Topics > General Board
The Extrajudicial Killings of American Citizens
Janny:
And now we have Ron Paul condeming this brutal attack on an "American citizen." http://weaselzippers.us/2011/09/30/groan-ron-paul-condemns-killing-of-al-qaeda-cleric-anwar-al-awlaki/
Just further confirmation that this senile old man will not do what's necessary to protect this country. Hey, Dr. Paul! What part of "declared war on the US," do you not understand?
jpatrickham:
--- Quote from: Janny on September 30, 2011, 10:27:29 AM ---And now we have Ron Paul condeming this brutal attack on an "American citizen." http://weaselzippers.us/2011/09/30/groan-ron-paul-condemns-killing-of-al-qaeda-cleric-anwar-al-awlaki/
Just further confirmation that this senile old man will not do what's necessary to protect this country. Hey, Dr. Paul! What part of "declared war on the US," do you not understand?
--- End quote ---
SHUT UP RON!!!!! ::oldman::
IronDioPriest:
I'm just playing devil's advocate here because I think I understand the constitutional question.
I agree with the killing of this Jihadi on the merits. But I'm not 100% sure I do on principle.
He was an American citizen. The only thing we know for sure that he did was to offer rhetorical/spiritual support and encouragement to anti-American Islamic Jihadis. He was not on the battlefield. If he offered material or financial support, or carried out/authorized terrorist attacks on American interests himself, it has not been directly proved. It certainly hasn't been proved in court.
If the argument is that he was an imminent threat to national security, then by that logic, we should have sent a predator drone after Timothy McVeigh in a hypothetical scenario with foreknowledge of his attack. Of course, that would have never happened, and the only difference is that he was on US soil, and not a Muslim. Otherwise the argument could even be made that McVeigh was a greater threat than Awlaki.
We have now entered into an absurd situation where this government seeks to offer Miranda rights and a constitutional criminal trial to foreign-born enemy combatants captured on the battlefield on the one hand, and seeks to kill American citizens in foreign lands with predator drones without the benefit of a trial on the other hand.
I have problems with this on principle, even though as I said, on the merits, the guy should be dead, and this is good news for the GWOT.
charlesoakwood:
There was no cause for presumption of innocence. He did not deny his activity, he flaunted it and it was treason. He gave up all rights of citizenship by committing acts of treason and war against America. Even if he was a citizen his murderous acts were known.
This was and act of defense of American lives and our culture.
What's his name probably hit the prayer mat when he heard the news.
It's good that RP came out and spoke his mind. He is an intelligent man of conviction and courage, for that he earns respect. He also exposed his elliptical logic to the electorate and that is also good.
Janny:
No, he was an avowed enemy of the United States, and he renounced his citizenship and all the rights that went with it when he took up arms against this country, as Charles said. There was nothing inappropriate about what happened. He was not taken into custody. He was killed on the field of battle in war.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version