The Glade 4.0 :: View topic - Paul on Al-Awlaki

Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul criticized President Obama Friday for "assassinating" al Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki, saying that the American-born Muslim cleric should have been tried in a U.S. court.

The comments on that article are terrifying.

It is worrisome that the people in charge are ok with hunting down and assassinating alleged criminals.

Lex Luthor wrote:

It is worrisome that the people in charge are ok with hunting down and assassinating alleged criminals.

It's more worrisome that so many of the American populace are, judging from the article's comments.

Yes, but it's the populace's apathy that lets the people in charge feel they can get away with breaking their Oaths.

It's also the populace whose anger needs to be present to vote out people who do.

We found him to kill him.

The key here is he was overseas. There are no Constitutional due process protections for non-citizens overseas. There are for citizens regardless of their location.

A public trial in absentia would be fine. I'm concerned that Dr Paul seems to think we can just find this guy like we did Timothy McVeigh. That to me sounds part delusional and part armchair quarterbacking.

Dash wrote:

We managed to find Saddam Hussein for a trial. That actually was war, too.

Corolinth wrote:

Dash wrote:

We managed to find Saddam Hussein for a trial. That actually was war, too.

Also Saddam wasn't a U.S. citizen.

Anyways, this mess we're seeing now is clearly Bush's fault.

I think the implication here (not saying I agree with it) is that he's effectively renounced his citizenship by committing treason, and is therefor not entitled to constitutional protections granted citizens.

Again. Not saying I agree with that, but that's probably part of the logic they're using.

TheRiov wrote:

To commit treason, you need to be convicted in a fair trial. Otherwise you are a suspect and alleged offender.

Author:	Elmarnieh [ Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:19 am ]
Post subject:	Paul on Al-Awlaki
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ore-178337

Author:	Corolinth [ Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:14 am ]
Post subject:
The War on Terror has done more damage to our freedom than terrorists ever did.

Author:	Dash [ Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:45 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Paul on Al-Awlaki
Quote: Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul criticized President Obama Friday for "assassinating" al Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki, saying that the American-born Muslim cleric should have been tried in a U.S. court. Yeah i mean why didnt anyone think to go arrest him? Unless he means tried in absentia which I'd be fine with. It's good to have people pushing back on this but I'm fine with blowing his *** up.

Author:	FarSky [ Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:52 am ]
Post subject:	Paul on Al-Awlaki
The comments on that article are terrifying.

Author:	Elmarnieh [ Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:15 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Paul on Al-Awlaki
FarSky wrote: The comments on that article are terrifying. I know. These people vote - if they read and discuss politics online they are likely supervoters. Some are "its ok because Obama did it" some are "its ok because someone called him a terrorist".

The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/

Paul on Al-Awlaki https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7298	Page 1 of 5

Author:	Dash [ Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:25 am ]
Post subject:
So explain how he should have been tried in a US court.

Author:	Elmarnieh [ Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:46 am ]
Post subject:
1. Extradition 2. Letter of Marque 3. Trial in absentia From there you get lawyers, gather evidence and present the case to a jury. You have heard of trials before right?

Author:	Dash [ Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:55 am ]
Post subject:
So you and Dr Paul would be fine with trying an American citizen in absentia and condemning them to death. Is that what I'm reading? Or you're just interested in the trial part and still leave him to his own devices in Yemen or wherever-istan.

Author:	Elmarnieh [ Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:05 pm ]
Post subject:
It wouldn't be my preferred method at all but it is an option and you asked to explain how - not what would you want done. Also I don't know how you even took that to mean its anything that Paul wants.

Author:	Kaffis Mark V [ Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:05 pm ]
Post subject:
We were cooperating with Yemen to target the guy. Why couldn't we have cooperated with Yemen to capture the guy? We obviously knew where he was, following him from that point isn't that hard, I imagine, in these days of Predators and satellites. And we've proven we can send SEAL teams in to capture guys alive. Failing that, no, I wouldn't have a problem with a public trial in absentia. It's certainly preferable to executions of American citizens. He'd be welcome to show up to trial if he felt his rights weren't being adequately honored or he wanted to exercise his right to face his accusers.

Author:	Lex Luthor [ Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:07 pm ]
Post subject:
It is worrisome that the people in charge are ok with hunting down and assassinating alleged criminals.

Author:	Lex Luthor [ Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:11 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Kaffis Mark V wrote: Lex Luthor wrote: It is worrisome that the people in charge are ok with hunting down and assassinating alleged criminals. It's more worrisome that so many of the American populace are, judging from the article's comments. Well the American populace haven't sworn to uphold the Constitution, which makes it abundantly clear that everyone under the U.S. jurisdiction (such as citizens) has a right to due process.

Author:	Lex Luthor [ Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Kaffis Mark V wrote: Yes, but it's the populace's apathy that lets the people in charge feel they can get away with breaking their Oaths. It's also the populace whose anger needs to be present to vote out people who do. I agree. I think a lot of the liberals who would normally be protesting are too much in denial about their Chosen One.

Author:	Corolinth [ Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:26 pm ]
Post subject:
We finally have our common enemy that we need protecting from at all costs. Protecting freedom from the enemy is how you build a totalitarian regime.

Page 1 of 5	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Dash [ Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:27 pm ]
Post subject:
A public trial in absentia would be fine. I'm concerned that Dr Paul seems to think we can just find this guy like we did Timothy McVeigh. That to me sounds part delusional and part armchair quarterbacking. He also didnt bring up any specifics on why an American citizen has any bearing. So far as I know the Constitution applies to everyone with respect to the 5th amendment not allowing the government to deprive anyone of life without due process. I would guess the key here is the "war" designation. Anyway Paul just seems to say we should "think very seriously about this" and it's "sad" not illegal. I'll agree with both of those.

Author:	Elmarnieh [ Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:36 pm ]
Post subject:
We found him to kill him. The key here is he was overseas. There are no Constitutional due process protections for non-citizens overseas. There are for citizens regardless of their location.

Author:	Lex Luthor [ Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:45 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Elmarnieh wrote: We found him to kill him. The key here is he was overseas. There are no Constitutional due process protections for non-citizens overseas. There are for citizens regardless of their location. Apparently if you live abroad as a U.S. citizen, you can still vote for U.S. elections, your children are citizens, and you have to register for selective service.

Author:	Corolinth [ Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Dash wrote: A public trial in absentia would be fine. I'm concerned that Dr Paul seems to think we can just find this guy like we did Timothy McVeigh. That to me sounds part delusional and part armchair quarterbacking. We managed to find Saddam Hussein for a trial. That actually was war, too.

Author:	Lex Luthor [ Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:23 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Corolinth wrote: Dash wrote: A public trial in absentia would be fine. I'm concerned that Dr Paul seems to think we can just find this guy like we did Timothy McVeigh. That to me sounds part delusional and part armchair quarterbacking. We managed to find Saddam Hussein for a trial. That actually was war, too. Also Saddam wasn't a U.S. citizen. Anyways, this mess we're seeing now is clearly Bush's fault.

Author:	TheRiov [ Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:24 pm ]
Post subject:
I think the implication here (not saying I agree with it) is that he's effectively renounced his citizenship by committing treason, and is therefor not entitled to constitutional protections granted citizens. Again. Not saying I agree with that, but that's probably part of the logic they're using.

Author:	Lex Luthor [ Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:28 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
TheRiov wrote: I think the implication here (not saying I agree with it) is that he's effectively renounced his citizenship by committing treason, and is therefor not entitled to constitutional protections granted citizens. Again. Not saying I agree with that, but that's probably part of the logic they're using. To commit treason, you need to be convicted in a fair trial. Otherwise you are a suspect and alleged offender.

Author:	TheRiov [ Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:29 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re:
Lex Luthor wrote: TheRiov wrote: I think the implication here (not saying I agree with it) is that he's effectively renounced his citizenship by committing treason, and is therefor not entitled to constitutional protections granted citizens. Again. Not saying I agree with that, but that's probably part of the logic they're using. To commit treason, you need to be convicted in a fair trial. Otherwise you are a suspect and alleged offender. not to commit treason, but perhaps to be found guilty. Perhaps he renounced his citizenship directly?