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.

Clarification

Groups referred to = Foreign groups of pirates or terrorists. Terrorist = Foreign stateless actors who use violence to accomplish their political ends.

RJ Harris
Constitutional Libertarian
www.rjharris2012.com

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

Thank you again

I replied on the other thread where you answered.

I wonder how domestic terrorism fits into this scheme.

In general, I don't subscribe to the idea that terrorism is a useful, helpful label.

Hmm

Split the donations. Swoop in and attempt to pull people away from Rand Paul for money? A bold and gutsy move. It could backfire. Badly.

Sarge? I don't understand.

He has asked us to give Rand an opportunity to retract his comments and clarify his position.

That doesn't exactly sound like he's trying to pull people away from Rand.

Yeah, but WHY did he do that?

Is R.J. Harris running against Rand Paul? I thought his opponent is some incumbent named Tom.

To Help Settle the Chaos

The ship was sinking for Rand and RJ's intention was clearly to settle everyone down, give Rand the benefit of the doubt, and awaken him to a new approach.

You can be anti-war/pro-peace and strong on National Defense. I think Ron Paul showed a lack of strength on national security during his campaign and it was detrimental to his candidacy. Rand, I think, is trying to avoid that mistake but took it too far. RJ is coming off as the voice of reason here while you are running around trying to defend the unconstitutional position that Rand put forth. RJ is offering a constitutional... yet not cowardly... position on dealing with this issue.

I see this as a friend helping a friend. Of course you could say ... "keep your comments to yourself" but what a poor leader and friend that would make.

Sorry RJ if I spoke for you, but this worship of Rand by some and this hatred by others... is troublesome... I want to see some balance and I think you were trying to provide that.

"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 wrote a well thought out piece.

He is also giving Rand some good advice. We need everyone of these Liberty candidates. I think RJ is trying to keep Rand's ship afloat not sink it.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

Good advice

And fuel to the anti-Rand Paul/Pro Grayson camp.

Who would you rather see in that seat.
Grayson or Paul?

What I want to see is for

Rand to have a well thought out written replay so Grayson camp will shit
their pants.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

Exactly! Ron, Rand, and RJ

Exactly! Ron, Rand, and RJ need to get together and hash this out. I say RJ because he has shown some in depth knowledge and appears to be trying to quell things in a diplomatic fashion. RJ may have some skill here...even though I know little about him.

They need to come out with a counter response...in video would be great by Rand...answering the question honestly with some depth involving the constitutional aspects of his comments.

I know that military tribunals are the method for enemy combatants. IF...IF...he is taking the stance that they are considered enemy combatants(even though we don't think they are and he doesn't either) the government has taken this stance. Then they fall under the military's jurisdiction and under tribunal.

Read the Wikipedia entry to see that the Supreme Court ruled that Gitmo detainees are the only ones recently to fall under military jurisdiction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_tribunal

Second see that Rand doesn't necessarily believe that a lot of the detainees were ever enemy combatants. However, since they have been classified as such...the method at this point is military tribunals. Watch him talk about the problems of Gitmo at :40 :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbDz0TWfK04&

======
Federal Reserve to the American People:

"Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam."

================
Who is John Galt? Vote ███ ███ 2012!

Shakes head:(

Those that know me SSgT_AF Know that I spend as much time fighting to build this army of Liberty Candidates as I do on my own campaign. Your insinuation otherwise is unwelcome and off base. RJ

RJ Harris
Constitutional Libertarian
www.rjharris2012.com

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

A smart move

would be that of neutrality. It's good that your thinking about Rand Paul. Yet the timing and placement of your post doesn't bode well. In fact it has given fuel to the anti-Rand Paul camp on this and other web-sites and has given Grayson a place to stick his pry bar and loosen votes away from Rand Paul.

Timing is way off. I would have held off and waited to see where Rand Paul is going with this. Is it a new tactic? Is it a new way to beat the Neocons at there own game?

Time will tell. My opinion is that your timing was off.

No!!!!!!!

Timing was NOT off. We are passionate people in the views of Liberty. If someone of Mr. Harris' position did not say something to redirected the thoughts of those who disagree with rands statements, they would have left his side and a domino affect would undoubtedly have started and you would see his fan base drop (visual in the donations, website hits and eventually votes) and then the state of Kentucky (as well as the nation) would have lost. Idleness is not a position anyone should take when it comes to the paths of irreversible affects.

~If your not having fun during a revolution, your not doing it right!~

~Good Night, And Good Luck~

What's gotten into you?

I've read your posts, your unflinching support and donations for Rand is admirable. I'm sure he'll prove you right in the end, but these kind of low blows against fellow patriots is uncalled for and disappointing.You're falling into some kind of divisive paranoia, not knowing friend from foe.

RJ is not being opportunist.

There is no anti-rand camp. Stop making one.
People have legitimate concerns that deserve clarification.

Grayson doesn't have a stick to pry. Only Rand can defeat Rand. I'm sure Grayson loves all this, but he doesn't have much sway over how things fall.

The best we can do is chill and wait for Rand's response. Turning on each other and arguing over what we THINK he meant is unproductive.

Let's keep it together people.

Cmon SSgT_AF that's pretty low.

You really think that's what RJ's up to?

Lets just say you're not the

Lets just say you're not the first to have a negative opinion of SSgT_AF's comments.

"Oh, foolish man, what can you not be made to believe?" - Adam Weishaupt

www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com

"One man with courage is a majority." ~ Andrew Jackson

Thank you RJ, this needed to be said

I've been monitoring the controversy over Rand unfold, but have chosen to remain silent until now, choosing to give Rand the benefit of the doubt. I try not to fall in the trap of hysterical overreaction, deriding fellow patriots or blind unquestioning faith, especially in man. I agree with RJ's rational take on this.

I think Rand either made a mistake or was being too nuanced in order not to lose the mainstream crowd, hoping we'd understand what he's doing. I trust Rand has a satisfying explanation and/or apology for his recent statements. If I am wrong however, that would disappointing as I cannot support these stated positions. If Rand continues to do so, without explanation, I can no longer support him either.

He has the benefit of my doubt. I won't fight against him, but until he clarifies his statements, I cannot lend support or donate any further.

Waiting optimistically.
(If I missed any statement Rand has made in regards to this a link would be appreciated. Thanks!)

With a tear in my eye...

As I sit here today absolutely in shock and upset at the prospect of Rand not being what we thought he was, I am brought to a tear after reading this. I, unlike many, am giving Rand the benefit of the doubt. But, I think something is clear here, and that is RJ has shown himself to be the leader we need in these tough times.

I'm officially nominating Harris as the General in this race to take back Congress. He's the only one, other than Jake Towne, that comes on Daily Paul, responds to our comments and criticism, and takes the time to carefully articulate his arguments. I can rest assured that my money was well spent on your campaign sir.

"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." Frederic Bestiat

^^ RJ gets this... does Rand? I'm anxiously awaiting his reply.

"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

"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

I agree

RJ and Jake Towne have truly impressed me over the months and deserve far more attention and donations than they currently receive.

As for Rand, here's to hoping he knows what he's doing or that he quickly gets his head on straight.

nicely stated.

I wish you were my Congressman.

TY

TY TexaslovesRonPaul

RJ Harris
Constitutional Libertarian
www.rjharris2012.com

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

Bump

Moderators, please post to front page

Thank you, so much for

this. It is in keeping with the Constitution which everyone running for office needs to know as well as EVERY citizen. We can not have business as usual. Ron Paul has shown us the way. I like Rand but that statement did not even read as something he would say. It is my hope, he will reconsider and take this as an opportunity to teach his fellow Kentuckians about the Constitution. In Peace & Liberty.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

wolfe's picture

Glad I gave this guy money...

Will do so again now... :)

Done... Hey, anyone unhappy with Rand's statement could donate to RJ while they are waiting for a response from Rand.

lol, who knows. If we pop RJ's donation gauge, maybe Rand will respond correctly to this letter.... :)
_________
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

What a great letter!

Thank you.

I totally

agree, Troy...

O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond
BAN ELECTRONIC VOTING!!

Thanks RJ.

Thanks. We're having a bit of an unsteady moment, and those are steadying words.

R.J., You are a good man. A better man than me.

The Ethics of Liberty Apply to All or to None

Well said, RJ! I had to log in just to give this post the support it deserves!
I hope Rand will re-evaluate and respond to this!
*****
"I think we are living in a world of lies: lies that don't even know they are lies, because they are the children and grandchildren of lies." ~ Chris Floyd

"I think we are living in a world of lies: lies that don't even know they are lies, because they are the children and grandchildren of lies." ~ Chris Floyd

reedr3v's picture

R.J., this is the best and sanest

response I have seen on this issue. We should give every chance for growth and reconsideration to one who errs, as we all do at times. Issues are complex, it is easy to mis-state a position.

I can only hope the Rand camp will take R.J's counsel to heart.