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: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:22 AM
I hear people saying "The constituition this" and oooh man "Our founding fathers would be rolling in their graves" ... really? Cause I doubt they would. If an American declared war on America and started killing Americans, I'm pretty sure they'd hang that person on the spot. The way I see it this is all just semantics.

And the purpose of a "fair trial" is to give a person a chance to plead their innocence.
Do you think for a second he would plead "not guilt?"
and would it matter even if he did?
edit on 5-10-2011 by xEphon because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:35 AM
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

Nope...Congress has already declared through laws that if you are a terrorist or any treason act the U.S. can kill you. So there you go they obeyed Article III and created the punishment. You Do NOT need a trial when you are not on this land. are considered a person on another and committing treason and trying to cause harm to its citizens and basically you are declaring WAR against your own country. Therefore, you are now a casualty of WAR.

You cannot win on this argument as it has been well established within treason since the dawn on mankind.

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:41 AM
Lastly, I will add this to this thread. If you feel strongly enough that this is incorrect of the U.S. government to not go along with article III. Then I suggest to you take it up with the U.S. Supreme court and have your argument heard there. I warn you though that this issue has been brought up before twice to the U.S. Supreme court and they have decided twice they will not interfere with acts of treason nor will they ever try to interpret what a detailed definition of treason would be. They have also expressed that they will not interpret what a casualty of WAR is in no circumstance as it relates to treason.

They have also expressed as of last week they will not hear any type of measure like this. They said take it up with your local District courts as you cannot open it at the supreme court level. What they are telling lawyers is it will be defeated in the end so don't try.

So good luck on your quest to a body that won't hear you.

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:43 AM
Reply to post by xEphon

The law of the land is semantics.

Got it.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:45 AM
Reply to post by TWISTEDWORDS

Yes. They laid down the punishment.

There still has to be due process.

That pesky Constitution. Please show me where it gives government the right to ignore due process.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:04 AM

Originally posted by kalunom

There has been talk recently on ATS about how Ron Paul's stance on this issue will make him un-electable.

I don't know about "unelectable", but he sure lost my vote with that pronouncement of a detachment with reality - and he had only recently gained it!

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:04 AM
People seem to miss the fact that when the constitution was written, mass murder by one person with a click of finger, mass communication to mass amounts of people via the web, and various other technological ways to avoid being detained were non-existent. I guarantee if the founding fathers foresaw what was to come technologically, the constitution might have been written a little bit differently. (emphasis on the LITTLE BIT part).

I can't even believe I see people arguing over this. He was a terrorist leader who was the mastermind of planning attacks that could potentially kill you or your loved one (literally), and instead of praying that he is no longer a threat to your safety you cry about his rights being violated? For years I have read without posting any of my thoughts on this forum, but reading things like this make me sick to my stomach.

I also find it amusing how many of the defendants of this man are trying to use the pathetic 'snowball' fallacy that if one of the most dangerous men in the world that was a major threat to a large population was killed illegally because they had an open window of finally doing so, then this will lead to all of the citizens who have no threat to the major public to lose all of their rights.

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 02:55 AM
i just got to put this out there, i rarely log on to say anything.

if everyone's agrees that this guy deserved to die unconstitutionally because the MSM "says" he was a terrorist and put pictures of him on television with a turban as steriotypical terrorist images, then yall are just suckered into the MSM trickery. hardly anthing they say on the MSM is true and has obvious hidden agenda. for all we know this man isn't even a real person and this is just OBAMA PROPOGANDA for the next election. MSM freedom of speech used against you. and ironic how they use their constitutional freedom to mislead you using a story that is ultimately unconstitutional. ron paul knows the MSM is bs. that's why he tries so hard to stay true and not be misleading. he knows what he says harms his election, but as you all know the MSM is always trying to discredit him, and they used this obama propoganda to their advantage against ron paul. don't be suckered by them you guys. it's like cheering on our government for taking our rights away in front of our eyes. the "terrorist" deserved a trial, whether he was AMERICAN or not BECAUSE that is the AMERICAN thing to do and humans make mistakes. for all we know MSM is protecting obama and lying that the fool is a terrorist or even framing him. hence the reason trials and courts are needed to protect us from bs like that. last thing i gotta say is, nothing is that simple and theres always a way bigger picture that everyone can't see.

P.S. ron paul seems a genuine and good man. but even i don't completely trust everything i see about him on media, he could be a trick within a trick lol

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 03:37 AM

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
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:

I'll tell you what it is: it's called "supporting your party affiliations no matter what". Also, leftists don't really care about silly things like "rights" or "liberty". Those things get in the way of justice. I mean, so what if this guy was a citizen? He was a Bad Man. And Bad Men get what they deserve, right?

Well, unless they're actually in prison on death row (having been convicted in a court of law, even!). Then they're to be pitied and it's shameful for us to put them to death just because they murdered 10 people on a subway, or raped a 6 year old girl. That was just a mistake and, seriously, haven't they paid enough to society?

Consistency has never been an identifier for the left.


posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 04:45 AM

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by kalunom

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.

you sound like you're repeating talking points from o'reilly or hannity. "he was a terrorist and he deserved to die without a trial"

it won't be long before you hear the same things about your neighbors down the street who are vocal about real government reform. what will you say then?

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 04:49 AM
reply to post by xEphon

And the purpose of a "fair trial" is to give a person a chance to plead their innocence.

how wrong you are. a fair trial is about proving someone guilty, not assuming they're guilty.

but he was part of al CIAda and knew things that the government wouldn't want coming up in a trial. the government is clinging to the last straws of fear from 9/11 and they definitely would have wanted a drawn out, scripted trial to reignite some fresh anger/fear.

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 05:07 AM
Since when is killing anyone a good thing. Especially someone who has'nt even been found guilty. Just because they say he is dangerous then that gives the right to kill him? If that is the case then the very government who issues the orders would themselves be killed. Tthey blatantly ruin peoples lives and walk away free to carry on killing people all over the world. All in the name of terror!!! Bollocks. Our own rulers are the terrorists. Anyone who promotes killing needs to take a long hard look at themselves, and start to wonder why they have been conditioned that way.

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 05:26 AM
everyone should be entitled to the process of law. None should be above or below it... What is happening in the USA is setting a very dangerous precedent...

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 05:49 AM

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.

Apparently Obama isnt american either , Legally , and he is killing people with his say so !
didnt he also have the right to send anyone to gitmo without due process !
wasnt an executive order passed so that the Potus had the power to send anyone there without trial on his say so !

that is cleary illegal and unamerican

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 05:56 AM
reply to post by caladonea

thats just it though , america is not at war , and hasnt declared a legal war against any nation, Armed conflict against terror cells yes , armed conflict against supposed evil dictators yes !

no legally granted right by congress to engage in war with another sovereign nation!

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 06:06 AM
I cant believe it , Al Megrahi had killed american citizens or was alleged to have killed american citizens in a terrorist attack in lockerbie , Im sure you all remember that !

He was given a trial , although it was never really conclusive that he indeed actually executed the attack.

Anyways the point is , terrorists are given trials , this man wasnt all he was blamed for was
exercising his freedom of speech and also reqcruiting people into a known terror cell.
Yet he was never convicted of said crimes in a US court as a US citizen!

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 06:20 AM

Originally posted by SteveZ

I also find it amusing how many of the defendants of this man are trying to use the pathetic 'snowball' fallacy that if one of the most dangerous men in the world that was a major threat to a large population was killed illegally because they had an open window of finally doing so, then this will lead to all of the citizens who have no threat to the major public to lose all of their rights.

Well teh US citizens are a threat to the government and their way of life , so yes , this could be used in a snowball way to limit the rights of americans .
Seriously pay attention to things like this happening , first its your internet rights ( anonymous) , next its your right to protest ( occupy) , political assassinations by the president , on anyone who he deems as a threat , that means you and your family , should you speak out against them !

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 08:35 AM

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?

If someone told me that your dad was helping Al Qaeda to kill American soldiers and I told a reporter and he wrote and article and other media outlets picked up the story, all of a sudden your dad is an enemy of the United States.

Can we assassinate your dad?

It's called Due Process. Look it up. You might learn something. It exists so that dad's are not assassinated without being proven guilty in a court of law ... or at the very least a Military Tribunal (and I'm not so sure I'd trust even them to exonerate a citizen).
edit on 5-10-2011 by tyranny22 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 08:53 AM
reply to post by SteveZ

All that talk . . .

And you are correct. They did not even have an inkling of a thought of mass murderers. But they did give us the ability to change the Constitution through amendments.

So what does the Constitution say?
edit on 10/5/2011 by Lemon.Fresh because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 12:00 PM
reply to post by OldCorp

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.

Thank you for the update. I remember watching your interview months ago, this subject creeps me out. My brother used to tell to me about this but it was from books he read, not real-time.

There is no doubt many fingers are crossed for you to have the opportunity question Mr. Herman Cain on his (hopefully) final answer/opinion pertaining to the assassinations of Americans without due process.

I too have great respect for any man who is in touch with his core values and who takes a strong stand on those core values even if it feels like he's standing alone. I'm a supporter of Herman Cain and will have to step back in silence for a while until I know where his true stance on this is. (sad face).

Ron Paul might be surprised to find more public figures who are in agreement with him on this subject.
This is a copy of a (weekly email) newsletter I received from Michael Savage (The Savage Nation).

This week, Michael Savage expressed second thoughts on the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, the powerful and influential American-born Muslim terrorist. "You'd think I'd be a knee-jerk conservative and say 'good job Obama,' and I did say that on Friday," Savage told listeners. "But on second thought: If Obama can just kill an American citizen without a trial, without due process, then who's next? You? Me? "Something's wrong with this government if Obama can kill this guy who was an American citizen, as despicable as he was. "Obama said he had a secret law written for him by Attorney General Eric Holder, drawn up in the middle of the night I guess, to allow the killing of al-Awlaki. Something's wrong with this picture. "So now you're asking me: Are you agreeing with the ACLU and Ron Paul on this issue? And the answer is yes, I'm agreeing with them. "We all want a rat like al-Awlaki dead. But who's next?"

I sent a copy of your video to Michael Savage and also Mark Levin with the hopes they will take the time to view it. Mark Levin has interviewed H.C. a number of times and should be meeting with him again (looking for the article to link it here).

Good luck, be careful, and keep asking the tough questions.

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in