Townhall.com: Reagan would vote for Ron Paul

[fossten]

Would Reagan Vote for Ron Paul?
By Matt Towery

Thursday, December 27, 2007
http://townhall.com/columnists/MattTowery/2007/12/27/would_reagan_vote_for_ron_paul

On Christmas Day, I glanced at the memorabilia from my years in politics. The photos and notes from Newt Gingrich. Candid shots of me with the likes of Jimmy Carter and of the brilliant mastermind of his presidential victory, Hamilton Jordan. Next were shots of me posing with Bill Clinton and then with both President Bushes.

And oh yes, here was a young U.S. Senate aide Matt Towery with one Ronald Reagan.

Everyone knows there are plenty of people with photos of themselves with politicians. And there are loads of people who were close to Reagan. Many of them have both the credentials and the motives -- especially the motives -- to refute what I am about to write. Certainly my friends who still consider themselves respected experts and D.C. insiders would never dare write what follows. They would be cast off into the outer circles of the political establishment.

Personally, I could care less. So here goes.

Reagan was once an Iowan. He once broadcast University of Iowa football games, and he later was "discovered" by Hollywood when living in Des Moines.

It is my personal belief that if Reagan were alive and living in Iowa today, and he had to choose among the Republican presidential candidates, that he would likely choose the man the GOP establishment and national media have written off -- Congressman Ron Paul.

To begin with, there is little doubt that for at least foreign policy, Reagan was basically a non-interventionist. He bragged about the fact that the United States did not occupy foreign countries. He stressed in virtually every speech about the "Evil Empire" of the Soviet Union that they must be brought down, but not by use of force or war. When provoked by Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi, the Osama bin Laden of the 1980s, Reagan used strategic bombing next to the quarters in which al-Qaddafi was sleeping to bring the brash "terrorist" to his knees.

Even the vicious murder of more than 200 troops in Lebanon did not provoke invasion or war. Instead, Reagan removed U.S. presence there in order to cool down an ultra-hot situation.

Oh yes, we did invade Grenada. More a military exercise than a true battle.

As for domestic policy, again Reagan's philosophy seems closer to that of Paul's than any other Republican candidate today. Reagan constantly railed against big government. In speech after speech, he emphasized the need to adhere to the Constitution, and to respect the powers of the individual states. Sound familiar?

As for some of Dr. Paul's more far-fetched positions, they may be "out there," but it wasn't hard for me to find quotes from Reagan that reflected nearly the same sentiments. For example, Paul's concerns about a monetary system based on something closer and closer to worthless paper was similarly expressed by Reagan as early as 1964 when he stumped for Barry Goldwater for president.

In a speech that year, Reagan expressed concerns about America losing its monetary independence. And, eerily, he alluded to fears about foreign nations owning American currency.

As I try to remind my friends who were around in 1980, Reagan was considered by the mainstream Republican establishment to be as kooky as many label Paul as being.

Gerald Ford in 1980 was quoted in Time Magazine as saying that Reagan was "unelectable." It is no wonder that when Reagan challenged Ford some four years earlier for the GOP nomination, Paul was one of only a handful of sitting congressmen who supported Reagan's effort.

What Paul lacks is Reagan's movie-star looks, and the credibility that comes with having been governor of California. Even without those attributes, Paul has managed to become the first Republican candidate I've seen since 1980 that can draw huge crowds so devoted to their candidate that they seem almost cult-like in their zeal. Believe it or not, that's what we thought of the Reagan crowds that gathered early in his bid for president in 1980.

The fact is that Reagan tamed both his rhetoric and the implementation of his agenda to meet the realities of the presidency. My guess is that were Ron Paul to have such a chance, he would inevitably do the same.

I still believe that between the Republican Party's longing to appear "mainstream" and the national political media's fear of appearing to give in to "fringe elements," that Paul's quest for the nomination will fall far short in the end.

But as I have said before, Lord help both parties if he decides to run as a third-party candidate. They may not like what he might say, but he would darn sure say it.

As Reagan said once said when a debate moderator cut him short, "I paid for this microphone." Paul might just buy one of his own.

 

[MonsterMark]

Um, word to the Paulestinians.

Reagan is DEAD! God rest his soul.

 

[Calabrio]

No he wouldn't. That article is ridiculous.

And to say that Reagan had a non-interventionist foreign policy is to ignore history. We didn't retreat behind our borders during the 80s. We didn't leave the Soviets to expand unchallenged in the 80s. And if we'd been attacked as we were on 9/11 under a Reagan administration, Reagan wouldn't have blamed America for the attack and withdrawn our troops from around the world, as Ron Paul supports.

Regarding the domestic policy, I actually think many of the top tier candidates embrace the principles that Paul supports, but they don't operate in the intellectual vacuum that Paul has chosen to exist in.

Maybe you can post something written by Ron Paul's wife later, that'll be as objective as the other stuff you've posted lately. Or we can make up more endorsements from other dead people.

Calvin Coolidge would vote for Ron Paul in '08!!

The reality is, Paul is neither the best candidate nor would he even be the best President of the available choices. He's not running for the position of philosopher king.

 

[fossten]

Noninterventionism does not equal retreating behind borders. Your statement to that effect is incorrect, and repeatedly stupid and tiresome. You are as ignorant on the subject as John McCain.

And you obviously didn't read the whole article, because Reagan DID cut and run from Lebanon after our barracks was attacked, and things there cooled off. Wrong again. *owned*

Oh, and saying "Tear down this wall" was not what you'd call interventionistic. Nor was building up our own military and outspending them. Please explain to me, youngster, how we defeated the Soviet Union through overt use of military force. :bowrofl:

 

[Calabrio]

Noninterventionism does not equal retreating behind borders. Your statement to that effect is incorrect, and repeatedly stupid and tiresome. You are as ignorant on the subject as John McCain.

I'd rather be in the company of John McCain than someone like you.

And you obviously didn't read the whole article, because Reagan DID cut and run from Lebanon after our barracks was attacked, and things there cooled off. Wrong again. *owned*

I DID read the aricle, and more importantly, I understood what I was reading.
I never mentioned anything about Lebanon in my response, so you're making a point of it only makes you look stupid.

While we're on that subject, Reagan's rapid withdrawal from Lebanon has long been cited as one of the biggest mistakes of his Presidency. How interesting that you cite that as the one thing they have in common.

Oh, and saying "Tear down this wall" was not what you'd call interventionistic. Nor was building up our own military and outspending them. Please explain to me, youngster, how we defeated the Soviet Union through overt use of military force. :bowrofl:

I'm sorry, perhaps you weren't aware of the policy of containment that Reagan used. While we didn't have any direct conflict with the Soviets, we'd been engaged in proxy wars with them since the Korean war. And it was all about containment.

If you're genuinely interested in this, I can explain. But using our past as a reference, I can write a long essay on this American policy of containment and the Soviet's policy of soft expansion, and you'll ignore it, instead thinking of a reason why you don't need to respond.

Unless you think that Ron Paul would help arm the Afghan rebels, help equip the parties in the Iran/Iraq Wars, would support Israel, would prevent Soviet expansion into the Americas and throughout Latin America, and if you don't think that we were actively working outside of our borders to help bring down the Soviet Empire through political and social pressure.

These are NOT Ron Paul issues.

 

[MonsterMark]

Please explain to me, youngster, how we defeated the Soviet Union through overt use of military force.

We didn't defeat the Soviets, we kept them at bay for 2 decades. Now they are back to saber-rattling and supplying arms and nuclear fuel to Iran.

They will be a force to reckon with again as they learn how to sell their vast energy wealth to the developing world.

Our struggle for survival has just begun. Withdrawing to within our borders is THE LAST THING WE SHOULD DO.

Ron PAUL is FLAWED should be the new bumper sticker.

 

[TheDude]

I have a question, if Ron Paul had been President during 9/11, what would his policy dictate 'we' do?

 

[fossten]

I have a question, if Ron Paul had been President during 9/11, what would his policy dictate 'we' do?

Ron Paul voted to go into Afghanistan and pursue bin Laden. That's what we did. Going into Iraq was largely a UN resolution prompted issue.

 

[fossten]

I'd rather be in the company of John McCain than someone like you.

Gang of 14, Shamnesty, Waterboarding is torture, voting against tax cuts...

I guess we all know where you stand now - with the RINOs.

I DID read the aricle, and more importantly, I understood what I was reading.
I never mentioned anything about Lebanon in my response, so you're making a point of it only makes you look stupid.

While we're on that subject, Reagan's rapid withdrawal from Lebanon has long been cited as one of the biggest mistakes of his Presidency. How interesting that you cite that as the one thing they have in common.

You forgot to put "IMHO." Link or slink. But things did cool off after we left Lebanon. You cannot dispute that.

I'm sorry, perhaps you weren't aware of the policy of containment that Reagan used. While we didn't have any direct conflict with the Soviets, we'd been engaged in proxy wars with them since the Korean war. And it was all about containment.

Oh, I didn't realize that Reagan was in charge during Korea and Vietnam! Wow, what a loooong presidency! And tell me, what were the other DIRECT conflicts that we participated in that included us invading whole countries in order to "contain" the Soviets? Hmmm? Should I start a timer?

If you're genuinely interested in this, I can explain. But using our past as a reference, I can write a long essay on this American policy of containment and the Soviet's policy of soft expansion, and you'll ignore it, instead thinking of a reason why you don't need to respond.

Go ahead, but I'm sure I can refute your conclusion as your knowledge of history is severely lacking. Just try really hard not to call names this time, hmm?

Unless you think that Ron Paul would help arm the Afghan rebels, help equip the parties in the Iran/Iraq Wars, would support Israel, would prevent Soviet expansion into the Americas and throughout Latin America, and if you don't think that we were actively working outside of our borders to help bring down the Soviet Empire through political and social pressure.

These are NOT Ron Paul issues.

Uhh...we do not currently view the Soviet Union as a threat, especially since the Soviet Union doesn't exist right now. It's as dead as Reagan, as Bryan pointed out. In fact, our own foreign policy more resembles that of the Soviet Union's than it did during Reagan's era.

And how did arming the Afghan rebels help us in the long run, eh? We had to go in and invade their country eventually. I can't prove it, but it's not a big stretch to imagine that our own troops might have been shot at by the very same weapons that we armed them with.

 

[Calabrio]

Ron Paul voted to go into Afghanistan and pursue bin Laden. That's what we did. Going into Iraq was largely a UN resolution prompted issue.

http://www.isil.org/towards-liberty/07-ron-paul-interview.html

JW: What about Afghanistan? Would you continue the operations there?

RP: No, I would come home, unless there was specific knowledge of where Osama bin Laden was. Then I send out just a small team of people to take care of him. I would not maintain the occupation of Afghanistan. That was mainly motivated by oil pipelines and some other things that are never discussed.

JW: Could you elaborate a little bit how oil pipelines were the motivation for going into Afghanistan?

RP: It's been known that certain oil companies were anxious for many, many years to be able to transverse Afghanistan to move natural gas. And that effort is still alive and well. Too often, whether it's a pipeline in Afghanistan or control of oil wells in Iraq, oil and economics motivates our national policy much more so than national security.

 

[Calabrio]

You forgot to put "IMHO." Link or slink. But things did cool off after we left Lebanon. You cannot dispute that.

Actually, I'd argue that the Middle East hasn't been a "cool" place since then.

You've successful linked Ron Paul to Ron Reagan by associating him with what can be considered his single biggest foreign policy mistake of this first term. Well done, Fossten. In doing so, you've made the strongest argument against Paul.

By withdrawing from Lebanon after the attack, we showed weakness in response to a terrorist attack launched by Iran. In doing so, we provided the terrorist template that was used against us for the next 20 years. Quick strike on a lightly guarded target, high casualties, high media exposure. The result would always be shock by the American public and an immediate withdraw. We saw it again in Somalia.

Oh, I didn't realize that Reagan was in charge during Korea and Vietnam! Wow, what a loooong presidency! And tell me, what were the other DIRECT conflicts that we participated in that included us invading whole countries in order to "contain" the Soviets? Hmmm? Should I start a timer?

See, Fossten, you're not comprehending... you're just looking at the words.
I never said that Reagan had anything to do with Korea or Vietnam. I simply pointed out that he engaged in the same policy of containment that had been U.S. policy since the 50s. Under Reagan you're probably aware of more covert means of doing so. Be it in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, or Central America. But Grenada would be an example of a military operation to contain the spread of communism.

Unfortunately, Paul is against ALL of that.

And how did arming the Afghan rebels help us in the long run, eh? We had to go in and invade their country eventually. I can't prove it, but it's not a big stretch to imagine that our own troops might have been shot at by the very same weapons that we armed them with.

So do you think it would have been better to let the Soviet's roll over the Afghan's and spread their influence further into the Middle East? Or do you think that bogging the Soviet's into a destructive quagmire in Afghanistan, that cost their bankrupt country a fortune, focused so much of their resources, and demoralized the military, might have been a good thing?

It's debatable.
But you're the one linking Ron Paul's foreign policy to Reagan's, so you tell us.

I'm just saying that they don't resemble each other.

 

[fossten]

Actually, I'd argue that the Middle East hasn't been a "cool" place since then.

You've successful linked Ron Paul to Ron Reagan by associating him with what can be considered his single biggest foreign policy mistake of this first term. Well done, Fossten. In doing so, you've made the strongest argument against Paul.

By withdrawing from Lebanon after the attack, we showed weakness in response to a terrorist attack launched by Iran. In doing so, we provided the terrorist template that was used against us for the next 20 years. Quick strike on a lightly guarded target, high casualties, high media exposure. The result would always be shock by the American public and an immediate withdraw. We saw it again in Somalia.




See, Fossten, you're not comprehending... you're just looking at the words.
I never said that Reagan had anything to do with Korea or Vietnam. I simply pointed out that he engaged in the same policy of containment that had been U.S. policy since the 50s. Under Reagan you're probably aware of more covert means of doing so. Be it in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, or Central America. But Grenada would be an example of a military operation to contain the spread of communism.

Unfortunately, Paul is against ALL of that.


So do you think it would have been better to let the Soviet's roll over the Afghan's and spread their influence further into the Middle East? Or do you think that bogging the Soviet's into a destructive quagmire in Afghanistan, that cost their bankrupt country a fortune, focused so much of their resources, and demoralized the military, might have been a good thing?

It's debatable.
But you're the one linking Ron Paul's foreign policy to Reagan's, so you tell us.

I'm just saying that they don't resemble each other.

Well, as usual, since you're backwards and all turned around, you've got everything wrong. But since you're repeating yourself and refusing to actually read the article, I don't have the time to waste on you.

Face it: You've FAILED at making your case. You've FAILED at winning me over. You've FAILED at even constructing a solid argument. You've FAILED at being civil. You've FAILED at living up to the title of "Moderator." You're a FAILURE at debating because you are UNABLE to actually convince people that you are correct. You don't even name-call very well. You are a LOSER.

 

[Calabrio]

Well, as usual, since you're backwards and all turned around, you've got everything wrong. But since you're repeating yourself and refusing to actually read the article, I don't have the time to waste on you.

How surprising, Fossten provided us another reason why he need not respond to a direct challenge. Who'd have seen that coming

Face it: You've FAILED at making your case. You've FAILED at winning me over. You've FAILED at even constructing a solid argument. You've FAILED at being civil. You've FAILED at living up to the title of "Moderator." You're a FAILURE at debating because you are UNABLE to actually convince people that you are correct.

Really? Actually, since I was the one who still hadn't chosen a primary candidate, YOU FAILED. You were already entrenched in a position, I was still weighing the information. YOU FAILED to convince a constitutionalist conservative the value of a Ron Paul candidacy, and you've FAILED to support or defend his very controversial foreign policy.

You don't even name-call very well. You are a LOSER.

I just quoted that for my own amusement.

Now, Fossten, go grab your Paulestinian buddies and uncover us a fresh new conspiracy!!! Get a move on, those things don't make themself up.:shifty:

 

[fossten]

How surprising, Fossten provided us another reason why he need not respond to a direct challenge. Who'd have seen that coming




Really? Actually, since I was the one who still hadn't chosen a primary candidate, YOU FAILED. You were already entrenched in a position, I was still weighing the information. YOU FAILED to convince a constitutionalist conservative the value of a Ron Paul candidacy, and you've FAILED to support or defend his very controversial foreign policy.


I just quoted that for my own amusement.

Now, Fossten, go grab your Paulestinian buddies and uncover us a fresh new conspiracy!!! Get a move on, those things don't make themself up.:shifty:

Themself? Somebody needs to go back to grammar school. Oh, but you're the smart, thoughtful one, eh? Just not literate. So much for credibility.

You are no constitutionalist conservative. You believe in using tax money to invade other countries for no good reason other than because the corrupt United Nations tells us to. You may try to make a case that these are different times, etc., but in doing so you move away from constitutionalism as a strict interpretation and move toward the "living document" theory.

We are not supposed to go to war except through a Declaration of War by Congress. We haven't had one of those since 1941. These "containment" conflicts that you so blithely speak of in the last 65 years have been contrary to the wording of the Constitution, period. You believe in allowing the President to usurp Constitutional authority by sending troops to fight willy nilly, regardless of Congress' actions. You are no constitutionalist.

 

[fossten]

I'd rather be in the company of John McCain than someone like you.

Oh, by the way, in case you didn't know, I'm not running for President. Duh.

An Oldie but a Goodie, since you don't know history:

Remember the Keating Five?
McCain’s own standards would have hung him.

Mark Levin

Mr. Levin is also president of the Landmark Legal Foundation.
April 5, 2001 9:15 a.m.

For too long, McCain has been given a free pass by the media, which promotes campaign-finance reform to silence other voices, and by his Republican colleagues, who are concerned about alienating McCain given the GOP's tenuous majority in the Senate.

In John McCain's America, any politician who accepts a large contribution or gift from a donor, and then takes steps consistent with the donor's interests — even though there is no legal quid pro quo — is corrupt. Well, then, by his own standard, McCain is corrupt.

McCain was one of the so-called "Keating Five" senators. He was investigated by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics in 1991 regarding the acceptance of favors from Lincoln Savings & Loan Association (Lincoln) and its owner, Charles H. Keating, Jr. Simply put, the issue was whether McCain and the other senators used their official positions to attempt to pressure Federal Home Loan Bank Board officials to go easy on the troubled institution. Eventually Lincoln went bust, costing depositors and taxpayers millions.

In its final report (November 20, 1991), here is what the Senate Select Committee on Ethics concluded about McCain's conduct:

"Mr. Keating, his associates, and his friends contributed $56,000 for Senator McCain's two House races in 1982 and 1984, and $54,000 for his 1986 Senate race. Mr. Keating also provided his corporate plane and/or arranged for payment for the use of commercial or private aircraft on several occasions for travel by Senator McCain and his family, for which Senator McCain ultimately provided reimbursement when called upon to do so. Mr. Keating also allowed Senator McCain and his family to vacation with Mr. Keating and his family, at a home provided by Mr. Keating in the Bahamas, in each of the calendar years 1983 through 1986.

"…[F]rom 1984 to 1987, Senator McCain took actions on Mr. Keating's behalf or at his request. The Committee finds that Senator McCain had a basis for each of these actions independent of the contributions and benefits he received from Mr. Keating, his associates and friends.

"Based on the evidence available to it, the Committee has given consideration to Senator McCain's actions on behalf of Lincoln. The Committee concludes that, given the personal benefits and campaign contributions he had received from Mr. Keating, Senator McCain exercised poor judgment in intervening with the regulators without first inquiring as to the Bank Board's position in the case in a more routine manner. The Committee concludes that Senator McCain's actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him. The Committee finds that Senator McCain took no further action after the April 9, 1987 meeting when he learned of a criminal referral.

"The Committee reaffirms its prior decision that it does not have jurisdiction to determine the issues of disclosure or reimbursement pertaining to flights provided by American Continental Corporation while Senator McCain was a Member of the House of Representatives. The Committee did consider the effect of such on his state of mind and judgment in taking steps to assist Lincoln.

"Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate; therefore, the Committee concludes that no further action is warranted with respect to Senator McCain on the matters investigated during the preliminary inquiry."

McCain was the only Republican implicated in the Keating Five scandal, yet today he lectures his party and his president about "the corrupting influence" of money in politics. He rails against the so-called "wealthy special interests" and their ability to buy access to elected officials, yet this is precisely what the Keating Five scandal was all about. And, of course, under McCain's current standard, a politician who takes a principled position that may benefit a donor is corrupt, even if no law has been violated.

The John McCain of old should be thankful that his political fate wasn't determined by John McCain the reformer.

UNELECTABLE!

 

[Calabrio]

Oh, by the way, in case you didn't know, I'm not running for President. Duh.

No one ever said you were running for President. Clearly, you couldn't take the stress and wouldn't hold up under any kind of questioning.

I'd still rather be associated with John McCain than someone like yourself.
I didn't say I would vote for him in the primary, just that I respect the man.
Not that I agree with everything he's every said or done, but I think he's noble hero, a patriot, and a guy who would be immensely entertaining to sit down and talk to.

Granted, he hasn't delivered 4,000 babies....... but I can look past that...

 

[fossten]

No one ever said you were running for President. Clearly, you couldn't take the stress and wouldn't hold up under any kind of questioning.

I'd still rather be associated with John McCain than someone like yourself.
I didn't say I would vote for him in the primary, just that I respect the man.
Not that I agree with everything he's every said or done, but I think he's noble hero, a patriot, and a guy who would be immensely entertaining to sit down and talk to.

Well, that definitely qualifies him to be president. NOT.

Granted, he hasn't delivered 4,000 babies....... but I can look past that...

Blah blah blah...

You really have ceased to post anything of real substance. Still can't find a candidate, eh? You have become the master of NOT taking a stand for anything. Calabrio, founder of Moderates-R-Us.

By the way, can you look past this?

McCain Softens Abortion Stand

Presidential hopeful John McCain at a news conference Sunday in Omaha, Neb. (AP)


By Terry M. Neal
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 24, 1999; Page A4


Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) appeared to soften his position on making abortion illegal in separate interviews in recent days, drawing criticism from social conservatives and some of his opponents for the Republican presidential nomination.
Aides to McCain said perhaps he could have been clearer in comments he made to the San Francisco Chronicle and CNN, but that he had not wavered from his long-term opposition to abortion or his belief that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, should be repealed.

"I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary," [NO LONGER NECESSARY?] McCain told the Chronicle in an article published Friday. "But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."

On Sunday, on CNN's "Late Edition," McCain reiterated that he would not have an abortion "litmus" test for a running mate or Supreme Court nominees. He added that while he ultimately favors repeal of Roe, "we all know, and it's obvious, that if we repeal Roe v. Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations."

McCain has a long antiabortion record in his 17-year congressional career. He has said he opposes abortion with the exceptions of rape, incest and to prevent a woman's death. In a National Right to Life Committee questionnaire last year, he answered "yes" when asked if he supported the complete reversal of Roe v. Wade. He also voted to override President Clinton's veto of the ban on a late-term procedure called "partial birth" abortion by its opponents and in favor of continuing the ban on Medicaid funding for abortions, with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the woman.

His latest remarks took some conservatives by surprise. They said it appeared to contradict his record, what he told the National Right to Life Committee and a letter to Roman Catholic bishops last year in which he said he was a "life-long, ardent supporter of unborn children's right to life."

McCain and GOP rivals Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Elizabeth Dole--though they oppose abortion--have sought to deemphasize the issue in their campaigns for the nomination, saying it has divided the GOP and allowed Democrats to engage in demagoguery to their advantage.

So far there has been little backlash among conservatives, who are eager to capture the White House and generally appear willing to accept a more incremental approach on abortion. But some said McCain's comments went too far. [Sounds like Moderates-R-Us members for you to recruit!]

"Those lines seem to blur the distinction between him and Al Gore," said Randy Tate of the Christian Coalition.

Gail Quinn, executive director of the Secretariat for Pro-life Activities of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, said McCain seemed to be adopting a mushy position to retain conservative support while simultaneously appealing to moderates. "To kind of walk a fence and not put your foot on either side of it, is not good," she said.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said the statements were "really a drastic flip-flop from those earlier pronouncements of his unsurpassed commitment to restore legal protection of unborn children."

Presidential candidate Gary Bauer, former head of the conservative advocacy group Family Research Council, called McCain's statements "unintelligible." And Greg Mueller, a spokesman for Steve Forbes, lumped McCain with Dole and Bush, saying McCain's statements "were the latest evidence that [they] have squishy opinions on abortion."

When asked if McCain misspoke in the Chronicle and CNN interviews, aides yesterday said no. They said he was trying to explain that efforts to repeal Roe v. Wade would have to come in conjunction with efforts to reduce abortion through other means, including adoptions and counseling.

McCain released a statement on Sunday saying that he has always opposed Roe v. Wade and "as president, I would work toward its repeal."

Cyndi Mosteller, a South Carolina antiabortion activist who serves as McCain's national consultant on family and cultural issues, defended him. "I think the comments are somewhat confusing, and I think Senator McCain regrets them also," she said. "I assess John McCain based on his 13 years taking votes in the Senate. I know that John McCain is antiabortion. I know that he is in favor of the reversal of Roe v. Wade."

Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, said she thinks McCain was trying to obfuscate his position to abortion rights supporters and independent female voters. "If this statement means he is moving in a thoughtful way toward a pro-choice policy and values position, that's terrific," she said. "But my guess is, this is more of a political posturing."

 

[Calabrio]

You are no constitutionalist conservative. You believe in using tax money to invade other countries for no good reason other than because the corrupt United Nations tells us to.

Is that a fact?

Can you provide a single example where I supported the policy goals of the United Nations or thought the United States should surrender it's sovereignty or independence to the organization? Better yet, can you find an example of me having EVER said something positive about the United Nations?

I'd appreciate either a link to one of these threads, if that's too difficult, just provide the example to the best of your memory.

While you're at it, find that other example of where I support Hillary or big-government expansion.

Obviously, you can't. Now stop lashing out, making false claims, and trying to demonize and misrepresent me.

You believe in allowing the President to usurp Constitutional authority by sending troops to fight willy nilly, regardless of Congress' actions. You are no constitutionalist.

I've never said anything on the subject.
The President can't send troops all "willy nilly" regardless of the constitution.

The President, as commander and chief does have the ability to mobilize and authorize military force when needed. Unless you think that a covert strike on the other side of the world should be approved by the President, then sent to the Congress for a vote.......

But we're getting ahead of ourself here. Not only is it completely off topic, it is also a subject that I've thought about, and one where you're simply reciting what some lunatic on a Paulestinian or Right-Wing paranoia site stated earlier in response to a silly strawman.


For the record, Reagan used his powers as Commander-in-Chief quite extensively while President. I guess that would differentiate him from Ron Paul some more.... further undermining the incorrect point you were trying to make in this thread.

 

[Calabrio]

Blah blah blah...

You really have ceased to post anything of real substance. Still can't find a candidate, eh? You have become the master of NOT taking a stand for anything. Calabrio, founder of Moderates-R-Us.

Anytime you want to find some examples, go right ahead.

I have a few thousand posts, if I had a history like you've stated, It'd be easy to verify, wouldn't it?

 

[fossten]

Anytime you want to find some examples, go right ahead.

I have a few thousand posts, if I had a history like you've stated, It'd be easy to verify, wouldn't it?

Still can't choose a candidate - classic example. You are the epitome of an attack dog who has no desire to take a stand.

 

[fossten]

Is that a fact?

Can you provide a single example where I supported the policy goals of the United Nations or thought the United States should surrender it's sovereignty or independence to the organization? Better yet, can you find an example of me having EVER said something positive about the United Nations?

I'd appreciate either a link to one of these threads, if that's too difficult, just provide the example to the best of your memory.

Sure. How about the Iraq war? Korean War? Vietnam War? Any war in which the President made the decision without a declaration of war by Congress. Do you support any of those decisions? Little one, if you'd just answer a question instead of spending so much time dodging we might get somewhere. But what do you expect from somebody who doesn't take a stand on anything?

While you're at it, find that other example of where I support Hillary or big-government expansion.

You favor any of the other candidates for president on the GOP side, all of which are big government types. You've also demonstrated in other threads that you favor the militarization and growth of the power of law enforcement in this country. That is also bigger government.

Obviously, you can't. [whiny voice] Now stop lashing out, making false claims, and trying to demonize and misrepresent me.

Whatsamatter, you gonna cry? If you'd just ANSWER the question...

I've never said anything on the subject.
The President can't send troops all "willy nilly" regardless of the constitution.

The President, as commander and chief does have the ability to mobilize and authorize military force when needed. Unless you think that a covert strike on the other side of the world should be approved by the President, then sent to the Congress for a vote.......

You approve of us going into Iraq at the behest of the UN, do you not? Answer the question.

We're not talking about covert strikes here. You are trying to erect yet another straw man. We're talking about invading whole countries. Who's off topic now?

But we're getting ahead of ourself [sic] here. Not only is it completely off topic, it is also a subject that I've thought about, and one where you're simply reciting what some lunatic on a Paulestinian [sic]or Right-Wing paranoia site stated earlier in response to a silly strawman.

Please link or slink that site, 'smart' little boy.

For the record, Reagan used his powers as Commander-in-Chief quite extensively while President. I guess that would differentiate him from Ron Paul some more.... further undermining the incorrect point you were trying to make in this thread.

Not nearly as extensively as either of the Bushes have. Our policy has changed and you know it, you're just in denial.

 

[Calabrio]

Sure. How about the Iraq war? Korean War? Vietnam War? Any war in which the President made the decision without a declaration of war by Congress. Do you support any of those decisions? Little one, if you'd just answer a question instead of spending so much time dodging we might get somewhere. But what do you expect from somebody who doesn't take a stand on anything?

I asked you provide an example, not ask me questions.

So, let's not establish that you can not think of any examples where I've supported the United Nations, or the surrender of U.S. sovereignty to that organization. That's understandable, because I've never done.

I've done quite a bit of research on the United Nations, so you're unlikely to find anyone who is more critical of the institution.

With that said, let me answer your question.
The Iraq War and the Korean Wars are not examples of the United States surrendering sovereignty to the United Nations. They are actually examples of the United States using the United Nations to accomplish their own policy objectives. So it's simply a bad example on your part. The Vietnam War had virtually nothing to do with the United Nations.

With that said, I do not agree with the way the Korean War was handled or managed. But that was nearly sixty years ago, Truman was the President, and the world still was inspired by the potential of an international organization run, primarily, by the Americans. Since then, the organization has become far more corrupt and anti-American.

To confirm, you can find no instances of me supporting the United Nations or the U.S. surrendering sovereignty to the organization. So, I'll ask that you stop making this false claim.

You favor any of the other candidates for president on the GOP side, all of which are big government types. You've also demonstrated in other threads that you favor the militarization and growth of the power of law enforcement in this country. That is also bigger government.

No, in the other threads I spoke in support of local law enforcement.
Spoke AGAINST your insane plan to replace federal enforcement officers with the MILITARY.
And I addressed the claims of law enforcement abuses that you were repeating after having found them on dishonest and fringe websites. I took issue with your stories about federal officers stomping kitty-cats presented by shady characters who wanted to garner sympathy.

So, you've failed on that claim too.

And since you're unable to provide even anecdotal evidence to support this claim, I'd again ask that you stop making this false and ridiculous claim.

Whatsamatter, you gonna cry? If you'd just ANSWER the question...

You approve of us going into Iraq at the behest of the UN, do you not? Answer the question.

I approved us going into Iraq, and using the UN as a political tool to accomplish OUR goal. That would correct. I'm all for using that horrible institution to achieve or personal objectives.

Are you trying to rewrite history and pretend that the U.N. pressured the U.S. into invading Iraq?? Because, that's simply not what happened. The military operations in Iraq were fought on the Security Counsel, and it was objected to in the general assembly.

Why else do you think Bush was accused for his unilateralism and going it alone?

We're not talking about covert strikes here. You are trying to erect yet another straw man. We're talking about invading whole countries. Who's off topic now?

We're talking about everything. You can't easily dissect it.
Paul can speak in vague concepts and political theory all day long, but it gets real messy when you actually need to apply it to the real world.

As it stands right now, unchallenged, the President doesn't have the ability to launch a long term political invasion without the consent and oversight of the Congress. The War Powers Act is still constitutionally unchallenged, so he has a 90 day window.

Please link or slink that site, 'smart' little boy.

What do you want me to link to?
The sites you get your crappy information from,
or examples of you regurgitate that crappy information?

Not nearly as extensively as either of the Bushes have. Our policy has changed and you know it, you're just in denial.

I don't even have to challenge this statement, because you've just contradicted yourself, again.

Whether it's closer than Bush's policy or not is not relevant. As I've stated, Ron Paul's foreign policy DOES NOT resemble the foreign policy of Reagan. Thank you for AGAIN making my point.

 

[fossten]

I asked you provide an example, not ask me questions.

Not my job to follow your instructions. Answer the question.

So, let's not establish that you can not think of any examples where I've supported the United Nations, or the surrender of U.S. sovereignty to that organization. That's understandable, because I've never done.

??? Nice job of constructing an argument. Or a sentence. NOT. Back to grammar school with ye! :bowrofl:

I've done quite a bit of research on the United Nations, so you're unlikely to find anyone who is more critical of the institution.

You should have spent more time researching the English language.

With that said, let me answer your question.
The Iraq War and the Korean Wars are not examples of the United States surrendering sovereignty to the United Nations. They are actually examples of the United States using the United Nations to accomplish their own policy objectives. So it's simply a bad example on your part. The Vietnam War had virtually nothing to do with the United Nations.

They are great examples of us fighting wars without a Declaration of War by Congress, which was my original point, before your not-so-clever insertion of a straw man. But nice try. You keep on trying to change the subject, which is the Constitution.

With that said, I do not agree with the way the Korean War was handled or managed. But that was nearly sixty years ago, Truman was the President, and the world still was inspired by the potential of an international organization run, primarily, by the Americans. Since then, the organization has become far more corrupt and anti-American.

Blah blah blah...so what?

To confirm, you can find no instances of me supporting the United Nations or the U.S. surrendering sovereignty to the organization. So, I'll ask that you stop making this false claim.

I didn't make this claim. You claim that I made this claim. That is your stupid straw man.

No, in the other threads I spoke in support of local law enforcement.
Spoke AGAINST your insane plan to replace federal enforcement officers with the MILITARY.
And I addressed the claims of law enforcement abuses that you were repeating after having found them on dishonest and fringe websites. I took issue with your stories about federal officers stomping kitty-cats presented by shady characters who wanted to garner sympathy.

"taking issue" does not equal "refuting." You know of no such websites. Your points were inane and angry.

So, you've failed on that claim too.

blah blah blah...

And since you're unable to provide even anecdotal evidence to support this claim, I'd again ask that you stop making this false and ridiculous claim.

You set up this straw man, I didn't make this claim. I simply said that you support using tax dollars to invade other countries for no other good reason than because the UN tells us to. And this is true.

I approved us going into Iraq, and using the UN as a political tool to accomplish OUR goal. That would correct. I'm all for using that horrible institution to achieve or [sic] personal objectives.

So you approve of using our military to achieve political objectives. Wow. That says it all. You are a warmonger. We weren't even attacked by Iraq, yet you support invading and destroying another country FOR POLITICAL REASONS. You, sir, are a freaking psycho. You are the grotesque portrait of the ugliness that the Republican Party has evolved into.

Are you trying to rewrite history and pretend that the U.N. pressured the U.S. into invading Iraq?? Because, that's simply not what happened. The military operations in Iraq were fought on the Security Counsel, and it was objected to in the general assembly.

DEE DEE DEE! Wrong again. Seventeen resolutions and Colin Powell would disagree with you.

We're talking about everything. You can't easily dissect it.
Paul can speak in vague concepts and political theory all day long, but it gets real messy when you actually need to apply it to the real world.

Especially with warmongering statist moderates like you who preach conservatism but rally around empire-building and Soviet-like bloc construction.

As it stands right now, unchallenged, the President doesn't have the ability to launch a long term political invasion without the consent and oversight of the Congress. The War Powers Act is still constitutionally unchallenged, so he has a 90 day window.

Which is unconstitutional.

What do you want me to link to?
The sites you get your crappy information from,
or examples of you regurgitate [sic] that crappy information?

What, more excuses? You made a false claim, now back it up, lazy coward.

I don't even have to challenge this statement, because you've just contradicted yourself, again.

Nope. Wrong.

Whether it's closer than Bush's policy or not is not relevant. As I've stated, Ron Paul's foreign policy DOES NOT resemble the foreign policy of Reagan. Thank you for AGAIN making my point.

Wrong. Bush's policy has departed from Reagan's in a HUGE way, your ignorant denial of this notwithstanding. Ron Paul would go back to Reagan's way of doing things. "YOU CANNOT BE THIS OBTUSE."

 

[fossten]

And I addressed the claims of law enforcement abuses that you were repeating after having found them on dishonest and fringe websites. I took issue with your stories about federal officers stomping kitty-cats presented by shady characters who wanted to garner sympathy.

Calabrio thinks that National Review is a dishonest and fringe website, and David Kopel is a shady character who wants to garner sympathy. Huh. Well, that would definitely put him on the other side of most conservatives. *owned*

Knock, knock - federal law enforcement abuse

David B. Kopel

If you can pass this simple test, you may be qualified to run a federal SWAT team.

