Ron Paul NYT Editorial on Unconstitutional Killing

[rambone]

The Secret Memo That Explains Why Obama Can Kill Americans

Obama hasn't just set a new precedent about killing Americans without due process. He has done so in a way that deliberately shields from public view the precise nature of the important precedent he has set. It's time for the president who promised to create "a White House that's more transparent and accountable than anything we've seen before" to release the DOJ memo. As David Shipler writes, "The legal questions are far from clearcut, and the country needs to have this difficult discussion." And then there's the fact that "a good many Obama supporters thought that secret legal opinions by the Justice Department -- rationalizing torture and domestic military arrests, for example -- had gone out the door along with the Bush administration," he adds. "But now comes a momentous change in policy with serious implications for the Constitution's restraint on executive power, and Obama refuses to allow his lawyers' arguments to be laid out on the table for the American public to examine." What doesn't he want to get out?

 

[WWIIIDefender]

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.

Ron Paul has publicly stated that he will not run for reelection.

 

[88GT]

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.

Two points.

1. Are you suggesting that acts of war are only perpetrated by uniformed armies of recognized nation-states though? Suppose Somali pirates started firing on U.S. naval ships in the area out of sheer cussedness? Where does that leave us? Or gangs of Mexican criminals repeatedly committed acts of unprovoked murder on U.S. citizens? (Oh. wait. ) If you accept the idea that acts of war occur outside the sanctioned actions of the standing armed forces of a nation, then you have to be prepared to accept that there are circumstances in which players can commit acts of war without being uniformed and without the sanction of any particular nation-state.

2. Which leads me to my next point. Your definition of enemy combatant is excessively narrow. What you have described are lawful combatants, soldiers who qualify for POW status under the Geneva Convention.* The other group is unlawful combatants, which under a 1942 Supreme Court ruling are subject to capture and detention, but are also subject to trial and punishment by MILITARY TRIBUNALS. Both are enemy combatants, which technically are nothing more than participants in armed conflict who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of war. And if they meet this definition, then no death achieved through the prosecution of war is an assassination.

(Additionally, both Congress and Bush43 administration formalized the term enemy combatant as it applies to the prosecution of AQ and/or other known terrorist organizations. So the term itself now has two similar but technically separate legal meanings (in terms of how the individuals are handled), and it must be read in the context in which it is used. In the "War on Terror" it is used almost exclusively for AQ and/or Taliban members. Regrettably, our illustrious leader and his administration have largely abandoned use of the term, though I imagine that they still operate within the parameters that exist based on the term's secondary definition.)

Ergo, a U.S. citizen can be classified as an enemy combatant. This isn't about being labeled a terrorist. Terrorism has nothing to do with it. This is about acts of war vs domestic criminal acts. You may still believe that a U.S. citizen is entitled to a civilian court trial for acts of war, but history and the courts says otherwise. And the consequences of eliminating a military response to acts of war simply because the perpetrator claims U.S. citizenship is unpalatable.


*On a side note, Geneva Convention protections are accorded uniformed soldiers acting in accordance with the "rules of war" for armed conflict--declared or not--between signatory nations. Ergo, a nation or group which has not lent its agreement to the Convention(s) (by formal signature at ratification or by agreement and application of the provision in times of conflict) is not afforded the protections contained therein. Ergo, it would be perfectly legal to shoot enemy combatants of non-signatory non-compliant nations dead on sight. (Though I wouldn't really want to try that in our modern word, what with the bunch of panty-waists sitting at the helm.)

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.

All true, but the response isn't determined by the label "terrorist" or "national security threat" but whether the action qualifies as an act of war and/or whether the individual qualifies as an enemy combatant. THOSE definitions are well-formed and have withstood the test of time (though I question their ability to withstand the test of liberal *****-ness).

And let's face it, if we ever got to the point where your scenario was the SOP, we'd be talking about a whole different set of problems as well.

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.

