Kevin Bjornson wrote to Bob Capozzi: KB> The planks you list have serious problems, and don't respect libertarian hawks. <KB
I prefer to be called "pro-libervention" rather than a "hawk", and I suspect that our opponents would rather be called "anti-intervention" than "doves". KB> Americans should be protected, not the abstract "United States". <KB We can't offer blanket protection from every possible kind of aggression to every American traveling abroad. At the same time, we don't want to give enemies of the U.S. carte blanche to attack Americans the minute they step outside U.S. jurisdiction. If the Bali bombing had killed 88 Americans and 7 Australians (instead of the other way around), we might be able to sell some language saying that the U.S. military should pursue those who seek to attack American citizens abroad just for being Americans. But as long as America provides over $2B/yr in military aid to Israel during its multi-decade occupation of 3 million Palestinians, and nationals from (say) Switzerland are not being targeted as Americans are, then a majority of Libertarians will claim with some justification that Americans abroad wouldn't be targeted under the optimal U.S. foreign policy. There's just no way that any foreign-policy language will get the needed 2/3 vote in Denver if it is any more "hawkish" than the GH draft. GH> We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have <GH KB> The US can't just release all military secrets. <KB It doesn't say that -- unless you believe the public should have all military secrets. GH> We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. <GH KB> The wording is gramatically incorrect; "sufficient" and "military" are in the wrong order. <KB The GH draft had just dropped the last word of "sufficient military establishment" in a sentence otherwise identical in the 1972 Platform, but you're right that it reads better. KB> We don't need to add "all forms of" to "compulsory national service" <KB Good point -- the shorter the better. GH> International Affairs. American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil. <BH KB> Why protect America only from attacks that are from "abroad"? This assumes terrorists have no operatives here in the US. <KB It just assumes that policing aggression here at home is not a matter of "international affairs" or "foreign policy". It doesn't say there can't be information-sharing between domestic law enforcement and our military and intelligence services. KB> Again, to limit the US military to operations on US soil would be disastrous, is not endorsed by any military experts, flies in the face of common sense, and is an embarassment. <KB The language of the International Affairs plank technically doesn't limit the geographic scope of U.S. military operations. The National Defense plank plainly says that the military is to "defend the United States against aggression", without geographic qualification. A plurality (and probably even a majority) of Libertarians supported going to Afghanistan to defend America from Al Qaeda, and they understand that the above language permits such defense. GH> Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property. <GH KB> Unrestricted trade and travel would be disastrous. Should we open our floodgates to millions from all over the Muslim world (they're already 1/4 the world's population, and a majority sympathize with terrorism); <KB The above language from the 2006 Immigration plank represented a victory for us pragmatists on this topic, so you're looking a gift horse in the mouth. In Denver, the alternative to the 2006 language will not be something more to your liking, but rather will be to drop the "however..." as we revert to the absolutist 2004 Immigration plank. The "threat to security" language above already gives you room to try make a case that we need to worry about alleged millions of Muslim terrorist sympathizers flooding across our borders. But you shouldn't expect the Platform to make that case for you. KB> or allow Americans to fund plutonium-producing nuclear reactors in Iran? <KB The fulfillment of Iran's nuclear ambitions will depend on technical resources, not financial resources. Nothing in the GH draft prevents the government from regulating the use or export of nuclear weapons technology.