1. You are assigned to serve search and arrest warrants on a man who lives in a building with 126 other people, including many women and children. Your job is to search the premises for illegal weapons. In the past, whenever government agents have asked to look around the premises, the man has always complied immediately. Once, the man was arrested, and he surrendered peacefully. The premises to be searched are on a ranch outside of town. The man you want to arrest regularly goes jogging along a lonely road; he also goes into town frequently. The best way to serve the search and arrest warrants is to

a) Nab the guy when he goes jogging or goes into town.

b) Knock on the front door and explain that you have warrants to search the premises. If you are denied admittance, force your way in.

c) Leave the warrants at the office. Shoot your way into the building.

2. As an agent for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, you are conducting an investigation of suspected illegal firearms modifications. You do not believe you have probable cause yet, so you send an undercover agent into the group home where firearms are allegedly being converted from semiautomatic to fully automatic. While in the group home, your undercover agent discovers no evidence of illegal conversions. But the agent is shown a videotape, Breaking the Law in the Name of the Law, which criticizes the BATF. The showing of the videotape

a) Is protected under the First Amendment.

b) Constitutes harassment of your undercover agent.

c) Creates probable cause, allowing an armed raid.

3. In the home you intend to search, you believe that some people have medium-powered rifles. The best way to protect the agents serving the search warrant would be to

a) Have them wear heavy ceramic body armor, which can stop a rifle bullet.

b) Attempt to serve the search warrant peacefully.

c) Have your agents wear light body armor, which can stop handgun bullets but not rifle bullets.

4. A federal statute requires that a person serving a search warrant announce his purpose and use force only if necessary. To comply with this statute, you should

a) Tell your superiors that you have better things to do than look for technical violations of federal gun regulations.

b) Announce that you are serving a search warrant. Identify which agency you are with. Use force only if your demand for a search is resisted.

c) Not bother to rehearse a peaceful approach. Strafe the building with machine-gun fire from National Guard helicopters. Engage in a "dynamic entry" designed to look good at your upcoming Senate appropriations hearings.

5. You have made a plan for a surprise attack to secure a building and conduct a search. You have no alternative plans in case anybody resists, or in case you lose the element of surprise. Shortly before your attack begins, your undercover agent comes out and tells you that everyone knows you are coming. The best tactical response at this point is to

a) Call off the attack and try again on a different day.

b) Knock on the door and, warrant in hand, ask for admittance to the house.

c) Proceed with your carefully scripted plan for a surprise attack, even though nobody will be surprised.

If you answered "c" to all of the above questions, you are qualified for a job with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. Indeed, given how few people choose "c," your responses suggest that you already have a job with the BATF.

Lingering Questions

The questions, of course, are based on the BATF's disastrous raid on the Branch Davidian group home in Waco, Texas, two years ago, on February 28, 1993. The Treasury Department's fall 1993 investigation of the Waco raid acknowledged that the attempt to serve search and arrest warrants on David Koresh led to an incompetent armed assault. But the Federal Government has not answered the larger question of why the BATF and other federal agencies are in the business of launching attacks with machine guns, grenades, and helicopters to serve search warrants for violations of federal statutes, especially statutes involving victimless crimes.

As the new Congress gets down to the business of cutting back the bloated and oppressive Federal Government, few projects could be more worthwhile than a review of the culture of militaristic violence that permeates law-enforcement agencies such as the BATF. With federal agents now representing more than a tenth of all law-enforcement officers in the nation, reforms are necessary to prevent a repeat of Waco and to curtail the less publicized incidents in which, almost every day, American citizens are subjected to unjustifiable violence by the Federal Government. If the following reforms had been in place in 1993, the BATF would not have had carte blanche to obtain a search warrant for the Mount Carmel Center through fraud and deception, and to serve that warrant with an armed assault.

Forbid violent, masked, or no-knock service of search warrants, except when specifically authorized by a court. Until the early 1970s, police serving search warrants would routinely knock at a door and demand admittance. As a result of the war on drugs, no-knock raids have become more common, because drug suspects would flush incriminating evidence down the toilet while the police were knocking. There was a simple alternative solution to the potential destruction of evidence: the police and the utility department could have shut off water flow just before the search. In any case, no-knock raids are now common even in cases where there is no plausible risk of contraband going down the toilet. The Branch Davidians, for example, supposedly had Colt and Kalashnikov semiautomatic rifles that had been illegally converted into machine guns. Rifles won't fit down most toilets.

The violent service of search warrants on homes has become routine for much of federal law enforcement. Former BATF Director Stephen Higgins testified that the bureau's Special Response Team, which perpetrated the Waco attack, had had hundreds of similar "activations" in recent years.

Even searches that don't involve actual break-ins are often accompanied by excessive violence. Simple inspections of gun dealers' paperwork and seizures of allegedly mislabeled vitamins from health-food stores have been performed by people waving automatic weapons.

Last May, a BATF squad showed up at the home of gun-show promoters Harry and Theresa Lamplugh. When Mr. Lamplugh asked the BATF agents (most of whom did not wear identifying vests) if they had a search warrant, an agent stuck an MP-5 submachine gun in his face and told him, "Shut the f _____ up, motherf _____ r. Do you want more trouble than you already have?" During the six-hour search, BATF agents refused to allow the Lamplughs to get dressed. The search squad held a pizza party in the middle of the search, stomped a housecat to death, spilled Mr. Lamplugh's cancer medicine on the floor, and seized 61 guns, along with the Lamplughs' birth certificates, marriage certificate, medical records, business contact lists, and personal mail. To date, the Lamplughs have not been charged with any crime - or even told that they are suspected of any crime - but the Federal Government has refused to return their property,

There are cases where armed, desperate suspects may need to be subdued by surprise; in these instances, courts should grant special permission for a violent, no-knock raid. But forced entry and violence should be the exception, not the norm.

Similarly, except in special cases, federal police should not wear masks, as did many of the BATF and FBI agents at Waco. The Reconstructionera Ku Klux Klan Act forbids wearing a mask for the purpose of terrorizing the public. There is no reason that public-sector terrorists should be exempt from the Act.

To help courts determine whether violent, masked, or no-knock searches are necessary, applications for such search warrants should have to contain all known evidence regarding the defendant's cooperation or lack of cooperation with government investigations in the past. David Koresh had previously allowed searches of his home by social workers. He had peacefully submitted to arrest and surrendered all his weapons when he was investigated for participation in a shoot-out with George Roden, his predecessor as leader of the Branch Davidians. During the summer of 1992, when BATF agents were talking to Koresh's gun dealer, Koresh invited them over to search his house. The BATF omitted all these facts from its warrant application.

Keep hearsay out of search-warrant applications. In a court, hearsay evidence (one person's claim about what another person said) is generally inadmissible, because it is not susceptible of cross-examination. The same consideration should forbid the use of hearsay in a search-warrant application. (Exceptions should match the hearsay exceptions in court.)

The application to search the Mount Carmel Center quoted a woman who said her brother claimed he saw a machine-gun conversion kit at a Branch Davidian home in Southern California. Rather than relying on hearsay, BATF should have interviewed the brother to determine what he actually saw. It is highly unlikely that what he saw was a kit to convert a semiautomatic weapon to fully automatic; such kits can be purchased only by a person who undergoes the same rigorous federal licensing process necessary to buy an actual machine gun.

Establish a thirty-day limit between the alleged commission of an illegal act and the date of the search-warrant application. Almost all the evidence in the BATF's application for a February 1993 search warrant in Waco was gathered in June or July of 1992. The investigation lay dormant until November 1992; it was revived after 60 Minutes began work on an expose of sexual harassment at the BATF, a few months before the bureau's appropriations hearings. Evidence more than half a year old should not be considered sufficient for a federal invasion of someone's home.

Require that search-warrant applications disclose possible exculpatory or contradictory evidence. There was virtually no evidence, that the Branch Davidians had actually converted semiautomatic rifles into machine guns, a complex process that requires several hours of highly skilled- gun-smithing. Perhaps the strongest "evidence" in the warrant application that conversions had occurred was a statement from a neighboring farmer that he had heard machine-gun fire coming from Mount Carmel. But the BATF never told the magistrate that the local sheriff had investigated the neighbor's machine-gun complaint and found it to be erroneous. The sheriff discovered that the machine-gun noise was caused by a legal trigger accessory called a "hellfire device," which makes a firearm sound but does not shoot. The BATF also forgot to tell the magistrate that the complaining farmer was involved in a property dispute with the Davidians.

Although the BATF has no legal authority over child-abuse cases, its search-warrant application dwelled on lurid allegations of abuse, based on an investigation by the state of Texas. The BATF failed to reveal that the investigation had been closed for lack of evidence on April 30, 1992, nearly ten months before the assault on the Mount Carmel Center.

Other irrelevant allegations were also presented in a one-sided manner. The claim by Marc Breault (who had left Mount Carmel in 1989) that Koresh had imprisoned a woman in June 1991 was included in the warrant application, but not the fact that the FBI had investigated the charge in April 1992 and closed the case in June 1992.

Require that search-warrant applications disclose evidence affecting the credibility of witnesses. The most important source of information in the Waco warrant application came from Mare Breault, who had been Koresh's right-hand man before angrily leaving the group. Breault had defected after Koresh - with an eye on Breault's new wife, Elizabeth - began claiming that all the Davidian women were meant to bear Koresh's children as Brides of the House of David. A self-described "cult-buster," Breault readily admitted he had a "vendetta" against Koresh, a fact that was not disclosed in the warrant application.

The fact that Breault is legally blind was never mentioned to the magistrate. To the contrary, the warrant application gave the impression that Breault had been one of Koresh's soldiers. It said Breault "participated in physical training and firearm shooting exercises conducted by Howell. He stood guard armed with a loaded weapon." Able to see only three inches in front of his face with one eye, and not at all with the other, Breault would probably have been more of a threat to fellow Davidians than to intruders.

The subsequent Treasury Department study of the BATF's activities accidentally made it clear that the bureau suspected that some of its witnesses were unreliable, which would have undermined the validity of their evidence as a basis for a search or arrest warrant. Two of the six key witnesses who had at some point lived in the compound mentioned 24-hour armed guards. Yet the BATF raid planners "concluded that neither armed guards nor sentries were posted at the Compound at any time." The planners' conclusion means the BATF doubted the reliability of the witnesses and the ongoing validity of their evidence - but never shared those doubts with the magistrate.

Limit the time for which warrants, affidavits, and related items can be sealed after service. Immediately after procuring the search warrant, the BATF obtained a court order to have the warrant sealed from public scrutiny. During the siege, FBI negotiators sent Koresh a copy of the search warrant and related documents. At this point, there was no law-enforcement need to keep warrant documents hidden from the public. Yet they remained sealed until after Mount Carmel was burned to the ground on April 19. If the warrant documents had become public in March, after having been shown to Koresh, it would have been quickly discovered that there was no probable cause for the search and no justification for serving the warrant violently without attempting a peaceful entry. Exposure of the warrant's deficiencies in March, while the siege was in progress, might have eroded public support for the operation sufficiently to keep the government from mounting the final tank and chemical-weapon attack on April 19.

Require federal law-enforcement agents to undergo constitutional sensitivity training. Law-enforcement officers, especially members of elite units like the misnamed FBI Hostage Rescue Team, should be reminded that loyalty to the unit must be subordinate to respect for the law and for constitutional rights. Officers should be aware that American law justifies the use of force for self-defense by civilians, and that such force may lawfully be used against law-enforcement,-officers when they attack a person without appropriately identifying themselves or use excessive force. Training should also explain that exercise of First Amendment rights, such as owning a Gun Owners of America videotape critical of the BATF, does not constitute probable cause for a search.

Make federal law enforcement accountable. In January 1993, ten civil-liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Rifle Association, and the Independence Institute, wrote to President Clinton asking for a temporary commission to study the growing militarization and violence of federal law enforcement. Besides creating a special commission, Congress should hold its own hearings on the subject of law-enforcement violence, a problem that has raised concern among legislators as diverse as Senator Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) and Representative Patricia Schroeder (D., Colo.).

An independent civilian oversight commission should be established to investigate allegations of federal law-enforcement abuse. The panel would be similar to the police review commissions that exist in 60 per cent of major American cities. Finally, a permanent special prosecutor should be created to investigate and prosecute the violent crimes perpetrated by federal law-enforcement agents. Since President Clinton has refused to take any steps to make federal law enforcement accountable, Congress should do the job on its own.

COPYRIGHT 1995 National Review, Inc.