Ron's Son is NOT for assasination.

[specsaregood]

Quit parsing words. If Rand was his father's son, he wouldn't have made it so ambiguous. He would have clearly condemned the extrajudicial assassination of an American citizen. We wouldn't have any question that he condemned this attack.

Actually his father didn't. His father said there should be an investigation, he never condemned it completely. He left room for there being a valid justification for it.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Quit parsing words. If Rand was his father's son, he wouldn't have made it so ambiguous. He would have clearly condemned the extrajudicial assassination of an American citizen. We wouldn't have any question that he condemned this attack.

He is - and that's why they use different language on this issue. They are different people with different minds.

 

[specsaregood]

Al-Awlaki was not a clear and imminent threat. He was in transport via an automobile.

Prove he wasn't in transport with a car load of bombs on the way to the US embassy. You don't know.

 

[kylejack]

Actually his father didn't. His father said there should be an investigation, he never condemned it completely. He left room for there being a valid justification for it.

Ron Paul condemned assassinating Awlaki months before it was carried out.

 

[kylejack]

He is - and that's why they use different language on this issue. They are different people with different minds.

And I disagree with Rand and won't support him.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Yes, it isn't the sharp as a knife edge of his fathers points; but the point remains. I don't see where he said he supported the assassination or where he said Alawaki was on a battlefield and didn't have a right to due process. Which is what is claimed. Where is it?

No where that I can see. he waffled and crawfished in that response, he never said clearly what he was for. That's what has me upset, that he did not come out forcefully and state his case. He's learning well in DC.

So at the end of it all, he threw up a cloud of verbiage that looked like this:

And if I needed smoke blown up my ass, I'll stay at home with a pack of cigarettes and short length of hose.

 

[specsaregood]

Ron Paul condemned assassinating Awlaki months before it was carried out.

Right, which has nothing to do with the current circumstances around this one. He disagreed with the principle, just like Rand. But if the situation is a "battlefield" or a clear and imminent danger even his father allows for that. Are you arguing that Ron would say you can't kill somebody if they are shooting at you? No.

 

[AuH20]

The more time Ron, or Rand, spend on this issue, the less time either have to win over mainstream voters. As mainstream voters are with Bill O-Reily on this one. I don't really like Rand's answers, but, I really didn't like Ron's either. As Ron's cost us too much political capital with his blunt answers. The bottom line is everyone deserves due process, especially American citizens. The only time citizens don't deserve due process is if they are fighting against us (in a declared war) on the enemy's' battlefield, and perhaps even here at home in some extreme circumstances (civil war).

This whole incident is another example of Ron wasting valuable time on Fox News dealing with issues that won't win the election. He really needs message control.

So true. These questions are totally meaningless in the grand scheme of things. If anyone knows anything about the history of the U.S. is that the government consistently flouts or outright breaks the U.S. Constitution. If you want a possible chance at changing it, you need to mobilize the people and get to the White House like Andrew Jackson did.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Prove he wasn't in transport with a car load of bombs on the way to the US embassy. You don't know.

That ain't how it works.

You don't "prove" you're innocent.

 

[specsaregood]

No where that I can see. he waffled and crawfished in that response, he never said clearly what he was for. That's what has me upset, that he did not come out forcefully and state his case. He's learning well in DC.
So at the end of it all, he threw up a cloud of verbiage that looked like this:

that is fair enough, but he did not disagree or argue in support of this particular assassination.

 

[specsaregood]

That ain't how it works.
You don't "prove" you're innocent.

Are you arguing that if they had solid intel that he was in fact loaded with a car full of explosives on his way to a target, they should just let it go cuz they couldn't prove it ahead of time?

 

[tsai3904]

Gitmo and all other POW camps and their machinations are invalid without a declaration of war.

I agree with you. This is where Ron and Rand differ, but to say that Rand is against due process is not right. Like Rand said, we're in a quandary. We never declared war in Iraq yet we're there fighting. What are we suppose to do with the enemy combatants (the ones that open fire on our soldiers)? Just because we never declared war doesn't mean we capture them then let them go. It may be invalid to have a POW camp but what are we suppose to do?

 

[kylejack]

Right, which has nothing to do with the current circumstances around this one.

Awlaki was put on the hitlist more than 6 months ago. There was litigation in court about it. The "current circumstances" was the ongoing assassination plot against Awlaki. They launched several previous attacks and failed. This one finally succeeded. It's all the same thing, and it is what Ron Paul was condemning.

It isn't that he was carrying out an attack. The CIA just finally found him.

 

[specsaregood]

Awlaki was put on the hitlist more than 6 months ago. There was litigation in court about it. The "current circumstances" was the ongoing assassination plot against Awlaki. They launched several previous attacks and failed. This one finally succeeded. It's all the same thing, and it is what Ron Paul was condemning.

Ok, then it should easy for you to find something where Ron Paul absolutely said this assassination was uncalled for, unnecessary, unconstitutional and out of line. Something since the news of his death came out.

 

[kylejack]

If you want a possible chance at changing it, you need to mobilize the people and get to the White House like Andrew Jackson did.

The right people. Ron, not Rand.

 

[kylejack]

Ok, then it should easy for you to find something where Ron Paul absolutely said this assassination was uncalled for, unnecessary, unconstitutional and out of line. Something since the news of his death came out.

The video I just linked. You're welcome.

 

[specsaregood]

The video I just linked. You're welcome.

No, that doesnt count. I'm sorry you can't read.

 

[AuH20]

The right people. Ron, not Rand.

You don't think Rand wouldn't attempt to take down the Fed as president? I think that's his life's goal.

 

[kylejack]

No, that doesnt count. I'm sorry you can't read.

I'm sorry you don't agree with the content of the video (which is that Americans deserve habeas corpus protections) and are carrying water for a Constitutional scholar running an extrajudicial assassination program. Enjoy your Rand. Maybe some day you can carry the same water for him.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Point out where Al-Awlaki was on a battlefield.

Point out where the battlefield exists with no declaration of war.

There is no "two minds" here. There is one mind:

The Constitution. You're for it, or you're against it.

Rand was speaking hypothetically. If Al-Awlaki was on a active battlefield and was killed in battle, then that would be within the law. And I would point-out that Rand mentioned the fact that wars need to be declared. Thus, lacking all of that hypothetical criteria, the killing of Al-Awlaki was illegal as it did not follow a legal and due process.