Ron Paul: US-born al-Qaida cleric 'assassinated'

VanceMack said:

Take away the 'American Citizen' aspect and you are fine with the CiC killing terrorists.

Click to expand...

yes.

the "American citizen" aspect, however, cannot be taken away... it's reality whether or not you want it to be.

Ikari said:

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.

Click to expand...

Terrorists operating in foreign land. I just think it is mind bending that people make the distinction that...welll...sure...kill the terrorist to the left of him, and kill the terrorist to the right of him...but...not...him...

Thrilla said:

here that "whoosh" sound?... that's the particulars of the issue flying over your head....

Click to expand...

Nothing is flying over anyones head...that constant whooshing sound...you should be used to it since there is so little between your ears to curb the air flow. Your position...kill him...kill him...kill him...kill hi...no...wait...not him...he was born in Anaheim...kill him...and him...and him....

yeah...it is just that stupid.

VanceMack said:

Terrorists operating in foreign land. I just think it is mind bending that people make the distinction that...welll...sure...kill the terrorist to the left of him, and kill the terrorist to the right of him...but...not...him...

Click to expand...

I would go further than that. Either you have support of the sovereign nation to allow POLICE action, or you declare war if you want to blow the **** out of them. Writ of Reprisal where necessary.

All good and Constitutional. I'm not saying we can't; I'm merely saying that the government should follow the rules.

VanceMack said:

Terrorists operating in foreign land. I just think it is mind bending that people make the distinction that...welll...sure...kill the terrorist to the left of him, and kill the terrorist to the right of him...but...not...him...

Click to expand...

which terrorist, to the left or right, were on the targeted killing list?
don't take umbrage with people making a distinction when the CinCs you are defending have made the distinctions themselves .. and then put em on a kill list.

here's an idea....get rid of the kill list altogether.
there would be no need for evidence or oversight, and we probably wouldn't be having this discussion...all kills would be "targets of opportunity".

but if you are going to have a list of people to smoke, and Americans are on that list,they had better have some sort of legal backing to do so... otherwise, it's an affront to our entire system of justice.
and what the f*ck are we fighting for if not our way of life?... just to kill mean brown people?

VanceMack said:

Nothing is flying over anyones head...that constant whooshing sound...you should be used to it since there is so little between your ears to curb the air flow. Your position...kill him...kill him...kill him...kill hi...no...wait...not him...he was born in Anaheim...kill him...and him...and him....

yeah...it is just that stupid.

Click to expand...

nope, that's not my position.... try again.

Ikari said:

I would go further than that. Either you have support of the sovereign nation to allow POLICE action, or you declare war if you want to blow the **** out of them. Writ of Reprisal where necessary.

All good and Constitutional. I'm not saying we can't; I'm merely saying that the government should follow the rules.

Click to expand...

thumbs up.

Ikari said:

I would go further than that. Either you have support of the sovereign nation to allow POLICE action, or you declare war if you want to blow the **** out of them. Writ of Reprisal where necessary.

All good and Constitutional. I'm not saying we can't; I'm merely saying that the government should follow the rules.

Click to expand...

Well...we COULD (and your scenario we would have to) just pull back, lock down the borders, and leave it to the other countries to deal with it. Im fine with that...so long as they dont target US interests. There is a reason why we do it...

Thrilla said:

which terrorist, to the left or right, were on the targeted killing list?
don't take umbrage with people making a distinction when the CinCs you are defending have made the distinctions themselves .. and then put em on a kill list.

here's an idea....get rid of the kill list altogether.
there would be no need for evidence or oversight, and we probably wouldn't be having this discussion...all kills would be "targets of opportunity".

but if you are going to have a list of people to smoke, and Americans are on that list,they had better have some sort of legal backing to do so... otherwise, it's an affront to our entire system of justice.
and what the f*ck are we fighting for if not our way of life?... just to kill mean brown people?

Click to expand...

We are fighting to prevent that particular collection of brown skinned people (with the occasional lighter colored brother thrown in the mix) from slaugtering innocent men women and children. And its beyond comical that you injected race into this. Thats ****ing pathetic dood.

VanceMack said:

We are fighting to prevent that particular collection of brown skinned people (with the occasional lighter colored brother thrown in the mix) from slaugtering innocent men women and children. And its beyond comical that you injected race into this. Thats ****ing pathetic dood.

Click to expand...

I should have figured you would have seized on some perceived racism and ignored the rest of the post.

VanceMack said:

Well...we COULD (and your scenario we would have to) just pull back, lock down the borders, and leave it to the other countries to deal with it. Im fine with that...so long as they dont target US interests. There is a reason why we do it...

Click to expand...

he didn't say anything about pulling back and locking down the borders.. that's something you made up for him.

read his last sentence again... and keep reading it until you understand it.

Thrilla said:

you don't believe this guy being an American citizen raises legal "difficulties"?

Click to expand...

It doesn't. It would only raise questions if the individual were not a combatant and legitimate military objective. The interpretation being advanced by Rep. Paul, among a few others, that the U.S. cannot target military objectives who happen to be U.S. citizens is so absurd that if it were applied during the American Civil War, Union forces would have been so badly hindered that the war might have gone the other way. In the case of Mr. Awlaki, he was not a civilian under the definition of the Laws of War and did not enjoy immunity from his role as a combatant.

Thrilla said:

I should have figured you would have seized on some perceived racism and ignored the rest of the post.

Click to expand...

The rest of your post is the same stuff...just with brown sprinkled on it this time. Its OK...you can have your opinion...you even have the right to still be wrong. Which is why people like you cant be trusted with making decisions regarding national security and fighting terrorism.

Ikari said:

Yeah, it's terrible to try to uphold due process of law, right? Who needs it anyway? Just gets in the way.

Love you "conservatives".

Click to expand...

There is war where matters of guilt and innocence are not considered.
There is criminality where those are of exceptional importance. When you confuse one with the other you get the wrong result. So it is here.

donsutherland1 said:

It doesn't. It would only raise questions if the individual were not a combatant and legitimate military objective. The interpretation being advanced by Rep. Paul, among a few others, that the U.S. cannot target military objectives who happen to be U.S. citizens is so absurd that if it were applied during the American Civil War, Union forces would have been so badly hindered that the war might have gone the other way. In the case of Mr. Awlaki, he was not a civilian under the definition of the Laws of War and did not enjoy immunity from his role as a combatant.

Click to expand...

i've been doing a ton of reading on the issue over the past couple of days... and I have to say, the only people i've seen who say there are no legal "difficulties" in the targeted killing of American citizens who are also affiliated with terrorist groups.. are right here in this thread.

the points you bring up are good ones, to be sure... but they don't negate some very murky legal basis's for this authority the presidents says he possesses....they jsut add to the murkiness...lol

VanceMack said:

The rest of your post is the same stuff...just with brown sprinkled on it this time. Its OK...you can have your opinion...you even have the right to still be wrong. Which is why people like you cant be trusted with making decisions regarding national security and fighting terrorism.

Click to expand...

it's fine if you don't trust people like me with making national security decisions ( yeah, like either of us actually do so).. just as i don't trust people like you to make legal or constitutional decisions in regards to protecting our rights or keeping government "honest"... i'll look for better people to handle those duties.

Thrilla said:

i've been doing a ton of reading on the issue over the past couple of days... and I have to say, the only people i've seen who say there are no legal "difficulties" in the targeted killing of American citizens who are also affiliated with terrorist groups.. are right here in this thread.

the points you bring up are good ones, to be sure... but they don't negate some very murky legal basis's for this authority the presidents says he possesses....they jsut add to the murkiness...lol

Click to expand...

I suspect that you will find the answer that you are searching for instead of the one that matters. If you look for reasons to believe that he was killed illegitimately you will find all sorts of other kooks who believe as you want to. And the converse is true as well.

Misterveritis said:

There is war where matters of guilt and innocence are not considered.
There is criminality where those are of exceptional importance. When you confuse one with the other you get the wrong result. So it is here.

Click to expand...

if matters of guilt and innocence are not considered, why has the administration made the case to the public that this guy is guilty as charged and his killing is justified?

Thrilla said:

if matters of guilt and innocence are not considered, why has the administration made the case to the public that this guy is guilty as charged and his killing is justified?

Click to expand...

My best guess is that they do not trust the American people to know the difference between war and criminality. The Obama administration has muddied those waters.

Thrilla said:

yes.

the "American citizen" aspect, however, cannot be taken away... it's reality whether or not you want it to be.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. I believe it is not relevant. He was an unlawful enemy combatant. He was on the enemy's side. He was in an enemy convoy. He was an enemy. And this is a war.

Thrilla said:

if matters of guilt and innocence are not considered, why has the administration made the case to the public that this guy is guilty as charged and his killing is justified?

Click to expand...

What if guilt was clearly established, but sharing the details would expose US agents? I understand that your peace of mind is important, and it is, but is it worth getting an American agent killed?

Eighty Deuce said:

Look, when the crap hits the fan, do us the favor,

Click to expand...

I love that phrase, or at leas its more earthy cousin, when the sh*t hits the fan. No matter where you are you are not gonna like it. It is a mess. But some people know how to deal with it. And other wring their hands and hope they are doing the right thing.

Misterveritis said:

My best guess is that they do not trust the American people to know the difference between war and criminality. The Obama administration has muddied those waters.

Click to expand...

well, that would be a big problem... but i don't believe it to be the case.

I think this administration, and the last, are employing hybrid tactics... they are fighting a war, sure, but they utilize basic criminal doctrines to do so, in some cases ( m most notably, individual targeted killings).
basic criminal doctrine has the focus on the crimes of the individual , war doctrine find it roots in affiliation ( enemy armies/states).
the war on terror finds us having to reconcile both war and criminality and create a whole new hybrid doctrine.... we have no real choice, this is the bed we made.

this conflict of ours cannot be construed as simple war.... and it cannot be construed as simple criminality.
and , unfortunately, our laws don't provide for a seamless integration of the two... neither does humanitarian law or international law.

I think both administration are having/have had some snafus along the way.... but that's to be expected when you are, quite frankly, making sh*t up as you go along.

EagleAye said:

What if guilt was clearly established, but sharing the details would expose US agents? I understand that your peace of mind is important, and it is, but is it worth getting an American agent killed?

Click to expand...

the devil is in the details here...

when you say guilt is clearly established... well, that's an issue that can have it's own thread.
established by whom?.. according to what metrics or standards? the findings ensured by whom?

take, as an example, this targeted killing list.... we are told that person X is the new al queada leader .. and as usual, he's just as bad, if not worse, than OBL.. we are told that he is not just an angry dude talking sh*t and hanging out with suicide bombers, but he has gone "operational" he's building bombs and training minions to do evil things to innocent people... he's gonna slaughter people left and right if we don't stop him right this very minute ( or in a year or so) and is therefore public enemy numero uno and marked for death.

well, sounds good.. sounds like common sense to me.. bad guy is evil, and we're gonna kill bad guy.
but we don't even take a second to think... what did this guy do?.. how do they know he did it?... has a disinterested party fact-checked them?...
hell, we don't even know what it takes to make the list.... none of here do.
a bit absurd, but this super villain might have just banged the sister or wife of a CIA field agent and pissed him off .. and <bam> a mountain of evidence appears.

now, do i want an agent to get killed over my piece of mind?.. nah, of course not...but then again , if asking our government to operate within it's stated limitations and rules is an affront to my piece of mind, then yes... he can get killed every day and twice on Sunday if it means we are ensuring we are doing the greater good for our nation..

every terrorist in the world can attack us simultaneously, and they can't do the lasting damage that f*cking with our Constitution and rule of law can do.

Misterveritis said:

I love that phrase, or at leas its more earthy cousin, when the sh*t hits the fan. No matter where you are you are not gonna like it. It is a mess. But some people know how to deal with it. And other wring their hands and hope they are doing the right thing.

Click to expand...

.. and here you guys are.. dealing with terrorism the same way we all are... by posting on the internet.:lamo