• 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'

VanceMack said:
Apparently, thats what we call an 'opinion' and isnt shared by those tasked with the responsibility for actually doing something about the problem.
Click to expand...

No, those are facts.
 
Al-dirtbag dead. Ron Paul reconfirmed as a moonbat. That's a two-fer with one shot.
 
1Perry said:
Thanks for addressing my point. :roll:
Click to expand...
The point cant be any clearer. Dood represented a clear and present danger. He is/was a threat to the US. Candidate Obama preached about how he would offer constitutional rights to terrorists. President Obama realizes national security is more than feel good pretty speeches. Thats why he reneged on his campaign promise. Thats why he aggresively pursues terrorists. The guy taking his dirt nap and chilling with his 72 virgins? He earned it and is right where he belongs. Your opinion is contrary to the opinion of those responsible for making the decisions and those that validate those decisions. THAT is the fact.
 
VanceMack said:
Apparently, thats what we call an 'opinion' and isnt shared by those tasked with the responsibility for actually doing something about the problem.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. At the time of his death, al-Awlaki was an American citizen. (Was Anwar al-Awlaki still a U.S. citizen? | FP Passport) And therefore subject to US law.


In order to lose his citizenship, it must be shown that the U.S. citizen joined the foreign military or swore allegiance to another state "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality" -- a very tough standard. There's no evidence that Awlaki ever formally renounced his U.S. citizenship.​
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Incorrect. At the time of his death, al-Awlaki was an American citizen. (Was Anwar al-Awlaki still a U.S. citizen? | FP Passport) And therefore subject to US law.


In order to lose his citizenship, it must be shown that the U.S. citizen joined the foreign military or swore allegiance to another state "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality" -- a very tough standard. There's no evidence that Awlaki ever formally renounced his U.S. citizenship.​
Click to expand...
He may have technically retained his legal citizenship...do you honestly believe he CARED about his constitutional rights? His citizenship? Or for that matter, yours? Or the rights of the men, women and children he comspired to slaughter. Oh...I bet he is just all broke up about the rights of beheaded teenage school children. When you have a threat...you eliminate the threat.

You keep leaving the heavy lifting to the big kids. Maybe you can stick a few daisy's in someones rifle barrel. Meanwhile...the adults will continue to identify threats to the country and eliminate them. When he decided to become a terrorist and engage in threatening behavior towards the country, he made himself a target. Responsible people understand that. Candidate Obama got away with the warm fuzzy flower planter bull****...President Obama understands what is required.

But...hey...I full on respect your commitment to your position. When are the hang Obama in effigy, Obama=Hitler rallies scheduled?
 
1Perry said:
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.
Click to expand...

So, you're saying we do NOT have the right to engage and kill enemy combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan? Rights are rights, according to you...
 
Sensibility said:
So, you're saying we do NOT have the right to engage and kill enemy combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan? Rights are rights, according to you...
Click to expand...

Not directed at me, but we do not have the right to kill someone without bringing charges against them.

In my America, I believe in the presumption of innocence. Unfortunately, many people are eager to flip this basic principle of liberty on its head.
 
Sensibility said:
So, you're saying we do NOT have the right to engage and kill enemy combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan? Rights are rights, according to you...
Click to expand...
Just the ones that are not born in America. Apparently...the military should send someone to engage the American born terrorists with arrest warrants and ask them to come home to face penalties. I nominate the hippie peacenik types that think terrorists deserve constitutional rights.
 
VanceMack said:
Just the ones that are not born in America. Apparently...the military should send someone to engage the American born terrorists with arrest warrants and ask them to come home to face penalties. I nominate the hippie peacenik types that think terrorists deserve constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

Stop being dumb. Yemen charged Al-Awlaki in absentia, and so can't the United States. Your implication that we have to serve him arrest warrant is most ludicrous.
 
Antiderivative said:
Stop being dumb. Yemen charged Al-Awlaki in absentia, and so can't the United States. Your implication that we have to serve him arrest warrant is most ludicrous.
Click to expand...
Yeah man...they charged him...THAT showed him! We eliminated him...I like the adult version much better. You can charge him like a Discover card...WTF do you think he cares about that? He was a TERRORIST.

But...Im quite serious...you should volunteer to go serve arrest warrants to American Born terrorists. THATS how you fight terror! Thank goodness the adults are actually the ones tasked with dealing with them. Obama used to spout that kind of silliness. I am really looking forward to the movements to have him impeached for murdering an American citizen. Where do you stand on that again?
 
VanceMack said:
Yeah man...they charged him...THAT showed him! We eliminated him...I like the adult version much better. You can charge him like a Discover card...WTF do you think he cares about that? He was a TERRORIST.

But...Im quite serious...you should volunteer to go serve arrest warrants to American Born terrorists. THATS how you fight terror! Thank goodness the adults are actually the ones tasked with dealing with them. Obama used to spout that kind of silliness. I am really looking forward to the movements to have him impeached for murdering an American citizen. Where do you stand on that again?
Click to expand...

Why do you struggle with the English language?

What about absentia do you not understand?
 
Antiderivative said:
Why do you struggle with the English language?

What about absentia do you not understand?
Click to expand...
That would have really showed him...huh? :lamo You daisy guys are a crack up. Seriously.
 
VanceMack said:
That would have really showed him...huh? :lamo You daisy guys are a crack up. Seriously.
Click to expand...

WTF are you on? It is not about showing anyone anything. It is about following the rule of law.

Tell me why I am a daisy for wanting someone to be charged with a crime before the President orders a hit order on them. Tell me why I am a daisy for wanting to charge someone before we accuse them of guilt.

Your "daisy" statement reminds me when you statists used lies in order to attack Barry Goldwater. You are just filled with lies and deceit.
 
Last edited:
Antiderivative said:
WTF are you on? It is not about showing anyone anything. It is about following the rule of law.

Tell me why I am a daisy for wanting someone to be charged with a crime before the President orders a hit order on them.
Click to expand...
So you ARE in favor of charging the president with murder...right?

You are a daisy because you actually believe charging homey with a crime was relevant to anything. I just REALLY REALLY want you and people like you to go out there and talk to those terrorists. Serve them with warrants. Give them a big ol hug. Save the world.

Obama was like you while he could afford to be. He actually had to grow up and realize you kill/eradicate terrorists wherever and however you can.
 
Last edited:
Tashah said:
Can you point me to a Trial in Absentia that has occured in the United States?
Click to expand...

Heh, you never stop learning...you made me go look tasha because I believed there were trials in abstentia...and I couldnt find any for the USA...I did find a supreme court ruling 1943 I believe disallowing trials in abstentia...granted that didnt directly relate to war crimes...but I could find none for war crimes except for a couple of trials in abstentia at the nurembourg trials Martin Borhrman was tried in abstentia for war crimes that included the USA as being part of those trials I would guess...
 
Tashah said:
Can you point me to a Trial in Absentia that has occured in the United States?
Click to expand...

Andrew Luster.

Of course, I believe the SCOTUS ruled that it is only allowable since he had been present for the start of the trial.
 
Tashah said:
Can you point me to a Trial in Absentia that has occured in the United States?
Click to expand...

Prosecutors charge people of crimes all the time when they are not present.

This is not a new phenomena where I have to point out a case.
 
Antiderivative said:
Prosecutors charge people of crimes all the time when they are not present.

This is not a new phenomena where I have to point out a case.
Click to expand...
You and others rely on this phantom device.

Show me where a US citizen has been Tried in Absentia in a US court and sentenced to death.
 
Tashah said:
You and others rely on this phantom device.
Click to expand...

You don't need to serve someone their papers in order to bring charges against them. This is called the rule of law.

Show me where a US citizen has been Tried in Absentia in a US court and sentenced to death.
Click to expand...

This is the first time in US history that we order an assassination order without ever charging someone. It is called unprecedented for a reason. Why you struggle with this is beyond me.

The fact that the President can order an execution order without charging someone is UNPRECEDENTED. Why you are asking for a previous case is beyond me. Perhaps you need to look up the word "unprecedented".
 
Last edited:
How can you kill someone without ever bringing an indictment against them?

That is called savagery.
 
Antiderivative said:
Prosecutors charge people of crimes all the time when they are not present.

This is not a new phenomena where I have to point out a case.
Click to expand...

Charge of course...but not try them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom