• 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'

you failed to answer the question....

don't fear a gotcha bomb, I don't play that way.
Oh, I think I pretty much did answer the question. No...not appropriate to wipe out a village to get a single person. Yes, absolutely appropriate to do whats necessary to eliminate a terrorist threat.
 
Oh, I think I pretty much did answer the question. No...not appropriate to wipe out a village to get a single person. Yes, absolutely appropriate to do whats necessary to eliminate a terrorist threat.

well, we're gonna get nowhere on this.... so whatever.... go play your games.
 
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.

I do not doubt that he likely did that BUT no proof of any of it has actually been provided. I've seen where he has encouraged those who despise the U.S. but that is NOT an executable or really even a chargable offense. In another thread there was a discussion concerning the guy who shot McKinley, Leon Czolgosz. It could and was argued that he was encouraged by many of the anarchist going around giving speeches. It was considered to try and charge some of them but it was realized that speech is not something we could arrest (or kill) someone over.

If we have evidence that a citizen is doing something unlawful, we need to be presenting this evidence in a court of law, for me preferably a military one, and then proceed.

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 have covered this. We have known about his actions for a very long time.

Al-Awlaki allegedly spoke with, trained, and preached to a number of al-Qaeda members and affiliates, including three of the 9/11 hijackers,[23] alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan,[24][25] and alleged "Christmas Day bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab;[26][27][28] he was also allegedly involved in planning the latter's attack.

We can not allow the killing of American citizens based upon allegations. If you have proof, present it, get a court ruling, and then carry on.

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?

OBL was not an American citizen. If someone had dropped a bomb on his head it wouldn't have registered much more than a shrug.

This does not directly apply to you but I see I never recieved my answer to the question of whether or not others would simply have been O.K. with allowing Bush to carry out what he felt was necessary.
 
Last edited:
This does not directly apply to you but I see I never recieved my answer to the question of whether or not others would simply have been O.K. with allowing Bush to carry out what he felt was necessary.

I'll cover this one first so you get an answer. I wasn't dodging the question. I considered it part-and-parcel to the larger question of "do we just trust the president?" It's also off-topic, but I'll answer anyway. Your question was: "Bush said he O.Ked torture to protect the United States. Should we have no simply accepted that?"

This is different from the Obama question in that Bush admits he OK'd torture. In Obama's case, we don't know what methods he used. You'll hate me for this, but I do accept Bush's decision to employ water-boarding. I accept this because the prisoners are not physically injured during the process. Now, it's possible that Obama approved water-boarding and doesn't want to admit it. Would I accept the guilt of Al-Awlaki based solely on data gathered from torture? No, I wouldn't. But if that data was supported by other data gathered by intelligence services, then I would trust it. The acceptability of torture is worthy of a different thread entirely and I would hope we don't get derailed in this thread over it.

OBL was not an American citizen. If someone had dropped a bomb on his head it wouldn't have registered much more than a shrug.

The reason I bring up OBL is that he's an example of US failure when we tried hard to stick to judicial principles. It certainly is honorable to remain rock-steady in the pursuit of fairness for everyone. But practicality must sometimes supersede "absolute fairness" when a situation is extraordinary. I think it's fair to bring up OBL because it doesn't matter to the 3,000 dead or their families whether their executioner was American or Saudi. When someone proves they can carry out mass killings and state that they intend to continue doing so, they must be pursued, extra-judicially if necessary, irregardless of nationality.

If an American born and bred mass-killer on US soil is tracked back to his home-made fortress that foils any attempt at non-lethal methods to apprehend him, and the thereby necessary assault fails to capture him, but kills him instead, isn't that acceptable? Would anyone shed tears for him because he didn't face a trial in the normal judicial manner? Is this scenario effectively any different from al-Awlaki's?

I do not doubt that he likely did that BUT no proof of any of it has actually been provided. I've seen where he has encouraged those who despise the U.S. but that is NOT an executable or really even a chargable offense. In another thread there was a discussion concerning the guy who shot McKinley, Leon Czolgosz. It could and was argued that he was encouraged by many of the anarchist going around giving speeches. It was considered to try and charge some of them but it was realized that speech is not something we could arrest (or kill) someone over.

If we have evidence that a citizen is doing something unlawful, we need to be presenting this evidence in a court of law, for me preferably a military one, and then proceed.

We have covered this. We have known about his actions for a very long time.

Al-Awlaki allegedly spoke with, trained, and preached to a number of al-Qaeda members and affiliates, including three of the 9/11 hijackers,[23] alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan,[24][25] and alleged "Christmas Day bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab;[26][27][28] he was also allegedly involved in planning the latter's attack.

We can not allow the killing of American citizens based upon allegations. If you have proof, present it, get a court ruling, and then carry on.

To carry out a court case like this openly would take months at least and could possibly take years. Wouldn't it be irresponsible of our government to conduct a strictly aboveboard court case in abstentia that permits al-Awlaki the time and freedom carry out mass killings? The evidence may have been gathered but presenting it during the very slow and arduous judicial process could take far too long to help save thousands of American lives. Since most of the evidence had already been gathered, doesn't it make more sense to have a judge make one quick decision, based on the gathered evidence, from behind closed doors? When time is of the essence, and possibly thousands of American lives are in danger, an abbreviated judicial process like this must be considered the best available under the circumstances.

Lastly, presenting evidence in an open court may compromise our intelligence systems. Any evidence presented must also show "how it was obtained" to ascertain it's validity. This must be answered. If the answer is "we gathered this from Ali Bab's restaurant by a mike planted under table #3 in the corner," well now that intelligence gathering system is now compromised and can no longer be used. US Agents placed these systems at great expense and great danger to themselves. Blithely disregarding that effort by just offering it up in court is callous and thoughtless and irreverent.

You are quite right to insist that the killing of an American citizen cannot be conducted lightly. It is correct to question it. But this particular case is extraordinary. The details alone prevent the standard judicial practices we are accustomed to. The case of al-Awlaki vs. the USA must be considered an exception, not a standard, yet acceptable nonetheless due to it's extraordinary circumstances.
 
Last edited:
I am no fan of Obama under any circumstances, or by any stretch, because I think he's been useless and the king of all liars, but I will admit that since he has decided that killing the terrorists as I have been saying all along I support killing OBL and now Anwar al-Awlaki and those with him.

In these cases Obama is doing the right thing.
I also have to say that I now have eliminated the first GOP candidate from any consideration and that is Ron Paul.
I think he could not be more wrong. You don't give a poisonous snake a break you kill it.

Al-Qaida understands death and nothing else because they are all crazy as hell.

Yeah, it's terrible to try to uphold due process of law, right? Who needs it anyway? Just gets in the way.

Love you "conservatives".
 
What's your opinion of Obamacare? Just wondering.
My view is the individual mandate is debatable. It's also going through the correct channels to check it's constitutionality...the Supreme Court. It's not comparable to an executive decision to bypass the Constitution.
 
I'll cover this one first so you get an answer. I wasn't dodging the question. I considered it part-and-parcel to the larger question of "do we just trust the president?" It's also off-topic, but I'll answer anyway. Your question was: "Bush said he O.Ked torture to protect the United States. Should we have no simply accepted that?"

This is different from the Obama question in that Bush admits he OK'd torture. In Obama's case, we don't know what methods he used. You'll hate me for this, but I do accept Bush's decision to employ water-boarding. I accept this because the prisoners are not physically injured during the process. Now, it's possible that Obama approved water-boarding and doesn't want to admit it. Would I accept the guilt of Al-Awlaki based solely on data gathered from torture? No, I wouldn't. But if that data was supported by other data gathered by intelligence services, then I would trust it. The acceptability of torture is worthy of a different thread entirely and I would hope we don't get derailed in this thread over it.

I wasn't really calling you out on this BUT whether I agree with you or not, I do respect a consistant position. If your position is that you are going to trust the CiC to carry out what is needed, regardless of who that may be, I may disagree but I respect the position.

The reason I bring up OBL is that he's an example of US failure when we tried to hard to stick to judicial principles. It certainly is honorable to remain rock-steady in the pursuit of fairness for everyone. But practicality must sometimes supersede "absolute fairness" when a situation is extraordinary. I think it's fair to bring up OBL because it doesn't matter to the 3,000 dead or their families whether their executioner was American or Saudi. When someone proves they can carry out mass killings and state that they intend to continue doing so, they must be pursued, extra-judicially if necessary.

If an American born and bred mass-killer on US soil is tracked back to his home-made fortress that foils any attempt at non-lethal methods to apprehend him, and the thereby necessary assault fails to capture him, but kills him instead, isn't that acceptable? Would anyone shed tears for him because he didn't face a trial in the normal judicial manner? Is this scenario effectively any different from al-Awlaki's?

If we recieved info that an American citizen was planning a full scale attack on the U.S. and this was imminent unless we dropped a bomb on his head right now, I would think differently. I would still hope that we would get to see the evidence that they had.

To carry out a court case like this openly would take months at least and could possibly take years. Wouldn't it be irresponsible of our government to conduct a strictly aboveboard court case in abstentia that permits al-Awlaki the time and freedom carry out mass killings? The evidence may have been gathered but presenting it during the very slow and arduous judicial process could take far too long to help save thousands of American lives. Since most of the evidence had already been gathered, doesn't it make more sense to have a judge make one quick decision, based on the gathered evidence, from behind closed doors? When time is of the essence, and possibly thousands of American lives are in danger, an abbreviated judicial process like this must be considered the best available under the circumstances.

I do not believe it would or that there is any way it should. It didn't take but 6 weeks to try and execute Czolgosz for the assassination of McKinley.

Lastly, presenting evidence in an open court may compromise our intelligence systems. Any evidence presented must also show "how it was obtained" to ascertain it's validity. This must be answered. If the answer is "we gathered this from Ali Bab's restaurant by a mike planted under table #3 in the corner," well now that intelligence gathering system is now compromised and can no longer be used. US Agents placed these systems at great expense and great danger to themselves. Blithely disregarding that effort by just offering it up in court is callous and thoughtless and irreverent.

All of that is true which is why I said that I would be fine to have this done in a military trial. We would have all the evidence on record and in some point in the future we would be able to decide whether what was done was correct or not.

You are quite right to insist that the killing of an American citizen cannot be conducted lightly. It is correct to question it. But this particular case is extraordinary. The details alone prevent the standard judicial practices we are accustomed to. The case of al-Awlaki vs. the USA must be considered an exception, not a standard, yet acceptable nonetheless due to it's extraordinary circumstances.

I do not believe we can simply accept "well this was a special circumstance". So was torture (which you do say you were fine with), but many others would argue differently.
 
Yeah, it's terrible to try to uphold due process of law, right? Who needs it anyway? Just gets in the way.

Love you "conservatives".

I consider myself conservative.
 
I consider myself conservative.

Well many people who label themselves as these small government conservatives are not. Even here they look to expand government power so that when convenient we can deny one's right to trial. I think that if people were true to their words about wanting smaller government, on more confined to the chains and bindings of the Constitution, that they'd have to echo what Ron Paul has said.
 
:lamo :roll: funny how most wanted terrorist were at one time friends of our military

Oh pardon me, I made the assumption you were trying to make a point. Guess not, you just wanted to post some random article describing something that happened 10 years ago without saying why it's relevant today or to this thread.
 
I wasn't really calling you out on this BUT whether I agree with you or not, I do respect a consistant position. If your position is that you are going to trust the CiC to carry out what is needed, regardless of who that may be, I may disagree but I respect the position.
Thank you. Certainly we can agree to disagree.

