Ron Paul NYT Editorial on Unconstitutional Killing

[steveh_131]

No, you ignore the truth unless it agrees with your distorted view of the world.

I see no point in continuing discourse with you. I have given you the facts about muslims waging holy war (I believe they call it "jihad"). You can examine what I have presented, or you can ignore it, it makes no difference to me.

Good day to you sir.

Still waiting for you to cite a source for your "facts". Shouldn't be too hard, them being "indisputable" and all.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

No, you ignore the truth unless it agrees with your distorted view of the world.

Sounds like some other member on here .... i cant quite put a finger on his name ....

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

So why have we historically provided traitors with trials?

Maybe because they presented themselves for trial. I don't know that we have always historically provided traitors with trials when said traitors have evaded US jurisdiction.

I'll bet a dinner at Ruth's Chris that Al Awalaki was not the first citizen ever disappeared for treasonous acts without a trial.

 

[Bitter Clinger]

Still waiting for you to cite a source for your "facts". Shouldn't be too hard, them being "indisputable" and all.

I provided a link to one source - read my earlier post.

 

[steveh_131]

Maybe because they presented themselves for trial. I don't know that we have always historically provided traitors with trials when said traitors have evaded US jurisdiction.

I'll bet a dinner at Ruth's Chris that Al Awalaki was not the first citizen ever disappeared for treasonous acts without a trial.

So should we ever provide a trial for a traitor? Shouldn't they have a chance to defend themselves and present evidence? What if they're innocent?

I provided a link to one source - read my earlier post.

Didn't see that 99.9% figure anywhere in your source.

 

[Bummer]

No, you ignore the truth unless it agrees with your distorted view of the world.

I see no point in continuing discourse with you. I have given you the facts about muslims waging holy war (I believe they call it "jihad"). You can examine what I have presented, or you can ignore it, it makes no difference to me.

Good day to you sir.

And you distort everything anybody else says that does not represent fawning at your feet.

You did not supply facts that they are engaged in Holy War. You supplied a list of acts. I don't think it was even close to 4,000+, so no 99.9 for you. None the less, I fully agree that some Muslims are engaged in jihad. I've never said otherwise. Based upon your comments, you are engaged in Holy War right back at 'em. Live by the sword, die by the sword still means nothing to you? JC would be so disappointed.

(Did you just flounce off in a huff? Yes, it looks like you did. Now that's funny.)

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

So should we ever provide a trial for a traitor? Shouldn't they have a chance to defend themselves and present evidence? What if they're innocent?

If they submit themselves to US jurisdiction, absolutely we should hold a trial, and they are entitled to all the privileges and immunities provided under the Constitution. If they hide out and continue to wage war against the US from foreign soil, they should be stopped from causing further damage to the US, whatever that entails.

 

[steveh_131]

If they submit themselves to US jurisdiction, absolutely we should hold a trial, and they are entitled to all the privileges and immunities provided under the Constitution. If they hide out and continue to wage war against the US from foreign soil, they should be stopped from causing further damage to the US, whatever that entails.

Capturing them would stop them and protect civil liberties. Why not just do that if possible? Obviously this is not always possible, just as when police try to apprehend a dangerous suspect. But if possible, then why not?

 

[Bummer]

I'll bet a dinner at Ruth's Chris that Al Awalaki was not the first citizen ever disappeared for treasonous acts without a trial.

Kind of like what the KGB used to be known for? Ivan Denisovich anyone?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Capturing them would stop them and protect civil liberties. Why not just do that if possible? Obviously this is not always possible, just as when police try to apprehend a dangerous suspect. But if possible, then why not?

I want to agree, but it's that whole war thing and I'm unwilling to concede that civil liberties should factor into the equation. It's just not worth the risk. If we can take a combatant out with a missile and no risk to human life, then so be it. Having said that there could have been some intelligence value to capturing Al Walaki, but not being in the chain that's pure conjecture on my part. I'm sure that was considered and for whatever reason it was determined that his value dead was greater than his value alive.

I guess if we knew they were going to be in the middle of nowhere and we could swoop in and grab them, I would have no problem, But I also have no problem making them a DNA stain either.

 

[steveh_131]

I guess if we knew they were going to be in the middle of nowhere and we could swoop in and grab them, I would have no problem, But I also have no problem making them a DNA stain either.

My biggest issue with this is the possibility of killing someone who may be innocent and would have possibly been exonerated if given a fair trial.

That said, it's pretty unreasonable to put other American's lives in danger to capture a guy who refuses to come back to the U.S. for the chance to prove his innocence.

So while I can certainly see your point on the matter, the slippery slope involved is worrisome. A president with the authority to be the judge, jury and executioner of an American citizen is scary for a lot of reasons.

 

[hookedonjeep]

IMHO, when you give aid and comfort to the enemy, go to THEIR neighborhood and stay, and continue to desire for the destruction of your home country, you have unofficially renounced your citizenship, and aligned with the enemy - making you an "enemy combatant"; and as such a valid target for removal from this world...

 

[rambone]

Having said that there could have been some intelligence value to capturing Al Walaki, but not being in the chain that's pure conjecture on my part. I'm sure that was considered and for whatever reason it was determined that his value dead was greater than his value alive.

Same thing with Osama... The master of terror himself. Imagine the intel that this guy had in his brain. The SEALS were in the same room with him, and the official story tells us that he wasn't resisting. He could have been captured with ease. Yet he received the infamous double-tap and the evidence was dumped in the ocean. Intel lost.

That's why this policy strikes me as not only morally & constitutionally questionable (debated ad nauseum), but also strategically incompetent. If the target is important enough that the assassin squad is to be dispatched, then it also must be true that he must have some valuable strategic information. So for multiple reasons, I think it is dumb policy to purposely kill people that could have been captured.

 

[chizzle]

War On Terror Kills More Americans that Al Awlaki Could Article

I thought this was an interesting article that pertains to our current discussion:

War On Terror Kills More Americans than Al-Awlaki Could | The Moderate Voice

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

Same thing with Osama... The master of terror himself. Imagine the intel that this guy had in his brain. The SEALS were in the same room with him, and the official story tells us that he wasn't resisting. He could have been captured with ease. Yet he received the infamous double-tap and the evidence was dumped in the ocean. Intel lost.

That's why this policy strikes me as not only morally & constitutionally questionable (debated ad nauseum), but also strategically incompetent. If the target is important enough that the assassin squad is to be dispatched, then it also must be true that he must have some valuable strategic information. So for multiple reasons, I think it is dumb policy to purposely kill people that could have been captured.

The only thing i can think of, is they didnt want some of that information getting out to the general public. I cannot think of a single reason why they would not have even ATTEMPTED to capture OBL. He was too valuable of a target to just kill on site.

 

[Bitter Clinger]

The only thing i can think of, is they didnt want some of that information getting out to the general public. I cannot think of a single reason why they would not have even ATTEMPTED to capture OBL. He was too valuable of a target to just kill on site.

How do you know UBL isn't being waterboarded right now? Did you see his body?

Is it just a coincidence several high value muslim terrorists have met their demise since UBL was "killed"?

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

How do you know UBL isn't being waterboarded right now? Did you see his body?

Is it just a coincidence several high value muslim terrorists have met their demise since UBL was "killed"?

About as coincidental as all the "high value" terrorists that met their demise before the OBL incident?

 

[Bitter Clinger]

About as coincidental as all the "high value" terrorists that met their demise before the OBL incident?

I thought I found something we might agree on. Guess not. If UBL is being interrogated by the CIA right now, I would applaud your beloved Obongo administration. Either way, I give Obongo credit for making a good call by giving the SEALS the green light.

 

[Effingham]

So why have we historically provided traitors with trials?

Because historically most traitors stayed at home (for money or whatever reason). Lots didn't -- as my frequent references to the Americans who fought for the Axis powers during WWII.

When you're bearing arms against your country, and supporting the destruction of your country *in your own words*, and you are hanging out in a foreign country with people who want America "gone," and are actually one of their leaders...

I think expecting or even asking for a trial is ludicrous. He should have been all blown up.

I am not losing a moment of sleep over this case.


NOTE: I've changed this from "government" to "country" -- My Marine friend below was correct!

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Because historically most traitors stayed at home (for money or whatever reason). Lots didn't -- as my frequent references to the Americans who fought for the Axis powers during WWII.

When you're bearing arms against your [STRIKE]government[/STRIKE] country, and supporting the destruction of your [STRIKE]government[/STRIKE] country *in your own words*, and you are hanging out in a foreign country with people who want America "gone," and are actually one of their leaders...

I think expecting or even asking for a trial is ludicrous. He should have been all blown up.

I am not losing a moment of sleep over this case.

FTFY