Obama impeachment a possibility, says Ron Paul

Ron Paul said Monday that President Barack Obama’s targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki might be an impeachable offense. Asked at a Manchester, N.H. town hall meeting about last week’s killing of the American-born Al Qaeda leader, the Texas congressman said impeachment would be “possible,” but that he wants to know more about how the administration “flouted the law."

Paul called the killing a movement toward “tyranny.”

“I put responsibility on the president because this is obviously a step in the wrong direction,” Paul said. “We have just totally disrespected the Constitution.”

There has been talk recently on ATS about how Ron Paul's stance on this issue will make him un-electable. I disagree, and he is, as always, sticking to his guns. Any other candidate who may have had a slip of the tongue about the killing of Al-awlaqi would have immediately withdrew the statement, apologized, etc.

Ron Paul means what he says, and what he says means something.

He is the only candidate with not only a voter-base, but a base in reality and in his convictions.

Story here

I agree with Paul. This was a clear violation of our right to due process as American's. IMO, this creates a serious dilemma for the Right.

On one hand, they are gung-ho for killing of terrorists, but on the other they talk about the importance of the constitution. We have seen where their priorities lie, but at least RP sticks to the constitution and the rights of the people.

reply to post by kalunom


How is killing an enemy of the United States treason? Or how does it warrant impeachment?

“The death of al-Awlaki is a major blow to Al Qaeda’s most active operational affiliate,” Obama said at a military ceremony Friday morning in Arlington, Va. “The death of Awlaki marks another significant milestone in the broader effort to defeat Al Qaeda and its affiliates.”

www.politico.com...

Sounds like he was doing his job.

reply to post by TsukiLunar


Not trying to butt in, but this man was an American citizen and was never convicted of anything in the court of law. So any one of us can be labeled a terrorist, and then killed without any evidence being presented and being convicted by a jury of your peers.

I love the guy but unfortunately the "elections" are rigged and have been for many moons. The reason I have never and never will vote. Besides, by the time they got the charges and trial started it will be time for them to tell us who our new DICTATOR is

Sticking to your guns is not an admirable trait when you are wrong -- then it is just pig pigheadedness a smart man is not a pigheaded man. Along with the 1100 other terrorist killed on president Obama's watch -- this man was a sworn enemy of the USA -- he became that voluntarily presumabsly he knew the risks that decision involved - remember - personal responsibility.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by kalunom

 

How is killing an enemy of the United States treason? Or how does it warrant impeachment?

“The death of al-Awlaki is a major blow to Al Qaeda’s most active operational affiliate,” Obama said at a military ceremony Friday morning in Arlington, Va. “The death of Awlaki marks another significant milestone in the broader effort to defeat Al Qaeda and its affiliates.”

www.politico.com...

Sounds like he was doing his job.

Who was it today, Amanda Knox? She was up on murder charges...she was acquitted I believe. Ought we just to have killed her?

Or even O.J. Simpson, should we just have killed him as well?

Innocent until proven guilty? Who has proven Al-Awlaki guilty? The media? America needs to hold to it's high standard of justice. The president ought to exemplify that and he clearly did/has not.

I doubt it will mean impeachment, I mean the only two presidents have been impeached, one may or may not have been in the wrong(Andrew Jackson you can decided I don't really have an opinion on it). The other was because he was banging some chick, not for his corrupt policies but because he couldn't hide his affair. Really shows what Americans see in politics. A game show, poor bill got voted off the island. But hey that was back in the barbaric and unenlightened 90's? So times may have changed, I don't want to cynical or apathetic but some days its hard not to be.

I'll remain skeptical in till more than Dr.Paul is voicing his concern, love the guy but were still dealing with a populist that more or else doesn't care about politics. not entirely their fault though.

Hey it might just go somewhere, I'll keep a little hope in my pocket but not going to be holding my breath.

What is really scary to me is that if obama and others are clearly willing to violate the most supreme laws while the whole world watches, without any concern of what they have done, then what other things will they be willing to do? give free guns to the mexican cartels? ...oh, they did that already.....:

This fits the same analogy used to describe cop killers, and that if they were going to do that, they figured that person could commit any crime imaginable, so they hunt those people down real quick with extreme prejudice..

These un-american crooks should likewise be booted from office with extreme prejudice, as well as their msm enablers also punished.

This should even be bothering the most diehard obama supporters, because do they really believe he would never harm even them? He has already harmed you all very severely even if you don't realize it yet.

reply to post by sheepslayer247

Not trying to butt in, but this man was an American citizen and was never convicted of anything in the court of law.

I am pretty sure that when you openly betray the country and engage in terrorism(actual terrorism, he wasn't a protester or anything) against its citizens, you lose a lot of rights offered.

and then killed without any evidence being presented

There is plenty of evidence of his involvement in terrorism.

sorry to be the bearer of bad news but the current potus has done alot of things he should be impeached for.

the death of that dude wont change anything didnt for clinton he was "impeached" didnt lose his job did he?

sad to say its only wishful thinking the only way to get rid of the current potus without any problems whatsoever

is voting the dude out in 2012.

and yeah id love to see obama impeach wont ever happen

This thread is being derailed to the discussion of whether Americans who are attacking Americans can be killed in the battlefield. That is not clearly unconstitutional, but who knows what the Supremes will say?

I'm a little more interested in Ron Paul's position. It's too bad that it came up at a townhall, I wish he would have had a little more time to prepare. To say impeachment is "possible," and he wants to know more about it, makes me think he wasn't quite ready to declare a position.

Just about everything our president does is a movement toward tyranny. I get that part.

Did he really say "totally disrespected?" Like I said, too bad it was at a townhall where he had to say something quickly.

reply to post by kalunom

Innocent until proven guilty? Who has proven Al-Awlaki guilty?

Oh trust me, he has been proven guilty.

He went to war against the USA, he lost his life. That is it. I do not feel the slightest bit of sorry for him.

For the first time I am going to have to disagree with Ron in this case.

The man denounced his citizenship, he defected and by doing so he gave up his rights as an American. He got what he got.

Although, this is not a deal breaker for me, Ron still gets my vote. We can agree to disagree on this one.

reply to post by TsukiLunar

I'm sure he was doing a lot of things he should not have been doing. No doubt about it.But rights cannot be stripped from an American citizen just because they were "pretty sure". Gotta love that constitution!

There is plenty of evidence of his involvement in terrorism.

Was it ever taken to court and proven? That is the whole issue.

reply to post by charles1952
It is not derailing the thread when the entire reason RP made that statement was because the man was an American citizen.

reply to post by Skewed

We can agree to disagree on this one.

And ultimately i think this is the point. They just want to say "Paul is right" all of the time, it never occurs to them that he could be wrong some of the time.

Originally posted by charles1952
This thread is being derailed to the discussion of whether Americans who are attacking Americans can be killed in the battlefield. That is not clearly unconstitutional, but who knows what the Supremes will say?

I'm a little more interested in Ron Paul's position. It's too bad that it came up at a townhall, I wish he would have had a little more time to prepare. To say impeachment is "possible," and he wants to know more about it, makes me think he wasn't quite ready to declare a position.

Just about everything our president does is a movement toward tyranny. I get that part.

Did he really say "totally disrespected?" Like I said, too bad it was at a townhall where he had to say something quickly.

An American being killed in war is one thing. An American being targeted for assassination by a sitting president is a violation of that American's 5th Amendment protections.

/TOA

Originally posted by kalunom

Ron Paul said Monday that President Barack Obama’s targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki might be an impeachable offense. Asked at a Manchester, N.H. town hall meeting about last week’s killing of the American-born Al Qaeda leader, the Texas congressman said impeachment would be “possible,” but that he wants to know more about how the administration “flouted the law."

Paul called the killing a movement toward “tyranny.”

“I put responsibility on the president because this is obviously a step in the wrong direction,” Paul said. “We have just totally disrespected the Constitution.”

There has been talk recently on ATS about how Ron Paul's stance on this issue will make him un-electable. I disagree, and he is, as always, sticking to his guns. Any other candidate who may have had a slip of the tongue about the killing of Al-awlaqi would have immediately withdrew the statement, apologized, etc.

Ron Paul means what he says, and what he says means something.

He is the only candidate with not only a voter-base, but a base in reality and in his convictions.

Story here

One more dead terrorist courtesy of Obama, at least he's doing something right. G.W. Bush went 8 years and didn't scrag one of the top brass terrorists, in fact all he wanted was his daddy's oil well back, not to mention he had army intelligence brand the terrorists that flew into the trade center a legitimate threat and instead of acting on his intel he sat on his hands and did nothing while 3000+ people died. Pft, i think we've seen what republicans are all about. Obama may be a liar when it comes to everything else but the man knows how to order a hit on key terrorist threats.

reply to post by sheepslayer247

Was it ever taken to court and proven? That is the whole issue.

I am sorry, i wasn't aware we had to do that for enemy soldiers. He rejected his place in America, he wasn't American. He was an enemy leader that wants to hurt us and would not afford you the same courtesy.

reply to post by TsukiLunar

I would agree, if he actually did renounce his citizenship. He may have said it but never went through the process to formally "break-away" from the US. Therefore, his rights were still intact. In fact, he was considered a duel citizen.

If we only took someones words as proof of renunciation than many people on ATS would not have rights as a citizen either. See where that road is going?

renunciation of US citizenship process