You seriously think that Ron Paul believes at any level that the president has the right to assassinate a man without any input from Congress in an undeclared war?
Go home, you're drunk.
I fear you may be over simplifying the reality.
What you assert may be valid under circumstances where men are, on the average, sane, honest, and of good integrity. Certainly I could accept it as so under circumstance of peace between America and X. But the reality today is not so clear cut. This post-enlightenment world has legions running about sawing heads off other human beings, flying passenger jets into office buildings, setting fires to burn areas the size of entire nations, destroying cathedrals that have stood for nearly a thousand years, and so on down a long list.
There are enormous events occuring sub rosa. My little brother may be the foremost intelligence authority on the planet, I kid you not. His work has literally changed the ways in which the world prosecutes warfare, he is that extraordinary in his abilities. Without breaking his oath of secrecy, a discussion with him would reveal to you how tangled the webs are, and how dangerous, virtually all of it hidden from the daily reality of Americans. We have the luxury of our ignorance, under which to hold opinions based on ideals that cannot rule the day under current circumstances. The dangers are so vast and deep that most Americans would lapse into catatonic non-function, were they to become aware. He and I have had long discussions about these realities of which most are utterly unaware. The shit is very real, very bad, and if survival is on the agenda, then steps we regard as repugnant in order to remain nominally safe from the ravening maniacs who wait just outside the gates, waiting to consume your children.
Given all that, droning one such as Soleimani readily becomes a valid gamble when the totality of context is properly put together and evaluated.
Living by ideals that limit one's praxeological prerogatives when the Other is unwilling to be likewise restrained, is a dangerous game on the best of days. The distaste so many Americans seem to hold for these sorts of actions is something only those who are insulated from much of the ugly side of reality can afford. Were hundreds and thousands of bombs going off in shopping malls and offices and churches from sea to shining sea, those same people would be shrieking for someone to DO something and they would give no damn who did it, or how, so long as it was effective.
The other side of that coin, of course, is that those who make such decisions do so with integrity, wisdom, and basic competence worthy of the trust of those whom they ostensibly serve. Those conditions do not exist, and so we have little basis for trusting that those people act in good faith and competence. As much as I would like to believe Trump is a good guy, I cannot quite cross that line precisely because I have experienced the lies and betrayals of jackals, soon going on sixty two years worth, and cannot tell who's who where politics are concerned.
Needless to say, it is clear that humanity is in a very tight corner. That said, I would not be too quick to assess Trump's action against Soleimani as so much as even ill-advised, much less criminal. At the very least, we have to acknowledge and properly value the fact the likelihood that there exist circumstances that, were we privy, would radically alter our opinion on such matters.
What we see so often in the world today is all the proof an intelligent and decent man needs to see the virtues of the Golden Rule, of personal integrity, of goodness, of love, and of freedom. Sadly, I see no basis for not being deeply doubtful that we as a statistical gestalt will choose virtue over convenience, meaning that for all practical purposes, we are hosed.
. But again, I would point out that Ron Paul's philosophy is different. And he's a better man than I.
