Ron Paul condemns Obama for killing Anwar al-Awlaki without a trial

So at what clearly defineable point does it go from "You are a criminal, but deserving of a trial" to "You're a criminal, but we're just gonna kill you."?

You capture him and put him on trial if you can, kill him if you can't.

I'm torn in between the disgust of the disregard for trial before conviction, (you know, the process of making sure people are actually guilty before lynching them) and the necessity to eliminate certain threats.

So at what clearly defineable point does it go from "You are a criminal, but deserving of a trial" to "You're a criminal, but we're just gonna kill you."?

XaosII

When you join forces with a foriegn enemy intent on the distruction of our country.

He is a traitor, not a criminal. He is no different that Osama Bin Laden.

I'm torn in between the disgust of the disregard for trial before conviction, (you know, the process of making sure people are actually guilty before lynching them) and the necessity to eliminate certain threats.

coolbeans90

Also if we can't kill a terrorist without putting him on trial first does that mean we have to capture EVERY criminal and put them on trial before we can give them a sentence? :P

This is the problem with ideologues... reality never so much as grazes them. Left, Right, or outer space (RP)... it's all the same. It's sad that the best we have is a range from center, right, far right, and then "tear it all down, but let me keep my cash". :roll:

So yeah, Ron Paul should be sent out with an M-16 and a kevlar vest and bring the next Awlaki home alive, Perry should get a tate of direct current, Herman Caine should get back to pizza, Santorum should spontaneously combust, Gingrich should... you know, I literally don't care... Romney should get a soul, Michelle Bachman should keep on doing her thing because it's literally ENDLESS entertainment, and Huntsman should stick to Utah, and Barack Obama should learn the value of following through.

Hmmm... I feel better.

All I'll say is that the US gave the Nazi's a trial. Something Ron Paul reiterates.Victorious_Fize

Really? Every single Nazi got a trial? None were killed by Allied weapons? Interesting....

All I'll say is that the US gave the Nazi's a trial. Something Ron Paul reiterates.Victorious_Fize

I'm torn in between the disgust of the disregard for trial before conviction, (you know, the process of making sure people are actually guilty before lynching them) and the necessity to eliminate certain threats.

coolbeans90

All I'll say is that the US gave the Nazi's a trial. Something Ron Paul reiterates.Victorious_Fize

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I'm torn in between the disgust of the disregard for trial before conviction, (you know, the process of making sure people are actually guilty before lynching them) and the necessity to eliminate certain threats.

Frame_Dragger

The precedent bothers me far more than the specific event.

All I'll say is that the US gave the Nazi's a trial. Something Ron Paul reiterates.Victorious_Fize

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I'm torn in between the disgust of the disregard for trial before conviction, (you know, the process of making sure people are actually guilty before lynching them) and the necessity to eliminate certain threats.

The precedent bothers me far more than the specific event.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I'm torn in between the disgust of the disregard for trial before conviction, (you know, the process of making sure people are actually guilty before lynching them) and the necessity to eliminate certain threats.

coolbeans90

The precedent bothers me far more than the specific event.

What precedent do you think is being set here?

If possible he should have definitely been put on trial. If not, so be it. I understand where Paul is coming from but man is really a enemy against our nation. Though in many cases it does bother me when it comes to lack trial and whatnot.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] People who freely declare both their intentions and past actions are not the subject of lynchings. Every asasination is not a lynching, which has very specific connotations of a mob dragging the accused to their death... especially (in the USA) a black person crica pre/during civil rights era. Besides, you said the word: necessity. Imagine if someone had radically trepanated Imad Mugniyeh in the early 80's... how many more would be alive now? If we sent a drone over New Mexico (where he attended college) to kill him, instead of capturing him that would be insane. If he's holed up in Yemen, after all that he freely admitted to, including 3 notable attempted bombings (shoe, underwear, ink cartridges)... then he's an enemy combatant. I'm not much for that latter term being thrown around, or as a justification for infinite detention, but when it comes to killing... so be it.Frame_Dragger

The precedent bothers me far more than the specific event.

