Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul greets guests at a house party Thursday, Sept. 29, 2011 in Derry, N.H. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)
Posted on 09/30/2011 10:12:21 AM PDT by ¢ommon ¢ents
GOFFSTOWN, N.H.–Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul condemned the U.S.-backed killing of al Qaeda figure and U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki.
Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul greets guests at a house party Thursday, Sept. 29, 2011 in Derry, N.H. (AP Photo/Jim Cole) |
“Nobody knows if he ever killed anybody,” Mr. Paul said after a breakfast at Saint Anselm College’s New Hampshire Institute of Politics. “If the American people accept this blindly and casually…I think that’s sad.”
Mr. Awlaki, accused by the U.S. of planning al Qaeda attacks on U.S. citizens and recruiting terrorists, has been a longtime target of the U.S.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
What the deceased are enjoying is a mute point now. Who made the decision and approved oflaunching the attack based on what authority would be interesting to read about since technically a US citizen was involved or is it just a matter of convenience?
Immunity, no. A fair trial, and upon conviction, execution. Yes I support that.
It’s good to know you two support and defend ALL of the US Constitution including the 5th Amendment even when it’s uncomfortable and challenges your world view eh? Or is it just parts of the Constitution which happen to be convenient at the time? Don’t we accuse the left of this all the time?
It is the DUTY of the MILITARY and
But then
Senate:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Military:
I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” – from the U.S. military officer oath
THE OATH:
The text of the Constitutional Oath is not written in the Constitution, but the current oath was enacted by Congress in 1862. “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
APPARENTLY PAUL AND THE PAULETTES DON’T FOLLOW THE OATH.
dOES THIS MEAN SINCE pAUL REPUDIATES HIS OATH OF OFFICE HE SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM CONGRESS. jUS SAYIN’
Gee, hate to disappoint you but if you make war on the United States you’ve already waived your right to a trial by the fact of making war. You’ve renounced all your rights under the Constitution by adhering to the Constitution’s and the United States’s enemies. Sorry if that concept if too big for you to get your mind around.
>APPARENTLY PAUL AND THE PAULETTES DON’T FOLLOW THE OATH.
So Paul, by the mere questioning of the constitutionality of the killing of a US Citizen by the CIA and/or military under the presumed commands of the commander in chief is violating his oath to protect and defend the Constitution? How so?
It would be interesting to hear a SCOTUS opinion on this but that’ll never happen.
Interesting HISTORY OF THE OATH.
At the start of each new Congress, in January of every odd-numbered year, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate performs a solemn and festive constitutional rite that is as old as the Republic. While the oath-taking dates back to the First Congress in 1789, the current oath is a product of the 1860s, drafted by Civil War-era members of Congress intent on ensnaring traitors.
The Constitution contains an oath of office only for the president. For other officials, including members of Congress, that document specifies only that they “shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution.” In 1789, the First Congress reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”
For nearly three-quarters of a century, that oath served nicely, although to the modern ear it sounds woefully incomplete. Missing are the soaring references to bearing “true faith and allegiance;” to taking “this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;” and to “well and faithfully” discharging the duties of the office.
The outbreak of the Civil War quickly transformed the routine act of oath-taking into one of enormous significance. In April of 1861, a time of uncertain and shifting loyalties, President Abraham Lincoln ordered all federal civilian employees within the executive branch to take an expanded oath. When Congress convened for a brief emergency session in July, members echoed the president’s action by enacting legislation requiring employees to take the expanded oath in support of the Union. This oath is the earliest direct predecessor of the modern oath. ......
When Congress returned for its regular session in December 1861, members who believed that the Union had as much to fear from northern traitors as southern soldiers again revised the oath, adding a new first section known as the “Ironclad Test Oath.” The war-inspired Test Oath, signed into law on July 2, 1862, required “every person elected or appointed to any office ... under the Government of the United States ... excepting the President of the United States” to swear or affirm that they had never previously engaged in criminal or disloyal conduct. Those government employees who failed to take the 1862 Test Oath would not receive a salary; those who swore falsely would be prosecuted for perjury and forever denied federal employment. .....
The oath actually use to mean something.
Try reading the law. It was posted by another individual earlier in the thread.
Yep, he is in clear violation of the oath which he takes VOLUNTARILY.
How?
NEXT!!!
I read it. It supports me, not you.
>I read it. It supports me, not you.
From http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001481——000-.html
His citizenship can be revoked “if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.”
He wasn’t tried, wasn’t convicted and was still a US Citizen.
Defend against enemies FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.
Just because he was BORN in the U.S. does not excuse him from military action against him.
Even Naturalized Citizens have to swear to defend against enemies Foreign and domestic. BTW Paul DID vote to give the President Bush/Obama the authority to go after these terrorist using all necessary actions to get them. So now he doesn’t like his vote.
Paul is crazy. He doesn’t know what he’s saying from one minute to the next.
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States, or...
Al-Qaeda claims to be part of the new Khalifate. Therefore a state or a political subdivision thereof.
Further down:
...Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily,...
As I said, no trial is needed in this case.
He also comes under (2).
>Defend against enemies FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.
Yes and there are many in the government I would consider to be domestic enemies. Should the CIA take them out as well? (Don’t answer :)
>Just because he was BORN in the U.S. does not
>excuse him from military action against him.
Rather, being born here guarantees certain inalienable rights as enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Even the most evil of those among us are entitled to those rights and protections.
The guy they just arrested, YES.
Awlaki was on foreign soil and an “officer” in a terrorist group that is at WAR with us. He is therefore a valid target. IMO.
>The guy they just arrested, YES.
I missed that. I’ll have to go read the headlines.
>Awlaki was on foreign soil and an “officer” in a
>terrorist group that is at WAR with us. He is
>therefore a valid target. IMO.
Well, we are both armchair “lawyering” and see it differently. I’m picking nits over his US citizenship status as I find it repulsive and think it is contrary to the precepts of a free society that the US Government could take out one of its own without due process, irrespective of the suspect’s feelings and actions toward the US. I’d really like to hear the SCOTUS on this but like I said, it’ll be a cold day in hell before that happens.
True.
thanks ¢ommon ¢ents, additional:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2786156/posts
relevant link (can’t quote / link image on FR):
Mike Thompson: Obama and jobs
http://www.freep.com/article/20111001/BLOG24/111001027/Mike-Thompson-Obama-jobs?odyssey=mod|newswell|img|Detroit%20Tigers|p http://cmsimg.freep.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=C4&Date=20111001&Category=BLOG24&ArtNo=111001027&Ref=AR&MaxW=640&Border=0&Mike-Thompson-Obama-jobs
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.