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

Snark won’t get you anywhere. If you want to play nice, we can, otherwise I can sling with the best of ‘em. Your call.

The vermin was a enemy combatant. He pledged to aid and abett terrorist activities and engaged in such. He was killed on the battlefield. Why do you have a problem with his elimination that?

"What is to stop them from killing us?"

Good point.

Better keep your mouth SHUT!, your head DOWN!, and your THOUGHTS PURE!

Praise be to Obama. (Pi$$ be upon him)

The rest -- Romney and Perry et all -- are cheerleading Obama on this. Why?

Now we hear Ron Paul would impeach Obama for this? Killing this dude and Osama Bin Laden are the only things Obama has done right in 3 years. What about all the other wrongdoings this President has committed?

The Ron Paul nutjobs are pathetic.

...from the notable lack of an on-topic-response to my original reply to you.

I decided a long time ago that any post to me that begins with a personal attack, as yours did Berlin Freeper --"Actually, you are the idiots.." etc, etc -- doesn't deserve a reply from me, and indeed isn't even worth reading --- so don't take it personally.

Here's a metaphor for the point that I and many here have been trying to make:

One day you wake up and find you have a problem with black widow spiders (al qaeda) in your house. Indeed, these black widows can been deadly and a member of your family gets bitten and gets very sick. But instead of trying to figure out the sanest way to wipe out the spiders, in your grief, you go insane and are willing to try ANYTHING to kill the spiders. Your crazy neighbor, (Obama) who you never have much liked before, decides that the way to get rid of your spider problem is to use "a nuke"(a secret kill list). You and the whole neighborhood cheer the crazy neighbor (Obama) who just killed those spiders that killed your family member -- without realizing that he may well have killed you and everyone in the neighborhood, and made the area completely unlivable for the next century.

Either because you don't understand or don't want to --you don't see that this nuke has produced (legal and political) nuclear fallout now hanging above your head that is more likely to kill you & yours than the spiders ever were -- and, not just you, but all Americans are now in the fallout zone. You don't see that crazy neighbor (Obama) just blew up the US Constitution and a legal framework that dates all the way back to the Magna Carta (habeas corpus) to seize power that has never been granted to ANY president before him -- and for what? -- just to kill these few spiders. You don't see that by letting the crazy neighbor (Obama) become a hero for "ridding your house of spiders" means he's more likely to use nukes again, killing more people in the process of killing your spiders than the spiders alone could dream of killing.

You don't seem to be able to see any of this because you can't smell, feel or taste it yet -- but there are those of us who do see it -- and we all hope that we are very wrong about it.

I worked in Human Resources law for over thirty years -- the kind of job where you have to examine all the legal ramifications of every policy and project best and worst case scenarios. I'm telling you that this is bad, very bad -- a president who can now draw up a secret hit list that includes American citizens and they have no legal recourse, they don't even know that they are on it until they are dead. This is absolutely insane! I can't believe that anyone calling themselves a Conservative is OK with this. I don't care if this guy was the worse scum on earth and probably was -- it isn't what Obama did to him. It's what Obama can now do to anyone, anywhere, as long as he brands them "associated with terrorism".

Any "cure" that kills the patient, isn't a cure -- it's poison!

Now we hear Ron Paul would impeach Obama for this? Killing this dude and Osama Bin Laden are the only things Obama has done right in 3 years

If you allow Obama a free pass for putting the names of American citizens on a secret kill list cooked up by him and his cronies that you don't even know you are on until you are dead, that is never reviewed by a judge, that simply sentences you to death on his say-so alone without even charging you with anything, that doesn't even allow you to defend yourself, can you really not see that you have a dictator capable of murder on your hands? Forget Awlaki -- he was scum -- but whose next now that this precedent has been set and people are cheering it? Bet Libs would also cheer lining up the Tea Party before a firing squad. And then Obama wouldn't even have to worry about his re-election campaign!

Take off the cowboy hat long enough to let what's under it think. Are all your legal protections as a citizen of this country worth one dead imam? Bad trade off!

We have a terrorist list. The people on that list are wanted dead or alive. We find them and kill them. It is self-preservation. Your comments once again demonstrate why libertarians are not suited for the responsibilities of public office.

"I decided a long time ago that any post to me that begins with a personal attack, as yours did Berlin Freeper --"Actually, you are the idiots.." etc, etc -- doesn't deserve a reply from me, and indeed isn't even worth reading --- so don't take it personally."

But you did reply with post #135: "Wow, didn’t realize that your name was “Jim Robinson”.

And you continued to reply with another post, #139.

Now you suddenly accuse me of a personal attack. Why didn't you mention a personal attack before?

Replying twice with the complaint that I am not Jim Robinson and now saying I made a personal attack, are two very different things. If you are going to tell a lie Bokababe, then at least don't be so easily caught up in it. LoL!

As for my supposed personal attack on you, that is very misleading considering you referred to yourself as an idiot:

“I know that you don’t like Ron Paul and are pretty iffy about most libertarians, but we are the idiots who throw ourselves on political grenades defending the Constitution, even when it is unpopular, so that the rest of us don’t have to throw ourselves on real ones.”

You are the one that should not take it personally, when you call yourself an idiot and get a response on the real reason you are being an idiot:

"Actually, you are the idiots making it more possible for mass murderers who openly declare war on the US to kill my family in the largest numbers possible..."

Your metaphor about nuking spiders is nothing but Crazy BS - LoL!

Here is something real, meaningful and worthy of the time to read it:

The US Congress has specifically authorized and funded military force against Al Qaeda

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

You should now be able to see that it is Congress that actually ordered this, and is far from a case of Obama alone tossing nukes at spiders.

When a US citizen gets killed by the US while the connections to 9/11 and the planning of future mass murdering terror attacks are at the least -disputable- then go ahead and pitch your bitch.

To jump off the handle in this case is to side with the Terrorists, who are in the business of denying all the rest of us OUR Constitutional rights while they think they can hide in some far away sh*thole corner of the world.

You Liberaltarians are a funny funny bunch. You tried to portray yourself to Jim Robinson as some kind of hero of the Constitution: ...but we are the idiots who throw ourselves on political grenades defending the Constitution..."

Then you instantly erected a hurdle to my exercise of Free Speech: "Wow, didn’t realize that your name was “Jim Robinson”.

You invent a threat of "grenades" while protecting mass murdering Terrorists who are literally in the business of grenades and bombs and anything else they can mass murder us with.

And you think we should thank you for it and hail you as a hero, while you try to put our lives, our families and our country at real dangerous risk. Real dangerous risk that is in contrast to your imagined one.

a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Terrific: Jihadi all-star Anwar al-Awlaki had lunch at Pentagon shortly after 9/11

Wiki: Al-Awlaki was the Congressional Muslim Staffer Association's first imam to conduct a prayer service at the U.S. Capitol in 2002.

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Awlaki was sought as a media source for questions about Islam and the attacks who could speak English well. He was interviewed by National Geographic[76], The New York Times and other media. He condemned the attacks, stating "There is no way that the people who did this could be Muslim, and if they claim to be Muslim, then they have perverted their religion."

So let me get this straight-- After 9/11, the Pentagon and the government vetted Awlaki so that he could both attend the Pentagon luncheon, and be the first imam to serve at the US Capitol. They, along with the media, made Awlaki a celebrity.

When I was bitching about, "Why is Islam actually being rewarded for 9/11 with all this positive attention?" (with al Awlaki being at the center of it),where were you?

Hell, listen to al Awlaki's verbage about 9/11:"There is no way that the people who did this could be Muslim, and if they claim to be Muslim, then they have perverted their religion."In fact, al Awlaki's words became the chosen meme for Bush's policy toward Muslims -- something that Obama has continued.

All of the actions above were based on the advice of "counter-terrorism experts" -- actions that are so stupid and outrageous that they defy the imagination. But now those same "counter-terrorist experts" contribute the names to a secret list of those to kill -- a list that contains the names of American citizens. Great. Hope that makes you sleep well at night, because it does just the opposite for me.

"All of the actions above were based on the advice of "counter-terrorism experts" -- actions that are so stupid and outrageous that they defy the imagination."

Before you go to sleep this next night, gain a minimum understanding of the enemy we face and learn that these fanatics follow Islam to the letter and that Islam teaches it is good and acceptable to lie and deceive non-believers.

You blame and find fault with the people who were deceived for a time by a hostile enemy that they were trying to bring to our side. You would only have a case about this if the man really was a friend and we killed him anyway, but that was obviously not the case.

Eventually - as it so happened, we got a messenger from this Terrorist Al-Awlaki and turned him to our side. He gave us information that we used to kill Al-Awlaki. If that didn't turn-out to the desired result - you would blame our people for trying because they gave him a lunch sandwich or whatever?

Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. But it is definitely not worth getting bent-out-of-shape over a lunch sandwich.

You keep mentioning a "secret kill list". It was no big secret that this Terrorist was on a kill list. Maybe it was a surprise to you, but not many others.

Comparisons to Americans of German descent fighting for the Nazis aren't relevant to this discussion, in my opinion. This guy was killed in Yemen -- a country that is not formally at war against the U.S.

Would it change your opinion if the summary executions that Seruzawa spoke of happened in, say, Ardenne France?

Before you go to sleep this next night, gain a minimum understanding of the enemy we face and learn that these fanatics follow Islam to the letter and that Islam teaches it is good and acceptable to lie and deceive non-believers.

Sorry to disappoint, but my father was born in the Balkans (& served in the US Army during WWII) and I've know what Islam was all about since I could walk. My ancestors were fighting Islam for 600 years, before the average American could even figure out what continent Bosnia was on. (Bringing home a Muslim boy was the one and only thing that would have gotten me disowned -- not that I ever tried.) I've been to the ME twice -- in 1984 and 2000. My friends number some of the most prominent writers in the US on the subject of fighting jihad. I've also been saying that Islam was aggressively on the move Westward for the last twenty years, long before 9/11. I am not the least bit ignorant as to what Islam is about, or what it does.

If we were fighting a new Crusade, I'd say "Where do I sign up?" But we are NOT fighting a Crusade. It's just that most of the American people have been successfully manipulated into thinking that we are -- and that's what's most dangerous to us as a country. We're so blind that we will bankrupt ourselves and the next generation, we will toss aside the Constitution that defines and protect us as Americans, just to "kill more muzzies" because we think that it "protects America". Unfortunately, the very things that we are doing toward that end are those things that make us weakest and most vulnerable.

I've been watching the NATO agenda for the last 20 years since the end of the Cold War.

NATO has been empowering, NOT fighting against Islam, for the last 20 years.

In the Balkans in the 1990's, NATO created two new Muslim states from previously Christian dominated territory. One of them, Bosnia still doesn't have a functional government after 16 years, but it is currently a hotbed of Al Qaeda.

Although Saddam Hussein was an anti-American bastard, before NATO intervention Iraq had the most secular Constitution in all of the Arab States. Afterward,Iraq now has a strictly Muslim Constitution.

The one thing that you can be absolutely sure of is that wherever NATO & US policy goes, Christians and non-Muslims lose, hardcore Islam wins, and hundreds of thousands of Christians are sent running for their lives --likewise in Egypt and Libya -- and likely soon in Syria -- all in the name of "bring democracy to the ME".

As much as we would like to think that we are fighting Islam, we -- along with NATO --are in fact empowering it.

If this really were just about "fighting Islamic terrorism", what would have been the very first things that you would have done as president post 9/11? Because I can tell you what I would have done:

1. Use our troops to secure the US borders

2. Stop more Islamic immigration until we got a handle on who and what was already here.

3. Go after bin Laden directly, and let the world know to stay the hell out of way until we get him.

4. Napalm every poppy field (their only "industry") in Afghanistan without putting a single boot on the ground and make every Afghan know why they were starving -- for the Taliban supporting bin Laden and what bin Laden did to us. The Taliban would be round up and shot by their own people for bringing such calamity on them.

5. Keep a close eye on the US budget so that we are owing no one, in case we might need to spend on the WOT

You can quibble with one or two of these, yet most of them are just common sense if we were just fighting Islamic radicals who hit us on 9/11 and may try to hit us again. Yet did we do any of these things? Nope. Because just fighting Islamists is not, nor was this ever what all this is about.

This country is being weakened both without and within -- by the wars, by the bank bailouts, by the loosening of our sovereignty, by being put in debt to China and Russia, by ignoring our Constitution, by the Stimulus, by allowing wars to be put solely in the hands of the Executive Branch who then hands it off to NATO or the UN or the Arab League.

Now, we are giving the Executive Branch the right to play judge, jury and executioner on an American citizen without a peep. We are willingly giving up the rights that our Founders built the very foundations of this country on, just to "kill a single important Muzzie". And that's just what those who want to destroy this country are banking on -- that we will screw ourselves in the name of fighting Islamists.

Here's the point -- over the last 20 years -- even before 9/11, we got much more militaristic even though the Cold War was over. We have no doubt gotten more socialistic under Obama. Add to that, with all the bailouts of banks and losing industries, we have also become even more pro global corporatist -- not more capitalistic. What kind of government are we moving toward? Corporatist+Socialist+Militaristic equals what? The same form of government that my dad fought WWII against, fascism.

But this isn't some American nationalistic form of fascism with goosesteppers -- this is globalist fascism -- not American at all. As a matter of fact, the USA must fall so that these globalists can rise -- meanwhile we are allowing these global corporatists to suck the lifeblood out of this country until there is nothing left. Between the over-regulation and over taxation that sent companies fleeing the US over the years, and the wars that send huge amounts of US capital out of the country never to return, and the FED that bails out foreign banks with US taxpayer money, the deliberate drain on US financial resources is bankrupting us and making us dependent on China and Russia just to keep going. And these global fascists been financing political campaigns for years because it's just good business for them to have people in power managing and looking out for their international business interests, instead of looking out for America and Americans. Chuck Baldwin a few years ago did a great job on describing who these Big Business globalists are in an article titled THE BIG BUSINESS/BIG GOVERNMENT AXIS OF EVIL

The point is that these globalists can't do it without us -- they are just manipulating us so that we give up our rights "voluntarily". We allow our domestic and foreign policy to be outsourced "voluntarily" -- all in the name of "fighting the War on Terror" and "preventing a global recession". We need to wake up and stop giving our right away, before its too late. Accepting this assassinating a US citizen without even charging him, is just one more link in the chains we are making for ourselves.

You keep mentioning a "secret kill list". It was no big secret that this Terrorist was on a kill list. Maybe it was a surprise to you, but not many others.

Unless you are pretty high up in one of the intelligence agencies, you don't know for sure who else on that list either. The reason that we first knew about Awlaki with certainty, is because his father filed suit against the government, guessing correctly that he was on the list. Otherwise, the other names have been kept secret: The Secret Memo That Explains Why Obama Can Kill Americans

I get the feeling that if Obama invaded Kosovo without Congressional approval and forced all the Muslims out (which is a war crime) you would not be finding a single Constitutional crisis about that.

I suggest you focus your consternation where it truly belongs - your Slavic brothers the Russians who could have easily dealt with the Muslims in Greater Serbia for decades but instead did nothing and finally abandoned the place to the will of Bill Clinton (of all people, which is rather embarrassing for the Russians and Serbs).

Although I am not really interested in the chip you have on your shoulder about the place, it tells a lot of what your real problem with the US is. The fact that the Middle East is a toilet is not the fault of the US. If anything the place would be much worse if not for US Global Dominance.

What we are discussing here is this targeted killing of a “US citizen”. His killing was constitutional and correct. I cited you the Law. You have provided me with nothing but meandering pathways through the foggy corridors of your mind.

But if you want common sense - here it is from this very thread, that could have saved me a few parts of my morning Freeping sessions of responding to you:

“The a-hole in question was a traitor who was actively conducting war against our armed forces. He got what he deserved.”

129 posted on Monday, October 03, 2011 6:08:31 AM by Jim Robinson

I get the feeling that if Obama invaded Kosovo without Congressional approval and forced all the Muslims out (which is a war crime) you would not be finding a single Constitutional crisis about that.

You're wrong.

What we are discussing here is this targeted killing of a “US citizen”. His killing was constitutional and correct. I cited you the Law.

And Supreme Court Justice Scalia disagrees with you.

Your video is total horse crap. This case is about the US citizen Awlaki who was hiding overseas to inflict Terrorist mass murdering crimes against our innocent civilians. Your crappy video link is about a man *in custody*.

Do you take pride and satisfaction in wasting my time here?

I have a very real and dangerous threat to my family in NYC that necessitated the Law to kill Terrorists including US citizens trying to hide overseas. You turn that into something totally different based on nothing but your own paranoid fears while giving me a demented metaphor of "Obama nuking spiders".

Authorization for Use of Military Force (Enrolled Bill)

--S.J.Res.23--

S.J.Res.23

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.