Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ron Paul just Signed his Own Presidential Aspirations Death Warrant,After He Criticized Obama

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 

And I would agree, that during a war, the laws are very specific as to what actions we are all allowed to do. However, last time any one checked, we were not at war, as congress did not declare war, and thus the problem starts.

The US is involved in armed conflicts, and ultimately, proof would have to be determined that he was not a citizen, documents showing that he had renounced his US citizenship, and that he was the citizen of another country in the world, namely Yemen. But none was produced during this entire time, and therefore, we had no right to kill him.

Treason, is the only crime mentioned in the US constitution and for good reason. History is littered with those who were killed on the grounds of treason, and abused by the monarchies of days gone by to eliminate those who would challenge them and to allow for the people to accept it. Ultimately, it was a charge invented by the winners as an excuse to hang the losers. The problem with that is that there has to be 2 witnesses who need to testify under oath that he did commit treason, to which there has been none that came forward to state such.

Terms like treason, racism and other words that are used to try to shock are thrown around way too much, when there has been no real evidence of such.
So what happens or do we say when it happens again, what do you say the next time, cause the door is open, and we need to shut it, the government should not, and can not have cart blanch to just assassinate or kill its citizens in a foreign country, without benefit of a trial and well documented evidence. This kinds of actions sends a message and a ripple around the world, where other countries may get the idea of doing the exact same thing in this country and could use this one act as justification of doing such.




posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 



reply to post by mishigas

And I would agree, that during a war, the laws are very specific as to what actions we are all allowed to do. However, last time any one checked, we were not at war, as congress did not declare war, and thus the problem starts.


Point taken. However, this is a new scenario for us. Hostilities have been initiated on our soil; we are justified in responding/retaliating. Against which nation? No flag has declared against us. So should that mean we are relegated to sitting on our hands and just accepting the incoming?

Hardly....this is time to react first and write the rule book later. When we are safe and secure, then we can evaluate.


The US is involved in armed conflicts, and ultimately, proof would have to be determined that he was not a citizen, documents showing that he had renounced his US citizenship, and that he was the citizen of another country in the world, namely Yemen. But none was produced during this entire time, and therefore, we had no right to kill him.


Why? Why must we "prove" anything about his citizenship? He was a combatant, therefore he was a target. If it is discovered later on that he was homegrown, c'est la vie. Too bad.


Treason, is the only crime mentioned in the US constitution and for good reason. History is littered with those who were killed on the grounds of treason, and abused by the monarchies of days gone by to eliminate those who would challenge them and to allow for the people to accept it. Ultimately, it was a charge invented by the winners as an excuse to hang the losers. The problem with that is that there has to be 2 witnesses who need to testify under oath that he did commit treason, to which there has been none that came forward to state such.


Are you serious? You want 2 witnesses?
Omigod....

The Constitution is a magnificent document, but it was never intended to cover every possible scenario that we encountered. It was a framework for our own interactions between states and the feds, mainly. It did not describe our foreign policy or other wide ranging topics.

For Ron Paul to wrap himself in the Constitution to defend terrorists is deplorable. And I'm sure he knows it. His motive here is quite clear, and it is pure politics.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 



reply to post by mishigas


Point taken. However, this is a new scenario for us. Hostilities have been initiated on our soil; we are justified in responding/retaliating. Against which nation? No flag has declared against us. So should that mean we are relegated to sitting on our hands and just accepting the incoming?

Why? Why must we "prove" anything about his citizenship? He was a combatant, therefore he was a target. If it is discovered later on that he was homegrown, c'est la vie. Too bad.




Treason, is the only crime mentioned in the US constitution and for good reason. History is littered with those who were killed on the grounds of treason, and abused by the monarchies of days gone by to eliminate those who would challenge them and to allow for the people to accept it. Ultimately, it was a charge invented by the winners as an excuse to hang the losers. The problem with that is that there has to be 2 witnesses who need to testify under oath that he did commit treason, to which there has been none that came forward to state such.


Are you serious? You want 2 witnesses?
Omigod....

yes, not that hard really. You know Reid the shoe bomber, all he has to say is that he got help from al awlaki making the bomb and thats a witness right there, which i can't remember if he said that or not. 2 witnesses is not that hard to find, especially since we've sent in undercover fbi agents to see if they can find evidence, and they obviously didn't charge him with anything.
2 witness could easily be procured by the u.s., they just decided to go with this new route.

The Constitution is a magnificent document, but it was never intended to cover every possible scenario that we encountered. It was a framework for our own interactions between states and the feds, mainly. It did not describe our foreign policy or other wide ranging topics.

For Ron Paul to wrap himself in the Constitution to defend terrorists is deplorable. And I'm sure he knows it. His motive here is quite clear, and it is pure politics.



how about stop bombing their countries then they won't bomb ours. how many civillians have we killed in the middle east compared to the few thousand that died in 9/11? I would say they are more justified seeing as we actually started bombing them first right... we started the precedent of bombing the pants off their country and not calling it a war last i remembered. you do have a good point but lets turn it around, no the middle east should not sit around as we bomb the pants off their country without a flag of war.

What makes you think he was a combatant? i've never seen any picture with him with a gun? Just being in yemen does not make him a combatant, neither does talking with al queda neither does saying america needs to get out of the middle east by whateverr means necessary? or else half of this board is enemy combatants by your logic.


yes, not that hard really to find two witnesses. You know Reid the shoe bomber, all he has to say is that he got help from al awlaki making the bomb and thats a witness right there, which i can't remember if he said that or not. 2 witnesses is not that hard to find, especially since we've sent in undercover fbi agents to see if they can find evidence, and they obviously didn't charge him with anything.
2 witness could easily be procured by the u.s., they just decided to go with this new route.


Ron paul is not defending terrorist. he wouldn't have a problem with Al awlaki hanging if a court decided that. if al awlaki is as bad as people say it really shouldn't be a problem.
In war, traitors are tried in a military court which has much less burden of proof and doesn't even need the defendant to be there. This is not the first time we've had treason in usa and we don't just kill them because we're not Iraq, we're America. IF timothy mcveigh got a trial even after killing 160 people and admiting to it, lets at least give Al awlaki a show trial which should be so easy if there is as much guilt as people think there is.
edit on 1-10-2011 by Nephlim because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 

The questions of the conflicts are a whole another topic. I do not dispute that such an attack, an act of war was made on the US, however, the actions of the US must be questioned and should be. That is the nature of our society and we should back those who would allow for such actions and those who question it.

A quick history lesson, and why the proof must be there. In the past, before the US was a country, many of the governments, and kings, and churches would use the accusation of treason as an excuse to execute a person, without benefit of a trial or even so much as actual proof of that persons guilt. They used it so much, that it was the one charge that was assured of death for the accused, and much of it did happen. The founding fathers, the very men who founded this country, along with the laws, saw this abuse of authority and power on the part of the monarchies of Europe. Even the history of England, when the monarchy had sole rule over the people, would use it when they wanted land or a woman, or even as an excuse to off the competitor to the throne. As it was used so willfully, where the accused did not get a trial in most cases, it was heavily abused. And they did not want that charge to be used against its citizens as an excuse for the government to get rid of those that they would find undesirable.

Our laws are set up where the punishments fit the crime, and ultimately, while the cleric who is now dead, may have seemed to be a traitor and committed acts of treason, the law must be followed to the letter and the spirit. That means that yes, for it to be a legal charge, he should have been caught, 2 witnesses who were there to prove that he was knowingly and willfully committing acts of treason against the United States of America, and its government. Then and only then, would the sentence of death not ever be questioned, as it would be out in the open.

Since the start of both conflicts, what many people are having trouble with is there is too much secrecy on the part of the US government, when it comes to the nature and even the trials of the people accused, leaving many to question the motivations of the government in itself. It will not provide evidence for the people to see and make a judgment on their part, and thus it leads to people asking is the government correct, and that is a valid question.

But no matter if he was guilty or innocent, the fact that the federal government acted as Judge, Jury and Executioner, does not sit well with the public, and nor should it. The fact that there was no indictment or trial to prove his innocent or guilt does not sit well with the public, and that goes against everything we were all taught, that being a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law before 12 good people to render a verdict of such.

The law is very specific on that charge, and it should never be violated: 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.


What Ron Paul sees, and it should be obvious, is this: If we are at war, then declare it, if not, then we have to follow the rule of law, to include those who are captured, in this case that of international treaty, even if the other side is not doing such. That means we should not be holding people on end like we are, nor should there be over 1 million people on a list watched by the government, where people can not know if they are or are not on such, to include the no fly lists, making it difficult for people to exercise freedoms.

If the congress declares war, then it brings into power some of the laws that are sitting and gathering dust, into play, allows for the military to do their job, and get the job done. By not declaring war, it means that the conflict becomes a quagmire of politics, laws and rules that make such over done.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Nephlim
 




how about stop bombing their countries then they won't bomb ours. how many civillians have we killed in the middle east compared to the few thousand that died in 9/11? I would say they are more justified seeing as we actually started bombing them first right... we started the precedent of bombing the pants off their country and not calling it a war last i remembered. you do have a good point but lets turn it around, no the middle east should not sit around as we bomb the pants off their country without a flag of war.


One question for you: how many of their countries did we bomb the pants off prior to September 11, 2001?


What makes you think he was a combatant? i've never seen any picture with him with a gun? Just being in yemen does not make him a combatant, neither does talking with al queda neither does saying america needs to get out of the middle east by whateverr means necessary? or else half of this board is enemy combatants by your logic.


Combatants do not have to carry a firearm. A suitcase full of cash or an internet file with directions are as deadly a weapon as an AK-47.



yes, not that hard really to find two witnesses. You know Reid the shoe bomber, all he has to say is that he got help from al awlaki making the bomb and thats a witness right there, which i can't remember if he said that or not. 2 witnesses is not that hard to find, especially since we've sent in undercover fbi agents to see if they can find evidence, and they obviously didn't charge him with anything.
2 witness could easily be procured by the u.s., they just decided to go with this new route.


You are confusing our legal system with Sharia, whereby they require witnesses such as in rape cases.
Our legal system is much more sophisticated.


Ron paul is not defending terrorist. he wouldn't have a problem with Al awlaki hanging if a court decided that. if al awlaki is as bad as people say it really shouldn't be a problem.
In war, traitors are tried in a military court which has much less burden of proof and doesn't even need the defendant to be there. This is not the first time we've had treason in usa and we don't just kill them because we're not Iraq, we're America. IF timothy mcveigh got a trial even after killing 160 people and admiting to it, lets at least give Al awlaki a show trial which should be so easy if there is as much guilt as people think there is.


Once again, we civilians have no idea what evidence is gathered on al Awlaki, so speculation on whether he had a tribunal in absentia is moot.

ETA: Welcome to ATS.
edit on 1-10-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 




The questions of the conflicts are a whole another topic. I do not dispute that such an attack, an act of war was made on the US, however, the actions of the US must be questioned and should be. That is the nature of our society and we should back those who would allow for such actions and those who question it.


First of all, thanks for the interesting history refresher. It is a grim reminder of mankind's dormant treachery against man, and is fascinating and troubling at the same time.


However, it does not apply in this case. We are not talking about the conspiratorial phase of an act, we are way past that. Overt acts of terrorism have been committed against the US, which his involvement in sealed his fate.

So we must move beyond that phase to the point where we are engaging our enemies on the battlefield, and this is where al Alwaki met his fate.

Your final point is taken. There has been no formal declaration of war. And of course you know why that is; you are obviously an intelligent person. So Ron Paul's tirade is merely rallying the vote count.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


you really don't remember us bombing the middle east during clinton's presidency non stop? you don't remember the first gulf war with bush senior?

how about these 6 or 7 pages of u.s. invovlment in the middle east in the last 100 years.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...


Theres a starter for you and why don't you try looking for yourself because it's really not hard to find how much we've been bombing the pants off the middle east.

1984: U.S. shoots down two Iranian jets over Persian Gulf.

1985-1986: The U.S. secretly ships weapons to Iran, including 1,000 TOW anti-tank missiles, Hawk missile parts, and Hawk radars. The weapons are exchanged for U.S. hostages in Lebanon, and in hopes of increased U.S. leverage in Iran. The secret plot collapses when it is publicly revealed on November 3, 1986, by the Lebanese magazine, Al-Shiraa. (The Chronology)

1985: U.S. attempts to assassinate Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, a Lebanese Shiite leader. 80 people are killed in the unsuccessful attempt. (Blum)

1986: When a bomb goes off in a Berlin nightclub and kills two Americans, the U.S. blames Libya's Qaddafi. U.S. bombers strike Libyan military facilities, residential areas of Tripoli and Benghazi, and Qaddafi's house, killing 101 people, including Qaddafi's adopted daughter.

1987: The U.S. Navy is dispatched to the Persian Gulf to prevent Iran from cutting off Iraq's oil shipments. During these patrols, a U.S. ship shoots down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing all 290 onboard.

1988: The Iraqi regime launches mass poison-gas attacks on Kurds, killing thousands and bulldozing many villages. The U.S. responds by increasing its support for the Iraqi regime.

July 1988: A cease-fire ends the Iran-Iraq war with neither side victorious. Over 1 million Iranians and Iraqis are killed during the 8-year war.

1989: The last Soviet troops leave Afghanistan. The war, fueled by U.S.-Soviet rivalry, has torn Afghanistan apart, killing more than one million Afghans and forcing one-third of the population to flee into refugee camps. More than 15,000 Soviet soldiers die in the war.

July 1990: April Glaspie, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, meets with Saddam Hussein, who threatens military action against Kuwait for overproducing its oil quota, slant drilling for oil in Iraqi territory, and encroaching on Iraqi territory--seriously harming war weakened Iraq. Glaspie replies, "We have no opinion on the Arab- Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

August 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait. The U.S. seizes the moment to assert its hegemony in the post-Soviet world and strengthen its grip on the Persian Gulf: the U.S. condemns Iraq, rejects a diplomatic settlement, imposes sanctions, and prepares for an all-out military assault on Iraq.

January 16, 1991: After a 6-month military buildup, the U.S.-led coalition launches "Operation Desert Storm." For the next 42 days, U.S. and allied planes pound Iraq, dropping 88,000 tons of bombs, systematically targeting and largely destroying its electrical and water systems. On February 22, 1991, the U.S. coalition begins its 100-hour ground war. Heavily armed U.S. units drive deep into southern Iraq. Overall, 100,000 to 200,000 Iraqis are killed during the war.

Spring 1991: Shi'ites in the south and Kurds in the north rise up against Hussein's regime in Iraq. The U.S., after encouraging these uprisings during the war, now fears turmoil and instability in the region and refuses to support the rebels. The U.S. denies the rebels access to captured Iraqi weapons and allows Iraqi helicopters to attack them.

1991: Iraq withdraws from Kuwait and agrees to a UN-brokered cease-fire, but the U.S. and Britain insist that devastating sanctions be maintained. The U.S. declares large parts of north and south Iraq "no-fly" zones for Iraqi aircraft.

1991-present: U.S. military deployments continue after the war, with 17,000 to 24,000 U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf region at any given time. (CSM)
edit on 1-10-2011 by Nephlim because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by Nephlim
 





You are confusing our legal system with Sharia, whereby they require witnesses such as in rape cases.
Our legal system is much more sophisticated.


Once again, we civilians have no idea what evidence is gathered on al Awlaki, so speculation on whether he had a tribunal in absentia is moot.

ETA: Welcome to ATS.
edit on 1-10-2011 by mishigas because: (no reason given)




the two witnesses is for American treason charge, inherited from the british system for treason, so no i am not getting confused with sharia, and that took about 10 seconds to find on wikipedia.

