• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ron Paul: US-born al-Qaida cleric 'assassinated'

Thrilla said:
.. and here you guys are.. dealing with terrorism the same way we all are... by posting on the internet.:lamo
Click to expand...
Do you believe this is all there is?

In real life I am a manager, one level below a director, with 70 engineers. I work on a program that is directly related to our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan...when I am not posting on the Internet.
 
Thrilla said:
a valid opinion... not backed by law or fact, but valid nonetheless.
Click to expand...
Which fact do you disagree with?
Do you thing he was NOT an unlawful enemy combatant?
Do you believe he was NOT on the enemy's side (what was he doing in Yemen then)?
Do you believe he was NOT in an enemy convoy?
Do you believe we are NOT in a war with Islamofascists?
 
Misterveritis said:
Which fact do you disagree with?
Do you thing he was NOT an unlawful enemy combatant?
Do you believe he was NOT on the enemy's side (what was he doing in Yemen then)?
Do you believe he was NOT in an enemy convoy?
Do you believe we are NOT in a war with Islamofascists?
Click to expand...

the answers are...
yes, he's an unlawful combatant, as so declared by the administration.

no, Yemen has nothing to do with "their side".. according to both administrations, "their side"= anywhere in the world, there are no geographical boundaries.
Yemen, however, is not a designated battlefield, which is why the CIA was tasked to take him out

yes, he was in a convoy of cars going to breakfast... unfortunately, the convoy wasn't targeted, he was.

and no, we are not at war with "islamofascists"...
the AUMF only give authority to conduct operations pertaining to those parties who had a hand in the terrorist acts of 9/11.. it gives no broad authorization to engage "Islamofascists","Islamocommunists" ," Islamocapitalists" or Islamo-democratic-socialists-who-lean-a little-more-to the-left-than-normal-democratic-socialists"

but mostly, I take exception to your opinion of " I believe it's irrelevant"
 
Thrilla said:
the answers are...
yes, he's an unlawful combatant, as so declared by the administration.

no, Yemen has nothing to do with "their side".. according to both administrations, "their side"= anywhere in the world, there are no geographical boundaries.
Yemen, however, is not a designated battlefield, which is why the CIA was tasked to take him out

yes, he was in a convoy of cars going to breakfast... unfortunately, the convoy wasn't targeted, he was.

and no, we are not at war with "islamofascists"...
the AUMF only give authority to conduct operations pertaining to those parties who had a hand in the terrorist acts of 9/11.. it gives no broad authorization to engage "Islamofascists","Islamocommunists" ," Islamocapitalists" or Islamo-democratic-socialists-who-lean-a little-more-to the-left-than-normal-democratic-socialists"

but mostly, I take exception to your opinion of " I believe it's irrelevant"
Click to expand...
Okay. I see we disagree on important elements.
 
EagleAye said:
Wasn't he serving in an "advisory role" as well? This is far different. There may be additional evidence that, for purposes of secrecy, cannot be revealed at this time. We don't know all that was revealed to the White House Lawyers. Perhaps we shouldn't call them "guilty until proven innocent?"
Click to expand...

I understand that everything can not be released right now. It's why I said the evidence can be secret until some future date as long as it's ran through a court, not just lawyers.

Normal legal proceedings would involve having the accused in custody, a police investigation is conducted, and the case is brought to trial where prosecution and defense attorneys may take all the time to prove their points. Only if the accused is found guilty would he be sentenced. Only if capital punishment is permitted can such a sentence be carried out and only after a round or more of appeals.

In an extra-normal situation, a normal police investigation cannot be carried out - intelligence services (spys) must be employed - and a sentence of "guilty as charged" equates to capital punishment. It's not optimal, but if the accused poses a large enough threat, an abbreviated or extra-normal judicial system must be employed.
Click to expand...

I would likely be acceptable to that as long as it was done through the courts and evidence was actually presented to make the case.
 
VanceMack said:
Terrorists operating in foreign land. I just think it is mind bending that people make the distinction that...welll...sure...kill the terrorist to the left of him, and kill the terrorist to the right of him...but...not...him...
Click to expand...

