Ron Paul on Burma Condemnation: Nails it

TheDanold

Unimatrix
Blackascoal was full of shit, this was NOT simply a symbolic vote.

Madame Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation not because I do not sympathize with the plight of the oppressed people of Burma , particularly as demonstrated by the continued confinement of Aung San Suu Kyi. Any time a government represses its citizenry it is reprehensible. My objection to this legislation is twofold. First, the legislation calls on the United Nations Security Council to “take appropriate action” with regard to Burma and its internal conditions. This sounds like an open door for an outside military intervention under the auspices of the United Nations, which is something I do not support.

More importantly, perhaps, I am concerned that while going around the world criticizing admittedly abhorrent governmental actions abroad we are ignoring the very dangerous erosions of our own civil liberties and way of life at home. Certainly it is objectionable that the Burmese government holds its own citizens in jails without trial. But what about the secret prisons that our own CIA operates around the globe that hold thousands of individuals indefinitely and without trial? Certainly it is objectionable that the government of Burma can declare Aung San Suu Kyi a political prisoner to be held in confinement. But what about the power that Congress has given the president to declare anyone around the world, including American citizens, “enemy combatants” subject to indefinite detention without trial? What about the “military commissions act” that may well subject Americans to military trial with secret evidence permitted and habeas corpus suspended?

So while I am by no means unsympathetic to the current situation in Burma , as an elected Member of the United States House of Representatives I strongly believe that we would do better to promote freedom around the world by paying better attention to our rapidly eroding freedom here at home. I urge my colleagues to consider their priorities more closely and to consider the much more effective approach of leading by example.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr100207h.htm
 
Perhaps you don't understand how the United Nations works. Member countries cannot simply force the UN to take an action by passing a resolution calling for the UN to take appropriate action. It just doesn't work that way. Hence, the symbolic vote.
 
This vote would have meant absolutely nothing to the rest of the world, that Paul is right on, because we have made ourselves look like assholes. The Junta does not respect our oppinions because they can simply point at our attrocities and say how much worse we are. Though, I still think Paul should have supported this because we need to at least TRY and put some pressure on the rest of the world to do something.
 
It would be more difficult for US business interests ro rape and pillage Burma if the UN is there....
 
Back
Top