Ron's Son is NOT for assasination.

[AuH20]

Screw Bill O'Reilly. We don't need him, especially when we're winning over people like Michael Savage and people like Justice Scalia already agree at least in principle and people like Herman Cain want to agree but can't stand the political pressure.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...ith-Ron-Paul-on-al-Awlaki-Assassin.-10-3-2011
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?320651-Justice-Scalia-Agrees-with-Ron-Paul
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...n-Presidential-powers-regarding-Assassination
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...lip-Flopped-on-the-Killing-of-Anwar-al-Awlaki

Here's the deal that most people here just don't understand. Ron cannot win by simply being uncontroversial. That's because he has too much of a record for standing up for the truth. Even people who don't agree with him respect him. If he started running his campaign the way some of you wish he would run it then he wouldn't gain any votes, but he would lose respect. By contrast Rand doesn't have the "baggage" of a reputation of being uncompromisingly constitutional. So Rand can pull the right "emotional strings" long enough for people to listen. I wish Rand would have answered the question differently. But the key moving forward is to keep hammering home the fact that people like Savage and Scalia and (sometimes) Cain agree with Ron on this and other issues where teocons think Ron is being "weak".

I think you touched on something. Ron has been banished into exile for so many years, that HE HAS NOTHING TO LOSE respectively speaking. That's why he can say anything that immediately comes to his mind, without worrying how it's repackaged by the media outlets. Rand doesn't have this luxury, being the one of the serious contenders for the Republican nomination in the future.

 

[jmdrake]

I think you touched on something. Ron has been banished into exile for so many years, that HE HAS NOTHING TO LOSE respectively speaking. That's why he can say anything that immediately comes to his mind, without worrying how it's repackaged by the media outlets. Rand doesn't have this luxury, being the one of the serious contenders for the Republican nomination in the future.

Yeah. That's half of what I'm saying. The other half is that we need to pull out all stops to make Ron's "controversial" ideas become mainstream. We've got to push the envelop on the Cain flip flop. We've got to get conservatives to think do they really trust Obama with 007 power to kill "terrorists" when this administration has been running around calling tea partiers "terrorists". Michael Savage came around on this issue in part because he's paranoid. Well maybe we need to play on that paranoia.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

I am appalled at how many people are jumping off the Rand bandwagon. Get over yourselves.

 

[erowe1]

Point out where Al-Awlaki was on a battlefield.

He wasn't. And Rand never said he was.

 

[dannno]

Point out where Al-Awlaki was on a battlefield.

He wasn't ON the battlefield, Rand wasn't defending the actions.. He was saying that people who say if you're on the battlefield you don't get due process are technically correct, because the reality is that you don't.. it doesn't make all the killings right, it's just reality. HOWEVER, Rand openly admitted that this was a targetted assassination and that it was wrong.

The OP is absolutely correct.

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

Point out where Rand said that al-Awlaki was on the battlefiled and the actions the President took were justified.

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

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

He used the two minds phrase to show people the difference between what they are SAYING and what actually happened.

 

[dannno]

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.

Yes, that is the benefit of having Rand out there, a different perspective for liberty that neocons can better follow with their current mis-understanding of our political history.

Ron is out there spouting the unambiguous truth, and Rand is putting it in context for people who have been lied to without telling them that everything they know is wrong so they can begin to question what they have learned.

 

[pcosmar]

Define "Battlefield"

 

[dannno]

Define "Battlefield"

Rand didn't say al-Awlaki was on the battlefield, he specified that it was a targeted assassination and he opposed it. He was merely agreeing with the neocons that it is not realistic to expect that if one was to be actively fighting on a battlefield that they would get due process. The innocent women and children who get bombed don't get due process.. that doesn't make it right, it's just part of reality of us fighting wars.. not that we should be, I'm just sayin, if I went over to Afghanistan and grabbed a rocket launcher and went in the hills and started shooting at U.S. choppers with the Taliban, I wouldn't expect to get due process. But in this case it was completely different, he wasn't on the battlefield, he was being targeted. That's why Rand rightly opposed it and defended his father's position.

 

[specsaregood]

Rand didn't say al-Awlaki was on the battlefield, he specified that it was a targeted assassination and he opposed it. He was merely agreeing with the neocons that it is not realistic to expect that if one was to be actively fighting on a battlefield that they would get due process. The innocent women and children who get bombed don't get due process.. that doesn't make it right, it's just part of reality of us fighting wars.. not that we should be, I'm just sayin, if I went over to Afghanistan and grabbed a rocket launcher and went in the hills and started shooting at U.S. choppers with the Taliban, I wouldn't expect to get due process. But in this case it was completely different, he wasn't on the battlefield, he was being targeted.

Which also provides an "out" for this to be acceptable IF the administration could prove that he was actively participating in an imminent threat. eg: he car was loaded with explosives on his way to carbomb the US embassy.

 

[erowe1]

Which also provides an "out" for this to be acceptable IF the administration could prove that he was actively participating in an imminent threat. eg: he car was loaded with explosives on his way to carbomb the US embassy.

But under circumstances like that, there wouldn't be anything unprecedented about it any more.

 

[specsaregood]

But under circumstances like that, there wouldn't be anything unprecedented about it any more.

Right, given the information so far it is "unprecedented", which is why Ron suggested an investigation. You cant go off half-cocked on this; because the admin will make a fool out of you.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Define "Battlefield"

War has been officially declared, and shooting is actively taking place?

 

[specsaregood]

War has been officially declared, and shooting is actively taking place?

I don't think war has to be officially declared to meet the criteria; being actively attacked should be enough.

 

[Todd]

The bottom line in all of this for me is if you actually believe Rand would assassinate an American citizen. I do not believe that.

Rand is the more political of he and his father. Ron is pretty blunt and Rand tends to be more "politically correct" if you please. Some don't like it, but he's now a Senator and he's in our court.

I remember several years ago when Rand was running in KY and people on the Mises forums and this board went ape crap over statements Rand made that seemed to indicate he was a warmonger and against civil liberties for Guantanamo...etc etc.... and it turned out to be just not so.

 

[jmdrake]

Which also provides an "out" for this to be acceptable IF the administration could prove that he was actively participating in an imminent threat. eg: he car was loaded with explosives on his way to carbomb the US embassy.

Except that the administration publicly targeted Al Awlaki for assassination over a year ago. I know this because I remember discussing this case in class. (His parents were trying to get a declaration from the court that targeting their son for assassination was unconstitutional.) To put this in perspective, that would be like a mayor of a small town openly saying he was going to kill a particular person a year in advance, then after the person was killed announcing it with glee, then after there was too much pressure announcing that the police "found" on gun on the suspect's bullet ridden body.

 

[radiofriendly]

 

[specsaregood]

Except that the administration publicly targeted Al Awlaki for assassination over a year ago. I know this because I remember discussing this case in class. (His parents were trying to get a declaration from the court that targeting their son for assassination was unconstitutional.) To put this in perspective, that would be like a mayor of a small town openly saying he was going to kill a particular person a year in advance, then after the person was killed announcing it with glee, then after there was too much pressure announcing that the police "found" on gun on the suspect's bullet ridden body.

lol, that is exactly what it would be like; but you act as if such a situation has not happened before. in fact it is almost a certainty that it would happen if this issue got any traction. you can complain about the hitlist, you an argue that it is wrong; but in the end, all that matters is the actual details when the killing happened and if it was justified at that moment in time. There is no way they are gonna hang for this as long as those involved are in power.

 

[jmdrake]

lol, that is exactly what it would be like; but you act as if such a situation has not happened before. in fact it is almost a certainty that it would happen if this issue got any traction. you can complain about the hitlist, you an argue that it is wrong; but in the end, all that matters is the actual details when the killing happened and if it was justified at that moment in time. There is no way they are gonna hang for this as long as those involved are in power.

As has already been said, just because something has "happened before" doesn't make it right nor does it mean it should now be embraced for the sake of "political correctness". (Yes there is right wing "political correctness" even though most on the right are too stupid to realize this.) I'm not one hanging Rand out to dry over this. But on the flipside I realize that our job is to push the constitutional correctness envelop. Forget the people too dumbed down to realize that the president having assassination power is a bad thing, when there are people on the right who are waking up to the insanity that has become America. And your statement that "all that matters is what happened when the killing happened" is flat out wrong. What really matters are the policy decisions leading up to that moment. The PTB can always lie and fudge the facts later. But they can't go back and redact their public policy statements made before. Not unless we are going to become mindless sheep that are not worthy of having anything called a "republic". If Obama gets impeached (and that should happen) and if there is justice in America, then that impeachment process must include evidence of the policy prior to the act and not the act itself. Otherwise we already live in a banana republic.

Edit: And this is the risk I predicted over a year ago to Rand's alliance with the likes of Sarah Palin. In seeking to defend Rand we undermine our own principled position right at the time we are winning over more people across the political spectrum than ever before.

 

[specsaregood]

As has already been said, just because something has "happened before" doesn't make it right nor does it mean it should now be embraced for the sake of "political correctness". (Yes there is right wing "political correctness" even though most on the right are too stupid to realize this.) I'm not one hanging Rand out to dry over this. But on the flipside I realize that our job is to push the constitutional correctness envelop. Forget the people too dumbed down to realize that the president having assassination power is a bad thing, when there are people on the right who are waking up to the insanity that has become America. And your statement that "all that matters is what happened when the killing happened" is flat out wrong. What really matters are the policy decisions leading up to that moment. The PTB can always lie and fudge the facts later. But they can't go back and redact their public policy statements made before. Not unless we are going to become mindless sheep that are not worthy of having anything called a "republic". If Obama gets impeached (and that should happen) and if there is justice in America, then that impeachment process must include evidence of the policy prior to the act and not the act itself. Otherwise we already live in a banana republic.

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you on principle, I'm talking about political reality. I hope you really like bananas.

 

[jmdrake]

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you on principle, I'm talking about political reality. I hope you really like bananas.

LOL. Actually I do. Something to consider though. Reality is what we make it. That includes political reality. This is a two front war. Ron is heading up the front, Rand is sneaking around the rear. I've made peace with that, but I do understand the "friendly fire" risks that come with that going both ways. I think what Rand said on this particular issue is vague enough not to cause his dad any problems and yet not hurt him with his own "teocon" base. What I see needing to happen is for us to help Ron with the frontal assault.