Video: Ron Paul condemns drone strike on Awlaki

posted at 4:56 pm on September 30, 2011 by Allahpundit

Not the only libertarian all-star troubled by this morning’s op in Yemen. Earlier on Fox, Gary Johnson confessed to mixed feelings that a U.S. citizen, degenerate though he was, had been targeted for execution without due process. Honestly, I’m conflicted too: Read the exchange between Andy McCarthy and Kevin Williamson at The Corner for sharp arguments on each side. There are two difficulties here, I think. One is the fact of Awlaki’s citizenship, the other is the nature of the combat he was engaged in. No one outside of the far left disputes that if an American joins a foreign army and points a gun at a U.S. soldier on the battlefield, the soldier’s entitled to take him down. No one disputes either that officers are legitimate targets in war, not merely the infantrymen they command. (Ask Admiral Yamamoto about that.) Awlaki was an officer in Al Qaeda’s army, tasked mainly with propaganda but increasingly given to directing would-be killers like Abdulmutallab around the global battlefield. Or so we’re told; there’s endless video out there of him denouncing America and exhorting attacks on the country, but the proof that he was planning operations — the heart of the argument for taking him out — remains within the upper reaches of America’s counterterror establishment.

That’s where his citizenship comes in. If we’re going to kill one of our own without independent review of the evidence that he is in fact fighting or commanding fighters on the other side, then we’re handing the president broaaaad power to kill Americans abroad. As Danger Room says, “[S]houldn’t Awlaki’s American citizenship count for something? If nothing else, doesn’t it oblige the government to at least disclose why it asserts it can kill an American citizen?” The irony is, I doubt the feds would have trouble convincing a judge that Awlaki’s as big a threat as they suspect: Although some experts claim his role in AQ was vastly overstated, his terror ties go all the way back to 9/11. Read Tom Joscelyn’s account of Awlaki’s relationship with three of the hijackers, then read this IntelWire summary of how he spent the past 10 years, assuming more of an operational role in the last few. (And no, contrary to what some on the left might tell you, Awlaki’s journey to jihad wasn’t a reaction to Afghanistan and Iraq. It began before that.) According to one senior U.S. official, he even took an interest in using chemical weapons against Americans. Why can’t we have a mechanism in which a judge either (a) reviews the evidence and signs off on the decision to target a suspect who’s a citizen, a la a probable cause warrant, or (b) adjudicates that the target has constructively expatriated himself by swearing allegiance to an enemy and taking up arms? The most hawkish hawks will hate that idea because it slightly limits the president’s war-making power and introduces a law-enforcement element into the war on terror, but there are worse precedents than involving judges in rare terrorism cases. Like, for instance, letting the president fire drones at anyone he wants, citizen or not, if they happen to be beyond easy reach of U.S. infantrymen.

Here’s Paul. Note the bit at the very end in which he distinguishes Awlaki from Bin Laden on grounds that no one ever said the former was a participant in 9/11. In fact, a lot of people suspect that he was; just follow the links above. Exit question: What would the war on terror have looked like without drones?

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7

Since when is American citizenship a guarantee that a person on a battlefield leading the enemy against the US gets a get out of bombing runs free card? In a war you do not hold trials to see if the enemy is guilty of something before you shoot – if you have the sanity of a brain damaged chihuahua.

{^_^}

herself on October 1, 2011 at 4:23 AM

A good example of why Paul will never be taken seriously by any more than a small percentage.

If an American takes up arms and plots terror upon his homeland, this is grounds for a defacto revocation of his citizenship in the same way that a American taking a kid hostage at gunpoint is grounds for the local SWAT team to make a defacto removal of his rights. Duh. Clear and present danger. Kill the bastard. No regrets, ’nuff said.

American my ass.

JeffB. on October 1, 2011 at 4:24 AM

She was supporting an enemy of America, hence she’s a traitor. Period, end of story.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 4:19 AM

If you say so. I don’t.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 4:25 AM

if you have the sanity of a brain damaged chihuahua.

{^_^}

herself on October 1, 2011 at 4:23 AM

Yes, but we are talking about Ron Paul here, so that doesn’t apply.

sharrukin on October 1, 2011 at 4:25 AM

And I’ll quickly add that it is this endless, pansy, Obamic, metrosexual, PC, dithering that is causing every ill in our world today. If we cannot spot a clear danger and fix it asap, we deserve the harm that comes our way.

JeffB. on October 1, 2011 at 4:29 AM

Obviously not unless there was a pressing military need to do so, such as a terrorist with a nuke who had to be taken out immediately. Domestic and international rules are different.

sharrukin on October 1, 2011 at 4:20 AM

And why is that, sharrukin? Someone domestically has the potential to inflict a lot more damage than al-Awlaki was. Or especially Samir Khan. If he was writing/editing Inspire from Berkeley instead of Yemen, how would that be any less of a “pressing military need”?

So we’ve found a limit, you won’t support a drone strike on U.S. soil. How about our allies, though? Targeted drone strikes in Canada if we find some AQ supporters shacking up in Yellowknife? Or would the logistics of extradition be easy enough for you to support their detention in Gitmo instead? I guess it’s up to Obama, right? After all, like we said, the 2001 AUMF doesn’t specify a country. If the “rules are different between domestic and international,” the only limit is no drone strikes within our borders. London, Toronto, Tel Aviv and Paris are fair game. Or do we then suddenly care about civilian collateral damage?

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 4:31 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 4:31 AM

And by your absurd caricature of an argument, I guess you would support a drone strike in Canada … as long as we had a show trial first.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 4:34 AM

If you say so. I don’t.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 4:25 AM

It’s not your call, Ronnie. It’s Obama’s. Anyone considered a traitor is fair game for a targeted execution without due process. You said that yourself, right?

Just join the other side and you’re out.

Aren’t those your words, or are you going to call me a liar again, Ronnie?

Well, Rachel Corrie joined the other side. Hamas is an enemy faction, and she was supporting their propaganda effort.

How about Ezra Pound, Ronnie? Hell, unlike Hanoi Jane, we actually ended up locking him up. So clearly, he was a traitor, as was later proven in court. He should have just been killed, right?

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 4:38 AM

So we’ve found a limit, you won’t support a drone strike on U.S. soil.

I believe I just said that I would support a drone strike or any kind of strike on American soil. The point is if it was required by common sense to do so.

How about our allies, though?

Pretty much the same. Common sense. In Canada there’s little point to a drone strike. In Mexico there might well be due to the loss of control that the Mexican federal government has suffered due to the cartels.

I guess it’s up to Obama, right? After all, like we said, the 2001 AUMF doesn’t specify a country. If the “rules are different between domestic and international,” the only limit is no drone strikes within our borders. London, Toronto, Tel Aviv and Paris are fair game. Or do we then suddenly care about civilian collateral damage?

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 4:31 AM

The 2001 AUMF is clear that Al Qaeda is the target. I don’t see why you are panicking over it.

Letters of Marque and Reprisal are mentioned in the constitution and they have precisely the same lack of definition that you are upset about with the 2001 AUMF.

sharrukin on October 1, 2011 at 4:40 AM

Ronnie,

You advance hypothetical BS like a drone strike in Canada. And that’s the whole problem.

As I said above, it’s the Paulian, Obamic dithering in the face of clear and present danger, be it economic or terrorist, that is killing us.

Concrete actions, ASAP. That is all that matters.

JeffB. on October 1, 2011 at 4:40 AM

Aren’t those your words, or are you going to call me a liar again, Ronnie?

Well, Rachel Corrie joined the other side. Hamas is an enemy faction, and she was supporting their propaganda effort.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 4:38 AM

Yes, I’m going to call you a liar again. How was she supporting Hamas in 2003 when Hamas wasn’t even in power there until 2006? What’s your definition of supporting the enemy? If there’s one kind of nearby?

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 4:40 AM

And by your absurd caricature of an argument, I guess you would support a drone strike in Canada … as long as we had a show trial first.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 4:34 AM

Sure, why not? If we’re drawing legitimacy from the 2001 AUMF, every country is on equal footing in the fight against AQ collaborators. Of course, since Canada is an ally, we’d probably give them the courtesy of a warning; we might even ask them nicely for permission, but we wouldn’t have to.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 4:41 AM

Ronnie,

You advance hypothetical BS like a drone strike in Canada. And that’s the whole problem.

JeffB. on October 1, 2011 at 4:40 AM

Wasn’t my hypothetical BS. Maybe you should read the comment I quoted. That’s the origin.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 4:41 AM

Sure, why not? If we’re drawing legitimacy from the 2001 AUMF, every country is on equal footing in the fight against AQ collaborators. Of course, since Canada is an ally, we’d probably give them the courtesy of a warning; we might even ask them nicely for permission, but we wouldn’t have to.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 4:41 AM

There’s the Ron Paul we know and loathe.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 4:43 AM

Yes, I’m going to call you a liar again. How was she supporting Hamas in 2003 when Hamas wasn’t even in power there until 2006? What’s your definition of supporting the enemy? If there’s one kind of nearby?

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 4:40 AM

Fine, so she was supporting Hezbollah, not Hamas. They were involved in the Beirut embassy bombing back in 1983, so they’re clearly enemies of the US. They had that border raid in 2000, so clearly there were hostilities. Once again, we are able to brand Corrie as a traitor, and as we know, “just join the other side and you’re out.” Purely at the whim of President Obama, of course.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 4:46 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 4:46 AM

Keep throwing those darts. You’ll hit the board eventually.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 4:47 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 4:41 AM

The problem with your wandering off into strange hypothetical’s is that you can play that silly game with anything.

A police officers right to defend himself can in a hyper-ventilating individual amount to a James Bond style ‘License To Kill‘.

It isn’t grounded in reality or common sense.

sharrukin on October 1, 2011 at 4:48 AM

The 2001 AUMF is clear that Al Qaeda is the target. I don’t see why you are panicking over it.

