Request for Co-sponsors: Resolution Against Unjust Foreign Detentions

Thank you @Ted Brown for kicking off this conversation, and thank you to everyone who helped to craft this revised resolution: @Jessi Cowart @Kenneth Feagins @Jack Westbrook @Matthew Gibbs @RJ Pase and even non-SLEC members @Nathan Polsky and @Carter Fanning.

This issue is important to me as it has impacted my district directly. After this discussion sparked today, I was made aware that someone in my hometown was deported to El Salvador after getting asylum from Venezuela (coverage on him here). I have also been made aware of votes our candidates have historically been able to count on in my district, that we will lose if we don't make a statement on this issue. And those local connections are only adding to the fact that I think this is the right thing to do. I'll also be taking this resolution to my county, but I hope you will all join me in supporting this resolution that I believe addresses all the concerns I read or that were brought to me while still having the gravity the issue warrants.

With that, I'm seeking cosponsors for a forum vote on the resolution below:

Whereas, individuals have been detained in foreign prisons as a result of actions by the United States government, often without due process or access to a fair legal system;

Whereas, in many such cases, government officials have acknowledged administrative errors or legal missteps, yet have failed to take meaningful steps to retrieve or protect those affected, save a few individuals;

Whereas, it is reprehensible to allow any person to be imprisoned in a foreign country where they are beyond reach of legal protection and without access to justice or remedy;

Whereas, the abandonment of due process in any case—regardless of citizenship, nationality, or political belief—undermines the ideals of liberty and justice that should define the American identity;

Whereas, targeting individuals for detention, removal, or abandonment based on political viewpoints, affiliations, or expediency reflects authoritarian tendencies incompatible with a free society;

Whereas, the use of obscure, outdated, or misapplied laws to justify state actions that violate human rights is a clear abuse of legal authority;

Therefore, be it resolved, that the Libertarian Party of Texas condemns the detention of any individual in a foreign prison when it results from the failure or refusal of the U.S. government to uphold due process and protect human rights;

Be it further resolved, that the Libertarian Party of Texas calls for the removal from office of any official who abuses legal mechanisms to justify the denial of human rights or who fails to act in defense of those whose liberties have been trampled under the guise of law;

Be it further resolved, that the Libertarian Party of Texas declares that the continued abandonment of due process in the name of expediency or political gain constitutes a betrayal of American ideals and the fundamental principles of justice;

Be it further resolved, that the Libertarian Party of Texas reaffirms its unwavering opposition to the coercive use of government power and its commitment to defending the rights of all individuals—everywhere—against injustice and unlawful imprisonment;

Be it further resolved, that the Libertarian Party of Texas urges Congress to establish a formal review process for cases involving the abandonment or wrongful detention of individuals abroad.
 
I will be abstaining for this vote, while I am for the idea of this revised resolution I believe that since it doesn't mention "The Trump Administration" in anyway has drastically watered down the impact it will make and will be ignored by people outside the party.
 
My intent there was that this would be able to be applied to elected/appointed officials at every level engaging in, facilitating, or endorsing these actions.

This problem started with the Trump Administration, but it is being continued by every official who is shuffling their feet and letting it continue to happen which, as far as I'm concerned, implicates the entire US government.

If you still intend to abstain, then you and I will have to agree to disagree. C'est la vie
 
Good catch, but weird anomaly. I copy/pasted the link to the correct thread (#960--you'll notice the url you can see over there hasn't changed, but now it links to the correct page). When I saved the post and Discourse recognized a url and automatically created a link, it apparently thought #958 (Ted's thread) was a better destination. Go figure.

Mentioning the explanation here in case @Kyle Russell or anyone else working the back end here has any ideas how that would have happened....
 
I will be abstaining for this vote, while I am for the idea of this revised resolution I believe that since it doesn't mention "The Trump Administration" in anyway has drastically watered down the impact it will make and will be ignored by people outside the party.
Honest question, what kind of impact will a resolution make even if it mentions the Trump administration? Over the years, I've seen several resolutions and I haven't seen them gain any traction outside of the party. I don't disagree with them being done, as I think it is good to clarify our positions when enough of us feel it is necessary. But I do question how much impact, if any, these have on individuals who are NOT already voting Libertarian. When you say that not mentioning the Trump administration will cause those outside the party to ignore it, I question how many outside the party will actually see it to then be able to choose to ignore it or not.

I would love it if we did press releases when we do these resolutions and then news outlets picked up our resolutions and gave them more audience, but if that is happening, I haven't been witness to it. This is not me saying we should stop trying. I just think we all tend to overestimate how much exposure we get to non-libertarians and how much effect we have on them either way.
 
Honest question, what kind of impact will a resolution make even if it mentions the Trump administration? Over the years, I've seen several resolutions and I haven't seen them gain any traction outside of the party. I don't disagree with them being done, as I think it is good to clarify our positions when enough of us feel it is necessary. But I do question how much impact, if any, these have on individuals who are NOT already voting Libertarian. When you say that not mentioning the Trump administration will cause those outside the party to ignore it, I question how many outside the party will actually see it to then be able to choose to ignore it or not.

I would love it if we did press releases when we do these resolutions and then news outlets picked up our resolutions and gave them more audience, but if that is happening, I haven't been witness to it. This is not me saying we should stop trying. I just think we all tend to overestimate how much exposure we get to non-libertarians and how much effect we have on them either way.
The newsweek article about the resolution Travis County passed its getting good results and views on social media. We have had 2 voice mails left on the LPTexas phone line one in support and one not. Who knows if Travis had passed this resolution if newsweek would have noticed but I think without mentioning Trump or the administration in some way it would have been ignored.
 
The newsweek article about the resolution Travis County passed its getting good results and views on social media. We have had 2 voice mails left on the LPTexas phone line one in support and one not. Who knows if Travis had passed this resolution if newsweek would have noticed but I think without mentioning Trump or the administration in some way it would have been ignored.
Thank you. I had no idea Newsweek had picked up the Travis County resolution. That is definitely a good sign that we are not completely being ignored.
 
Not mentioning Trump is extremely disappointing. It could have easily been worded to say the Trump Administration and any future administration that continues this practice. We need to hold elected officials accountable, and that includes by name. Keeping his name off of the resolution feels like placating and watering down of the resolution.
 
Not mentioning Trump is extremely disappointing. It could have easily been worded to say the Trump Administration and any future administration that continues this practice. We need to hold elected officials accountable, and that includes by name. Keeping his name off of the resolution feels like placating and watering down of the resolution.
It is too late, and while it is obvious to the astute reader, the intent could have been clarified with language like “removal from office any such official, up to and including the President of the United States”. I understand Kyle’s concern well, and Ana’s point that all these people are complicit is also true. Unlawful orders must be resisted; following them is no defense. And let’s be serious, Ted’s work has resulted in more positive earned media than anything in the last five years. The Newsweek article is gold for “being relevant” for a change.

I voted yes on Ted’s original because I want to be counted on the side that will never compromise on human dignity. Ana did a GREAT job getting the second resolution to where it is. I need to read and reread to decide on my vote. It is weaker, but that seems to be where this SLEC wants to be. Anyone who knows me knows I don’t back down and loathe the idea of doing something for political expediency or middle ground support. That is why I don’t run for office.

I do want to restate the INCREDIBLE job Ana did threading the needle here, though.
 
Back
Top