• 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'

washunut said:
Just wondering where the line is crossed. If they found this same guy in Nashville would it have been OK to send a missile into his car?
Click to expand...

well realistically speaking, they would probably apprehend him..... but yes, this particular targeted killing doctrine allows for terrorists to be targeted and killed anywhere in the world.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
You have just cited plenty of evidence that this scumbag towelhead was certainly as a minister of propaganda. Maybe he did not pull the trigger or push the button that sent a round through an American, or dropped a bomb on them. For some unfathomable reason, except the liberlism is always stuck-on-stupid IMMHO, libs are looking for the literal smoking gun, and even then claim it matters whether the finger on the trigger was once "American" or not.

OK. Joseph Goebbels. He of Nazi fame. What of him ? Not an American ever, but just a simple propaganda minister.
Click to expand...

careful with the liberal comments.... me and Perry1 are not far apart on this issue, and i'm sooo not a contemporary liberal.

just a question here.... is propaganda punishable by death?

had Goebbels not killed his family and committed suicide, i'd wager he would have been put to death after the Nuremberg trials... it would have been , like the others, a legal travesty, but that's what would have happened.
 
washunut said:
Just wondering where the line is crossed. If they found this same guy in Nashville would it have been OK to send a missile into his car?
Click to expand...

That is a very stupid analogy. And which has been addressed multiple time already in thread. Al-Dirtbag was not in an area where his physical apprehension was prudent. Unless you wanted to volunteer, and get blown away trying. We also have no extradition treaties with Yemen, but do need to acknowledge that they let us operate in their airspace. From a political standpoint, for us and them, turning this puke into maggot chow is very advantageous for all.

If anything, this thread demonstrates how one component of liberalism is to be "stuck on stupid". And to dither. I am no Obama fan, but he does get killing terrorists right. All of them.
 
Thrilla said:
careful with the liberal comments.... me and Perry1 are not far apart on this issue, and i'm sooo not a contemporary liberal.

just a question here.... is propaganda punishable by death?

had Goebbels not killed his family and committed suicide, i'd wager he would have been put to death after the Nuremberg trials... it would have been , like the others, a legal travesty, but that's what would have happened.
Click to expand...

The question to ponder is was Goebbel's a viable military target. Not what would have happened had we actually caught him.

Do not look to me if folks here, who claim to be one thing, are otherwise embracing liberal stupidity. I thank God that my common sense still keeps me from such.

And lest I forget, there are some claimed liberals in this thread who have been spot-on. Kudos to them. They are possibly closet Conservatives, and we'll bring them around yet !
 
Eighty Deuce said:
That is a very stupid analogy. And which has been addressed multiple time already in thread. Al-Dirtbag was not in an area where his physical apprehension was prudent. Unless you wanted to volunteer, and get blown away trying. We also have no extradition treaties with Yemen, but do need to acknowledge that they let us operate in their airspace. From a political standpoint, for us and them, turning this puke into maggot chow is very advantageous for all.

If anything, this thread demonstrates how one component of liberalism is to be "stuck on stupid". And to dither. I am no Obama fan, but he does get killing terrorists right. All of them.
Click to expand...

actually, we filed extradition papers with Yemen for this guy.
not having an extradition clause in a treaty does not mean they won't extradite.... Yemen's government has been working pretty closely with us ( a lot of back scratching going on)
we handle their Al Queda problem ( Al Queda is trying to amass land and it's pissing off some powerful tribes) and we take care of their local rivals... and they allow us to float our predators around killings things.

this cat here had dual citizenship.. US and Yemen... Yemen actually tried him (in absentia) before they said " bring him in dead or alive".
as backwards as Yemen is, they got that little detail right.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
The question to ponder is was Goebbel's a viable military target. Not what would have happened had we actually caught him.

Do not look to me if folks here, who claim to be one thing, are otherwise embracing liberal stupidity. I thank God that my common sense still keeps me from such.

And lest I forget, there are some claimed liberals in this thread who have been spot-on. Kudos to them. They are possibly closet Conservatives, and we'll bring them around yet !
Click to expand...

well, i'm done with you... I want no part of your partisan idiocy.
 