Letters of Marque and Reprisal are mentioned in the constitution and they have precisely the same lack of definition that you are upset about with the 2001 AUMF.

sharrukin on October 1, 2011 at 4:40 AM

Aren’t letters of marque the domain of Congress? So it’s not a unilateral decision being made.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 4:50 AM

Sort of makes the case for NOT bothering with a trial, yet you call it decorum and civilization. Sounds more like the opposite. Sorry, not a compelling example.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 4:21 AM

Even with its origins as a sham trial, it ended up being an incredibly important precedent. If you want to argue that the Nuremberg Trials were just as useless as a hypothetical Awalaki tribunal, be my guest. It’s not a winning argument, though.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 4:52 AM

Aren’t letters of marque the domain of Congress? So it’s not a unilateral decision being made.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 4:50 AM

And the 2001 AUMF was authorized by who?

sharrukin on October 1, 2011 at 4:53 AM

Even with its origins as a sham trial, it ended up being an incredibly important precedent. If you want to argue that the Nuremberg Trials were just as useless as a hypothetical Awalaki tribunal, be my guest. It’s not a winning argument, though.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 4:52 AM

You brought it up as the parallel. I agree any comparison is absurd. You’re comparing trials after a war to a trial during a war. You’re comparing trials with defendants in custody to a trial with a defendant still engaged in planning attacks. You’re comparing trials of foreign citizens with a trial of (according to you and FIVE THOUSAND BLOGS) an American citizen. It’s amazing you even brought up Nuremberg.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 4:56 AM

Keep throwing those darts. You’ll hit the board eventually.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 4:47 AM

Just using your argument, Ronnie. You can take it back any time you’d like. Until you do, the rule remains “just join the other side and you’re out.” What’s the other side? Whatever the current President says it is. What constitutes “joining”? We’ll deal with that on a case by case basis. And again, by “we,” I mean the Obama administration. And a group of “conservatives” who advocate small government are perfectly okay with this. Why? Beats me.

This is honestly the most depressed I’ve ever been from an exchange on HotAir. We’re going to lose, and it’s because we only care about scoring points against the other team at any cost, whether that team is AQ or the Democrats or the evil RINOs who plague the GOP.

Hence why far too many HA members are going to sit out in 2012 after we nominate Romney/Perry/Rinobot 4.0, and voila, 4 more years of Obama. But hey, we get to uphold GOP purity, and we get to feel good about denying a vote to some evil RINO scum.

I need a ****ing drink.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 4:58 AM

And the 2001 AUMF was authorized by who?

sharrukin on October 1, 2011 at 4:53 AM

By Congress. 10 friggin’ years ago. That’s why I dislike it, because this is a potentially endless war. There will always be another piece of jihadi scum to take the place of the newly departed. Like cockroaches, when you kill one, you know there’s ten or fifteen you didn’t kill. As long as there’s a few people holding up the banner of AQ, we’ve given permanent war powers to whoever happens to be the current President. Something about the small government conservative inside of me says “Hey, maybe that’s a bad idea.”

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:01 AM

There’s the Ron Paul we know and loathe.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 4:43 AM

How is that a Ron Paul argument?

Ron Paul would say we shouldn’t do anything abroad because every single thing we do creates more terrorists/makes the current terrorists hate us more. And you’re saying Ron Paul wants us to have more drone strikes, in more countries?

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:02 AM

Just using your argument, Ronnie.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 4:58 AM

No you’re not. You’re twisting it to fit a caricature. It’s what you do. Did Corrie join the other side? No, not from America’s perspective. Israel’s maybe, and we see how that turned out. Did it have anything to do with Hamas or Hezbolla? No. But don’t let facts get in the way. Throw another dart.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:02 AM

By Congress. 10 friggin’ years ago. That’s why I dislike it, because this is a potentially endless war.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:01 AM

Congress can revoke it any time they choose.

sharrukin on October 1, 2011 at 5:04 AM

How is that a Ron Paul argument?

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:02 AM

It makes no sense, and 5,000 blogs say Ron Paul makes no sense, so…

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:04 AM

You brought it up as the parallel. I agree any comparison is absurd. You’re comparing trials after a war to a trial during a war. You’re comparing trials with defendants in custody to a trial with a defendant still engaged in planning attacks. You’re comparing trials of foreign citizens with a trial of (according to you and FIVE THOUSAND BLOGS) an American citizen. It’s amazing you even brought up Nuremberg.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 4:56 AM

Remind me, when exactly does the “war on terror” end? When there isn’t a single group in the world with the motive and means to kill American citizens for the purposes of terrorizing us? Yeah, that’s gonna happen real soon.

BTW, as of right now, there’s 5838 related news items on Google News for “Al-Awlaki.” If you’d like to browse all of them, be my guest. I’m sure a lot of them use the same newswire copy, but hey, I didn’t say 5,000 unique stories, I just said 5,000 items.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:08 AM

It makes no sense, and 5,000 blogs say Ron Paul makes no sense, so…

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:04 AM

In other words, it’s not a Ron Paul argument at all. Thanks for admitting it.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:09 AM

Hence why far too many HA members are going to sit out in 2012 after we nominate Romney/Perry/Rinobot 4.0, and voila, 4 more years of Obama. But hey, we get to uphold GOP purity, and we get to feel good about denying a vote to some evil RINO scum.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 4:58 AM

You’ve brought this up out of the blue twice now, so let me put your mind at ease. I’ll vote for Snoopy (or Perry or Romney) if the other name on the ballot is Obama. The only one who will never get my vote is Ron Paul. If he’s on the ballot I’ll focus my attention on both houses of Congress to tie O’s hands.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:10 AM

In other words, it’s not a Ron Paul argument at all. Thanks for admitting it.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:09 AM

In YOUR other words…AGAIN

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:11 AM

Remind me, when exactly does the “war on terror” end?