You seem to refuse to acknowledge the actual arguements of the situation and instead create something that in your own mind that makes sense to you. Nobody argued that he shouldn't be killed.
 
donsutherland1 said:
It doesn't. It would only raise questions if the individual were not a combatant and legitimate military objective. The interpretation being advanced by Rep. Paul, among a few others, that the U.S. cannot target military objectives who happen to be U.S. citizens is so absurd that if it were applied during the American Civil War, Union forces would have been so badly hindered that the war might have gone the other way. In the case of Mr. Awlaki, he was not a civilian under the definition of the Laws of War and did not enjoy immunity from his role as a combatant.
Click to expand...

That is NOT his position. I also doubt you'll be able to post these "laws of war". Nobody would grant him immunity either. It's amazing that after all of these pages so many still refuse to actually address what is being argued.
 
Thrilla said:
the answers are...
yes, he's an unlawful combatant, as so declared by the administration.
Click to expand...
Who would you prefer make judgments?

Thrilla said:
no, Yemen has nothing to do with "their side".. according to both administrations,
Click to expand...
Okay. So you do not believe he was on the enemy's side? If he was not then why had he been propagandizing for them, spending his life in pursuit of their ends and furthering their cause against us?

Thrilla said:
"their side"= anywhere in the world, there are no geographical boundaries.
Yemen, however, is not a designated battlefield, which is why the CIA was tasked to take him out
Click to expand...
In world war II we followed a doctrine of fighting wherever the enemy was. Do you think that is inappropriate today? Do you believe Yemen should be a sanctuary nation much like Afghanistan was prior to September 2001?

Thrilla said:
yes, he was in a convoy of cars going to breakfast... unfortunately, the convoy wasn't targeted, he was.
Click to expand...
You agree he had gone to breakfast with his friends, co-terrorists and subordinates?

Thrilla said:
and no, we are not at war with "islamofascists"...
the AUMF only give authority to conduct operations pertaining to those parties who had a hand in the terrorist acts of 9/11.. it gives no broad authorization to engage "Islamofascists","Islamocommunists" ," Islamocapitalists" or Islamo-democratic-socialists-who-lean-a little-more-to the-left-than-normal-democratic-socialists"
Click to expand...
And that is why you will continue to fail. If you do not view a war as a war you will apply the incorrect standards to it.

Thrilla said:
but mostly, I take exception to your opinion of " I believe it's irrelevant"
Click to expand...
This is a matter of taste. If you do not use the correct standard, that of war, to this situation then you will always get the wrong answer. You will not be alone. There are many here wh, for whatever reason, believe that terrorism is just another criminal act.
 
Last edited:
1Perry said:
That is NOT his position. I also doubt you'll be able to post these "laws of war". Nobody would grant him immunity either. It's amazing that after all of these pages so many still refuse to actually address what is being argued.
Click to expand...
Let us try.

Do you believe we are fighting a war?
Do you believe we have an enemy in this war?
Do you believe al-whateverhisnameis was a combatant?
Do you believe al-whateverhisnameis was on our side?
Do you believe al-whateverhisnameis was on their side?
Do you believe al-whateverhisnameis was part of their leadership?
Do you believe that in war it is acceptable to target the enemy's leadership?

Or...
Do you believe that only one side is fighting a war?
Do you believe that terrorists are merely unindicted criminals?
 
Misterveritis said:
Let us try.

Do you believe we are fighting a war?
Click to expand...

Yes, but I have no clue what our goal is.

Do you believe we have an enemy in this war?
Click to expand...

There are people who would do harm to us if they could.

Do you believe al-whateverhisnameis was a combatant?
Click to expand...

I believe that he likely was.

Do you believe al-whateverhisnameis was on our side?
Click to expand...

That depends on what he actually did and how you are defining "our" side. Our side also consists of the idea that people can say distasteful things.

Do you believe al-whateverhisnameis was on their side?
Click to expand...

He was likely a what might be described as a radical muslim.

Do you believe al-whateverhisnameis was part of their leadership?
Click to expand...

I don't know.

Do you believe that in war it is acceptable to target the enemy's leadership?
Click to expand...

Sure. There are more than one way to do that. Once again, and I imagine I will have to do it again and again. The problem was NOT that he was targeted. Can we not get passed this? I am NOT argueing against targeting him.

Or...
Do you believe that only one side is fighting a war?
Do you believe that terrorists are merely unindicted criminals?
Click to expand...

You know exactly what my position is. Is it the same as killing OBL? No, but you know that. You refuse to acknowledge he was an American citizen
with Constitutional protections.
 
1Perry said:
That is NOT his position. [/quote

At last check it is his position. The article posted at the beginning of this thread stated:

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is condemning the Obama administration for killing an American born al-Qaida operative without a trial.
Click to expand...

To keep this as simple as possible:

1. A key test is whether Mr. Awlaki was a criminal or a combatant.
- If he was the former, then trial by jury is among the basic rights he enjoys.
- If he was the latter, then one has to refer to the section of the Constitution concerning the President's war powers.

2. To answer the first question, one has to determine whether he was, in fact, a civilian.
-The U.S. has engaged in numerous wars and it adheres to the principles set forth in the body of instruments that accumulated over time known as the "Laws of War."
- The U.S. also has precedent where it targeted homegrown combatants on its own soil (U.S. Civil War)
- Under the Laws of War, Mr. Awlaki was not a civilian. He was serving a "command-and-control function" in organizing attacks against the U.S. and was a legitimate military objective.

3. As Mr. Awlaki was a legitimate military objective, the question then becomes whether the Constitution compels the President to grant some kind of immunity that spares any class of combatants from the full consequences of their role as combatants.
- The President's authority as Commander in Chief is broad. No such limitations are set forth. No such limitations are imposed on Congress' war-related authority either.

In short, the military operation was lawful, both from the perspective of the U.S. Constitution and under international law. Therefore, it is very unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court would agree to hear a case that is so clear-cut on Constitutional issues and it is even more unlikely that Congress would muster impeachment proceedings against the President.
Click to expand...
 
Ikari said:
I most certainly think that it's something to be concerned and wary of. There used to be methods by which this was done, writ of reprisal (a power properly belonging to Congress); but we don't and now one man can apparently order the execution of American citizens and no one will bat an eye. Who else is so evil we don't care what the government does? Child molesters? Murderers? Rapists?

There is always concern when government becomes unconstrained.
Click to expand...

Two out of three you are correct on. I bolded the crimes that you listed that the gov't has complete unconstrained authority to enact whatever laws they want to. And what's worse, the citizenry doesn't oppose it. Nothing like being uprooted out of your home you've lived in for 25 years after a new residency law doesn't allow you to live within 2500 feet of a school, when your "child molestation" crime is you having sex with your girlfriend when she was 16 and you were 18 and it was 20 years ago.

But of course, that is a derailment of the thread. But I thought it was interesting that you actually listed 2 out of 3 crimes that indeed do have unregulated laws posed against them, most of them ex-post facto, or "after the fact". Which makes it unconstitutional.
 
Just recently

 
Misterveritis said:
There is war where matters of guilt and innocence are not considered.
There is criminality where those are of exceptional importance. When you confuse one with the other you get the wrong result. So it is here.
Click to expand...

I recognize no war without a Declaration of War. Otherwise it's police action, which is highly suspect to start with.
 
VanceMack said:
Well...we COULD (and your scenario we would have to) just pull back, lock down the borders, and leave it to the other countries to deal with it. Im fine with that...so long as they dont target US interests. There is a reason why we do it...
Click to expand...

Again, I'd go further in saying I'm fine with that so long as they don't target the US proper.
 
donsutherland1 said:
1Perry said:
That is NOT his position.
Click to expand...

At last check it is his position. The article posted at the beginning of this thread stated:
Click to expand...

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is condemning the Obama administration for killing an American born al-Qaida operative without a trial.

But that is NOT what you said.

Rep. Paul, among a few others, that the U.S. cannot target military objectives who happen to be U.S. citizens is so absurd
Click to expand...

