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

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]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

Yeah.... this is going nowhere, you ignore the reality that he was an active member of AQAP and not simply some propogandist.... so I'm going to employ the "whatever you say chief" strategy and move on from this.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]We don't kill wanted people just because they evade the police.KC_Hokie

Do you seriously believe this man would have allowed himself to be taken into custody? Especially when he's had years to turn himself in and exercise his rights as a citizen.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]We don't kill wanted people just because they evade the police.KC_Hokie

Do you seriously believe this man would have allowed himself to be taken into custody? Especially when he's had years to turn himself in and exercise his rights as a citizen.

worlock77

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Serraph105"]

does he condemn him for killing Osama Bin Laden also?

Serraph105

Ron Paul couldn't be more consistent when it comes to the Constitution.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Do you seriously believe this man would have allowed himself to be taken into custody? Especially when he's had years to turn himself in and exercise his rights as a citizen.

topsemag55

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] Armed aircraft flying over a country's airspace, by all acounts, with their cooperation... inasumuch as a failing state that is nearly in a state of civil war can cooperate.Frame_Dragger

Yeah.... this is going nowhere, you ignore the reality that he was an active member of AQAP and not simply some propogandist.... so I'm going to employ the "whatever you say chief" strategy and move on from this.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Not an American citizen. That's the difference. KC_Hokie

Ron Paul couldn't be more consistent when it comes to the Constitution.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Not an American citizen. That's the difference. KC_Hokie

Ron Paul couldn't be more consistent when it comes to the Constitution.

Ron Paul believes in the Constitution. Citizens have protections even when they do something wrong. A fair trial is one of those.

Ron Paul couldn't be more consistent when it comes to the Constitution.

KC_Hokie

The local people hate it. That's my point. So we do what a failing government OKs then act like everything is fine. The local populace hates us for these drone attacks. We do hit civilians from time to time. The Time Square bomber actually stated drone strikes are why he joined Al-Qaeda. So how many enemies get created by taking out a propagandist. KC_Hokie

Yeah.... this is going nowhere, you ignore the reality that he was an active member of AQAP and not simply some propogandist.... so I'm going to employ the "whatever you say chief" strategy and move on from this.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] Ron Paul believes in the Constitution. Citizens have protections even when they do something wrong. A fair trial is one of those.

Ron Paul couldn't be more consistent when it comes to the Constitution.

topsemag55

I agree with you Tops. Ron Paul is wrong. Al-durka-duka, or whatever the camel shaggers name is, forfeited his right to trial, due process, etc, when he joined our enemies.

He is, to put it concisely, collateral damage.

collegeboy64

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] of course it's different. Just like it should be for any person. I was just wondering if he was being consistent.Frame_Dragger

Ron Paul couldn't be more consistent when it comes to the Constitution.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"] Ron Paul believes in the Constitution. Citizens have protections even when they do something wrong. A fair trial is one of those.

Ron Paul couldn't be more consistent when it comes to the Constitution.

KC_Hokie

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]I understand that he is a very consistent person, but I believe the Constitution says All People have certain inalienable rights. Shouldn't that apply to more people than just citizens?KC_Hokie

That is a misquote... I didn't say that, Serraph105did... please correct.

[QUOTE="Just-Breathe"]Trial or not he still would have ended up dead at the hands of the US. Glad one less terrorist is off the face of the earth.KC_Hokie

He wasn't just a propogandist, but if you feel the need for precedent... we just made one. Isn't it fun to be a part of history as it evolves?

[QUOTE="topsemag55"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Ron Paul voted for the authorization to use force in Afghanistan in 2001. So what are you saying?KC_Hokie

What Ron Paul says dont carry much weight. However what does have an effect is the liberal base that are becoming more and more disillusioned with Obama.

[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.

Okay let's talk about the process then....if an American joins the Nazis and if bombs happen to drop and it kills him, should we not bomb the said location because the said location has an American.

Now, if we caught a bunch of Nazis...then you can argue that the Nazi who is an American his rights may extend to that of an American individual.

What Ron Paul says dont carry much weight. However what does have an effect is the liberal base that are becoming more and more disillusioned with Obama.

majwill24

[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.

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

Okay let's talk about the process then....if an American joins the Nazis and if bombs happen to drop and it kills him, should we not bomb the said location because the said location has an American.

Now, if we caught a bunch of Nazis...then you can argue that the Nazi who is an American his rights may extend to that of an American individual.

[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.

Xtasy26

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

Okay let's talk about the process then....if an American joins the Nazis and if bombs happen to drop and it kills him, should we not bomb the said location because the said location has an American.

Now, if we caught a bunch of Nazis...then you can argue that the Nazi who is an American his rights may extend to that of an American individual.

American propagandists during WWII who worked for the other side also received trials and all received prison time.

Al-Awlaki is a propagandist. No intelligence officer ever stated he was anymore than a propagandist.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Ron Paul believes in the Constitution. Citizens have protections even when they do something wrong. A fair trial is one of those.

Ron Paul couldn't be more consistent when it comes to the Constitution.

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

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

Frame_Dragger

Okay let's talk about the process then....if an American joins the Nazis and if bombs happen to drop and it kills him, should we not bomb the said location because the said location has an American.

Now, if we caught a bunch of Nazis...then you can argue that the Nazi who is an American his rights may extend to that of an American individual.

Let me put it this way if Nazi general who is an American is said at location should we not target him because he is an American. Again...if the general in question was caught then the right of an American citizen might extend to him. Problem is he joined the enemy, which makes him a valid target.

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

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

Okay let's talk about the process then....if an American joins the Nazis and if bombs happen to drop and it kills him, should we not bomb the said location because the said location has an American.

Now, if we caught a bunch of Nazis...then you can argue that the Nazi who is an American his rights may extend to that of an American individual.

American propagandists during WWII who worked for the other side also received trials and all received prison time.

Al-Awlaki is a propagandist. No intelligence officer ever stated he was anymore than a propagandist.

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

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

KC_Hokie

Okay let's talk about the process then....if an American joins the Nazis and if bombs happen to drop and it kills him, should we not bomb the said location because the said location has an American.

Now, if we caught a bunch of Nazis...then you can argue that the Nazi who is an American his rights may extend to that of an American individual.

American propagandists during WWII who worked for the other side also received trials and all received prison time.

Al-Awlaki is a propagandist. No intelligence officer ever stated he was anymore than a propagandist.

But what if those American Nazis can't be caught and they are at a location where we bomb them, should we avoid bombing the said location because there is a US citizen there?

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

Okay let's talk about the process then....if an American joins the Nazis and if bombs happen to drop and it kills him, should we not bomb the said location because the said location has an American.

Now, if we caught a bunch of Nazis...then you can argue that the Nazi who is an American his rights may extend to that of an American individual.

American propagandists during WWII who worked for the other side also received trials and all received prison time.

Al-Awlaki is a propagandist. No intelligence officer ever stated he was anymore than a propagandist.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

Okay let's talk about the process then....if an American joins the Nazis and if bombs happen to drop and it kills him, should we not bomb the said location because the said location has an American.

Now, if we caught a bunch of Nazis...then you can argue that the Nazi who is an American his rights may extend to that of an American individual.

Let me put it this way if Nazi general who is an American is said at location should we not target him because he is an American. Again...if the general in question was caught then the right of an American citizen might extend to him. Problem is he joined the enemy, which makes him a valid target.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Xtasy26"]

Okay let's talk about the process then....if an American joins the Nazis and if bombs happen to drop and it kills him, should we not bomb the said location because the said location has an American.

Now, if we caught a bunch of Nazis...then you can argue that the Nazi who is an American his rights may extend to that of an American individual.

Xtasy26

American propagandists during WWII who worked for the other side also received trials and all received prison time.

Al-Awlaki is a propagandist. No intelligence officer ever stated he was anymore than a propagandist.

But what if those American Nazis can't be caught and they are at a location where we bomb them, should we avoid bombing the said location because there is a US citizen there?

@topsemag55: CIA drone.Frame_Dragger

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]American Nazi caught in uniform or as spies were generally killed. They at least had trials.

American propagandists during WWII who worked for the other side also received trials and all received prison time.

Al-Awlaki is a propagandist. No intelligence officer ever stated he was anymore than a propagandist.

KC_Hokie

Really, all recruiters for lethal operations against domestic targets were taken alive and tried? Now there is something you might want to provide evidence for... :roll: Still, it's good to see you accept the difference between a simple propogandist and active recruiter for an organization and operations. There is a step in the direction of reality... so many hope?

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] @topsemag55: CIA drone.topsemag55

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]American Nazi caught in uniform or as spies were generally killed. They at least had trials.

American propagandists during WWII who worked for the other side also received trials and all received prison time.

Al-Awlaki is a propagandist. No intelligence officer ever stated he was anymore than a propagandist.

But what if those American Nazis can't be caught and they are at a location where we bomb them, should we avoid bombing the said location because there is a US citizen there?

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] A propogandist and a recruiter are very different; the comparison you should make is with a foreign agent, or domestic traitor who actively recruits members for an organization. Do you know what happens to someone like that in a country when they dont have diplomatic cover? Hint... it's not a trial.Frame_Dragger

Really, all recruiters for lethal operations against domestic targets were taken alive and tried? Now there is something you might want to provide evidence for... :roll: Still, it's good to see you accept the difference between a simple propogandist and active recruiter for an organization and operations. There is a step in the direction of reality... so many hope?

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]We don't execute those people. We execute spies and traitors who wear the uniform and kill Americans on the battlefield. And, again, they ALL received trials in the past. A new precedence was set by this 'kill on sight' order for an American citizen.KC_Hokie

Really, all recruiters for lethal operations against domestic targets were taken alive and tried? Now there is something you might want to provide evidence for... :roll: Still, it's good to see you accept the difference between a simple propogandist and active recruiter for an organization and operations. There is a step in the direction of reality... so many hope?

Active recruitment and passive propoganda are not the same. Recruitment can involve propoganda, and propoganda can result in recruitment, but they are not the same; please don't try to conflate them to support your particular view. I'd add, not just WWII, the cold war, Korea, Vietnam... you have evidence as to the disposition of traitors who actively recruited for an enemy organization, in an operational role? Between unsubstantiated claims and your desire to characterize this man as something less than he was, it's hard to take your underlying point seriously.

edit: One difference is that a propogandist may just release speeches, information etc. Awlaki had direct contact with such people as Maj. Nadal Hasan (10-20 messages at least) and many others. He was a propogandist in ADDITION to being involved in active recruitment for the operational end of AQAP. For that, if you like, I will cite evidence as it is PLENTIFUL.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]

Really, all recruiters for lethal operations against domestic targets were taken alive and tried? Now there is something you might want to provide evidence for... :roll: Still, it's good to see you accept the difference between a simple propogandist and active recruiter for an organization and operations. There is a step in the direction of reality... so many hope?

Frame_Dragger

There is no evidence that since leaving for the Arabian Peninsula he is anymore than a propagandist.

Oops! Sorry tops!!Frame_Dragger

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] Yes, it's abrogating his rights to achieve an end deemed more valuable than his rights, his life, and the ideals that preserving both represent. It is also, in my view, necessary and correct.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.

Al-durka-duka, or whatever the camel shaggers name is

collegeboy64

I don't see any racism here...

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

I agree with you Tops. Ron Paul is wrong. Al-durka-duka, or whatever the camel shaggers name is, forfeited his right to trial, due process, etc, when he joined our enemies.

He is, to put it concisely, collateral damage.

dramaybaz

Well, not all of them. But apparently this guy was. I personally would not grant him the status of citizen. While he may not have formally rejected his citizenship, he defacto gave it up by his actions.

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

Al-durka-duka, or whatever the camel shaggers name is

M4Ntan

I don't see any racism here...

[QUOTE="dramaybaz"]

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

I agree with you Tops. Ron Paul is wrong. Al-durka-duka, or whatever the camel shaggers name is, forfeited his right to trial, due process, etc, when he joined our enemies.

He is, to put it concisely, collateral damage.

collegeboy64

Well, not all of them. But apparently this guy was. I personally would not grant him the status of citizen. While he may not have formally rejected his citizenship, he defacto gave it up by his actions.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Propagandist by nature can be classified as 'recruiters'. And, no, the ones from WWII for example were all tried and sent to prison.KC_Hokie

There is no evidence that since leaving for the Arabian Peninsula he is anymore than a propagandist.

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

Al-durka-duka, or whatever the camel shaggers name is

M4Ntan

I don't see any racism here...

Good. Because non was intended. I don't care what color, creed or race the POS is, if he makes war on my country, I detest him. And it makes my petty little mind feel better to call him names.

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

[QUOTE="dramaybaz"] American citizens are camel shaggers?

topsemag55

Well, not all of them. But apparently this guy was. I personally would not grant him the status of citizen. While he may not have formally rejected his citizenship, he defacto gave it up by his actions.

[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] Active recruitment and passive propoganda are not the same. Recruitment can involve propoganda, and propoganda can result in recruitment, but they are not the same; please don't try to conflate them to support your particular view. I'd add, not just WWII, the cold war, Korea, Vietnam... you have evidence as to the disposition of traitors who actively recruited for an enemy organization, in an operational role? Between unsubstantiated claims and your desire to characterize this man as something less than he was, it's hard to take your underlying point seriously.Frame_Dragger

There is no evidence that since leaving for the Arabian Peninsula he is anymore than a propagandist.