• 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'

Thunder said:
the courts have never ruled on such a scenario.
Click to expand...

The law does not work that way. Even going with your position, yours is opinion only, nothing more.
 
1Perry said:
The law does not work that way. Even going with your position, yours is opinion only, nothing more.
Click to expand...

hopefully someone will sue the USA for killing this guy, and SCOTUS will decide if joining a terrorist organization sworn to America's destruction while in a foreign land, counts as renouncing one's citizenship.
 
Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Republican Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts introduced a measure Thursday to strip Americans charged with terrorism of their US citizenship. We speak with Shayana Kadidal, senior attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, who says the proposal is "constitutional buffoonery." [includes rush transcript]
Click to expand...

The White House gave it a chilly reception; I don't know whatever happened to it....but there has apparently been some controversy about this guy's rights for quite some time -- going back to 2010.

All I can say now is that I'm glad GWB wasn't in office. Obama? He'll skate on glass.

From April 2010:

Newser – In what may be an unprecedented move, Barack Obama has authorized the CIA to assassinate an American citizen. The target: Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who was born in New Mexico, but now operates out of Yemen. Counterterror officials say he’s a member of al-Qaeda, and has been linked to numerous terrorist plots, including the attempted Christmas Day bombing and Fort Hood shooting.

Because Awlaki is an American citizen, the CIA had to get special permission from the White House to put him on their kill list. A former Bush official tells the New York Times that he’s not sure it’s ever happened before, and didn’t, to his knowledge, happen under Bush. But Awlaki is seen as a major threat—he’s moved from simply encouraging attacks to actively planning them, according to one intelligence official. " He knows he won’t be met with handshakes and flowers. None of this should surprise anyone."
Click to expand...

Interesting.
 
Thunder said:
hopefully someone will sue the USA for killing this guy, and SCOTUS will decide if joining a terrorist organization sworn to America's destruction while in a foreign land, counts as renouncing one's citizenship.
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer but i believe he would of been charged with treason if capture. <-- So, hopefully you make sense of that statement and notion him not being a u.s citizen.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
the courts have never ruled on such a scenario.
Click to expand...


Dude, your argument is moot. I already posted the link to the article which clearly states Obama recognized Awlaki's existing citizenship when he issued the kill/capture order. The POTUS voluntarily made an informed decision to revoke the rights of a legal U.S. citizen.
 
Interesting that it happened on a Friday. Bin Laden was also killed on a Friday mission.

News is slower over the weekend. Because of the controversial nature of this mission, it wouldn't surprise me if it was done on Friday for a reason. Don't be naive and say, "That's when they finally saw him." The order to kill him was given by the President over a year ago. "Do it any Friday you can."

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me. :ninja:
 
You asked for it Maggie

 
1Perry said:
The law does not work that way. Even going with your position, yours is opinion only, nothing more.
Click to expand...

It's not an opinion that serving in a group that is waging war against the United States is treason and punishable by death.

I believe that due process was well-served, when you consider the fact that there is no question that awlaki was guilty of treason.
 
MaggieD said:
Interesting that it happened on a Friday. Bin Laden was also killed on a Friday mission.

News is slower over the weekend. Because of the controversial nature of this mission, it wouldn't surprise me if it was done on Friday for a reason. Don't be naive and say, "That's when they finally saw him." The order to kill him was given by the President over a year ago. "Do it any Friday you can."

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me. :ninja:
Click to expand...

I doubt it. There's no way to time a mission like this.
 
apdst said:
It's not an opinion that serving in a group that is waging war against the United States is treason and punishable by death.

I believe that due process was well-served, when you consider the fact that there is no question that awlaki was guilty of treason.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that when a crime as severe as treason as committed and there is "no question that the defendant is guilty" in the eyes of the President he should be able to skip the legal process and go straight to the execution? I don't agree with that at all. That power has way too much potential for abuse. If it was so evident that Awlaki was guilty the trial would be breeze. We shouldn't compromise our beliefs about justice when presented with an extreme criminal.
 
Voltaire X said:
So what you're saying is that when a crime as severe as treason as committed and there is "no question that the defendant is guilty" in the eyes of the President he should be able to skip the legal process and go straight to the execution? I don't agree with that at all.
Click to expand...

Under these circumstances, yeah. Let's face it, awlaki didn't rob a liquor store.

That power has way too much potential for abuse.
Click to expand...

That's why it should be reserved for people like awlaki.



If it was so evident that Awlaki was guilty the trial would be breeze. We shouldn't compromise our beliefs about justice when presented with an extreme criminal.
Click to expand...

What was the verdict in KSM's trial? Oh, wait he hasn't been tried, because we've spent nearly 9 years trying to figure out exactly what are beliefs are, so we can feel all warm and fuzzy about giving him a fair trial.
 
1Perry said:
Paul's is a valid question and it's why we need people like Paul to ask them.
Click to expand...

Somethings never change. Perry apologizing for right wing stupidity...
 
You mess with the bull, you get the horns.

Al-Awlaki knew which side he was on. He signed up to fight for the enemy. Sorry, I can't muster any sympathy; my Give-a-Damn's all busted.

Obama is mostly following the policies of the previous administration (which he criticized to no end), and I congratulate him--and especially our military--for their successes.
 
Tashah said:
It's not like a couple of FBI agents could fly to Yemen, find him in the tribal lands, cuff him, and then whisk him back to the US for trial.
That would be quite impossible. The video of their beheading would be uploaded to YouTube.
Congrats to the US drone team in Nevada that took out this ass-clown.
Click to expand...
There's something preventing even a pro forma trial in absentia?
Giving the govt the ability to perform extra-judicial summary executions of it's citizens is a very poor precedent that cannot bode well even if it tried.


Yes, congrats to the team who did their job well. Boo to the people who picked this job for them.
 
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...
The Constitution doesn't say that no one shall be deprived of life without oversight. Iirc, it says due process. ymmv
 
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. 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...
Foreigners who are not in the US are not subject to the Constitution. It applies to Americans and people in the US iirc.
 
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...
Unfortunately, so do tyrants. The Constitution is to protect us and our descendant from the abuse of govt power.
 
Thunder said:
the courts have never ruled on such a scenario.
Click to expand...
IF they haven't, don't you think they should?
It's kind of an essential question--when can the govt conduct an extra-judicial summary execution of a citizen?
 
Voltaire X said:
I agree with Ron Paul. He deserved a trial. Then we could have assassinated him.
Click to expand...
Well, we couldn't've assassinated him then. It would have been merely carrying out his sentence. ; )
 
Top Cat said:
Somethings never change. Perry apologizing for right wing stupidity...
Click to expand...
If following the law and the Constitution is "stupid," I don't want to be "smart."
ymmv

But giving the govt the right to execute citizens w/o a trial is not a good idea nor is it in line with fundamental American principles. ymmv
 
Sensibility said:
You mess with the bull, you get the horns.
Al-Awlaki knew which side he was on. He signed up to fight for the enemy. Sorry, I can't muster any sympathy; my Give-a-Damn's all busted.
Obama is mostly following the policies of the previous administration (which he criticized to no end), and I congratulate him--and especially our military--for their successes.
Click to expand...
It's so not about whether or not al-Awlaki had it coming.
It think it's pretty much a given that he did have it coming. That's not the issue.
What's at issue is whether or not it's right for a govt to be allowed to execute citizens w/o due process.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
It's so not about whether or not al-Awlaki had it coming.
It think it's pretty much a given that he did have it coming. That's not the issue.
What's at issue is whether or not it's right for a govt to be allowed to execute citizens w/o due process.
Click to expand...

The way you put it...its an excellent question..its a tough call...my first reaction was good im glad he got whacked and Im still glad btw he was not a good guy..nor was he an american...he may have been a citizen...but he was no american.
However, you are right in posing the question is it right to execute american citizens.
 
Councilman said:
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.
Click to expand...

what that man said. there is really only one solution for those people. it has just happens to have two variants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom