• 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'

cpwill said:
:shrug: i'm fine with my opinion. one of the many beauties of sovereign citizenship
Click to expand...

I will grant that you are the expert on your opinion.

yup. fortunately, that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Click to expand...

Indeed it does. Congress can not pass a law that negates ones constitutional rights.
 
1Perry said:
I will grant that you are the expert on your opinion.

Indeed it does. Congress can not pass a law that negates ones constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

that is correct. only the citizen can give up his sovereign, constitutional rights.
 
cpwill said:
that is correct. only the citizen can give up his sovereign, constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

Indeed and according to the standards set by the USSC he has not.
 
cpwill said:
that is correct. only the citizen can give up his sovereign, constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

Your argument fails. In reality there is no such thing as a sovereign citizen. Please show me where in the constitution it mentions sovereign citizens. Now there is a Sovereign Citizen movement of people who place themselves above state and federal laws, but for what is being discussed now, the concept of a sovereign citizen does not exist.

Edit: How can one be a sovereign citizen? The definition of sovereign is that you possess supreme political power (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sovereign) people do not wield that at all.
 
Last edited:
I would like to know why Obama campaigned on giving terrorists constitutional rights but now assassinates them?

I would also like to know why liberals support this type of assassination killing but oppose the death penalty?

One could make a very good case for these kind of assassinations to be premeditated, cold blooded murder.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Your argument fails. In reality there is no such thing as a sovereign citizen. Please show me where in the constitution it mentions sovereign citizens
Click to expand...

you know that bit about government deriving its' powers from the governed? ;)
 
i'm not gonna cry over this particular guy's demise... but I might shed one or 2 tears over our acceptance of assassinating American citizens without due process.


i'm more worried about keeping our rights than eradicating Al Queda...and so, it seems, is Ron Paul.
 
Thrilla said:
i'm not gonna cry over this particular guy's demise... but I might shed one or 2 tears over our acceptance of assassinating American citizens without due process.


i'm more worried about keeping our rights than eradicating Al Queda...and so, it seems, is Ron Paul.
Click to expand...

How noble. :roll:

The threat to you from such as Al-Dirtbag was not that he was attempting to procure WMD's to detonate in a major US city .......... but rather that those tasked with trying to prevent such would drop a bomb on his towel head in Yemen.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059840100 said:
I would like to know why Obama campaigned on giving terrorists constitutional rights but now assassinates them?

I would also like to know why liberals support this type of assassination killing but oppose the death penalty?

One could make a very good case for these kind of assassinations to be premeditated, cold blooded murder.
Click to expand...

I would also like to know these things. :)

I'd also like to know how the "government can't do anything right" crowd would trust the government enough to kill fellow citizens without due process.

Eighty Deuce said:
How noble. :roll:

The threat to you from such as Al-Dirtbag was not that he was attempting to procure WMD's to detonate in a major US city .......... but rather that those tasked with trying to prevent such would drop a bomb on his towel head in Yemen.
Click to expand...

edit: you know what? forget it.
 
Last edited:
The problem with this situation isn't that al-Awlaki was killed, rather it was the fact that he was a US citizen at the time of his death and thus still subject to US laws, such as due process.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
How noble. :roll:

The threat to you from such as Al-Dirtbag was not that he was attempting to procure WMD's to detonate in a major US city .......... but rather that those tasked with trying to prevent such would drop a bomb on his towel head in Yemen.
Click to expand...

yes, it was very noble of me.... that's the kinda guy I am.

my greater fear is that of our federal government casting away basic constitutional rights of American citizens ...without due process.
...but it's not a greater fear than that of everyday American citizens celebrating such a notion.

do i care if this terrorist cleric is dead?.. nope... his exit from the world of the living is welcome...
hell, I wouldn't mind smoking him myself... but, then again, i'm not limited to following the Constitution like the federal government is.

I wonder what my federal government would do to me if i targeted and assassinated this guy myself?... would I get a medal or a murder conviction?
i'm pretty certain I would need a damn good lawyer to get me out of such a predicament.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
The problem with this situation isn't that al-Awlaki was killed, rather it was the fact that he was a US citizen at the time of his death and thus still subject to US laws, such as due process.
Click to expand...

And he got "due process". What folks cannot grasp is that there are peripherals of "due process", where Perry Mason is not needed. Such would be certain law-enforcement situations where a perp poses an iminent threat to someone, or with military combatants, such as Al-Dirtbag. Citizenship is not a consideration at these peripheries. Sorry folks, but that is how the game is played. The Founders knew this well. All this pretzel Constitutional logic is a more recent flagellation.
 
Thrilla said:
yes, it was very noble of me.... that's the kinda guy I am.

my greater fear is that of our federal government casting away basic constitutional rights of American citizens ...without due process.
...but it's not a greater fear than that of everyday American citizens celebrating such a notion.
Click to expand...

As noted, al-Dirtbag got "due process". FYI, "due process" is not one size fits all. Put a gun to someone's head, demand ransom, and see the due process that shows up. This is not a difficult concept, at least for some.

do i care if this terrorist cleric is dead?.. nope... his exit from the world of the living is welcome...
hell, I wouldn't mind smoking him myself... but, then again, i'm not limited to following the Constitution like the federal government is.

I wonder what my federal government would do to me if i targeted and assassinated this guy myself?... would I get a medal or a murder conviction?
i'm pretty certain I would need a damn good lawyer to get me out of such a predicament.
Click to expand...

Non-sequitor. You do not have the authority of the CIC.
 
please explain, specifically, what due process was afforded this guy that resulted in the death penalty being meted out...
 
Eighty Deuce said:
As noted, al-Dirtbag got "due process". FYI, "due process" is not one size fits all. Put a gun to someone's head, demand ransom, and see the due process that shows up. This is not a difficult concept, at least for some.
Click to expand...
self defense is not applicable in this case.... sorry.



Eighty Deuce said:
Non-sequitor. You do not have the authority of the CIC.
Click to expand...
this much is true.... and it's also true that I am not constrained by the Constitution.
 
since when is due process afforded in a war?

we are at war with them, they are at war with us. you do not first seek to arrest your enemy in a time of war, be they citizen or not.
 
Thrilla said:
self defense is not applicable in this case.... sorry.
Click to expand...

Self-defense is not the principle invoked.

this much is true.... and it's also true that I am not constrained by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

The Courts have already ruled that certain sanctions while performing the duties of CIC are Constitutional. And yes, you would face prosecution, if apprehended by the US, under laws derived from that very same Constitution. The CIC has Constitutionally granted authority that you do not. Ummmmmm .... duh.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Self-defense is not the principle invoked.



The Courts have already ruled that certain sanctions while performing the duties of CIC are Constitutional. And yes, you would face prosecution, if apprehended by the US, under laws derived from that very same Constitution. The CIC has Constitutionally granted authority that you do not. Ummmmmm .... duh.
Click to expand...

What sanctions? When did this occur?
 
Thrilla said:
self defense is not applicable in this case.... sorry.
Click to expand...

It could be in a way which is why I said early that this is not black and white. The self defense arguement would come in though when it's argued that he should be tried in absentia.
 
Thunder said:
since when is due process afforded in a war?

we are at war with them, they are at war with us. you do not first seek to arrest your enemy in a time of war, be they citizen or not.
Click to expand...


this is sure an odd war we are fighting eh?

we fight and argue over the constitutional rights and due process of foreign enemy combatants held at Gitmo... but when it comes to American citizen enemy combatants, targeted assassination is supposedly the correct and rightful response.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
What sanctions? When did this occur?
Click to expand...

Let me assist you Grasshopper. A "sanction" is another word for anything that constitutes a "death warrant". To be "sanctioned" is to be ordered killed.

Secondly, and I thank Maggie D for first finding (and posting) this earlier in the thread. When the Obama Administration sanctioned Al-Dirtbag, Al's father actually filed suit against the US Government.

.......... In his 83-page decision last December, Bates dismissed an effort by al-Awlaki's father and civil liberties groups to block, in essence, al-Awlaki's execution. While acknowledging many "stark and perplexing questions," Bates said he lacked the authority to get involved.

"There are circumstances in which the (president's) unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is constitutionally committed to the political branches and judicially unreviewable," U.S. District Judge John Bates concluded last year.

Read more: Some question president's power to kill a US citizen overseas - KansasCity.com
Click to expand...

What the US Judge is saying is that the Constitution grants that process to the Executive.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
What the US Judge is saying is that the Constitution grants that process to the Executive.
Click to expand...

A district court. As has also been pointed out the SCOTUS has ruled otherwise. It's why the question Paul brings up needs discussed. The SCOTUS dismissed Bush's arguement that he could just ignore the rights of citizens because we are at war.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
Self-defense is not the principle invoked.



The Courts have already ruled that certain sanctions while performing the duties of CIC are Constitutional. And yes, you would face prosecution, if apprehended by the US, under laws derived from that very same Constitution. The CIC has Constitutionally granted authority that you do not. Ummmmmm .... duh.
Click to expand...

your "gun to the head" scenario implies self defense.

what sanctions are held as constitutional... and is targeted assassination one of them?
 
1Perry said:
A district court. As has also been pointed out the SCOTUS has ruled otherwise. It's why the question Paul brings up needs discussed. The SCOTUS dismissed Bush's arguement that he could just ignore the rights of citizens because we are at war.
Click to expand...

Phoney bloney. SCOTUS did not rule against such sanctions. What SCOTUS ruled with Bush was that enemy combatants within US custody had some minimal habeus corpus rights. Further, this is a 2010 decision, such that prior Bush decisions do not apply. If they did, then the Judge would have had precedent. He did not.

But, since you brought it up, we do have a 1942 SCOTUS ruling:

Blair's public testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in February 2010 amounted to the first confirmation that the Obama administration had procedures in place to lethally target Americans. The officials can cite, in part, a 1942 Supreme Court case in which justices reasoned that the U.S. citizenship of an enemy belligerent "does not relieve him from the consequences" of war.

Read more: Some question president's power to kill a US citizen overseas - KansasCity.com
Click to expand...

Conservatives are bringing facts, court rulings, and the direct quotes here to this debate. Libs (liberals and misguided libertarians) bring a bunch of made-up stuff.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom