Ron Paul: Killing Of Anwar Al-Awlaki An Impeachable Offense, a Step Toward “Tyranny”…
Ron Paul still in mourning.
(Politico) — Ron Paul said Monday that President Barack Obama’s targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki might be an impeachable offense.
Asked at a Manchester, N.H. town hall meeting about last week’s killing of the American-born Al Qaeda leader, the Texas congressman said impeachment would be “possible,” but that he wants to know more about how the administration “flouted the law.”
Paul called the killing a movement toward “tyranny.”
“I put responsibility on the president because this is obviously a step in the wrong direction,” Paul said. “We have just totally disrespected the Constitution.”
The comments once again put Paul at odds with his Republican rivals over foreign policy and the war on terror in the latest indication of how his foreign policy views stray far from Republican orthodoxy even in a GOP that’s taken on an increasingly isolationist bent. Candidates like Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney — who included the president in a list of people he commended in a statement released Friday — have generally been supportive of the killing. No one else in the field has spoken out against it.
But Paul’s stuck with the civil libertarians who’ve criticized the targeted killing of an American citizen without public due process.
Posted by ZIP on Monday, October 3, 2011, at 4:46 pm | 
Tweet
Quit talking and do it.
Well one thing I’ll have to give the idiot, he doesn’t pander for votes.
He makes Kucinich and Sanders seem sane
Does anyone agree that what Obama did was right? This puts you in a tough position. You either have to agree with Paul and go against what you truly believe, or agree that the president did the right thing…which, well, enough said…
Paul is insane, and as far as Obama goes credit were credit is due.
Idiot… old fool… hypocrite who won’t challenge Obama on any of the eligibility issues, but will throw away his Presidential bid on the death of a terrorist.
Grumpy old man.
So who’s the next target on the list?
Paul really needs to drop the ‘R’.
@GFY, agreeing with Obama about 1% of the time seems about right for right-minded individuals. Besides he lets the real men in uniform call these shots.
t
who defines terrorist? doesn’t presidente el diablo and company refer to the tea party as terrorists? who is next to have there constitutional rights taken away without trial. war on drugs war on terrorism is really a war on you freedoms.
sheep will be sheep.
I wouldn’t follow RP or his zombies to 7-11 but in this instance, I would love to see him start some shit. Go ahead RP, talk up impeachment … bring it before congress … get it out in the open and lets see if the media cover’s it. If for no other reason than to see dhimwits head’s explode. GO Ron Paul !!! Then after a month of fun and games please fade away again into obscurity, never to be heard from again.
@ GFY … yeah I agree with killing Anwar al-Awlaki and in the manner he was killed as well. As soon as he put on the sheets and began collaborating with the Taliban, he relinquished all American rights. As he found out, shi-ite happens. Who knows, his death may have made some goats very happy as well.
Let’s say a flash mob of heavily armed urban yutes shows up at my door screaming “Get Whitey”and start splintering in the door.
Am I going to debate the fine points of constitutional law or am I going to
protect my family and property? Duh….
Again with the stupid comparisons of TEA party patriots who peacefully protest, and an avowed terrorist and enemy of the United States who was taken out in a military operation.
Question: Who is more stupid, Ron Paul or the idiots who soak up his clueless interpretations of the constitution and his confusion of civil matters with military matters?
Well, I reckon ….
Just a sec, there’s something flying overhead …
Oooh, something sparkly just flew away from the flying thing …
IT’S COMING RIGHT AT ME!
LOL @ YOU FUCK WITS. Debating if this was bad. GO FUCK YOURSELF.
He is a bad guy, he is a traitor, he was with bad men, he was fucking Goats, he is a catalyst for the evil people to do bad. He is gone. Oh well…I hope his mother is next.
HE WAS A BAD GUY. Get the fuck over it Paul Bots.
@”Ron Paul: Killing Of Anwar Al-Awlaki An Impeachable Offense…”
Um, go for it, dude … ?
I am amazed that people have decided to ignore the danger that Ron Paul is warning about.
