• 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'

Antiderivative said:
Ron Paul is a crazy. He believes in American concepts like the rule of law and habeas corpus.

It is unfortunate that I live in a day and age where many Americans are hostile to concepts like due process and habeas corpus. They believe that the executive branch does not have to uphold these ideals and are exempt from them in order to act in a rogue manner.
Click to expand...

These are unprecedented times. Or do you know some other time in American history when radical stateless terrorists have declared war on the US? Those nations/individuals who can not (or choose not to) adapt to change will not survive. I am sure this mission was a close call. I'd rather close calls go to our side.
 
MaggieD said:
These are unprecedented times. Or do you know some other time in American history when radical stateless terrorists have declared war on the US? Those nations/individuals who can not (or choose not to) adapt to change will not survive. I am sure this mission was a close call. I'd rather close calls go to our side.
Click to expand...

This is a cop out statement in order to wage unjustified wars. Most of the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, yet we attack Iraq and Afghanistan.

These are not unprecedented times. History is replete with examples of aggressive states eroding individual freedoms in order to wage asinine wars.

You either believe in concepts like habeas corpus and due process or you do not. Obviously, you are hostile to these concepts.
 
Last edited:
StillBallin75 said:
So where precisely is the dividing line between crime and war? If, as a hypothetical, an American citizen joins a foreign army and takes up arms against his own country, he is in my eyes an enemy combatant and a legitimate military target. I'd say that's pretty close to what Aulaqi did.
Click to expand...

If he is on the front line holding a gun and fighting and gets killed that's his problem. As I stated, this is somthing that needs brought up and whether or not we come to a solution that Paul didn't agree with, it needs asked.

Standing on the front line fighting with the enemy and getting killed is different than the government stating that they want someone dead, go do it.
 
MaggieD said:
While I understand your viewpoint, I don't agree.

#1, we took this guy out with a drone in a foreign country where he'd set up shop to wreak havoc. I'd call that a traitor.
Click to expand...

As far as a discussion goes, I would not agree. I would have deemed McVeigh a murderer also but I wouldn't accept the government killing him (forgetting for a moment I don't agree with that anyway) without a trial.

#2, he was killed during a drone strike, no doubt targetting him. We are not obliged to send in troops and put dozens of lives in danger in order to "arrest" someone who has gone over to the other side.
Click to expand...

No, we should only require a trial before ordering an American citizen dead.
 
Antiderivative said:
This is a cop out statement in order to wage unjustified wars. Most of the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, yet we attack Iraq and Afghanistan.

These are not unprecedented times. History is replete with examples of aggressive states eroding individual freedoms in order to wage asinine wars.

You either believe in concepts like habeas corpus and due process or you do not. Obviously, you are hostile to these concepts.
Click to expand...

We are not discussing Iraq and Afghanistan. We are discussing taking out a known terrorist with a drone. If these times are not unprecedented in modern history, please cite examples. I am not hostile to due process. The war on terrorism is being fought by different rules by necessity.
 
Misterveritis said:
Why do you believe he was killed without oversight? I suspect there were lots of lawyers arguing the fine points of killing an American unlawful combatant in this very unusual war. The war against Islamofascism will not look like any of our recent past wars.
Click to expand...

Then what would have made it so difficult to have done this in a court of law?
 
MaggieD said:
We are not discussing Iraq and Afghanistan. We are discussing taking out a known terrorist with a drone. If these times are not unprecedented in modern history, please cite examples. I am not hostile to due process. The war on terrorism is being fought by different rules by necessity.
Click to expand...

What makes these times so unprecedented that a trial could not have been held?
 
1Perry said:
As far as a discussion goes, I would not agree. I would have deemed McVeigh a murderer also but I wouldn't accept the government killing him (forgetting for a moment I don't agree with that anyway) without a trial.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't see McVeigh as being a realistic comparison.

If you are right and I am wrong, there will be an investigation.
 
1Perry said:
Then what would have made it so difficult to have done this in a court of law?
Click to expand...

That's an easy one, first you have to find him and hold him them you have to extradite him to Clubgetmo, where he will sit forever. Obama's way is to shoot first and ask questions later. Which I like, of course those on the left will hate him for it, but won't say anything. Just imagine the uproar from the left if Bush did what Obama just did.
 
1Perry said:
What makes these times so unprecedented that a trial could not have been held?
Click to expand...

Had we tried him in abstentia, it would have set a very dangerous precedent. Remember, the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply just to American citizens. You are trying to make some special exception because he is a citizen. The U.S. Constitution makes no such exception. If we try one, do we try them all??? No, I mean every one of them??? This is war not playtime at Harvard.
 
Last edited:
1Perry said:
What makes these times so unprecedented that a trial could not have been held?
Click to expand...

I think tasha quite aptly explained why...he was in yemen we couldnt send law enforcement in to arrest him or the military...hes a murderer a known terrorist just like any other. Sending in drones to take him out was appropriate even though he was an american citizen but who long ago denounced his country...
 
MaggieD said:
We are not discussing Iraq and Afghanistan. We are discussing taking out a known terrorist with a drone. If these times are not unprecedented in modern history, please cite examples. I am not hostile to due process. The war on terrorism is being fought by different rules by necessity.
Click to expand...

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were started due to how we perceive terrorism. If you want to think otherwise and believe that they are completely unrelated to this conversation, then so be it.

Anyways, I find it abhorrent that the state can simply place a "hit" on a citizen. I think it is wrong that the President has the right to place assassination orders on citizens. You think otherwise and claim that you are not hostile to habeas corpus. You are filled with hypocrisy.
 
Born Free said:
That's an easy one, first you have to find him and hold him them you have to extradite him to Clubgetmo, where he will sit forever. Obama's way is to shoot first and ask questions later. Which I like, of course those on the left will hate him for it, but won't say anything. Just imagine the uproar from the left if Bush did what Obama just did.
Click to expand...

You don't have to capture him to put him on trial. Just covering this again so it's not brought up again.
 
1Perry said:
You don't have to capture him to put him on trial. Just covering this again so it's not brought up again.
Click to expand...

So you have a trial, without a suspect in court. He's found guilty, then what, send in the drones. I like skipping the first step and going right to the drones.
 
Born Free said:
So you have a trial, without a suspect in court. He's found guilty, then what, send in the drones. I like skipping the first step and going right to the drones.
Click to expand...

Trial in absentia: three years

If found guilty and sentenced to death, another 20 for the appeals.

Ridiculous. ;-)
 
Face the facts people, we are at War and Anwar al-Awlaki was an enemy combatant and therefore fair game.

He had no rights and picked him own lot in life getting what he deserved.

Damn I love technology.
PredatorDrone2Firing.jpg
 
MaggieD said:
Had we tried him in abstentia, it would have set a very dangerous precedent. Remember, the U.S. Constitution doesn't apply just to American citizens.
Click to expand...

While some aspects do apply to others, nobody argued that OBL should have had a trial. This is another misconception. The Constitution does not apply to non citizens the same way as it does citizens. We also try people in absentia now so it's not some vague idea.

You are trying to make some special exception because he is a citizen. The U.S. Constitution makes no such exception. If we try one, do we try them all??? No, I mean every one of them??? This is war not playtime at Harvard.
Click to expand...

Wow, it's amazing how confused some people are concerning the Constitution.
 
Born Free said:
So you have a trial, without a suspect in court. He's found guilty, then what, send in the drones. I like skipping the first step and going right to the drones.
Click to expand...

Many would prefer doing away with peoples Constitutional rights. Luckily we have courts to keep people like that in check.
 
MaggieD said:
Trial in absentia: three years

If found guilty and sentenced to death, another 20 for the appeals.

Ridiculous. ;-)
Click to expand...

It's why the military keeps their trials in house.
 
Councilman said:
Face the facts people, we are at War and Anwar al-Awlaki was an enemy combatant and therefore fair game.

He had no rights and picked him own lot in life getting what he deserved.

Damn I love technology.
Click to expand...

This is the problem. He did have rights. One does not lose their rights simply because someone else disagree's with their choices.
 
MaggieD said:
And you are filled with an idealism that is born of sleeping safely in bed at night while other people do the wet work.
Click to expand...

I see that you have to resort to lies in order to present your argument. I have no problem with the death of Anwar al-Awlaki. I have a problem with the President of the United States suspending the rule of law and using the CIA to place "hit" orders on citizens. Unfortunately, you are incapable of demarcating these points and have to resort to ad homs.

The "wet work"? It was you who didn't want to address our asinine wars, but then criticize me while we unnecessarily kill tens of thousands of innocent people and jeopardize Americans lives over our atrocious foreign policy. I bet you have a Raymond Davis poster hanging on your wall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom