Ron Paul Floor Statement on Assassinations 2/24/10

page: 4
61
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Erasurehead
 


Ron Paul was wrong in where he quoted Blair stating that the U.S. Government was targeting Americans. Paul omitted the fact that Blair said Americans working overseas for terrorists.


So tell me whatukno, when you are in another country, are you no longer an American?

When will the gov say Americans here working for terrorists can be assassinated?

When will the gov say, Americans stating the wars are wrong, are to be considered working for terrorists?

SEMANTICS.

And do quit the misrepresentation of Dr. Paul as being a fear mongerer. I guess Dr Martin Luther King Jr. was a fear mongerer also, same as Jefferson or Washington.

Pffffft!

S&F OP




posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by m khan
Actually this has been our policy since 1963 starting with Kennedy.But their purpose in announcing it is probably fear factor. If you oppose your government's policies you can be exterminated


Bingo!



[edit on 25-2-2010 by WWJFKD]



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Erasurehead
It is not up to me to fact check for you.


uuh no it is up to you. When you quote somebody, or make a claim that somebody said something as evidence to your argument, it is up to you to provide a source or direct quote from that person. The fact another Republican politician "told you" is not evidence enough. Politicians say many many things.

So, put your source where you mouth is.



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


Yep, american citizens working abroad to plot a terrorists attack against the United states. But its always more juicy to mislead the actual story and turn it into something right here in our backyard!



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 

Do you or didn't you support “enhanced interrogation techniques”? And “extraordinary rendition”?

I'm asking because you seem, rightfully in my opinion, worried about the legality (and the place of due process) of these policies and measures the Government has taken lately, but I remember—perhaps erroneously—that you supported many of the policies implemented by the Bush administration like the so called “enhanced interrogation techniques.”


I do not support "enhanced interrogation". I could be proven wrong (as i do argue as devils advocate on occasion) by you finding a post i have made. But i only recently really made any real foray into the political arena at ATS, choosing to use this site as a science clearinghouse instead.

I do not condone torturing people, or anything beyond questioning and isolation. I do not believe in "brainwashing" techniques to entice compliance. We are a nation of free men, and we should seek our alliances in people who submit willingly to such ideals.

I believe we should put the detainees in front of a military tribunal, and provide adequate due process following established precedent.

I also believe that, since we are making war, we should exercise our war to its fullest effect. Having so many detainees has created a severe problem for us. We should have fully dispositioned their fate on the battle field. No, not executions, but far more aggressive battle techniques. Yes, it is horrible, and i don't like it. But if one is going to make war, they should make it quick work. The soft approach increases destruction and death, and our releasing of the detainees has only provided fresh relief for the currently strained battle front.

I hope that was more than you asked for.



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Erasurehead
 


Ron Paul was wrong in where he quoted Blair stating that the U.S. Government was targeting Americans. Paul omitted the fact that Blair said Americans working overseas for terrorists.


So tell me whatukno, when you are in another country, are you no longer an American?


When you are in another country, when you plot with terrorists an attack against your own country, against your own people, against innocent people, the yes, you are longer an american.



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Here is what bothers me about the USA citizens, you wine and complain and bark and squeel about SHAME ON HIM



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


So, you are saying it is okay to target non innocent individuals?

Who are they?

If we are at WAR with terrorists and WE HAVE killed innocent individuals, does that MEAN that anyone in government is a non innocent individual?

Who are the allowed targets?

Frelling sounds like YOU are arguing semantics also.

The World Trade Center had NUMEROUS government offices. Were they LEGITIMATE targets?

Explain to me what a LEGITIMATE TARGET IS! You could even use laws of war. C'mon, you can come up with something can't you?



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
This news is real. It is two to three weeks old and has been on the headlines on drudge and other colletive sites.

All I can say is, it is time to take this country back to the people or ee are done.

The problem is, we have been soaking in a campaign of socialist education for some time and so the generations to turn to are socalist simpathizers, which will fix nothing. Of course this is a generalization, as not all have drunk the coolaide, but _ fear the majority has.

Recon3



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by LordBucket
 





It is a quote from someone paraphrasing what Mr. Blair said.


No shiite, Sherlock.




I assumed that you were really looking for an alternate source for what Mr. Blair said, rather than a source for the person paraphrasing what Mr. Blair said ....because honestly, it hadn't even occured to me that you would be looking for the source of that quote.


I specifically asked for the source for that quote. I don't know how it could have been any clearer. Perhaps you speak a different English to me.

Erasurehead inserted an unattributed quote. I wanted to find the attribution for that quote because it didn't jive with ANY other report I have seen about the Blair assertion.



IT'S FROM THE VIDEO IN THE ORIGINAL POST OF THIS THREAD THAT YOU'RE RESPONDING TO.


Thank you. Was that so hard? Quotes need to be attributed, so that people can make sense of them, it is that simple, and I believe ATS policy.

AND YOU DON'T NEED TO YELL. I can read you perfectly well, even if you can't read me.

Ron Paul's characterization of Blair's statement is misleading at best. The thrust of his argument is fine, and I have no problems with it. I even fundamentally agree.

But Paul's paraphrase of Blair's testimony misrepresented what he said and gave it a much more sinister bent. To spin Blair's statement as somehow claiming that the Government is claiming authority to assassinate American citizens anywhere, anytime, for no reason, is a straightforward, old fashioned lie.

Whatukno seems to have picked up on the same issue as I did at the same time and presented similar arguments. So the point is made and my contribution is redundant. I'm out.

Edit: grammer

[edit on 25/2/2010 by rnaa]



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 




"We take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community; if … we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that", Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told the House Intelligence Committee.


License to Kill?...

What I got about this statement, is that people RELATED, CONNECTED of some way, with domestic terrorism in USA, can be shot down. American citizen or not.

For instance: If a group of Al Qaeda sympathizers or activists, arrived in USA, with hot papers (legal documents, passports, visas...), got installed in some urban community, got some job, got some airplane piloting classes, started to buy chemical products, guns, ammo, electronic devices, van vehicles and all material needed to practice a terrorist attack against specific targets, this mean that in SOME POINT they SOME KIND of domestic support. I mean, of some way they were helped by one or more north-americans. People can't be that stupid, to think a foreign terrorist group can set up an attack within a country WITHOUT internal sources, internal supports. And not necessarily Arab ones. The proudly North-American people think the enemy is 100% outsider, but it seems the Intelligence realized that the outsider may be helped by the insider, by some frustrated, angry, revolted, depressed, Joe Stack, John Doe or whoever that hearing voices in the head, decides make a move to make things easy, to some terrorist group. In one second a common american takes that decision, in other second makes happen. But the proudly american people guess this extreme measure stated by the Intelligence director, is towards to "destroy their freedom". But if each american citizen have the constitutional right to have guns, lots of personal guns to self-protection, how can they judge what their government decides to do?? I mean, It seems a nation conceived with a gun-culture or gun karma, whatever. The gun, the use of guns, is deeply and intrinsically rooted in the US life. IMO the society is being victim of its own parameters.
I mean, let me use another instance without Arab terrorists: If a common american citizen, chief-of-family has a common american baby-sitter, working to him, taking care of his children, and in certain day, after the couple go out to have some fun at night and when they come back to house, they find it under the baby-sitter's siege, with everything locked up, the kids became hostages and the american baby-sitter has guns and also she built a bomb, once she's a chemical. And she's screaming and threatening blows the house with the kids inside... Then, the american chief-of-family realize the american baby-sitter is serious and he has no time to call the cops and just few moments to get in the house and he decides to do that, and he do that. He got within the house, he shot the american baby-sitter and he saved his children.... Well, he killed another american to prevent a tragedy in his house.

Taking this story to a national level, isn't EXACTLY the same parameter imputed in the government domestic security agenda??? What the f*ck american people are complaining about???

IMO all this bla bla bla is part of Obama-hatred propaganda, 'cos it seems a large part of US people is having serious issues to swallow a negro, being president, I mean, every complication in american's life, now, blame it on Obama, "the terminator of american people".

WTF I'm doing here, talking about it??? I'm nor even north-american...


[edit on 25-2-2010 by ucalien]



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Erasurehead
 





You know I really don't appreciate that you are accusing me of lying and fear mongering. I quoted Ron Paul directly from the video that the OP posted. I didn't feel the need to post the source since I thought it would be obvious to people that watched the video. I guess I was wrong to assume that people actually watch the videos they are responding to


Just to be clear: No one is accusing you of anything that I see. We are asking for your source attribution. If you don't have a source, then, yes we would have to assume that you are making it up. But since you can provide the source, that is fine.

ATS rules require that quotes be sourced. What is hard about that? I hadn't had time to view the video yet. There are more videos to watch than there are hours in a day. The excerpted quote is a good reason to invest time in the clip and it should have been attributed.

And to be completely transparent: I wasn't responding to the video. I was responding to your post.

Had I been responding to the video, my post would have been headed:

reply to post by ModernAcademia

and not

reply to post by Erasurehead

and would have discussed something about the video.

Spot the difference?



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by rougeskut
 





It is my opinion that you are just attempting to hijack said thread.


That was not my intent. I was trying to find out who was claiming Blair said those words, because nowhere else is Blair is reported to have said that.

As I said before, I hadn't seen the video yet, but if I knew that that quote was in it, I probably would have. Erasurehead did a disservice by not attributing his source. That's all. There was no attempt to denigrate EH (except by the implication if he couldn't back up his quote).

For the record, I repeat that I agree with Ron Paul's basic argument in the video (which I have now watched). I disagree with his disingenuous spin on Blair's statement.



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 





So tell me whatukno, when you are in another country, are you no longer an American?


I hope so, because I currently live in Australia.

But according to the constitution:



Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


Notice that neither Blair nor the the Constitution says anything about "at the Government's discretion". Blair said they had to "get specific permission".

You can argue about whether or not that 'specific permission' is coming from Congress via laws giving the President the authority to wage war against terrorism.

But you can't argue that overseas Americans participating in Terrorist acts against the American people are performing treasonous acts.



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 





When you are in another country, when you plot with terrorists an attack against your own country, against your own people, against innocent people, the yes, you are longer an american.


Correction. You are still an American. A traitorous American, but an American, non-the-less.



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


Yes, TREASON is punishable by DEATH!

Now, who was the last person put to death for treason?

Do you think we assassinated him/her?

Let me see, was Jane Fonda ever brought up on charges of Treason?



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Does this also include getting too close to the truth about UFO's? What about James Forrestal?



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 





Yes, TREASON is punishable by DEATH!


Not necessarily. Both "Axis Sally" and "Tokyo Rose" (or one of several anyway) were found guilty of Treason. Neither were executed. Gerald Ford pardoned "Tokyo Rose".



Now, who was the last person put to death for treason?

Do you think we assassinated him/her?


Can't be sure, but I expect there have been several since 9/11. Either by assassination or other 'direct action' such as a raid on a training camp or whatever.



Let me see, was Jane Fonda ever brought up on charges of Treason?


Of course not.

She never waged war against the United States. She never 'adhered' to the enemy, 'giving them aid and comfort'. She did go to Hanoi and express admiration for the Vietnamese people's endurance in their extreme circumstances. But nothing further than that. She did not tell them they would win the war, or call on American troops to surrender, or anything of the sort.

She did pose for that stupid photo on the tank or antiaircraft gun or whatever it was. That was a mistake, and she admits it. But she is not a stupid woman and was not stupid then. She (and 'her people') was very aware of where the lines were.

No question she was anti-war. I was anti-war. Millions of others were anti-war. That is not treason, that is a patriotic use of our democratic voice. She had a bigger voice than most of us.



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
Fucin' retards - a real assination policy would be a damn secret.


I'm starting to think that Ron Paul is the official shill for the NWO revolution. Rest of 'em got no balls, WTF?



It sure makes you wonder why he has no echoes in the Power House there. I think this is all a bunch of propaganda. Instead of knee jerk reactions like the revolution they are attempting to incite....I think we should look deeper and ask "what is their ultimate reason" for stirring the pot of violence?



posted on Feb, 25 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   
I think the United States needs a greece-like situation

everyone on strike!



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
61
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join