Do you understand the differences here?

To keep this as simple as possible:
Click to expand...

There is no going forward until you understand the arguement and quit making them up to argue against.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
1Perry said:
You know exactly what my position is. Is it the same as killing OBL? No, but you know that. You refuse to acknowledge he was an American citizen
with Constitutional protections.
Click to expand...
His citizenship cannot and did not shield him from being a legitimate target in this war. War is the standard. Not criminality. That is my point.
Imagine that. I actually agree with something the one term Marxist president Obama did.
 
Ikari said:
I recognize no war without a Declaration of War. Otherwise it's police action, which is highly suspect to start with.
Click to expand...
Fortunately it does not require your agreement. Congress has declared war in a wide variety of ways since WWII. No specific method is required.
 
Misterveritis said:
His citizenship cannot and did not shield him from being a legitimate target in this war. War is the standard. Not criminality. That is my point.
Imagine that. I actually agree with something the one term Marxist president Obama did.
Click to expand...

Criminality is not what our rights are based on. They just are. The situation does not decide rights. You have them, period until they are taken away by due process.
 
1Perry said:
donsutherland1 said:
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is condemning the Obama administration for killing an American born al-Qaida operative without a trial.
Click to expand...

But that is NOT what you said.
Click to expand...

It is what I said. Put very simply, military objectives can be targeted. They do not require a trial. Rep. Paul suggests that Mr. Awlaki could not legally have been targeted, that he required a trial. That is, as I said, an absurd view.

There is no going forward until you understand the arguement and quit making them up to argue against.
Click to expand...

I'm making nothing up. Rep. Paul offered an interpretation of the constitution that is wrong. Mr. Awlaki was a military objective and could legitimately have been targeted. No trial was necessary due to his combatant status. That Mr. Awlaki happened to be a U.S. citizen does not change that.
 
Last edited:
Misterveritis said:
His citizenship cannot and did not shield him from being a legitimate target in this war. War is the standard. Not criminality. That is my point.
Click to expand...

That is correct. As Mr. Awlaki was properly a combatant, the protections afforded criminal suspects are irrelevant.
 
donsutherland1 said:
It is what I said. Put very simply, military objectives can be targeted. They do not require a trial. Rep. Paul suggests that Mr. Awlaki could not legally have been targeted, that he required a trial. That is, as I said, an absurd view.
Click to expand...

Look, all you had to say was that you weren't complete in your thoughts.....I do it often times. The above is correct. Paul does not believe he should have been targeted without due process. That is very different than saying he didn't think he should have been targeted.

I'm making nothing up. Rep. Paul offered an interpretation of the constitution that is wrong. Mr. Awlaki was a military objective and could legitimately have been targeted. No trial was necessary due to his combatant status. That Mr. Awlaki happened to be a U.S. citizen does not change that.
Click to expand...

I've posted the links. The USSC has ruled that being labeled an enemy combatant does not strip you of your rights.
 
Misterveritis said:
Fortunately it does not require your agreement. Congress has declared war in a wide variety of ways since WWII. No specific method is required.
Click to expand...

No, Congress has not declared War in a wide variety of ways since WWII, since WW II was the last time that Congress declared war. It's very stupid in fact to say that they have declared war in a wide variety of ways when they have not actually declared war. No, what they have done in a wide variety of ways is to authorize POLICE action. Very different. To declare war...you have to declare war. I thought that would be self explanatory, but I guess it's not. The military has been called into use without declaring war since WW II.

Those of us who believe in small government think that the government should follow the Constitution and not usurp new powers for itself. And thus if the US wants to be at war, small government backers would say that it requires the Congress to declare war since only Congress has that ability. But you large government folk probably don't mind so much.
 
donsutherland1 said:
That is correct. As Mr. Awlaki was properly a combatant, the protections afforded criminal suspects are irrelevant.
Click to expand...

So now when we engage in police action we can call people "combatant", and it's cool for our government to kill them even if they are a US citizen? No trial, no nothing? I think it's a bit suspect. And besides, we have Writ of Reprisal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom