• 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'

worth noting - that's not a full quote of Reagan's E.O. He was modifying the original "thou shalt not assasinate" executive order from Truman to include the provision that "however, any action taken in good faith by an agent on an other wise approved mission" can be considered free of the implications of Trumans original order.

IE: we can't assassinate anyone. unless we really want to. :D


Actually, it is

2.11 Prohibition on Assassination.

No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.

Check out the link for yourself.
 
exactly. we would never assassinate anyone. for example, during the invasion of Iraq, we never tried to assassinate Saddam Hussein. We were just trying to degrade his ability to communicate by turning off his personal, hand-held radio.

with a 2,000 pound bomb.


:D
 
exactly. we would never assassinate anyone. for example, during the invasion of Iraq, we never tried to assassinate Saddam Hussein. We were just trying to degrade his ability to communicate by turning off his personal, hand-held radio.

with a 2,000 pound bomb.


:D

Just because the government does something doesn't make it legal.
 
Just because the government does something doesn't make it legal.

who said it was illegal? we were just trying to turn off his comm gear.







real answer: suicidal rules will get ignored. given a choice between fudging the border of plausibility and letting some dude continue to murder innocent American civilians... we will choose to turn off his radio with a bomb. every time. the "we don't assassinate" rule isn't there to keep us from killing people, it's there so we can say we have a "we don't assassinate" rule.
 
indeed he did. this goes at the very root of what we believe society is. either it is sovereign individuals who choose to enter into social contract with each other, or it is not. al-awlaki declared himself in a state of war with the United States. :shrug: not our fault he made that call.

As noted earlier, even Obama realized that he was still a U.S. citizen.
 
As noted earlier, even Obama realized that he was still a U.S. citizen.

:shrug: and the executive's position matters even less in that case than the judiciary's. at least the judiciary is fit to judge whether or not he was in his right mind when he made his decision.
 
Actually, it is

Check out the link for yourself.

Again. That is bullcrap. First, it is an Executive Order, from 1981. Second, it deals with "political assassinations". Not military targets.
 
:shrug: and the executive's position matters even less in that case than the judiciary's. at least the judiciary is fit to judge whether or not he was in his right mind when he made his decision.

Indeed the presidents opinion is worth less than the judiciary's. That's part of the problem here.
 
Indeed the presidents opinion is worth less than the judiciary's. That's part of the problem here.

and they are both worth less than al-Awlaki's. when you divorce the US and you enter a state of war with her, you are killable. ask any Confederate soldier if anyone tried to arrest them before the artillery shells began raining down.

again, the man was a soveriegn citizen, and he made his choice.
 
Again. That is bullcrap. First, it is an Executive Order, from 1981. Second, it deals with "political assassinations". Not military targets.

Hey, don't get angry that 1Perry, Jasonxe, and I have argued and proven that the killing of al-Awlaki is illegal. However, I think that this may very well end up like a Libya situation, where when it first occurred, the people who argued it was unconstitutional were seen as crazies, yet it is now an accepted fact that the "intervention" in Libya was unconstitutional.
 
I don't think anyone is upset that he was killed by drones.
I meant people are upset because military force was used by the CIA to kill a US citizen and member of Al Qaeda in a country that could not or would not arrest him and turn him over to the US for trial.
They both were ruled to have Constitutional rights, no? Padilla was tried and found guilty. Yaser was deported after voluntarily giving up his citizenship. The Bush administration was wrong to have held them without a trial and the courts said so.

It's wrong to hold a citizen without a trial but not to kill them?
The law used by GWB's administration to hold that both actions were legal is below. The SCOTUS held that this law did not apply to Padilla and Yaser because the US had the men in custody and could therefore offer them due process as citizens. Al Awlaki was not in custody and could not be brought into custody so it would seem this law authorizes the POTUS to use military force against him.
Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001

Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]

107th CONGRESS

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Entire text available at: Authorization for Use of Military Force- Sept. 18, 2001
 
Last edited:
and they are both worth less than al-Awlaki's. when you divorce the US and you enter a state of war with her, you are killable. ask any Confederate soldier if anyone tried to arrest them before the artillery shells began raining down.

again, the man was a soveriegn citizen, and he made his choice.

As I note, if he had been killed in a general attack I wouldn't have the problem with this that I do. Being specifically targeted is where the problem arises especially when we had a valid route to take to deal with this. He could have been tried a year ago. (or longer)
 
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.
We are at war. Last time I checked, we don't need Congressional or judicial approval to take out the military leaders of countries (or, in this case, organizations) that we are at war with. If Obama was killing random political leaders we don't like but who have no obvious connection to the war on terror, that would be a different matter.
 
Last edited:
As I note, if he had been killed in a general attack I wouldn't have the problem with this that I do. Being specifically targeted is where the problem arises.

not really. as I've pointed out, he declared war on us and gave up his citizenship. as Dinosaurs' has pointed out, he then joined and became a leader in an organization that congress has duly authorized the President to hunt down and kill when and where ever he pleases.
 
How many folks has BO killed, assassinated, maimed or injured since he won the Noble Peace Prize? 1,000, 10,000, 50,000....more?
 
We are at war. Last time I checked, we don't need Congressional or judicial approval to take out the military leaders of countries (or, in this case, organizations) that we are at war with.

bingo. this isn't a police issue. the only reason not to kill one of these guys is to drag him somewhere and stick his head under water until he tells us where to find the other guys that we also want to kill... before taking first said individual out back and shooting him.
 
I meant people are upset because military force was used by the CIA to kill a US citizen and member of Al Qaeda in a country that could not or would not arrest him and turn him over to the US for trial.

As I said, I understand that. This is one rare case where I could understand the death penalty being meted out after being found guilty.

The law used by GWB's administration to hold that both actions were legal is below. The SCOTUS held that this law did not apply to Padilla and Yaser because the US had the men in custody and could therefore offer them due process as citizens. Al Awlaki was not in custody and could not be brought into custody so it would seem this law authorizes the POTUS to use military force against him.

Law's authorize many things that were not Constitutional. McCain/Feingold comes readily to mind. The court ruling was based upon the men having Constitutional rights, not that they simply were being held.
 
not really. as I've pointed out, he declared war on us and gave up his citizenship.

You can point it out 50 more times and it still becomes nothing more than your opinion.

as Dinosaurs' has pointed out, he then joined and became a leader in an organization that congress has duly authorized the President to hunt down and kill when and where ever he pleases.

Constitutional rights should not be discarded for political points.
 
As I note, if he had been killed in a general attack I wouldn't have the problem with this that I do. Being specifically targeted is where the problem arises especially when we had a valid route to take to deal with this. He could have been tried a year ago. (or longer)

What's a general attack? Do you mean like this?

air_275a_010.jpg
 
You can point it out 50 more times and it still becomes nothing more than your opinion.

:shrug: i'm fine with my opinion. one of the many beauties of sovereign citizenship

Constitutional rights should not be discarded for political points.

yup. fortunately, that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059840064 said:
What's a general attack? Do you mean like this?

View attachment 67116290

a worthy point - Perry; we weren't trying to kill al alwaki. we were trying to kill his driver. sadly, he was caught in the explosion. darn. :( :)
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059840064 said:
What's a general attack? Do you mean like this?

One where an American citizen is not the intended target.
 
Back
Top Bottom