You really think we have evidence on al awlaki? then why did the fbi release him after four days of interogations after 9/11? they would have just thrown him in guatanamo if they honestly thought he had anything to do with it. we were doing that left and right at the time
why are there no charges against him? It is the burden on the accuser to show the charges, you can't assume he's guilty. We;re america thats not how we roll. The founders of the constituion were moving away from the traditional power of Kings to kill their citizens at a stroke of a pen. Magna carta was suppose to stop that one man show, and now obama has brought it back undoing 800 years of progresss
edit on 1-10-2011 by Nephlim because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Nephlim
 



reply to post by mishigas

you really don't remember us bombing the middle east during clinton's presidency non stop? you don't remember the first gulf war with bush senior?

how about these 6 or 7 pages of u.s. invovlment in the middle east in the last 100 years.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Theres a starter for you and why don't you try looking for yourself because it's really not hard to find how much we've been bombing the pants off the middle east.


Nothing at all that you present as "proof" justifies 9/11. A bunch of out of context factoids from a biased source. Iraq is a separate situation and does not factor into the discussion. Iraq never declared war on US or flew planes into the WTC. And as far as Desert Storm, do you remember a little country named Kuwait?

And your statement of "us bombing the middle east during clinton's presidency non stop" is pure hyperbole. No need to exagerrate so much to try to make a point.


So why was the attempt at downing the WTC in 1993 justified again?



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Nephlim
 




the two witnesses is for American treason charge, inherited from the british system for treason, so no i am not getting confused with sharia, and that took about 10 seconds to find on wikipedia.


As I proved earlier, we are way past the conspiracy phase that you want to apply. We are into the overt terrorist phase, whereby justice is swift and final.

I find it very difficult to understand the mindset that empathizes with terrorists who would kill our children. So forgive me if it seems I despise your intent.


You really think we have evidence on al awlaki? then why did the fbi release him after four days of interogations after 9/11? they would have just thrown him in guatanamo if they honestly thought he had anything to do with it. we were doing that left and right at the time
why are there no charges against him?


Ask the damn FBI, why ask me? And then you can go on with your irresponsible speculation on how he was so very innocent and the US is so very evil because they want to hold him accountable for plotting to murder our innocents. Then maybe you will reach acceptance in your mind.


It is the burden on the accuser to show the charges, you can't assume he's guilty. We;re america thats not how we roll. The founders of the constituion were moving away from the traditional power of Kings to kill their citizens at a stroke of a pen. Magna carta was suppose to stop that one man show, and now obama has brought it back undoing 800 years of progresss


I'll ask it for the 10th time: How much do you know of the intel on this guy? NOTHING! And the intel community owes you NOTHING as far as facts on what they know. So all of your whining is pure speculation.

Remember back when some idiot NYT reporter bleated out that we were tracking OBL's satphone calls? It alerted him and set us back years before we got him. Loudmouths that demand "Proof" are the cause of more damage than they are worth. Realize what you are doing when you demand "proof".



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


i don't even know if your reading my post. i have no problem with al awlaki being killed, as long as he has a fair trial, a trial in absentee or even just a military trial as befiting a traitor in war.

you honestly couldn't find justification for the 93 wtc bombing in my post?
how about just this one

1989: The last Soviet troops leave Afghanistan. The war, fueled by U.S.-Soviet rivalry, has torn Afghanistan apart, killing more than one million Afghans and forcing one-third of the population to flee into refugee camps. More than 15,000 Soviet soldiers die in the war.

one million dead afghani's and how does that compare to the few thousand dead in 9/11? 1/3 of the population in refugee camps!!!!!!!!!!!! Justify that for me if america is always right as you beleive.

The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law being the main part here. even during world war 2 where we were in MUCH worse shape and danger than now we still gave traitors a military trial.

al awlaki is dead already u do realize?.. it doesn't matter if the FBI tells us what they know its not ganna hurt his hunt for him obviously. how is me asking for proof hurting anyone?. and they're not ganna tell us anything because there are no charges against him like everyone knows! the FBI released him after 9/11 interogations instead of throwing him in guatanomo, showing his innocence. we were literally throwing everyone in guatanmo with out trials if we suspected them of involvment. obama decided to kill him, and i guess you must blindly follow your king because he can't be wrong right? he's a king

let's just hope he doesn't decide anti-american statments on ATS are next.
edit on 1-10-2011 by Nephlim because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by LilDudeissocool
 


I think Ron Paul is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever witnessed as a primary presidential candidate in my life.



posted on Oct, 1 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


Even if he was guilty, the rule of law must be followed, no matter what. He should have been captured and then brought before a court, to determine his guilt and to what extent, bringing much out into the open.

What happens to the next guy, who the government does this to, as they may find someone either politically inconvenient, or distasteful? Do you support the notion of the federal government having cart blanch authority to kill their own citizens as they see fit? I for one do not, as it gives the government too much authority and power, if that door is left open. The questions as to what all this person did, is left unanswered, the information that could have been gotten from him, that is gone, and ultimately, his entire rights, as a citizen of the United States of America, were stripped from him, by one stroke of a pen.

The first American, captured in Afghanistan, at the start of the conflict there, was at least captured alive, brought back and had his rights, to include a trial, lawyer, judge and jury. That precedent was stated, and that guy was stating that he gave up his US citizenship. But we did not violate his rights then, and he was caught and seen firing at the US military on the ground.

This cleric, spoke and inspired people, but to most knowledge, did not fire a single shot, and yet he was found to be a far greater threat, the question is why and what made it so that they were going to mark him for death, violating his rights as a citizen of the country and due process of the law?

There are plenty of organizations and persons who the federal government could use this as an excuse to off, all without benefit of due process as this one incident could be used as precedent to justify in a court of law that the federal government has that authority and rights to do such. And unless the government is brought to answer for their actions in a court of law, then it could very well happen again, but next time who is to say it will be in a foreign country, why not say Michigan, or Ohio, or any number of other states?



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Nephlim
 



reply to post by mishigas
you honestly couldn't find justification for the 93 wtc bombing in my post?
how about just this one

1989: The last Soviet troops leave Afghanistan. The war, fueled by U.S.-Soviet rivalry, has torn Afghanistan apart, killing more than one million Afghans and forcing one-third of the population to flee into refugee camps. More than 15,000 Soviet soldiers die in the war.

one million dead afghani's and how does that compare to the few thousand dead in 9/11? 1/3 of the population in refugee camps!!!!!!!!!!!! Justify that for me if america is always right as you beleive.


You do realize that the US was funding the Afghans against the Soviets during that time period, don't you?
We even worked with OBL for a time....


nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law being the main part here. even during world war 2 where we were in MUCH worse shape and danger than now we still gave traitors a military trial.


al Awlaki's citizenship was not even a factor at this point, so all this pointing to the Constitution is moot. He is nothing more or less than Zarqawi was when he met his fate. Citizen al Awlaki lived in a past life. We killed Terrorist Combatant al Awlaki.


al awlaki is dead already u do realize?.. it doesn't matter if the FBI tells us what they know its not ganna hurt his hunt for him obviously. how is me asking for proof hurting anyone?. and they're not ganna tell us anything because there are no charges against him like everyone knows!


You seriously cannot think of any reason why the FBI would not tell all now that aA is dead? Really? So, there are no further plots we are following, no more terrorists to catch, all the work is done, eh? That's good to know!



the FBI released him after 9/11 interogations instead of throwing him in guatanomo, showing his innocence.


It doesn't show anything. Maybe we released him to lead us to OBL or Zawahiri?


we were literally throwing everyone in guatanmo with out trials if we suspected them of involvment. obama decided to kill him, and i guess you must blindly follow your king because he can't be wrong right? he's a king


Oh, no! We all know the only King is Ron Paul, right?



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 



reply to post by mishigas

Even if he was guilty, the rule of law must be followed, no matter what. He should have been captured and then brought before a court, to determine his guilt and to what extent, bringing much out into the open.

What happens to the next guy, who the government does this to, as they may find someone either politically inconvenient, or distasteful? Do you support the notion of the federal government having cart blanch authority to kill their own citizens as they see fit? I for one do not, as it gives the government too much authority and power, if that door is left open. The questions as to what all this person did, is left unanswered, the information that could have been gotten from him, that is gone, and ultimately, his entire rights, as a citizen of the United States of America, were stripped from him, by one stroke of a pen.


What he did was a little more than 'distasteful'. It was terrorism. And it does not matter whether he picked up a rifle or not. We pursued OBL for his involvement, even though he didn't fly the planes. So to me, that part of the discussion is done with.


This cleric, spoke and inspired people, but to most knowledge, did not fire a single shot, and yet he was found to be a far greater threat, the question is why and what made it so that they were going to mark him for death, violating his rights as a citizen of the country and due process of the law?


Once again, compare OBL to a common foot soldier. Who was the greater threat?

I am not too very concerned whether al Awlaki happened to be born in the US or not. He was a man who was involved in acts of terrorism against us. He was therefore our enemy, and deserved to die. I will concede one point.....If, and that is a big IF, we had captured him, I might consider trying him before a military tribunal before hanging him. But no trial in a Federal court. No way, no how.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 

Hence why there should have been a declaration of war. No declaration, then no military tribunal in the case of US citizens who are involved, as they should be allowed due process, and the laws that go along with such, including a trial in front of a federal judge, not a military tribunal.

Ever since the US got involved, the question still remains why no declaration of war, why does the US government want to mire this entire process down in a political quagmire, And unfortunately, as long as there is no declaration of war, it will remain like that, with the congress all wanting to have a hand in it, to give them some form of political advantage.

This cleric, there should have been a trial, as there are aspects of his life, if nothing more than to show the entire world that we do follow the rule of law and ultimately that even though he was considered a terrorist, even though he inspired the attacks against his own country, even though he was in the process of using others like cannon fodder, we still were going to follow the rule of law, and protect his rights as a citizen of the country. By failing to do that, we are showing that as a country, our government is no different than any other country out there, that we would really have no right to speak out against other countries, like Russia, or China, or even Iran, when it comes to how they would treat people who do the exact same thing.

There are doors in the laws, that are closed, and they remain closed for a reason, sometimes those reasons are very obvious, as it would prevent the abuse of power. For the longest time, the US was the example that the rest of the world would look to, even those countries that did not like us, as we were a country of laws, following those laws no matter what.

Every US President, since Nixon, put a prohibition on assassination, stating that the US and those that would work for the US government, are strictly forbidden to do such, including issuing direct orders against and signing Presidential orders against the use of assassinations. And now we have President Obama, that undid all of that, but allowing for such. It also means that we can not complain or cry if such an action occurs on any land controlled by the US, as those responsible will point to OBL and especially this cleric as justification of such, and the would be right. A dangerous precedent has been set.U.S. policy on assassinations



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
He only 'ended his candicy" (as you put it) because people are dumb and can't think logically. An American born citizen was assassinated, regardless of his terrorist ties. A US NATIONAL was ASSASSINATED. By who you ask? The US President. The US President authorized the assassination of a US national. That means, if YOU can potentially be assassinated by the United States (as an American citizen).
edit on 2-10-2011 by Weathermen because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Weathermen
 





right, I don't know how this fact goes right over some people.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
President Lincoln had to reach out to Russia for help and got the entire Russian Atlantic and Pacific Naval fleets to port in the Union's northern Ports.

To fight the South and keep a Fascist Federal Government. Russia created what we have now. The whole "Cold War" was just trickery by that Generation to rob other countries of their resources/oil creating a fake "Cold War".


If Ron Paul was serious about saving the country and ending Fascism...he'd be on the first plane to China asking them for help to set up War Crimes Tribunals.

Great Leaders have always reached out to foreign Governments for help to achieve the end game.

Ron Paul won't achieve his goal until he reaches out...to end the madness. Want a scary thought?

Think the enlisted military supporting Ron Paul would still stick by him and abandon the wacky officers at the top?......Helping a Chinese invasion or Tribunal? At some point it may very well happen.



posted on Oct, 2 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Weathermen
 


An American born citizen was assassinated, regardless of his terrorist ties. A US NATIONAL was ASSASSINATED.

reply to post by eLPresidente
 

right, I don't know how this fact goes right over some people.

***********************************

The way I see it, a terrorist was neutralized, regardless of where he was born. If he had been pointing a loaded gun at our men, what should they do? He gave up his citizenship rights. Now he no longer has those rights to hide behind.

Obama wants to Mirandize terrorists. Eric Holder wants to try them in federal court. I don't buy into that terrorist sympathizer psycho-babble.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join