• 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'

Councilman said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yet another reason why Ron Paul will never win the nomination.
 
1Perry said:
Then what would have made it so difficult to have done this in a court of law?
Click to expand...
During this war, we have had lawyers review specific applications of the rules of engagement. I don't see this as any different than in cases where we receive incoming fires and intend to return indirect fire.

We do not bring the enemy leadership into court to determine guilt or innocence. We kill them. Or if possible, we capture them.
 
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...
Sorry, baby...you dont get to disavow your country, join a terrorist organization, plot violent crimes against the country, then pretend you have the right to constitutional protections while playing terrorist in Yemen. You DO however get to die. Choice and consequence.
 
1Perry said:
What makes these times so unprecedented that a trial could not have been held?
Click to expand...
I think the difference between our opinions is that you view him as a criminal who should be apprehended and tried. I view him as an unlawful combatant on the enemy side in a shooting war. This is a huge difference. i do not believe we can bridge it.
 
VanceMack said:
Sorry, baby...you dont get to disavow your country, join a terrorist organization, plot violent crimes against the country, then pretend you have the right to constitutional protections while playing terrorist in Yemen. You DO however get to die. Choice and consequence.
Click to expand...

oh, one can try....but I'd still blow their head off. :)
 
VanceMack said:
Sorry, baby...you dont get to disavow your country, join a terrorist organization, plot violent crimes against the country, then pretend you have the right to constitutional protections while playing terrorist in Yemen. You DO however get to die. Choice and consequence.
Click to expand...

We should just assassinate people that threaten the president and get investigated by the SS. Thatd involve busting into dozens of thousands of republicans homes and perforating their bodies with bullets. That'd teach em.
 
1Perry said:
Then what would have made it so difficult to have done this in a court of law?
Click to expand...
Its highly unlikely we could have sent a few police officers and lawyers to serve him an arrest warrant.

Obama has been doing the right thing with prosecuting the war on terror. I hope whoever is next in the Al Qaida line of succession gives acceptance of said title a second thought.
 
MKULTRABOY said:
We should just assassinate people that threaten the president and get investigated by the SS. Thatd involve busting into dozens of thousands of republicans homes and perforating their bodies with bullets. That'd teach em.
Click to expand...
That is SOOO what is going on! Oh...wait...it isnt...we are hunting down terrorists that slaughter innocent men women and children.

Hey...I have an idea...YOU...yes...YOU go find them and give them a big hug and talk to them all nicey nice. Bring a few of your like minded buddies with you. Sign your will before you go.
 
Antiderivative said:
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were started due to how we perceive terrorism. If you want to think otherwise and believe that they are completely unrelated to this conversation, then so be it.
Click to expand...
We could have this conversation. If you start a thread I will join it.

Antiderivative said:
Anyways, I find it abhorrent that the state can simply place a "hit" on a citizen. I think it is wrong that the President has the right to place assassination orders on citizens. You think otherwise and claim that you are not hostile to habeas corpus. You are filled with hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
I believe we have significant policy differences between us. I will not call you, or anyone else who begins with a policy difference a hypocrite. I ask that you consider the same rule.

Given my starting position that we are in a war with Islamofascists and our target was part of the command and control structure he is a legitimate target. This was not a hit. This as a wartime killing, a decapitation.

I believe you are beginning from the perspective that terrorism is a crime instead of a war tactic. Therefore you believe he should be apprehended, read his rights, given a lawyer and tried.

Do I understand your position?
 
MKULTRABOY said:
We should just assassinate people that threaten the president and get investigated by the SS. Thatd involve busting into dozens of thousands of republicans homes and perforating their bodies with bullets. That'd teach em.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because we know that simply disagreeing with Obama means that we want to lynch him. Right?
 
MKULTRABOY said:
We should just assassinate people that threaten the president and get investigated by the SS. Thatd involve busting into dozens of thousands of republicans homes and perforating their bodies with bullets. That'd teach em.
Click to expand...

people who threaten to kill the POTUS are investigated by the SS. They are rarely arrested or charged.
 
VanceMack said:
That is SOOO what is going on! Oh...wait...it isnt...we are hunting down terrorists that slaughter innocent men women and children.

Hey...I have an idea...YOU...yes...YOU go find them and give them a big hug and talk to them all nicey nice. Bring a few of your like minded buddies with you. Sign your will before you go.
Click to expand...

It's another example of the inability of the Leftists to see the big picture. Few--if any--of them have taken into consideration the possibility of awlaki launching a successful attack, while we were giving him his due process and making our selves look like we were playing fair.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
The Constitution doesn't say that no one shall be deprived of life without oversight. Iirc, it says due process. ymmv
Click to expand...
Maybe I did not explain well enough. If one believes that terrorism is a crime and not a wartime tactic then one's beginning point is similar to yours. He should have been apprehended, read his rights, given a lawyer and tried.

If one begins from the perspective that this is a war then anyone, without regard to citizenship, who is in the war zone and who is a participant on the enemy side is a legitimate military target.

This has nothing to do with due process. But this is my opinion. I could be wrong.
 
VanceMack said:
That is SOOO what is going on! Oh...wait...it isnt...we are hunting down terrorists that slaughter innocent men women and children.

Hey...I have an idea...YOU...yes...YOU go find them and give them a big hug and talk to them all nicey nice. Bring a few of your like minded buddies with you. Sign your will before you go.
Click to expand...

The president isn't innocent? Also id rather domestic terrorists were met with a swat team. :shrug:
Also when they kidnap them in alot of countries they have islamic scholars educate them out of radicalism and they do quite often turn huggy hug and nicey nice.
 
Misterveritis said:
We could have this conversation. If you start a thread I will join it.
Click to expand...

Start a thread about it and I may join. It is not on my to do list at the moment.

I believe we have significant policy differences between us. I will not call you, or anyone else who begins with a policy difference a hypocrite. I ask that you consider the same rule.
Click to expand...

We probably do disagree. If you read further, you will see that there was a little antagonism between the person I had a conversation (on both parts) was peacefully resolved.

Given my starting position that we are in a war with Islamofascists and our target was part of the command and control structure he is a legitimate target. This was not a hit. This as a wartime killing, a decapitation.
Click to expand...

We obviously disagree since I don't believe that Islam is the main driving force behind these terrorists attacks. It was a hit. The President used the CIA to place an assassination order on a citizen that was never even charged with a crime. Unfortunately, this is America where we love to practice extraordinary rendition, use secret prisons, and torture people who have never been charged of a crime.

I believe you are beginning from the perspective that terrorism is a crime instead of a war tactic. Therefore you believe he should be apprehended, read his rights, given a lawyer and tried.


Do I understand your position?
Click to expand...

Terrorism can be both. Yes, I believe in the rule of law. I don't think we should be placing hit orders on people, capturing them on one country and secretly imprisoning them in another, and torturing people without ever bringing charges against them. I find it appalling that people now believe that these are American principles.

Here is Ron Paul the topic, in which I agree with. The death of Al-Awlaki is a net benefit. However, we must be careful as a society if we now believe that the President has the right to order the killing of another person, especially an American citizen, without even charging him. Notice that Ron Paul nor I have ever said that we should be flying over there and serving him papers. You can still charge someone of a crime in absentia.

 
Misterveritis said:
I like where your heart is at but not your head. We can do both. When it comes to waging war if you re in the enemy's camp you are a legitimate target, American or not.
Click to expand...

Our POW's were in the enemy camps. I realize that is not what you meant but my point is that simply doing something others, even a majority, even a vast majority of others disagree's with does not negate your rights.

Yes, if we target a camp and you as an American citizen happens to be there of your own choice and you get killed, too bad. That's not the same thing as targeting a citizen of the United States.
 
Misterveritis said:
We were not in a war with the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas. Yet the American government, under Bill Clinton killed those people. I considered it manslaughter.
Click to expand...

I understand that arguement. I also have a problem with what happened there.

We are in a war with Islamofascists. If an American is in an organization we are at war with, in this case a part of the enemy leadership, then we have an obligation to kill him if we can find him. There is no trial necessary. In my opinion this is a war, not a crime.
Click to expand...

Your opinion is noted.
 
1Perry said:
Our POW's were in the enemy camps. I realize that is not what you meant but my point is that simply doing something others, even a majority, even a vast majority of others disagree's with does not negate your rights.

Yes, if we target a camp and you as an American citizen happens to be there of your own choice and you get killed, too bad. That's not the same thing as targeting a citizen of the United States.
Click to expand...

Did they target a citizen of the USA or did they target the area...
 
Misterveritis said:
During this war, we have had lawyers review specific applications of the rules of engagement. I don't see this as any different than in cases where we receive incoming fires and intend to return indirect fire.
Click to expand...

I DO NOT want lawyers deciding these things.

We do not bring the enemy leadership into court to determine guilt or innocence. We kill them. Or if possible, we capture them.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you are leaving out some very important issue's.
 
VanceMack said:
Sorry, baby...you dont get to disavow your country, join a terrorist organization, plot violent crimes against the country, then pretend you have the right to constitutional protections while playing terrorist in Yemen. You DO however get to die. Choice and consequence.
Click to expand...

He never disavowed his country. If he had, we would not be having this discussion.
 
Misterveritis said:
I think the difference between our opinions is that you view him as a criminal who should be apprehended and tried. I view him as an unlawful combatant on the enemy side in a shooting war. This is a huge difference. i do not believe we can bridge it.
Click to expand...

No, he is most certainly IMO an enemy combatant. The courts ruled that being an enemy combatant does not negate your rights.
 
apdst said:
It's another example of the inability of the Leftists to see the big picture. Few--if any--of them have taken into consideration the possibility of awlaki launching a successful attack, while we were giving him his due process and making our selves look like we were playing fair.
Click to expand...
To Obamas credit...he was saying some of the same empty headed foolishness as candidate Obama. Unfortunately...in the real world **** still stinks. Luckily...there are people that will dwell in the real world so the idealists can live their fairy tale existence and feel oh so superior.
 
VanceMack said:
Its highly unlikely we could have sent a few police officers and lawyers to serve him an arrest warrant.
Click to expand...

This has been covered over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. He does not have to be present to be tried.
 
1Perry said:
Our POW's were in the enemy camps. I realize that is not what you meant but my point is that simply doing something others, even a majority, even a vast majority of others disagree's with does not negate your rights.
Click to expand...

In the enemy's camp means fighting on their side. If you are an enemy combatant you do not have criminal rights while you are on the battlefield. If captured, you do have the right to trial by military tribunal under some circumstances. And you have the right to humane treatment, generally.

1Perry said:
Yes, if we target a camp and you as an American citizen happens to be there of your own choice and you get killed, too bad. That's not the same thing as targeting a citizen of the United States.
Click to expand...
Sure it is. He was part of their command and control infrastructure. We can target more than his radios. Killing enemy leadership is always a part of war. His citizenship is irrelevant.

I think we are way apart on this. Crime - War.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom