Ron Paul criticizes Obama for U.S. role in killing of Awlaki

Los Angeles Times ^ | 30 SEPT 2011 | Michael Muskal

[rdb3]

Can you blame ronpaul for bitchin? Drone attack, heck of a way to lose valuable supporters. He can’t afford to lose too many supporters this way.

Can't argue with you there.

If you can't appreciate the pure beauty of the violin after hearing this, something's wrong with your ears.

Or you can get raw with these strings. Either way, the violin is sweet yet lethal.

Do it!

[Munz]

Ron Paul does not understand the dangers of Muslims against the United States.

He thinks that they are just practicing “freedom of Religion”

NOTHING could be further from the truth.
His mindset is dangerous and we can not allow him to win.

I am so dissappointed in some TEA parties that are supporting him.

[Hugin]

While you’re bashing RP, you might want to change your tagline.

No, I like it.

Or are you just crazy?

No, but I am prescient. I came up with "Paul-Kucinich 2012: Why settle for one little nut when you could have two!" as a joke. Then the very next day Paul says he could see Kucinich in his cabinet, proving my point.

[Gene Eric]

I appreciate Paul’s concern for Liberty, but I’m sure al-wacky was Constitutionally a traitor worthy of swift and decisive justice.

[garbanzo]

Is this power limited in any way? So if the President decided that Rush Limbaugh was a threat to the American way of life could he have him executed? The problem Paul brings up is an important one where giving the President the sole power to decide who lives and dies is not something to be taken lightly. In this particular case, it may have been evident that this was justified, but without the appropriate checks and balances, it’s something that can be easily and dangerously abused.

[octex]

I haven’t read the comments on this thread yet, so my remarks may have already been stated.

Do any of the media do research before jumping the gun like Ron Paul did? I watched numerous talking heads on cable referring to Awlaki as a “US citizen”.

From what I’ve read, he was born in the US to Yemeni citizen parents and they took him back to Yemen. Yemen does not allow dual citizenship, so his US citizenship would have been renounced. (Just like Barry when his step-father moved them to Indonesia)

Awlaki later attended a college in the US on a Yemen scholarship as a foreign student, did some “preaching” at a Muslim mosque, etc., and went back to Yemen.

He was not a US citizen; just an enemy combatant.

Like Obama, to my knowledge, he never became a naturalized US citizen after the renouncement of that citizenship.

[octex]

Is this power limited in any way? So if the President decided that Rush Limbaugh was a threat to the American way of life could he have him executed? The problem Paul brings up is an important one where giving the President the sole power to decide who lives and dies is not something to be taken lightly. In this particular case, it may have been evident that this was justified, but without the appropriate checks and balances, it’s something that can be easily and dangerously abused.

---

Do you seriously believe that Obama made the decision to shoot down on Awlaki? That decision was most likely made by the officers in New Mexico at the base where airmen were controlling the drones.

Obama only makes decisions on when/where to play golf, what type of pie he wants and what flavor of ice cream to buy. Chewbacca makes decisions on vacations and his handlers in the regime tell him what to do and what to say.

[John D]

That’s why I will never vote for Ron Paul. He has a soft heart for terrorists and is too much of a RINO for me.

He loves the terrorists and hates America. Fine presidential material. The paulbots are still programed to love him though. It is not their fault, they are just not capable of thinking for themselves.

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

I agree with your point. the role is not clarified as I can see. We have some ‘precedents”, but the issue is an important one.

This bad actor was really dangerous and very visible and very treasonous...but the “definition’ of who is treasonous is not clear and what the prosecution of that person is is not clear.

[John D]

I have no problem with this killing. He is an avowed enemy of this country, and we are at war with his forces

So is cut and run, and his band of surrender monkeys.

[John D]

So let’s say we send a B-17 over Berlin and bomb Hitler’s bunker and in there with His Fuehrerness is an American citizen of German descent who joined the Nazi army. Are you saying bombing the bunker is wrong because we would be killing an American citizen without due process?

Great point, but paulbots will not understand. They are not programed to understand any of the stupid things the surrender monkey says. They are just programed to spin it his way.

[John D]

This means I have to side with Obama over a Republican? Heaven help us.

The surrender monkey is no Republican. Republicans do not blame America for every problem in the world. The do not endorse Cynthia McKinney when they do not get their way. They do not say 9/11 was America's fault. No, you would be siding with Obama over an anti-American terrorist lover.

[Ditter]

I am glad Rom Paul said this and that it has been widely viewed on the news. Maybe now Paul will lose all his support from ignorant Republicans who should know how crazy this guy is. He has a couple of good ideas but the man is a loon.

[John D]

I am glad Rom Paul said this and that it has been widely viewed on the news. Maybe now Paul will lose all his support from ignorant Republicans

Cut and run never had support from Republicans. He had support from his little band of paulbots who are programed to only hear what they want to hear. This will do nothing to his support. His supporters want a weak military. This is not going to change that.

[Designer]

Kucinich in his cabinet,

An obvious light-hearted spoof, if you had heard the entire exchange.

[Designer]

"you bemoan this coward's demise?"

Not at all.

I'm not surprised that you missed the point.

[dervish]

Important distinction —

who was the target?

Collateral damage is not the same as a targeted assassination.

[John D]

Important distinction — who was the target? Collateral damage is not the same as a targeted assassination.

What did I tell you. I knew some paulbot would find a way to spin it.

[dervish]

I am not a Paulbot. I can’t stand the guy. But even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

By the way, I am not even saying this should not have been done. But in typical Obama fashion he did it feeling no need to justify it to the American people.

Awlaki was put on the hit list in 2010. There was plenty of time at that point to provide a Constitutional basis for that decision. Pres Bush provided legal and Constitutional basis for Gitmo and water boarding.

See this opinion by Jed Babbin, former Pres Reagan administration, writer for Am Spectator. Note it was written in Feb 2011.

“To wage such a war, the president should ask Congress to amend the Immigration and Natu-ralization Act to deprive terrorists of their citizenship. And, announcing his action in a major speech, the president should rewrite Executive Order 12333 to permit the assassination of any member of a Foreign Terrorist Organization whom the president designates-secretly-as a clear and present danger. That would accomplish the objective: the intelligence agencies, in secret presidential determinations shared with a limited number of the intelligence community’s congres-sional overseers, would be specifically licensed to kill the designated terrorists.

Terrorists — whatever their nationality — should not be able to hide behind their citizenship or American law to save them from the fates they have earned by their actions.”

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/12/whacking-anwar/print

[kennedy]

Well then you are uncomfortable with the duties of a Commander in Chief. That's what President's do.

I am perfectly comfortable with the power and duties of the office. I am just uncomfortable with the current holder of the office.