• 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'

apdst said:
Yeah, because we know that simply disagreeing with Obama means that we want to lynch him. Right?
Click to expand...

This isn't IMO Obama's screw up. He can rightfully argue that Congress gave him the legal right to do this. This was a **** up on the part of Congress.
 
MKULTRABOY said:
We should just assassinate people that threaten the president and get investigated by the SS. Thatd involve busting into dozens of thousands of republicans homes and perforating their bodies with bullets. That'd teach em.
Click to expand...
Quandary. Had we done that during the Bush presidency would there be enough liberals remaining to populate this debate board? And would that necessarily be a bad thing?
 
lpast said:
Did they target a citizen of the USA or did they target the area...
Click to expand...

According to all reports the individual was targeted. It's been a long held order.
 
1Perry said:
I DO NOT want lawyers deciding these things.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, that is what happens.

I said, "We do not bring the enemy leadership into court to determine guilt or innocence. We kill them. Or if possible, we capture them."

1Perry said:
Sorry, you are leaving out some very important issue's.
Click to expand...
What are they?
 
Misterveritis said:
Sure it is. He was part of their command and control infrastructure. We can target more than his radios. Killing enemy leadership is always a part of war. His citizenship is irrelevant.

I think we are way apart on this. Crime - War.
Click to expand...

He was an American citizen accused of doing this. This is where the big picture comes in. We can not allow the government kill American citizens based upon accusations.
 
1Perry said:
No, he is most certainly IMO an enemy combatant. The courts ruled that being an enemy combatant does not negate your rights.
Click to expand...
If captured. He does not have the right to remain alive while fighting on the enemy's side. No one does.
 
Misterveritis said:
If captured. He does not have the right to remain alive while fighting on the enemy's side. No one does.
Click to expand...

No he doesn't. He has the right to due process.
 
1Perry said:
According to all reports the individual was targeted. It's been a long held order.
Click to expand...
So he had his due process. The Executive Branch said kill him when possible (on a Friday is best). The lawyers reviewed it and said, "Yes we can."

War. Unlawful enemy combatant. Presidential Finding. Death. Sounds like everything was done quite nicely.
 
1Perry said:
He's an American citizen with Constitutional rights.
Click to expand...
Not while he is fighting for the enemy. Had he been captured then he might have had the right to be tried by military tribunal. None of that was necessary since we were not likely to capture him.
 
1Perry said:
He was an American citizen accused of doing this. This is where the big picture comes in. We can not allow the government kill American citizens based upon accusations.
Click to expand...
We are too far apart to ever come together on this.
We cannot prosecute a war if being an American citizen can shelter one from attack while being an unlawful enemy combatant.
On this point I shall no longer respond. It would merely boor the others.
 
1Perry said:
It isn't. It's about the big picture whether or not the United States can kill citizens without due process.
Click to expand...

He put on the uniform of the enemy and fought in their army. Just because it's not a conventional army of a nation-state doesn't bother me in the least. He chose to fight for the enemy. At that point, he's an enemy combatant on a foreign battlefield. Too bad, so sad for him.

Had he been in the United States, I can see your point. He wasn't. He was with the enemy on THEIR side of the battlefield.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
It's so not about whether or not al-Awlaki had it coming.
It think it's pretty much a given that he did have it coming. That's not the issue.
What's at issue is whether or not it's right for a govt to be allowed to execute citizens w/o due process.
Click to expand...

We're allowed to kill enemy combatants without due process. He signed up to be an enemy combatant. There's an occupational hazard that goes along with being an AQ operative.

Should the drone have checked his passport and citizenship papers before detonating?
 
So...

Throw out the 5th amendment: Check
Throw out the USC § 1481: Check
Throw out Habeas Corpus: Check
Coming closer each day to a Authoritarian Government: Check

Looks like the terrorist are winning each day to me.

I thought we weren't suppose to become the people we're fighting. I thought we were better then this, sadly..we move to the point where will give up our everyday liberties just to be safe.

I'm just somewhat sad at this entire thread.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Click to expand...





Hopefully future historians won't be too harsh on us and may god have mercy to those who do not know what they do.

I won't return to this thread so just ignore this post like everyone ignored our civil liberties.
 
Last edited:
jasonxe said:
So...

Throw out the 5th amendment: Check
Throw out the USC § 1481: Check
Throw out Habeas Corpus: Check
Coming closer each day to a Authoritarian Government: Check

Looks like the terrorist are winning each day to me.

I thought we weren't suppose to become the people we're fighting. I thought we were better then this, sadly..we move to the point where will give up our everyday liberties just to be safe.

I'm just somewhat sad at this entire thread.

I won't return to this thread so just ignore this post like everyone ignored our civil liberties.
Click to expand...
Done. Ignored as requested.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Oh really !! Well, the Court case was cited in the hearings in the House. Further, it was also referenced by Charlie Dunlap, a Duke University Law School visiting professor, who said: "In this instance, that consequence is being targeted like any other enemy."

Read more: Some question president's power to kill a US citizen overseas - KansasCity.com !!

Secondly, Al-Dirtbag was adjudged to be actively plotting to kill Americans !! Plotting right now, as in yesterday, today, and tomorrow, if he was still breathing tomorrow!! That makes him a valid military target, yesterday, today, and tomorrow, were he still upright !! Woooo Hoooo !!

You have cited nothing. You have linked nothing. Are you a Duke Law Professer ? A Federal Circuit Judge ? Eh ?
Click to expand...

it matter not who or where the case was cited.... that case and this issue are not linked.

we are not talking about valid military targets... if we were, i'd ask you to cite ROE for tacops in Yemen to back your claim.....we are talking about a Presidential hit list.


I have given you enough information to check my facts.... that's all the citing you get from me.... I will not do your research for you, not now, not ever.
and no, i'm not a duke law professor nor a federal circuit judge... i'm a retired Marine and business owner.
if a retired Marine can discern that the case and this issue are unrelated, I think the duke law professor might want to entertain a change of careers...

the federal district court judge you are speaking of, i assume , is John D Bates... and he dismissed this case because of lack of standing.
not sure why you would bring him up...
 
Sensibility said:
We're allowed to kill enemy combatants without due process. He signed up to be an enemy combatant. There's an occupational hazard that goes along with being an AQ operative.

Should the drone have checked his passport and citizenship papers before detonating?
Click to expand...

it wouldn't have mattered if they checked his passport... he was on the presidential assassination list.

i'll repeat that again.. an American citizen was on the American president's assassination list.

nobody knows what criteria gets you on the list.. nobody knows what evidence is utilized to support being added to the list...the list is not judicially reviewed...
we just know that the President is allowed to have an assassination list that includes American citizens.
 
1Perry said:
This has been covered over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. He does not have to be present to be tried.
Click to expand...
He is a terrorist. He can now be one of Jeff Dunhams pals.
 
1Perry said:
He's an American citizen with Constitutional rights.
Click to expand...
Apparently, thats what we call an 'opinion' and isnt shared by those tasked with the responsibility for actually doing something about the problem.
 
If Yemen can charge Al-Awlaki in absentia, then why can't the US? Not a single charge was brought against Al-Awlaki. Not even an attempt to charge the man was made.

Some of us appreciate justice when it is carried out in a normal manner. If you're guilty of doing something, then you have the law and the courts. Everyone knows that a half decent prosecutor could bring an indictment against a cold cup of coffee. Why no indict Al-Awlaki?

It is not Al-Awlaki's death that is troublesome, but how it was carried out. This is not a "special" case. America has a history of capturing, imprisoning, and even torturing people without ever charging them.

Are we a nation of principles and rule of law or are we a nation that values lynch mobs?
 
Misterveritis said:
Not while he is fighting for the enemy. Had he been captured then he might have had the right to be tried by military tribunal. None of that was necessary since we were not likely to capture him.
Click to expand...

Incorrect opinion noted.
 
Misterveritis said:
We are too far apart to ever come together on this.
We cannot prosecute a war if being an American citizen can shelter one from attack while being an unlawful enemy combatant.
On this point I shall no longer respond. It would merely boor the others.
Click to expand...

Don't reply. You would simply continue ignoring the fact that he could have been tried.
 
Sensibility said:
He put on the uniform of the enemy and fought in their army. Just because it's not a conventional army of a nation-state doesn't bother me in the least. He chose to fight for the enemy. At that point, he's an enemy combatant on a foreign battlefield. Too bad, so sad for him.

Had he been in the United States, I can see your point. He wasn't. He was with the enemy on THEIR side of the battlefield.
Click to expand...

Again, the SCOTUS has ruled that being an enemy combatant does not remove your rights. Ones rights are not dependant on where they are at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom