• 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'

Criminality is not what our rights are based on. They just are. The situation does not decide rights. You have them, period until they are taken away by due process.

Not quite. And as I explained much earlier in the thread. You only "have" them to the extent that you can retrieve them once someone has taken them away. Clearly there are common and well tested rights that are safer then others. However, as this dirt-bag found out, he was a target first, and American second.
 
Look, all you had to say was that you weren't complete in your thoughts.....I do it often times. The above is correct. Paul does not believe he should have been targeted without due process. That is very different than saying he didn't think he should have been targeted.



I've posted the links. The USSC has ruled that being labeled an enemy combatant does not strip you of your rights.

Actually, the SCOTUS was limited in its view. They only addressed rights of the detained. This has also been explained to you many times already.
 
Actually, the SCOTUS was limited in its view. They only addressed rights of the detained. This has also been explained to you many times already.

They were specific in noting that being labeled an enemy combatant does not remove your rights. I posted the links.
 
They were specific in noting that being labeled an enemy combatant does not remove your rights. I posted the links.

In a case about detainees !! Not only did they not expand upon the scope, but our own Congress had hearing on just such targeting last year. Had SCOTUS issued a relevent ruling, then the entire concept of targeting such as Dirtbag, who was targeted last year, would have been turned on its head. It was not. Only a few Paulistas have embraced the stupidity of this.

Ron Loon Paul has now suggested Impeachment. Tell us how far that is going to go ?
 
No, Congress has not declared War in a wide variety of ways since WWII, since WW II was the last time that Congress declared war.

I don't agree. But you may opine as you wish.

Those of us who believe in small government think that the government should follow the Constitution and not usurp new powers for itself. And thus if the US wants to be at war, small government backers would say that it requires the Congress to declare war since only Congress has that ability. But you large government folk probably don't mind so much.
The issue is not a big government versus a small government. It is a constitutionally-limited government versus tyranny by bureaucrat.
 
In a case about detainees !!

You either lose your rights by being labeled an enemy combatant or not. The courts are never going to rule that you do in this case and not in that case based upon what some lawyers decide.

So you agree that the court has ruled that being labeled an enemy combatant in the earlier case does not remove one of their Constitutional right, before we go killing citizens should we not clear this up?

Not only did they not expand upon the scope, but our own Congress had hearing on just such targeting last year. Had SCOTUS issued a relevent ruling, then the entire concept of targeting such as Dirtbag, who was targeted last year, would have been turned on its head. It was not. Only a few Paulistas have embraced the stupidity of this.

Ron Loon Paul has now suggested Impeachment. Tell us how far that is going to go ?

We do not leave our rights up to Congress. ie: McCain/Feingold.
 
You either lose your rights by being labeled an enemy combatant or not. The courts are never going to rule that you do in this case and not in that case based upon what some lawyers decide.

So you agree that the court has ruled that being labeled an enemy combatant in the earlier case does not remove one of their Constitutional right, before we go killing citizens should we not clear this up?

We do not leave our rights up to Congress. ie: McCain/Feingold.
In WWII the Russians created military units that consisted largely of Germans who had been captured or had deserted and then agreed to fight with the Russians against their own country. Should the Germans have not fought against them?

Others have said it before. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Given that al-whateverhisnamewas, chose to fight with our enemies had we captured him, after waterboarding him we might have given him a trial in a military tribunal for being an unlawful combatant. But not a civilian trial. He was a war criminal, not your every day garden variety criminal.
 
In WWII the Russians created military units that consisted largely of Germans who had been captured or had deserted and then agreed to fight with the Russians against their own country. Should the Germans have not fought against them?

Others have said it before. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Given that al-whateverhisnamewas, chose to fight with our enemies had we captured him, after waterboarding him we might have given him a trial in a military tribunal for being an unlawful combatant. But not a civilian trial. He was a war criminal, not your every day garden variety criminal.

You do not get to decide what the Constitution is. If you believe there is a flaw you change it, you don't ignore it.

I imagine a change to allowing the removal of rights for those who can be shown to be fighting with the enemy would pass. As I said, the courts have ruled that just by calling them an enemy does not remove their rights.
 
(Reuters) - American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.


**** this!!!! We can not allow some secretive panel decide who gets constitutional protections and who doesn't.

Secret panel can put Americans on kill list' | Reuters

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

Total bull****. And to think, people thought Bush tampled on our rights. (not that he didn't)
 
You do not get to decide what the Constitution is. If you believe there is a flaw you change it, you don't ignore it.

I imagine a change to allowing the removal of rights for those who can be shown to be fighting with the enemy would pass. As I said, the courts have ruled that just by calling them an enemy does not remove their rights.
You and I shall always disagree on this point. Not a big deal. Let's move on to kill the next one.
 
(Reuters) - American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.


**** this!!!! We can not allow some secretive panel decide who gets constitutional protections and who doesn't.

Secret panel can put Americans on kill list' | Reuters

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

Total bull****. And to think, people thought Bush tampled on our rights. (not that he didn't)

"Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate." wtf

This is crap that you can only imagine in a bad movie.
 
Last edited:
I don't agree. But you may opine as you wish.

How do you declare war without a declaration of war? You can engage in military operations without a declaration of war, but that's not the same as declaring war.

The issue is not a big government versus a small government. It is a constitutionally-limited government versus tyranny by bureaucrat.

And yet the Constitution says that only Congress may declare War. But we've subverted that part to allow the President near free reign with the military; which is not a constitutionally-limited government. As I said, big government probably won't mind so much.
 
How do you declare war without a declaration of war? You can engage in military operations without a declaration of war, but that's not the same as declaring war.

And yet the Constitution says that only Congress may declare War. But we've subverted that part to allow the President near free reign with the military; which is not a constitutionally-limited government. As I said, big government probably won't mind so much.

I think you're taking the term, " 'War' on Terrorism" a bit too literally. When Congress declares War, it declares it upon another country. Terrorism is not a country nor is it the entirety of another country. Terrorism is located in many nations but does not constitute the entire population of any one nation nor does Terrorism represent the official position of any nation. Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan may "seem" like exceptions but they don't quite fit the bill.

So since you cannot find the country, "Terrorism" on a map or anywhere on a list of UN nations, Congress cannot formally declare War on it. This is not a subversion of the Constitution; the Constitution simply doesn't account for it.
 
Last edited:
How do you declare war without a declaration of war? You can engage in military operations without a declaration of war, but that's not the same as declaring war.
I think a simple authorization to the President to use force to resolve the issue is sufficient. I also think that absent that funding the war for year after year is also assent.
 
I think you're taking the term, " 'War' on Terrorism" a bit too literally.

No, I'm taking the term "Declare War" literally, as it was said that since WW II, the US government has declared war in many ways. Which is untrue as we have not officially declared war since WW II. Even on things not "War on Terror". We've attacked sovereign countries without declaration of war. Terrorists may be able to hide out in many places, however, taking out say the sovereign government of Iraq had nothing to do with that. In fact, that was war against another sovereign nation without declaration of war.

There are many limitations within the Constitution, and those limitations were there for a reason. I happen to be of the mind that using those limitations is wise.
 
I think a simple authorization to the President to use force to resolve the issue is sufficient.

And that is expansion of government, and government uncontrolled by the constraints of the Constitution, my Big Government Backing friend.
 
No, I'm taking the term "Declare War" literally, as it was said that since WW II, the US government has declared war in many ways. Which is untrue as we have not officially declared war since WW II. Even on things not "War on Terror". We've attacked sovereign countries without declaration of war. Terrorists may be able to hide out in many places, however, taking out say the sovereign government of Iraq had nothing to do with that. In fact, that was war against another sovereign nation without declaration of war.

There are many limitations within the Constitution, and those limitations were there for a reason. I happen to be of the mind that using those limitations is wise.

You know what, I would prefer the US didn't go dropping bombs on sovereign nations too. I would prefer it if nations with a terrorist presence took care of it themselves. Take a look at the Philippines and Jordan. Both have a terrorist presence and they've done quite a good job of smashing hard on that presence. The US is not dropping bombs on either country. Isn't that nice?

I know what the counter-argument will be: "But they're allies of the US and that's why the US isn't there." Yes, a strange coincidence isn't it? Countries inimical to the US, that wouldn't shed a tear if the US "suffered a mishap," tend to also be the ones who place mass-murderers in palaces and otherwise provide them with a safe-haven. One might confuse this with harboring and supporting Terrorism. And if that terrorist publicly announces he intends to kill Americans (or anyone else) that's like keeping a weapon specifically intended for use on the US (or anyone else), even though they never declared war. That's...not nice, is it?

It doesn't matter so much that they don't like us. It matters more that they are keeping what amounts to a weapon of mass destruction in the form of a malignant human mind, available for use as a weapon against the citizens of the USA. What's unique about the terrorist mind as a weapon is the hosting nation can use this weapon upon innocents over an over again and claim that it made no attack upon the US or other nations, thus eliminating the possibility of "legal retribution."

That's what they're hoping for anyway. They hope that the American sense of fair play, of "due process," of following legal procedures rigidly, will paralyze us into inaction. If we stuck rigidly to constitutional doctrine as you suggest, we could only do anything "after" terrorist attacks are already killing innocents. Its playing straight into their hands and we will have absolutely no other recourse other than just take it and suffer quietly like little pansies. If we demonstrate a little flexibility and foresight, we can destroy that human weapon "before" it is employed. When doing this we have a responsibility to destroy that weapon with absolutely minimum foreign civilian casualties, but we must be certain that we do it.

The terrorists "want" us to be stuck. They "want" us to wring our hands and whine pitiably, uncertain what action to take because the Constitution doesn't tell us what to do. They "want" us to stand on our "moral high ground" while they are allowed to kill innocent after innocent with absolute impunity. They believe we have no common sense at all and if we place "their" rights above the rights of "our own innocents," we will have proven them correct.
 
And that is expansion of government, and government uncontrolled by the constraints of the Constitution, my Big Government Backing friend.
We will have to disagree on this point.
 
Back
Top Bottom