It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama impeachment a possibility, says Ron Paul

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 11:13 PM
I've run across an interesting article UPI Article dealing with this case. It brings up some ideas that I haven't seen mentioned yet.

Leftist critics of the administration policy say targeting Awlaki for death is simply "extra-judicial killing" -- execution without the involvement of a court.

Supporters of the policy say such critics have plumbed new depths of absurdity. Since when, they ask, have governments needed a court's permission to kill enemies during wartime, especially when that enemy is actively trying to kill a nation's citizens?

Government lawyers argue the case should be dismissed, saying the father has no legal right to file the suit when Awlaki could do so himself -- even though he is a fugitive in Yemen who says he doesn't recognize the authority of U.S. courts.

U.S. District Judge John Bates, appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush in 2001, seemed to have the same doubts about the grounds for the suit, ABC said.

"Why can't Anwar al-Awlaki simply emerge from hiding," he asked, "and have full access to the courts?"

Government lawyer Douglas Letter told Bates if Awlaki surrendered it would resolve the case.

A law professor at Rutgers but of Algerian descent, Bennoune said: "I support the important work the center has done on torture and extraordinary rendition, but I expressed grave concern at CCR offering to represent Awlaki's interests pro bono. Anwar al-Awlaki is not a detainee; he is still at liberty and able to gravely harm others by inciting and advocating murder."

Hope it helps.

posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 11:17 PM
The problem that many are having is that President Obama did indeed violate the spirit and letter of the law when the cleric was killed.

This cleric, Al-Awari, what exactly did he do that would justify his death? Was he personally responsible for someone else launching an attack against the US, or pick up a weapon and attack? After all, to all knowledge, he was until his death, still a citizen of the US, with all of the rights and protections under the law. There was no trial, no court of inquest, no grand jury findings, no presentation of the evidence that would be a matter of public record, just a cleric with a fiery rhetoric that spurred others to take actions.

Yet, when we first started the conflict in Afghanistan, a member of the US, John Walker Lidhn, the American Taliban, who stated he renounced his citizenship, was captured, after willfully picking up a weapon and firing on US troops, got 20 years.

Other people have often called for, even having their followers take matters into their own hands, have done such, and they were not sentenced to death without so much as benefit of a trial, so what makes this man so different?

The President crossed a line, and opened a door that should not have been opened. Every President since Nixon, has condemned and even forbidden through executive order assassination. Even Nixon, forbade the use of such against leaders of other countries, as it sets a dangerous precedence. There is now nothing to stop such actions from occurring on US soil by foreign powers, as they can use this one death as justifications as reason to go after dissidents that are seeking asylum on US soil and territory, and they would have no protections under the law.

If speaking out against the US is considered to be traitorous activities, without so much as a trial or the witnesses required by law, to prove that such occurred, then we are up the creek, cause any one of us could be considered such by the current actions of the President. His very actions sets in motion to allow for such to happen to those who would be on a list that we know about, but have no way of telling who is on the list, after all there are over 1 million people who are on the do not fly list, and how many of those would be marked for death by this government? Will voices of discord and descent be silenced, and we be forced into the darkness of fear, our very right to speak eroded by the possible penalty of death at the hands of the military or the CIA?

The answer must be no, and we should all condemn our leaders for allowing, if not admonishing the US President for allowing this to happen. We have laws, and among those are the very idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, and if there is no court, no charges, no presentation of evidence to justify this action. It was wrong to start with and wrong now, we can not allow for this to happen, against our own citizens.

posted on Oct, 3 2011 @ 11:41 PM
Since he is the one who gave the go ahead for the Fort Hood shooting I would like to know how soldiers feel about his right to a trial as a clear enemy of the United States.

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:05 AM
The supporters of fascism always fall back on the "but he needed killing" excuse.

Yes, yes, the guy was total scum and deserved to die. That is not the point. The point is that any one of us could be targeted and assassinated by the U.S. government under this policy, and that is a clear violation of the constitution.

I am a progressive who would not vote Republican in this election if a gun were held to my head, and I agree with Ron Paul -- Obama should be impeached for this.

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:42 AM
Some of you have bought this War on Terror, hook, line and sinker and it's
sickening to see so many Americans possessed with a foaming-at-the-mouth
blood-lust for these "terrorists."

I'm hearing Awlaki was behind the underwear bomber. Oh really? The same underwear bomber
escorted onto a plane by some unknown official, had no passport, with a "bomb" consisting of fireworks?

Now, Awlaki may have been a bad guy but we'll never know. All evidence is secret. Now tell me, if the case against Awlaki was so compelling why avoid US courts? Why not at least attempt to take him alive? This assassination was optional and the US government decided to be lazy.

And let's not forget his father trying to get an injunction for this assassination( can you believe such a thing!). His case was dismissed because the judge didn't want to get involved, saying it was an issue for the Executive or Legislative branch, a political matter in other words. Since when should the execution of an American be political? Oh, I forgot. Killing terrorists is SOP for post 9/11 re-election campaigns.

No, apparantly Awlaki, who probably couldn't even put on a pot of coffee because of the heat signature, had to go as he could easily bring our Empire to it's knees. So, Mr. President, the election is not far off....who else is on your list? Go F**K yourself.

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:44 AM
this is ron pauls death knell.

he is an idiot and this is the last nail in his run for prez.

look up john yoo.

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 01:47 AM
It's funny because me and my dad were arguing about this, because he knows I like Ron Paul. I believe if you are considered a "citizen" of the United States that you are allowed to have a fair trial. I can go back to Timothy McVeigh which was a citizen and yet a terrorist not of Middle Eastern descent, but still had a fair trial...
edit on 4-10-2011 by KonquestAbySS because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:39 AM
Personally, I'm very glad this guy is dead. He had it coming and that is that. The world is a better place without him out there somewhere, stealing my oxygen.

Having said that...Even Bin Laden had a 'Capture if possible, Kill if necessary' kind of order covering him. We all know how that turned out, but he made that choice and he DID have the choice by all reports. The point is, this guy was American and they didn't even try. That wasn't the point. This was 100% assassination from start to finish and Obama has been like a proud parent with a happy newborn in showing it off. Today the American that had to die by Presidential Decree was a scumbag who basically became the declared enemy of his native country.

Who is next though? That slippery slope is happening too often on too many things to be theoretical anymore. It's a very good reason to stop this dead in it's tracks before this insanity goes FURTHER. Clinton would have been taken out in leg irons for ordering the targeted assassination of an American Citizen without trial, charge or warrant.

Nothing that happened on 9/11 has changed our nation SO MUCH as to have suddenly made this acceptable now. Should I start worrying now for even having said that? I mean really....why stop at the U.S. border if outright assassination is perfectly acceptable and the definition of 'enemy' is constantly in flux?

Impeach Obama. Absolutely! It won't succeed, but the effort will tie him in knots until he can be kicked out in 2012.

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:44 AM
Reply to post by kalunom

People will stop at nothing to lynch our president, even when it comes to offenses like this.

Where was Ron Paul when the Bush administration had a part in Saddam's death? Feel free to point out anything that Paul might have said at the time.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:44 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

The world is a better place without him out there somewhere, stealing my oxygen.

Ok, I am going to take a piece of your quote and say "them".

The world is a better place without them out there stealing "our" oxygen.

We all live around some kind of gang activity aka local terrorism.
If al-awlaki is a U.S. citizen and had documentation to prove it then he is under our constitutional rights. Remember Ron Paul is all about our constitution.
edit on 4-10-2011 by KonquestAbySS because: stealing our oxygen

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:50 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Sorry Wrabbit, but aren't we told there's two sides to every story? Why are you glad this guy's dead, if like me, you know next to nothing about him ?

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 02:57 AM
reply to post by KonquestAbySS

I'll avoid cherry picking yours, especially since they're in order and both on the same page. If you'd quoted the next paragraph instead of the opening line of my post, it would be very clear we agree completely in that murdering a U.S. Citizen by Presidential Order is as wrong as it gets.

