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




Comment viewing options

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

Hmmm...

Thanks RJ. I'm just really confused about Rand's statements and I'm trying to see the balanced picture. The one thing that's clear is there's something hidden. Whenever anything involves 9/11 there's something hidden. The only other thing clear to me is RJ Harris has got my continuing support.

Remember Don Seigelman

A Bush appointed court railroaded him without a crime being committed. Political prisoners don't stand a chance in civilian courts in the US.

R.J.

Rand's positions are worthy of discussion, but do you really want to make an arguement that your position is more constitutional than his?

That seems a bit rediculous.

I am with you, bring all the troops home and declare victory for freedom, but Rand's position is equally constitutional, and, I would argue, lead to the same conclusion as your position.

There is one key difference between your position and his. His can get him elected.

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

Rhino,

Glad to see you're alive.

reedr3v's picture

No campaign is a sure thing, certainly

not for candidates bucking the Establishment by telling the truth.

But every candidate who clearly and consistently advocates for individual liberty and non-aggression helps advance the much bigger battle for hearts and minds.

R.J. is one of those rare candidates who thinks and speaks with consistent, honest, rational clarity, as does Ron Paul. In the end, Ron and R.J. are sure bets, because in the end truth will out. The real battle is education.

Well

His position IS potentially more constitutional, that is if we have misconstrued what Rand meant. Which apparently is the case and the reason for the debate. what did he actually mean? You're most likely be right rhino, they are probably both equally constitutional and lead to the same conclusion, only semantics and nuances got in the way. I don't care for your last statement though.

Their differing approaches will not determine who will get elected but rather who they will be beholden to when they do.

No disrespect to RJ but ...

in KY, the southern democrats and republicans cannot, I repeat, cannot make that jump to bringing our kids home.

Rand's position captures the same end result, since there will not be a declared war. Rand would say, no declaration, no troops. Put up or shut up.

If in fact, against all conventional wisdom, Rand were to introduce a declaration of war and it passed, then Rand would have no choice but to support the war.

But at least it would be a constitutional war.

This is purely semantics since none of this is going to happen.

No war will be declared and troops will continue to be on foreign soil unless Dr. Ron Paul becomes president.

It is simply a tactical shift, not a philosophical shift.

Rand would bite his lips and support a declared war, as would Dr. Ron Paul.

As it stands right now, he cannot support our foreign policy.

That is the most important point.

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

This movement is for the win...

Rhino, Every Republican in KY knows Rand's last name and knows who is dad is and they all know Ron's foreign policy position which consistently spans 20 years of Congressional service. All of us in the movement know just how hard the republican establishment came after the "Paulies" in the 07/08 Presidential campaign pulling out all the stops to block our message and our delegates and I am certain that this was the case in KY as well. Despite all of this Rand is leading in the polls there and that is before you count the heretofore inactive tea party and 912 folks which cannot be polled due to their prior political inactivity. What this should tell us is that the Liberty message is winning in KY as much as is Rand himself. There is NO reason for him to sell out his base to win over some neo-cons…his message was already winning them over and he still has 8 months to keep it up. What does it gain him to win over a few neo con points if he loses that many or more from his base in the process. Far better it is to keep what he as gained and continue to add to it through continued application of the Constitutional message. Republican constituents WILL back the Constitutional position every time if the candidates will articulate it to them on every issue. What this comes down to is Rand succumbing to advise in line with that which you posted above. As to the many charges against me for making these responses public…the remarks in question from Rand were released publicly and they were setting fires everywhere. I read one post going so far as to say that the ONLY trustable candidate is Ron Paul himself. I read another post saying that the person wanted their donations back. Only a public response was going to suffice. Only a public response was going to remind everyone that Rand should be afforded the opportunity to address the issue and clarify his position. He has fought hard for us in KY and he deserves a chance to fix this and come out stronger for having done so.

This movement is for the win; it is for our the reclamation of our Liberty birthright; it is for the salvation of our Republic and the restoration of our Constitution and that kind of effort deserves that we be willing to encourage fellow patriots back on their feet when they falter, not break and run at the first sign of trouble. The line was faltering in KY and my post was intended to make all those dropping their muskets turn and look to our commander there before deciding to walk away. With baited breath then we all await HIS response…not his campaign managers; his. My goal was to make sure there were still troopers around to hear that response when it finally comes.

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

I am trying to figure something out ...

In my mind, Rand has introduced a constitutional solution to the status quo.

How has he compromised his principles?

I fail to see the logic in your arguement.

You can disagree with him.

You can even criticize his positions.

But to claim it is a compromise to the principles of freedom and the constitution is just plain crazy.

I wish you well on your journey.

And I support you.

And I would vote for you.

You have a great deal of merit.

But I think your position on Rand's position is just plain wrong.

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

You disagree with me asking everyone to call down and give...

...him time to clarify...because that was my position. Read the last paragraph carefully. Further, my position on Rand's comments were stated publically for one reason, to stop the flood of supporters on this forum heading for the door long enough for them to calm down and give Rand an opportunity to clarify and contextualize his comments. The bickering and name calling that was going on was about to tear his base apart. I fail to see how you can call my position wrong unless you were OK with what was going on prior. I must also point out that it was not just his base that was coming apart in this dust up...it was a cross section of the entire Liberty Candidate movement. Yes my action was controversial and yes it could cost me the good will of a man I very much still, and always will, respect very much. But leaders MUST be willing to stand courageously in the most dangerous sections of the line because it is there, where the fighting is fiercest and most deadly, were the battle will be won or lost

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

Thank you ...

I have reread it and I agree with you. I should have read it a second time the first time. Indeed, you seem to be calling for patience.

God Bless.

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

I don't think the issue of

I don't think the issue of whether to bring everyone home, or to constitutionally declare war is the point that is causing the most division right now on the DP.

The status quo is ...

is to let the prisoners rot without due process.

Whether or not you want them released, tried under U.S. jurisdiction, or military tribunals is a shift away from the status quo and introducing due process.

We can debate these options, but they all seem to be constitutional and grant due process.

I disagree with Rand's position, but I whole heartedly choose and support his position over the status quo.

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

RJ

.

Amen

Glad to hear it RJ. You hit the nail on the head. Rand needs to retract the comments and face the political consequences. I would love nothing more than a principled, liberty-loving individual to become a Senator; but obviously not through the sacrifice of those very same principles.

This movement is bigger than the Kentucky senate race and we cannot lose sight of this.

RJ: Why did you not proclaim that you are an important CC2009

delegate from the state of Oklahoma? Are you not proud of this fact? Is not your participation in this historic event equal to or more important than your congressional race? If so, please edit it in at the bottom of your OP for others to see. btw That is an excellent Constitutional stance on an unconstitutional foreign policy bi-product.

"Be wary of those who know the truth. Align yourself with those who are questing for the truth." L. Gardner

"Be wary of those who know the truth. Align yourself with those who are questing for the truth." L. Gardner

Indeed I am:)

I am very proud and humbled to have been selected to be one of the CC Delegates for Oklahoma. The problem is I could not attend because of irreconcilable scheduling conflicts. (yes they were huge because I would not lightly miss such and important event.) Given my non-attendance then, I thought it disingenuous to claim the title of Delegate.

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

I think

running for congress is a tad more important than the cc.

just a tad...

Thank you Harris!

"extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

"it is good for the establishment to adopt liberty ideology, but it is not good for those who have already adopted liberty to fall to the feet of the establishment." ~ Annica2

my next donation

goes to rj, it seems.

Another RJ

Divider. What a terrible move. Terrible. Now Rand is fighting on two fronts. The Grayson camp to the east and the Harris camp to the west. Haste makes waste. RJ made the hasty judgment on Rand and now Rands campaign will lay in waste.

Grayson couldn't have hoped for a better turn of events.

didn't mean to

didn't mean to stir up a distracting sight about this lol, but i was rather venting and what i meant to say was perhaps that RJ has got more attention from me. i will be donating to both and i still support rand, but i hope he retracts his message. he can do that after the trial is over when there is less controversy, and he can simply cite the constitution where even foreign combatants are given the basic process of trial and retract his statements.

I don't think this is

I don't think this is dividing at all. If anything it helps clarify things for Rand who seems to be lost on the subject.

This isn't an attack on Rand either. We are sure he will still have a better position than Grayson on the matter but the situation with Guantanamo has become so convoluded it is nice to have a liberty candidate take leadership on the subject.

Are you ok man?

You're behaving very emo about all of this. It's going to be ok. Rj did the right thing here. Many are appreciative that he stepped in with some much needed sanity.

Rand will do the right thing, I believe that. Grayson has nothing going for him, and if this little hiccup is the best he's got, I'm really not that worried. Rand is going to win.

Harris, I agree with

Harris, I agree with you.

I'm still going to support Rand Paul

Please read the two articles I've put together. This is definitely a very well orchestrated event by the Trey Grayson camp. And Rand, being a little green to the political process simply had trouble with handling it.

Rand Paul and Guantanamo: First debate with Trey Grayson

Clinton backer turned GOPer Grayson calling Rand Paul a "flip flopper"

Remember people, this is why we LIKE Rand, because he ISN'T a career politician, but that means he's going to make a mistake now and then.

Tracy

~
A Way for Trey Grayson searchers to find Rand Paul
http://www.treygraysonforsenate.com
Trey Grayson For US Senate 2010 in Kentucky. See also http://www.jointreygrayson.com/ Spread these links around

SD Ron Paul liberty Operation up an running.
http://www.southdakotaforliberty.com/

Donate here https://rally.org/southdakotaforliberty/donate
Volunteer for Phone from Home here http://www.southdakotaforliberty.com/node/4

Thanks Skyorbit you've been doing some good fire control today

We can't let ourselves be divided.

That Paducah video is reassuring. It was from May, but it has the "wink" a lot of people are looking for. I think another statement from Rand on this would go a long ways to putting this thing to bed, and get us back to fullspeed ahead on the campaign.

WITHOUT DUE PROCESS WHO

WITHOUT DUE PROCESS WHO DECIDES WHO IS A WAR CRIMINAL OR A TERRORIST?

According to our own Governemnt anyone that supported Ron Paul is a potential terrorist. Without due process we are no longer a nation of laws but a majority of mob rule. I will not support this.

www.retakecongress.com

I agree with Mr. Harris. I

I agree with Mr. Harris. I think that all of our legal decisions as a country must be in line with our Constitution, and I think that Mr. Harris has in this case accurately identified the courses of action compatible with our Constitution.

Excellent post.

I hope, too, that Rand will clarify his position on unlawful detetion and occupation of third world countries.

What is a terrorist?

I posted this on another thread, hoping to have a response from RJ.

Please clarify- you wrote:

"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."

If I am understanding your context correctly, the first part of that sentence could apply to anyone who's committed violence.

How do you define "terrorist," what makes a criminal a terrorist and not, say a serial killer or hate criminal? Because it seems that is the crucial distinction to be made immediately upon capture of a criminal, determining whether they will be tried as PERSONS or with military tribunals. So everything flows from how a person is labeled (?)