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:08 AM

Remind me, what does this have to do with Nuremberg?

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:12 AM

No you’re not. You’re twisting it to fit a caricature. It’s what you do. Did Corrie join the other side? No, not from America’s perspective. Israel’s maybe, and we see how that turned out. Did it have anything to do with Hamas or Hezbolla? No. But don’t let facts get in the way. Throw another dart.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:02 AM

Why do you get to decide who is “on the other side” from America’s perspective? Oh, right, you don’t. Obama does. And even though conservatives don’t think he’s competent enough to tie his shoes, he’s perfectly capable of making these sorts of life or death decisions.

You didn’t answer my question re: Ezra Pound. He certainly joined the other side, no? Why didn’t we kill him? I guess we just know better now than we did during World War II, right? We’re so enlightened…

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:13 AM

You didn’t answer my question re: Ezra Pound. He certainly joined the other side, no? Why didn’t we kill him? I guess we just know better now than we did during World War II, right? We’re so enlightened…

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:13 AM

I have no idea what Ezra Pound did or why someone else didn’t kill him.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:15 AM

Remind me, what does this have to do with Nuremberg?

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:12 AM

You said this situation is different because it’s during a war currently taking place. I’d just like to know when exactly the “war on terror” is going to end. What constitutes victory, Ronnie?

According to the 2001 AUMF, I guess it would be when every single person, country and organization that aided the 9/11 effort is eliminated and/or effectively neutered. Wanna give me a prediction on when that’s going to happen? What’ll come first, the Cubs winning the World Series or the end of the “war on terror”?

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:17 AM

Why do you get to decide who is “on the other side” from America’s perspective? Oh, right, you don’t. Obama does. And even though conservatives don’t think he’s competent enough to tie his shoes, he’s perfectly capable of making these sorts of life or death decisions.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:13 AM

Actually joining the other side just means joining the other side. It’s not a secret code. It’s hardly subjective. If you can’t tell the difference between Corrie not joining a foreign army and awlaki joining a foreign army, you’re an idiot.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:17 AM

You said this situation is different because it’s during a war currently taking place. I’d just like to know when exactly the “war on terror” is going to end. What constitutes victory, Ronnie?

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:17 AM

Irrelevant to the point. They’re different. Do you not see that? Seriously?

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:19 AM

I have no idea what Ezra Pound did or why someone else didn’t kill him.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:15 AM

He was the less talented friend of Eliot and Joyce, and he wrote the Cantos. I don’t think they were so bad that he should have been killed, though. Oh, you mean what did he do that was treasonous? He was paid by the Italian government to make anti-American radio broadcasts during WW2. Kinda sounds like he was a traitor, no? In this enlightened post-5th Amendment World we’d have just obliterated him with a hellfire missile, I suppose.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:20 AM

I guess we should have killed Jane Fonda too. She was aiding the VC by taking those glam shots on the AA guns.

Yes, actually we should have.

sharrukin on October 1, 2011 at 3:26 AM

And I’m done. This is more than enough crazy for one night.

gyrmnix on October 1, 2011 at 5:23 AM

He was the less talented friend of Eliot and Joyce, and he wrote the Cantos. I don’t think they were so bad that he should have been killed, though. Oh, you mean what did he do that was treasonous? He was paid by the Italian government to make anti-American radio broadcasts during WW2. Kinda sounds like he was a traitor, no? In this enlightened post-5th Amendment World we’d have just obliterated him with a hellfire missile, I suppose.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:20 AM

If you say so. I don’t know the details but if he was willingly broadcasting from enemy territory, I can certainly see the radio station being a target. You can’t?

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:26 AM

Irrelevant to the point. They’re different. Do you not see that? Seriously?

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:19 AM

All I see is that a website full of conservatives largely has no problem giving the President special war powers in regards to a war that is defined so nebulously that we have no earthly clue when it will end.

And for some reason, a whole bunch of people who otherwise argue for the limitation of government power, especially power held by the executive, have no problem whatsoever with this.

This is also the same website whose members talk 24/7 about how much of a cancer Obama is to this country, but then swear that they’ll stay at home rather than voting for Romney or Perry.

And suddenly, the looming 2012 election, which once seemed like a beacon of hope, is appearing more and more to be an approaching asteroid. It’s that same horrible feeling that comes in the 4th Quarter of a Browns game; “we’re actually going to blow this, aren’t we?”

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:26 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:26 AM

Is this rant supposed to have something to do with Nuremberg? Because that’s what the question was about.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:30 AM

And I’m done.

gyrmnix on October 1, 2011 at 5:23 AM

You’re done what? Who are you?

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:30 AM

Actually joining the other side just means joining the other side. It’s not a secret code. It’s hardly subjective. If you can’t tell the difference between Corrie not joining a foreign army and awlaki joining a foreign army, you’re an idiot.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:17 AM

Fonda signed up for the VC? I asked if we should have killed her. You said:

We could have.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 3:32 AM

Again, your words Ronnie, though I’m sure you’ll find a way to worm out of them. Fonda was a U.S. citizen. I don’t exactly remember her ducking in the rice paddies with a rifle, do you? Yet she was involved enough to be considered as “joining” the VC in your eyes, and hence she was a legitimate assassination target.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:31 AM

I don’t exactly remember her ducking in the rice paddies with a rifle, do you? Yet she was involved enough to be considered as “joining” the VC in your eyes, and hence she was a legitimate assassination target.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:31 AM

She did more damage to the American side in what she did than she ever could have with a rifle. The Rosenbergs never picked up a rifle either. What exactly is your point?

sharrukin on October 1, 2011 at 5:35 AM

You’re done what? Who are you?

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:30 AM

Another person who recognizes extra-strength crazy when he sees it. He might even be one of those wacky people who cares about the 5th Amendment!

Is this rant supposed to have something to do with Nuremberg? Because that’s what the question was about.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:30 AM

I’ll take that as an answer of “I have no damn idea when the war on terror will be over and I’m perfectly okay with Obama potentially having 5 more years of extraordinary war powers.” Perfectly in line with small government conservatism!

If you say so. I don’t know the details but if he was willingly broadcasting from enemy territory, I can certainly see the radio station being a target. You can’t?

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:26 AM

I’m not talking about targeting the radio station, I’m talking about sending someone into Italy to slit his throat when he’s out for a smoke. When you want to make sure you kill your target, you get your hands dirty, like with Bin Laden.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:36 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:31 AM

More nonsense. Did I say joining a foreign army is the only way to be treasonous? No. Do you think it is? I guess you do. You use them interchangeably.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:38 AM

She did more damage to the American side in what she did than she ever could have with a rifle. The Rosenbergs never picked up a rifle either. What exactly is your point?

sharrukin on October 1, 2011 at 5:35 AM

My point is you’re stretching the definition of “join” like a piece of saltwater taffy.

Samir Khan’s crime was running a website/blog. Is that the threshold now? What if I’m an ex-pat in Jordan and I write a few freelance posts for the “Death to America” blog, and it causes a few young Muslim bucks to join team AQ? Did I “join” the other side as well?

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:40 AM

I’m not talking about targeting the radio station, I’m talking about sending someone into Italy to slit his throat when he’s out for a smoke. When you want to make sure you kill your target, you get your hands dirty, like with Bin Laden.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:36 AM

For the third time, if you say so. I don’t know the details.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:40 AM

I’ll take that as an answer of “I have no damn idea when the war on terror will be over and I’m perfectly okay with Obama potentially having 5 more years of extraordinary war powers.” Perfectly in line with small government conservatism!

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:36 AM

OK, I’ll take your response as an answer of “I have a dozen little boys locked up in my basement.”

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:42 AM

More nonsense. Did I say joining a foreign army is the only way to be treasonous? No. Do you think it is? I guess you do. You use them interchangeably.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:38 AM

In other words, it’s a cut and dry definition, except when it’s not.

Actually joining the other side just means joining the other side. It’s not a secret code. It’s hardly subjective.
Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:17 AM

Well, there you go folks. In a perfect bit of circular reasoning, the definition of joining the other side is…..”joining the other side.”

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:43 AM

OK, I’ll take your response as an answer of “I have a dozen little boys locked up in my basement.”

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:42 AM

Congrats, Ronnie. You’ve officially nuked the fridge. Where should I send your prize?

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:44 AM

For the third time, if you say so. I don’t know the details.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:40 AM

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ezra+pound

The Internet: It’s magic.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:45 AM

Well, there you go folks. In a perfect bit of circular reasoning, the definition of joining the other side is…..”joining the other side.”

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:43 AM

Incredible, huh. Words that mean what they say. Sorry I couldn’t come up with more nuance for you.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:46 AM

The Internet: It’s magic.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:45 AM

I’m really not interested in researching the life story of Ezra Pound at the moment.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:48 AM

In other words…

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:43 AM

Do you have a macro for that?

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:49 AM

Incredible, huh. Words that mean what they say. Sorry I couldn’t come up with more nuance for you.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:46 AM

And, of course, “the other side” is defined by the Obama Administration. A couple months ago, that was Libya. Now, IIRC, it’s Eurasia. Or is it Eastasia? It’s so hard to keep up sometimes.

Coming in 2013, Iran, because Dinnerjacket’s cousin’s librarian once gave Bin Laden leniency on his overdue book charge for “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”

Wheels within wheels, baby.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:50 AM

Congrats, Ronnie. You’ve officially nuked the fridge. Where should I send your prize?

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:44 AM

You won first. My entry only mocks you. Keep your prize.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:52 AM

Do you have a macro for that?

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:49 AM

Yup. After all, I used it all of two times, and it’s very cumbersome to actually type out. 12 letters? That’s like Gravity’s Rainbow, man.

I’m really not interested in researching the life story of Ezra Pound at the moment.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:48 AM

He’s actually a decent writer. Not that you’d care, anyhow; culture is one of those quaint, unimportant things like decorum, justice, law and civilization.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:54 AM

And, of course, “the other side” is defined by the Obama Administration.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:50 AM

Who should decide?

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:54 AM

You won first. My entry only mocks you. Keep your prize.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:52 AM

Because stating the reality of your unquestioning support of the endless war on terror is exactly the same as saying “yeah, but you’re a child molester.”

Quite a bit of nuance for someone who claims to be a plain talker.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:56 AM

He’s actually a decent writer. Not that you’d care, anyhow; culture is one of those quaint, unimportant things like decorum, justice, law and civilization.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:54 AM

Oh, now you’re telling me what my opinions on culture are? Yeah definitely keep your prize.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:56 AM

Because stating the reality of your unquestioning support of the endless war on terror is exactly the same as saying “yeah, but you’re a child molester.”

Quite a bit of nuance for someone who claims to be a plain talker.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:56 AM

They’re exactly the same in the way they have no basis in reality.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:57 AM

Who should decide?

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:54 AM

A panel of Valerie Jarrett, David Brooks, Paul Krugman, sharrukin and Ronnie. You can all be the “War on Terror: Drone Strike” czars. Pick any target you’d like, btw; due process is for pansies.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:59 AM

I’m really not interested in researching the life story of Ezra Pound at the moment.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:48 AM

He’s actually a decent writer. Not that you’d care, anyhow; culture is one of those quaint, unimportant things like decorum, justice, law and civilization.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:54 AM

Yeah, Mumia is a writer and journalist too, and he even wrote books and stuff. Roman Polanski is an artiste as well and after all… it wasn’t ‘rape-rape’.

sharrukin on October 1, 2011 at 5:59 AM

A panel of Valerie Jarrett, David Brooks, Paul Krugman, sharrukin and Ronnie. You can all be the “War on Terror: Drone Strike” czars. Pick any target you’d like, btw; due process is for pansies.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:59 AM

Is this what you do when you need more time to think of an answer?

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 6:01 AM

A panel of Valerie Jarrett, David Brooks, Paul Krugman, sharrukin and Ronnie. You can all be the “War on Terror: Drone Strike” czars. Pick any target you’d like, btw; due process is for pansies.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 5:59 AM

Sounds good to me.

This would be my standard contribution.

sharrukin on October 1, 2011 at 6:01 AM

Oh, now you’re telling me what my opinions on culture are? Yeah definitely keep your prize.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:56 AM

We already know your opinions on decorum and civilization; why should culture be any different? It’s one of those things from a simpler time that no longer applies in our post-5th Amendment world of Predator Drones and unchecked executive war power.

They’re exactly the same in the way they have no basis in reality.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 5:57 AM

It has quite a firm basis in reality. The President has extraordinary war powers as long as the WOT exists, and the WOT is structured so that it only ends when we say it does. I can’t help that you’re blinded with glee as you fill out another entry in your Jihadi Scorecard. In case you missed it, that play went 4-6-3; it was a double play, aka a twin killing, that got both Samir Khan and Awlaki.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 6:03 AM

Sounds good to me.

This would be my standard contribution.

sharrukin on October 1, 2011 at 6:01 AM

Apt comparison. I suspect your administration of the WOT would be about as effective as good old Marvin’s attacks on Planet Earth.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 6:05 AM

It has quite a firm basis in reality. The President has extraordinary war powers as long as the WOT exists, and the WOT is structured so that it only ends when we say it does. I can’t help that you’re blinded with glee as you fill out another entry in your Jihadi Scorecard. In case you missed it, that play went 4-6-3; it was a double play, aka a twin killing, that got both Samir Khan and Awlaki.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 6:03 AM

OK, and a libertine paulbot would be much more likely to have little boys locked up in his basement for pleasure (and for changing the light bulbs in the grow lamps), so there we go. Firm basis in reality. You want to connect the dots any way you see fit, so will I.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 6:06 AM

We already know your opinions on decorum and civilization; why should culture be any different?

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 6:03 AM

Yeah, why would I know such things? I mean, they’re just MY opinions. Of course you’re infinitely more qualified on the subject.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 6:08 AM

Yeah, Mumia is a writer and journalist too, and he even wrote books and stuff. Roman Polanski is an artiste as well and after all… it wasn’t ‘rape-rape’.

sharrukin on October 1, 2011 at 5:59 AM

Yes, Mumia Abu-Jamal is clearly as respected an author as Ezra Pound. Good grief.

Is this what you do when you need more time to think of an answer?

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 6:01 AM

No, it’s what I do to mock conservatives who have no qualms with expansive government power as long as it helps them score a vicarious kill of the Jihadi of the Week. Who’ll be the next American citizen we kill without due process? Hell, let’s make a game of it. Want to do a lottery? I call Jane Fonda!

