I found the press release Henry was thinking of, which was an LNC resolution. It's quite excellent, and makes me proud of the LP. While it was later learned that the 9/11 fatalaties were much fewer than 5000, my only quibble would be with how the third paragraph suggests it might not be proper to take action against anti-American terrorists until they actually succeed in killing thousands of Americans. It's pretty bizarre that LP radicals would object to this press release. It seems that as anarchists they cannot allow themselves to endorse any action of the tax-financed U.S. military, no matter how laudable. That dogma boxes them into an evidence-proof axiomatic interpretation of historical events that tends to diminish not only their intellectual credibility, but also the LP's political viability (to the extent they impose their views on the Party). For the LP's antiwar absolutists to now say that a majority of Americans support their view, they have to claim that the 91% who favored intervention in Afghanistan have in just a few years somehow seen their numbers slashed in half. It's just not tenable for them to claim that the current majority support for disengagement from the Iraqi civil war is evidence of majority opposition to all interventions. _____
October 15, 2001 Libertarian National Committee backs "measured" anti-terrorist response The following statement was adopted by the Libertarian National Committee at its meeting in Atlanta, Georgia on October 14, 2001: On Sunday, October 7, the United States launched military action against Osama bin Laden, the terrorist believed to be responsible for the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The U.S. military also struck military bases controlled by the Taliban regime of Afghanistan, which has sheltered and reportedly assisted bin Laden. While the Libertarian Party has been a consistent voice against reckless foreign interventionism by the U.S. government, we support action against the perpetrators responsible for the terrorist attacks. The vicious and barbaric attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, which bin Laden allegedly masterminded, cost 5,000 innocent Americans their lives. Such horrific crimes cannot go unpunished. A fundamental role of the United States government, as defined in the U.S. Constitution, is to protect American citizens against foreign attack. Therefore, it is proper for the government to take forceful action against terrorists who have already killed thousands of Americans, and who have threatened to kill more. Such criminals must be rooted out and destroyed before more innocent people die. Their training camps and weapons must be eliminated. Their supply infrastructure must be shattered. At the same time, the United States' response must be appropriate and measured. Every precaution must be taken to minimize injury or death to innocent civilians and non-combatants -- in Afghanistan and in other nations. To do otherwise is not only a violation of America's ideals, it would also create future enemies for our nation and continue the cycle of violence and revenge. We also call on the United States government to publicly reveal the evidence that conclusively links bin Laden and his terrorist network to the September 11 terrorist attacks. While much circumstantial evidence is available, and while bin Laden has made statements condoning the September 11 attacks, the U.S. government has an obligation to conclusively demonstrate that he is guilty of mass murder. Such evidence would not only help swing world opinion firmly behind the United States' actions, it would make a clear and compelling case that justice is being served by the recent military actions. The Libertarian Party must take a more cautious stance about the military attacks on Afghanistan's Taliban government. Yes, there is considerable evidence that this totalitarian regime has aided bin Laden, and, yes, it refuses to assist the U.S. government in bringing bin Laden to justice. But it is a sovereign nation, and a military strike against it is an act of war. According to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, only the United States Congress has the power to declare war. If military action against the government of Afghanistan is indeed appropriate, then the U.S. Congress should establish this by debating and passing an official declaration of war. Such an action would make the attack constitutionally legitimate, and protect the vital separation of powers upon which this nation's government was founded. The United States government should also announce clear, measurable, and finite goals for this War on Terrorism. Any military action must not be allowed to turn into an endless, global war against numberless, shadowy targets. America's best interests will be served by decisive action that targets the guilty, spares the innocent, and ends as quickly as possible. Finally, the United States has an obligation to consider a new, positive approach to foreign policy for the future. Years ago, President Thomas Jefferson articulated a foreign policy that consisted of "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Such a foreign policy -- deeply rooted in American tradition and principle -- would reduce the chance that terrorists will ever again want to strike a bloody blow at America. As our nation embarks on this new war, the words of Thomas Jefferson echo down the centuries, and point in the direction of an America that can be at peace with the world -- and have less to fear from foreign enemies.