Thrilla said:
actually, we filed extradition papers with Yemen for this guy.
not having an extradition clause in a treaty does not mean they won't extradite.... Yemen's government has been working pretty closely with us ( a lot of back scratching going on)
we handle their Al Queda problem ( Al Queda is trying to amass land and it's pissing off some powerful tribes) and we take care of their local rivals... and they allow us to float our predators around killings things.

this cat here had dual citizenship.. US and Yemen... Yemen actually tried him (in absentia) before they said " bring him in dead or alive".
as backwards as Yemen is, they got that little detail right.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned, it is not politically wise for Yemen to have these things go such that they are seen fully in bed with us. Its one thing to drop a bomb on the guy and make him DRT (dead right there). That alone is a pretty decent submission of sovereignty. But to have Yemeni soldiers die trying to apprehend teh guy, and then maybe getting him, and then turning him over to the Yanks, is far less politically viable for these folks.

I do not think there is a Conservative here who does not understand the issue. The difference is that Conservatives just plain make better military leaders. We don' t dither like libs. The only valid disagreement should be that you want to put a flower on his grave, and I want to piss on it. Either way he is dirt-napping. My afterthought makes his grass greener, btw.
 
Councilman said:
Anwar al-Awlaki gave up his rights when joined Al-Qaeda as an enemy combatant and planner of attacks on our people,
anyone who does this deserves to die straight up.

I consider them to be like rioters who are subject to being shot on sight.
Click to expand...

this is a valid and understandable opinion.... but i'm a bit more interested in legal facts.

this is an interesting topic to me... in that i'm interested in constitutional powers and rights and such.
it's easy to opine that a dude deserves to die for his actions... but our government, as you should know, does not operate on emotional opinions, it operates on laws. arguably, it does an extremely shoddy job of operating within it's limits, but it's still interesting to dive into fleshing this stuff out.
 
EagleAye said:
True, but we cannot know in advance how long it would take. McKinley died over 100 years ago; our judicial system has changed substantially since then. Since we were "out of presidents" *ahem* after the assassination, Czolgosz did not pose an ongoing danger to the American people, and a trial could proceed at whatever pace was required. al-Awlaki was not under US custody when a trial "could have occurred" and so time (or the lack thereof) was still forcing the hand of US authorities.
Click to expand...

He was targeted a year ago.

Who's to say there wasn't? There very well could have been one, but held behind closed doors to maintain operational secrecy. And if there was one, we would not know about it for many years as it may cause a rift, already wider than the current one, between the US and Yemen. Personally, I'm guessing there wasn't one. I imagine a "law expert," possibly a judge, was brought in and the evidence presented to him. It was deemed that the US had a good enough case to warrant action, and so the US did. We'll never know the name of this expert because his safety is also important, and so that foreign US-based intelligence services cannot capture and interrogate him. And you can be certain they have no qualms about torture.
Click to expand...

Secrecy is as problematic as is killing U.S. citizens without due process. The stories say that White House lawyers were consulted.

We may be at an impasse on this, but I will offer this:

I've been considering my words and wondering how they could be misused. Certainly if the "special circumstance" option is offered too liberally, it could lead to abuse. It would be like placing a steak in front of a dog and expecting him not to eat it. So I would suggest the following in the case of American terrorists with a history of mass-killings and a proven willingness to continue attacks:
Click to expand...

We have nothing that shows that he contributed in mass killings in any form other than offering encouraging words to those who those who did. As I noted earlier, we refused to even charge those who were preaching anarchy.

- If an American terrorist is located on US soil or on the soil of provably friendly nations (e.g., "Great Britain"), the terrorist must be apprehended by non-lethal means if at all possible and brought to trial. If the terrorist is killed in the effort, it must be proven that death was the only option or the agency (or agents) will face judicial action.

- If an American terrorist is located in a country that is hostile to the US or is NOT provably friendly (e.g., "Pakistan") where evidence must collected via intelligence services in lieu of standard police practices, the terrorist may attacked with lethal force without standard following the normal legal proceedings.

Would that be an acceptable compromise?
Click to expand...

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by normal legal proceedings. I understand that if found guilty the only viable option here was a bomb dropped on his head.
 
Thrilla said:
this is a valid and understandable opinion.... but i'm a bit more interested in legal facts.

this is an interesting topic to me... in that i'm interested in constitutional powers and rights and such.
it's easy to opine that a dude deserves to die for his actions... but our government, as you should know, does not operate on emotional opinions, it operates on laws. arguably, it does an extremely shoddy job of operating within it's limits, but it's still interesting to dive into fleshing this stuff out.
Click to expand...

This situation is one where something "must be done" but "normal" judicial procedures are made impotent. Perhaps new laws are needed here to deal with this precedent.
 
