Ron's Son is NOT for assasination.

[tsai3904]

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.

No one here is defending assassinations of US citizens. We are defending Rand from those that think Rand is ok with assassinations.

 

[specsaregood]

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.

I'll take that your admittance of defeat. You can not show where Ron Paul said this actual act (the actual killing) was improper.

 

[kylejack]

Rand was speaking hypothetically. If Al-Awlaki was on a active battlefield and was killed in battle, then that would be within the law.

If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their asses when they hop. Is Rand always in the habit of going completely off-topic when asked about something?

 

[kylejack]

I'll take that your admittance of defeat. You can not show where Ron Paul said this actual act (the actual killing) was improper.

"I don't think that's a good way to deal with our problems," Paul told reporters. "Al-Awlaki was born here; he is an American citizen. He was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody. We know he might have been associated with the underwear bomber. But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it's sad.

"I think what would people have said about Timothy McVeigh? We didn't assassinate him, who we were pretty certain that he had done it. Went and put through the courts then executed him. To start assassinating American citizens without charges, we should think very seriously about this."


Oh hurr hurr hurr, but he didn't actually say unconstitutional, did he?! Step off.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

No one here is defending assassinations of US citizens. We are defending Rand from those that think Rand is ok with assassinations.

Precisely. You deserve some rep sir!

 

[Anti Federalist]

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?

No.

That becomes a self defense issue.

Just as a citizen or a cop has a right to use lethal force to stop an imminent deadly attack.

But if you do, you had damn well better be able to prove it after the fact, you better have witnesses, a firearm or weapon, evidence of some sort that proves you were under immediate threat of life or limb, or your ass is going to go to jail.

ETA - Well maybe not so much if you're a cop, and that is directly part of this problem. Unilateral use of deadly force: the idea that government can light our sorry asses up whenever and wherever the fuck they feel like it.

Right now all I see is:

"I am the Chief Executive. This guy is a bad guy, he was saying some very bad things about the United States. Therefore I am unilaterally authorizing a drone attack to incinerate him. My reasons are secret, my evidence is secret. Now, move along."

Shit.

That reasoning could apply to roughly one quarter of the people here on this board, myself included.

 

[kylejack]

I'll take that your admittance of defeat. You can not show where Ron Paul said this actual act (the actual killing) was improper.

An unconstitutional killing: Obama's killing of Awlaki violates American principles

BY Ron Paul

Sunday, October 2nd 2011, 4:00 AM

As President, I would not hesitate to use decisive force to repel any imminent threat. National defense is a primary function of Congress and the commander-in-chief, and, as chief executive, I would carry out my duties as outlined in the Constitution and in accordance with the rule of law.

President Obama apparently believes he is not bound by the Constitution or the rule of law. When it was reported that Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by U.S. drone strikes in Yemen last week, certainly no one felt remorse for his fate. Awlaki was a detestable person we believe helped recruit and inspire others to kill Americans through terrorist acts.

We have to take the fight against terrorism very seriously. In 2001, I supported the authority to capture and kill the thugs responsible for 9/11. In our efforts we must, however, work hard to preserve and respect our great American constitutional principles.

Awlaki was a U.S. citizen. Under our Constitution, American citizens, even those living abroad, must be charged with a crime before being sentenced. As President, I would have arrested Awlaki, brought him to the U.S., tried him and pushed for the stiffest punishment allowed by law. Treason has historically been judged to be the worst of crimes, deserving of the harshest sentencing. But what I would not do as President is what Obama has done and continues to do in spectacular fashion: circumvent the rule of law.

On Feb. 3, 2010, Dennis Blair, then the country's director of national intelligence, admitted before the House Intelligence Committee that "Being a U.S. citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives." This open admission by an Obama administration official, not even attempting to keep it classified or top secret, sets a dangerous new precedent in our history.

The precedent set by the killing of Awlaki establishes the frightening legal premise that any suspected enemy of the United States - even if they are a citizen - can be taken out on the President's say-so alone. Part of the very concept of citizenship is the protection of due process and the rule of law. The President wants to spread American values around the world but continues to do great damage to them here at home, appointing himself judge, jury and executioner by presidential decree.

When Nazi leader and Holocaust mastermind Adolf Eichmann was convicted and executed by the Israeli government in 1962, it was after he was captured, extradited and tried. Respect for the rule of law never has been for the protection of monsters like Eichmann or Awlaki, who should meet their just fate - but for the protection of the vast majority of innocent citizens who should never become subject to mere governmental whim.
[/quote]
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions...n_unconstitutional_killing.html#ixzz1ZsSXDmWY

 

[tsai3904]

If frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their asses when they hop. Is Rand always in the habit of going completely off-topic when asked about something?

I agree that he kind of went off topic, but Rand in no way showed that he endorses assassinations of US citizens or is against due process for US citizens. The problem should be that he didn't clearly address the issue.

 

[Anti Federalist]

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

No, frankly, I don't.

Not anymore.

 

[tsai3904]

No, frankly, I don't.

Not anymore.

Do you think Ron would vote for Rand if he ran for President?

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

"I am the Chief Executive. This guy is a bad guy, he was saying some very bad things about the United States. Therefore I am unilaterally authorizing a drone attack to incinerate him. My reasons are secret, my evidence is secret. Now, move along."

Shit.

That reasoning could apply to roughly one quarter of the people here on this board, myself included.

I think we are all worried about that - including Rand Paul.

 

[specsaregood]

"I don't think that's a good way to deal with our problems," Paul told reporters. "Al-Awlaki was born here; he is an American citizen. He was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody. We know he might have been associated with the underwear bomber. But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it's sad.

"I think what would people have said about Timothy McVeigh? We didn't assassinate him, who we were pretty certain that he had done it. Went and put through the courts then executed him. To start assassinating American citizens without charges, we should think very seriously about this."


Oh hurr hurr hurr, but he didn't actually say unconstitutional, did he?! Step off.

See, Ron was not speaking about the actual situation either, he was talking about the principle. He did not say there was absolutely no good reason for killing him. Because he knows as well as Rand that as soon as they do that, they open themselves up for being played the fool when they come up with some intel (real or not) that there was an imminent danger. Try again pal.

 

[specsaregood]

As President, I would not hesitate to use decisive force to repel any imminent threat.

Which backs up exactly what I just said, thanks.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Is Rand always in the habit of going completely off-topic when asked about something?

We get it. You hate politicians, even if they are on your side. What kind of answer would get from Romney or Obama on a sticky subject? They would completely change the subject and go to a talking point without even addressing the question. Rand gave a long answer and talked about a hypothetical where it would be OK, but made sure he talked mostly about due process and the rule of law. His point was clear enough.

 

[kylejack]

Which backs up exactly what I just said, thanks.

You can not show where Ron Paul said this actual act (the actual killing) was improper.

Let me call your attention to the title of the article Ron wrote, An Unconstitutional Killing. But keep moving those goal posts and declaring yourself the winner, guy.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Do you think Ron would vote for Rand if he ran for President?

I suppose so.

Blood is thicker than politics.

Then again, if Rand really went off the reservation?

Probably not.

 

[specsaregood]

Let me call your attention to the title of the article Ron wrote, An Unconstitutional Killing. But keep moving those goal posts and declaring yourself the winner, guy.

And yet he opened up the entire piece with an "out". Clearly he doesn't think it would be unconstitutional if there was an imminent threat. And he knows they'll come up with one if they have to, which is why he leads with that.

 

[kylejack]

We get it. You hate politicians, even if they are on your side.

I'll define what my side is. People who don't passionately defend habeas corpus when given the opportunity aren't on my side. Ron is on my side and Rand isn't.

 

[kylejack]

And yet he opened up the entire piece with an "out". Clearly he doesn't think it would be unconstitutional if there was an imminent threat. And he knows they'll come up with one if they have to, which is why he leads with that.

You asked me to provide you with something. Having provided it, you say it's the opposite. Sure, it makes perfect sense. You're moving the goalposts.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I think we are all worried about that - including Rand Paul.

For all our sake's we'd better hope so.