Obama impeachment a possibility, says Ron Paul

I definitely do not think Obama will be impeached for this. However, it is unconstitutional. I am upset he is dead? No, what he did was terrorism. However, as an American citizen his rights were violated. He should only have been killed if he was sentenced to death by a jury of his peers or if he shot at the military, law enforcement, etc. We cannot pick and chose what laws and parts of the Constitution we follow and for what individuals we follow them for.

As for Paul, good for him. It is not pigheaded, as someone claimed, to sick to your guns. It is not like he is arguing 2 + 2 = 3. In his opinion, killing and American citizen is unconstitutional. Also, in the midst of a presidential race, he is not afraid to stand alone to back his belief. I'm not even a Paul supporter but to call someone pigheaded when they say, "impeachment would be “possible,” but that he wants to know more about how the administration “flouted the law.” is ridiculous. Paul is flat out admitting he is not completely educated on the topic and would like to know more before making an complete statement.

reply to post by TsukiLunar


I am repulsed by your un-Americanism. If you think the suspension of habeas corpus is right under ANY circumstance you are a traitor to this country, its values, and its Constitution. President Obama does not dictatorially decide who is a terrorist and who isn't. We the people will do that when we are selected to jury, as it should be.

USA spends trillions and trillions on military every year and cant bring a guy to court? Yeah this makes as much sense as Hussein, Bin Laden and the rest of the fairytale

reply to post by sheepslayer247

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?

Not really. Merely rejecting your citizenship wouldn't get you killed. If those members joined a terrorist organization and openly killed American citizens(or any innocent for that matter), i would still not feel the least bit sorry for them.

Ron Paul is all about taking responsibility. Obama took responsibility by killing terrorist leaders. al-Awlaki took responsibility by being killed.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
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

edit on 3-10-2011 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)

I do not disagree with your point. The paperwork is only a technicality to make it "legal", to this man he does not care what the laws are. He said what he meant, and to him that was the end of it whether we liked it or not. There was going to be no way he was going to fill the paperwork out. Then to further prove his statement, he left the country and was living elsewhere.

I am still going to have to say he does not get American rights.

reply to post by TsukiLunar

Merely rejecting your citizenship wouldn't get you killed.

I didn't say that. I think you're missing the point, or skirting the issue on purpose.

reply to post by Skewed
Key word: Legal.

We are a nation of laws and no matter what, his renunciation was not legal and therefore his rights were still intact. The government can only act based on a "legal" basis.

reply to post by sheepslayer247

We are a nation of laws and no matter what, his renunciation was not legal and therefore his rights were still intact. The government can only act based on a "legal" basis.

I dont get why you want to play semantics. This man was not American. He was a leader for the enemy.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by sheepslayer247

 

We are a nation of laws and no matter what, his renunciation was not legal and therefore his rights were still intact. The government can only act based on a "legal" basis.

I dont get why you want to play semantics. This man was not American. He was a leader for the enemy.

But he was a citizen. I don't care if you've murdered one man or you've murdered a hundred. You have a right to a fair trial! Our Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves at your asinine comments!

reply to post by sheepslayer247


I understand that, that is our point of view.

His point of view is he does not recognize himself as a US citizen. In his mind, right or wrong, he is no longer tied to the USA.

I suppose the real question is, who is right, what we believe or what he believes.

reply to post by TsukiLunar

Because this opens the door for potential future violations of rights of Americans based on a terrorist label. Its not about this one man. Its about the precedent it sets.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by TsukiLunar

 

Because this opens the door for potential future violations of rights of Americans based on a terrorist label. Its not about this one man. Its about the precedent it sets.

A frightening precedent to be sure. Especially with all the recent talk of home-grown terrorism and the lone-wolf scenarios. Soon we may see targeted killings of suspected terrorists on our own soil. No due process necessary.

This is no longer unimaginable and that is scary.

He should not be authorizing the assassination of American citizens, period. The slope is way too slippery, nevermind that it's outright wrong.

This country is so screwed.

reply to post by sheepslayer247

But he was a citizen

No he was not. He even said he was not.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
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.

So are you saying there was no evidence? Because it was pretty damn obvious....

Not to mention the whole traitor thing...

I mean.. Let's say some one is attacking the one you love most. You can stop them from hurting that person... Are you going to stop them or are you going to wait for a judge to walk by?

Also not to mention...He would not have been deemed an enemy and would still be alive had he not... You know... become hell bent on wanting to see the country destroyed and...working with alqeida and it's affiliates with the goal of destroying the United states and it's citizens and what not.... But I guess that does not matter...

You know what you should be upset about? Our soldiers being stuck in an unjust war.... Those that died? They are the ones who died unjustly.... Bitch about that.


^playing devils advocate before anyone jumps on my back too hard.

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


Finally someone who understands reality. Thank you, you Dirty Liberal Hippie.

reply to post by kalunom


Yeah I've also said that Obama should be impeached for this. Obamacare, Libya, and now an assassination of an American citizen? Does he even know what the Constitution is?

reply to post by TsukiLunar



So if al-cracker-U.S govt comes to your house and blows your family the f-#### would that then be a terrorist act.


Wow even the nazi of old had tribunals, this day and age we just chalk one up for the books without a second thought huh?

Op, i give huge kudos to Ron Paul, and thank you for placing this story

reply to post by allprowolfy

So if al-cracker-U.S govt comes to your house and blows your family the f-#### would that then be a terrorist act.

I wish you would be clearer about your point. It honestly makes no sense.

reply to post by TsukiLunar


Hmm, laymans terms, for fifth graders, ok. If our government would see fit for some god-forsaken reason that your family is an enemy combatant, and blew your house up with you and your family members in it, would that be justification for "terrorism?"

GET MY JIST?

reply to post by allprowolfy

If our government would see fit for some god-forsaken reason that your family is an enemy combatant, and blew your house up with you and your family members in it, would that be justification for "terrorism?"

The whole world decided(with mountains of proof and his own confessions) al-Awlaki was a terrorist LEADER. The government just doesn't label people as terrorist and then kill them. This man was dangerous and it would have probably cost lives to catch him(thats why they used drones).

Hmm, laymans terms, for fifth graders, ok.

Ah yes, well played. Go out of your way to insult someone who disagrees with you. Its funny that you say "fifth grader" cause around fifth grade was the last time someone insulted me in such un-warranted way.