and September 11 just happened. Given that you have an adversarial Congress and all the laws currently in place, how do you react? What do you do to attempt to secure the Nation?

pardon me and my "dumb as a brick"ness but what does "libertarian" mean, is it liberal?

i'm smart it's just that one thing is throwing me for a loop.

Well, I wouldn't be a Libertarian, but I would have immediately sealed off the borders and kicked all non-citizens on student visas etc from the Middle East out of the country.

Check out: [url]www.lp.org[/url]

Maybe I should clarify: This question is for the libertarians who oppose the measures taken so far. I'd like to hear how they would have operated since 9.11.01 if they lived in the White House.

First thing I would have done is get Congress to pass a formal declaration of war.

THEN the Constitution applies to the situation.

Against whom?

The Constitution applies to EVERY situation.  But what if Congress wouldn't make a formal declaration of war against terrorism in general?  Then you would be stuck trying to get them to make formal declaration of war against SEVERAL countries, either serially or all at once, which would give those countries undue warning that we were coming.
No, the Congress already gave Bush authority to use military force against the attackers by whatever means necessary.  I think they did the right thing and did it the right way.

Against whom?
Saudi Arabia...since most of the "hijackers" were Saudi. Afghanistan..since they would not give up the "mastermind"  CIA...since they trained Ben Laden and anyone else in the Gov't who has been giving the @#@$% money for the past fiftenn years. And no ground battles...one bomb, one war over.

A formaL DECLARATION OF WAR.....

against the Taliban, which is pseudo-governmental, al Queada, and any other named terrorist organizations.

This is a new kind of war. It requires a new kind of declaration of war.

By 'applying to the situation' I mean the Consitution can now be invoked "Constitutionally" as well as the War Powers Acts. it helps avoid these stupid endless "police actions" like 'Nam. Too many of our presidents throw our military around like its their own personal barroom bouncer. The C-in-C is NOT REALLY C-in-C UNTIL war has been declared.

This is a NEW kind of war, and requires a new kind of delcaration fo war. I'm not aware of ANYTHING Constitutionally that would prevent declaring war on teh taliban, which IS a form of gov't, no matter HOW rogue it appears to us.

Feel free to enlighten me otherwise.

Well, war needn't be declared against 'the Taliban', but against the 'Islamic Republic of Afghanistan' that the Taliban governed.

Yes, and I favored a Declaration of War by Congress just because I like to think that one is required, and most importantly, I want to have every Congresscritter 'penned down' on whether he or she supports this reasonable response to the Attack on America!

Nothing that has been proposed, so far, by the Bush Administration has ruffled this libertarian Republican's feathers!

Eric The(NorGottenMyNoseOutOfJoint!)Hun[>]:)]

Ditto here.

I can't see any improvements that need to be made. I think Bush has done a masterful job.

Detaining non-citizens? I support it.

Military tribunal? I support them.

Pulling all the stops on KNOWN terrorist cells, including Carnivore and any other invasions of privacy? I support it.

BUT with this IMMENSE caveat.....

Any real Constitutional infractions will be punished thoroughly. Another tribunal will be set up after this is all over and the gov't will be tried for any abuses of power. My proposed "Declaration of War" would clarify EXACTLY who these extreme measures could be applied against, and the Declaration could be amended as new information comes to light, with Congresasional approval.

We are at war, people. This "be nice" mentality has GOT to go.

The thing is, what if we want to go after Iraq next?  And what if we don't want Iraq to KNOW this in advance?  Does Bush wait till the last minute to ask Congress and risk not getting a declaration of war in time and not being able to implement his war plan?  

I've already addressed that.

We can AMEND the declaration, as new information comes to light, with the approval of Congressional oversight.


I sense a fairly widespread unwillingness to think outside the box here.

This is a new kind of war. It requires a new kind of declaration of war. And a declaration of war IS the Constitutional thing to do.

Didn't Jefferson declare war against the pirates of the Barbary Coast? If so, there's precedent for a declaration of war against a group rather than a nation.

I cannot say what I would really do because it would get me banned from the site.  However, instead of us fighting this war.  I would demand that all Islamic/Moslim/Arab nations round up all terrorists in their countries and hand them over.  If they don't want to hand them over, I would accept just their heads in a bag.  They would have 90 days to comply or else.  

Nice article on the pirates of the Barbary Coast at:
http://[url]www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/barbary.htm[/url]

It seems to say that we didn't declare war on them, but THEY declared war on us.

Personally, I too would like to see a formal declaration of war by Congress.  I don't think that we have to declare war on only a country.  We could declare war on the "individuals and groups who organized the attacks of Sept 11, and all those nations and persons who are found by the President to support them".

However, Congress has in fact passed a resolution authorizing the President to use all necessary means to find and punish the perpetrators, which is sufficient for me.

The first thing I would do is repeal the machinegun ban by executive order! Next, I repeal every other unconstitutional law I can find on the books. Now that I have our own country in order I get a declaration of war for the fight in Afghanistan.

I plan on being a single term president.

Michael

The only thing that I would have done differently is veto the "Patriot" Act. I also have a problem with the secret military tribunals. Not because they are military tribunals, but because they are secret. Just my $.02 (and WTF do I know!).

Kyle

I'd do pretty much what Harry Browne campaigned to do--restore the US Constitution to its rightful place as founding document for our nation.  

I would immediately end the War on (some) Drugs, and start working towards a more reasonable system of taxation.  Accountability would be the watch word in every facet of the federal govt. from that point on.  The ATF would be immediately abolished, thus ending the final vestiges of Prohibition.  The DEA woudl be next, and I'd clip the wings of the NSA and the CIA since they have proven to be so utterly incompetent despite their huge budgets.  I'd also get the fed gov out of the education business.  That's just for starters.  The Defense Dept. would be on notice--you do your jobs right with the money you have or you're out.  No more "inter-service rivalry" bullshit.  I'd get rid of half the generals (we have way too many) and start paying professional soldiers a professional wage.  Most of the services the military provides would become privatized anyways.

As far as the terror attacks go, it's a no-brainer.  Urge Congress to declare war.  That's already been said.  What stupefies me is the utter disdain for which our leaders, especially Bush and Ashcroft hold for the Constitution.  Every time they do something extralegal, they are wiping their ass with it, don't ever forget that.  They know the "right" way to go about doing things and they are intentionally ignoring it because they are doped up higher than a heroin addict on P-O-W-E-R.  

In addition to declaring war, I'd gut the FAA immediately.  They're as much to blame for poor airport security as the airlines are.  Once the FAA is out of play, I'd make it clear to the airlines that it is their sole responsibility to protect the safety and security of their passengers.  No more bailouts and sweetheart money deals.  You screw up, you're out of business.  Eventually, all the punk-ass airlines would go under.  The new ones that sprung up after that would take their business much more seriously.  There would never again be hijackings and passenger dignity would be maintained--no more seized nail clippers, etc.  No idiot National Guard troops with M-16s in the airports, and most of all, no fucking Nation ID Card--nothing is less American than a National ID Card for crissake, I ask you?  

Now don't say that the libertarians don't have any different ideas.  Those are my ideas, take them or leave them.  I think in the long run, they are much more valid that federalized bureacracies that attempt to deal with everything the same way--poorly.  We're digging our own graves by relying on an ever-expanding federal government.  It makes me sick to think that so many Americans equate big government with safety and security when history has shown time and time again that big government only stifles progress and innovation, and at worst, is the cause of genocide.  

I do agree with your intentions fully, but using executive order would just be an example of two wrongs making a right.  Exec. orders are unconstitutional, and are a big reason why our rights have been restricted so much to date.

If it were [i]me[/i], I would get these laws repealed legally (according to the Constitution; the only set of rules I have to follow).

So you don't think it would be ok to unconstitutionally repeal and unconstitutional law?

W.W.T.J.D.?

Liberatians oppose the measures taken so far? what measures has LP.org/party officially addressed as being unsuitable?

im not fond of a dept of homeland security. but i dont really have a direct problem with it so long as it does not acquire its own police powers.

national ID cards have'nt become a reality as of yet so its not a taken measure. whats wrong with drivers ID.

dont agree with federalizing airport security workers. same people; now just harder to fire and sue. also give the democrats about what? 28,000 or so new unionized supporters.

i am in general support of George Bush and his policies. not perfect, but not enough to say he's headed down the wrong road. a war on terrorism is kind of silly however as its not much different then saying you are declaring a war on stupidity. i support a war on terrorists currently threating the soverignty of the United States.

who me [:\]

Why not use the Executive Orders to repeal the unconstitutional laws, including the Executive Order law itself?

Well, after reading this I'd have to say...


