See other Ron Paul Articles
Title: Rand Paul Introduced Tulsi Gabbard’s Stop Arming Terrorists Act In The Senate
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://alibertarianfuture.com/big-g ... -arming-terrorists-act-senate/
Published: Mar 12, 2017
Author: J. Wilson
Post Date: 2017-03-12 08:58:24 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 192
Comments: 5
The Syrian Civil War has faded from the American public’s consciousness but that doesn’t mean the government’s involvement has diminished. Billions of dollars are still being spent on arming and training “rebel” groups. This is despite the numerous reports that money and arms have gone directly or indirectly to known terrorists. Whether or not the CIA will admit it, weapons they provided have ended up in the hands of Al Qaeda. This insanity has to stop. If we ever want to end the war on terror, we’ll have to stop funding it. Rand Paul introduced Tulsi Gabbard’s Stop Arming Terrorists Act in the Senate to do just that. Unlike many pieces of legislation introduced, Tulsi Gabbard’s bill is fairly straightforward. It’s not quite as short as Thomas Massie’s bill to abolish the Department of Education, but that is for good reason. The entire text is only seven pages long but it needs every word in order to make it explicitly clear what the government is prohibited from doing. The bipartisan legislation (H.R.608 and S.532) would prohibit any Federal agency from using taxpayer dollars to provide weapons, cash, intelligence, or any support to al-Qaeda, ISIS and other terrorist groups, and it will prohibit the government from funneling money and weapons through other countries who are directly or indirectly supporting terrorists. Rand Paul teaming up with Tulsi Gabbard is a natural alliance for the two non-interventionists. The Kentucky Senator has argued against arming terrorists in the past and made it a key part of his foreign policy platform when he ran for President. During the Republican primary debates he repeatedly argued that in order to defeat the terrorists we must stop funding them. Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has also spoken out against interventionism throughout her career in the House. Her opposition stems from her previous service in the Army where she saw the consequences of endless war firsthand. The bi-partisan support behind the Stop Arming Terrorists Act will get it much further than previous attempts. Combine that with increased Democratic opposition to war, now that a Republican is President again, and it’s possible that this legislation could actually pass. Whether President Trump signs it or not, Rand Paul and Tulsi Gabbard will hopefully continue to work together to limit interventionism in the future.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada (#0)
Isn't the act of providing material support to terrorists against the law, subject to the provisions of the NDAA which provides for immediate arrest, prohibits legal process or counsel, and subjects the individual to "enhanced interrogation" and indefinite detention? I think the actions of McCain, Graham, and a wide range of associated misfits are in violation of that provision and subject to arrest. So why do we need a Congressional bill to prevent the US government from committing criminal acts which could also fall under the term TREASON? Amen! “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Yes, but please note that the law has not stopped them.
Then a new one won't stop them either... That is one thing about criminals, they do not obey the law. ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination 
#2. To: FormerLurker (#1)
So why do we need a Congressional bill to prevent the US government from committing criminal acts which could also fall under the term TREASON?
#3. To: FormerLurker (#1)
Isn't the act of providing material support to terrorists against the law,
#4. To: Ada (#3)
Yes, but please note that the law has not stopped them.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination
#5. To: Ada (#3)
(Edited)
the law has not stopped them
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest