• 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:
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?
Click to expand...

You do realize that because he was a US citizen at the time of his death, that this entire fiasco sets a legal precedent. Now the US government can label someone a terrorist, hide the evidence under the guise of “national security,” and have them assassinated, all on the President’s whim. Essentially, the President has now become judge, jury, and executioner.

I don't hang out with people who say that Obama is equivalent to Hitler as you can't compare the two.
 
Misterveritis said:
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.
Click to expand...

you are correct, Air Force aren't sissies either.. known a few true badasses in the AF myself.
but i'm not the one coming in here charging people with being sissies either...i'm just defending myself against this dude's charges.

I hear Chaparral went the way of HAWK.. cool systems for their time, the both of them.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
You do realize that because he was a US citizen at the time of his death, that this entire fiasco sets a legal precedent. Now the US government can label someone a terrorist, hide the evidence under the guise of “national security,” and have them assassinated, all on the President’s whim. Essentially, the President has now become judge, jury, and executioner.

I don't hang out with people who say that Obama is equivalent to Hitler as you can't compare the two.
Click to expand...

Which is why I asked if it would have been O.K. to simply allow Bush to carry out the war. There was no answer. I respect a difference of opinion. I do not when those differences are only based upon ones politics.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
And maybe a few here have learned something in giving thought to how I stated the tangible embodiment of a "right".

Most of us will never be caught up in a legal proceeding where we realize that our "right" will be defined by the verdict of the Court. However, to think otherwise is to ignore the purpose of the SCOTUS. Recent decisions that impact our expectations of "rights" more than others have dealt with such as eminent domain (property rights) and such as DC gun laws (right to bear arms). Those folks in Connecticut had a certain belief in their property rights until SCOTUS said otherwise ;)

However, many of us may someday be involved in a contractual dispute, possibly with litigation, or know someone who is so involved. Which gets to my point. The contract is just a piece of paper, in which you may have put faith, supposedly defining your "rights" in an agreement, but which will only be given substance in Court. In essence, it only means something when things go "wrong". Otherwise, both parties act in accordance with what they perceive to be their best interests.
Click to expand...

well.. this is bullsh*t.... i can't find anyplace to inject my "dead men tell no tales" schtick in this version of your position.... what the hell am i gonna do now? :lol:
 
Thrilla said:
well.. this is bullsh*t.... i can't find anyplace to inject my "dead men tell no tales" schtick in this version of your position.... what the hell am i gonna do now? :lol:
Click to expand...

I addressed such in an earlier post. However, my original contention, which was that the Courts establish the boundaries and shapes of your rights, still stands.

Of note too is that the last few assertions you have made in this thread have been smacked down by diligent research and well-stated posts by others. You should be appreciative of the efforts by others to enlighten you with real information, which might deter you from making-it-up-as-you-go. I don't see the love though ;)
 
Thrilla said:
how cute... I don't even get civility or a simple thank you for your service like you give other vets.... all because I don't agree with you over this issue.
but instead, I somehow want to peacefully negotiate with terrorists ( something i've never said) and should go plant daisy's in a peace garden.. 'cuz i can't be trusted with national security.

you continually ignore my opinion that i don't really care about this particular dude.. i've said numerous times that i welcome his demise.
but somehow you conflate my questioning of our government's legal mechanism of dealing with terrorism with supporting this dude.

in short, i'm just a terrorist sympathizing empty headed fool to you.....you've made your opinion clear.

you might find my support comment comical, but i come from an Infantry background.. and if you ain't humpin' a rifle, you're support.
don't get me wrong , there's nothing wrong with support.. been there done that too... but don't be levying idiot charges of being some sort a sissy to a grunt.


No biggie, you won't be the first Air Force vet I don't get along with... won't be the last either.
Click to expand...

Ive pretty consistently NOT said thank you for your service. I do typically say welcome home or im glad you are back safe. Pardon me for ommitting th comment in response to your time in sang bang. Maybe the usual greeting was ommitted more due to your very civil opinion re AF support staff. So...let me amend...Im glad you are home safe. I know people that have worked grave detail in Afghanistan...have heard of their unique battle. They are all from different units, dont have the advantage of deploying or returning home with people with like experiences, have a hard time transitioning back and a hard time relating to others. Their mission is no less vital than the guy with hks finger on the trigger.

You can take all the wondeful idealistic positions re terrorists you like...by all means. You want due process to make you feel all better? Great. He was an Amrican citizen that joined a terrorist organization that exists to slaughter innocent and unarmed men women and children. He was killed in a foreign land with a group og like minded assholes. Theres your proof. Guilty as charged.

You dont fight terrorists with daisies. You drop bimbs on their wee little head or you sit back and let others handle it and feel oh so superior while they efrectively handle the problem.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
You do realize that because he was a US citizen at the time of his death, that this entire fiasco sets a legal precedent. Now the US government can label someone a terrorist, hide the evidence under the guise of “national security,” and have them assassinated, all on the President’s whim. Essentially, the President has now become judge, jury, and executioner.

I don't hang out with people who say that Obama is equivalent to Hitler as you can't compare the two.
Click to expand...

As linked earlier, the House has held hearings on this exact policy. Back in 2010. And the Courts have looked at it, although a case has not made it to SCOTUS, and I don't believe there is one in the pipeline. However, all of this rebuts any notion that POTUS acts on a whim. There is both oversight and recourse, as has been posted about long and hard for those who pay attention.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
You do realize that because he was a US citizen at the time of his death, that this entire fiasco sets a legal precedent. Now the US government can label someone a terrorist, hide the evidence under the guise of “national security,” and have them assassinated, all on the President’s whim. Essentially, the President has now become judge, jury, and executioner.

I don't hang out with people who say that Obama is equivalent to Hitler as you can't compare the two.
Click to expand...
Lets see...terrorist...bein a terrorist aling with other terrorists. We'll call that appropriately labelled and handled.

Or not. Stand by your covictions and stand for the president to be charged as a criminal for violating some poor citizens constitutional rights and murdering/executing said ctizen.
 
I feel the elimination Anwar al-Awlaki was justified. Here's why:

The US has no extradition treaty with Yemen. I looked it up here:
USA and Extradition Treaties

If we had an extradition treaty with Yemen the US could ask, and expect to receive, assistance from Yemen on apprehending al-Awlaki. Or, US representatives could go to Yemen openly (as opposed to covertly) and conduct an investigation themselves. Without a treaty, the US could do neither of those things. In any event, a US hunt for a muslim leader (American or not) would be met with significant resistance, making any investigation problematic if not impossible. This prevents the US from operating on a strictly judicial level. Doing things on the "up and up" is simply not feasible.

Timothy McVeigh received "due process" because normal procedures of investigation, apprehension, and trial could be followed without the need for treaties and without significant interference from the local population. Those comparing McVeigh to al-Awlaki are failing to consider significant geo-political differences in the two situations.

American or not, al-Awlaki represented a constant and enduring threat to the people of the USA. al-Awlaki stationed himself in Yemen in part as protection from judicial "due process" from the United States. "He" created a situation where the US could not get to him via normal channels, thus forcing an "extra-normal" response. Had he been a jewel thief who then escaped to Yemen, he would cease being a "future threat" to US life and property. Military strikes would be inappropriate and unjustifiable in that case. But since he "does" represent an ongoing and "future threat - not only to a few Americans, but many," extra-judicial activities are definitely warranted.
 
No ones getting charged with anything or impeached...the truth is most of america view alley whackey getting whacked as a positive its only the Ron Paul crew that are supporting the dumb statement by their guy kickin up a fuss...
 
Thrilla said:
you are correct, Air Force aren't sissies either.. known a few true badasses in the AF myself.
but i'm not the one coming in here charging people with being sissies either...i'm just defending myself against this dude's charges.

I hear Chaparral went the way of HAWK.. cool systems for their time, the both of them.
Click to expand...

Hey...sticking a daisy in a tank barrel isnt 'sissy' behavior. It isnt very effective. You adopted the sissy part all on your own. You either effectovely deal with terrorists or pretend to.
 
EagleAye said:
I feel the elimination Anwar al-Awlaki was justified. Here's why:

The US has no extradition treaty with Yemen. I looked it up here:
USA and Extradition Treaties

If we had an extradition treaty with Yemen the US could ask, and expect to receive, assistance from Yemen on apprehending al-Awlaki. Or, US representatives could go to Yemen openly (as opposed to covertly) and conduct an investigation themselves. Without a treaty, the US could do neither of those things. In any event, a US hunt for a muslim leader (American or not) would be met with significant resistance, making any investigation problematic if not impossible. This prevents the US from operating on a strictly judicial level. Doing things on the "up and up" is simply not feasible.

Timothy McVeigh received "due process" because normal procedures of investigation, apprehension, and trial could be followed without the need for treaties and without significant interference from the local population. Those comparing McVeigh to al-Awlaki are failing to consider significant geo-political differences in the two situations.

American or not, al-Awlaki represented a constant and enduring threat to the people of the USA. al-Awlaki stationed himself in Yemen in part as protection from judicial "due process" from the United States. "He" created a situation where the US could not get to him via normal channels, thus forcing an "extra-normal" response. Had he been a jewel thief who then escaped to Yemen, he would cease being a "future threat" to US life and property. Military strikes would be inappropriate and unjustifiable in that case. But since he "does" represent an ongoing and "future threat - not only to a few Americans, but many," extra-judicial activities are definitely warranted.
Click to expand...

So just because an administration says they killed someone to protect the United States we just accept that? Bush said he O.Ked torture to protect the United States. Should we have no simply accepted that?
 
Eighty Deuce said:
I addressed such in an earlier post. However, my original contention, which was that the Courts establish the boundaries and shapes of your rights, still stands.

Of note too is that the last few assertions you have made in this thread have been smacked down by diligent research and well-stated posts by others. You should be appreciative of the efforts by others to enlighten you with real information, which might deter you from making-it-up-as-you-go. I don't see the love though ;)
Click to expand...


what assertions of mine have been "smacked down" with "diligent research"?

diligent research?.. real information?..where?
 
VanceMack said:
Hey...sticking a daisy in a tank barrel isnt 'sissy' behavior. It isnt very effective. You adopted the sissy part all on your own. You either effectovely deal with terrorists or pretend to.
Click to expand...

I cannot stand dishonest people.
you were bold enough to try to portray people as weak and such.. and now you play innocent?.. gimmeabreak, that's horsehockey.


do you have limits to dealing with terrorists" effectively"?... does anything go as long as it's "effective"?
 
Thrilla said:
I cannot stand dishonest people.
you were bold enough to try to portray people as weak and such.. and now you play innocent?.. gimmeabreak, that's horsehockey.


do you have limits to dealing with terrorists" effectively"?... does anything go as long as it's "effective"?
Click to expand...

To each their own. Go plant daisies and let the adults continue to deal effectively with terrorists. Or go join the other fool and love them into compliance.
 
 
1Perry said:
So just because an administration says they killed someone to protect the United States we just accept that?
Click to expand...

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.

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 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?
 
VanceMack said:
To each their own. Go plant daisies and let the adults continue to deal effectively with terrorists. Or go join the other fool and love them into compliance.
Click to expand...

those are my only choices?.. plant daisies or love them into compliance?

I reject both choices, thanks anyways

noticeably absent from your post is an answer to my question.. will an answer be coming soon?
 
Before launching into my diatribe, let me say one thing, I understand the emotions that people are bringing into this discussion. That said, I do not agree with these emotions. Shaykh Anwar al-Awlaki may have deserved to die, but we did not have the right to kill him as he was killed. Our government overstepped its boundries in addition to the more important issue of flouting its responsibilities. While I agree with Mr.Paul on this issue, I believe that the more pertinent crime commited was the fact that America betrayed her ideals, the rights that she extends to all of her citizens. One of these rights is that of a fair trial. Whatever al-Awlaki's crimes were, being American should guarantee him a trial. Yes, his crime was heinous, yes, maybe he did deserve death, but America has a responsibility to take the moral high ground, trite as it sounds.
 
