Skip to comments.Ron Paul Condemns Killing of al Qaeda’s Awlaki
Posted on 09/30/2011 10:12:21 AM PDT by ¢ommon ¢ents
GOFFSTOWN, N.H.Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul condemned the U.S.-backed killing of al Qaeda figure and U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki.
Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul greets guests at a house party Thursday, Sept. 29, 2011 in Derry, N.H. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)
Nobody knows if he ever killed anybody, Mr. Paul said after a breakfast at Saint Anselm Colleges New Hampshire Institute of Politics. If the American people accept this blindly and casually I think thats sad.
Mr. Awlaki, accused by the U.S. of planning al Qaeda attacks on U.S. citizens and recruiting terrorists, has been a longtime target of the U.S.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
I see. So his US Citizenship and protection under the US Constitution was revoked by Homeland Security? I didn’t know they could do that.
Can you demonstrate that this is the case?
Right, and if Hitler had survived to stand trial, his defense would have been "I neffer killed anyvun, I vas only giffing orders"!
No, it's not.
But in the case of this particular jackass it'd be good for the Ronulans amongst us to put aside their reflexive, zero-critical-thinking reactions and consider a few realities of planet Earth.
This latest particular AQ lump of charred meat may have been born here, but the facts are: (1) He was an active enemy with a long, self-admitted list of attacks on American targets. (2) For the better part of a decade, he had no interest in surrendering to legal warrants and stated contempt for the notion of turning himself in to stand trial in front of his peers, and (3)He has continued to plot attacks while hiding in a hostile area of a foreign country. I'm sure the list can be expanded.
By his actions, he was an enemy combatant by any reasonable standard. RP's standard on this issue IS NOT reasonable - it's madness. Awlaki richly deserved it, American by birth or not. To deny this as an adjunct to anyone's (including my own) well-deserved libertarian issues with the US Government is foolish. Should we have dispatched a chopper full of FBI agents to Yemen to go bring him in unharmed just to make it seem fairer or more "civilian"? I say no - not even close. This piece of garbage was not worth even the risk of one more drop of American blood.
Paraphrasing a great line I read about RP, "he's like a strange stopped coo-coo clock that's dead on accurate 23 hours a day, but at a certain Foreign Policy midnight he pops out, howls at the moon and smears himself with feces."
For the record, I hope Awlaki died screaming in agony. RP can suck it if he has a problem with that.
No. That's the primary reason for the second amendment, to remove such a government.
Wrong. He left the U.S. to avoid due process. Had he stayed, he'd have gotten it.
>>So its ok for the US Government to make war on
>>and kill its own citizens?
>No, it’s not. But....
... but, but, but then you attempt to justify it.
Look, I have no problem with the fact that the scumbag is dead, only with how he got there.
I do have a problem with some alphabet agency of the US Government killing US Citizens without due process. This is a slippery slope...
Yeah, that's a concern. Especially for those of us who had our picture on the front of a notice to law enforcement from Homeland Security about radical right wing "potential domestic terrorists."
His/their status was change from citizen to combatant...could happen to anyone (US citizen) due to Homeland Security.
I had a friend who is a cop (and pretty conservative) show me one of thoses, and I pointed out my wife and myself in the picture on the front cover. It was from the "Second Amendment Sisters rally backn on Mothers' day of 2000. There were probably 100 FReepers in the photo, many of whom I knew. (Yes, this is a new account, but I've been around here since 1998. Also changed accounts because my name was somewhat "dated," not because I got banned or anything).
On the other hand, this guy was sending people to "qualify" for their 72 virgins. I wonder if he's enjoying his 72 right now?
Do your own homework and prove to me that it can’t be done (being arrested as a combatant and being thrown in jail indefinitely).
No, not so much.
Look, if you think it's necessary to treat a man who has declared violent jihad on The American Devil (you and me both)and waged it from the badlands of Yemen as anything other than an enemy combatant, be my guest. Strap it on and go boots-on-the ground. Risk your life, the lives of your support crew, and the future welfare of your and your crew's family all for a Capital L Libertarian masturbatory confusion between "war" and "policing". I think it's a failure to see the forest for the trees.
This was and is a problem best solved by a (hopefully female) Reaper driver sitting in a nice air-contitioned trailer out in Nevada between sips of coffee. I hope she gets a commendation in her file.
What the deceased are enjoying is a mute point now. Who made the decision and approved oflaunching the attack based on what authority would be interesting to read about since technically a US citizen was involved or is it just a matter of convenience?
Immunity, no. A fair trial, and upon conviction, execution. Yes I support that.
It’s good to know you two support and defend ALL of the US Constitution including the 5th Amendment even when it’s uncomfortable and challenges your world view eh? Or is it just parts of the Constitution which happen to be convenient at the time? Don’t we accuse the left of this all the time?
It is the DUTY of the MILITARY and
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. from the U.S. military officer oath
The text of the Constitutional Oath is not written in the Constitution, but the current oath was enacted by Congress in 1862. “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
APPARENTLY PAUL AND THE PAULETTES DON’T FOLLOW THE OATH.
dOES THIS MEAN SINCE pAUL REPUDIATES HIS OATH OF OFFICE HE SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM CONGRESS. jUS SAYIN’
Gee, hate to disappoint you but if you make war on the United States you’ve already waived your right to a trial by the fact of making war. You’ve renounced all your rights under the Constitution by adhering to the Constitution’s and the United States’s enemies. Sorry if that concept if too big for you to get your mind around.
>APPARENTLY PAUL AND THE PAULETTES DONT FOLLOW THE OATH.
So Paul, by the mere questioning of the constitutionality of the killing of a US Citizen by the CIA and/or military under the presumed commands of the commander in chief is violating his oath to protect and defend the Constitution? How so?
It would be interesting to hear a SCOTUS opinion on this but that’ll never happen.
Interesting HISTORY OF THE OATH.
At the start of each new Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate performs a solemn and festive constitutional rite that is as old as the Republic. While the oath-taking dates back to the First Congress in 1789, the current oath is a product of the 1860s, drafted by Civil War-era members of Congress intent on ensnaring traitors.
The Constitution contains an oath of office only for the president. For other officials, including members of Congress, that document specifies only that they “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution.” In 1789, the First Congress reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”
For nearly three-quarters of a century, that oath served nicely, although to the modern ear it sounds woefully incomplete. Missing are the soaring references to bearing “true faith and allegiance;” to taking “this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;” and to “well and faithfully” discharging the duties of the office.
The outbreak of the Civil War quickly transformed the routine act of oath-taking into one of enormous significance. In April of 1861, a time of uncertain and shifting loyalties, President Abraham Lincoln ordered all federal civilian employees within the executive branch to take an expanded oath. When Congress convened for a brief emergency session in July, members echoed the president’s action by enacting legislation requiring employees to take the expanded oath in support of the Union. This oath is the earliest direct predecessor of the modern oath. ......
When Congress returned for its regular session in December 1861, members who believed that the Union had as much to fear from northern traitors as southern soldiers again revised the oath, adding a new first section known as the “Ironclad Test Oath.” The war-inspired Test Oath, signed into law on July 2, 1862, required “every person elected or appointed to any office ... under the Government of the United States ... excepting the President of the United States” to swear or affirm that they had never previously engaged in criminal or disloyal conduct. Those government employees who failed to take the 1862 Test Oath would not receive a salary; those who swore falsely would be prosecuted for perjury and forever denied federal employment. .....
The oath actually use to mean something.
Try reading the law. It was posted by another individual earlier in the thread.
Yep, he is in clear violation of the oath which he takes VOLUNTARILY.
I read it. It supports me, not you.
>I read it. It supports me, not you.
His citizenship can be revoked “if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.”
He wasn’t tried, wasn’t convicted and was still a US Citizen.
Defend against enemies FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.
Just because he was BORN in the U.S. does not excuse him from military action against him.
Even Naturalized Citizens have to swear to defend against enemies Foreign and domestic. BTW Paul DID vote to give the President Bush/Obama the authority to go after these terrorist using all necessary actions to get them. So now he doesn’t like his vote.
Paul is crazy. He doesn’t know what he’s saying from one minute to the next.
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or...
Al-Qaeda claims to be part of the new Khalifate. Therefore a state or a political subdivision thereof.
...Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily,...
As I said, no trial is needed in this case.
He also comes under (2).
>Defend against enemies FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.
Yes and there are many in the government I would consider to be domestic enemies. Should the CIA take them out as well? (Don’t answer :)
>Just because he was BORN in the U.S. does not
>excuse him from military action against him.
Rather, being born here guarantees certain inalienable rights as enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Even the most evil of those among us are entitled to those rights and protections.
The guy they just arrested, YES.
Awlaki was on foreign soil and an “officer” in a terrorist group that is at WAR with us. He is therefore a valid target. IMO.
>The guy they just arrested, YES.
I missed that. I’ll have to go read the headlines.
>Awlaki was on foreign soil and an officer in a
>terrorist group that is at WAR with us. He is
>therefore a valid target. IMO.
Well, we are both armchair “lawyering” and see it differently. I’m picking nits over his US citizenship status as I find it repulsive and think it is contrary to the precepts of a free society that the US Government could take out one of its own without due process, irrespective of the suspect’s feelings and actions toward the US. I’d really like to hear the SCOTUS on this but like I said, it’ll be a cold day in hell before that happens.
thanks Â¢ommon Â¢ents, additional:
relevant link (can’t quote / link image on FR):
Mike Thompson: Obama and jobs
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.