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: 7
54
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweetliberty

Originally posted by kalunom
Here is a video I found showing Herman Cain being questioned about Al-Awlaki. In the video Herman Cain says that he, as an American citizen, should be charged, tried, and brought to justice.

So it is not just Ron Paul who thinks this way.



I'm so proud of Ron Paul and Herman Cain for speaking out against killing American citizens without due process. I hope more will realize just how troubling this is to all Americans.
We need more public figures speaking out against this.
A couple of friends at work are Obama supporters simply "because he's black"! They support anything Obama does regardless of what it is. Thats pathetic and I hope I never fall into that kind of thinking with anyone I might support for potus.
I have to wonder about that homegrown terror list and just how long it is.
This is a very serious and scary subject that shouldn't be excused.


That particular clip is from my show here on ATS, The Truth Is Viral, and it has gone viral around the conservative blogosphere. From The Atlantic to The Right Scoop, and The Daily Paul, my ugly mug is showing up everywhere. I haven't seen it yet, but I heard it was on last night's Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano.

Here is the full, uncut interview with Herman Cain and Gov. Gary Johnson.

(click to open player in new window)


What's causing the renewed interest in the video is Cain's statement in May that he felt targeting a-Awlaki was illegal and unconstitutional, which is exactly the opposite of what he told a TeaCon rally over the weekend when he told them he supported Obama's decision to assassinate al-Awlaki. So which is it?

Ron Paul is the only candidate I can think of who never flips on anything. His position 30 years ago is still his position today, and if he does change his mind about something he has a damn good reason.

I might get the chance to ask Cain what caused his change of heart sometime this week. Keep your fingers crossed.
edit on 10/4/2011 by OldCorp because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/4/2011 by OldCorp because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
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.


Sorry I am not going to trust you.

Please show us the court docket in which this American Citizen was found guilty of any crime at all.

Feel free to take your time.... I'll wait



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 

He was a legitimate military target, American or not. Simple as that.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Have I entered Bizarro world or something?

The very same people on ATS who are/were against the unconstitutional actions of Bush are now supporting the unconstitutional actions of Obama?


WTF is this?

I don't even …


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Reply to post by NoAngel2u
 


You have to be convicted in a trial to lose rights.

So where and when was this trial, as was his right.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by seachange
Even in a war, you give your enemy an opportunity to surrender when on the battlefield.

This isn't true. If an enemy surrenders, you are required to accept it. But you don't have to give them an opportunity to surrender. Surprise attacks are lawful. Warnings are only required in certain circumstances where civilians would be put at risk. (Rule 20.)


There is some evidence he may have been an enemy (though nothing solid that I've seen). But even if I accept that evidence, where is the evidence that he was given the opportunity to surrender on the battlefield? Did the military phone home and say: "Hey, we're about to send over a missile to kill you. This is your last chance to surrender. Yes or No?" I'd like to hear the audio of that.

There is no requirement that an enemy be given an "opportunity to surrender on the battlefield." Awlaki could have surrendered at any point before the UAV made contact and turned his local real estate into a battlefield. He could have surrendered to any police officer after a Yemeni court convicted him. He could have surrendered when Yemeni forces surrounded his village and tried to negotiate a surrender; instead of going with them, he had his tribesmen fire on them while he escaped. He could have driven to the nearest US embassy or consulate at any time and surrendered himself to the US. But he does not get a phone call asking him to surrender when a weapons system is pointed at him.


You could say that the so-called terrorist was involved in war against the United States. Congress is the branch of the government that authorizes war. So, I challenge anyone who thinks this was an act of war to point to the passed piece of legislation authorizing war against him in specific.

PL 107-243



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Never thought I'd stand up for Obama but this guy was a terrorist; a military combatant. In WWII if an American citizen sided with Germany and was plotting against us in Berlin, taking him out is completely justified.

Ron Paul is wrong here.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
These types of statements are why Ron Paul will never be elected to office. This was a MILITARY opperation and as comparison....if you are say...a member of the U.S. Army or Marines...and you are ordered to charge a hill...and a soldier in the middle of battle...turns around and runs the other way....by Military Codes of Justice....it is PERFECTLY LEGAL FOR AN OFFICER TO SHOOT DEAD THIS SOLDIER FOR DISOBEYING ORDERS IN A BATTLE OR FOR COWARDICE.

Now...in this case...an American has become a traitor and is actively running operations that have or can inflict casualties on American Soldiers or Civilians. It is PERFECTLY LEGAL for this TRAITOR to be killed.

Ron Paul has made a grave miscalculation in making this statement and although a criminal actions punishment should be governed by the Bill of Rights....a man who is shot dead by a police SWAT team....because he has claimed to be holding a trigger to a bomb that will kill citizens....even if he is unarmed....is performing an act that allows his death by any means possible....this is how this arguement must be looked at.

Split Infinity



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Robbnn
 

Incorrect...we have not declared war since WWII and even during war people do have the right to a trial by jury!
During WWII when we captured Nazis and American traitors, they were executed. But not before they had their day in court...even if it was a military court!
OMG what have we become if we stand by the same ideals as the other countries who have no freedom, no constitution or bill of rights?
And BTW, isn't this the same guy who was attending luncheons at the Pentagon less than 6 months after 911?
What's this sites motto? Deny Ignorance?



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by FOXMULDER147
 


Was he an American citizen?



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
He was as American as Curry Goat Nuts Pie...but nonetheless, he was an American citizen with the same rights we have...scary thought when you think about it.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by maddog99
reply to post by Robbnn
 

Incorrect...we have not declared war since WWII and even during war people do have the right to a trial by jury!
During WWII when we captured Nazis and American traitors, they were executed. But not before they had their day in court...even if it was a military court!
OMG what have we become if we stand by the same ideals as the other countries who have no freedom, no constitution or bill of rights?
And BTW, isn't this the same guy who was attending luncheons at the Pentagon less than 6 months after 911?
What's this sites motto? Deny Ignorance?


There is a difference between due process by arrest of a criminal and BATTLEFIELD CONDITIONS. Was this guy walking in a Mall in the United States? Was he minding his own buisness shopping in a Grocery Store? NO!

He was in a car in Yemen with another admitted terrorist as he himself has bragged that he is a terrorist and calls for the death of Americans. He is a TRAITOR! Even if his only crime was to encite and enlist Terrorists and terrorism during battlefield opperations....HIS DEATH IS JUSTIFIED BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!
Split Infinity



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
These types of statements are why Ron Paul will never be elected to office. This was a MILITARY opperation and as comparison....if you are say...a member of the U.S. Army or Marines...and you are ordered to charge a hill...and a soldier in the middle of battle...turns around and runs the other way....by Military Codes of Justice....it is PERFECTLY LEGAL FOR AN OFFICER TO SHOOT DEAD THIS SOLDIER FOR DISOBEYING ORDERS IN A BATTLE OR FOR COWARDICE.


Yes, and you sign a contract giving up your Constitutional rights when you join the military.

Apples and oranges.


Now...in this case...an American has become a traitor and is actively running operations that have or can inflict casualties on American Soldiers or Civilians. It is PERFECTLY LEGAL for this TRAITOR to be killed.


I am sorry. Do you have a docket number where he was convicted as a traitor?



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity

There is a difference between due process by arrest of a criminal and BATTLEFIELD CONDITIONS.


Where is that stated in the Constitution?



Was this guy walking in a Mall in the United States? Was he minding his own buisness shopping in a Grocery Store? NO!


And then?


He was in a car in Yemen with another admitted terrorist as he himself has bragged that he is a terrorist and calls for the death of Americans.


Okay. Even after all that, he is still an American citizen.


He is a TRAITOR!


Again, may I please see the court papers convicting him of such?

Should be easy enough to find on justia.com


Even if his only crime was to encite and enlist Terrorists and terrorism during battlefield opperations....HIS DEATH IS JUSTIFIED BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!
Split Infinity


Calm down there bucko. It is quite scary that someone who is on a site all about denying ignorance has such blood-lust for the unconstitutional killings of American citizens.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Oh, by the way. Put this in your pipe and smoke it:


--Enemy combatants do have rights to due process as affirmed by the SCOTUS in Hamdi v Rumsfeld (2004)--




or how about this one . . .




“When the United States acts against its citizens abroad, it can do so only in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution, including Art. III, § 2, and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments." --Reid v Covert (1957)--



edit on 10/4/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/4/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   
See all you people who say, "he's a terrorist..kill him!" are no better than the church during the Salem Witch Hunt!
Did this guy deserve to die? Probably, but you miss the point. The point is today we can kill an American citizen abroad because the CIA says he's a terrorist. Tomorrow, they'll drag your family out of your home and execute them because? Well, you can fill in the blanks because that's what we've been good at since the Patriot Act!



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 

Bravo!
Line 2



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Here is what people are missing. Every American has the right to due process, but if you are wanted and are hiding in a country where the US cannot find you then you are abusing your rights. Especially, if are wanted for being involved in terrorist activities.

This does not mean that you can be labeled a terrorist and killed. There is a huge difference between someone who is suspected of terrorism being taken in to argue their case and someone who hides in another country avoiding detection. If you are accused of a crime and can't be taken in which would happen in the US, a country in good relation with the US or even a country trying to work the the use, turn yourself in. Work out the issue and get on with your life. However, if your are actively avoiding being taken in, that falls outside of what due process was originally intended to be.

As for Ron Paul, this case is obviously a kink in the system. Maybe he should be more worried about finding a reasonable way to deal with cases like this, rather than talking about impeaching the man who solved the problem.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
It was completely illegal. Anyone who says otherwise is just not grasping the concept of reality.

There was no trial for Al Awlaki. He was not found guilty and therefore still had rights.

Show me the evidence that found he was guilty.

Uneducated person; But this is war and he was a military target!!!11one!1

Then show me the declaration of war.



posted on Oct, 4 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by kalunom
 


The " Fast and Furious " Scandal Alone is a Impeachable Offense IMO if the President and the Attorney General knew beforehand that this Opperation was to be put in place . Why this Scandal hasen't been given more Attention by Congress is BEYOND Me.........



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join