Ron Paul NYT Editorial on Unconstitutional Killing

[Kase]

I'm a supporter of Ron Paul.....but seriously man???


This douchebag deserved every bit of what he got. I dont feel the least bit sorry for him. He's a traitor...plain and simple. He's lucky he went out that way instead of having a public execution like the old days

 

[Chefcook]

http://youtu.be/pnP1lFslhh0

 

[cobber]

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?

Assuming the rights in the Constitution aren't granted by the US government, but presumably all humans are entitled to these rights by their Creator, then you have a point. To continue along this line of thought, the US deprived Osama of his due process rights as a human being by whacking him instead of bringing him to trial. Assuming conducting war is simply legal process by another name.

Can the Executive order the killing of American citizens without trial? Isn't that what happened in the Civil War?

 

[ViperJock]

From what I understand the man helped to recruit and train terrorists. If we are at war with this group, doesn't this make him an enemy combatant? I don't think the distinction is made about whether the guy is actually holding an AK or not.

The man was an American citizen, but he chose to give information to the enemy. This makes him a spy and a traitor, does it not? Are spies and traitors legally subject to trial in a time of war? Or can they be killed outright--legally speaking? Does anyone know?

I cannot stand Obama, and I am certainly against murdering anyone, American or not. But it seems to me that he (as Osama Bin Laden did) chose to make himself an enemy combatant and therefore took the chances associated with being one. At what point do enemy combatants get a trial? Are our ROE going to be arrest everyone? Lets just eliminate the military and create a real world police so we can arrest everybody else's soldiers and put them on trial. This statement reeks of political posturing to me.

This is my 666th post. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[RockofStrength]

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?

Near as I can tell, our government has an area of responsibility, a jurisdiction. It extends to all nations, technically, but not to all people. Those rights are natural, given to all men by God, but the Constitution gives no stipulation that the U.S. and her courts are expected to protect any but her own citizens. The United States certainly should not violate the rights of others, but it is not required to give them a court hearing in the U.S. or under her laws if other nations have primary responsibility for them.

Natural rights to self-protection, or to the "common defense" permit us to kill foreigners when openly engaged in warfare if the nation in which they reside or the circumstances of their location and defenses do not permit their being arrested. We do, for example, take prisoners of war and provide opportunity to surrender even for avowed enemies provided they are not at that moment resisting their being accosted by virtue of firing artillery shells at our right flank. This is known to be extended to private individuals and even officers of the law when they arresting a suspect, though the officer's actions are usually given a more vigorous investigation than that of an individual solider on the battlefield.

TL;DR: The rights are independent of our nation, but their protection and enforcement are limited by necessity and the fact that interfering in another nation's governance would necessitate and overstepping into other nation's rights as sovereign countries independent of our rule. We ought to give the opportunity to surrender to justice and the courts and if they resist with deadly force (or threaten deadly harm to others, as with a threatened cell phone call to a bomb) blow them right into the lake of burning sulfur.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

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.

No, I call out blatent hypocrisy when I see it. Calling for term limits and then staying for another 20 years meets that definition.

 

[GREEN607]

Yes, if you renounce it and go through the legal process with the State Department. There is no evidence anywhere that Al-Awlaki did so.

That's because al-Awlaki no longer recognized or accepted the authority of the nation we call "the good 'ol USA". He said so, himself, on more than one occassion. So why would he bother with our formalities and the State Dept?

Get it straight mj....he not only renounced his US citizenship..... he declared 'jihad' against the people and the government of the United States of America. I quoted his very own words, saying just that, in the other thread. Would you like the link again?

 

[chizzle]

Does anyone see downside to treating this individual the way the Israeli Mossad treated Eichmann in the 60's?

Adolf Eichmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I see great value in trying someone like this in court to expose what they've done, and getting public opinion on your side. To me, this is just a side benefit of doing what is right.

 

[chizzle]

Michael Savage Agrees...

I also just noticed that Michael Savage (3rd most popular national radio show in the country) came out agreeing with Ron's position on this issue:

http://youtu.be/3XDxON6xXtg

 

[rambone]

No, I call out blatent hypocrisy when I see it. Calling for term limits and then staying for another 20 years meets that definition.

lol

 

[88GT]

Near as I can tell, our government has an area of responsibility, a jurisdiction. It extends to all nations, technically, but not to all people. Those rights are natural, given to all men by God, but the Constitution gives no stipulation that the U.S. and her courts are expected to protect any but her own citizens. The United States certainly should not violate the rights of others, but it is not required to give them a court hearing in the U.S. or under her laws if other nations have primary responsibility for them.

Natural rights to self-protection, or to the "common defense" permit us to kill foreigners when openly engaged in warfare if the nation in which they reside or the circumstances of their location and defenses do not permit their being arrested. We do, for example, take prisoners of war and provide opportunity to surrender even for avowed enemies provided they are not at that moment resisting their being accosted by virtue of firing artillery shells at our right flank. This is known to be extended to private individuals and even officers of the law when they arresting a suspect, though the officer's actions are usually given a more vigorous investigation than that of an individual solider on the battlefield.

TL;DR: The rights are independent of our nation, but their protection and enforcement are limited by necessity and the fact that interfering in another nation's governance would necessitate and overstepping into other nation's rights as sovereign countries independent of our rule. We ought to give the opportunity to surrender to justice and the courts and if they resist with deadly force (or threaten deadly harm to others, as with a threatened cell phone call to a bomb) blow them right into the lake of burning sulfur.

A fair response. But I'm still waiting (though I admit it might have been addressed in one of the many other threads I've posted this question in an attempt to get someone to confront the contradiction) for someone to explain to me how he would suggest we handle a U.S. citizen that takes up arms against the U.S. in the army of a foreign country during conflict marked by the declaration of war. What about the blurred reality of war that isn't declared?

It's not that I don't agree with the premise that the U.S. has a responsibility towards it's citizens. It's that I don't believe the "due process" necessarily involves civilian courts. The Constitution doesn't define it that way (to my knowledge). So why are we always knee-jerking to that particular fallback position? The reality is that there are situations that don't fit the neat and tidy compartments classical liberals want to put everything in. The real world is messy and most circumstances come with a lot of overlap. And the position that all U.S. citizens be granted civilian trials in civilian courts is tantamount to legal zero tolerance.

I also just noticed that Michael Savage (3rd most popular national radio show in the country) came out agreeing with Ron's position on this issue:

http://youtu.be/3XDxON6xXtg

Oh, well, if Michael Savage agrees.....

 

[UncleMike]

Oh, well, if Michael Savage agrees.....

Yeah...
That pretty much seals the deal for me too.

 

[rambone]

A fair response. But I'm still waiting (though I admit it might have been addressed in one of the many other threads I've posted this question in an attempt to get someone to confront the contradiction) for someone to explain to me how he would suggest we handle a U.S. citizen that takes up arms against the U.S. in the army of a foreign country during conflict marked by the declaration of war. What about the blurred reality of war that isn't declared?

I don't think anyone would cry foul if somebody like that was killed when actually taking up arms, in actual combat, on an actual battlefield. Without meeting any of those conditions, I would prefer it if that dangerous precedent was not set for future use. Finding a suspect in their home, allegedly writing emails, outside a warzone, and not charged with a crime is a different situation, in my opinion.

Plus, if these leaders are actually so influential, then it makes no sense to kill them instead of interrogating them. I'm talking about Bin Laden too.

 

[RockofStrength]

A fair response. But I'm still waiting (though I admit it might have been addressed in one of the many other threads I've posted this question in an attempt to get someone to confront the contradiction) for someone to explain to me how he would suggest we handle a U.S. citizen that takes up arms against the U.S. in the army of a foreign country during conflict marked by the declaration of war. What about the blurred reality of war that isn't declared?

It's not that I don't agree with the premise that the U.S. has a responsibility towards it's citizens. It's that I don't believe the "due process" necessarily involves civilian courts. The Constitution doesn't define it that way (to my knowledge). So why are we always knee-jerking to that particular fallback position? The reality is that there are situations that don't fit the neat and tidy compartments classical liberals want to put everything in. The real world is messy and most circumstances come with a lot of overlap. And the position that all U.S. citizens be granted civilian trials in civilian courts is tantamount to legal zero tolerance.

Firstly, I don't see why we should be involved in a conflict to the extent of executing people for war crimes against our nation and yet not have full declaration of war. Pie in the sky, and I'll get to the rest but it needs to be said nonetheless.

Secondly, an American citizen who serves in a foreign military is an American citizen no longer declared war or not, as that is one of the few actions one can take to renounce American citizenship. However, Al Qaeda and the like are not armies, military forces or otherwise nationally based organizations that could be used to strip a citizen of his citizenship. One cannot be a citizen of Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization, obviously. Unless he joined a military force of a specific nation and a terrorist cadre, I don't see how he could have lost his citizenship to that.

Ok, main point. To quote what I think is the pertinent Amendment to which you were referring:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

(Most of Amendment V)

The second half first part I think can be reasonably removed: he was not serving in our active Militia, nor was he apart of our armed forces. Thus the bolded parts seem most important here. Obviously he was not given the chance to be indicted by a Grand Jury, so we are arguing (to get to your point) about what constitutes "due process of law".

At this point it behooves me to say that I'm an 19 year old farmer with an internet connection, not a lawyer or judge who can weigh in on Supreme Court decisions regarding precisely what constitutes due process. I will do what I can to make reasonable assumptions based upon standard legal proceedings. Obviously it is acknowledged that a criminal can be killed without standing trial in the event that he resists arrest in a violent and deadly manner. Already went into this in the last post, won't repeat for brevity's sake. This man was simply killed by a drone strike: no arrest attempt was made.

Furthermore, we do our best to arrest terrorists in this nation, and to give them a trial to pay for their crimes as the law demands. Even those who remained of the 9/11 crew were given trials rather than being executed. I am unable to find, in either explicit or general Constitutional principle or else a court precedent, a situation where "he's really hard to get to" justifies killing a terrorist instead of bringing him to face justice as our laws would demand of a man who committed the same crimes domestically. Others with more knowledge of the Supreme Court may be able to shed more light: my knowledge, such as it is, is insufficient to justify the action that was taken against this man.

Due process means giving him the opportunity to prove his innocence (however vanishingly small that chance may be) or to proudly declare his guilt provided he is able to be taken without serious risk of life or serious injury to the arresting personnel or any collateral damage (civilian death etc) occurring. Due process of law must logically involve law: he broke laws, to be sure, but the way by which we prove that so that he may be punished for it is to try him in a court that is appropriate to his status as military or civilian. It is the only way that we prove guilt in the eyes of the law: even a murderer caught red-handed would be given a day in court no matter how many witnesses saw him commit the act, provided he could be taken.

 

[Bummer]

Terrorism is just a word. It loosely translates to "Weer skeerd uvim."

Flying airplanes into buildings and killing thousands of people is mass murder. It's a crime. A group that does such a thing is a gang. Al Qaeda is the Mafia in bad suits.

We need(ed) to hunt them down, arrest them, try them, then when found guilty execute them. We need(ed) to do this for US, not for them.

Every step down this road makes us less of who we say we are. Every step makes them less-wrong about who we really are.

How long before owning more than one gun is sufficient to cause any of us to be branded a terrorist? How long after that will it only take one? Where will you hide?

 

[Effingham]

I have to say that cries of "assassination" strike me as... well, historically uninformed.

I don't recall Abraham Lincoln ordering the *arrest* of all the Confederate soldiers in the field during the Civil War. Certainly Gen. Hancock was not stupid enough as to hold fire on Pickett's division until they reached the Angle, and then try to stop them and put on handcuffs so they could be taken in and given due process. They were in uniformed, armed rebellion.

And I don't remember FDR issuing an order that the hundreds of Americans who fought for the Italians and Germans in WW2 should be sought out on the battlefield and arrested rather than shot at and bombed like all the others they were with who were trying to kill us.

Thousands -- hundreds of thousands -- of US citizens who were warring on the US proper have been killed in wartime. It's the risk you take when you take up arms against your own country.

Our police have no jurisdiction overseas, and do we expect the local police to go and "take him in"? Any soldier would have been right to have fired on him had he had the guy in his sights -- just as would have any GI on an American in German or Italian uniform during WW2, or a doughboy on an American fighting for the Kaiser. Or, for that matter, Billy Yank drawing down on Johnny Reb.

Even George John Dasch and Ernest Peter Burger, when apprehended, were handed over to military rather than civil courts for obvious reasons.

THough it has nothing specifically to do with treason (though it clearly was, as Article III, Sec. 3.1: "Treason . . . shall consist only in levying war against them [the United States], or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort..."), Anwar al-Awlaki was an enemy in wartime and in the enemy camp, and therefore just as valid a target as any of those people were.

Anwar al-Awlaki was in a leadership position in an organization that had attacked us, was regularly killing our soldiers, and is trying to destroy this country.

The man -- and everyone else in al Qaeda -- is a valid target. Doubt that? Try this:

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

I'd say being in a leadership position in that organization counts. Big time.


Tony

 

[Zoub]

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.

When/if he has the balls to raise this issue in the Presidential debates, I will applaud him then ask him to lead by example and publicly state he will not rerun.

He is a Career Politician and just like John Kerry, he crafted his political resume, which back then meant it had to include military service. Unlike John Kerry, he never saw combat. Many people never survived even their first day in combat. In the USAF there is an old saying, some guys fly planes, other fly desks. We all know there are more desks than planes and both are needed.

I am no Kerry fan. I use him to make a point, both of them set out from day one to be Career Politicians. Neither is a Career Soldier turned Politician.

The simple fact is term limits will catch more Turds than Diamonds.

The same way sometimes a guilty man (or woman) goes free to preserve our system of justice. If Paul had to leave office, so be it, how many turds would also be out too? I am not comparing values or apples to oranges, I am talking about prevention of corruption and preserving our voices. Paul can be an activist without being in office. He may even be more effective that way because unless he runs for President, no one seems to hear him.

I don't want Politicians, I want Citizens. I am stuck with a lot of Politicians because the system in place protects itself. I want people who really understand math and critical thinking. Like the actuaries in the 1980's who said fix social security now! No one read that book.....BORING........like Barbie said back then "math is hard." Math is organic and never lies. People lie. Barbie was right, for a lot of people a fully funded SS system was hard to understand.

Don't tell me Paul has all that. His mind is mush with 40 years of Politics. Put him out to pasture for breeding purposes. Like Secretariat, his genes are still good.

If Cain wins, I kind of hope he picks Paul as VP and unleashses him on the Congress, but only on odd numbered days. He will be better than Mondale, Bush, Gore or Biden and people will become physically ill just at the sight of him walking their way. That has value in itself.

If Obama can raise a Billion dollars, how abour he repays the Solyndra loan first? Afterall he was such a big believer in that investment. Then he can use the remainder for his 2012 campaign. Do you think he would give up any percentage of the sweet nectar needed for his campaign?

They are all addicts and they all believe they should be President.

 

[Zoub]

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.

This thread has now gone to the next level. What if everyone bought just one shotgun in the next 6 months? That is a poll I could believe in. 2000 shotguns in every state. Fast and Furious x 50.

Live Long and Prosper Teddy.

 

[88GT]

Firstly, I don't see why we should be involved in a conflict to the extent of executing people for war crimes against our nation and yet not have full declaration of war. Pie in the sky, and I'll get to the rest but it needs to be said nonetheless.

Secondly, an American citizen who serves in a foreign military is an American citizen no longer declared war or not, as that is one of the few actions one can take to renounce American citizenship. However, Al Qaeda and the like are not armies, military forces or otherwise nationally based organizations that could be used to strip a citizen of his citizenship. One cannot be a citizen of Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization, obviously. Unless he joined a military force of a specific nation and a terrorist cadre, I don't see how he could have lost his citizenship to that.

Ok, main point. To quote what I think is the pertinent Amendment to which you were referring:

(Most of Amendment V)

The second half first part I think can be reasonably removed: he was not serving in our active Militia, nor was he apart of our armed forces. Thus the bolded parts seem most important here. Obviously he was not given the chance to be indicted by a Grand Jury, so we are arguing (to get to your point) about what constitutes "due process of law".

At this point it behooves me to say that I'm an 19 year old farmer with an internet connection, not a lawyer or judge who can weigh in on Supreme Court decisions regarding precisely what constitutes due process. I will do what I can to make reasonable assumptions based upon standard legal proceedings. Obviously it is acknowledged that a criminal can be killed without standing trial in the event that he resists arrest in a violent and deadly manner. Already went into this in the last post, won't repeat for brevity's sake. This man was simply killed by a drone strike: no arrest attempt was made.

Furthermore, we do our best to arrest terrorists in this nation, and to give them a trial to pay for their crimes as the law demands. Even those who remained of the 9/11 crew were given trials rather than being executed. I am unable to find, in either explicit or general Constitutional principle or else a court precedent, a situation where "he's really hard to get to" justifies killing a terrorist instead of bringing him to face justice as our laws would demand of a man who committed the same crimes domestically. Others with more knowledge of the Supreme Court may be able to shed more light: my knowledge, such as it is, is insufficient to justify the action that was taken against this man.

Due process means giving him the opportunity to prove his innocence (however vanishingly small that chance may be) or to proudly declare his guilt provided he is able to be taken without serious risk of life or serious injury to the arresting personnel or any collateral damage (civilian death etc) occurring. Due process of law must logically involve law: he broke laws, to be sure, but the way by which we prove that so that he may be punished for it is to try him in a court that is appropriate to his status as military or civilian. It is the only way that we prove guilt in the eyes of the law: even a murderer caught red-handed would be given a day in court no matter how many witnesses saw him commit the act, provided he could be taken.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Your murderer wasn't committing acts of war. There's a difference.

I am not naive enough to think that war is made only by nation-states with sanctioned uniformed bodies of men. War made upon us is still war, whether hired mercs, formal military units, or guerilla groups without a country. Whether your idealism is fueled by your political views or your youth or both, I know not. But I do know the world doesn't operate in the limited black and white picture you've painted. Even assuming the U.S. disengages from the multitude of foreign entanglements in which it does not belong, it doesn't change the fact that this man made war on the U.S., renounced his citizenship in word and deed, and contributed by his aid and assistance to the deaths of thousands of Americans.

Edit: I wanted to reference an article that provided precisely the court rulings you mentioned, but couldn't find it before I posted. I searched after I posted and found it. Here it is: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/opinion/a-just-act-of-war.html?_r=1

And the pertinent part:

And while no court approved the killing of Mr. Awlaki, it is not accurate to say that he was targeted without due process. What due process requires depends on context. In a lawsuit brought last year that sought to prevent the government from targeting Mr. Awlaki, a federal judge ruled that in wartime the Constitution left it to the president and Congress, not the courts, to decide military targeting issues.

 

[RockofStrength]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Your murderer wasn't committing acts of war. There's a difference.

I am not naive enough to think that war is made only by nation-states with sanctioned uniformed bodies of men. War made upon us is still war, whether hired mercs, formal military units, or guerilla groups without a country. Whether your idealism is fueled by your political views or your youth or both, I know not. But I do know the world doesn't operate in the limited black and white picture you've painted. Even assuming the U.S. disengages from the multitude of foreign entanglements in which it does not belong, it doesn't change the fact that this man made war on the U.S., renounced his citizenship in word and deed, and contributed by his aid and assistance to the deaths of thousands of Americans.

Edit: I wanted to reference an article that provided precisely the court rulings you mentioned, but couldn't find it before I posted. I searched after I posted and found it. Here it is: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/opinion/a-just-act-of-war.html?_r=1

And the pertinent part:

The primary issue then is one where, as you say, we disagree. Al Qaeda and their ilk are international criminals, committing acts of murder, theft, and the destruction of property against innocent civilians in order to force political change or to satisfy some animalistic desire for revenge.

It is not idealism that primarily drives this distinction (thought doubtless I have some, as you say I am young ), but rather a knowledge of how easily a pliable definition like "terrorist" or "individual who threatens American security" can be abused and how easily other such terms have been abused in the past to justify terrible actions. An "enemy combatant"; that is, a person on a battlefield or command post serving in a military capacity as a part of a nation that is engaged in declared war with our nation, is a limited definition. Go on, assassinate those fellows day and night. Drones, bombs, frikkin' sharks with lazer beams, kill them and a pox upon their replacement.

On the other hand, "terrorist" or "national security threat" can be applied to anyone or anything that inspires fear in people, and I know the victims of many a genocidal campaign know how easy it is to demonize a certain group. Heck, most of the people on this forum are on at least one watch list merely for owning a weapon or belonging to a forum discussing the use of the same. Rambone probably has a list all his own by this point I am merely concerned that a shift from the list as a "citizen" to that of a "terrorist" or "national security threat" can instantly annul all rights and privileges due me when those terms are already so nebulous.

I am glad to see that more was put into it than a few weeks of thought on the part of the executive branch, and that the other branches were involved. I agree with the judge's interpretation, but as I have said I argue that a terrorist cannot be considered to be a military threat merely because he is a terrorist: there must be more to it than that. To do otherwise opens the door too wide.

Also, I tried to rep ya for the article link, but the rep system didn't like it. I'll try when I can