terriorist denied due process ???

[mikegideon]

No, I was talking about my own thoughts, not anyone else's.

My frustration with this act has nothing to do with who is calling the shot(s). And in all honesty, even if he weren't running for POTUS, Ron Paul would be saying the very same thing.

Well... their only other option was to let him continue as an operative. Seems to me that the decision would be determined by information that we'll never see.

[mikegideon]

Yes, I have seen that too. There is one major difference. Ron Paul would be saying that if Bush was president. I haven't seen any of the typical republican vs. democrat political posturing that we frequently encounter on so many issues.

I'm not questioning Ron's sincerity. He's running for office. He's taking a strong position. I DO question Ron's logic in this case.

[sigmtnman]

I have seen Ron Paul beating the drum on TV... calling them assassinations. There are some politics behind it. Ron simply doesn't know how much evidence they had.

Dr. Paul beats the drum every time the Constitution is under attack.

Most folks choose not to listen to him because the media tells folks to disregard him.

[sigmtnman]

Well... their only other option was to let him continue as an operative. Seems to me that the decision would be determined by information that we'll never see.

Why is that the only option? We have the most elite forces in the world. If they know where he was, they could have extracted him like the myriad of other renditions.

[sigmtnman]

I'm not questioning Ron's sincerity. He's running for office. He's taking a strong position. I DO question Ron's logic in this case.

Why would we question a politician that actually stands up for the Constitutional and our G-d given rights? We should support them. They are few and far between.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And too many people are mind-numbed by the media to think for themselves.

The trouble with "that information we'll never see" is we should see it.

When you wage war on one of your own citizens, you better have a damned

good reason and it should be able to stand up to public scrutiny. This will possibly

come back to bite us in the ass when we least expect it. Those pesky precedents.

[mikegideon]

Why would we question a politician that actually stands up for the Constitutional and our G-d given rights? We should support them. They are few and far between.

because he's wrong

[sigmtnman]

I implore anyone who questions Ron Paul's logic on this matter to read his Editorial on the matter. It is very lucid.

As President, I would not hesitate to use decisive force to repel any imminent threat. National defense is a primary function of Congress and the commander-in-chief, and, as chief executive, I would carry out my duties as outlined in the Constitution and in accordance with the rule of law.

President Obama apparently believes he is not bound by the Constitution or the rule of law. When it was reported that Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by U.S. drone strikes in Yemen last week, certainly no one felt remorse for his fate. Awlaki was a detestable person we believe helped recruit and inspire others to kill Americans through terrorist acts.

We have to take the fight against terrorism very seriously. In 2001, I supported the authority to capture and kill the thugs responsible for 9/11. In our efforts we must, however, work hard to preserve and respect our great American constitutional principles.

Awlaki was a U.S. citizen. Under our Constitution, American citizens, even those living abroad, must be charged with a crime before being sentenced. As President, I would have arrested Awlaki, brought him to the U.S., tried him and pushed for the stiffest punishment allowed by law. Treason has historically been judged to be the worst of crimes, deserving of the harshest sentencing. But what I would not do as President is what Obama has done and continues to do in spectacular fashion: circumvent the rule of law.

On Feb. 3, 2010, Dennis Blair, then the country's director of national intelligence, admitted before the House Intelligence Committee that "Being a U.S. citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives." This open admission by an Obama administration official, not even attempting to keep it classified or top secret, sets a dangerous new precedent in our history.

The precedent set by the killing of Awlaki establishes the frightening legal premise that any suspected enemy of the United States - even if they are a citizen - can be taken out on the President's say-so alone. Part of the very concept of citizenship is the protection of due process and the rule of law. The President wants to spread American values around the world but continues to do great damage to them here at home, appointing himself judge, jury and executioner by presidential decree.

When Nazi leader and Holocaust mastermind Adolf Eichmann was convicted and executed by the Israeli government in 1962, it was after he was captured, extradited and tried. Respect for the rule of law never has been for the protection of monsters like Eichmann or Awlaki, who should meet their just fate - but for the protection of the vast majority of innocent citizens who should never become subject to mere governmental whim.

I don't trust Obama with determining what protections I should be allowed as a citizen any more than I trust him with our general defense, the economy, health care, job growth - or anything else. The usual justification for such abuse of the rule of law is that the post-9/11 period demands a different code of conduct to ensure people's safety. But politicians can always find excuses for why they should be allowed to disobey the Constitution.

Our current President may think he can go to war without consulting Congress as the Constitution demands he must, simply because he has determined that a nation like Libya needed our assistance. He and his party may believe they can saddle the American people with a national health care program, the authority of which is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, merely because they deem it an emergency-like situation.

Simply put, it's hard to imagine an issue in which this President could not find some extraordinary excuse to circumvent the rule of law. In fact, most of what he's done to date is precisely along these illegal lines, with the Awlaki assassination being just the latest example.

I believe in our Constitution. I believe U.S. citizens who are tried and convicted of treason should face the ultimate consequence. Arresting and trying someone like Awlaki is not for his benefit, but for the benefit of all American citizens.

Serving justice is unquestionably necessary and important. But so is how it is served. Our first concern should always be for the rule of law, or we will continue to find ourselves under the rule of the lawless. This becomes of special concern when the lawless can now include the President of the United States.

Paul, a congressman from Texas, is running for the Republican nomination for President in 2012.

Read more: An unconstitutional killing: Obama's killing of Awlaki violates American principles

An unconstitutional killing: Obama's killing of Awlaki violates American principles

[E4 No More]

Disregarding your suggestion that people who believe in the Constitution wear panties; Are we at war with Yemen?

I think your priorities are skewed.

[sigmtnman]

because he's wrong

Am I to understand that you don't buy into the Constitution thing or that our rights are not instilled by our Creator?

[sigmtnman]

I think your priorities are skewed.

You are allowed to think as you wish.

My priorities are to my posterity and to respect what my ancestors fought and died for.

Are we at war with Yemen?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Dr. Paul is consistent in his argument, whereas, the Obama administration is only

consistent with the expediency of the moment. If he actually gave a damn about

the Constitution he would have had a better choice for Attorney General, instead of

Holder. That's just one example.

Obama is on record saying the Constitution is a hindrance to him and his goals.

[E4 No More]

So, you're saying that because it's been going on for years, we should just bend over and take it up the rear??

What have you done about the things that I mentioned going on right here in this country if not doing precisely that? Does the first amendment say accept in a court of law? Does it not say that we are guaranteed the right to a fair trial?

FYI: Before you ask me I'll tell you that I sacrificed a career by leaving the police department in protest over what I saw in our court and in others.

[E4 No More]

You are allowed to think as you wish.

My priorities are to my posterity and to respect what my ancestors fought and died for.

Are we at war with Yemen?

We are at war with terrorism which lacks an official state, so what's your point?

[sigmtnman]

We are at war with terrorism which lacks an official state, so what's your point?

The war on terrorism is a war on a noun which has no defined victory, enemy or end.

The Constitution is very specific on Treason and waging wars.

[E4 No More]

The war on terrorism is a war on a noun which has no defined victory, enemy or end.

The Constitution is very specific on Treason and waging wars.

Playing semantics is all well and good, but you'll not convince me with that argument. I'll state this again, the Founding Fathers couldn't comprehend terrorism as it exists today: therefore, they didn't plan for it. If they were alive today they would have been more aggressive in going after this clown.

[daddyo]

Playing semantics is all well and good, but you'll not convince me with that argument. I'll state this again, the Founding Fathers couldn't comprehend terrorism as it exists today: therefore, they didn't plan for it. If they were alive today they would have been more aggressive in going after this clown.

I think that's a stretch. The founders were more visionary than many people like to give them credit for. They certainly had more vision than anyone alive today, and they certainly were not a bunch of dumb old white men.

Edited October 5, 2011 by DaddyO

[sigmtnman]

Playing semantics is all well and good, but you'll not convince me with that argument. I'll state this again, the Founding Fathers couldn't comprehend terrorism as it exists today: therefore, they didn't plan for it. If they were alive today they would have been more aggressive in going after this clown.

I am not playing semantics. Is the Constitution merely a semantical game?

That is the same argument that anti-gunners use. The Founding Fathers had no idea that we would have auto or semi-auto weapons. The only thing they could envision were muzzle loaders.

[daddyo]

What have you done about the things that I mentioned going on right here in this country if not doing precisely that? Does the first amendment say accept in a court of law? Does it not say that we are guaranteed the right to a fair trial?

FYI: Before you ask me I'll tell you that I sacrificed a career by leaving the police department in protest over what I saw in our court and in others.

What I'm saying is that either we value the Constitution or we don't. Not part of it, but ALL of it. It's not a smorgasbord.

That means that unless they are engaged in the act of seriously harming another citizen, an American citizen gets due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. You can't deny someone his rights just because you hate him.

Edited October 5, 2011 by DaddyO

[sigmtnman]

Posterity, you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in heaven that ever I took half the pains to preserve it.

~John Adams

I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution.

~ Thomas Jefferson

[Oh Shoot]

...I just think you are wrong. I don’t think the president did this without checking with not only the AG, but his own legal counsel. ...

My God, Dave. The Obama legal team, including O himself, has the collective intelligence of a small town ambulance chaser. And it's looking like the mighty AG might be just barely sharp enough to keep his own ass outta jail -- if he resigns in time.

- OS

[E4 No More]

~John Adams

~ Thomas Jefferson

"...yet imagined by men..." I guess they weren't as visionary as ya'll thought, huh?

[sigmtnman]

"...yet imagined by men..." I guess they weren't as visionary as ya'll thought, huh?

You should read it again.

Do you propose another anchor by which to hold the government to the principals of it's Constitution?

[daddyo]

"...yet imagined by men..." I guess they weren't as visionary as ya'll thought, huh?

Based on what evidence?

[mikegideon]

Am I to understand that you don't buy into the Constitution thing or that our rights are not instilled by our Creator?

I don't buy into a traitor's rights. I think ANY terrorist needs to die, no matter where they're from. I think once they have turned into the enemy, you kill them, no matter where they are from. You have the right to your own opinion, and so does Ron. Fact is, I seldom disagree with him.

The guy was a terrorist. When they blew his ass up, his DNA was in the same pile as other confirmed terrorists. I'm done. I have a better chance with that tree.