Ron Paul & Civil Liberties Groups Decry Killing Of American Militant Without Trial (Video)

I knew Ron wouldn't let me down. If I can count on anybody to stick to the Constitution that the Framers had in mind, it's Ron Paul. I just love this guy.

So by now, I'm assuming that everybody knows that President Obama has the blood of American born, radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awalki, and another American citizen, on his hands. Earlier this year, the President ordered the CIA to kill this man wherever in the world he might be found. Well now they have succeeded in killing al-Awlaki, a man who was born in New Mexico which obviously makes him an American Citizen, and his traveling companion Samir Kahn - also an American citizen - in a Predator drone missile strike in Yemen.

I had a problem with this from the very beginning, and if you'll forgive any appearance of self-promotion, I'd like to post the report that I did on this subject - in an ATS exclusive interview with the Republican Presidential candidates after the debate in Greenville S.C. - to begin this very important thread.


Unfortunately, after the debate, Dr. Paul had gone to a a fundraiser on the other side of town; he was the one candidate I wanted to speak with and I missed him in favor of the press room where everyone else was giving interviews. I was SO disappointed.

Anyway, Dr. Paul has made his position on the extra-judicial killing of Anwar al-Awlaki clear in this story from FOX NEWS.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who is running for the Republican presidential nomination, cried foul Friday over the killing of a radical U.S.-born cleric in Yemen without a trial, joining a chorus of civil liberties groups raising "due process" concerns over the drone attack.

"No one likes these kind of people, but I also like the rule of law and I like our Constitution, that you don't just target people, assassinate them, someone who has not been charged and you have no proof of anything," Paul told Fox News. "So if we want to protect American citizens from that type of justice, we have to be more cautious."

U.S. counterterrorism forces not only killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an Al Qaeda leader, early Friday but also three other operatives, including American-born Samir Kahn, who edited a Jihadi Internet magazine. Al-Awlaki's reputation as an instigator of terrorist plots had grown in recent years, especially in the power void created in Al Qaeda with the killing of Usama bin Laden earlier this year.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney refused to answer questions Friday about the legality of the government targeting and killing an American citizen without a trial.

"I'm not going to address the circumstances of Awlaki's death," he said.

Read more: www.foxnews.com...#_tab#ixzz1ZViZ8MD9

I don't care how bad someone looks in the press, what they are accused of, or what they actually did; this country does NOT put a man to death without due process of law. Dictatorships murder their citizens with the stroke of a pen, not representative democracies based on the rule of law. The right to a trial has been a basic guarantee of justice and freedom in the Western world since the signing of the Magna Carta. President Obama has just set our civilization back 800 years, and declared himself a king with the sole power of life and death over any US citizen.

The 5th Amendment guarantees EVERY American citizen the right to face their accuser and present a defense no matter what they are accused of.

The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215. For instance, grand juries and the phrase "due process" both trace their origin to the Magna Carta.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
~ Wiki

The death of Anwar al-Awlaki was ordered by one man: President Obama. There was no judicial review, no Congressional oversight, no counsel for the defense; just Obama - with only his own conscience for counsel. Doesn't anybody have a problem with that? If you do, PLEASE flag this thread so that as many people can see it as is possible. I don't care about stars (not until I can buy an ATS mug or T-shirt with them) but please at least flag it.

Thx, O.C.

RELATED THREADS:
NYC Reacts To The Death Of American Al-Qaida Cleric
BREAKING NEWS! U.S. Born Terror Boss Anwar Al-Awlaki Killed

reply to post by OldCorp


Personally I think its getting to hot for them. They don't dare bring any of these cohorts to trial. He was part of the in crowd and dined at the pentagon. I am sure he had plenty to tell and dead men reveal no secrets. US citizens are beginning to demand something be done with the criminals that have hi-jacked the US government. These murdering, lying, thieves would probably be better off if there were sharks with blood in the water. Tie up loose ends and get rid of evidence. We know who they are and we know what they have done. Its not going to do them any good to kill more people.

reply to post by OldCorp


Well you now have a super congress of 12 controlling finances and a single person deciding who dies..

Sounds like a dictatorship to me...

Originally posted by OldCorp
The death of Anwar al-Awlaki was ordered by one man: President Obama. There was no judicial review, no Congressional oversight, no counsel for the defense; just Obama

While I agree, all american citizens deserve judicial review, its stupid to expect that one can offer militants like Anwar al-Awlaki that option. What exactly was suppose to happen?

America: "Mr Al-Awlaki, give yourself up without any harm to american authorities or yourself, or die"

Anwar Al-Awkaju: "You won't take me alive, come get me"

It's so easy (as usual) for Paulers and other groups to sit on the sideline and decry the fact this man and other american born militants were not given fair judicial review or fair hearing, when, most of these militants are interested in being taken in, at all. They're all devoted to the cause, they are devoted to resisting without capture and with their lives, and that's it. Now, we can all sit here, put our tinfoil hats on (some people have theirs on all the time) and assume that Al-Awlaki wanted to give himself up but the men in dark suits in DC said "no", but then again, nobody here can say for sure.

I'm very skeptical about americans operating in Yemen because exactly how much authority did the Yemeni government give the american military industrial complex? This war on terror... it is dragging us.... we need to leave it and get back to our own borders.... and I agree that this idea of giving the president this much authority.... I don't like it. But anybody who insists this authority is anything new is ignorant. We don't know as the extent of the decision making presidents have made on individual lives over the last few decades. And anybody thinks capturing these militants alive and to the courts is a walk in a park is well, not thinking this entire thing through either.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by OldCorp
The death of Anwar al-Awlaki was ordered by one man: President Obama. There was no judicial review, no Congressional oversight, no counsel for the defense; just Obama

While I agree, all american citizens deserve judicial review, its stupid to expect that one can offer militants like Anwar al-Awlaki that option. What exactly was suppose to happen?

Even if he was beyond the reach of US forces - which he obviously wasn't because they knew where he was and followed him with a Predator drone for a few hours before killing him - there is a little thing called a "Trial in Absentia." Just to satisfy our own civilized sensibilities, al-Awalki could have been charged before a grand jury (defendants are never there anyway,) and assigned a government lawyer who would conduct his defense.

Obviously testifying on his own behalf would not be feasible, but his government-supplied defense lawyer could call witnesses and dispute any evidence the prosecution wished to present on his client's behalf. This evidence could be presented in front of either a normal civilian jury, a jury composed of Congressmen with security clearances; even a military tribunal would be preferable to one man - who hated going to his Ethics class - signing a death warrant in secret as the sole judge and jury.

And there is one other important, highly disturbing aspect to this case: The penalty for providing aid and comfort to a terrorist organization is NOT death! I would suggest you read this entire statute - it is VERY informative.

U.S. CODE TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B >§ 2339B.
Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations.
(a) Prohibited Activities.—
(1) Unlawful conduct.— Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
SOURCE: Cornell University

The government (Obama) can't even play by their own rules! The MAXIMUM sentence al-Awlaki could have received in a courtroom was LIFE in prison, even if his actions - not the actions of someone inspired by his words - resulted in the death of another person. Not even the President has ever accused al-Awlaki of being directly responsible for anyone's death, so how can the death penalty even be on the table?

What are the specifics on this anyway?... I'm trying to decipher the story (without reading 500 pages of details)

Did they have him in custody, and just 'bust a cap' in the back of his head, or was this more of along the lines of the guy was killed in the midst of them trying to detain him?

If it's the latter, I can understand that maybe he was a direct threat to those trying to capture him, and bring him in (happens all of the time in the states, with people fighting back and all)..

But if it's a case where they did have control, and decided to just kill him, I think it's pretty outlandish.

Even people who've murdered 50 people in cold blood get a fair trial. I don't see why this person would be any different. This is assuming he was still considered a legal US citizen.

Originally posted by OldCorp
there is a little thing called a "Trial in Absentia." Just to satisfy our own civilized sensibilities, al-Awalki could have been charged before a grand jury (defendants are never there anyway,) and assigned a government lawyer who would conduct his defense.

Obviously testifying on his own behalf would not be feasible, but his government-supplied defense lawyer could call witnesses and dispute any evidence the prosecution wished to present on his client's behalf. This evidence could be presented in front of either a normal civilian jury, a jury composed of Congressmen with security clearances; even a military tribunal would be preferable to one man - who hated going to his Ethics class - signing a death warrant in secret as the sole judge and jury.

This is a good point you made there Oldcorp, thanks for the references. This is the first I've heard of this, but then again, we are assuming that Al-Awalki's location had been known for sometime now, what if it wasn't and this was the only window? Either counter him now, or lose him for another couple of months to continue his militant operations? And I'd assume the trial of absentia would be shown to the public before they proceed to kill Alwalki? Or after? There are factors. You certainly motivated me to look into this more.

The government (Obama)

No, Obama does not solely make up the government.

reply to post by OldCorp


Further regarding "Trial in absentia"

In November 2009, the Yemeni authorities put al-Awlaki on trial in absentia, charged with inciting violence against foreigners in connection with the murder the previous month of a French security guard at an oil company's compound. He went into hiding.

www.independent.co.uk... 1-2364023.html

Take into mind though, these were Yemeni Authorities carrying out the trial, but then Al-Awlaki was a Yemeni citizen as well.

Awlaqi, who holds both Yemeni and US citizenship, and his relative, Othman al-Awlaqi, were both charged in absentia in a Yemeni court with "incitement to kill foreigners and members of security services."

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Would have been different if Yemeni authorities carried out the killings? I'm looking into this more.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
This is a good point you made there Oldcorp, thanks for the references. This is the first I've heard of this, but then again, we are assuming that Al-Awalki's location had been known for sometime now, what if it wasn't and this was the only window? Either counter him now, or lose him for another couple of months to continue his militant operations? And I'd assume the trial of absentia would be shown to the public before they proceed to kill Alwalki? Or after? There are factors. You certainly motivated me to look into this more.

The top speed of a Predator drone is 135 MPH. Chinooks and Black Hawk helos, in addition to having a maximum cruising speed of 150-170 mph (180 if they push it) can also carry 2 squads (30 men) or 2 fire teams (10 men) of Marines respectively. OR, they could have used the new V22 Osprey which also carries 2 squads, but cruises at speeds in excess of 350 mph! They could have been on him with overwhelming firepower and numbers faster than any drone. They might not have been able to take him alive, but there is something to be said for trying.

As far as the trial goes, I would prefer it take place in public before the killing. Something of this import needs to be televised. If the American public can watch Casey Anthony's murder trial, or Michael Jackson's kiddie diddling trial, surely something like this could be televised too. Cameras could be turned off for testimony that deals with classified operational details. I suppose I could even get behind a trial conducted in secret so as not to give a terrorist on the run advance warning so he can hide in the deepest cave the world has to offer, just so long as it is on the record and available to see at some point after the sentence is carried out.

But Barry can't even be arsed to go through the motions.

No, Obama does not solely make up the government.

Yeah... You tell HIM that.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by OldCorp

 

Further regarding "Trial in absentia"

In November 2009, the Yemeni authorities put al-Awlaki on trial in absentia, charged with inciting violence against foreigners in connection with the murder the previous month of a French security guard at an oil company's compound. He went into hiding.

www.independent.co.uk... 1-2364023.html

Take into mind though, these were Yemeni Authorities carrying out the trial, but then Al-Awlaki was a Yemeni citizen as well.

Awlaqi, who holds both Yemeni and US citizenship, and his relative, Othman al-Awlaqi, were both charged in absentia in a Yemeni court with "incitement to kill foreigners and members of security services."

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Would have been different if Yemeni authorities carried out the killings? I'm looking into this more.

Brother, I couldn't give two hoots in hell what other countries do when is comes to putting people on trial, that is totally their business; but if the Yemeni court system was able to put him on trial and convict him, where we didn't even TRY at all, what does that say about us?

We're Americans G DAMN IT! We are BETTER than that! (At least we used to be.)

This POTUS loves to set a precedent doesn't he? If he does this to one guy, he'd do it to anyone. He's been known to throw people under the bus before. What irony....while the ppl at Wall Street are protesting Capital punishment for a guy who did get a trial, POTUS is out murdering someone who didn't get one.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
This POTUS loves to set a precedent doesn't he? If he does this to one guy, he'd do it to anyone. He's been known to throw people under the bus before. What irony....while the ppl at Wall Street are protesting Capital punishment for a guy who did get a trial, POTUS is out murdering someone who didn't get one.

Wanna hear something funny? I was in the Livestream chat room watching that very protest and mentioned that Obama has murdered al-Awalki - just once - and the moderators erased my comment and threatened to ban me if I didn't discuss only the "Occupy Wallstreet" protest.

I guess I know who THEIR messiah is.

OldCorp! Y U No Like Obama!?!

The frightening thing is, the precedent was purposely set using a despicable human being like al-Awalki so that the fuss over the extrajudicial killing would be kept to a dull roar - who's gonna miss that scumbag, right? - the next time, it could be ANYONE that the POTUS labels a "terrorist;" people like pro-lifers, 2nd Amendment supporters, environmentalists, Medical MJ advocates, survivalists, Evangelical Christians, anti-establishment bloggers, and even returning veterans.

Without proper transparency, and judicial or Congressional oversight, this is a slippery slope we do NOT want to come near.

Originally posted by OldCorp

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
This POTUS loves to set a precedent doesn't he? If he does this to one guy, he'd do it to anyone. He's been known to throw people under the bus before. What irony....while the ppl at Wall Street are protesting Capital punishment for a guy who did get a trial, POTUS is out murdering someone who didn't get one.

Wanna hear something funny? I was in the Livestream chat room watching that very protest and mentioned that Obama has murdered al-Awalki - just once - and the moderators erased my comment and threatened to ban me if I didn't discuss only the "Occupy Wallstreet" protest.

I guess I know who THEIR messiah is.

OldCorp! Y U No Like Obama!?!

The frightening thing is, the precedent was purposely set using a despicable human being like al-Awalki so that the fuss over the extrajudicial killing would be kept to a dull roar - who's gonna miss that scumbag, right? - the next time, it could be ANYONE that the POTUS labels a "terrorist;" people like pro-lifers, 2nd Amendment supporters, environmentalists, Medical MJ advocates, survivalists, Evangelical Christians, anti-establishment bloggers, and even returning veterans.

Without proper transparency, and judicial or Congressional oversight, this is a slippery slope we do NOT want to come near.

edit on 10/1/2011 by OldCorp because: (no reason given)

Wow that is very revealing...and I agree with you on the slippery slope. Seems more like "Devil's Slide" to me though.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Ain't that the truth.

Well, I didn't mean to stay up all night. I can't believe it's 7:35 already. I have to get some sleep. Keep the discussion going guys, and please flag the hell out of this. Obama has to be impeached before he can kill again.

Looks to me like Democracy being thrown all over the world has turned to Imperialism of old. I am glad you brought this up op, as this has left a bad taste in my mouth: How America can justify this is beyond me.

What the hell happened to extradicting an individual and putting him on trial? I mean think about this for a bit, if you really want to make mortal enemies out of the rest of the world, and have another 9/11 attack, keep killing individuals without a trial, all in the name of "terrorism."

I don't know how you feel op, but i dont get a warm fuzzy feeling when "our" government does these atrocities, rather i start looking behind my back for the individuals who just lost their wifes, fathers, and children

reply to post by allprowolfy


This is no longer a democracy, or even a constitutional republic. When the man in charge can kill a citizen with a stroke of his pen, we are living in a dictatorship - or an empire. All hail Obaminus Caesar! (Or he'll blow up your house.)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5c85fb1e04df.jpg[/atsimg]

Also, you are 100% correct about making new terrorists. IDK about anyone else, but if foreign troops were to kill my brother, father, uncle, or cousin, I'd be looking for a little payback. For every Jihadist killed, at LEAST one steps up to take his place. The "War on Terror" is like a giant, deadly game of Whack-A-Mole, with new scumbags popping up all of the time.

I'm afraid the best we can hope for, even if we were to disengage from the M.E. now, is to mitigate - or prevent altogether - as many future terror attacks as possible by targeting the enemy with extreme prejudice on the battlefield. If people like al-Awalki, Samir Khan, John Walker Lindh, or Adam Gadhan are killed under those circumstances I have not a single problem with it; but ordering their assassination wherever they might be found, whether they are actively engaged in battle or sitting down to dinner with the family, is not only criminal, it's stupid as well.

If captured, these guys could provide a wealth of intelligence on al-Qaida. Osama bin Laden could have helped destroy the organization he created after a few sessions with Mr. Waterboard; but Nooooo. The SEALS were given orders to kill him, not capture him. Something is very fishy when the unarmed man who could give you the answers to any possible question you might have about al-Qaida - the man for whom the whole world was searching for ten years - gets double-tapped before he can say a word.






*I'm gone for realz this time.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


The problem here is not that he was killed. Americans are killed every day in the U.S. by LEOs without a trial. The problem is that his death was an ordered assassination by our president, who has sworn to protect every part of the Constitution. Not just the ones that are convenient.

Good post as usual Old Corp.

/TOA

Originally posted by The Old American
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

The problem here is not that he was killed. Americans are killed every day in the U.S. by LEOs without a trial. The problem is that his death was an ordered assassination by our president, who has sworn to protect every part of the Constitution. Not just the ones that are convenient.

Good post as usual Old Corp.

/TOA

edit on 1-10-2011 by The Old American because: (no reason given)

Thank you TOA. Off topic for a second, do we know each other from a previous incarnation on another site? I've called myself a variation of "OldCorp" (and used my real pic because I stand by everything I say) for the last 10 years, so I'm easy to recognize. You seem familiar, but I can't quite place you. Hit me with a U2U if you like.

So yeah, 19 flags so far... Keep them coming folks, and comment too, please. I want EVERYONE'S opinion on this, especially supporters of President Obama. I'd like to know how they can defend this blatantly unconstitutional, and yes, criminal act of coldblooded, premeditated murder.

Old Corps, I liked your vid and Semper Fi brother. Awlaki (in whom Im not so familiar with as I was with "others") seems to have been killed not because of his what he was saying but probably because of what he knows. It is wrong to allow the murder of a citizen without due process you and I can agree on that and other issues. My opinion is that he was killed because he was seen as an enemy combatant or that is the dribble the trigger puller was lead to believe. I agree an osprey could and should have been deployed to apprehend this guy if he was all so important. My opinion is that he was murdered because of something he knows and that he has an audience of people that his info could create an unfavorable situation for someone powerful, it was an operation to silence and send a message.

I support Ron Paul 100% on this, as I do with 90% of his opinions. This was a direct violation of the Constitution, it doesn't matter if it was the most sadistic, psychopathic rapist known to mankind, he was an American citizen. The president can kill somebody with his signature, in direct violation of the Constitution.

Does the Constitution even exist anymore? I'm going to make a thread about how the Constitution has been violated on so many levels.