Ron Paul

[pcosmar]

from an article on Bluebook,
26 July 1963, MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Central Intelligence [20] FROM: CIA Inspector General

The concepts involved in manipulating behavior are found by many people both within and outside the Agency [CIA] to be distasteful and unethical. Nevertheless, there have been major accomplishments both in research and operational employment. Over the ten-year life of the program many additional avenues to the control of human behavior have been designated under the MKULTRA charter, including radiation, electro-shock, and harassment substances. Some activities raise questions of legality implicit in the original charter. A final phase of the testing places the rights and interests of US citizens in jeopardy.

Technical Services Division initiated a program for covert testing of materials on unwitting US citizens in 1955. TSD has pursued a philosophy of minimum documentation in keeping with the high sensitivity of the projects. Some files contained little or no data at all. There are just two individuals in TSD who have full knowledge of the MKULTRA program, and most of that knowledge is unrecorded. NB 108-113

How does this protect us?

 

[PaladinX13]

Term limits are just that. You go, serve your time, and return home. Period.

Wow. Again, back to civics class son. Please understand how government works, not simply politics (which, in your mind, seems to mean being a partisan attack dog). Paul served as a representative of DIFFERENT districts each time (Texas, the 22nd and the 14th, respectively).

The issue is not when has it [read: unsanctioned assassination] worked, but whether we should needlessly limit ourselves from the get go. I for one think all options should be on the table.

"Needlessly limit" and "all options" is the unrighteous "the end justifies the means" type of thinking that completely undermines the democratic process, liberty, and freedom. It's forcing people to be "free" and doing what's "best" for them without their knowledge or consent. That would be all well and good if the government's paternal instincts were incorruptible and accurate, but in every case they have not. They have served self interests, corrupted and hijacked ideals, and moreover failed (if their claimed ends had actually come about they might have a shade of credibility).

Regardless, this kind of thinking is dehumanizing. What if we applied it with in our own borders? That the government, without oversight or sanction, can (and in your mind, should) choose to kill, frame, torture, spy on, capture, etc. its own citizens for some elusive greater good only they know and agree upon. "We're banning your guns, FOR YOUR OWN GOOD... just because gun bans have never worked, doesn't mean we should remove 'the options'. Why should we 'needlessly limit' ourselves to respecting the Constitution?" Somehow, because the people belong to another nation it's suddenly all right for us to circumvent the ideals our own was built on?

Furthermore, I don't recall any war that we have gotten into lately without the approval of congress.

Back to civics class. Especially during the Cold War, the CIA acting on "our" behalf without the consent of Congress, found itself involved in numerous wars, where "we" backed revolutionaries, dictators, and madmen if only they wouldn't allow their nations to turn Soviet.

As for the "approval of congress", again, this shows the expansion of government power, quite without the will of the People. The last war declared by Congress was World War II, since then, everything has been a "conflict" or "military engagement" and an end-run around the purposeful limitations built into the Constitution. Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Panama, Desert Storm, Afghanistan, and Iraq were never formally declared wars (not to mention things like Kosovo).

However, all of these things are a giant smokescreen for the real issue. Specifically whether it is wise to call for the destruction of the CIA without really having an idea about what its doing or what its done in the recent past.

Its irresponsible no matter how you slice it.

What's irresponsible is using this as an attack platform without understanding your "victim's" position. Paul believes strongly in national defense, that is with in the scope of the government's powers. Intelligence gathering is a critical part of that. Assassinations, frame jobs, arms supplies, revolutionary training, etc. is not UNLESS expressly sanctioned and desired by the People. Folding the CIA into the DoD would bring back some oversight and recall that the purpose is to provide defense for our nation not forcibly enact doctrine on others.

 

[Titan6]

Paul is not calling for an end to intel gathering. Pre 911 the nsa was ten times the size and budget of the cia and still gathers far more information world wide. Even now it is still larger just not as much.

What he is calling for is an end to stupid interventionism that often times rolls right back over top of us and smacks us in the face. Anybody who supports that should vote for someone other than Paul because he would likely to do his best to stop it.