Fair enough, but that doesn't exactly justify past events, either. I am not particularly inclined to rely on the alleged benevolence of our leadership with an absurd, limitless amount of power over the life of an individual who hasn't been put through an impartial legal process. Of course, necessity does warrant extreme measures, but it doesn't make idea less irksome. Nevertheless, I shan't shed a tear for this individual in particular.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

People who freely declare both their intentions and past actions are not the subject of lynchings. Every asasination is not a lynching, which has very specific connotations of a mob dragging the accused to their death... especially (in the USA) a black person crica pre/during civil rights era. Besides, you said the word: necessity. Imagine if someone had radically trepanated Imad Mugniyeh in the early 80's... how many more would be alive now? If we sent a drone over New Mexico (where he attended college) to kill him, instead of capturing him that would be insane. If he's holed up in Yemen, after all that he freely admitted to, including 3 notable attempted bombings (shoe, underwear, ink cartridges)... then he's an enemy combatant. I'm not much for that latter term being thrown around, or as a justification for infinite detention, but when it comes to killing... so be it.Frame_Dragger

The precedent bothers me far more than the specific event.

What precedent do you think is being set here?

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] People who freely declare both their intentions and past actions are not the subject of lynchings. Every asasination is not a lynching, which has very specific connotations of a mob dragging the accused to their death... especially (in the USA) a black person crica pre/during civil rights era. Besides, you said the word: necessity. Imagine if someone had radically trepanated Imad Mugniyeh in the early 80's... how many more would be alive now? If we sent a drone over New Mexico (where he attended college) to kill him, instead of capturing him that would be insane. If he's holed up in Yemen, after all that he freely admitted to, including 3 notable attempted bombings (shoe, underwear, ink cartridges)... then he's an enemy combatant. I'm not much for that latter term being thrown around, or as a justification for infinite detention, but when it comes to killing... so be it.collegeboy64

The precedent bothers me far more than the specific event.

What precedent do you think is being set here?

Upon reevaluating the facts, the precedent has already been set regarding the capacity of a governing body to eliminate whom they deem necessary without regard to the legal process, American or not.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

The precedent bothers me far more than the specific event.

Fair enough, but that doesn't exactly justify past events, either. I am not particularly inclined to rely on the alleged benevolence of our leadership with an absurd, limitless amount of power over the life of an individual who hasn't been put through an impartial legal process. Of course, necessity does warrant extreme measures, but it doesn't make idea less irksome. Nevertheless, I shan't shed a tear for this individual in particular.

Fair enough, but that doesn't exactly justify past events, either. I am not particularly inclined to rely on the alleged benevolence of our leadership with an absurd, limitless amount of power over the life of an individual who hasn't been put through an impartial legal process. Of course, necessity does warrant extreme measures, but it doesn't make idea less irksome. Nevertheless, I shan't shed a tear for this individual in particular.

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] It's not a new event... assasination has been the practice of major nations for a very long time, including us. The difference is that this was overt, not covert, and we admit what we've done. As major powers go, we still largely respect the rights of others, except in dire need and in situations where no other option is available except inaction. We are not, for instance, feeding people who piss us off radioactive isotopes.Frame_Dragger

Fair enough, but that doesn't exactly justify past events, either. I am not particularly inclined to rely on the alleged benevolence of our leadership with an absurd, limitless amount of power over the life of an individual who hasn't been put through an impartial legal process. Of course, necessity does warrant extreme measures, but it doesn't make idea less irksome. Nevertheless, I shan't shed a tear for this individual in particular.

Well, from a realpolitik point of view, this was obviously the choice to be made.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Fair enough, but that doesn't exactly justify past events, either. I am not particularly inclined to rely on the alleged benevolence of our leadership with an absurd, limitless amount of power over the life of an individual who hasn't been put through an impartial legal process. Of course, necessity does warrant extreme measures, but it doesn't make idea less irksome. Nevertheless, I shan't shed a tear for this individual in particular.

topsemag55

That wasn't the issue I raised.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Fair enough, but that doesn't exactly justify past events, either. I am not particularly inclined to rely on the alleged benevolence of our leadership with an absurd, limitless amount of power over the life of an individual who hasn't been put through an impartial legal process. Of course, necessity does warrant extreme measures, but it doesn't make idea less irksome. Nevertheless, I shan't shed a tear for this individual in particular.

coolbeans90

That wasn't the issue I raised.

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

The precedent bothers me far more than the specific event.

Frame_Dragger

What precedent do you think is being set here?

Killing our enemies, on foriegn soil, is nothing new. This POS no longer deserved the title, or privledges of being called an American. As far as I am concerned, when you throw in with a foriegn enemy with the expressed intent of attacking this country,you have forfeited your citizenship and all the protections that entails.

For the love of Allah, this guy isn't a bank robber or just some run-of-the-mill murderer. He's a self-proclaimed enemy of our nation who has declared war on us. We found him, in a foriegn land, hangin out with his fellow terrorist buddies and cancelled his ticket. Good riddance to bad garbage.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Fair enough, but that doesn't exactly justify past events, either. I am not particularly inclined to rely on the alleged benevolence of our leadership with an absurd, limitless amount of power over the life of an individual who hasn't been put through an impartial legal process. Of course, necessity does warrant extreme measures, but it doesn't make idea less irksome. Nevertheless, I shan't shed a tear for this individual in particular.

Well, from a realpolitik point of view, this was obviously the choice to be made.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] I don't believe that killing other people is just, never mind a government killing its own. We DID just assasinate an american. I understand and respect morality as a pro-social factor, but when it comes to the actions of nations, justice, right, wrong... these are only factors in publicity. A nation exists by virtue of necessity leading to action, or inaction... and little else.Frame_Dragger

Well, from a realpolitik point of view, this was obviously the choice to be made.

"He is one of those people who would be enormously improved by death." (H. H. Munroe) and so he is.

So do I, as I tend to disregard the ethical predispositions I claim to have for the sake of practicality whenever the two conflict. But I still think that, theoretically speaking, certain rules should be set on when it is okay to circumvent due process.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="topsemag55"] Yemen cooperated, but they might very well have not wanted a lot of U.S. soldiers on Yemeni soil. An airstrike was fine with them.topsemag55

That wasn't the issue I raised.

In this case, the guy was guilty, sure. All cases considered, this a lot of power.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

What precedent do you think is being set here?

Killing our enemies, on foriegn soil, is nothing new. This POS no longer deserved the title, or privledges of being called an American. As far as I am concerned, when you throw in with a foriegn enemy with the expressed intent of attacking this country,you have forfeited your citizenship and all the protections that entails.

For the love of Allah, this guy isn't a bank robber or just some run-of-the-mill murderer. He's a self-proclaimed enemy of our nation who has declared war on us. We found him, in a foriegn land, hangin out with his fellow terrorist buddies and cancelled his ticket. Good riddance to bad garbage.

And to put it bluntly, Awlaki isn't worth the life of one Yemeni or American soldier.topsemag55

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Well, from a realpolitik point of view, this was obviously the choice to be made.

"He is one of those people who would be enormously improved by death." (H. H. Munroe) and so he is.

So do I, as I tend to disregard the ethical predispositions I claim to have for the sake of practicality whenever the two conflict. But I still think that, theoretically speaking, certain rules should be set on when it is okay to circumvent due process.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]And to put it bluntly, Awlaki isn't worth the life of one Yemeni or American soldier.xaos

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

The precedent bothers me far more than the specific event.

coolbeans90

What precedent do you think is being set here?

Upon reevaluating the facts, the precedent has already been set regarding the capacity of a governing body to eliminate whom they deem necessary without regard to the legal process, American or not.

So, in your mind, this sets the precedent that the US govt can kill whomever it wants, whenever it wants, wherever it wants. Or, to be more true to your reply, you apparently think that precedent was set before this incident, yes?

I'm sorry, but if you are going to extrapolate from this incident to a reality where the govt can eliminate anyone, anytime, anywhere that they deem necessary, then I'm not sure where to go with this. This is a pretty specific set of circumstances that, when evaluated rationally, would indicate that IF you join a foriegn enemy and engage with them to actively attack and kill Americans, you're not entitled to an expectation of a fair trial anymore. I fail to see anything to fear here.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] I admit, those are the terms I generally adhere to unless we're talking specifically in terms of morality as the primary issue.

"He is one of those people who would be enormously improved by death." (H. H. Munroe) and so he is.Frame_Dragger

So do I, as I tend to disregard the ethical predispositions I claim to have for the sake of practicality whenever the two conflict. But I still think that, theoretically speaking, certain rules should be set on when it is okay to circumvent due process.

Yes, but said restraint mightn't always occur. I'd rather operate under specific parameters for when it's okay to assassinate rather than pretend we don't and have no rules whatsoever in practice.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

So do I, as I tend to disregard the ethical predispositions I claim to have for the sake of practicality whenever the two conflict. But I still think that, theoretically speaking, certain rules should be set on when it is okay to circumvent due process.

Yes, but said restraint mightn't always occur. I'd rather operate under specific parameters for when it's okay to assassinate rather than pretend we don't and have no rules whatsoever in practice.

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] IMO, and I obviuosly don't speak for Coolbeans.... whatever the justifications (and I think they were good ones), he was an American. This is a first in modern history... and while I disagree I can see the 'Beans' point. We DID decide that he was no longer subject to protections that we offer to all americans, targeted and killed him. That is a profound act for a government to commit, although personally I think it was appropriate.Frame_Dragger

Killing our enemies, on foriegn soil, is nothing new. This POS no longer deserved the title, or privledges of being called an American. As far as I am concerned, when you throw in with a foriegn enemy with the expressed intent of attacking this country,you have forfeited your citizenship and all the protections that entails.

For the love of Allah, this guy isn't a bank robber or just some run-of-the-mill murderer. He's a self-proclaimed enemy of our nation who has declared war on us. We found him, in a foriegn land, hangin out with his fellow terrorist buddies and cancelled his ticket. Good riddance to bad garbage.

The terms I describe are simply the facts. This man seperated himself physically from our nation and declared, through both word and deed, his status as an enemy of our nation. It is self-indulgent moralizing to pretend that we ought to extend the protections of our constitution to him, or anyone else who has taken a similar course of action.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

What precedent do you think is being set here?

collegeboy64

Upon reevaluating the facts, the precedent has already been set regarding the capacity of a governing body to eliminate whom they deem necessary without regard to the legal process, American or not.

So, in your mind, this sets the precedent that the US govt can kill whomever it wants, whenever it wants, wherever it wants. Or, to be more true to your reply, you apparently think that precedent was set before this incident, yes?

I'm sorry, but if you are going to extrapolate from this incident to a reality where the govt can eliminate anyone, anytime, anywhere that they deem necessary, then I'm not sure where to go with this. This is a pretty specific set of circumstances that, when evaluated rationally, would indicate that IF you join a foriegn enemy and engage with them to actively attack and kill Americans, you're not entitled to an expectation of a fair trial anymore. I fail to see anything to fear here.

The issue I took relates to the general process, not whether this instance resulted in a favorable outcome.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

Killing our enemies, on foriegn soil, is nothing new. This POS no longer deserved the title, or privledges of being called an American. As far as I am concerned, when you throw in with a foriegn enemy with the expressed intent of attacking this country,you have forfeited your citizenship and all the protections that entails.

For the love of Allah, this guy isn't a bank robber or just some run-of-the-mill murderer. He's a self-proclaimed enemy of our nation who has declared war on us. We found him, in a foriegn land, hangin out with his fellow terrorist buddies and cancelled his ticket. Good riddance to bad garbage.

The terms I describe are simply the facts. This man seperated himself physically from our nation and declared, through both word and deed, his status as an enemy of our nation. It is self-indulgent moralizing to pretend that we ought to extend the protections of our constitution to him, or anyone else who has taken a similar course of action.

It's pretty clear that there are circumstances where due process becomes impractical or even dangerous. Police are authorized to kill when there's a threat to life. Is it much of a leap to include threats that are certain but not immediate?

so we give terrorist non-citizens trials but not citizens? if he died in capture that is onething, not trying to bing him in is a whole other.

so we give terrorist non-citizens trials but not citizens? if he died in capture that is onething, not trying to bing him in is a whole other.

surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Upon reevaluating the facts, the precedent has already been set regarding the capacity of a governing body to eliminate whom they deem necessary without regard to the legal process, American or not.

coolbeans90

So, in your mind, this sets the precedent that the US govt can kill whomever it wants, whenever it wants, wherever it wants. Or, to be more true to your reply, you apparently think that precedent was set before this incident, yes?

I'm sorry, but if you are going to extrapolate from this incident to a reality where the govt can eliminate anyone, anytime, anywhere that they deem necessary, then I'm not sure where to go with this. This is a pretty specific set of circumstances that, when evaluated rationally, would indicate that IF you join a foriegn enemy and engage with them to actively attack and kill Americans, you're not entitled to an expectation of a fair trial anymore. I fail to see anything to fear here.

The issue I took relates to the general process, not whether this instance resulted in a favorable outcome.

Seems to me the general process is this: If you leave this country to join our enemies and participate in attacks on this country, we're not going to send Officer Friendly out to arrest you. We're going to send the military out to kill you.