I do not believe it would or that there is any way it should. It didn't take but 6 weeks to try and execute Czolgosz for the assassination of McKinley.
True, but we cannot know in advance how long it would take. McKinley died over 100 years ago; our judicial system has changed substantially since then. Since we were "out of presidents" *ahem* after the assassination, Czolgosz did not pose an ongoing danger to the American people, and a trial could proceed at whatever pace was required. al-Awlaki was not under US custody when a trial "could have occurred" and so time (or the lack thereof) was still forcing the hand of US authorities.


All of that is true which is why I said that I would be fine to have this done in a military trial. We would have all the evidence on record and in some point in the future we would be able to decide whether what was done was correct or not.
Who's to say there wasn't? There very well could have been one, but held behind closed doors to maintain operational secrecy. And if there was one, we would not know about it for many years as it may cause a rift, already wider than the current one, between the US and Yemen. Personally, I'm guessing there wasn't one. I imagine a "law expert," possibly a judge, was brought in and the evidence presented to him. It was deemed that the US had a good enough case to warrant action, and so the US did. We'll never know the name of this expert because his safety is also important, and so that foreign US-based intelligence services cannot capture and interrogate him. And you can be certain they have no qualms about torture.


I do not believe we can simply accept "well this was a special circumstance". So was torture (which you do say you were fine with), but many others would argue differently.

We may be at an impasse on this, but I will offer this:

I've been considering my words and wondering how they could be misused. Certainly if the "special circumstance" option is offered too liberally, it could lead to abuse. It would be like placing a steak in front of a dog and expecting him not to eat it. So I would suggest the following in the case of American terrorists with a history of mass-killings and a proven willingness to continue attacks:

- If an American terrorist is located on US soil or on the soil of provably friendly nations (e.g., "Great Britain"), the terrorist must be apprehended by non-lethal means if at all possible and brought to trial. If the terrorist is killed in the effort, it must be proven that death was the only option or the agency (or agents) will face judicial action.

- If an American terrorist is located in a country that is hostile to the US or is NOT provably friendly (e.g., "Pakistan") where evidence must collected via intelligence services in lieu of standard police practices, the terrorist may attacked with lethal force without standard following the normal legal proceedings.

Would that be an acceptable compromise?
 
In this case, quite frankly, Ron Paul has no idea of what the Constitution requires. He is off on a tangent that is based much more on the neo-isolationist view he believes the government should be following than the actual far more robust authority the government possesses and more active foreign policy path the government implements.

The Constitution does not require and has never required that combatants be treated as ordinary criminals. Such a requirement would dramatically undermine the U.S. capacity to wage war.

Any cases brought against the drone strike on Mr. Awlaki won't be successful and, IMO, there is a high probability, that the U.S. Supreme Court will choose not to hear such cases. The President's decision falls squarely within his authority as Commander and Chief. There is no ambiguity. In addition, Mr. Awlaki was a legitimate military objective under the Laws of War, so even that line of legal attack is not available. In short, the President's war-related authorities were involved and the decision made was both legitimate and constitutional.
 
In this case, quite frankly, Ron Paul has no idea of what the Constitution requires. He is off on a tangent that is based much more on the neo-isolationist view he believes the government should be following than the actual far more robust authority the government possesses and more active foreign policy path the government implements.

The Constitution does not require and has never required that combatants be treated as ordinary criminals. Such a requirement would dramatically undermine the U.S. capacity to wage war.

Any cases brought against the drone strike on Mr. Awlaki won't be successful and, IMO, there is a high probability, that the U.S. Supreme Court will choose not to hear such cases. The President's decision falls squarely within his authority as Commander and Chief. There is no ambiguity. In addition, Mr. Awlaki was a legitimate military objective under the Laws of War, so even that line of legal attack is not available. In short, the President's war-related authorities were involved and the decision made was both legitimate and constitutional.

you don't believe this guy being an American citizen raises legal "difficulties"?
 
you don't believe this guy being an American citizen raises legal "difficulties"?
Any more so than any other terrorist I am intrigued why you think it does. The guy isnt an American citizen who happens to be a terrorist, he is a terrorist who happens to have been born in America. If we kill 99 out of 100 without regard to their country of birth what is this need to NOT kill the 1?
 
Any more so than any other terrorist I am intrigued why you think it does. The guy isnt an American citizen who happens to be a terrorist, he is a terrorist who happens to have been born in America. If we kill 99 out of 100 without regard to their country of birth what is this need to NOT kill the 1?

is doesn't matter if he is a terrorist how happens to be an American or an American who happens to be a terrorist... this should raise some legal questions that need tending too.
I understand you aren't concerned with the legal "difficulties"... but some folks are.
 
Any more so than any other terrorist I am intrigued why you think it does. The guy isnt an American citizen who happens to be a terrorist, he is a terrorist who happens to have been born in America. If we kill 99 out of 100 without regard to their country of birth what is this need to NOT kill the 1?

Just wondering where the line is crossed. If they found this same guy in Nashville would it have been OK to send a missile into his car?
 
is doesn't matter if he is a terrorist how happens to be an American or an American who happens to be a terrorist... this should raise some legal questions that need tending too.
I understand you aren't concerned with the legal "difficulties"... but some folks are.
you have no problem killing 99 terrorists responsible for slaughtering innocent men women and children...but...1...that does bother you. Yeah...that boggles the mind a bit.
 
Just curious. Is anyone seeing my posts?
 
you have no problem killing 99 terrorists responsible for slaughtering innocent men women and children...but...1...that does bother you. Yeah...that boggles the mind a bit.

how many of the hundred are Americans?.... that's how many i'll be concerned with.

and to be honest, i'm not overly concerned if they are killed during actual combat on a battlefield... but i am concerned with the legal difficulties of targeted killings of Americans, terrorists or not.
 
This is the problem. He did have rights. One does not lose their rights simply because someone else disagree's with their choices.

Anwar al-Awlaki gave up his rights when joined Al-Qaeda as an enemy combatant and planner of attacks on our people,
anyone who does this deserves to die straight up.

I consider them to be like rioters who are subject to being shot on sight.
 
I do not doubt that he likely did that BUT no proof of any of it has actually been provided. I've seen where he has encouraged those who despise the U.S. but that is NOT an executable or really even a chargable offense. In another thread there was a discussion concerning the guy who shot McKinley, Leon Czolgosz. It could and was argued that he was encouraged by many of the anarchist going around giving speeches. It was considered to try and charge some of them but it was realized that speech is not something we could arrest (or kill) someone over.

If we have evidence that a citizen is doing something unlawful, we need to be presenting this evidence in a court of law, for me preferably a military one, and then proceed.

We have covered this. We have known about his actions for a very long time.

Al-Awlaki allegedly spoke with, trained, and preached to a number of al-Qaeda members and affiliates, including three of the 9/11 hijackers,[23] alleged Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan,[24][25] and alleged "Christmas Day bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab;[26][27][28] he was also allegedly involved in planning the latter's attack.

We can not allow the killing of American citizens based upon allegations. If you have proof, present it, get a court ruling, and then carry on.

OBL was not an American citizen. If someone had dropped a bomb on his head it wouldn't have registered much more than a shrug.

This does not directly apply to you but I see I never recieved my answer to the question of whether or not others would simply have been O.K. with allowing Bush to carry out what he felt was necessary.

You have just cited plenty of evidence that this scumbag towelhead was certainly as a minister of propaganda. Maybe he did not pull the trigger or push the button that sent a round through an American, or dropped a bomb on them. For some unfathomable reason, except the liberlism is always stuck-on-stupid IMMHO, libs are looking for the literal smoking gun, and even then claim it matters whether the finger on the trigger was once "American" or not.

OK. Joseph Goebbels. He of Nazi fame. What of him ? Not an American ever, but just a simple propaganda minister.
 
Back
Top Bottom