[size=4][b]Thank God there wasn't a LIBERTARIAN in office!![/b][/size=4]

....Ummmm; why?

evil anti-american diabolical lib who want to disarm everyone so they cant defend their lives and way of life. [}:D]


i wonder if there are any Libertarians who would say "thank God there wasn't a Republican in office!!"

oh, but i forget only libertarians stoop to such a level as name calling or insinuinating a low level of intelligence.


sarcastic lib

In response to 9/11, if I were the Libertarian President, I would immediately close ALL borders and put a moritorium on ALL immigration.  Also, I would have ALL illegal immigrants rounded up and deported ASAP.  I deal with the issue of the children of illegal immigrants by not revoking their citizenship,(the Constitution guarantees that) but after deporting their parents, I'd deliver the children to their custodial parents, IN THEIR NATIVE COUNTRY!  Then after cleaning that mess up, I'd go after the terrorists who helped those attackers on 9/11.  I'm not sure a formal declaration of war is required since we are only retaliating against an attack on our soil.

I wouldn't do ANYTHING, after all, we shouldn't take actions outside our borders because we should "mind our own business" and not "meddle" in the affairs of others. that way, they won't get mad at us and attack us. never mind they already have attacked us, I "stand on principle."  then I'd blame americans for the attacks. I wouldn't arrest anyone, because law enforcement is bad, and the constitutional standards I'd make up would make it too difficult.  I'd open up all borders, because my ideology says so (I'm sure that would stop terrorists from getting into the country). I'd make abortion legal as per the party platform. I'd invent a strict separation between church and state, even though the constitution doesn't call for such, while at the same time declaring I'm the only one who supports the constitution. and you can rest assured no terrorist would get the death penalty, its bad. O.J. simpson type trials for all terrorists who we accidently capture, if we can get to court; unfortunatly, our military secrets will be revealed, but due process requires it, because I say so. I'd ban the NWO, even though it doesnt exist and someone on assweb made it up. we wouldn't pay the UN anything either, even though we agreed to do so.

and if anyone argues with me, I'll call them a reblicrat, and say they are against freedom, and thats its a good thing they voted for the lessor of all bad candidates, though I'm not sure how I got elected, probably through my moral superiority

stereotypes are great [}:D] they seem to always paint an accurate picture.

huh? stereotype? its either the party platform or from the mouths of libertarians themselves!

trekmaster and Avtomat, you've been reading way to much anti-libertarian hype.  I'd settle for simply  following the non-existent US Constitution in all federal matters.  But that would mean doing exactly what I described in my post.  I said nothing about the issue of borders.  I think it is quite normal for a nation to defend its borders.  I would hope that it would not stifle immigration as this is a nation of immigrants and a lot of our new ideas come from the new arrivals.  Scapegoating is ugly, and total isolationism is something that the North Korean Communists do, not libertarians.  

I still say that US foreign policy is largely to blame for the events of 9/11.  The Clintons and their stupid collectivist/socialist ideas are at fault.  

The trouble with America is that it has never once followed its own Constitution.  Read my other thread where the writer argues that the Constitution is an utter failure.  It is, we don't live by it.  Kind of troublesome if you happen to like the Bill of Rights (especially the 2nd Amendment).

Hiatus in immigration and entry into nation, pending comprehensive background checks, cross-checked with CIA database and FBI lists of known terrorists, organisations, and allies and sympathisers (not terribly libertarian on the face of it, but one who is dead simple has no civil liberties...)

Press Congress to issue declaration of war upon known terrorist organisations and individuals, expandable to nations that harbour, aid, and abet such persons and organisations.

Press Congress for authority to issue Letters of Marque against individuals as above, names descriptions to be canvassed from CIA and FBI lists as above.

NOTE - These measures shall be taken against terrorists and organisations worldwide, without exception.  Hezbollah, Al Qaida (?), Baader-Meinhof, Red Brigades, Machateros, FMLA, ALL of them are now subject to armed response from the United States and any of her citizens.

Rewards for confirmed deaths of such persons initially listed or added afterwards to be determined according to threat possible.  ALSO NOTE that mistaken identity targeting and "hate crime" backlash will be punished severely!

Allow immediate arming of commercial pilots by Executive Order (the FAA is an executive department, and Congressional approval is not necessarily required.)

Thrust for legislation allowing the arming of private citizens for homeland defence.

Impel private training centres (LFI, Thunder Ranch, etc...) to design and implement cirricula for AT and airborne defence scenarios.  ALL pilots must attend, and citizens with proof of satisfactory completion may also carry sidearms (with appropriate ammunition) upon commercial aircraft.

