It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 4
54
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

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.



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?



I believe the right answer is, jump in and attempt to save the person you love -- possibly injuring or killing the attacker, and then being granted the same right to be judged in court on your own actions.

If you think on self defense or the defense of others you don't have to prove it was defense... you're nut so.

As such, Obama did what he THOUGHT he should do, and should be JUDGED according to what the people think is right.

That's all anyone is asking. That's what impeachment is. Judging whether or not the president was right in his call, and if he wasn't... he's no longer president.

Duh.




posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
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: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



So, you agree that al-Awlaki should have gotten a fair trial in the U.S.? Because you're comparing him to Saddam the non-American citizen. The Saddam that was actually tried in a court of law in his own despotic country. Glad you agree with us.

/TOA



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by KonquestAbySS
 


ya and cost me and you more money.


no thanks, he was marked as a dead man by his own hand.

it's over for him and sends the same message as these idiots that blow up a market full of innocent people of their own or westerners of HIS ilk.

ya, we can stoop that low. make no mistake. when they start playing by the rules, we have no problem.




f'em. dead, by gone see ya.

the only way they will take notice.


bring it on, as gwb said.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by kalunom
 


My concern is that it sets precedent for the legal assassination of a U.S. citizen without due process. What is this law? How is it decided fully and what are the determinations? The man killed was a bad man from what we are told. All accounts show him as a participant in terrorist activity. But what if my government decides if I don't agree with it and I happen on holiday somewhere that they want to assassinate me because my political view pose a so called threat to National Security? Does this law allow them that option? There are so many downfalls and implications here where such a thing can be abused. The terms of National Security and Sovereign self-defense are greatly abused and skewed here in my opinion.

So in the overall, it's not the fact that they killed a bad man doing bad things that concerns me, it is killing a citizen of my country who was not given his rights in accordance to our constitution. That could be You, me or anyone else residing in the U.S. if the government so desired it.

I am quite torn over this situation. Not sure which direction to go but it's scary.
edit on 4-10-2011 by Flint2011 because: typos again. I suck



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by fooks
 





bring it on, as gwb said.


Bad example.... George Walker Bush is the reason why we are fighting over there, he paved the way for what his dad never accomplished. Costing us tax dollars over delusional factions that the U.S. designed...



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
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.


dude,

john walker was found out after the fact.

he was captured in battle.


no one knew him like al walki.

he was a schmuck that was lucky he wasn't buzzard food and no one would have known him if he was blown away.

i don't like my money going to these asshats and their lawyers. they don't pay for this, get it?

ever wonder how much that costs you?

naw, just bitch about how much the wars cost.

ron paul is another idiot, i wouldn't trust him with my dog, let alone my country.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
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.


At first it was, "we have to get the Taliban out of Afghanistan because they let Al Qaeda set up camps." Then it was, "we have to stay in Afghanistan to keep Al Qaeda from coming back." Then it was, "Sadam has ties to Al Qaeda. We have to get rid of him." Next we heard, "Pakistan has let Al Qaeda run free on it's border we need to use drones over there." Don't forget that all the while Iran was supposedly link to Al Qaeda fighters every where fighting against American troops. We also blew up people in other Middle East countries under the guise of fighting Al Qaeda.

Then the truth came out. Well not exactly the truth but it became obvious to those watching that we weren't getting 1/10th of the story. Rebellions started popping up all over the Middle East it was the spring/summer of great hope according to many in the media. Yet, America kept a safe distance. It wasn't our fight said the president and his administration. Then a rebllion started in Libya.

America has a long and sordid history with Libya. Part of that history includes repeatedly trying to kill the leader of the country. We've been trying to murder the man for decades. We never succeeded. Yet when a popular rebellion started we saw our chance to get the same result and took it. We called him crazy when he said Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda was involved.

Later we admitted that in deed some of the leaders did have Al Qaeda ties. These guys were died in the wool islamic fundamentalist that hate America. At least that is what they are if we listen to the rhetoric. However our government supplied Al Qaeda operatives with hundreds of millions worth of arms and air support. We basically aided Al Qaeda in taking over a country. Isn't the whole purpose of us being in the Middle East supposedly to stop that very thing from happening?

The story doesn't add up. If Al Qaeda equals evil why did we give them a country? If we are fighting to stop them from spreading hatred and death, why give them guns? If their operatives hate us so much that their existence is a threat to our way of life why arm them, give them safe haven, and give them diplomatic ties to the rest of the world?

Libyan Commander Admits His Fighters Have Al Qaeda Links

Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime.



Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against "the foreign invasion" in Afghanistan, before being "captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan". He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008.


Night Line - Nightmare in Libya

Currently the U.S. State Department has one official on the ground in Libya, as well as five contractors who specialize in "explosive ordinance disposal", all working with the rebel Transitional National Council to find the looted missiles, White House spokesperson Jay Carney told reporters.


Yeah because a bunch of Al Qaeda rebels are going to lead the US officials right to the weapons.


"I myself could have removed several hundred if I wanted to, and people can literally drive up with pickup trucks or even 18 wheelers and take away whatever they want," said Bouckaert, HRW's emergencies director. "Every time I arrive at one of these weapons facilities, the first thing we notice going missing is the surface-to-air missiles."



"I think the probability of al Qaeda being able to smuggle some of the stinger-like missiles out of Libya is probably pretty high," said Richard Clarke, former White House counterterrorism advisor and now a consultant to ABC News.



How Al Qaeda Got To Rule Tripoli

Abdelhakim Belhaj, aka Abu Abdallah al-Sadek, is a Libyan jihadi. Born in May 1966, he honed his skills with the mujahideen in the 1980s anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan.


Wow seems like our old friends keep popping up again and again. People look around you. The story does not add up. A guy that might be involved in an underwear bombing attempt deserves murder. Yet, thousands of other Al Qaeda rebels deserve a country from which to launch Jihad? Either the stupidity is monumental or we're being played for fools.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
So our constitution is a technicality to you? Rights of American citizens are just...what...guidelines?

This man being an "American" is a technicality. In what other sense could you call this man an American?

When you're at war and you side with the enemy, you lose your rights I'm afraid.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 





If we are fighting to stop them from spreading hatred and death, why give them guns?


Because without it we would be broke. I am sorry to say but we are America, and we are a top weapons manufacturer . Our country is built for war, and providing others with weaponry. We give them guns, because in the end we would have a reason to fight.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

Originally posted by The Old American
So our constitution is a technicality to you? Rights of American citizens are just...what...guidelines?

This man being an "American" is a technicality. In what other sense could you call this man an American?


A legal, constitutional one maybe? Just sayin'.

Out of curiosity, was Tim McVeigh an American to you, or was that just a technicality? How about Charles Manson? Henry Lee Lucas? They committed many more atrocities (committed by their own hands) than al-Awlaki did. Yet they got trials in an American court of law. And every one of them was an enemy of America.

/TOA



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:15 AM
link   
Ok, so what i am getting from all this is as follows. The majority of this thread would have rather sent US military troops into his compound possibly costing multiple American lives and still having the same result one less "bad" guy? Or we could negate the loss of American lives by dropping a hellfire on his head, it seems like a logical choice for me. Even one more dead American on this guys hands would of been one more to many why risk it?

Now onto the "slippery" slope, its simple dont defect from the United States and start helping known terrorist groups plan and or carry out the mass murder of Americans or any other nationality and you wont have a problem.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 

None of those you mentioned ever declared war on the U.S.A., or were part of a group which did.

That is the difference that you, and many others, seem to be struggling to grasp.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by spyder550
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.
edit on 3-10-2011 by spyder550 because: (no reason given)


Doesn't mean he does not have a right to fair trial.

Imo it raises a good point, impeachment can be very possible as the same thing happened with Osama.

Not saying I would condone their actions, but trial is necessary for the accused.
edit on 4-10-2011 by prolific because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by crimsongod21
 





The majority of this thread would have rather sent US military troops into his compound possibly costing multiple American lives and still having the same result one less "bad" guy?


Wow, really? Navy Seals work in small squads not battalions or regiments not even divisions!. That's why we got special ops forces to do things others can't accomplish while working in small squads. I highly doubt we would of lost anyone if a Seal team 6 like team was used.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147
reply to post by The Old American
 

None of those you mentioned ever declared war on the U.S.A., or were part of a group which did.

That is the difference that you, and many others, seem to be struggling to grasp.


Think so, huh? Here's what Tim McVeigh thought (emphasis mine):

Tim McVeigh


A man with nothing left to lose is a very dangerous man and his energy/anger can be focused toward a common/righteous goal. What I'm asking you to do, then, is sit back and be honest with yourself. Do you have kids/wife? Would you back out at the last minute to care for the family? Are you interested in keeping your firearms for their current/future monetary value, or would you drag that '06 through rock, swamp and cactus...to get off the needed shot? In short, I'm not looking for talkers, I'm looking for fighters...And if you are a fed, think twice. Think twice about the Constitution you are supposedly enforcing (isn't "enforcing freedom" an oxymoron?) and think twice about catching us with our guard down – you will lose just like Degan did – and your family will lose.


After his murders he wrote:


To these people in Oklahoma who have lost a loved one, I'm sorry but it happens every day. You're not the first mother to lose a kid, or the first grandparent to lose a grandson or a granddaughter. It happens every day, somewhere in the world. I'm not going to go into that courtroom, curl into a fetal ball and cry just because the victims want me to do that.


Both of those could've been written by the American citizen al-Awlaki. They were his sentiments. al-Awlaki didn't formally declare war on the U.S. and neither did McVeigh. It wouldn't have mattered if they did anyway because neither al-Awlaki or McVeigh are sovereign nations. But both had the same goals in mind. But one was a white guy and one wasn't. Naturally the white guy, who personally committed murder by his own hand, was given a trial by jury. The Yemeni was targeted for assassination.

So was he a citizen, or wasn't he? There is no middle ground here. He was/he wasn't. Legally, he was. Therefore, the laws of the U.S. apply to him, and our president willfully went against the 5th Amendment of the very Constitution he swore to protect and defend, against enemies foreign and domestic. The problem is that enemies domestic are supposed to get a trial because of the "due process" clause.

I'm pretty sure I'm not the one here struggling to grasp anything.

/TOA



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   
This thread is full of those who cant tell the difference between an American citizen and a leader of a terrorist organization(you know, the kind that wont hesitate to kill you).

Its almost as if you guys think he would have just turned himself over to our troops.


edit on 4-10-2011 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

Originally posted by The Old American
So our constitution is a technicality to you? Rights of American citizens are just...what...guidelines?

This man being an "American" is a technicality. In what other sense could you call this man an American?


A legal, constitutional one maybe? Just sayin'.

Out of curiosity, was Tim McVeigh an American to you, or was that just a technicality? How about Charles Manson? Henry Lee Lucas? They committed many more atrocities (committed by their own hands) than al-Awlaki did. Yet they got trials in an American court of law. And every one of them was an enemy of America.

/TOA


did you just have a stroke?

lol!

were these guys caught here in the us?

they were criminal acts, not acts of war.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by KonquestAbySS
 





I highly doubt we would of lost anyone if a Seal team 6 like team was used.


And you can see into alternate futures? There was a good chance someone on our side might have died. To say that our troops weren't at risk is absurd.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by fooks

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by FOXMULDER147

Originally posted by The Old American
So our constitution is a technicality to you? Rights of American citizens are just...what...guidelines?

This man being an "American" is a technicality. In what other sense could you call this man an American?


A legal, constitutional one maybe? Just sayin'.

Out of curiosity, was Tim McVeigh an American to you, or was that just a technicality? How about Charles Manson? Henry Lee Lucas? They committed many more atrocities (committed by their own hands) than al-Awlaki did. Yet they got trials in an American court of law. And every one of them was an enemy of America.

/TOA


did you just have a stroke?

lol!

were these guys caught here in the us?

they were criminal acts, not acts of war.



al-Awlaki wasn't the leader of a nation. Individuals declaring war on the U.S. happens all the time, even by American citizens. Yet they haven't been targeted for assassination. I get the feeling that the only way you leftists would consider him an American citizen is if he had come over here illegally and given a path to citizenship.

/TOA



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 





Individuals declaring war on the U.S. happens all the time, even by American citizens.


Declaring war and carrying out acts of war are two different things. I suggest you differentiate.



Yet they haven't been targeted for assassination.


Probably because they weren't leaders of a terrorist organization. Differentiate.




I get the feeling that the only way you leftists would consider him an American citizen is if he had come over here illegally and given a path to citizenship.


Not even then.



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join