Ron Paul NYT Editorial on Unconstitutional Killing

[chizzle]

"When the president can kill whoever he wants, then he's not a president anymore, he's a king." - Judge Andrew Napolitano



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnem1Ohm3Q0

Thank you for posting this, I thought it was great.

 

[bigg cheese]

great video -- thanks

 

[chizzle]

I just found this video showing that Cain agrees with Paul's position:

http://youtu.be/NPQw1xkAEow

 

[bigg cheese]

I just found this video showing that Cain agrees with Paul's position:

http://youtu.be/NPQw1xkAEow

dang

Herman Cain Flip-Flopped on the Killing of Anwar al-Awlaki - Chris Good - Politics - The Atlantic

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

dang

Herman Cain Flip-Flopped on the Killing of Anwar al-Awlaki - Chris Good - Politics - The Atlantic

wah wah wahhhh

What do you think about him being Pauls VP?

 

[WWIIIDefender]

dang

Herman Cain Flip-Flopped on the Killing of Anwar al-Awlaki - Chris Good - Politics - The Atlantic

Herman Cain just another Flip Flop King!

 

[bigg cheese]

Found a fairly extensive article on Enemy Combatants. Great quote in it:

Capturing and detaining a U.S. citizen, or any other human being, is not an activity DoD takes lightly. As in other armed conflicts in which our Nation has been engaged, the detention of enemy combatants serves a vitally important protective function.

Enemy Combatants - Council on Foreign Relations

Apparently the President takes it fairly lightly, since they didn't bother even trying to detain him...

 

[miguel]

Judas Priest, not another one of these ****ing threads...

It is not like the FBI sent a sniper team to cap speakers or attendees at a Tea Party or AFL-CIO rally or the CIA poisoned a bunch of Girl Scouts at an Earth Day picnic at Eagle Creek Park!

This ********** was in YEMEN as a member of an internationally-recognized terrorist organization that has, for some time now, been a sworn enemy of our country. This organization has acted violently against both unarmed U.S. civilians and our armed forces.

If he was in the US, advocating his point of view via TV/radio/print/blogs/Twitter/other or pulling a Jesse Jackson over there, trying to "negotiate" a deal with them to improve relations with us, I'd cut him some slack. He wasn't, so I won't.

 

[bingley]

I'm not so arrogant as to quote myself, but I am having to quote myself from a thread on police violence against protestors because the post applies:

Alas, this is too common on INGO:

1. The state does something illegal against certain people.
2. Those who don't like said people attempt to excuse the state's illegal action. They do so for partisan reasons. ("I don't like those protestors and/or their agendas, so it's OK for the police to violate law in dealing with them.")

Then we have the charming back and forth between different parties.

Look, guys, the state is not your personal vengeance tool. You want to make sure the state acts ethically, because if it doesn't, there is no guarantee that it won't turn against you. Just because you are law-abiding, patriotic, and any other adjective you may think of, it doesn't mean that you are exempt from abuse by the authorities. You are no different from the next guy on the street, or from those women protestors on Wall Street.

Da Bing

Sure, al-Awlaki was a despicable figure. But until he goes through the process that all citizens are entitled to, the state cannot deprive him of life, freedom, or property. Legally, there is no difference between him and anyone else here, unless the government presents a good legal foundation for killing American citizens without giving him a chance to prove his innocence. If the government can do this to al-Awlaki, it can do it to any of us. I am posting this not because I want to give a terrorist his rights as an American citizen, but I don't want us to lose our rights.

Da Bing

 

[Zoub]

That's got to be one of the most bizarre statements I've ever read about Ron Paul. I have to ask, were you being serious? To call Ron Paul a Kingmaker with a straight face is a nice way of saying that you have absolutely no idea what the man stands for or how the man has voted consistantly throughout his career. His son now holds a public office in another state and because of that all of a sudden the federal governement is a family owned business, or a kingship? So what is people go into the same busienss as their parents. That's normal with carpenters, mechanics, teachers, police, and why not politics.

By all means, follow your own statement and look closely to members of congress who've served 20 years and compare their record to that of Ron Pauls. You'll see pretty quickly that nobody out there measures up to his consistency about people being able to rule their own lives. I'm not trying to personally pick on you, but you have to understand that just about everything you mentioned in that post was a complete fail.

I like no one who serves more than 3 terms or 18 years total and I don't even like 18 years but in my mind that is a workable number. Even if we have to give them full benefits to be rid of the bastards in 18 years.

If you study human behavior, marketing and even politics then you know name/brand recognition is a huge factor. The simple fact is, just by running in the National spot light, he builds the brand of "Paul." The same brand his Son runs under. Paul is no idiot, he knows all of this. Thought is not bound by imaginary state lines drawn by man on a map. A Kennedy in New York or California is a Kennedy. A Clinton in New York is still a Clinton.

Do you really think Paul is running to win? Do you really believe in your heart that he believes he can win? Do you think he has no agenda of his own? Do you honestly think he has no strategy or tactics to further his own views?

No, it is not like being a carpenter or any other family business or CAREER...........Politics were never intended to be a career. Yes, I am sure his son learned the tricks of the trade from his Dad. I am positive of it. Ony he will be better and he is not tested long term like his Dad. The same way we ascribe human charecteristics to Disney animals, we do the same for generational Politicians. And I have said, I like his Son.

Strange no one ever votes for term limits? Does Paul scream about that? If so, why has he not stepped down yet? If they did approve term limits we would see that wonderful term "Grandfathered in" to include 100% of their butts.

How would you feel if another Lugar ran for office? Did you like Bayh? Biden? Dodd? Cuomo?

Who put Obama in office.........the G'D' Daley family. The Daleys are just too butt ugly to win national office, but they took the pages right from Joe Kennedy Sr's play book. The only thing worse is the Long family of Louisianna, my birth place.

On a side note, Bill Clinton lost his mind after Hugh Rodham died. Rodham was the king maker there and he kept that dip, or least penis, in line.

How do you feel about Julia Carson's offspring? Did he remotely earn it or ride her coat tails? What a legacy for Indiana as he looks around for hangin' trees. I lived in that God forsaken distrcit and I finally voted with my feet, I moved. I now live in Paul Ryan's district. As much as I like him, he is a carrer politico too. He has clearly stated his current long term goals for his political career.

Back in the 70's I never forgot how my Dad described Massachusetts was during the 1950's when he was stationed there. "Every evening everyone would stop and kneel, facing in the direction of the Kennedy compound then go vote for the bastards."

Even if you love Ron Paul his long term pressence in office drowns out the other voices of his district. The fact you disagree with me so strongly and do not see my perspective tells me you are not that emotional about term limits. I am.

Everyone wants power. Every district wants money and "free stuff" from the Federal Government. If we give up our power brokers and other states do not, then we will lose money and influence to them. We may have to stand on our own two feet with no free bridges. Oh good lord, how would we ever survive?

There will never be 3, 4, 5 or more parties if we don't have term limits. We will never break the back of the inner circles. The day a third party controls 7% of the seats in congress, it is a new game. I don't care who it is, it can be the "Mexicans for Free Americanism and GM Cars" party for all I care.

I will never compare a Career Soldier to a Career Politician. Only one is a true Patriot in my eyes. It is how I came to see things after being raised by a true Patriot. A title he would never use to describe himself but no one would argue he earned.

Paul may be a great guy, but he is also a career politician, just like Lugar and Bayh. I trust that the common man can make decisions to run this country. We may also come to find many of them are not so common after all.

PS I in no way dislike you, even though you are wrong. I do think it would be good to improve your shotgun skills before next summer.

 

[RockofStrength]

There is no need for term limits. If a politician is able to get more votes each year so that he can join a group of hundreds in the House for a short two year term, more power to him. What we should be calling for is a return to the former method of electing Senators to give the States a place for their concerns to be heard.

 

[rambone]

Strange no one ever votes for term limits? Does Paul scream about that?

Ron Paul was the first member of congress to propose term limits legislation in the House. He has done so multiple times starting as early as the 1970s. His son has recently co-sponsored a bill for term limits in the Senate.

I'm not even sure I fully agree with term limits, but the fact remains, Ron Paul has been all over this issue before it was mainstream.

 

[bigg cheese]

Just out of curiosity, wouldn't one think that since he's been in office so long that he should choose to get out, the same way many on the board think warren buffet should donate extra to the .Gov?

 

[teddy12b]

IEven if you love Ron Paul his long term pressence in office drowns out the other voices of his district. The fact you disagree with me so strongly and do not see my perspective tells me you are not that emotional about term limits. I am.

I've gone back and forth about the terms limits because it's something that I feel that we as citizens needs to do to protect the people we send to DC from being corrupted into complete pieces of $h!t. That's actually the reason I got out and voted against Sauder in the last primary and sure enough shortly after he won anyways, his scandal become public and he'll live the rest of his days with every knowing what a turd he became after years in DC.

Paul may be a great guy, but he is also a career politician, just like Lugar and Bayh. I trust that the common man can make decisions to run this country. We may also come to find many of them are not so common after all.

Ron Paul is actually the guy who's changed my mind on terms limits because I finally saw a politician who was consistant over the years and who was still doing the right thing because it was the right thing to do even when it wasn't popular. Comparing to RP to Lugar just isn't even remotely close to an apples to apples comparison. If anything those two guys are complete opposites and Lugar is a perfect example of someone who went to DC and changed/was bought out over the years.


PS I in no way dislike you, even though you are wrong. I do think it would be good to improve your shotgun skills before next summer.

The shotgun thing cracked me up. I actually just picked up an 11-87 that hopefully I'll get out and use this weekend. When I feel good with the new gun I'll change my signature, but not until then.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Ron Paul was the first member of congress to propose term limits legislation in the House. He has done so multiple times starting as early as the 1970s. His son has recently co-sponsored a bill for term limits in the Senate.

I'm not even sure I fully agree with term limits, but the fact remains, Ron Paul has been all over this issue before it was mainstream.

And then he keeps running for office. How is that a principled position?

I'm not so arrogant as to quote myself, but I am having to quote myself from a thread on police violence against protestors because the post applies:



Sure, al-Awlaki was a despicable figure. But until he goes through the process that all citizens are entitled to, the state cannot deprive him of life, freedom, or property. Legally, there is no difference between him and anyone else here, unless the government presents a good legal foundation for killing American citizens without giving him a chance to prove his innocence. If the government can do this to al-Awlaki, it can do it to any of us. I am posting this not because I want to give a terrorist his rights as an American citizen, but I don't want us to lose our rights.

Da Bing

What exactly does that mean?

 

[88GT]

I'm not so arrogant as to quote myself, but I am having to quote myself from a thread on police violence against protestors because the post applies:



Sure, al-Awlaki was a despicable figure. But until he goes through the process that all citizens are entitled to, the state cannot deprive him of life, freedom, or property. Legally, there is no difference between him and anyone else here, unless the government presents a good legal foundation for killing American citizens without giving him a chance to prove his innocence. If the government can do this to al-Awlaki, it can do it to any of us. I am posting this not because I want to give a terrorist his rights as an American citizen, but I don't want us to lose our rights.

Da Bing

Why stop there? Since our rights are inherent to our human-ness, aren't ALL people entitled due process before being assassinated? Even those of another country?

 

[rambone]

And then he keeps running for office. How is that a principled position?

Its pretty clear that you criticize just for the sake of criticizing.

Maybe he should have faded into the sunset 30 years ago and nobody would be talking about term limits at all.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

The only thing they did wrong was not getting Jane Fonda on the same day.

That particular citizen had more than enough time since 9/11 to return home, face a trial here on American soil and defend his rights. Instead, he went behind enemy lines and stayed there. Enemy sympathizer, gave comfort to the enemy, treason, spy, terrorist, plotter, bomb builder, murderer, attempted murderer, who cares?

Had he been on our soil, yes, I would have cared. I am more concerned about the President locking up citizens here than killing one on the run.

Talk is cheap, sometimes you have to nail someones ass to a tree in his own neighborhood to send a message. Yasser Arafat never slept in the same place twice for a reason, he knew that for Jews, talk is cheap. They intended to kill that terrorist first chance they got.

When the war is over, and this one likely never will be as the world is a much smaller place now, we can have trials. Drones make assassinations much easier and I am all for it.

David ben Gurion was also a terrorist, ask the British.

The only thing that bothers me about this is that the Executive is doing more than his job of faithfully executing the laws of this nation. he is acting as judiciary too, sentencing a citizen to death on nothing more than his own edict. This is an easy case because the guy he wanted dead and told our military/CIA/DIA to take out was a bad guy, no question. But this opens the door to a lot of that government has been champing at the bit for decades to see through. Next time the president issues a death warrant for someone, it might not be a proven bad guy. It could be your wife, your cousin, your neighbor, your kid, you, your pastor. Anyone who meets the secret criteria of 'THE PRESIDENT SAYS MISSION IS A GO: REPEAT, OPERATION PENULTIMATE IS A GO'. Not my idea of executive power at all. Hell, the president can't even declare war without Congressional approval, despite many disobeying that limitation, the Constitution clearly states that for all cases of war, the president must first have approval from the Congress. So what do you think the answer is on letting the president kill people he doesn't like for no reason other than his dislike? It in no way allows this kind of behavior. At all. It's not explicitly mentioned because with our checks and balances it is not a scenario that could ever be Constitutionally breached, ever. but here it is, and here we are, approving of a madman sniping a bad guy. a bad guy who might have your face next time. let's really think this through before we all start giving each other the patriotic circlejerk. I love this country as much as any man and more than some even, and I don't approve of this in the least. There are many more legal ways to have gotten this guy and dealt him a death blow without pissing on the Constitution to do it.

 

[Lex Concord]

Its pretty clear that you criticize just for the sake of criticizing.

Maybe he should have faded into the sunset 30 years ago and nobody would be talking about term limits at all.

Worse yet, no one would be talking about the albatross that is the FED.

 

[Lex Concord]

The issue is not about cutting AllWacky any slack, as some have asserted, but about the precedent of the PotUS openly ordering hits with impunity and (apparently) raucous support.

First, presidents ignored the need for a declaration of war, then the war powers act, now, apparently, the unitary executive can order the death of *anyone* so long as he has a secret brief stating it's okay.

It's not like RICO was expanded beyond it's originally stated intent...nor the drug laws...nor the related seizure laws...nor the USA PATRIOT act...obviously there is nothing to be concerned about here....nothing to see here...just another step on the slippery slope...move along.

Here is some more food for thought...

The Day America Died by Paul Craig Roberts

The Hit List by Eric Peters