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 6:09 AM

No, it’s what I do to mock conservatives who have no qualms with expansive government power as long as it helps them score a vicarious kill of the Jihadi of the Week. Who’ll be the next American citizen we kill without due process? Hell, let’s make a game of it. Want to do a lottery? I call Jane Fonda!

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 6:09 AM

Well, you insist I think the president decides who our enemies are… but wait, I didn’t support the Libya thing like you predicted, so ….hmmm, can’t be right on both accounts…
Better throw another dart, basement boy.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 6:13 AM

Yes, Mumia Abu-Jamal is clearly as respected an author as Ezra Pound. Good grief.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 6:09 AM

You mean the same Ezra Pound that…

blamed the Jews for the war, with frequent reference to “the kike” and “the kike’s” relationship with the British government. On 27 April 1943 he said “60 kikes” had started the war inspired by the Talmud.

On 8 May, the day Germany surrendered, he told a reporter from the Philadelphia Record who had managed to get into the compound for an interview that Hitler was “a Jeanne d’Arc, a saint,” and that Mussolini was an “imperfect character who lost his head.”

sharrukin on October 1, 2011 at 6:14 AM

OK, and a libertine paulbot would be much more likely to have little boys locked up in his basement for pleasure (and for changing the light bulbs in the grow lamps), so there we go. Firm basis in reality. You want to connect the dots any way you see fit, so will I.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 6:06 AM

How am I a Paulbot again? Am I a non-interventionist? Nope. Do I think the terrorists are attacking us because we were mean and deposed the Shah and did other nasty stuff? Nope. It’s the Islam, stupid. And because it’s the Islam, and not our overseas military bases/support of Israel/any other Ron Paul sop, the WOT isn’t going to end anytime soon. Hence why giving the President unchecked war powers as long as it relates tangentially to the administration of the WOT worries me as a small-government conservative.

But you don’t actually care about any of that, do you? It’s easier to call someone a child-molesting Paulbot, and completely ignore the ramifications of reflexively supporting the nebulous WOT.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 6:16 AM

sharrukin on October 1, 2011 at 6:14 AM

Yeah, he was an anti-Semitic prick. V.S. Naipaul beat both his wife AND his mistress. For some reason, a lot of good writers are truly awful human beings.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 6:20 AM

Well, you insist I think the president decides who our enemies are… but wait, I didn’t support the Libya thing like you predicted, so ….hmmm, can’t be right on both accounts…
Better throw another dart, basement boy.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 6:13 AM

How dare you question President Obama’s choice of wars…err, kinetic military actions. It’s clearly in line with the 2001 AUMF. Are you some sort of traitor, Ronnie? Careful, or we might think you’ve “joined the other side.”

BTW, what does it matter what YOU think? The President does decide who our enemies are. Last I checked, despite your obviously super-cereal objections, we intervened in Libya, and Obama has final discretion on all of these drone strikes. Who did you think was deciding our enemies?

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 6:24 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 6:16 AM

It’s as valid as your connect-the-dots fill-in-the-blanks caricature of what I’ve said. You’ve told me what my opinions are on things that we haven’t even mentioned and even insisted that you know my feelings on culture more than I do.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 6:25 AM

sharrukin on October 1, 2011 at 6:14 AM

I think my response got blocked for using a naughty word, but yes, Pound was an anti-Semitic d-nozzle. V.S. Naipaul beat both his wife AND his mistress. For some reason, a lot of good writers end up being truly miserable excuses for human beings. I don’t see how that relates to the artistic merit of their work, though.

From your earlier point, should I not like Chinatown because Polanski’s a creep? It’s still a good movie.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 6:27 AM

Who did you think was deciding our enemies?

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 6:24 AM

Obama obviously is.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 6:28 AM

It’s as valid as your connect-the-dots fill-in-the-blanks caricature of what I’ve said. You’ve told me what my opinions are on things that we haven’t even mentioned and even insisted that you know my feelings on culture more than I do.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 6:25 AM

Stop dodging the question. How is what I just said a “Ron Paul” viewpoint? I’d love to see you square this circle.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 6:28 AM

Obama obviously is.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 6:28 AM

Gosh, that just makes me feel so safe.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 6:30 AM

Stop dodging the question. How is what I just said a “Ron Paul” viewpoint? I’d love to see you square this circle.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 6:28 AM

What dodging? I said I made it up. Connected the dots. Filled in the blanks. It’s what we’re doing now, right? It’s what you’re doing anyway.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 6:31 AM

Gosh, that just makes me feel so safe.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 6:30 AM

No argument.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 6:31 AM

What dodging? I said I made it up. Connected the dots. Filled in the blanks. It’s what we’re doing now, right? It’s what you’re doing anyway.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 6:31 AM

Well, what I was trying to do was explain a very simple concept to you, but yeah, you’re clearly never going to get it, so we’re better served making up blatantly false personal attacks.

I think you’re secretly the love child of Tokyo Rose and Ezra Pound, and you’re using double reverse psychology Jedi mind tricks/Serbian Jew Double Bluff to try and make me an AQ supporter.

