• 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'

He had no rights

You should reflect for a while on what these four words really represent.
I think everyone should reflect on that.
 
Last edited:
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.

Wow, it's amazing how confused some people are concerning the Constitution.

So Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, the Right to Assembly, Right to Petition and all the rest only applies to citizens? I think you're operating out of a pick-and-choose position.
 
Right or wrong, Ron Paul shows once again all these wannabe constitutional scholars can go **** themselves.

He's the real deal, and not in the sense that he always interprets the constitution correctly, we can argue about that all day, it's that he has his way of viewing it, he has his beliefs and his positions and he doesn't compromise them for any whackjob or nutcase with the power to vote.

You gotta respect him for that.
 
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.

What lies?? If you have a problem with him being dead now, you have a problem with his death. As to ad homs, I don't see any from me. You called me a hypocrite and I called you an idealist.

Nevertheless, perhaps I've been antagonistic. If so, accept my apology.
 
So Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, the Right to Assembly, Right to Petition and all the rest only applies to citizens?

It's more complicated than that, but yes. If someone is here as our guests and they decide to hold a protest, we can simply decide to deport them. Same with speech. We can simply legally deport them. We can never send an American citizen off for speaking their mind. There really is nothing we can do about it.
 
What lies?? If you have a problem with him being dead now, you have a problem with his death. As to ad homs, I don't see any from me. You called me a hypocrite and I called you an idealist.

Nevertheless, perhaps I've been antagonistic. If so, accept my apology.

No need to apologize for your antagonism as I am culpable also. (I actually believe that a little antagonism is healthy for conversation and arriving at the truth). Nonetheless, I have no problem with Anwar al-Awlaki's death. I have a problem on how it was conducted.

Earlier, you claimed that we live in unprecedented times. You are right to a degree. However, terrorism has existed for thousands of years. What is unprecedented is the President of the United States placing assassination orders on U.S. citizens. This is unprecedented.
 
This is the problem. He did have rights. One does not lose their rights simply because someone else disagree's with their choices.

he renounced his citizenship when he joined Al Qaeda and swore to make Jihad against the USA in a foreign land.
 
No need to apologize for your antagonism as I am culpable also. (I actually believe that a little antagonism is healthy for conversation and arriving at the truth). Nonetheless, I have no problem with Anwar al-Awlaki's death. I have a problem on how it was conducted.

Earlier, you claimed that we live in unprecedented times. You are right to a degree. However, terrorism has existed for thousands of years. What is unprecedented is the President of the United States placing assassination orders on U.S. citizens. This is unprecedented.

I agree with your thoughts about antagonism. ;-)

Your last sentence gave me pause. Then as I reflected on it, I thought, "Are we sure?" The CIA conducted this mission. I'd say this is just the first one we found out about.

I understand your position. Time will tell as to whether or not this act will be perceived as a violation of the law.
 
he renounced his citizenship when he joined Al Qaeda and swore to make Jihad against the USA in a foreign land.

It's been covered. He neither renounced his citizenship nor has it been removed from him. Again, a very good example of the problem here. One can not have their citizenship removed because we do not like their actions.
 
Your last sentence gave me pause. Then as I reflected on it, I thought, "Are we sure?" The CIA conducted this mission. I'd say this is just the first one we found out about.

This is a tangent, but the CIA has a long history of conducting rogue operations under the radar; from overthrowing nascent democracies, to drug peddling, to almost committing a nuclear holocaust, among other things.

I am personally not a fan of this organization and think that they need to go. They are an organization, like our current President, who operates above the rule of law.
 
It's been covered. He neither renounced his citizenship nor has it been removed from him. Again, a very good example of the problem here. One can not have their citizenship removed because we do not like their actions.

no, but if you renounce your citizenship and join the armed-forces of an enemy nation, your citizenship can be revoked. it says so in my passport.
 
no, but if you renounce your citizenship and join the armed-forces of an enemy nation, your citizenship can be revoked. it says so in my passport.

I answered that question already in previous pages.
 
I answered that question already in previous pages.

i have read a rebuttal of this and about the SCOTUS case. however, I believe that joining an enemy combatant group that has sworn to destroy the USA while in a foreign land, counts as renouncing one's citizenship.
 
no, but if you renounce your citizenship and join the armed-forces of an enemy nation, your citizenship can be revoked. it says so in my passport.

I think I saw this hanging in some museum D.C........ He never renounced his citizenship.
 
i have read a rebuttal of this and about the SCOTUS case. however, I believe that joining an enemy combatant group that has sworn to destroy the USA while in a foreign land, counts as renouncing one's citizenship.

Cool but more importantly, the courts disagree.
 
Passport: Loss of U.S. Citizenship: Under certain circumstances, you may lose your U.S. citizenship by performing, voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship, any of the following acts: 1) being naturalized in a foreign state; 2) raking an oath or making a declaration to a foreign state; 3) serving in the armed forces of a foreign state.

Al Qaeda is a militant group, not a foreign state.
 
Last edited:
the courts tackled a case indentical to this one?

when/where/how?

I'm not going down that road with you. The courts have ruled on this. I've provided the links. He was an American citizen.
 
I'm not going down that road with you. The courts have ruled on this. I've provided the links. He was an American citizen.

the case involved voting in a foreign election.....NOT declaring violent illegal warfare against the American civilian population & joining an illegal army, while in a foreign land.

two very different circumstances.
 
the case involved voting in a foreign election.....NOT declaring violent illegal warfare against the American civilian population & joining an illegal army, while in a foreign land.

two very different circumstances.

The court stated what must happen to lose ones citizenship.
 
The court stated what must happen to lose ones citizenship.

yes, one must renounce it. joining a terrorist organization that is sworn to kill American civilians, while in a foreign land, and participating in the planning of such attacks, counts as renouncing one's citizenship.

come on now, the 14th Amendment is not a suicide pact.
 
yes, one must renounce it. joining a terrorist organization that is sworn to kill American civilians, while in a foreign land, and participating in the planning of such attacks, counts as renouncing one's citizenship.

come on now, the 14th Amendment is not a suicide pact.

The courts say otherwise.
 
yes, one must renounce it. joining a terrorist organization that is sworn to kill American civilians, while in a foreign land, and participating in the planning of such attacks, counts as renouncing one's citizenship.

come on now, the 14th Amendment is not a suicide pact.

No it doesn't.
 
Back
Top Bottom