Ron Paul's Editorial in the NY Daily News: An Unconstitutional Killing

I just came across this article written by Ron Paul shortly after the death of Awlaki:

An unconstitutional killing: Obama's killing of Awlaki violates American principles

He talks about the decision to assassinate an American citizen which was a direct violation of the 5th amendment.

Awlaki was a U.S. citizen. Under our Constitution, American citizens, even those living abroad, must be charged with a crime before being sentenced. As President, I would have arrested Awlaki, brought him to the U.S., tried him and pushed for the stiffest punishment allowed by law. Treason has historically been judged to be the worst of crimes, deserving of the harshest sentencing. But what I would not do as President is what Obama has done and continues to do in spectacular fashion: circumvent the rule of law.

Another thing he describes is the frightening admission made by Dennis Blair last year:

On Feb. 3, 2010, Dennis Blair, then the country's director of national intelligence, admitted before the House Intelligence Committee that [color=limegreen] "Being a U.S. citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives." This open admission by an Obama administration official, not even attempting to keep it classified or top secret, sets a dangerous new precedent in our history.

There's a poll on that article, and unfortunately for the Founding Fathers, only ~20% of people oppose his assassination and believe that Awlaki should have been tried in a court of law.
Only 1 in 5 people respect the Constitution enough to encourage that our president, who swears an oath to defend it, actually follows it. :shk:

I don't think it's a dangerous precedent, specifically because I don't really believe that this is a new thing.

Personally, if we truly are at war (which is debatable), then the Constitution doesn't really have to be fully in effect as evidenced by almost any serious war we've ever been in. That said, I disagree with Paul on this one and I've been supporting him since before most people have heard of him.

If we are at war, then kill the guy after removing his citizenship. Problem solved, and honestly most people around here know that I'm pretty non-violent, so I don't take this lightly.

Peace
KJ

Many people are blindly following these "rights to assassinate" that Paul is speaking out against. The principle of the thing is this:

If you have an argument with a homeland security "official" and they decide to classify you as a "terrorist", you can now be assassinated as a U.S. citizen without a trial, nada zip, ziltch, your life is over. The American people are blindly accepting it, it's that simple. All the govt has to do is say "terrorist" and people eat it like cake.

doesn't reading a conspiracy web site (like this one) constitute as terrorism in the leaflets handed out by the US government these days?

they'll be able to shoot you just for reading this reply!

All this proves is that Ron Paul is a terrorist sympathizer and hates the United States and the citizens of our great nation. He might as well just join Al Qaeda and stop the pretense.

reply to post by Wookiep


Yeah I can't remember where I read this, but the qualifications for "terrorists" nowadays are laughable. If you oppose any government policy, you are a terrorist. If you speak out against the government, you are a terrorist. If you eat at fast food restaurants, you are a terrorist. Nah obviously I'm exaggerating, but from what I remember of the list, based on some of the things on there, basically every person qualified as a terrorist. Has anybody seen the thing I'm talking about, and if so can you post it here?

reply to post by HauntWok


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ae308c87c959.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by TupacShakur

Yeah I can't remember where I read this, but the qualifications for "terrorists" nowadays are laughable. If you oppose any government policy, you are a terrorist. If you speak out against the government, you are a terrorist. If you eat at fast food restaurants, you are a terrorist. Nah obviously I'm exaggerating, but from what I remember of the list, based on some of the things on there, basically every person qualified as a terrorist. Has anybody seen the thing I'm talking about, and if so can you post it here?

Actually no, it doesn't.

It's spelled out very clearly in section 802 of the dreaded USA Patriot Act.

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

(a) Domestic Terrorism Defined.--Section 2331 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking ``by assassination
or kidnapping'' and inserting ``by mass destruction,
assassination, or kidnapping'';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'';
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
``(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are
a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or
of any State;
``(B) appear to be intended--
``(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian
population;
``(ii) to influence the policy of a government
by intimidation or coercion; or
``(iii) to affect the conduct of a government
by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;
and
``(C) occur primarily within the territorial
jurisdiction of the United States.''.

(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3077(1) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or
international terrorism as defined in section 2331;''.

www.gpo.gov...

The propaganda campaign the right wingers have thinking that EVERYONE can be called a terrorist is BS. They know it, and yet they keep perpetrating this malarkey.

Originally posted by HauntWok
All this proves is that Ron Paul is a terrorist sympathizer and hates the United States and the citizens of our great nation. He might as well just join Al Qaeda and stop the pretense.

So the guy that respects the Constitution to the fullest extent, even when it costs him popularity and votes is a terrorist, but the ones that ignore the Constitution and take the laws into their own hands are the patriots?

Odd logic you use there!

I have to admit, if I were President, I would take every opportunity to defend the nation at all costs, and I might make occasional mistakes. That is not the best outlook for a president. We have the rule of law for a reason, and we need a president willing to stand on moral grounds at all costs!

I support Ron Paul, and I agree with his stance, even though I empathize with Obama and the assassination, and I would likely have made the same decision, but I don't want a president like me, I want one better than me.

Originally posted by HauntWok
All this proves is that Ron Paul is a terrorist sympathizer and hates the United States and the citizens of our great nation. He might as well just join Al Qaeda and stop the pretense.

That is not true at all.

American citizens are protected under the Constitution. Period.

Deciding that some are guilty of crimes that nullify their Constitutional rights is a dangerous slope.

reply to post by HauntWok


Your 2001 source is outdated. While I had my information mixed up because I was speaking from memory, this document refers to Missouri specifically as opposed to the federal government as a whole.

Article. According to the Missouri Information Analysis Center's website,

"MIAC is the mechanism to collect incident reports of suspicious activities to be evaluated and analyzed in an effort to identify potential trends or patterns of terrorist or criminal operations within the state of Missouri.”

While the document doesn't explicitly state "these are signs of terrorism", it describes militias and their "political and anti-government rhetoric". I might be making a leap when I say these guys are being associated with terrorism, probably fueled by my conspiracy theorist side, but the organizations purpose is to report suspicious activities and potential terrorist threats. The document says some crazy things to look out for like supporters of Ron Paul or referring to the Constitution often.

The guy was a muslim engaged in violent Jihad in an effort to destroy American culture and replace it with Islam.

Paul is as wrong as can be on this. The individual killed was not an American, he was a muslim and a member of the Ummah.

Paul willingly sacrifices the Constitution to advance the cause of the Jihad. Foolish and dangerous.

reply to post by mike_trivisonno


Sorry bro, he was an American citizen despite the path he took. People are so brainwashed and clouded by the whole "brown scare" that they can't even see straight. The Constitution was violated here plain and simple. If you disapprove of what Awlaki did, you are just like every other American citizen, but that doesn't mean we should take a dump on the Constitution because Obama says he's bad and wants him dead.

reply to post by mike_trivisonno


If it was a Marine that made the decision to shoot him, fine. But it can't be the President deciding it is ok to assassinate Americans without a Trial. Suppose one of my posts on here are taken as a threat to the nation. Should they just snipe me from afar, or do I get a chance to defend myself in court?

I guess the loud main concern about the destruction of the terrorist is not about him, but rather how such acts will be used on political dissenters instead.

That terrorist had already long organised, taught, and supported death to humanity through his vows of Jihad, misuing a peaceful religion to suit his and his kind's nefarious aims. He had already declared war on mankind and had supported the murders of innocent for a terrifying decade.

He was a clear and present danger not only to americans, but to mankind itself. As he is an avowed combatant, he will be treated as one and suffer the consequences for his heinous designs.

But what about political dissenters? I sincerely doubt politicians or wannabe political actors would stoop to such barbaric levels as to declare war on humanity if he wishes to have a politcal career, unless of course he lives in dictatorships such as China, or the past Libya, or past Serbia, or burma, or african states,etc.

Most political dissenters only seek for peaceful revolution, for it is possible as past generations had led the way. It is only when the authorities declared war on dissenters, shooting them down, that bloodshed flow, as it rightfully should for no unarmed peaceful dissenter should be murdered for simply voicing out. And the authority will be the ones who becomes the terrorists and be hunted down and destroyed, as was what happened in Libya, and soon in Yemen and Syria.

Thus, organisers, or demostrators, MUST openly declared that they seek peaceful protest always. Should violence start and blood flow from their side, each must assist the authority to apprehend those culprits whom sought and thought violence is a solution, when the authorities had shown no violence.

The recent violent riots in UK had shown how a peaceful protest may turn violent, but yet those perpetrators of violence were identified and punished accordingly to law, while those who remained peaceful or had a couple of scuffles with the high handed authorities, were released the next day.

The real terrorists are the ones who declared war on humanity, and will not hesitate to kill innocents, such as the jihadists followers, the Norway killer types, and corrupt Libya Gaddafi followers, not the peaceful political dissenters or the down and out folks pleading for their leaders to listen up to their sufferings for once.

And constitutional laws make it very clear which category one falls in, if not logic and reason that the masses can comprehend and accept.

reply to post by TupacShakur


Again, the lack of understanding about Jihad, Islam, and exactly what it means to be muslim have you and Paul sacrificing the Constitution. Islamic culture is not a child of Greek thought. Islamic culture and the method by which it spread, Jihad, do not function or have the same goals as Western culture. Adherents to the Islamic faith/culture are instructed to convert all non-muslims...by force if necessary.

All Paul is doing is exhibiting a jubilant yet naive defense of a fellow "citizen" who has willingly renounced American citizenship, joined the Ummah, and engaged in violent Jihad against America.

reply to post by mike_trivisonno


He was still an American citizen regardless of his status. The 5th Amendment was violated, and it was unconstitutional. It's as simple as that.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by mike_trivisonno

 

He was still an American citizen regardless of his status. The 5th Amendment was violated, and it was unconstitutional. It's as simple as that.

