• 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'

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 don't disagree.... i think it's important to get things like this out in the open and settled... and i'm not sure why some folks are offended at the notion of even discussing it.

there is a serious legal question to be answered here...a question that extends well beyond this one dude.
 
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.

Good grief ... Here you go again !! He was a military target in a military zone. That changes things !!!! Different rules my friend !!!
 
Again, you fail. He was not denied his Constitutional RIghts as they would have appled in a criminal proceeding.

Our rights are not only applied in a court of law. They just are.
 
Good grief ... Here you go again !! He was a military target in a military zone. That changes things !!!! Different rules my friend !!!

Where are these rules?
 
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.
Look, this is why we have leaders we can supposedly trust. And if we don't trust them, since we put them there, it's our own darned fault. There are exceptions to every single rule on the planet. If you think that our own Constitution should be used to club us over the head and paralyze us in the face of attack, so be it.

I, on the other hand, see exceptions. This was certainly one of them. So says the President of the United States, his legal advisors, the US District Court and Congress. Get over it.
 
Our rights are not only applied in a court of law. They just are.

Fail again. This is getting old. A "right" only takes form when someone tries to deny it from you, and you then seek legal redress.

In this case, when Al-Dirtbag was put on the target list last year, it was reviewed in both Federal Court, and in a House hearing. And we still have legal redress, although Al-Dirtbag is dead. Impeachment for one. This is our system.

As I have said numerous times, the Founders would have approved of a bomb falling on this scumbag's head as well.
 
Look, this is why we have leaders we can supposedly trust.

You trusted Bush to carry out the war?

And if we don't trust them, since we put them there, it's our own darned fault. There are exceptions to every single rule on the planet. If you think that our own Constitution should be used to club us over the head and paralyze us in the face of attack, so be it.

I, on the other hand, see exceptions. This was certainly one of them. So says the President of the United States, his legal advisors, the US District Court and Congress. Get over it.

The Constitution does not have exceptions. We have known about this guy for years. There is no reason why we could not have settled this through the means our country is based upon.

No, I do not trust politicians to do the correct thing. Again that is a big picture arguement. I'm going to feel pretty secure that you do not either despite your claims here.
 
Fail again. This is getting old. A "right" only takes form when someone tries to deny it from you, and you then seek legal redress.

In this case, when Al-Dirtbag was put on the target list last year, it was reviewed in both Federal Court, and in a House hearing. And we still have legal redress, although Al-Dirtbag is dead. Impeachment for one. This is our system.

As I have said numerous times, the Founders would have approved of a bomb falling on this scumbag's head as well.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. — The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
 
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.
I believe you misunderstand the law.
 
are you arguing that American citizens are stripped of some of thier Constitutional rights during wartime?
Certainly. They do not have the right not to be attacked and killed when they are on the enemy's side, fighting us. If we capture them and they are unlawful enemy combatants then they have the right to be detained as a prisoner of war until the war is over, or, if they have committed war crimes to be tried in a military court.
 
Here's just one oath, taken by those that fired the missile:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The President, in his authority as CIC, ordered action against a military target. All courts, and Congress, have upheld that authority in this specific case. If and when a legal authority ruiles otherwise, and not just Ron Loon Paul, I am sure you will let us know.
 
You trusted Bush to carry out the war?

Red-herring attempt to derail.

The Constitution does not have exceptions.

Apparently it does...everything on the planet has exceptions. And, if not, we have a system in place to address that: impeachment. And that is absolutely not happening.

No, I do not trust politicians to do the correct thing. Again that is a big picture arguement. I'm going to feel pretty secure that you do not either despite your claims here.

They certainly don't always; and it's the responsibility of every American to question/question/question. But I'll be darned if I'm going to impeach President Obama for giving the order to take out this arrogant traitor. It was the right thing to do. To even attempt to get this guy found guilty in abstentia and sentenced to death would be absolutely ridiculous.
 
When in the Course of human events ............

And you are now quoting the DoI, a document written before the Constitution, none of which is therefore derived from the Constitution, in a discussion about Constitutional rights.

Paulistas have no common sense.
 
Red-herring attempt to derail.

Bull ****. It is your position. Asking you questions about your positions is absolutly valid. You said that we must trust those we elected to do the right thing. Did you trust Bush to do the right thing?
 
And you are now quoting the DoI, a document written before the Constitution, none of which is therefore derived from the Constitution, in a discussion about Constitutional rights.

Paulistas have no common sense.

Our rights, just are.
 
Fail again. This is getting old. A "right" only takes form when someone tries to deny it from you, and you then seek legal redress.
that's awesome... and completely wrongheaded.
you just plainly stated that "dead men tell no tales" is what decides whether or not a right is infringed upon.
kill the guy, and <poof> the argument of rights is irrelevant... as he cannot seek redress.


In this case, when Al-Dirtbag was put on the target list last year, it was reviewed in both Federal Court, and in a House hearing. And we still have legal redress, although Al-Dirtbag is dead. Impeachment for one. This is our system.
the federal district court did not review the issue... they dismissed the fathers case for lack of standing and left the issue undecided.... no evidence was provided by the state, which invoked the state secrets doctrine.

what House committee hearing?...got a date or anything that we can research

As I have said numerous times, the Founders would have approved of a bomb falling on this scumbag's head as well.
some would be overjoyed.. others.. not so much.
John Adams, for instance, would not be overjoyed
 
Certainly. They do not have the right not to be attacked and killed when they are on the enemy's side, fighting us. If we capture them and they are unlawful enemy combatants then they have the right to be detained as a prisoner of war until the war is over, or, if they have committed war crimes to be tried in a military court.

hmmm.. you distinction of " on their side, fighting us" leaves a lot of room....

what about Americans, in anytown USA, who advocate for "their side" and propagandize for "them"?...are they valid targets for extrajudicial killing too?
 
hmmm.. you distinction of " on their side, fighting us" leaves a lot of room....

what about Americans, in anytown USA, who advocate for "their side" and propagandize for "them"?...are they valid targets for extrajudicial killing too?
If they are on the enemy's side, on a battlefield, in this case in an enemy convoy, then yes. Otherwise no.
 
If they are on the enemy's side, on a battlefield, in this case in an enemy convoy, then yes. Otherwise no.

so you feel there is a geographical distinction as well.

this is something that civil rights groups, such as the ACLU and CCR agree upon..... in that they have no problem with extrajudicial killings taking place on determined battlegrounds, during combat operations.
and that, in itself, raises another question... one of whether or not Yemen is a valid battleground.

both the Bush and Obama administrations contend that the whole world is their battleground... as evident, most recently, by Obama's statement on killing this dude.
he said "This is further proof that al Qaeda and its affiliates will find no safe haven anywhere in the world".
so the President kinda disagrees with your geographical distinction.

so let me lay it out this way..
the President has the power to extra-judicially kill any person who he deems as an enemy of the state, anywhere in the world ... and this power is unreviewable and the evidence for such determinations is incontestable.
and you are comfortable with this?
 
so you feel there is a geographical distinction as well.

this is something that civil rights groups, such as the ACLU and CCR agree upon..... in that they have no problem with extrajudicial killings taking place on determined battlegrounds, during combat operations.
and that, in itself, raises another question... one of whether or not Yemen is a valid battleground.

both the Bush and Obama administrations contend that the whole world is their battleground... as evident, most recently, by Obama's statement on killing this dude.
he said "This is further proof that al Qaeda and its affiliates will find no safe haven anywhere in the world".
so the President kinda disagrees with your geographical distinction.

so let me lay it out this way..
the President has the power to extra-judicially kill any person who he deems as an enemy of the state, anywhere in the world ... and this power is unreviewable and the evidence for such determinations is incontestable.
and you are comfortable with this?
As long as you use the incorrect standard to judge this action you will get the wrong result. This is a war. He was an unlawful enemy combatant. He was a propagandist for the enemy in this war. He was in an enemy convoy. He did not hold up a convenience store. This was not a judicial matter in our criminal justice system. He was not in US custody.

Some people here are stuck on stupid. Don't be one of them.
 
As long as you use the incorrect standard to judge this action you will get the wrong result. This is a war. He was an unlawful enemy combatant. He was a propagandist for the enemy in this war. He was in an enemy convoy. He did not hold up a convenience store. This was not a judicial matter in our criminal justice system. He was not in US custody.

Some people here are stuck on stupid. Don't be one of them.

you didn't address a single thing I said... not one.
 
so let me lay it out this way..
the President has the power to extra-judicially kill any person who he deems as an enemy of the state, anywhere in the world ... and this power is unreviewable and the evidence for such determinations is incontestable.
and you are comfortable with this?

That is not true. The remedy is impeachment. Every single action taken by the President of the United States is subject to Congressional review. Every.Single.One.
 
that's awesome... and completely wrongheaded.
you just plainly stated that "dead men tell no tales" is what decides whether or not a right is infringed upon.
kill the guy, and <poof> the argument of rights is irrelevant... as he cannot seek redress.

Your position is insane. No where did I even imply such. For instance, when someone kills you, they are still prosecuted by the state, acting on your behalf. The exceedingly valid legal point is that a "right" is defined only when someone tries to take it from you. That is when you find its boundaries, by challenging the action in Court. If you go to check a right, or the Court to seek its terms, they look to exisitng rulings.

the federal district court did not review the issue... they dismissed the fathers case for lack of standing and left the issue undecided.... no evidence was provided by the state, which invoked the state secrets doctrine.

The "lack of standing" was not the plaintiff's. It was acknowledging a "lack of standing" by the judiciary in recognition of the Constitutiuonal power of the Executive, and the law-making power of the Legislative.

what House committee hearing?...got a date or anything that we can research

It was included in earlier posts by me and others. I do not know how much you will find on such, but here is a blurb:

"We take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community," then-Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair advised lawmakers last year. "If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that."

Blair's public testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in February 2010 amounted to the first confirmation that the Obama administration had procedures in place to lethally target Americans. The officials can cite, in part, a 1942 Supreme Court case in which justices reasoned that the U.S. citizenship of an enemy belligerent "does not relieve him from the consequences" of war.

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


some would be overjoyed.. others.. not so much.
John Adams, for instance, would not be overjoyed

I believe John Adams would be most approving. For starters, he had endured the Revolution, where then Tories had fought for the King. They were targeted all the same. I realize that was pre-Constitution. However, Adams showed a distinct break with how some here now view the Constitution with the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts, where American citizens were imprisoned soley for being what we would call being vocally critical of elected officials. A far lower standard than conducting military operations against "Americans" while a member of the military of the enemy, and from a physical position of being on enemy soil.

Frankly, I believe I just shredded every aspect of your argument.
 
Last edited:
That is not true. The remedy is impeachment. Every single action taken by the President of the United States is subject to Congressional review. Every.Single.One.

impeachment is not the only remedy... not sure why you are trying to pidgeonhole everyone into either supporting impeachment or the status quo.
those are options, sure, but they aren't the only options.

and no, not everything the President does is subject to congressional review.... every now and then Congress wants answers and the Prez says no... that's when the courts get involved.
 
Back
Top Bottom