Followup actions as situations demand.  Implement legislation for private arming and armed flight crews SANS sunset provisions.

May also be necessary to POST-ceritfy all flight cabin and flight deck crew, thus allowing powers of arrest in the event such should be required...

FFZ

Uhhhh, OK, but WHICH "god" are you thanking??


[}:D]

I'll assume that you are saying that you are a libertarian, and that, as a libertarian, you would "follow the constitution," with the implication that no other political party would similarly do so. I think that you are right when you say that libertarians want to strictly follow the federalism found in the constitution (or at least they say they do, libs have never had any power higher than dog-catcher to prove what they would actually do). But libertarians, by their admissions, either publically through libertarian talking heads, or as found on their website, adopt posititions clearly contrary to the constitution. I've spoken to this before.
Their platform sets forth a constitutional interpretation that comports with neither the plain meaning nor original intent of the constitution. example:

[url]http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/freereli.html[/url]
"[W]e advocate a strict separation of church and State."  
"Strict separation" is a far more stricter standard than that set forth in the constitution.

Furthermore, libertarians are quick to jump on the "made-up" rights bandwagon along with the liberals. examples? the right to "privacy" (not in the constitution); the claim that pornography is somehow protected by the first amendment as "speech" (yeah, right); their support of abortion rights (not in the constitution, the states clearly have the right to ban/regulate it, etc).
I could go on and on, and have before, and I wont now.

The one who is responsible for that which I give thanks.
[:)]

I think its safe to assume that, generally, when someone claims to be a "XYZ," then they adopt the positions that the "XYZ organization" takes. I dont think its a stereotype to say that libertarians believe what the libertarian party platform SAYS they believe. If you dont believe the party line, then why say you are libertarian, or get in a tiff when I make a statement about libertarians?

Well, i think Harry Browne is the MAIN reason there isn't a Libetarian in office.

Worship your new "god" Major....
[img]www.harrybrowne2000.org/images/logo.jpg[/img]

Harry Browne



BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

If only I had photoshop skills.....

Silly me, I opened this thread thinking that the Libertarians had run out of members and had selected me as their president.

I guess I can quit trying to gather a group of advisors and go back to making dry, usually sarcastic responses (which are often misunderstood) to threads I find humorous.

I was looking forward to being president, too.

Furthermore, libertarians are quick to jump on the "made-up" rights bandwagon along with the liberals. examples? the right to "privacy"
(not in the constitution); the claim that pornography is somehow protected by the first amendment as "speech" (yeah, right); their
support of abortion rights (not in the constitution, the states clearly have the right to ban/regulate it, etc).I could go on and on, and have before, and I wont now.

Here we go again....privacy---do you allow the gov't into your personal business? V-chips, traffic cameras, encryption backdoors?

Pornography is not speech...wrong argument
But why is the gov't involved?
abortion....I support a woman's right to kill
anything she wants...just don't call it a choice
It is a life

i certainly do not mind critism. im not actually in a "tiff" if that means you think im mad, but i am bothered about your perception that libs are anti-lawenforcement.

i dont really see your point about LP.org's position on seperation of church and state. feel free to either e-mail me with a source of info on it. i dont care for a left-wing source, but any source that presents references would be appreciated.

pornagraphy should never just be available at a local 7-11 or anything, but do you think it should be banned?

Neal Boortz a Libertarian talk show host; has pointed out on several occassions that their is no constitutional right to privacy. the LP stance on this is a philisophocal one. they claim accoriding to LP.org that it is an individual right, but do not say that it is a constitutionaly guarunteed right.


inquisitive lib



"the problem is trying to convince crazy people that im not crazy"

just because the constitution does not specifically gaurantee a right; means that it should not be defended. example: Body armor. there is to constitutional right to own "bullet proof" armor. when the constitution was orignially written it was the states that would not ratify it unless a Bill of Rights was included. it was beleived that these rights exist wether a govt exists or not.

i agree that there is no constitutional right to not being watched and neither is their one to own body armor as a means of vital organ protection. i fail to see how this would mean not standing up for them.

whats your perception on this?


unarmored lib



"the problem is trying to convince crazy people that im not crazy"

my "source" is the link provided above and the text of the first amendment.

My view, or what I "think," is irrelevant when comes to the meaning of the constitution.
as the website says: "The individual's right to privacy...." I dont know where they get this "right," it aint in the constitution. But if you are saying libertarians will concede there is no "right" to privacy in the constitution, and that government (at least state government) has the ability to regulate it, I suspect there would be many surprised libertarians!

to Avtomat:



i read both your link and the first amendment and see where no friction exists. please show me YOUR perception of this issue in detail. i really want to know. im curious.

where in the constitution does it say that porn is not protected by free speech. seems to be a matter of intrepretation probably motivated by religious alignment.

rights exists whether there is a constitution or not. if the constitution did not exist, then you still have a naturally born right to excersise freedom of religion, speech, personal defense and so on. if a right is not listed in the first ten amendments; that does not mean one should not support its existance. there are more than just ten amendments you know. you can add more.

i consider your view of the constitution to be relevant. the views of this countries founding fathers were too. do you consider yourself to be less then them. this does not mean i think it a "living" document. but histories changes and added amendments (to enforce the previous ones) shows that it is not completely static. what if the states had ratified it without the Bill of Rights like they were going to do? they considered the first ten to be "no brainers". to exist without question.

automatic lib

The first amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." The 1st forbids [u]establishment [/u] of religion.  Libertarians, however, call for a "strict separation" of church and state. this standard, "strict separation," is a much more "strict standard" than making a law respecting an establishment of religion.
the constitution does not speak to what is NOT protected, it only speaks to what the government (the federal, state, sometimes both) CANNOT do. The question is whether porn is speech. Looking to the original intent of the 1st, which you could easily find with your own research, I'm sure you'll find pornography was not contemplated as protected speech. Any religious view of a person is irrelevant to the meaning of constitution; however, I find it quite common for libertarians to assign "religious motivations" to any opposition to porn, as if that were a "bad" thing.
it certainly means its hard to figure out what those "rights" may be, and difficult to determine whether we may have given the government the power to regulate these rights in general grants of legislative power in state constitutions.

I'll take that to mean the only way to "add" "rights" to the constitution is to amend it. quite correct!

huh?

I'm not quite sure how "history" can change the constitution; there is only one way to change the constitution: amendment

It still wouldn't have affected the stats, the B of R never applied to the states.

I don't believe there is an Executive Order "law".  It is more of a precedent.

To Avtomat:

i still dont see what you mean about the First amendment. i dont see how the LP's position on religious rights does not conform to the view presented in the first amendment. even my Baptist preacher told me that they were for the same.

porn is obviously a matter of debate. maybe gun magazines will be removed off the shelf someday because guns are dirty.

i agree with your third rebuttal. but naturally born rights are basically based on "univeral" or "natual" Law. this could easily be open to debate based upon intrepretation or religious views.

yes, i meant added amendments. the constitution itself can me altered too. but never the first ten amendments in the BOR. example: slavery in history has amended the constitution.

your different view is relevant because your seeing something from a perspective that i dont. dont say HUH? you cant hide from a debate by pretending that such knowledge is plain. im trying to understand what YOU mean.

the Bill of Rights  applies to the Federal Government. its a set of Laws for them to follow. i see the purpose of law to be the protection of peoples rights. i know that there is supposed to be a seperation of state and federal power. as described in the constitution. just because something is not represented in the BOR or the Constitution does not mean it should not be defended as a right. rights do not begin and end with the BOR alone.  would it be wrong for me to defend my ability to purchase body armor? its not protected and yes a state could ban its sale, but that does not mean i just sit on my ass; shut up and do nothing. my defense of it is a philisophical one. my life is my property. if i want to protect vital organs, then why cant i do so if i want to protect my life? why cant i support a law/amendment to protect it?

this is differnet from a left-wingers "right" to a material possesion such as housing or a free computer at taxpayer expense. nobody has a right to something they wont take responsiblity for themselves. if you cant afford a house; dont expect someone else to provide it to you.

any questions?

i have a question for you.

how does the LP position on Religion conflict with the first amendment? please give an example or a theory on how it would produce something negative.

you may e-mail me at [url][email protected][/url]

still trying to see it from your perspective lib

Restore constitution: good.

Kill "illegal" laws: good.

Open borders: good.

Free trade: good.

How about devising a four-year plan to gut the federal government?  Start by shutting down the BATF, IRS, USDA, FAA, FDA, DOE, and on and on.

How about diminishing our standing armies?  Keep a handful of army divisions.  Keep some small amount of naval and air forces.  Bring home all overseas forces.  And empty arsenals by GIVING AWAY SMALL ARMS to private citizens.  

Who wants a MK-19 40mm grenade machine gun?  [:D]