Page 51 of 62 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361 ... LastLast
Results 501 to 510 of 619

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

  1. #501
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,715

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrilla View Post
    you failed to answer the question....

    don't fear a gotcha bomb, I don't play that way.
    Oh, I think I pretty much did answer the question. No...not appropriate to wipe out a village to get a single person. Yes, absolutely appropriate to do whats necessary to eliminate a terrorist threat.

  2. #502
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 06:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

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

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Oh, I think I pretty much did answer the question. No...not appropriate to wipe out a village to get a single person. Yes, absolutely appropriate to do whats necessary to eliminate a terrorist threat.
    well, we're gonna get nowhere on this.... so whatever.... go play your games.

  3. #503
    I support ██ ███
    jasonxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    12-16-15 @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,405

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




  4. #504
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

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

    Quote Originally Posted by EagleAye View Post
    I did describe specific conditions under which that is IS NOT acceptable and when it IS acceptable. Like I said, al-Awlaki that effectively foiled normal judicial procedures. That alone would not justify military strikes. The added detail of al-Awlaki representing - certainly directing others to commit - mass murder attempts of American civilians, means his prosecution should be treated as an exception to normal judicial procedures.
    I do not doubt that he likely did that BUT no proof of any of it has actually been provided. I've seen where he has encouraged those who despise the U.S. but that is NOT an executable or really even a chargable offense. In another thread there was a discussion concerning the guy who shot McKinley, Leon Czolgosz. It could and was argued that he was encouraged by many of the anarchist going around giving speeches. It was considered to try and charge some of them but it was realized that speech is not something we could arrest (or kill) someone over.

    If we have evidence that a citizen is doing something unlawful, we need to be presenting this evidence in a court of law, for me preferably a military one, and then proceed.

    This guy didn't steal a candy bar and then run to Yemen to escape the law. He wasn't sitting Yemen preaching about punishing his high school arch-enemy by TP-ing his house. We should stop acting as if this situation were ordinary. It was extra-ordinary and is thus justified.

    We cannot know if al-Awlaki was planning another 9/11 and the death of another 3,000 innocents. We did know he advocated and trained others to commit mass murder of Americans. What can you say about the government who permits him the opportunity to carry out an atrocity?
    We have covered this. We have known about his actions for a very long time.

    Al-Awlaki allegedly spoke with, trained, and preached to a number of al-Qaeda members and affiliates, including three of the 9/11 hijackers,[23] alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan,[24][25] and alleged "Christmas Day bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab;[26][27][28] he was also allegedly involved in planning the latter's attack.

    We can not allow the killing of American citizens based upon allegations. If you have proof, present it, get a court ruling, and then carry on.

    We knew about Osama Bin Laden and had the opportunity to apprehend him before 9/11. Our confused sense of justice and quixotic quest for "due process" prevented us from stopping him when we had the chance. Would you be willing to stand before the family members of 3,000 innocents killed and explain to them why "due process" for "one" self-admitted mass murderer was more important than the lives of 3,000 innocents? What about 5,000? 50,000?
    OBL was not an American citizen. If someone had dropped a bomb on his head it wouldn't have registered much more than a shrug.

    This does not directly apply to you but I see I never recieved my answer to the question of whether or not others would simply have been O.K. with allowing Bush to carry out what he felt was necessary.
    Last edited by 1Perry; 10-03-11 at 09:23 AM.

  5. #505
    Sage
    EagleAye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Last Seen
    03-28-13 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,697

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    This does not directly apply to you but I see I never recieved my answer to the question of whether or not others would simply have been O.K. with allowing Bush to carry out what he felt was necessary.
    I'll cover this one first so you get an answer. I wasn't dodging the question. I considered it part-and-parcel to the larger question of "do we just trust the president?" It's also off-topic, but I'll answer anyway. Your question was: "Bush said he O.Ked torture to protect the United States. Should we have no simply accepted that?"

    This is different from the Obama question in that Bush admits he OK'd torture. In Obama's case, we don't know what methods he used. You'll hate me for this, but I do accept Bush's decision to employ water-boarding. I accept this because the prisoners are not physically injured during the process. Now, it's possible that Obama approved water-boarding and doesn't want to admit it. Would I accept the guilt of Al-Awlaki based solely on data gathered from torture? No, I wouldn't. But if that data was supported by other data gathered by intelligence services, then I would trust it. The acceptability of torture is worthy of a different thread entirely and I would hope we don't get derailed in this thread over it.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    OBL was not an American citizen. If someone had dropped a bomb on his head it wouldn't have registered much more than a shrug.
    The reason I bring up OBL is that he's an example of US failure when we tried hard to stick to judicial principles. It certainly is honorable to remain rock-steady in the pursuit of fairness for everyone. But practicality must sometimes supersede "absolute fairness" when a situation is extraordinary. I think it's fair to bring up OBL because it doesn't matter to the 3,000 dead or their families whether their executioner was American or Saudi. When someone proves they can carry out mass killings and state that they intend to continue doing so, they must be pursued, extra-judicially if necessary, irregardless of nationality.

    If an American born and bred mass-killer on US soil is tracked back to his home-made fortress that foils any attempt at non-lethal methods to apprehend him, and the thereby necessary assault fails to capture him, but kills him instead, isn't that acceptable? Would anyone shed tears for him because he didn't face a trial in the normal judicial manner? Is this scenario effectively any different from al-Awlaki's?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    I do not doubt that he likely did that BUT no proof of any of it has actually been provided. I've seen where he has encouraged those who despise the U.S. but that is NOT an executable or really even a chargable offense. In another thread there was a discussion concerning the guy who shot McKinley, Leon Czolgosz. It could and was argued that he was encouraged by many of the anarchist going around giving speeches. It was considered to try and charge some of them but it was realized that speech is not something we could arrest (or kill) someone over.

    If we have evidence that a citizen is doing something unlawful, we need to be presenting this evidence in a court of law, for me preferably a military one, and then proceed.

    We have covered this. We have known about his actions for a very long time.

    Al-Awlaki allegedly spoke with, trained, and preached to a number of al-Qaeda members and affiliates, including three of the 9/11 hijackers,[23] alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan,[24][25] and alleged "Christmas Day bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab;[26][27][28] he was also allegedly involved in planning the latter's attack.

    We can not allow the killing of American citizens based upon allegations. If you have proof, present it, get a court ruling, and then carry on.
    To carry out a court case like this openly would take months at least and could possibly take years. Wouldn't it be irresponsible of our government to conduct a strictly aboveboard court case in abstentia that permits al-Awlaki the time and freedom carry out mass killings? The evidence may have been gathered but presenting it during the very slow and arduous judicial process could take far too long to help save thousands of American lives. Since most of the evidence had already been gathered, doesn't it make more sense to have a judge make one quick decision, based on the gathered evidence, from behind closed doors? When time is of the essence, and possibly thousands of American lives are in danger, an abbreviated judicial process like this must be considered the best available under the circumstances.

    Lastly, presenting evidence in an open court may compromise our intelligence systems. Any evidence presented must also show "how it was obtained" to ascertain it's validity. This must be answered. If the answer is "we gathered this from Ali Bab's restaurant by a mike planted under table #3 in the corner," well now that intelligence gathering system is now compromised and can no longer be used. US Agents placed these systems at great expense and great danger to themselves. Blithely disregarding that effort by just offering it up in court is callous and thoughtless and irreverent.

    You are quite right to insist that the killing of an American citizen cannot be conducted lightly. It is correct to question it. But this particular case is extraordinary. The details alone prevent the standard judicial practices we are accustomed to. The case of al-Awlaki vs. the USA must be considered an exception, not a standard, yet acceptable nonetheless due to it's extraordinary circumstances.
    Last edited by EagleAye; 10-03-11 at 01:11 PM.

  6. #506
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Councilman View Post
    I am no fan of Obama under any circumstances, or by any stretch, because I think he's been useless and the king of all liars, but I will admit that since he has decided that killing the terrorists as I have been saying all along I support killing OBL and now Anwar al-Awlaki and those with him.

    In these cases Obama is doing the right thing.
    I also have to say that I now have eliminated the first GOP candidate from any consideration and that is Ron Paul.
    I think he could not be more wrong. You don't give a poisonous snake a break you kill it.

    Al-Qaida understands death and nothing else because they are all crazy as hell.
    Yeah, it's terrible to try to uphold due process of law, right? Who needs it anyway? Just gets in the way.

    Love you "conservatives".
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  7. #507
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,213

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

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    What's your opinion of Obamacare? Just wondering.
    My view is the individual mandate is debatable. It's also going through the correct channels to check it's constitutionality...the Supreme Court. It's not comparable to an executive decision to bypass the Constitution.

  8. #508
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

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

    Quote Originally Posted by EagleAye View Post
    I'll cover this one first so you get an answer. I wasn't dodging the question. I considered it part-and-parcel to the larger question of "do we just trust the president?" It's also off-topic, but I'll answer anyway. Your question was: "Bush said he O.Ked torture to protect the United States. Should we have no simply accepted that?"

    This is different from the Obama question in that Bush admits he OK'd torture. In Obama's case, we don't know what methods he used. You'll hate me for this, but I do accept Bush's decision to employ water-boarding. I accept this because the prisoners are not physically injured during the process. Now, it's possible that Obama approved water-boarding and doesn't want to admit it. Would I accept the guilt of Al-Awlaki based solely on data gathered from torture? No, I wouldn't. But if that data was supported by other data gathered by intelligence services, then I would trust it. The acceptability of torture is worthy of a different thread entirely and I would hope we don't get derailed in this thread over it.
    I wasn't really calling you out on this BUT whether I agree with you or not, I do respect a consistant position. If your position is that you are going to trust the CiC to carry out what is needed, regardless of who that may be, I may disagree but I respect the position.

    The reason I bring up OBL is that he's an example of US failure when we tried to hard to stick to judicial principles. It certainly is honorable to remain rock-steady in the pursuit of fairness for everyone. But practicality must sometimes supersede "absolute fairness" when a situation is extraordinary. I think it's fair to bring up OBL because it doesn't matter to the 3,000 dead or their families whether their executioner was American or Saudi. When someone proves they can carry out mass killings and state that they intend to continue doing so, they must be pursued, extra-judicially if necessary.

    If an American born and bred mass-killer on US soil is tracked back to his home-made fortress that foils any attempt at non-lethal methods to apprehend him, and the thereby necessary assault fails to capture him, but kills him instead, isn't that acceptable? Would anyone shed tears for him because he didn't face a trial in the normal judicial manner? Is this scenario effectively any different from al-Awlaki's?
    If we recieved info that an American citizen was planning a full scale attack on the U.S. and this was imminent unless we dropped a bomb on his head right now, I would think differently. I would still hope that we would get to see the evidence that they had.

    To carry out a court case like this openly would take months at least and could possibly take years. Wouldn't it be irresponsible of our government to conduct a strictly aboveboard court case in abstentia that permits al-Awlaki the time and freedom carry out mass killings? The evidence may have been gathered but presenting it during the very slow and arduous judicial process could take far too long to help save thousands of American lives. Since most of the evidence had already been gathered, doesn't it make more sense to have a judge make one quick decision, based on the gathered evidence, from behind closed doors? When time is of the essence, and possibly thousands of American lives are in danger, an abbreviated judicial process like this must be considered the best available under the circumstances.
    I do not believe it would or that there is any way it should. It didn't take but 6 weeks to try and execute Czolgosz for the assassination of McKinley.

    Lastly, presenting evidence in an open court may compromise our intelligence systems. Any evidence presented must also show "how it was obtained" to ascertain it's validity. This must be answered. If the answer is "we gathered this from Ali Bab's restaurant by a mike planted under table #3 in the corner," well now that intelligence gathering system is now compromised and can no longer be used. US Agents placed these systems at great expense and great danger to themselves. Blithely disregarding that effort by just offering it up in court is callous and thoughtless and irreverent.
    All of that is true which is why I said that I would be fine to have this done in a military trial. We would have all the evidence on record and in some point in the future we would be able to decide whether what was done was correct or not.

    You are quite right to insist that the killing of an American citizen cannot be conducted lightly. It is correct to question it. But this particular case is extraordinary. The details alone prevent the standard judicial practices we are accustomed to. The case of al-Awlaki vs. the USA must be considered an exception, not a standard, yet acceptable nonetheless due to it's extraordinary circumstances.
    I do not believe we can simply accept "well this was a special circumstance". So was torture (which you do say you were fine with), but many others would argue differently.

  9. #509
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    03-16-12 @ 11:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    7,624

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Yeah, it's terrible to try to uphold due process of law, right? Who needs it anyway? Just gets in the way.

    Love you "conservatives".
    I consider myself conservative.

  10. #510
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 1Perry View Post
    I consider myself conservative.
    Well many people who label themselves as these small government conservatives are not. Even here they look to expand government power so that when convenient we can deny one's right to trial. I think that if people were true to their words about wanting smaller government, on more confined to the chains and bindings of the Constitution, that they'd have to echo what Ron Paul has said.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

Page 51 of 62 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •