The Way Forward in the "War on Terror." RJ's response to Rand's recent comments.
Submitted by RJ Harris on Sat, 11/21/2009 - 01:29
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.
Rand said tried, not held "indefinitely."
How this post can be claimed to calm people down? It not only strongly implies Rand has something to be "corrected" but fans the flames of discontent by misrepresenting what Rand said.
I'm with Rand 100% and I for one am not going to be distracted by establishment tactics.
Support the next Champion of the Constitution!
Pledge for Rand's Dec. 16 Moneybomb at: www.randsteaparty.com
Isn't it interesting that RJ has the time to respond to comments
Rand made. He not only takes a moment to address his constituents but he is able to recognize who those people are and what they believe. RJ is the kind of representative we need. One that responds to the people. One that upholds their sacred document. Rand needs to get with the program. If RJ can find the time to respond to this then so should he, we are waiting for that reply. The easy answer people is to support those candidates that adhere to our principles. That is all the street cred we need. We don't need famous people to run, just people who do what we sent them to Washington for. Let the money speak, maybe that works better than e-mails and phone calls. We support their campaigns, when the money dries up, then maybe they'll remember their principles. I'm floating some your way RJ!
Watch over 500 Activist-Issue Films Online, www.filmsforaction.org
www.kokeshforcongress.com
www.yaliberty.org
www.filmsforaction.org
www.enduswars.org
I'll say it again
Even if Rand does support a war of terror (and I do not) he is still way better than the other Rep. candidates he's running against.
Never cared too much about
Never cared too much about RJ Harris before but this statement is VERY impressive. It took balls to call out Rand but it needs to be done. Rand Paul has turned out to be a pandering coward as far as I'm concerned with his treacherous stance on GITMO, his support for a stricter DEA, and his wishy washy foreign policy position.
Impressive, yes, and RJ is trying to calm things down...
...not encourage a Rand bash.
Many of us are troubled by Rand's recent statements, Revere1776, but can also appreciate and respect RJ's request for us to give Rand an opportunity to retract/clarify.
If you are impressed by this post from RJ, perhaps you would consider honoring his request as well. You might also be interested in his comment further below that goes into more detail as to why he posted this.
Express link to that comment: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/115541#comment-1256176
It is clear that Rand has lost a BIG chunk of support...
now let's see if the neocons step up to fill the gap...
"You broke the cardinal rule, Randy. You turned on your friends. When you do that, your enemies don't respect you, and you ain't got no friends no more".
--(paraphrasing) Johnny Five
RE: The Way Forward in the "War on Terror." RJ's response to Ran
Thank you for responding to Rand Paul's recantation of his earlier Constitutionalism. Your statement is much more moderate and conciliatory, and therefore probably more helpful, than anything I would have composed in the heat of disappointment.
Where can this man have found in the Constitution:
(1) A power to allow military courts to try criminal acts within the US?
(2) A withholding of due process rights in cases where the charge is for a crime of sufficiently high seriousness (i.e. "This crime is so serious that persons accused of it should be punished on the basis of the accusation alone.")?
(3) A power for the government to punish, or even prosecute, an accused person merely on the basis of a coerced confession?
(4) A legal definition of "terrorism" ?
I am doubtful that Rand Paul will offer any reversal of his statement, which I suppose to have been from the heart, and also that, even if he does reverse it on the eve of his fund-raising event, his
reversal will be sincere. I cannot envision myself giving any further support to his campaign.
Further, I will be watching for a repudiation of his statement by Dr. Paul, Sr.,
in the absence of which I will have to reconsider giving any further support to his political efforts.
This is a crisis in the history of the Campaign for Liberty.
Ajnock: This is the problem when you support a 200 years
old document written by slave masters or slave profiteers or slavery-tolerant.
No Force-Agent (court system) is just -- regardless if it is appointed by the constitution or men in congress.
This is why I only vote for Ron Paul and no one else nor do I vote on issues nor do I lobby.
All of which is an abdication of self-rule or theft of anothers.
Octobox
Mises on Profit/Loss
Very well put OctoBox. The
Very well put OctoBox. The Constitution was the beginning of the end as far as I'm concerned. Reading "No Treason" by Lysander Spooner was very eye opening.
I'm with you and Scott Horton, voting is for chumps and suckers.
"The principle that the majority have a right to rule the minority, practically resolves all government into a mere contest between two bodies of men, as to which of them shall be masters, and which of them slaves; a contest, that -- however bloody -- can, in the nature of things, never be finally closed, so long as man refuses to be a slave." ~ Lysander Spooner
Your post here makes another comment of yours very curious.
Here you have little regard for the Constitution, yet on the other thread you act so very upset for someone else's selectivity of it.
Here you say "voting is for chumps and suckers", yet on the other thread you indignantly declare Rand "will not be getting my money or support. Ever."
You feel that way about voting and you were giving money and support to someone for their senate race? Very curious indeed.
Allow me to clarify my
Allow me to clarify my comments. In spite of my lack of religious adoration for the deeply flawed Constitution, I recognize that it at least makes the attempt to restrain (albeit poorly so) the power of the central government. I therefore respect the efforts of those who fight to bind Washington by its symbolic chains.
Ron Paul takes this responsibility more seriously than any "politician" in the history of the US. Jefferson, and even Madison exercised hypocritical extra-constitutional power. Ron Paul truly stands alone.
Rand Paul, however, calls himself a "Constitutional Conservative," (whatever that means) yet cares little about applying it consistently if it risks compromising his chance to secure a job in Washington. He illustrates, at least for me, exactly why I will never vote again. There is simply no other Ron Paul and I cannot bring myself to support the "better of two evils" ever again. To support Rand and have him turn around and vote for military tribunals or further empower the DEA puts blood on my hands. I won't do it.
Being an anarchist, I of course do not believe that it is even possible for a mere document to restrain the leviathan. This may sound hypocritical but as a matter of practicality, I hope Rand wins over the douche bag he's running against but I cannot bring myself to participate when he's as compromising as he's shown himself to be.
The Constitution is a Street Light at 3am with no Cops around.
............does anyone stop; would we know?
Octobox
Mises on Profit/Loss
says you
The Constitution is a street light at 3am with no cops awake.
.....If they don't stop and we do nothing, we're not doing our job.
poq: I sit corrected
Octobox
Mises on Profit/Loss
Octobox, please do not turn this thread into an anarchy debate.
.
Campaign for Liberty (name of the site)
Liberty is Voluntary -- Voluntarism is Anarchy.
That being said -- I believe in a Consumer-Minarchism as the first transitionary step (could take 50 years).
My argument is not for "anarchy" it's for Counter-Economics as a vehicle to break the back of those who we allow to oppress us.
Or you can go back to the never-worked-before methods of Protest, Voting, and Lobbying.
The tallying of votes and lobby dollars requires ever-growing gov't alone -- in addition to perpetual war.
I'm just saying let's try something new.
Octobox
Mises on Profit/Loss
Octobox, I don't think your ideas are without merit.
I have not forgotten our discussion on your thread.
But perhaps you could promote your idea in a less pushy manner.
Instead of disrupting threads and trying to argue relevance to your philosophy, maybe along with your signature in your posts, you could put a tag line and a link with a brief description. Something like, "Break free from oppression with Counter-economics".
You might even get more people to look because it would be in ALL of your posts. :)
Jiminy: Will you be my publicist, because I need one ;-)
Octobox
Mises on Profit/Loss
:)
Dunno anything about being a publicist, but if you put a brief tag line and link to your "Are we nationals" thread in your posts with your signature, you might reach some folks.
You know, like Rhino does in his posts with "WAHOR".
It'd be a start anyway while you're looking for a real publicist. ;)
Good Idea -- I'll think about that
Octobox
Mises on Profit/Loss
I agree with your counter economics statements...
And have had similar thoughts myself.
The question is, how to grow it beyond the simple things. The idea of a bartering, coop style website came up once, and I liked it.
Do you have any thoughts on how to scale, grow it into a movement?
_________
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
Yes -- I do, but it requires "effort"
I have an action plan, but it is impossible to do on my own (I don't have the time nor the resources right now).
A Website: For Education and For Entrepreneurialism
We need 50 DPers (fanatical bloggers) to get 10,000 other fanatical bloggers to then get 200,000 near fanatical bloggers who can each get 100 regular folks to turn -- that gives us 20,000,000 strong.
We have to make these people money (passive income) and lots of free-education -- we have to stack a lot of benefit in their direction, that's how you get people to "join."
ZERO Abdication is not Altruistic -- It's Profit Driven.
You got to show them the Profit and they will come.
The website must give them services and access and opportunity beyond just a buy-local message.
We are forming a consumer-union based on consumer-sovereignty -- a union that never votes or lobbies; a union that seeks liberty by ensuring workers and owners have no rights.
Octobox
Mises on Profit/Loss
An anarchy debate might be better...
Than the in-fighting about Rand... :)
I have heard people that I have seen around for years getting called troll, left and right on both sides of the Rand subject. I have watched the debate turn into something more hateful than a debate and discussion with relatively few voices of reason.
Honestly, I think getting back to discussing the finer points of the philosophy might be just what we need around here... A distraction.
Hell, I am even half tempted to bump the damned chemtrail thread with my response (which I try to NEVER do unless it has already been bumped up) just to change the subject until everyone has had time to think through things and maybe Rand has had a chance to respond.
_________
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
I think that's what RJ was attempting to do, simmer the chaos...
...while we wait for something from Rand.
Regardless, this business of going into various topics and disrupting them to turn them into anarchist/counter-economics philosophy debates is growing tiresome. :(
Wolfe: Well Said -- That's what I call I-R-O-N-I-C
Octobox
Mises on Profit/Loss
Thanks JHarris for
Thanks JHarris for addressing this issue in accordance to the constitution. I have always admired the way you pick and choose the kind of rhetoric you used addressing complex and divisive issue in a way that is articulate, assertive and still respectful of the opposition.
I wish you the best of luck in your congressional race and will try to donate some money to your campaign before the end of the year. You are a great asset to this movement
I Second Your Statement. Thankyou RJ
.
Voting and Lobbying are Abdication of Self-Rule
Regardless of the intentions a politician is a welfarist.
Voting is Abdication or Theft -- that's it.
Lobbying is the selling of votes -- that's it.
Ron Paul is an Educator of Liberty
----We only need one.
Let's stop donating and get into Counter-Economics.
We need "new" tactics.
Octobox
Mises on Profit/Loss
rjharris is a great man.
thank you RJ.
Gitmo is a tragedy.
We should be ashamed of ourselves.
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
___________________
Jake Towne "Fire Cake" Money Bomb February 15
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/122445
Donate = Freedom*))
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994