Councilman said:
Anwar al-Awlaki gave up his rights when joined Al-Qaeda as an enemy combatant and planner of attacks on our people,
anyone who does this deserves to die straight up.

I consider them to be like rioters who are subject to being shot on sight.
Click to expand...

I started to post a reply and then re-read your post. It's not worth replying to.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
As I mentioned, it is not politically wise for Yemen to have these things go such that they are seen fully in bed with us. Its one thing to drop a bomb on the guy and make him DRT (dead right there). That alone is a pretty decent submission of sovereignty. But to have Yemeni soldiers die trying to apprehend teh guy, and then maybe getting him, and then turning him over to the Yanks, is far less politically viable for these folks.
Click to expand...

odd how you take Yemeni politics into consideration, but completely disavow any argument as to US constitutional rights and law.

I do not think there is a Conservative here who does not understand the issue. The difference is that Conservatives just plain make better military leaders. We don' t dither like libs. The only valid disagreement should be that you want to put a flower on his grave, and I want to piss on it. Either way he is dirt-napping. My afterthought makes his grass greener, btw
Click to expand...
this is the partisan idiocy i'm talking about... this is just you jerking yourself off using your conservative ideology as lube.
there is not one factual offering in this paragraph...not one original thought.. not one lick of brains.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
You have just cited plenty of evidence that this scumbag towelhead was certainly as a minister of propaganda. Maybe he did not pull the trigger or push the button that sent a round through an American, or dropped a bomb on them. For some unfathomable reason, except the liberlism is always stuck-on-stupid IMMHO, libs are looking for the literal smoking gun, and even then claim it matters whether the finger on the trigger was once "American" or not.

OK. Joseph Goebbels. He of Nazi fame. What of him ? Not an American ever, but just a simple propaganda minister.
Click to expand...

He should have been gave a trial if he hadn't killed himself. If we targeted him as part of the war effort, it would have been irrelevant to this discussion.
 
Thrilla said:
careful with the liberal comments.... me and Perry1 are not far apart on this issue, and i'm sooo not a contemporary liberal.
Click to expand...

I think liberal is a 4 letter word.
 
EagleAye said:
This situation is one where something "must be done" but "normal" judicial procedures are made impotent. Perhaps new laws are needed here to deal with this precedent.
Click to expand...

Which would never come up if people like Paul didn't bring it up.
 
Thrilla said:
odd how you take Yemeni politics into consideration, but completely disavow any argument as to US constitutional rights and law.
Click to expand...

I have plenty of posts in this thread where I address where the priorities of "Constitutional rights and law" fit in. You should thank God that people like me are capable of pulling the trigger while libs dither. At least one of us has the other's back.

this is the partisan idiocy i'm talking about... this is just you jerking yourself off using your conservative ideology as lube.
there is not one factual offering in this paragraph...not one original thought.. not one lick of brains.
Click to expand...

Since you put it that way, do you ever grow tired of bending over and grabbing your ankles ? You seem a bit thin-skinned, or is it fore-skinned, tonight ? ;)

Look, when the crap hits the fan, do us the favor, and politely just step out of the way. We will make very prudent and timely decisions while you watch. And America will thank us.
 
EagleAye said:
This situation is one where something "must be done" but "normal" judicial procedures are made impotent. Perhaps new laws are needed here to deal with this precedent.
Click to expand...

yeah.. it's a tough situation to be sure.
and really, all i'm asking for is a reasonable debate, and maybe some potential solutions,to these legal difficulties.

seriously, i'd be glad to pull the trigger on an asshat like this.. as my personal opinion of him ends at "smoke the motherf*cker" each time I think of him... but admittedly, that sort of opinion does nothing to entertain what can and should be done legally and ethically.

I'm certainly not comfortable with conferring the power , in the CinC, to being "judge, jury, and executioner" of American citizens, no matter how horrible they are as humans.... so yeah, i think there needs to be either legislative/judicial oversight of some degree, or some clarification of the laws he is supposedly using... or , yes, a new set of laws to deal with this.
 
washunut said:
Just wondering where the line is crossed. If they found this same guy in Nashville would it have been OK to send a missile into his car?
Click to expand...
I expect the fed law enforcement would do what it does in this country...and BTW does pretty darn good. Bush and Obama have both empowered the FBI to investigate and arrest terrorists. But we arent talking about criminal activity in Nashville. We can talk make believe and pretend scenarios all day long. Or we can talk the reality of terrorists that slaughter and plot to slaughter innocent and unarmed men women and children around the globe. Are you really concerned about a 'slippery slope'? Are you really concerned this was an execution, an assassination?
 
Thrilla said:
how many of the hundred are Americans?.... that's how many i'll be concerned with.

and to be honest, i'm not overly concerned if they are killed during actual combat on a battlefield... but i am concerned with the legal difficulties of targeted killings of Americans, terrorists or not.
Click to expand...
You arent concerned if foreign terrorists are targeted for 'executions'...thats acceptable. OK then.

So...they SHOULDNT have targeted a convoy of terrorists?
 
1Perry said:
He was targeted a year ago.
Click to expand...
Okay, you got me there.


1Perry said:
Secrecy is as problematic as is killing U.S. citizens without due process. The stories say that White House lawyers were consulted.

We have nothing that shows that he contributed in mass killings in any form other than offering encouraging words to those who those who did. As I noted earlier, we refused to even charge those who were preaching anarchy.
Click to expand...
Wasn't he serving in an "advisory role" as well? This is far different. There may be additional evidence that, for purposes of secrecy, cannot be revealed at this time. We don't know all that was revealed to the White House Lawyers. Perhaps we shouldn't call them "guilty until proven innocent?"

1Perry said:
I guess I'm not sure what you mean by normal legal proceedings. I understand that if found guilty the only viable option here was a bomb dropped on his head.
Click to expand...
Normal legal proceedings would involve having the accused in custody, a police investigation is conducted, and the case is brought to trial where prosecution and defense attorneys may take all the time to prove their points. Only if the accused is found guilty would he be sentenced. Only if capital punishment is permitted can such a sentence be carried out and only after a round or more of appeals.

In an extra-normal situation, a normal police investigation cannot be carried out - intelligence services (spys) must be employed - and a sentence of "guilty as charged" equates to capital punishment. It's not optimal, but if the accused poses a large enough threat, an abbreviated or extra-normal judicial system must be employed.
 
Eighty Deuce said:
I have plenty of posts in this thread where I address where the priorities of "Constitutional rights and law" fit in. You should thank God that people like me are capable of pulling the trigger while libs dither. At least one of us has the other's back.
Click to expand...

why would I thank god people like you are capable of pulling the trigger... I know, from personal experience, any monkey can pull a trigger.


Since you put it that way, do you ever grow tired of bending over and grabbing your ankles ? You seem a bit thin-skinned, or is it fore-skinned, tonight ? ;)
Click to expand...
neither.. just fed up with inane partisan idiocy.

Look, when the crap hits the fan, do us the favor, and politely just step out of the way. We will make very prudent and timely decisions while you watch. And America will thank us
Click to expand...
lol... having jack bauer fantasies again?
son, I was sendin' rounds downrange at dinks while you were still wondering what your weewee is for....

... i've heard ( and said) this kind of macho warrior bullsh*t all my life, it doesn't' impress me... it makes me laugh.
 
Thrilla said:
yeah.. it's a tough situation to be sure.
and really, all i'm asking for is a reasonable debate, and maybe some potential solutions,to these legal difficulties.

seriously, i'd be glad to pull the trigger on an asshat like this.. as my personal opinion of him ends at "smoke the motherf*cker" each time I think of him... but admittedly, that sort of opinion does nothing to entertain what can and should be done legally and ethically.

I'm certainly not comfortable with conferring the power , in the CinC, to being "judge, jury, and executioner" of American citizens, no matter how horrible they are as humans.... so yeah, i think there needs to be either legislative/judicial oversight of some degree, or some clarification of the laws he is supposedly using... or , yes, a new set of laws to deal with this.
Click to expand...
Take away the 'American Citizen' aspect and you are fine with the CiC killing terrorists.
 
VanceMack said:
Are you really concerned about a 'slippery slope'? Are you really concerned this was an execution, an assassination?
Click to expand...

I most certainly think that it's something to be concerned and wary of. There used to be methods by which this was done, writ of reprisal (a power properly belonging to Congress); but we don't and now one man can apparently order the execution of American citizens and no one will bat an eye. Who else is so evil we don't care what the government does? Child molesters? Murderers? Rapists?

There is always concern when government becomes unconstrained.
 
VanceMack said:
You arent concerned if foreign terrorists are targeted for 'executions'...thats acceptable. OK then.

So...they SHOULDNT have targeted a convoy of terrorists?
Click to expand...

here that "whoosh" sound?... that's the particulars of the issue flying over your head....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom