Ron Paul: US-born al-Qaida cleric 'assassinated'

[sst]

For the record: I do not believe that the facts surrounding the death of the cleric support Paul's claim of assassination.
.

What did we do if we didn't assassinate the guy?

[Seran]

Obviously it was an accidental death; we were aiming for the rock next to him.

[Hulkein]

For the record: I do not believe that the facts surrounding the death of the cleric support Paul's claim of assassination.

Way to keep that 15 minutes going RP.

15 minutes really isn't accurate in his case. The guy has been around forever, is the chair for the house subcommittee on domestic monetary policy, has a son who is a senator, etc. Save the 15 minutes of fame insults for people who it actually applies to.

The guy knows he does not have a chance to win. He uses the campaign as a soap box to get his views out. Also, as Gan said... hes bat shit crazy

No offense Dave, but your foreign policy views are perceived as bat shit crazy by a lot of people, too.

[ClydeR]

The crazy old man of the Republican Party has struck again. Why we still let him claim to be a Republican is a mystery to me. Fortunately, Rick Perry got it right and praised this victory. If Paul had his way, we'd have to wait for Awlaki to retire from terrorism and return to the United States so we could give him a trial.

International laws of war and U.S. criminal law have yet to catch up to the concept of stateless organizations engaged in violent action and that citizens of a country may join those organizations in order to wage war against the country that they're nominally the citizen of.

This is one place where legal reality is divorced from actual reality. I'll choose actual reality.

Not according to the Wikipedia. "Assassination" is illegal, but "targeted killing" is okay. Haven't you ever heard of self defense?

[Gan]

What did we do if we didn't assassinate the guy?

Semantics. We killed an enemy combatant. End of story.

15 minutes really isn't accurate in his case. The guy has been around forever, is the chair for the house subcommittee on domestic monetary policy, has a son who is a senator, etc. Save the 15 minutes of fame insults for people who it actually applies to.

Actually its very accurate. He's out for his 15 minutes every election cycle. Whats sad is that his actions always guarantee that he won't get elected inspite the hopes and beliefs of his blind followers. I might have more respect for the man if he just came out and admitted to his people that he's only in it to influence the GOP platform stance on issues instead of going through this circus every 4 years. Or he could actually run for a leadership position that he might be capable of securing, implementing (or try to implement) the policies he espouses and taking the larger step towards a legitimate bid for the WH.

[Tgo01]

It's the slippery slope issue. Say you commit a crime or are accused of one but they label you a "terrorist." Does that mean you don't get due process? That's what they are trying to do.

Listen, no one likes terrorists. However, the freedoms/rights guaranteed by the constitution have to be protected at all costs.

First of all it wasn't as simple as some grunt saying "Yo dawgs this guy iz a terrorist, kill him!" They had to get permission from Obama personally. Secondly I'm not going to claim I know the exact details of the procedure but I'm sure there was a process and a lot more thought involved then a couple of guys from Homeland Security showing Obama a picture of him with the words "Bad Guy" scribbled on it before Obama approved him to be on the list of fuckers who have lost their right for due process and could be killed on sight. Also it was public knowledge that this guy was put on such a list a year before he was finally killed.

I'm just wondering what people think the alternative should have been.

[subzero]

First of all it wasn't as simple as some grunt saying "Yo dawgs this guy iz a terrorist, kill him!" They had to get permission from Obama personally. Secondly I'm not going to claim I know the exact details of the procedure but I'm sure there was a process and a lot more thought involved then a couple of guys from Homeland Security showing Obama a picture of him with the words "Bad Guy" scribbled on it before Obama approved him to be on the list of fuckers who have lost their right for due process and could be killed on sight. Also it was public knowledge that this guy was put on such a list a year before he was finally killed.

I'm just wondering what people think the alternative should have been.

They really should have let him request a last meal.

[Alrisaren]

First of all it wasn't as simple as some grunt saying "Yo dawgs this guy iz a terrorist, kill him!" They had to get permission from Obama personally.

Obama doesn't have the authority to give that kind of permission. Sure he's the Commander in Chief, but there are limits.

Secondly I'm not going to claim I know the exact details of the procedure but I'm sure there was a process and a lot more thought involved then a couple of guys from Homeland Security showing Obama a picture of him with the words "Bad Guy" scribbled on it before Obama approved him to be on the list of fuckers who have lost their right for due process and could be killed on sight. Also it was public knowledge that this guy was put on such a list a year before he was finally killed.

I'm sure there was more to it than that. It doesn't matter. The right to due process in enshrined in the Constitution of the United States. There is nothing in the Constitution that says your right to due process can be taken away if the President thinks you're a bad guy, no matter how good his information or thought process is. We actually have the right to due process in the first place to protect all of us from that level of tyranny.

I'm just wondering what people think the alternative should have been.

Oh I don't know . . . maybe something to do with due process and proper channels.

The lack of reaction to this happening scares me almost as much as the fact that it happened.

[Tgo01]

Obama doesn't have the authority to give that kind of permission. Sure he's the Commander in Chief, but there are limits.

The president surely does have the power to eliminate someone who poses a continuing threat against American lives. Also the guy was a leader of AQAP whose mission was to destroy America, during war I think the president has the power to kill a leader of a group that wants to kill Americans.

I'm sure there was more to it than that. It doesn't matter. The right to due process in enshrined in the Constitution of the United States. There is nothing in the Constitution that says your right to due process can be taken away if the President thinks you're a bad guy, no matter how good his information or thought process is. We actually have the right to due process in the first place to protect all of us from that level of tyranny.

You're wrong, the government has always had the power to kill someone without due process if they feel the threat of lives is imminent. Apparently based on the information Obama had available to him he thought this guy was an imminent threat to American lives. Him making videos of himself asking everyone to join his cause to kill Americans probably didn't help his case.

Oh I don't know . . . maybe something to do with due process and proper channels.

The lack of reaction to this happening scares me almost as much as the fact that it happened.

Proper channels? The guy was in Yemen, he was involved in a well known terrorist organization who doesn't give a shit about Yemen law much less American law. Seriously? You think it was just as simple as us calling up Yemen and saying "Yeah, go arrest this guy and extradite him to our country okay? Alright thanks, we got your back!"

Your lack of understanding of this situation is what scares me.

[Latrinsorm]

Obama doesn't have the authority to give that kind of permission. Sure he's the Commander in Chief, but there are limits.



I'm sure there was more to it than that. It doesn't matter. The right to due process in enshrined in the Constitution of the United States. There is nothing in the Constitution that says your right to due process can be taken away if the President thinks you're a bad guy, no matter how good his information or thought process is. We actually have the right to due process in the first place to protect all of us from that level of tyranny.



Oh I don't know . . . maybe something to do with due process and proper channels.

The lack of reaction to this happening scares me almost as much as the fact that it happened.

Let me offer you a hypothetical scenario. In Detroit, a man is walking around with a rocket launcher. The police arrive and tell him to put down the weapon. He refuses and points it at someone, let's say Margaret Thatcher. The police shoot him with bullets, and he dies. Is this an acceptable amount of due process? If so, in what respects are that scenario and this one different?