Granted that Awlaki most likely deserved what he got, the real danger is in the PRECEDENT set by the president’s action: Based entirely on WHAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS TOLD US, the president has UNILATERALLY decided to assassinate an American citizen WITHOUT ANY PUBLIC REVIEW of the evidence justifying his decision.
Our founders were well aware of the abusive power of government. Thus they added the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment to safeguard against capricious and arbitrary government power. I for one am unwilling to give up our Fifth Amendment rights to the president even though the president’s action appears to be entirely justified in this case. Like our founders, I am unwilling to trust the government to this extent.
The next time this jackass shows up at a Republican debate I want to see someone put a boot in his ass and launch him into the balcony. Ron Paul and his followers belong in the Nut Brigade, not the Republican Party.
As I’ve said a zillion times… Paul resides on the loony fringe of rational thinking. That’s why he has NO chance of ever achieving higher office.
Enough already!
cj says:
October 3, 2011 at 5:41 pm
LOL @ YOU FUCK WITS. Debating if this was bad. GO FUCK YOURSELF.
I have a question. Suppose in place of this guy’s name we put, oh maybe someone else’s name, such as James “Whitey” Bulger. The notorius fugitive. Supposing if things had gone differently with finding him & bringing him back to the States for trial?
I guess what I am asking is this- In the Civilian Realm when there is a criminal on the loose hasn’t there ever been a criminal death?
Is my question making sense?
It’s a little thing called the Rule of Law…
Treason is the act of overthrowing a government….could there be any clearer act of overthrowing the constitution than a president who goes to war without congressional approval and executes citizens without due process..? His acts are unlawful and he heading an unlawful government…. Opposing his unlawful acts is the right and duty of every citizen…
Because Homeland Security has declared that the vast federal police bureaucracy has shifted its focus from terrorists to “domestic extremists”.
I don’t want the US Gov’t to have that authority to come after anyone it pleases. Could as well be one of us..!
Its Time to Wake Up People…
Im wondering if the Civil War is parallel. When Confederate generals (thinking aboout Lee) who were previously Union generals resigned and accepted commisions from their states, did that action, from the Union’s point of view, constitute treason? I think so.
However, if there was a government sanctioned finding, in the form of an in abstentia trial, or a declaration in Congress against specific individuals, I don’t know about it. Perhaps you history buffs might weigh in.
In any case, many thousands of formerly American citizens were mown down on the battle field with the premise of putting down insurrection.
So, I’m thinking that Al-Awalki has made many public declarrations amounting to treason, has acted on the behalf of groups who declare themselves at war with the US, definately gave aid and material support to those groups.
Would it be all that difficult to to declare him treasonous? Or is it unnecessary, as his statements speak for themselves.
Hey Ron
go put on a fresh depends and go find a matlock show on cable.
First off: The Dear Leader I do not support for a grand number of reasons, so I am not defending his decision per se. But since there is this jangle going on, may as well address it.
2nd: Obviously as others pointed out, there was sufficient evidence of treason.
3rd: Since he was a US Citizen wouldn’t that correspond with what has already occurred with other persons who’ve committed treason?
@Just the Truth
Al-Awalki lost his Fifth Amendment rights by the same token that anchor babies are not intended in the 14th. You are just dicking with symantics.
Ron Paul needs to retire and go in with Pat Buchannon on why ww2 was avoidable.
You want to impeach him for killing a terrorist overseas but not for deaths on American soil everyday caused by his gunwalker,ignoring hate crimes and drug deaths,car manslaughter and murders by illegals?
Robbing citizens ,fraud and misuse of public funds is ok?
Fraternizing with the enemy ,open racism,affiliation with racist and hate groups is acceptable but killing one of our own who is rogue and wants to murder citizens is not?
Hickster says:
October 3, 2011 at 6:37 pm
2nd: Obviously as others pointed out, there was sufficient evidence of treason.
3rd: Since he was a US Citizen wouldn’t that correspond with what has already occurred with other persons who’ve committed treason?
____________________
I am glad that al Awlaki is no longer around to plan/foment/support aggressive actions against the U.S.–his own country–but there appear to be important steps missing in your comments above.
If he was deemed to be a traitor, where was the “official” declaration of that? He could have been easily and swiftly tried and convicted in absentia. Either a judicial label of “traitor” or a stripping of citizenship would have placed him in a position where drone assassination was unequivocal.
The other question needs research: how were other historical “traitors” treated? How many were tried in a court of law? How many were shot outright, when not in an ongoing state of war? WERE the Confederate officers true “traitors”–they honorably resigned their commissions and considered themselves to be citizens of a seceded nation. Gray area here (no pun intended).
The bottom line for me is that I feel distinctly more uneasy than before–knowing that the current administration can declare any of us to be “dangerous to our country” at any time, without having to take us to a court of law–and then could decide to send drones to our homes.
As far as debating this:
We are born with our USA Constitutional rights.
If you commit a felony, you lose the right to vote, to own a firearm, to run for office, etc.
If you join alQaeda, you lose ALL your rights.
What is there to debate?
I feel like most people are missing the point here- especially the ones who keep saying “FUCK YOU” to everyone who’s trying to educate. Nobody is defending or condoning Awlaki. We are simply saying there is a better(and legal) way that we could have brought him to justice. Let’s say hypothetically there is a known terrorist in NYC who happens to also be an American citizen, would we fly a drone over his house and bomb the shit out of it or would we arrest, try, and punish him fittingly. When we(the general public’s opinion) give the POTUS the “go ahead” on this situation, the next time he(or any other future president) wants to take out a supposed “bad guy” he will just command that the man be killed. Where is the threshold then to be set on who is a terrorist or not? Would somebody be a terrorist strictly if they threated the U.S. or just questioned their policies? We have courts set aside to make these types of decisions- not a president who many have ulterior motives. What else could we have learned about Al Qaeda if he was imprisoned- wouldn’t that be benefit enough to try to arrest him? Beyond all of this, we should look at the root cause of why a Western educated engineer left his life behind to move to the middle east and become an educator and “terrorist”. By the way- I’d love to see all of the proof they have against him.
Drone strikes have been happening all over the Middle East … Yemen, Syria, Sudan, Pakistan, Somalia, Afghanistan … some places without a declaration of war.
It does raise the question of who decides who is a valid target for these strikes.
Whoever is in charge appears to be targeting just jihadists so far … that is a worry if people become too comfortable with this God-like “death from above” power being arbitrarily wielded by the U.S. government.
I wouldn’t trust Obama with that power, or many of his associates.
Is there anything to stop those in charge from eventually targeting people they don’t like, or political opponents, or those terrorist tea partyers?
Rufus says:
October 3, 2011 at 7:03 pm
As far as debating this:
We are born with our USA Constitutional rights.
If you commit a felony, you lose the right to vote, to own a firearm, to run for office, etc.
If you join alQaeda, you lose ALL your rights.
What is there to debate?
What happens when the CIC decides the TEA party is along the same lines as al-Queada?
@MaryfromMarin: Thanks for the comments. I readily admit there is “important steps missing in your comments above”. I agree. there is definitely steps missing in my comment, because I’m grasping to make sense of ANY of this.
My problem with this situation is that there is quite a number of questions that I have but I don’t have answers. So I do appreciate your comments on that aspect of how has history been played out with respect to this type of situation?
Yes, I agree with your bottom line comment. Any of us can/could be declared, and by flimsy methods.
The whole thing tends to be befuddling. That is why my comments and questions come the way they do.
Likewise, however, yes I agree about his being out-of-the-picture-now.
Thanks.
Then do it, Paul.. introduce Articles of Impeachment..
‘Impeachment is the process that enables a legislative body to remove a public official from office. It comprises two parts: (1) an accusation or indictment and (2) a trial.
This practice has roots in English constitutional history. Members of Parliament employed impeachment against royally appointed Stuart officials in the 1600s. The concept was brought to the American colonies, where legislative assemblies used it against royal officials. Few other countries have provisions for impeachment.
The Constitution of the United States (Text) makes the following provisions for the impeachment of federal officials:
Article I, Section 2
Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.’
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h231.html
“What happens when the CIC decides the TEA party is along the same lines as al-Queada?”
He’s going to send drones out to assassinate TEA Party members. Right? And our military is going to carry out that order, based on what, exactly? Alwaki was an avowed enemy of the United States, who aligned himself with a terorist organization. He did not have the same rights that Americans who protest at TEA party rallies do.
Your comparison is ridiculous. There is a vast difference between American citizens on our own soil, and terrorists who are part of a military operation.
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – - because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak out for me.
This was legal and constitutional. Entirely, wholly and totally. Awlaki go exactly the amount of constitutional protections afforded to him by the 5th A. Read the whole thing. I’m not in a frame of mind to even outline the argument, but it isn’t that in depth. Go figure it out.
When you’re done, get back on the F&F train. That’s the real deal.
Hey Doug,
What legal way? This guys is not a American citzen, he gave that up the minute he relocated to Yemen. He was was waging war against us (xmas day bomber, ft hood ect.) Go to you tube if you can’t read.
If a bank robber is considered armed and dangerous and the cops shot him between robberies do you have a problem with that?
He’s going to send drones out to assassinate TEA Party members. Right?
1. If we build operating bases in lawless regions of foreign nations? Maybe.
2. If you think that it is a possibility, I’d hold that it is a possibility with or without this Awlaki action as precedent.
I’m with RP on that impeachment thing. I’d root for the Paulians to accomplish that.
I dont get, how people can be so STUPID, that they cant grasp that people NOT living in the United States are not subject to, nor are they protected by the Constitution.
Morons always want to tell us how America is IMPOSING itself and its beliefs on other countries, then turn around and say terrorists are protected by the Constitution of The United States.
Cant have it both ways, asshats. And last I checked, if other countries wanted to be under the Constitution, they can GO MAKE THEIR OWN.
Good Lord stupidity has to be in the water. Especially in Paulbot-land.
Yes to Impeachment. Out of there for a good number many reasons.
doug go back to moveon.org with that crap.
@shadowblitz70
OK. I’m definitely amongst the stupid crowd on this one. WHY THEN IS HE referred to as a US Citizen in reports?
Obama has done a lot of constitutional disrespecting before now, where has Ron been?
The Constitution does not protect you when you fight against your own country, sorry Anwar baby!
I’ll ask again….how did Dr Demento escape Prison Planet..?
Shadowblitz70 says:
October 3, 2011 at 7:48 pm
I dont get, how people can be so STUPID, that they cant grasp that people NOT living in the United States are not subject to, nor are they protected by the Constitution.
______________
No, that is not correct. What about military personnel who are living on bases in other countries? What about American citizens who work for American companies, but are sent to go live in other countries, to work in the “Paris” office, or the “London” office, etc.? What about American students who go to schools in other countries? People do not automatically lose their citizenship if they live in foreign countries–unless they renounce it, and become citizens of another country. Al Awlaki did not renounce his American citizenship, regardless of where he was living. He was a disgusting excuse of an American citizen–but he WAS a citizen, nevertheless.
Lou says:
October 3, 2011 at 7:39 pm
If a bank robber is considered armed and dangerous and the cops shot him between robberies do you have a problem with that?
_______________________
Sorry to play Devil’s advocate on this, but there is a difference. The “armed and dangerous” robber is personally committing the felonies. If the police shot the criminal mastermind who incited other people to commit robberies, then that shooting would NOT be justified. In this situation, Awlaki is not the armed robber–he is the criminal mastermind. He has no “smoking gun”, unfortunately.
As horrible as this is to say, Awlaki had exactly the same rights as any other American citizen. Obama set up an utterly dangerous precedent by authorizing the drone strike.
So I am wondering: for what ultimate purpose did Obama circumvent the law here? The two reasons that jump out at me are both bad. Either he wants to bolster up his political prestige by eliminating someone we all despise, even though it’s done illegally, or he wants to set the precedent of being able to eliminate whoever he doesn’t like the looks of, without due process of law.
If I want to join military of one one of our allies, say Canada or maybe ….Isreal, I have to renounce my US citizenship. Joining a know terrorist group in a foreign nation(not there official military) and declaring war against America doesn’t automatically count as renouncing my citizenship? Is that how this game is played? Pretty sure some of the dudes in German uniforms in WW2 were American citizens who went back there because of the whole Fatherland thing. Did we sort them out and give them a fair trial?
This jackass may not have squeezed any detonators or pulled any triggers but he sure as hell was an enemy combatant.
wrench monkey says:
October 3, 2011 at 9:11 pm
____________________
Some good points, but a “known terrorist group” is not a sovereign nation. Did the early members of the Ku Klux Klan lose their citizenship because of their anti-American activities and denunciations, and the murders they committed?
And as for “declaring war against America”, doesn’t Obama do this every day? And a huge percentage of the progressive left? That doesn’t deprive them of their citizenship, no matter how much I wish it would!
Citizenship is not a matter of attitude or behavior. It is a matter of law.
“But Paul’s stuck with the civil libertarians who’ve criticized the targeted killing of an American citizen without public due process.”
Sounds like awful Awlaki got all the due process he could handle from the drone. That is all that the avowed enemy of the USA deserved.
And too freaking bad. Crying over how some terrorist gets it. BOO-FUCKING-HOO.
I suppose you all support red light cameras too? No due process just guilty.
Wow, as if the issue has anything to do with al-Awlaki. Yeah, a terrorist is dead! USA! USA! USA!
That’s not what Paul is angry about. That’s not what I’m angry about. It’s the *precedent* that our gov’t has executed not one but *two* American citizens without a trial.
Think about what is ahead of the US now. We are on the verge of a gov’t-sponsored economic disaster. People will become increasingly desperate. It’s already happening in Occupy movement now. It’s going to get much worse. So, given domestic unrest, the President begins to target American protestors. If the gov’t is allowed to kill Americans without due process, do you think it’ll hesitate to start locking Americans up without a trial? Start imprisoning activists and protestors? Maybe even accusing some of terrorism and then executing them?
You people are too ignorant to see what just happened. What has been happening… One day, it’ll be someone in your family or a friend in the gov’t crosshairs.
Al-Awlaki can burn in hell. But if we allow the Constitution to be burned, we’ll be going to hell with it.
As crazy as Ron Paul is, I have to wonder about the people that keep re-electing him.
Even a broken clock reads correctly twice a day. That’s what we have here.
I despise Ron Paul, but he is correct that Obama’s assassination of an American citizen without due process is a terrible precedent to set. The fact that the Obama administration refuses to release its supposed legal argumentation justifying the action only makes it even more disturbing.
What happens when Obama decides that you and I are “enemies of the state”? He already considers us that, you know. If he had his way, we’d be goners, too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlN2t0oERHk
We have to preserve due process, fair trial, and rule of law for the worst of America’s criminals. If we throw this out, then anyone who dissents could be a target. I would have preferred to see the terror suspect arrested, tried, and sentenced on television. Barack had a choice, dead or alive, but he chose dead. I don’t agree with the actions of terrorists, but even Timothy McVeigh got a trial.
Seriously, all of you legalistic folks need to get a grip. This dickhead signed on with the other side in a WAR. All of your bullshit about due process is not applicable in this case. Just another dead tango as far as I’m concerned no matter where he was born.
Look. Anwar & Sammy LEFT the U.S. They went overseas for the *express purpose* of fighting with terrorists targeting U.S. citizens and the U.S. itself. We are in a war. These guys were on the other side.
Period.
If this had happened within U.S. borders, yeah, we should be upset. If you go overseas and fight against your country– game over, you get what TRAITORS should get. Paulbots & commies– get over it.