It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
He authorized the President to take action against those who were responsible for 9/11, and he may have given too much power to the President by voting for that. But, the Iraq war was authorized through Congress, and he was against it. Surprisingly, Obama also voted against that authorization.
H.R. 3076: September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001
107th Congress: 2001-2002
To authorize the President of the United States to issue letters of marque and reprisal with respect to certain acts of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, and other similar acts of war planned for the future.
September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 - Authorizes and requests the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal to commission privately armed and equipped persons and entities to seize outside of the United States the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, including any similar planned acts against the United States in the future. Authorizes the President to place a bounty, from amounts appropriated on September 14, 2001, in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorists Attacks on the United States or from private sources, for the capture, dead or alive, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator responsible for the act of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Cuervo
But in the past...Ron Paul has claimed to be against things based on very small issues.
So why would he vote to grant such open ended power to the President??? Shouldn't this be something that he stands on his "principles" and demand that the use of force be defined strictly or to put in some sort of safe guards so what Bush did couldn't happen???
Long story short, yes, I do, because responding to an attack against us - or preventing one if possible, is a valid function of government - although I would have preferred Congress approve the letter of Marque and Reprisal for more proper handling. That said, Paul is a representative, and acted in the interest of his constituents.
That being out of the way - your argument for Paul authorizing the Iraq War by such is - yes - a fail. Can you clarify for us when exactly the 9/11 attacks were given as a reason by the government for wanting to invade Iraq? Unless I'm forgetting something, the two are completely separate issues having nothing to do with one another, the Iraq War being predicated either upon the trumped up claims of WMDs, liberating the Iraqi people, Saddam generally being a bad guy, or some other such. I recall it having nothing to do with any valid authority from the AUMF dealing with 9/11.
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
I hope you didn't forget what the environment was like in this country after 9/11.
I don't think it's anything he's proud of and he certainly regrets it. Just like many respectable people voted for the Patriot Act yet the decent ones regret it. It's those guys who still defend those horrible in-the-moment decisions that are dangerous.
Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
Quoting one line out of my entire post to further your agenda. I expected nothing less from you.
This would be the second time in this thread you ignored my mention of Ron Paul's letters of marque and reprisal.
Isn't it ironic how your aggression towards Ron Paul rose equally to his popularity and success in the GOP primaries?
Like I said...I heard this information today and I was actually very surprised to hear that Ron Paul voted for the authorization of any type of military action.
And yes, I still think Bush used this authorization as part of his argument to invade Iraq. Without the link to Al Qaeda...his only argument would be "WMDs"...and I don't think he would of convinced people or congress to authorize it. But since he said he was going after Al Qaeda and a link to Al Qaeda with Saddam...and he has this authorization to go after those linked with those responsible...I do still think that Ron Paul's vote helped Bush go to war in Iraq.