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

Ron Paul is right. As is always the case...

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

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.

collegeboy64

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.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

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.

collegeboy64

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.

The process is completely undefined, typically has not been abused, yet still is a massive amount of centralized power without strictly defined parameters.

He does have a point. The guy was a U.S. citizen and was killed not captured and tried.KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]He does have a point. The guy was a U.S. citizen and was killed not captured and tried.Frame_Dragger

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

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.

Frame_Dragger

edit: and who's value system are we using to judge a citizans rights v. politicians reasoning. that is the begining of the whole slope argument but i still felt it needed to be stated.

The point I would make to 'Beans is that anything we'd put on the books woudl be WORSE than simply taking action. Like assisted suicide, it's best when it's relatively covert, but still illegal. You avoid social pressures and issues that have arisen in countries which legalized it, but it's still a ubiquitious practice that takes place when needed.Frame_Dragger

On the point of the course of action which should be taken there, I will agree to disagree.

(note: this is regarding establishing circumstances in which assassination is permissible, NOT whether or not killing this dude in particular was okie dokie)

damn.. al qaeda has been having a pretty crappy year. poor guys :(

He does have a point. The guy was a U.S. citizen and was killed not captured and tried.KC_Hokie

With him joining forces with the terrorist he has committed treason.UprootedDreamer

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]He does have a point. The guy was a U.S. citizen and was killed not captured and tried.Frame_Dragger

The only difference between this dude and his buddies that got blown to bits along side him is that Al-Awaki was lucky enough to be born in the USA. A blessing he had, without a shadow of a doubt, turned his back on.

I guess I'll put it this way. If I were to suddenly find myself in sympathy with Al Queda or some other foriegn group at war with my country, and felt so strongly that I left this country and went to go fight with them, I would not expect to retain the protections that come with being a citizen of the USA. I cannot fathom how anyone would have such an expectation. It seems wholly irrational and absurd. And to sit and wring our hands over the prospect or possibility that we might have done something wrong by killing this creep seems like self-indulgent navel gazing to me.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]He does have a point. The guy was a U.S. citizen and was killed not captured and tried.sherman-tank1

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]He does have a point. The guy was a U.S. citizen and was killed not captured and tried.KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]And how the hell do you think they would get him? They put boots on the ground they risk having a ***storm for it.

sherman-tank1

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]He does have a point. The guy was a U.S. citizen and was killed not captured and tried.collegeboy64

The only difference between this dude and his buddies that got blown to bits along side him is that Al-Awaki was lucky enough to be born in the USA. A blessing he had, without a shadow of a doubt, turned his back on.

I guess I'll put it this way. If I were to suddenly find myself in sympathy with Al Queda or some other foriegn group at war with my country, and felt so strongly that I left this country and went to go fight with them, I would not expect to retain the protections that come with being a citizen of the USA. I cannot fathom how anyone would have such an expectation. It seems wholly irrational and absurd. And to sit and wring our hands over the prospect or possibility that we might have done something wrong by killing this creep seems like self-indulgent navel gazing to me.

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Boots on the ground is how we always used to capture people. Boots on the ground is how Osama was killed. KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] A point? Yes. A viable conclusion drawn from those points? No. @collegeboy64; That's not really substantive in the face of legal realities, which don't change because you have a particular view or attitude. In this country when we choose to change how we handle situations regarding the legal treatment of our people, we don't do it ad hoc. That is the point Coolbeans is making, and you are sailing right past. The point I would make to 'Beans is that anything we'd put on the books woudl be WORSE than simply taking action. Like assisted suicide, it's best when it's relatively covert, but still illegal. You avoid social pressures and issues that have arisen in countries which legalized it, but it's still a ubiquitious practice that takes place when needed.surrealnumber5

The only difference between this dude and his buddies that got blown to bits along side him is that Al-Awaki was lucky enough to be born in the USA. A blessing he had, without a shadow of a doubt, turned his back on.

I guess I'll put it this way. If I were to suddenly find myself in sympathy with Al Queda or some other foriegn group at war with my country, and felt so strongly that I left this country and went to go fight with them, I would not expect to retain the protections that come with being a citizen of the USA. I cannot fathom how anyone would have such an expectation. It seems wholly irrational and absurd. And to sit and wring our hands over the prospect or possibility that we might have done something wrong by killing this creep seems like self-indulgent navel gazing to me.

Sorry. Guess I'm not clever enough to decipher your point. Perhaps you can make a straightforward statement of your views, for simpletons like me.

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

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]Yeah, and now Pakistan is more pissed than ever at us. If we do that, we can lose a lot of support from the Yemeni people and actually help the Al-Qaeda cause in a way.

sherman-tank1

And arguing a few special forces angers the local people anymore than drones flying over their airspace while periodically killing civilians is odd.

Ron Paul is dead on here.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

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.

Why kill him? Other Americans who became propagandists for the enemy have only received prison time. After a trial of course.

And arguing a few special forces angers the local people anymore than drones flying over their airspace while periodically killing civilians is odd.

Ron Paul is dead on here.

KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]He does have a point. The guy was a U.S. citizen and was killed not captured and tried.collegeboy64

The only difference between this dude and his buddies that got blown to bits along side him is that Al-Awaki was lucky enough to be born in the USA. A blessing he had, without a shadow of a doubt, turned his back on.

I guess I'll put it this way. If I were to suddenly find myself in sympathy with Al Queda or some other foriegn group at war with my country, and felt so strongly that I left this country and went to go fight with them, I would not expect to retain the protections that come with being a citizen of the USA. I cannot fathom how anyone would have such an expectation. It seems wholly irrational and absurd. And to sit and wring our hands over the prospect or possibility that we might have done something wrong by killing this creep seems like self-indulgent navel gazing to me.

Why kill him? Other Americans who became propagandists for the enemy have only received prison time. After a trial of course.

And arguing a few special forces angers the local people anymore than drones flying over their airspace while periodically killing civilians is odd.

Ron Paul is dead on here.

KC_Hokie

While I think it would be "ideal" for him to have gotten a trial, it's not always practical in reality. So I disagree with Ron Paul on this.chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Why kill him? Other Americans who became propagandists for the enemy have only received prison time. After a trial of course.

And arguing a few special forces angers the local people anymore than drones flying over their airspace while periodically killing civilians is odd.

Ron Paul is dead on here.

topsemag55

And this guy shouldn't have been killed on the spot anyway. We never killed Americans who became propagandists for the enemy. They all received trials and prison time. On the spot death was historically unheard of until today.

[QUOTE="sherman-tank1"]

So flying drones in their airspace and shooting missiles is fine? Are you saying the Pakistani's are fine with that? KC_Hokie

And arguing a few special forces angers the local people anymore than drones flying over their airspace while periodically killing civilians is odd.

Ron Paul is dead on here.

I have a feeling that [most of] the Yes votes are Ron Paul supporters who rubber stamp everything Ron Pauls says no matter what.

@KC_Hokie: You get death for felony murder re: Cpl. Hassan. To classify him as JUST a propogandist is to ignore his hsitory of involvement in planning. Frame_Dragger

So they like drones flying over their airspace while periodically killing civilians more than special forces? Not from what I've read. Most of these middle eastern countries don't want either.

And this guy shouldn't have been killed on the spot anyway. We never killed Americans who became propagandists for the enemy. They all received trials and prison time. On the spot death was historically unheard of until today.

KC_Hokie

I have a feeling that [most of] the Yes votes are Ron Paul supporters who rubber stamp everything Ron Pauls says no matter what.

DroidPhysX

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]So they like drones flying over their airspace while periodically killing civilians more than special forces? Not from what I've read. Most of these middle eastern countries don't want either.

And this guy shouldn't have been killed on the spot anyway. We never killed Americans who became propagandists for the enemy. They all received trials and prison time. On the spot death was historically unheard of until today.

topsemag55

He never renounced his citizenship. By law he was entitled to a trial.

I see this as no different from the local police being authorized to use lethal force. Your right to a fair trial depends on your willingness to be taken into custody.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]@KC_Hokie: You get death for felony murder re: Cpl. Hassan. To classify him as JUST a propogandist is to ignore his hsitory of involvement in planning. KC_Hokie

I see this as no different from the local police being authorized to use lethal force. Your right to a fair trial depends on your willingness to be taken into custody.

worlock77

[QUOTE="topsemag55"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]So they like drones flying over their airspace while periodically killing civilians more than special forces? Not from what I've read. Most of these middle eastern countries don't want either.

And this guy shouldn't have been killed on the spot anyway. We never killed Americans who became propagandists for the enemy. They all received trials and prison time. On the spot death was historically unheard of until today.

He never renounced his citizenship. By law he was entitled to a trial.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]@KC_Hokie: You get death for felony murder re: Cpl. Hassan. To classify him as JUST a propogandist is to ignore his hsitory of involvement in planning. Frame_Dragger

Does it matter if they were manned or not. They are armed aircraft flying over another country's airspace. I highly doubt the local population likes it when that happens and sometimes kills civilians.

He never renounced his citizenship. By law he was entitled to a trial.

KC_Hokie

I see this as no different from the local police being authorized to use lethal force. Your right to a fair trial depends on your willingness to be taken into custody.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="topsemag55"] Was it drones or manned aircraft? That aside, Awlaki may not be American, if he legally renounced his citizenship. You can do that by sending a formal letter to the State Department.Frame_Dragger

He never renounced his citizenship. By law he was entitled to a trial.

does he condemn him for killing Osama Bin Laden also?

I see this as no different from the local police being authorized to use lethal force. Your right to a fair trial depends on your willingness to be taken into custody.

This is one thing where I don't agree with Ron Paul on. Terrorists should not be suffered under any circumstances.

does he condemn him for killing Osama Bin Laden also?

Serraph105

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

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.

edit: and who's value system are we using to judge a citizans rights v. politicians reasoning. that is the begining of the whole slope argument but i still felt it needed to be stated.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]

does he condemn him for killing Osama Bin Laden also?

KC_Hokie