty or property of Americans must have Letters of Reprisal issued against them so that they can be killed or captured legally. Those that are then captured must be treated as prisoners of war and housed in military prisons until they can receive a fair trial in accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice. 3. We must use our superior force projection capabilities and diplomatic efforts to interdict those with Letters of Reprisal levied against them as they attempt to travel and or congregate.

Rand, please reconsider your position on this issue. It is clear to me that now that you are the front runner some neo-cons have infiltrated your inner circle and tricked you with a false dichotomy choice to say that we either try the Guantanamo prisoners in civilian courts or hold them indefinitely in Gitmo. My fellow Patriots, even the greatest General commits errors in the rage of battle. Please give Rand an opportunity to retract these comments and clarify his position. Such is the size and scope of our legal errors prosecuting the "War on Terror" that they are nearly insurmountable. But if we will return to our founding principles, codified in the Constitution, the Spirit of the Founders will light our way.

"it is easy to make light of insistence on scrupulous regard for the safeguards of civil liberties when invoked on behalf of the unworthy. It is too easy. History bears testimony that by such disregard are the rights of liberty extinguished, heedlessly at first, then stealthily, and brazenly in the end." Justice Felix Frankfurter

About RJ Harris:

RJ Harris is a currently serving nineteen-year Oklahoma Army National Guard Officer, two-time Iraq War Veteran and U.S. Congressional Candidate for Oklahoma's 4th Congressional District. He is a University of Oklahoma graduate in Philosophy and a second year law student at the University of Oklahoma College of Law. RJ is a Constitutional Conservative Republican and the first 912 Liberty Candidate in the nation. He has appeared on Fox News' Freedom Watch twice with Judge Andrew Napolitano and been the featured guest on conservative/libertarian talk-radio programs across the country.

www.rjharris2010.com



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

this was an excellent

this was an excellent article. rj is a true patriot.

RJ

the best part of your letter -
"Rand, please reconsider your position on this issue. It is clear to me that now that you are the front runner some neo-cons have infiltrated your inner circle and tricked you with a false dichotomy choice to say that we either try the Guantanamo prisoners in civilian courts or hold them indefinitely in Gitmo. My fellow Patriots, even the greatest General commits errors in the rage of battle. Please give Rand an opportunity to retract these comments and clarify his position."

RJ Thank you so much for writing this - hope a lot of "good fruits" come out of your action.

hugs*))
___________________
"a half truth is a full lie" old Jewish saying quoted by Gary Null
exposing big pharma and their deadly vaccines
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gavenB_AJ9A

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

RJ thanks, for being a Daily Pauler.

I appreciate your in sight and your efforts to keep things in perspective. The Constitutional perspective is new to many and most welcome to be exposed to it often. Especially, for people like me who has a memory like a sieve. lol

"We can see with our eyes, hear with our ears and feel with our touch, but we understand with our hearts."

All this is contrived to divide the Rand Camp

It may be a decision that will bite RJ in the butt too. This is the cheesy grandstanding.

I'll take the person

who tells it like it is... over the person who hides behind cognitive dissonance any day. Harris will make a great and honest leader in Congress. Furthermore, at least he takes the time to give his supporters on DP enough respect to speak with them. I can't stand this "I'm higher than you are and beneath interacting with the people" mentality. It is refreshing to see a statesman interact with "regular" people.

A friend that agrees with you all the time is either an anomaly or not a true friend at all. RJ is trying to calm down the hyperbole surrounding Rands statements and offer some suggestions.

"Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises

Oh man

RJ,

I have tremendous respect for your views. Frankly, my personal belief is more in line with your legal interpretation and vision for the future.

However, I am disappointed that you would weigh in publicly like this. The internecine bickering that has exploded in recent days is not helpful. You have expressed your opinion and advice respectfully and eloquently, but liberty-oriented candidates criticizing each other - even when it's done respectfully - can help fuel that bickering.

Among some of the more extreme, knee-jerk reactions I've seen have been demands for campaign contribution refunds and public disclosure of those demands. The name-calling (e.g., "neocon," "Rudy Giuliani hacked Rand's website," "traitor") has often been vicious. All of this is destructive.

As a respected liberty-oriented candidate, you have sway in the movement. When you speak, people listen. And when you publicly criticize another candidate, regardless of your appropriate tone and good intentions, you provide cover to the destructive reactions of those who have unrealistic expectations that liberty-oriented candidates will be "perfect."

You are certainly entitled to your views, and have the right to express them. I just don't think this is the responsible approach when looking at the movement's big picture.

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views...Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. - SCotUS, 1995

Harris is a Daily Pauler

Harris is a Daily Pauler like you and I. I think he has great concern for the movement and holding others responsible. This sort of cognitive dissonance is bad for the movement. If Ron Paul makes a bad move... which he hasn't... he should be called on it. Otherwise we are no different than those who continued to support Bush because of a vested interest and cognitive dissonance.

"Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises

What is this "bad move" that Rand has made?

Can you codify it?

I wish to respond.

WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994

Giving him the benefit of the doubt...

in that he doesn't really hold this unconstitutional position.

Then I can only assume he stated this hastily or he did so to win over neo-cons. You do not have to sell your principles or the constitution to have a strong stance on National Defense.

This stated position is fundamentally incorrect and diametrically opposed to his fathers and the liberty movement.

"Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises

What position are you referring to?

Can you put it in writing?

I think it is worthy of debate, I just want to know what we are debating about.

WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994

Here

“Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” said Dr. Paul. “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.”

"Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution."

That position is overwhelmingly different than Ron Paul’s or the Liberty Movements. Our constitution codifies the natural rights of all human beings. To say that other human beings, because of their place of birth, do not deserve due process to have their natural rights taken... is about as anti-liberty that you can get.

"Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises

Is Rand advocating a position that ...

takes away due process from these prisoners?

I would argue that he is strongly advocating a change in favor of due processs.

I would disagree with Rand's position that military tribunals are the best option to grant due process, but that is not what you are saying.

You are saying that Rand is advocating taking away due process, and that cannot be further from the truth.

Did you know that our own military servicemen are granted the exact same due process?

WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994

I'm not sure how else to say this... but

you are wrong.

"Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution."

That is what the man said. Period.

How does that imply anything different?

"Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises

He is correct.

If he would have said, "Foreign terrorists do not deserve due process", then I would become a vocal advocate against Rand Paul.

But ...

Alas ...

That is not what he said.

I will say this ...

I disagree with Rand's position, but his position is still just, right, and constitutional.

WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994

Not True

Your saying that won't make it true. I believe we should give him the benefit of the doubt and I want to hear him clarify his position. But, however, if you agree as it appears in your response, that they don't deserve the protections of our constitution, then you are absolutely wrong just as is Rand Paul.

Again, our constitution codifies the natural rights of all human beings. The V Amendment reads: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

If Rand Paul means that certain portions of the protections of the constitution do not apply then fine... but he needs to clarify exactly what natural human rights these humans do not have (i.e. explain if he means all constitutional protections which his statement implies... or just some of them.)

Rand cannot have it both ways. His first and second sentences contradict one another and his stating the first is what I and, I believe others, take issue with.

"Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises

Due process is granted in every western ...

democracy.

It did not originate with the constitution.

In fact it originated with the Magna Carta and the origins of natural law which have been around a bit longer than the constitution.

I agree with you, these prisoners need to be granted due process.

And Rand does to.

So what is your disagreement?

WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994

You are mincing words here

Rand Paul either needs to say that they deserve the protections of the constitution or they don't. He is contradicting himself by saying they don't but they do deserve due process?

Considering them guilty before innocent is also anti-liberty.

Furthermore, his position on keeping Gitmo open is also deplorable.

"Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises

On the first point ...

To force foreigners to accept our constitutional rights would be a bit presumptuous.

Due process is a natural right first and a constitutional right second.

On your second point, keeping Gitmo open, I agree with you, but what is your alternative. Mine is to release them and send them home. Do you think that is a platform I can campaign on in KY?

WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994

Still mincing words

To say that they do not deserve the protections of the constitution is the same as saying they do not deserve their inalienable rights. The constitution simply codifies these rights... it does not provide them. You are twisting and turning to try and avoid admitting that Rand was way out of line when stating "they do not deserve the protections of our constitution". The protections of our constitution ARE those inalienable rights.

On Gitmo:

I say give them a fair trial as all human beings have a right to. If they are found guilty then move them to a new prison. Gitmo has disgraced this nation and added more hatred to the already overwhelming amount of American-Hatred felt by the rest of the world. Wanting to keep it open is bad for morale.

"Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises

That was the dec. of ind. not the constitution.

A fair trial?

For what?

There are no indictments or charges in most cases.

Under habius corpus, they should be released immediately.

Are you now saying, "Be damned" the constitution, we should still try them despite denying them habius corpus?

You are as much a tyrant as Rand is.

WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994

Arguing with a screen door

Arguing with you is sort of like arguing with a screen door. Everything seems to just move right through your thought processes.

If you do not understand the founding principles of the constitution and the natural rights that were therein codified and protected then pick up a constitution and read it.

If there are charges to be brought to certain prisoners then they should be brought and tried. If there are not then they should be released. Your claiming that not a single prisoner is guilty of anything is claiming some sort of knowledge above what we've had access too.

"Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises

Is he a Judge?

I do not think so.

Is he a Republican candidate for Senate in KY in campaign mode?

Absolutely.

His adjectives were deplorable. His sentences were not.

WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994

The word "terrorists" is a noun, Rhino.

So is the word "thugs".

“These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/115368

Rand can be for strong national defense without making judgements like this or backing Guantanamo.

His first sentence was deplorable...

his second setence shows confusion and a lack of investigation into the matter.

Taking his first sentence again:

Judge Napolitano and Ron Paul would have no choice but to fundamentally disagree with this position.

"Every advance first comes into being as the luxury of a few rich people, only to become, after a time, the indispensable necessity taken for granted by everyone." Mises

Thanks RJ!

I think you provided some good advice. I want to give this issue a few days and see what comes out of it before I can make any solid decision.

Nice! Glad we have RJ Harris

Nice! Glad we have RJ Harris leading on this subject.

We all need to remember that Rand is fighting for the Primary win. The best way to do that is to have all family members and friends register as republican and vote in the primary. Then have them have all their family and friends do the same.

Thank You Sir!

"Guantanamo Bay is a stain upon our National Honor."

Well said. I've thought this very thing for 7 years and counting. It's a travesty of monumental proportions. It should be closed immediately and turned into a museum of empirical folly.

Also, thanks for calming some the of the flaring tensions around here regarding Rand.

The 4th District would be truly blessed to have you as their Rep!

Question

Can anybody explain the specific differences in process and protections between a military tribunal and the civilian courts? RJ are you familiar enough with this branch of law or do you know of an article written in non-legalese which explains it? I've been a big supporter of Rand and I've seen so much positive potential in everything he's said and done up till now. The issue of where the trials take place doesn't seem as important as what protections are given to the defendants.

Giving Rand the benefit of the doubt here. If it's not too late to declare war in Afghanistan and if there's a valid military objective set then making the declaration could make sense in a practical sense (although I don't share that view). The US military can quickly achieve whatever objective is set. It's somewhat understandable when the article on Rand's site said the military should get spending priority. Even though non-interventionists are often painted as soft on the military that's definitely not the case for many of us. IMO we would need to spend more on the military in the short to medium term to support a policy shift away from forward deployment and adventurism. We need to build up our bases here in the US to support the troops that come home after completing their mission. They need to be rearmed and reequipped. Then we need more ships and more cargo planes so we can send them back quickly if they're needed. The US shouldn't give up any capability it should just stop wasting ammunition needlessly. Or spend it on training instead.

Answer

I am not a lawyer…yet. But I have heard colleagues in military law and professors confess that the military defendant actual has more protection than does a civilian defendant. For example a soldier is afforded a hearing wherein he is allowed to call witnesses and present evidence and if the judge (a full Colonel) decides there is not enough evidence to try the case the defendant is released. This is not allowed in a civilian grand jury proceeding. Military trials actually do provide the defendant with a jury of his peers because the jurors are all soldiers and sympathetic to the rigors of combat and the decisions that must be made in the heat of close action. In the civilian courts there is no guarantee that a physician or lawyer defendant will have like professionals on his/her jury. The neo-con scare tactic claims of avoiding civilian trials at all costs are absolutely false. If anything, I would have expected them to be arguing the other way! Enemy combatants stand a much better chance of receiving their natural right to Due Process when being judged by their brothers in the Profession of Arms than they ever would in a civilian criminal court which would most likely be out for revenge, have a difficult time untangling criminal action from combat action, and would general be unsympathetic to the mistakes that can be made under the rigors of combat or when under orders from the chain of command. There is every reason to believe that military trials, conducted in accordance with the Constitution and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, would ensure the guilty are punished and the innocent are repatriated once hostilities are ended.

RJ Harris
Constitutional Conservative Republican
US Congressional Candidate
Oklahoma 4th District
www.rjharris2010.com

RJ Harris
Constitutional Libertarian
www.rjharris2012.com

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/RJHarrisOfficial