Stage2 I like your comments here. Yeah they are kinda of trollish. But most people here are friendly or neutral towards Paul and instead of patting each other on the back all the time we need an attack dog who will help us work through the arguements. Paul stakes out positions that are difficult to explain in a sound byte or a five minute interview with a comedian. And certainly many Americans disagree with him or he would already be president.

 

[Silver Bullet]

PaladinX13, I like your comments here. Well constructed and reasoned arguments.

 

[PaladinX13]

Yeah they are kinda of trollish. But most people here are friendly or neutral towards Paul and instead of patting each other on the back all the time we need an attack dog who will help us work through the arguements. Paul stakes out positions that are difficult to explain in a sound byte or a five minute interview with a comedian.

It's infuriating that Stage 2's approach is what politics has been reduced to... mindlessly chanting a sound-bite in a war of who's loudest- "So and so, flip flops", "He's a hypocrite", "This one's a privileged idiot", "He's a womanizer", etc.- without any critical thought or discussion of position (and possibly more important, nowadays, the integrity behind that position).

Stage 2's just been ranting "Paul's a wacko that wants to dissolve the CIA!" is just as transparent and devoid of substance. Bringing up the actual issues and ideals that show why Paul holds the position is a "smokescreen" to the game Stage 2 wants to play, that is, shouting down with sound-bites (or politics as usual). That said, if the best he can do is repeat Paul wants the dissolution of interventionism, I'd say that's a pro in and of itself!

Dissecting it, Paul's "greatest weakness" is that he actually has a position on things and stands behind them. Stage 2 can't attack Paul's character ("He's a womanizer"), his integrity ("... a flip flopper..."), his motivations ("... war monger/profiteer...")... it comes down to a RESPECTABLE position on an actual issue of state. It's fine to disagree, that's what being a statesman is about, but the attack approach- "Everyone on this board should think this way and otherwise is irresponsible"- is hilarious against such a topic.

 

[Titan6]

It's infuriating that Stage 2's approach is what politics has been reduced to... mindlessly chanting a sound-bite in a war of who's loudest- "So and so, flip flops", "He's a hypocrite", "This one's a privileged idiot", "He's a womanizer", etc.- without any critical thought or discussion of position (and possibly more important, nowadays, the integrity behind that position).

What you have to realize is that mentality comes from the media both mainstream and otherwise from the right and left. Many, very many, probably most people in this country do believe what the see on TV, hear on the radio and read in the paper on internet boards without any critical thought whatsoever. Even the ones that say they don't believe it still swallow what seem to be innocuous portions wholesale.

It gets difficult for many people to distinguish fact from opinion because opinion gets repeated over and over again by the media until it is generally accepted as a fact. This represents more than a decay of values and integrity in modern society. Some of the studies that have been done where a control subject agrees with a group that is clearly wrong about something show that is likely deeply imbedded human behavior to want to go along with a peer group or society as a whole.

Every teacher knows that you can not make a person think. You can motivate someone, get them emotional, get them to agree with you about something without thinking... but go ahead and try to get someone to think on their own. It can not be done unless the person wants to on their own. But if you watch enough CNN or listen to enough Limbaugh than someone can certainly regurgitate what they heard without even thinking about.

I don't know how to combat this weird type of thought control that media wars present to us 24 hours a day in a an attempt to push an agenda or sell me a new Chevy. But I do know that in order to combat all the weirdness I would need to know what the arguments (such as they are) are. There is no way I am going to sit through another minute of O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Air Amerika, Hannity & Combs, Lou Dobbs, or any of the rest of them prattling on about their view of the world. (I do like the Kolbert Report but at least he is sometimes funny and honestly pretends that he is giving us news instead of not pretending...). Let someone else do that and then bring me the idiotic sound bytes without any basis in fact.

 

[royh]

Robert Baer has two books on his time in the CIA. I read one of them, See No Evil, and if it is to be believed, the CIA in the past two decades has been rendered completely ineffective by politics and risk-averse bureaucracy. It is a completely maddening book.

 

[STAGE 2]

Wow. Again, back to civics class son. Please understand how government works, not simply politics (which, in your mind, seems to mean being a partisan attack dog). Paul served as a representative of DIFFERENT districts each time (Texas, the 22nd and the 14th, respectively).

So what? If memory serves, Paul has been in politics since the mid 1970's. That to me is a career politician. I don't care whether its different districts, or he takes an interlude between terms. Term limits should be permanent. Otherwise the Ted Kennedy's of the world will simply work around the system.
Spin it any way you like, but Paul is just as much a career politician as the rest of them.

"Needlessly limit" and "all options" is the unrighteous "the end justifies the means" type of thinking that completely undermines the democratic process, liberty, and freedom. It's forcing people to be "free" and doing what's "best" for them without their knowledge or consent. That would be all well and good if the government's paternal instincts were incorruptible and accurate, but in every case they have not. They have served self interests, corrupted and hijacked ideals, and moreover failed (if their claimed ends had actually come about they might have a shade of credibility).

Regardless, this kind of thinking is dehumanizing. What if we applied it with in our own borders? That the government, without oversight or sanction, can (and in your mind, should) choose to kill, frame, torture, spy on, capture, etc. its own citizens for some elusive greater good only they know and agree upon. "We're banning your guns, FOR YOUR OWN GOOD... just because gun bans have never worked, doesn't mean we should remove 'the options'. Why should we 'needlessly limit' ourselves to respecting the Constitution?" Somehow, because the people belong to another nation it's suddenly all right for us to circumvent the ideals our own was built on?

This entire passage is the biggest buch of fallacies I've ever seen. With every single one of your points, you take something I've said and then extend it to some ridiculous level and then present it as my argument that simply isn't the case.

I'll simply state this one point. If you or anyone here thinks that our government can successfully function with complete transparency, especially in areas of national security, then you are simply unrealistic. This would do far more to harm us than any dirty bomb or flying airliner.

Back to civics class. Especially during the Cold War, the CIA acting on "our" behalf without the consent of Congress, found itself involved in numerous wars, where "we" backed revolutionaries, dictators, and madmen if only they wouldn't allow their nations to turn Soviet.

As for the "approval of congress", again, this shows the expansion of government power, quite without the will of the People. The last war declared by Congress was World War II, since then, everything has been a "conflict" or "military engagement" and an end-run around the purposeful limitations built into the Constitution. Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Panama, Desert Storm, Afghanistan, and Iraq were never formally declared wars (not to mention things like Kosovo).

What does it matter whether it is a formally declared war. As long as congress issues its approval, which it has done for most if not all of the conflicts you listed, then the constitutional safeguards have been satisfied. How does one formally declare war on an organization that has no home country, no specific nationality, and no specifi area of operation?

What's irresponsible is using this as an attack platform without understanding your "victim's" position. Paul believes strongly in national defense, that is with in the scope of the government's powers. Intelligence gathering is a critical part of that. Assassinations, frame jobs, arms supplies, revolutionary training, etc. is not UNLESS expressly sanctioned and desired by the People. Folding the CIA into the DoD would bring back some oversight and recall that the purpose is to provide defense for our nation not forcibly enact doctrine on others.

I competely understand what Paul wants to do. Eliminating the CIA and adding another section to the DOD is a huge mistake. The military doesnt have the skill or resources for this type of work. Furthermore, you are going to have legal issues with military personel covertly working overseas.

If the government and the military back in 1947 had the need to create an independent agency for intelligence gathering, why in the world would we take a huge step back today where things are far more complex and the need for an independent centralized agency is even more vital.

 

[STAGE 2]

It's infuriating that Stage 2's approach is what politics has been reduced to... mindlessly chanting a sound-bite in a war of who's loudest- "So and so, flip flops", "He's a hypocrite", "This one's a privileged idiot", "He's a womanizer", etc.- without any critical thought or discussion of position (and possibly more important, nowadays, the integrity behind that position).

Baloney. My two biggest complaints are 1) he's unelectable and 2) his issues with foreign policy aren't realistic and are quite dangerous. Those of you here who support him are so thin skinned and so much in lockstep that you can't deal with ANY criticism of this guy. In today's world, when someone says they want to get rid of the CIA, you SHOULD raise and eyebrow. You SHOULD question whether or not this is wise.

So may people here look at whether this guy is good for guns and thats about it. Well our rights aren't going to be any good if we have a major failure in our national security.

Paladin and others are so afraid to question this man's validity that they don't bother to address my argument. They want to make this an issue of whether the CIA is good or not. Thats NOT the point.

The point is whether or not changes should be made by people who don't know all the facts. Maybe changes should be made. Maybe the CIA needs to be revamped. I don't know. BUT NEITHER DOES PAUL.

Dissecting it, Paul's "greatest weakness" is that he actually has a position on things and stands behind them. Stage 2 can't attack Paul's character ("He's a womanizer"), his integrity ("... a flip flopper..."), his motivations ("... war monger/profiteer...")... it comes down to a RESPECTABLE position on an actual issue of state. It's fine to disagree, that's what being a statesman is about, but the attack approach- "Everyone on this board should think this way and otherwise is irresponsible"- is hilarious against such a topic.

I'm not concerned about Pauls character. Never have been. Nor have I ever said that people here must agree with my position. But I'm not going to fall at his feet simply because he is clean. He can be a perfect angel, but if he and I disagree on things, he doesn't get my support.

What I do find most interesting is that all of my posts address the error of Pauls position, and that all your posts address me.

 

[Titan6]

I'll simply state this one point. If you or anyone here thinks that our government can successfully function with complete transparency, especially in areas of national security, then you are simply unrealistic. This would do far more to harm us than any dirty bomb or flying airliner.

Paul never took that position. All he said was get rid of the interventionist acts such as overthrowing democratically elected governments. I happen to agree and think the country would be much safer thereby.

What does it matter whether it is a formally declared war.

Because it is against the constitution, and therefore the law of the land.

As long as congress issues its approval, which it has done for most if not all of the conflicts you listed, then the constitutional safeguards have been satisfied.

That is kind of like being "a little bit" preganant. You are either are at war or you are not.

How does one formally declare war on an organization that has no home country, no specific nationality, and no specifi area of operation?

Good point you can not. That is why the terminology is not good. War against Iraq was never declared yet you have a war none the less. It met all the requirements that you describe. Declaring "War on Terror" or "War on Drugs" or "War on Guns" is idiotic.

I competely understand what Paul wants to do.

You do not appear to.

Eliminating the CIA and adding another section to the DOD is a huge mistake. The military doesnt have the skill or resources for this type of work.

Agreed. But the NSA does.

Furthermore, you are going to have legal issues with military personel covertly working overseas.

We always have.

If the government and the military back in 1947 had the need to create an independent agency for intelligence gathering, why in the world would we take a huge step back today where things are far more complex and the need for an independent centralized agency is even more vital.

You keep confusing intelligence gathering with covert and mostly illegal action. These are two different things. Paul never said get rid of intellegence gathering.

 

[STAGE 2]

Many, very many, probably most people in this country do believe what the see on TV, hear on the radio and read in the paper on internet boards without any critical thought whatsoever. Even the ones that say they don't believe it still swallow what seem to be innocuous portions wholesale.

Lets see. I'm taking the position of questioning Paul's views and y'all are the one's giving him blanket support. Define irony.

 

[Titan6]

Baloney. My two biggest complaints are 1) he's unelectable and 2) his issues with foreign policy aren't realistic and are quite dangerous.

These are your opinions. Some people hold other POVs. Just because you think you are right does not make them fact.

Those of you here who support him are so thin skinned and so much in lockstep that you can't deal with ANY criticism of this guy.

True that; but I welcome your criticisms.

In today's world, when someone says they want to get rid of the CIA, you SHOULD raise and eyebrow. You SHOULD question whether or not this is wise.

Again, is it really wise to keep them after all the problems they have caused?

So may people here look at whether this guy is good for guns and thats about it. Well our rights aren't going to be any good if we have a major failure in our national security.

Again I disagree. He is good for supporting the Constitution something a lot of people in office have forgotten all about.

Paladin and others are so afraid to question this man's validity that they don't bother to address my argument. They want to make this an issue of whether the CIA is good or not. Thats NOT the point.

I only address your arguements. Keep 'em coming.

The point is whether or not changes should be made by people who don't know all the facts. Maybe changes should be made. Maybe the CIA needs to be revamped. I don't know. BUT NEITHER DOES PAUL.

Now that is just silly. How do you know what he knows and does not know? You do not. I am willing to bet he knows a lot more than you though.

 

[Titan6]

Lets see. I'm taking the position of questioning Paul's views and y'all are the one's giving him blanket support. Define irony.

i·ro·ny1 –noun, plural -nies. 1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.
2. Literature. a. a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
b. (esp. in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., esp. as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.
3. Socratic irony.
4. dramatic irony.
5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
6. the incongruity of this.
7. an objectively sardonic style of speech or writing.
8. an objectively or humorously sardonic utterance, disposition, quality, etc.

-- Which one did you want to go with?

Blanket support? Well someone who says and does 85-90% of what I want him to do gets about 85-90% of my support. It is more than saying you will do something. It is actually doing it that counts.

 

[STAGE 2]

Paul never took that position. All he said was get rid of the interventionist acts such as overthrowing democratically elected governments. I happen to agree and think the country would be much safer thereby.

Paul didn't but Palidin did. Its unrealistic and dangerous.

Because it is against the constitution, and therefore the law of the land.

That is kind of like being "a little bit" preganant. You are either are at war or you are not.

Good point you can not. That is why the terminology is not good. War against Iraq was never declared yet you have a war none the less. It met all the requirements that you describe. Declaring "War on Terror" or "War on Drugs" or "War on Guns" is idiotic.

How exactly is it against the constitution? Do you read the constitution to mean that we can only go to war against other nations? I don't see any language in section 8 that limits us to this. Do you think that the framers intended for us to not go after terrorists who have attacked us?

The answer is an emphatic no. The entire point of having congress declare war is to prevent the executive from having complete and total control of the military as a king would. As a result, having congress approve of military action satisfies the constitutional protection.

Since the constitution give no definition of war there isn't anything that limits its power to your interpretation.

Agreed. But the NSA does.

But that's not Paul's plan.

You keep confusing intelligence gathering with covert and mostly illegal action. These are two different things. Paul never said get rid of intellegence gathering.

Being covert isn't "illegal action" without more. The reason why we had such a hard time in Iraq is because we didn't have any people inside for such a long time. Putting military personel in such a role could have disastrous implications and would give another country a valid excuse for military action against us.

Gathering intelligence isn't sitting behind some desk at Langley.

 

[PaladinX13]

Other than being anti-Paul, what exactly do you believe and what do you stand for?

Spin it any way you like, but Paul is just as much a career politician as the rest of them.

No need for spin. Just the facts Jack.

• He refused to accept payment by Medicare or Medicaid, preferring to not charge patients or to work out a cash payment.
• He supported his five children during their undergraduate and medical school years–not letting them accept federal student loans.
• He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
• He has never taken a government-paid junket.
• He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
• He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

He was a layman who got involved in politics because of Nixon's removal of the gold standard. To call him a professional or career (as in, profiting from and solely involved in self-advancement) politician is an embarrassing claim on your part.

 

[STAGE 2]

Again, is it really wise to keep them after all the problems they have caused?

Thats the point. None of us here knows how much good they have done. Mistakes get aired. Attaboys don't. If for every one they get wrong they get 20 right, or maybe 50, or maybe 100, getting rid of them might not be such a good idea.

Before we start changing thigs we need to know the problem. You don't change the engine for a bad sparkplug. This is the same thing.

Now that is just silly. How do you know what he knows and does not know? You do not. I am willing to bet he knows a lot more than you though.

I have no doubt he knows more than me. I also have no doubt he isn't privy to the inner workings of the CIA. He doesn't have the necessary clearance to access the information that would give him the big picture.

 

[STAGE 2]

Other than being anti-Paul, what exactly do you believe and what do you stand for?

Lots of things Paul probably does, but we part ways on foreign policy and likely the war on drugs.

He refused to accept payment by Medicare or Medicaid, preferring to not charge patients or to work out a cash payment.
He supported his five children during their undergraduate and medical school years–not letting them accept federal student loans.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Swell. This however doesn't have anything to do with his positions on the CIA or foreign policy. I do think its comical that not letting his children take federal loans for education is somehow altruistic. Thats really a stretch. Being wealthy enough to put your kids through college is neither good nor bad. It simply is.

He was a layman who got involved in politics because of Nixon's removal of the gold standard. To call him a professional or career (as in, profiting from and solely involved in self-advancement) politician is an embarrassing claim on your part.

Ted kennedy was a layman who got involved in politics because...
Robert Byrd was a layman who got involved in politics because...
I can say the same thing about anyone in congress. Why they got involved is irrelevant. How long they stayed once they got there is the issue.

Paul is now starting his 9th term in congress. Thats 18 years. Add to that the fact that he switched parties (likely because he couldn't be elected as a libertarian) and you have a career politician. Anyone in congress for that long and who has made failed runs for the senate and (in the future) the presidency is a career politician.

 

[Titan6]

How exactly is it against the constitution?

Which part? The "only the congress shall declare war" part or the war against terror part?

Do you read the constitution to mean that we can only go to war against other nations?

Yes

I don't see any language in section 8 that limits us to this.

It does not.

Do you think that the framers intended for us to not go after terrorists who have attacked us?

Not since the framers themselves went after the terrorists in Libya.

The answer is an emphatic no. The entire point of having congress declare war is to prevent the executive from having complete and total control of the military as a king would.

Agreed

As a result, having congress approve of military action satisfies the constitutional protection.

Again, not according to the constitution.

Since the constitution give no definition of war there isn't anything that limits its power to your interpretation.

Good point. So where does a military action end and a war begin? That is a subject matter for another debate. I would say when the president calls it a war he is defining it for us.

But that's not Paul's plan.

Again you have it backwards. He never said get rid of intelligence.

Being covert isn't "illegal action" without more. The reason why we had such a hard time in Iraq is because we didn't have any people inside for such a long time. Putting military personel in such a role could have disastrous implications and would give another country a valid excuse for military action against us.

You are being obtuse on purpose? Paul never said a word about intel gathering yet all your examples point to that. Do you support the overthrow of democratically elected leaders of other countries also? He only talked about illegal acts such as killing leaders of other governments and such.

Gathering intelligence isn't sitting behind some desk at Langley.

Agreed

 

[Titan6]

Thats the point. None of us here knows how much good they have done. Mistakes get aired. Attaboys don't. If for every one they get wrong they get 20 right, or maybe 50, or maybe 100, getting rid of them might not be such a good idea.

Actually they do get some air time but not until years later after most of the players are dead. Again look at Iran, Chile, Nicaragua, many nations in Africa, Cambodia, Laos, the list goes on and on, failure everywhere that cost millions of lives, billions of dollars and garnered ill will wherever they went. I say it is not worth it.

Before we start changing thigs we need to know the problem. You don't change the engine for a bad sparkplug. This is the same thing.

I say the engine is broke.

I have no doubt he knows more than me. I also have no doubt he isn't privy to the inner workings of the CIA. He doesn't have the necessary clearance to access the information that would give him the big picture.

See again you are wrong he does have a clearance. In any case anyone that looks at the history of the agency and says "attaboy, keep up the good work" is ignoring a good part of history.

 

[Titan6]

Paul is now starting his 9th term in congress. Thats 18 years. Add to that the fact that he switched parties (likely because he couldn't be elected as a libertarian) and you have a career politician. Anyone in congress for that long and who has made failed runs for the senate and (in the future) the presidency is a career politician.

Yep, he made a 2nd career in politics. His first career was as an obstetrician where he delivered thousands of babies and served in the military as well. I think this is great. Someone that can work two full careers and make a stab at the Whitehouse really has my vote.

 

[STAGE 2]

Do you read the constitution to mean that we can only go to war against other nations?

Yes

If you could kindly show me where it says that congress has the power to declare war only against nations I'll concede the point.

Again, not according to the constitution.

But why. Is it simply because the legislation is not titled "declaration of war"? Is that the hill you are going to die on?

Again you have it backwards. He never said get rid of intelligence.

Never said he did. Adding a new department to the DOD is pointless. The NSA already has its hands full with military issues, and is primarily a communications only agency. It too doesn't have the resources or the skill to handle proactive intelligence gathering.

You are being obtuse on purpose? Paul never said a word about intel gathering yet all your examples point to that. Do you support the overthrow of democratically elected leaders of other countries also? He only talked about illegal acts such as killing leaders of other governments and such.

You're missing the point. If you move the CIA under the DOD and eliminate the independence of the agency, then you are creating an enormous problem under international law. As a result even intelligence gathering alone would be illegal.

As for overthrowing democratic governments, I can't think of a single person that we have overthrown that was elected in a free democratic election.

 

[STAGE 2]

See again you are wrong he does have a clearance

Not the necessary clearance to be privy to whats going on. You think that these congressmen get daily briefings from the CIA.

Yep, he made a 2nd career in politics.

Thats fine. But term limits are just that. No exceptions. He's made a career out of being a politician.

 

[Titan6]

If you could kindly show me where it says that congress has the power to declare war only against nations I'll concede the point.

I told you it does not. But nor has the congress ever done so. Show me a single declaration of war against a group and I will concede...

But why. Is it simply because the legislation is not titled "declaration of war"? Is that the hill you are going to die on?

Yep. The lack of fortitude showed by the congress was overwhelming.

Never said he did.

All your examples do.

Adding a new department to the DOD is pointless.

Your op.

The NSA already has its hands full with military issues, and is primarily a communications only agency. It too doesn't have the resources or the skill to handle proactive intelligence gathering.

The nsa has ten times the budget and manpower of the cia. I don't know why you think they have their hands full with military issues... They may even be monitoring this right now...

You're missing the point. If you move the CIA under the DOD and eliminate the independence of the agency, then you are creating an enormous problem under international law. As a result even intelligence gathering alone would be illegal.

Illegal by whose laws? This makes no sense. The cia was never before allowed to operate inside the US. When they did so it was already illegal. Spying in almost any country is already punishable by death by that country does not matter who does it cia or military. During the cold war, the military was allowed to spy on the ussr in certain circumstance but the cia was never allowed to.

As for overthrowing democratic governments, I can't think of a single person that we have overthrown that was elected in a free democratic election.

Now that is just plain ignorance. Do you want the whole list or just the ones that the cia was involved in?

 

[PaladinX13]

To bring it back into focus, Paul has a stance on foreign policy. A respectable, if certainly not universal, one.

Stage 2 is using sound-bite tactics and insisting that "everyone on this board" ought to have a certain view and, lacking substance, is resorting to endless repetition. Nothing NEW or even SPECIFIC coming from him in relation to Paul.

Paul's actual views on intelligence and the CIA are more than sufficient to address the sound bite. Whether you agree or not, he has substantial reasons for his view. Stage 2's views are antithetical to the very principles Paul runs on, IMO, which is why he can't stomach the foreign policy or drug war... he claims it's because his views are being "over extended" but it shows why a person of consistency and integrity, like Paul, has the views that he has (vs. the hypocrisy of liberty for us, but not for you... or liberty by force).

The relevance of this to arms, because this is a firearms board, is that liberty is of the People and powers given conditionally to the government by the People. When an arm of government is able to act outside the law (both ours, foreign, common, and God's) without consent, that's an anathema to those principles and undermines the entire system. There's a social contract between the People and government, and if they act outside of that, there's nothing stopping it in every area of life... which is EXACTLY what we've been seeing since the Cold War era, the invasion of government into every level of our personal and private lives in the name of freedom.

Mind you, while building nations we've yet to replicate the equivalent of the 2nd Amendment ANYWHERE. We're happy to sell arms and supply guns for coups... but just as happy to disarm the citizenship immediately after the revolutions in the name of stability. We turn a blind eye because we're doing it abroad instead of at home. Get the plank out of your own eye before dealing the the spec in another's.

 

[Titan6]

Not the necessary clearance to be privy to whats going on. You think that these congressmen get daily briefings from the CIA.

Actually no one really does. But that would be telling.... In any case he still knows more about it than you and as president he would know a lot more than just about everyone.

Thats fine. But term limits are just that. No exceptions. He's made a career out of being a politician.

I agree. I don't really have a big problem with career pols so long as they have backbone and do what I elect them to do. I don't care about term limits. I do like it when they are able to do other things instead of just that though. Paul has certainly evolved over the years and if his view on term limits have changed that is a good thing. To be fair it is certainly more pro constitutional which is what I like....