received by email
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is an official request to the Libertarian National Committee to pass a resolution calling for a repudiation of current domestic military operations in the southern state of Georgia.
I am recommending that this draft be submitted to the committee so that they may make suggestions, comments, edits, or any revisions necessary, so long as the “original intent” is preserved.
Thank you,
[author name redacted by request]
The Members Presiding over this committee being:
William Redpath
Micheal Jingozian
Bob Sullentrup
Aaron Starr
Angela Keaton
Rachel Hawkridge
Stewart Flood
Patrick Dixon
Stewart Flood
Lee Wrights
Mary Ruwart
Tony Ryan
George Squyres
Mark Hinkle
Scott Lieberman
Rebecca Sink-Burris
Bob Jackson
Heather Scott
Jim Lark
Berlie Etzel
Dan Karlan
Julie Fox
Jake Porter
Rachel Hawkridge
Steve LaBianca
Let it be resolved that the Libertarian National Committee hereby repudiates the United State Government’s recent active duty military domestic operations.
In a footnote to a memo, Attorney General Michael Mukasey declared that the Fourth Amendment, which bars unreasonable searches and seizures, did not apply to “domestic military operations” against terrorist threats. (”Mukasey Distances Himself from a Memo on Searches,” The New York Times, April 11, 2008)
We the members of the Libertarian National Committee respectfully disagree with the Attorney General and reassert the authority of the free people of the United States to be safe from incursions of the military into the homeland territories of the 50 States as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment of the United States.
The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team, formerly deployed to serve in Iraq, is now serving a 12 month tour in the United States beginning Oct. 1 2008, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.
The Libertarian National Committee urges the citizens of the United States to become more aware of this issue, and to engage their local governments on this issue.
The Libertarian National Committee strenuously objects to this flagrant violation of Posse Comitatus. We, the LNC, assert the authority that is invested in local police, fire, medical, and associated professionals are best suited to handle any natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks. The military is best suited for winning foreign wars and not policing the world, or the American homeland.
11 responses so far ↓
1 JimDavidson // Dec 1, 2008 at 9:52 pm
This looks like a good idea. I wonder if it is going to get any attention during the brouhaha about Angela.
2 JimDavidson // Dec 1, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Though, come to think of it, the foreign wars line in the last paragraph kinda sux.
3 Steven R Linnabary // Dec 1, 2008 at 11:10 pm
The military is best suited for winning foreign wars and not policing the world, or the American homeland.
The military is best suited for killing people and breaking things in foreign wars and not killing people and breaking things in the world in general, or killing people and breaking things in American homeland.
??
Pacem en Terris
Steve
4 songster7 // Dec 1, 2008 at 11:40 pm
that last line is one of those “compromises” that occur when naturally non-aggressive persons encounter those for whom restraint is a challenge. Even among libertarians this dichotomy seems to exist.
5 inDglass // Dec 2, 2008 at 2:43 am
Best suited for winning wars? Recent history might suggest they are best suited for losing them.
6 JimDavidson // Dec 2, 2008 at 2:51 am
“I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!”
7 JimDavidson // Dec 2, 2008 at 2:52 am
I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission?
8 paulie cannoli // Dec 2, 2008 at 11:14 am
I think people are missing the ball here in focusing on the last sentence. The author did say, “I am recommending that this draft be submitted to the committee so that they may make suggestions, comments, edits, or any revisions necessary, so long as the “original intent†is preserved.”
I think the main topic addressed is the wide scale use of the military in domestic operations.
The last sentence can be changed or eliminated, but the broader topic should be addressed.
9 Catholic Trotskyist // Dec 2, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Jim, you’re starting to sound like me. Seriously, who wrote this?
10 paulie cannoli // Dec 2, 2008 at 2:49 pm
He would prefer not to be identified.
11 JimDavidson // Dec 6, 2008 at 5:36 am
@9 A Patrick named Henry.
Leave a Comment