So now it boils down your stubbornly held notion that being an american, an avowed jihadhist combatant, it gives him the immunity to teach, organise and lead the murders of innocent?

And if he is outside of American soil, protected by his personal army and guile that none can arrest him safely and bring him back for trial, gives him the impunity to continue his vowed neferious aims to destroy more of mankind?

The sacred Constitution protects every innocent American. But the founding fathers are not blind, nor will be blind to human nature of those whom uses his own free will to destroy humanity, more so one whom had terrified the nation with clear evidences for a decade.

The Constitution applies only to humans, but not to beasts,.

Let's see what Ron Paul has to say...

Under our Constitution, American citizens, even those living abroad, must be charged with a crime before being sentenced.

True, but irrelevant. Awlaki had not been sentenced to anything by any US court.

On Feb. 3, 2010, Dennis Blair, then the country's director of national intelligence, admitted before the House Intelligence Committee that "Being a U.S. citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives." This open admission by an Obama administration official, not even attempting to keep it classified or top secret, sets a dangerous new precedent in our history.

The use of the US military against US citizens is hardly novel. We have killed tens of thousands of US citizens in combat. Killing an enemy in combat--yes, this includes aerial bombardment--is not assassination, either. Blair should have been more careful with his language. And Paul's apparent confusion over classification does not fill one with confidence. He seems more concerned with the "open admission" of a long-standing legal truth than the fact truth.

The precedent set by the killing of Awlaki establishes the frightening legal premise that any suspected enemy of the United States - even if they are a citizen - can be taken out on the President's say-so alone.

A precedent established centuries ago when Washington ordered the Whiskey Rebellion insurgents to be taken out. But there is more than just the President's say-so now. The 2001 resolution, passed by an overwhelming majority of Congress, limits the use of force to Al Qaeda. The President may assert the power to attack citizens in other terror organizations, but I do not believe he has done so yet. Nor has Congress, for their part, amended the resolution to make citizens inviolable. Moreover, Congress can always propose a bill to defund any activity they don't like. They haven't done so--and they knew Awlaki was a target, probably longer than we did. Paul is minimizing Congress's role in the War on Terror's perceived excesses and putting all the blame on the President--de rigeur in an election season.

Part of the very concept of citizenship is the protection of due process and the rule of law.

The only law between belligerents is the law of war. Lincoln didn't send marshals to serve a warrant on every member of the Confederate Army. He sent the US Army to kill them until the survivors surrendered. That's all the due process you get when you forsake the responsibilities of citizenship and make war on the United States.

I don't trust Obama with determining what protections I should be allowed as a citizen any more than I trust him with our general defense, the economy, health care, job growth - or anything else.

I don't trust him, either, which is why I won't vote for him next year. But I won't diminish the powers of the office just because I don't like the office holder. The President, whoever he is, has the power to engage militarily or paramilitarily our enemies abroad, whoever they are.

Our current President may think he can go to war without consulting Congress as the Constitution demands he must, simply because he has determined that a nation like Libya needed our assistance.

The Constitution doesn't demand this. The War Powers Resolution does. The Constitution allows the President, and even the States, to go to war in a time of imminent danger. I don't think that applies to Libya, but that's a sticky question caught between the legal and political regimes, and no one in a black robe will touch it. The Constitution is silent on military operations other than war; that's where we have to look to the War Powers Resolution.

Serving justice is unquestionably necessary and important. But so is how it is served.

Military operations are not conducted in the name of justice. That is why we have a Department of Justice and a Department of Defense. They are separate activities. I don't want the Defense Department hobbled by appeals to justice, and I certainly don't want them adventuring around the world in a crusade to enforce justice. Until Paul can separate justice and national defense, he has no chance at getting my vote.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
If it was a Marine that made the decision to shoot him, fine. But it can't be the President deciding it is ok to assassinate Americans without a Trial.

Why not? The President is the commander-in-chief of the Marine. He is responsible for everything the Marine does. How can a Marine lawfully attack someone, but the Marine's CinC not have the authority to target that someone? That would mean the Marine has more authority than his commander-in-chief.

Suppose one of my posts on here are taken as a threat to the nation. Should they just snipe me from afar, or do I get a chance to defend myself in court?

It depends. Where are you? If you are in the United States, the armed forces cannot be used against you because of the Insurrection Act. Unless you happen to be engaged in insurrection and you refuse to disperse--but even then, you'd probably just get some CS gas. If you are outside the United States, the President would need specific statutory authorization to target you. Are you a member of Al Qaeda? If so, he has had that authorization since 2001. Otherwise, you would have to be an imminent threat, and he'd have to defend his decision to Congress under the War Powers Resolution. Do you think you are dangerous enough that the President would do that? If so, you really should reconsider your internet posting activities.