I'd have no problem if he'd died as part of a raid to try and capture him or Yemeni Authorities went and killed him in trying to arrest him. I have no problem with the foreign fighters we target daily without any attempt to capture. War is hell...they should have thought of that. It's probably the last thought of some of our soldiers as they die.

My problem isn't with the fact that a man who has basically made it his mission in life to publicly encourage and privately help plan and fully support lethal attacks against his own nation's civilian population is now dead. It's that he was an American...and as such, our Constitution does grant that fair trial and such. Every reasonable effort has to be made to uphold that, in EVERY case, without exception.

If we don't uphold our own principles and core values, as best we can, just what is it we're fighting to save or defend? The Constitution doesn't make exceptions when the case in question is a self declared and very enthusiastic enemy of the United States. If people think it should, then get an amendment passed and supported by the Super Court. Then it's Constitutional. That is how our system is SUPPOSED to work.

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 03:18 AM
reply to post by gimme_some_truth

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?

Apples and oranges my friend.

The difference is that the government knew where he was and could have sent people to take him in to custody. That is like saying, "if a cop happens to see somebody planning to assault someone should't they just kill them?" The answer is no. If they have proof he has done it before they are supposed to arrest him. If they can prove conspiracy to committ a crime then they can arrest for that as well.

In America people are supposed to have a right to trial by their peers. Jared Laughner is getting one. The so called twentyth 9-11 hijacker got one after admitting to guilt on many charges. The guys that bombed the WTC the first time got trials.

We either believe in justice or we don't. Because you either offer it to all or eventually someone finds a way to exclude you.

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 03:28 AM
reply to post by monkcaw

everyone knows about this dirtbag dude.

find out before you start defending him.

i'm glad he's been 86'd with the other moron and a bunch of their friends.

he didn't rob a store, he supports, councils and aids people we are at war with.

he gave it all up anyway. no way he would be brought back for a trial.

hey! you guys try it and see if your lawyer will go with you!

don't forget to be in the mideast and not san fran.

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 03:34 AM
This is ridiculous.

The President kills yet another Al-Qaeda scumbag and you call for his impeachment?!

Al-Qaeda are at war with the U.S. FACT
Whether this man was an "American" citizen or not, he was Al-Qaeda FACT

The President was doing his JOB, and personally I like the fact he doesn't worry about a technicality.

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 03:40 AM
Yes, Fooks, even Awlaki deserves a defense, otherwise, things tend to get a little one sided. Especially when the mighty US Government sets it sights upon a single person.

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 03:42 AM
reply to post by FOXMULDER147

kills yet another Al-Qaeda scumbag

Have you been in the loop lately, Al-Qaeda is the CIA Middle Eastern militia.

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 03:48 AM

Originally posted by monkcaw
Yes, Fooks, even Awlaki deserves a defense, otherwise, things tend to get a little one sided. Especially when the mighty US Government sets it sights upon a single person.

get an injunction for the hell-fire missiles.


you joke, right?

make sure your lawyer is sitting next to you.

what do you call 50,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

a good start.

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 03:56 AM
reply to post by fooks

And yes fooks, if you’re shooting hell-fire missiles which are known as precision weapons then of course you would have an idea that the target is in the vicinity. Obviously they knew where he was, so they could have done a Bin Laden style raid, and captured him alive, instead of obliterating an area with precision missiles.

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 04:09 AM

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
This is ridiculous.

The President kills yet another Al-Qaeda scumbag and you call for his impeachment?!

Al-Qaeda are at war with the U.S. FACT
Whether this man was an "American" citizen or not, he was Al-Qaeda FACT

The President was doing his JOB, and personally I like the fact he doesn't worry about a technicality.

So our constitution is a technicality to you? Rights of American citizens are just...what...guidelines? We'll see how your tune changes when the government-backed militarized police are stepping on your neck in the near future.


new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in