Libertarians for Obama

ABC News reports:

In the 4th quarter of 2007, individuals in the Army, Navy and Air Force made those branches of the armed services the No. 13, No. 18 and No. 21, contributing industries, respectively. War opponent Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, received the most from donors in the military, collecting at least $212,000 from them. Another war opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, was second with about $94,000.

This is surely election season, and with election season comes the endless stream of candidate endorsements.  Many are from fellow politicians and are based upon the political nature of the race.  Then there are endorsements from people who care deeply about an issue, and wish to see the best candidate on that issue win the election.  This is the latter.

We are at a critical point in the Presidential campaign, and as lawyers who have been deeply involved in the Guantanamo litigation to preserve the important right to habeas corpus, we are writing to urge you to support Senator Obama.

Some politicians are all talk and no action. But we know from first-hand experience that Senator Obama has demonstrated extraordinary leadership on this critical and controversial issue. When others stood back, Senator Obama helped lead the fight in the Senate against the Administration’s efforts in the Fall of 2006 to strip the courts of jurisdiction, and when we were walking the halls of the Capitol trying to win over enough Senators to beat back the Administration’s bill, Senator Obama made his key staffers and even his offices available to help us. Senator Obama worked with us to count the votes, and he personally lobbied colleagues who worried about the political ramifications of voting to preserve habeas corpus for the men held at Guantanamo.

From recent televised debates, at least this has become clear: Obama is the only leading candidate who opposes the war in Iraq. The Republicans certainly don’t. Clinton may think that the war was mismanaged, which it has been, but she refuses to repudiate her vote on the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. Let it not, five years later, be forgotten exactly what it was that was passed:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq

It is not enough to ask what our next President to do with the war that we have on our hands today. Rather, we must also ask whether our next President will give us a new war. Among the front-ronners, Obama, and Obama alone, has stated the clear and plain truth that there was no national interest at stake in invading Iraq. That we were discussing whether to invade Iraq ought to have contained the answer within the question. I trust in Obama’s judgment to not lead us into any more unnecessary invasions - as if there were ever an invasion that were necessary.

Lincoln Chafee is correct in that “helping a rogue president start an unnecessary war should be a career-ending lapse of judgment.” Failing that, I would settle for not promoting Bush’s helpers to the Presidency.