What would have the criteria be then? Serious question.

EDIT: I can't find the answers, but I'm curious if the detainees held at Gitmo and subsequently tried in civilian court were deemed not to be enemy combatants prior to their civilian trial. In order for the detainees to access the civilian courts, I believe they must first initiate habeus petitions claiming that their detainment based on enemy combatant status is wrong. These petitions determine whether the evidence used to justify enemy combatant status actually meets the criteria for enemy combatant. I would guess that the cases of detainees being tried in civilian courts were the result of habeus petitions finding them NOT to be enemy combatants. If this is the case, then the claim that enemy combatants are being tried in civilian courts is incorrect.

 

[rambone]

Could the President Assassinate Journalists?

"Can you imagine being put on a list because you're a threat?" the GOP presidential contender asked. "What's going to happen when they come to the media? What if the media becomes a threat? Or a professor becomes a threat? Someday that could well happen. This is the way it works. It's incrementalism.... It's slipping and sliding, let me tell you."

 

[rambone]

We will reap what we sow by supporting this.

Secret panel can put Americans on 'kill list'

(Reuters) - American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.
There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

 

[HICKMAN]

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

I think some of us have issues here and there with the man, but I agree with probably 85% of what RP stands for.

That's a HELLUVA lot more than I do with most of the RINOs in the race.

 

[jayhawk]

I think the fundamental issue here is principals. If "what is perceived to be right" doesn't align with one's principals, does one bend those principals for the exception? What is right, and who makes the determination?

In this case principals have been bent to achieve what many people believe is justice...but it is not legal, principled justice. The danger lies in the arbitrary perception. Again, what is "right" and who is making those decisions? I find it kind of absurd that people will go out of their way to defend this administration for bending principals in this particular case, yet rail against this administration for doing fundamentally the same thing in many other cases.

I don't always agree with Ron Paul, and I think that some of his policy suggestions are woefully inadequate, but I know that he makes every effort to stick to his principals. And I think that is quite commendable. Would he do the same if he were to win the election, I don't think any of us can say.

 

[Lex Concord]

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

Getting the point...

You're doing it wrong.

​

 

[The Bubba Effect]

It's the process that's important.

Awlaki was not a legitimate threat the The Republic. Setting the precedent that it is legal for our government to execute its own citizens without trial is a legitimate threat to the republic. It is the process that's important. It is The Republic that I am concerned with.

Regarding the argument that Awlaki was an immediate threat (similar to the immediate threat posed by confederate troops on the battlefield):

If a man is firing at you, I believe it is just to kill him right then and there without seeking trial.
If that same man is on the other side of town trying to recruit other people to kill you, I believe it is not just to kill him right then and there without seeking trial.


It is the process that is important.

 

[rambone]

It is the process that is important.

I thought safety was the most important thing in America. Had they taken the time to go into his hideout to capture him, he might have sent off more Emails of Mass Destruction. He might have convinced another depressed American to shoot his coworkers. Could you really live with yourself if that happened? I didn't think so.

We should all support the Commander-in-Chief during times of unending, perpetual war. Why do you hate America so much, son?

 

[Classic]

He was an enemy combatant. Would be no different if he had been shot in a house to house gunfight or similar.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

We should all support the Commander-in-Chief during times of unending, perpetual war. Why do you hate America so much, son?

That's crazy

If I'm a republican, then I should support only Republican presidents while they are conducting the perpetual war. Republicans are the tough guys who perpetuate the police state and war state.

If I'm a democrat, then I should support only Democrat presidents while they are conducting the perpetual war. Democrats are the cool guys who perpetuate the police state and war state.

You know what we can all agree on? Emmanuel Goldstein

I hate that guy. Don't you hate that guy?

 

[jayhawk]

That's crazy

Pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

...at least that's what the telescreen told me.

 

[Lex Concord]

Pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

Yep...pretty sure he was using his Sarcastoantipurplinator

 

[rambone]

You know what we can all agree on? Emmanuel Goldstein

I hate that guy. Don't you hate that guy?

Goldstein is terrorist scum!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55j_L9E2Ld0

 

[RockofStrength]

Goldstein is terrorist scum!!

Down with Goldstein!!

 

[rambone]

Down with Goldstein!!

 

[Lex Concord]

I can't believe I missed that one

 

[GREEN607]

It's the process that's important.


If a man is firing at you, I believe it is just to kill him right then and there without seeking trial.
If that same man is on the other side of town trying to recruit other people to kill you, I believe it is not just to kill him right then and there without seeking trial.

Why? Because he is a 'coward' and not inclined to kill you of his own volition?

Not saying I would "seek the man out and murder him". I would not. Not here in Indiana, anyway. But your scenario really needs a few more details.

Is he recruiting them "to kill you, tonight"? Is he leading them to your location? Are they armed and inclined to follow his instruction, or possibly entered into a verbal contract with him.... to engage in your demise? As in now?

You can't really say you would wait to get LE and the justice system involved. It may be too late. Are you truly willing to meet death, now, as a symbol of your principles and your belief in HIS constitutional rights?

As far as al-Awlaki is concerned..... get it right. He was already at war with us... not just a 'criminal'. And yet at the same time... he was already an accessory to murder; no, even worse, war crimes. He chose to renounce his U.S. citizenship... and join a group that had engaged in atrocious acts of war against this nation and it's people. And he was doing everything he could, to further their evil ambitions, against us.

It's not like we sent bombers over to Afghanistan (pre-2001) and murdered a couple thousand of their civilians.... because they were growing poppy plants, and indirectly promoting the abuse of Heroin in the U.S. THEY started it.... and he joined them. Simple as that.

 

[Bummer]

THEY started it.... and he joined them. Simple as that.

Funny. When someone says "simple as that" it's almost always a complicated issue.

When 9/11 went down Bush had a choice. He could pretend he actually respects the "Rule Of Law", or he could go all macho and play war. By expanding the catch-all "Terrorist" and declaring "sorta war" we elevated Old Sammy Been Laid On to the level of a head of state. The bad guy gained status among crazed jihadists. Recruitment became a breeze.

Then we went into Afghanistan light and our alleged target got away. In an apparent fit of pique we turned on the scumbag standing nearby and attacked and conquered him. No matter that Bin Laden had declared Saddam Hussein worse than an infidel for being a fake Muslim. Bush had to find someone to kill. Yep that sure worked out well. Ten years and a trillion and a half dollars later a Democrat got the gang leader by invading a sovereign nation then leaving quickly (shhhh maybe they won't notice).

Of course we could have appealed to the good will of the civilized world, which we had at the time, and treated the whole thing as an abominable act of mass murder. We could have gotten help tracking the whole gang down, and been a good part of a trillion dollars not-as-broke. Sure, Bin Laden would have had to work harder to claim Holy Jihad when he's accused of murder. Sure, we wouldn't have wound up looking like we're waging war against Islam itself. But what would have been the fun in that? Besides, we need a term like "Terrorist" to call the people the government doesn't like.

This was all a choice. Bush chose to turn his back on the rule of law (while telling us we should respect it) so that he could swagger around in a borrowed flight suit.

Now we have to watch as everybody and his brother creates a variety of rationalizations for killing a US citizen. At least now we know that the government has a Double Secret hit list that includes disfavored citizens, and that the Prez from gun free Chicago is more than willing to bust a cap in yo' ass if it suits him. Funny, turns out the "Democrat" doesn't mind keeping the wars going and even adding some, while the "Republican" I want to vote for says it should be an action of last resort. What a whacky world.

And let's not forget that they say we started it by basing troops in the Middle East. Now we have to come up with excuses for why the thing they've told us all along isn't really the reason they do this insane stuff.

Sorry, but there's really nothing simple about it.