Message

PI> I answered all of his questions on a point by point basis. <PI

This is flatly false. If you (or anyone else) can quote from your previous messages to me your specific answers to each of just these five of my ten questions, I'll donate $1000 to the Libertarian Party in the name of Paul Ireland.

Do you claim that an investment in force initiation can never lead to a net reduction in the overall incidence of force initiation?

Do you believe that the sovereignty of an aggressive tyrannical state immunizes it from all possible consequences of it violating signed treaties with other sovereign states?

Would foreign governments have a green light from Paul Ireland -- i.e. complete immunity from U.S. military response -- to kill as many Americans as they want as long as it's outside of U.S. jurisdiction?

Now watch as I swat your latest posting down using only quotes of my earlier arguments. Everything from me below is quoted from my previous messages to you. And since you claim you've already answered every point I've ever raised, I challenge you to similarly compose any response using nothing but quotes of your earlier statements to me. Any new statement you make in response to my quotes below (or my questions above) can and will be taken as an admission of earlier failing to answer my arguments.

Brian Holtz

Libertarian candidate for Congress, CA14 (Silicon Valley) http://marketliberal.org

blog: http://knowinghumans.net

PI> I also proved that only Congress has war making powers, that those powers can only be used in the defense of a direct and intentional attack [on] American soil and ships [...] I proved that the American military is by [sic] defined and limited by the Constitution as a "defensive" military which means it can only be used when we're attacked and not otherwise. <PI

I defy you to quote anything like your "ships and soil" language in Article I Sec 8. The word "defense" only occurs twice in the Constitution. Its use in the Preamble neither grants nor modifies the war power, which is enumerated with the other federal powers in Article One Section Eight. Its use in clause one of that section does not modify the war power granted in clause eleven.

The Preamble is simply not operative in granting or limiting federal power. It says why the federal government was created, not what it can or cannot do. If you want to know what the Constitution says the federal government can or cannot do, you need to look for language like "the Congress shall have power..." or "Congress shall make no law...". The word "shall" does not appear in the Preamble.

The war power is granted by clause 11, not clause 1. Clause 1 would indeed disallow a specific empire tax or nation-building tax, but it doesn't require that the general-purpose Armies authorized in clause 12 confine their operations to U.S. soil, or their actions to repelling invasions. Indeed, clause 15 is an example of how the Constitution does limit the scope of military action when it wants to, by placing on the Militia the very sort of restriction that it doesn't place on the Army: "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions".

PI> But don't take my word for it, take the word of the 9/11 commission which stated clearly that Iraq NEVER POSED A CREDIBLE THREAT TO AMERICA.<PI

BH> Now do you have a 9/11 Commission report quote for your all-caps shout above, or not? <BH

PI> The 9/11 commisssion [sic] determined that Iraq had no "credible link" or "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Al Queda. <PI

The 9/11 commission report mentions Iraq 158 times. The closest it comes to saying the above [that Iraq NEVER POSED A CREDIBLE THREAT TO AMERICA] is that after the plot against G.H.W. Bush's life, "no further intelligence came in about terrorist acts planned by Iraq". But the report notes without any criticism a DoD paper described as saying that Iraq posed a strategic threat to the United States. Iraq’s long-standing involvement in terrorism was cited, along with its interest in weapons of mass destruction. The invasion of Iraq was outside the scope of the 9/11 commission report, and the report simply does not dispute the charge that Iraq's involvement with WMDs and anti-American terrorism constituted a threat to America. If you claim otherwise, I defy you to quote the report.

If what you said ["stated clearly that Iraq NEVER POSED A CREDIBLE THREAT TO AMERICA"] about the 9/11 commission were "truth", then you could cite the page number of the commission report containing the "proof" you allege. But you give no such page number, because you literally do not know what you're talking about, and lack even the sense to back away from a claim about the commission report that you clearly cannot substantiate.

PI> If there was no credible link between Al Queda and Iraq, than Iraq posed no credible threat to America. <PI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur. Ah, your usual ignoring of the conjunction of Iraqi involvement with WMDs and anti-American terrorism.

PI> It doesn't matter if Saddam wanted to build nukes or even if he actually did build them. It doesn't matter if Saddam hates America [...] <PI

You conveniently omitted any mention of Saddam's support for anti-American terrorists.

PI> Unless Brian can prove that land inside of America was bombed by Iraq, or that they sunk an American ship, his position is untenable. <PI

Some of us weren't willing to wait for a mushroom cloud over Manhattan before we recognized a threat from the above conjunction. You may have been willing to wait until you see the canceled check for an Iraq-built nuke that turned lower Manhattan into a radioactive crater. Others of us weren't.

PI> Brian has said that the war in Iraq is lawful, and that it even libertarian. <PI