If I convert your posts into speech with a text-to-speech program and play them backwards, they’ll tell me to submit to Allah and move to Pakistan.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 6:35 AM

Well, what I was trying to do was explain a very simple concept to you…

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 6:35 AM

No you weren’t. You were putting words in my mouth. In other words… In other words… and half a dozen other variations of that phrase. You’ve been lying for hours.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 6:41 AM

No you weren’t. You were putting words in my mouth. In other words… In other words… and half a dozen other variations of that phrase. You’ve been lying for hours.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 6:41 AM

And you’ve been dodging the real issue for this entire conversation, and when pressed on it, your response was “you’re a child molester.”

So yeah, sorry if I don’t actually care anymore. I don’t think you could articulate a cogent, consistent political ideology if you had a gun to your head, and I don’t think that bothers you in the slightest.

Whatever. Keeping cheering for the Big O as he racks up those kills. They’ll be a nice notch in his belt for his re-election campaign, which you should be a fervent supporter of, given your unwavering confidence in his ability to oversee the WOT.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 6:47 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 6:47 AM

So, let’s see. You decide the “real issue.” You fabricate your opponent’s argument. You launch one personal attack after another (since well before I noted that you have a dozen boys in your basement). And I’M the one with articulation issues. Ooooooooo K.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 6:54 AM

So, let’s see. You decide the “real issue.” You fabricate your opponent’s argument. You launch one personal attack after another (since well before I noted that you have a dozen boys in your basement). And I’M the one with articulation issues. Ooooooooo K.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 6:54 AM

The next salient point you articulate will be your first of the night/morning, broseph.

There, that should give you an excuse to go off on another tangent about personal attacks/putting words in your mouth instead of addressing any of the actual issues in play in this whole debate. You can thank me later.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 6:58 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 6:58 AM

Why would I have to make a point when you make all my points for me? You’re just debating yourself.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 7:00 AM

My only regret is that we didn’t have drones during Vietnam. Buh bye, Hanoi Jane!

stefanite on October 1, 2011 at 7:03 AM

Awlaki was an officer in Al Qaeda’s army, tasked mainly with propaganda but increasingly given to directing would-be killers like Abdulmutallab around the global battlefield. Or so we’re told; there’s endless video out there of him denouncing America and exhorting attacks on the country, but the proof that he was planning operations — the heart of the argument for taking him out — remains within the upper reaches of America’s counterterror establishment.

He was part of the war machine directed against the United States. He is a traitor to his country. For those reasons alone he is subjection to liquidation and should be shown no mercy.

If you don’t like your country’s policies foreign & domestic thats all fine. When you openly take up arms and partake in an organization thats openly at war with your government you are as guilty as the guy that pulls the trigger, makes the bombs, and blows up the bombs.

Terrorists deserve death not trials.

Rattl3r on October 1, 2011 at 7:03 AM

Why would I have to make a point when you make all my points for me? You’re just debating yourself.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 7:00 AM

I’ll have to talk to the good people at Guinness about your record breaking shark-jump tonight.

Fonzie would be proud.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 7:07 AM

He was part of the war machine directed against the United States. He is a traitor to his country. For those reasons alone he is subjection to liquidation and should be shown no mercy.

If you don’t like your country’s policies foreign & domestic thats all fine. When you openly take up arms and partake in an organization thats openly at war with your government you are as guilty as the guy that pulls the trigger, makes the bombs, and blows up the bombs.

Terrorists deserve death not trials.

Rattl3r on October 1, 2011 at 7:03 AM

Agreed. Tea Party Terrorist Hobbits don’t deserve due process. I know because Van Jones told me so.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 7:08 AM

I’ll have to talk to the good people at Guinness about your record breaking shark-jump tonight.

Fonzie would be proud.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 7:07 AM

No doubt they will find you be as much of a moron as I think you are.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 7:11 AM

http://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones

How much do you know about most of the people who’ve been killed by drone strikes? Not very much. But hey, the government says they were bad, and as we all know, our hyper-competent government is never, ever wrong.

BTW, for the inevitable attempt at poisoning the well, the link I posted isn’t a lefty web site.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 7:13 AM

No doubt they will find you be as much of a moron as I think you are.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 7:11 AM

I might care about your opinion if I figured you were capable of forming a single intelligent thought. How about your long-awaited treatise on culture? I’m sure it’ll rival Matthew Arnold.

Bang up job on the support for Team O, though. If I ever run into the SCOAMF, I’ll tell him he’s got a big fan named Ronnie.

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 7:21 AM

Ron who?? Oh, that guy. Almost forgot about him….past his prime and senile.

Sherman1864 on October 1, 2011 at 7:23 AM

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 7:21 AM

And I was hoping so much that you cared.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 7:25 AM

And I was hoping so much that you cared.

Ronnie on October 1, 2011 at 7:25 AM

Since you yourself admitted that you’ve yet to make an actual point, I guess you were spending the last 4 and a half hours on this thread for the thumb exercise. I know that’s what I was doing; I’ve got ten pound weights strapped to each of my fingers.

That wasn’t a very cultured response, by the way. Where are your rumored Continental sensibilities?

Good Solid B-Plus on October 1, 2011 at 7:29 AM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7