• 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'

Thanks for voting and being a citizen. Its all the same to me. Ive spent 8 years now since my retirement putting soldiers and families back together...but I also work with civilians who have experience the worst kinds of combat...family life. Its all just a thing.

Id still LOVE to hear how this whole 'due process' thing works for a terrorist. Served in absentia...tried in absentia...THEN killed? Or just kill the non-US born terrorists that are responsible for slaughtering men women and children.

I served as well my friend. With the best.

I do not know that we will ever be privy to all here. However, there is a process. I do not have the time to dig, but at least a few of the earlier links reference findings presented by the CIA. There was at least one House hearing on this last year when Al-Dirtbag was designated for sanction. Every Court that hs looked at this so far has ruled that the Executive does have this authority. And lastly, we need to be more finite in the use of the word "assassinate". Military targets are just that, they are "targeted". While "assassinate" can be used to describe almost any killing where we actually aimed at the victim, it usually apples to political killings, not military.

My feeling was that Ron Paul was being political in using the word "assassinate" to describe a military hit, as he is in campaign mode, and that it was a poor choice on his part. His sole point of contention seemed to be that this perp had been a citizen. The armed enemy, on foreign soil, beyond our ability to easily arrest, is a 100% prime grade-A target for killing by any means possible, IMMHO.
 
Last edited:
not bad at all... but you are certainly in no position to insinuate that i'm some sort of sissy peace-nic... not even close.

like you, i come from military lineage... except my family was rooted in the Corps.. all the way back to my great grandfather
I hung up my rifle ( the first time) in 1993 ..after serving 23 years.
when I enlisted, I ,too, was considered "support".. MOS 5923.. (HAWk missile Hi-power illuminator radar tech).. my first deployment was to Monkey Mountain.. outside of Da Nang... as a boot, i didn't get to do my actual job though.. i spent time in Graves and registration at Da Nang proper ( with nightly excusions to dogpatch for whiskey and wimmin)... I reenlisted for infantry.. and that where I hung my hat until the Corps decided to promote me enough times as to ensure I didn't carry a rifle anymore, but to lead Marines instead.

after 23+ years, 5 Combat actions ribbons, 2 purple hearts, and over 50 months ,total, of actually fighting Americans enemies, I think i've earned ..at the very least.. the right NOT to be called a sissy by Air Force support staff.

so, now I think we can stow the bullsh*t and get to debating like adults.
 
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.

None of which addresses the fact that he could have been tried which would have ended most of this discussion.
 
None of which addresses the fact that he could have been tried which would have ended most of this discussion.

Tried ? We had a CIA finding. We had a hearing in the House. Meanwhile, Al-Dirtbag is actively engaged in plotting to kill more US citizens. Apparently not concerned that we might revoke bail ................ oh wait.
 
It is now settled law that every U.S. citizen may renounce citizenship at any time. On the other hand, the government may not withdraw nationality from a citizen based on any actions the citizen takes; loss of citizenship can only result when the there is clear evidence that the person intends to expatriate.

Since 1990, the Department of State policy based on these laws and court rulings has been to revoke an individual's citizenship if and only if an individual appears in person at a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad and explicitly declares his intention to renounce citizenship.

History of Expatriation Law | Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship: A Web Guide
 
None of which addresses the fact that he could have been tried which would have ended most of this discussion.

i'd be happy with judicial review of the evidence that supposedly exists in regards to Americans on the list.

after researching a bit.. it seems we have no legal mechanism for trials in absentia ( whether we should or not is a separate debate, I think)... but there has to be some sort of alternative to simple unchecked executive power when it comes to targeted killings of American citizens.
 
Tried ? We had a CIA finding.

That is not how our legal system works nor when time has passed will anyone agree that is how they want it to work. The CIA does not get to decide which U.S. citizens get to live and which ones get to die.

We had a hearing in the House. Meanwhile, Al-Dirtbag is actively engaged in plotting to kill more US citizens. Apparently not concerned that we might revoke bail ................ oh wait.

In our justice system you are innocent until proven guilty. It would have been very easy to have proven his guilt if all that is claimed is fact.
 
not bad at all... but you are certainly in no position to insinuate that i'm some sort of sissy peace-nic... not even close.

like you, i come from military lineage... except my family was rooted in the Corps.. all the way back to my great grandfather
I hung up my rifle ( the first time) in 1993 ..after serving 23 years.
when I enlisted, I ,too, was considered "support".. MOS 5923.. (HAWk missile Hi-power illuminator radar tech).. my first deployment was to Monkey Mountain.. outside of Da Nang... as a boot, i didn't get to do my actual job though.. i spent time in Graves and registration at Da Nang proper ( with nightly excusions to dogpatch for whiskey and wimmin)... I reenlisted for infantry.. and that where I hung my hat until the Corps decided to promote me enough times as to ensure I didn't carry a rifle anymore, but to lead Marines instead.

after 23+ years, 5 Combat actions ribbons, 2 purple hearts, and over 50 months ,total, of actually fighting Americans enemies, I think i've earned ..at the very least.. the right NOT to be called a sissy by Air Force support staff.

so, now I think we can stow the bullsh*t and get to debating like adults.
LOL. Awesome. Ruff, tuff Marine!
The Air Force are not sissies either. Although in one joint assignment it was made clear to me by an Air Force sergeant (E7, I think) that they considered it to be a field deployment if they were further than 2 kilometers from a golf course or NCO club.

I started out in air defense as a Chaparral platoon leader. It was a couple of weeks back. From there I transferred into military intelligence. I dabbled in nuclear command and control (I especially liked targeting). And in my final assignment training.
 
i'd be happy with judicial review of the evidence that supposedly exists in regards to Americans on the list.

after researching a bit.. it seems we have no legal mechanism for trials in absentia ( whether we should or not is a separate debate, I think)... but there has to be some sort of alternative to simple unchecked executive power when it comes to targeted killings of American citizens.

War crimes trial.
 
None of which addresses the fact that he could have been tried which would have ended most of this discussion.
When you consistently apply the wrong standard you will consistently get the wrong answer.
There is war, where we do not care about guilt and innocence. We care to win or to avoid defeat.
And there is criminality where we do care about guilt and innocence.

You are judging a war action through the lens of criminal justice. And that is why you err.
 
War crimes trial.

I dunno, it seems SCOTUS had ruled the trials in absentia are a no-no.
unless you are talking about an international war crimes trial... there is plenty of precedent for in absentia convictions there.
 
War crimes trial.
Here you have stumbled onto the truth. But notice how you just pick yourself up, dust yourself off and wander on as if nothing important happened.

It is a war. He is not a criminal within a criminal justice system. He was an unlawful enemy combatant, a propagandist for the enemy side of this war. But of course you know that.
 
That is not how our legal system works nor when time has passed will anyone agree that is how they want it to work. The CIA does not get to decide which U.S. citizens get to live and which ones get to die.

In our justice system you are innocent until proven guilty. It would have been very easy to have proven his guilt if all that is claimed is fact.

There you go again !! Confusing a criminal proceeding with a military action. So long as you embrace this erroneous perspective, you will be as a horse with blinders on.
 
When you consistently apply the wrong standard you will consistently get the wrong answer.
There is war, where we do not care about guilt and innocence. We care to win or to avoid defeat.
And there is criminality where we do care about guilt and innocence.

You are judging a war action through the lens of criminal justice. And that is why you err.

I view it through the eyes that ALL citizens have Constitutional rights and that we do not want to go down the road of the government in any form deciding who is a citizen and who isn't. At one time in our history women would lose their rights by marrying a foriegner. People would lose their rights if they held dual citizenship and voted in another country.

It isn't about this person. It's about the big picture. I care less that this guy is dead in the big picture. I disagree with the death penalty but this would be a rare exemption IF he had been found guilty.

We do not want to give the government the ability to decide who gets due process and who doesn't as a citizen. It was noted that in cases like this, the terrorists do win. When we give up our rights, that is a win for terrorism.
 
War crimes trial.

To parrot what H said, but even a "War crimes trial" is about crimes against international rules of war. It is well after the targeting phase.
 
I dunno, it seems SCOTUS had ruled the trials in absentia are a no-no.
unless you are talking about an international war crimes trial... there is plenty of precedent for in absentia convictions there.

Let's argue that it can not be done. It's why people like Paul need to bring things like this up because the ramifications go far beyond this case.
 
I view it through the eyes that ALL citizens have Constitutional rights and that we do not want to go down the road of the government in any form deciding who is a citizen and who isn't. At one time in our history women would lose their rights by marrying a foriegner. People would lose their rights if they held dual citizenship and voted in another country.

It isn't about this person. It's about the big picture. I care less that this guy is dead in the big picture. I disagree with the death penalty but this would be a rare exemption IF he had been found guilty.

We do not want to give the government the ability to decide who gets due process and who doesn't as a citizen. It was noted that in cases like this, the terrorists do win. When we give up our rights, that is a win for terrorism.

And the Executive has a Constitutional mandate. Its that "Enemies, foreign and domestic" thing. Al-Dirtbag was the former, btw. Yemen, not New Mexico.
 
I view it through the eyes that ALL citizens have Constitutional rights...

It isn't about this person. It's about the big picture. I care less that this guy is dead in the big picture. I disagree with the death penalty but this would be a rare exemption IF he had been found guilty.

We do not want to give the government the ability to decide who gets due process and who doesn't as a citizen. It was noted that in cases like this, the terrorists do win. When we give up our rights, that is a win for terrorism.
You are right. It is not about an individual. It is about whether or not we view war as a criminal proceeding (something new) or as a war with its own rules.
 
Here you have stumbled onto the truth. But notice how you just pick yourself up, dust yourself off and wander on as if nothing important happened.

It is a war. He is not a criminal within a criminal justice system. He was an unlawful enemy combatant, a propagandist for the enemy side of this war. But of course you know that.

Again, the courts have ruled that one does not lose their constitutional rights by being an enemy combatant. You may not like that but that was the ruling. If the courts had ruled otherwise we would not be having this discussion.
 
Let's argue that it can not be done. It's why people like Paul need to bring things like this up because the ramifications go far beyond this case.

Only when one's argument in "this case" is shown to lack adequate merit.
 
When you consistently apply the wrong standard you will consistently get the wrong answer.
There is war, where we do not care about guilt and innocence. We care to win or to avoid defeat.
And there is criminality where we do care about guilt and innocence.

You are judging a war action through the lens of criminal justice. And that is why you err.

are you arguing that American citizens are stripped of some of thier Constitutional rights during wartime?
 
There you go again !! Confusing a criminal proceeding with a military action. So long as you embrace this erroneous perspective, you will be as a horse with blinders on.

Where is this listed that one loses their rights by being accused with siding with the enemy? Have we not had cases where people have been accused of this? How did we handle it? We tried them and then executed them.
 
Again, the courts have ruled that one does not lose their constitutional rights by being an enemy combatant. You may not like that but that was the ruling. If the courts had ruled otherwise we would not be having this discussion.

Again, you fail. He was not denied his Constitutional RIghts as they would have appled in a criminal proceeding.
 
Back
Top Bottom