Last edited:
MaggieD said:
Back in April 2010, the President added this guy to the CIA Kill List at their specific request. That was reported in the news. What? Oh, well. The people's right to know, I guess. The ACLU and his father filed suit on the specific grounds that it was illegal to target an American citizen.

The U.S. District Court threw the case out, and the lawsuit's dead. The court's position was that it was not up to the courts to decide if an American citizen was an enemy combatant; it was up to the President, in this case.



Had al-Awlaki been in the battlefield "shooting back," he would have been a legal target. The United States (and the rest of the world) has never taken the position that an enemy combatant must be in the battlefield to be targetted. He was not targetted for being a propogandist, but because he had gone operational.

From the Director of National Intelligence last year:



I'm quite confident that this was amply reviewed beforehand -- by the US District Court and Congressional Hearings. The check-and-balance in this instance would be impeachment, and that is not going to happen.
Click to expand...

I read who knows how many pages of replies going back and forth between "we did the right thing" to "we killed an American citizen, that's bad." Thanks to this reply and solely this reply, it makes me feel confident that we were well within our rights to kill the SOB.

Obama doesn't get much right, but the killings of OBL and this cat were 2 of them. Gotta give credit where credit is due. Although it wasn't Obama that had anything to do with the actual killing, just like with OBL. Kudos for not getting in the way, basically.
 
Last edited:
Thrilla said:
those are my only choices?.. plant daisies or love them into compliance?

I reject both choices, thanks anyways

noticeably absent from your post is an answer to my question.. will an answer be coming soon?
Click to expand...
I dont know...somewhere in your asshurt whine about being singled out for not getting a 'thank you for your service' I must have missed 'the question'. Hurry...Im getting bored to tears with this.
 
VanceMack said:
I dont know...somewhere in your asshurt whine about being singled out for not getting a 'thank you for your service' I must have missed 'the question'. Hurry...Im getting bored to tears with this.
Click to expand...


There is absolutely no reason for you to continually be uncivil with me.... i'm doing my best not to personally attack you, and i'd appreciate some reciprocity here.
if you are unable to discuss an issue without your base emotions taking hold of your intellect, please let me know and i'll just bid you a nice day.


in the post that you answered with your rejected choices, there is a question posed to you .. here i'll make it easy for you and simple repeat it.

do you have limits to dealing with terrorists" effectively"?... does anything go as long as it's "effective"?
 
Thrilla said:
There is absolutely no reason for you to continually be uncivil with me.... i'm doing my best not to personally attack you, and i'd appreciate some reciprocity here.
if you are unable to discuss an issue without your base emotions taking hold of your intellect, please let me know and i'll just bid you a nice day.


in the post that you answered with your rejected choices, there is a question posed to you .. here i'll make it easy for you and simple repeat it.

do you have limits to dealing with terrorists" effectively"?... does anything go as long as it's "effective"?
Click to expand...

Lets see...said terrorist was with othe terrorists. Said terrorist organization exists tonslaughter innocent men women and children. Said terrorist has been globe hopping when intel put him with others in Yemen. Military forces under order o the president eliminated said terrorists. Yep...that is acceptable and effective. No...no pretrial necessary. Anything there for you to drop a gotcha bomb on?
 
VanceMack said:
Lets see...said terrorist was with othe terrorists. Said terrorist organization exists tonslaughter innocent men women and children. Said terrorist has been globe hopping when intel put him with others in Yemen. Military forces under order o the president eliminated said terrorists. Yep...that is acceptable and effective. No...no pretrial necessary. Anything there for you to drop a gotcha bomb on?
Click to expand...

you failed to answer the question....

don't fear a gotcha bomb, I don't play that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom