Ron Paul condemns Awlaki assassination
“No I don’t think that’s a good way to deal with our problems,” Paul said in a media avail after his remarks at the Politics + Eggs event here. “He was born here, Al-Awlaki was born here, he is an American citizen. He was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody. We know he might have been associated with the underwear bomber. But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it’s sad.
“I think what would people … have said about Timothy McVeigh? We didn’t assassinate him, who certainly he had done it. Went and put through the courts then executed him. To start assassinating American citizens without charges, we should think very seriously about this.”
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4
Fine. Why do people have a problem with this being a requirement? If this case was so obvious than a judicial opinion should be easy to get.
blink on September 30, 2011 at 1:40 PM
We do. There are times when our legal system is just not equipped to deal with a certain circumstance. If a US citizen were executed abroad because he insulted one of the president’s ambassadors it us our responsibility, through our elected representatives, to hold the president to account. Our courts have no legal jurisdiction in the matter.
Can you think of a single instance when someone was tried in a US court for a crime committed on foreign soil? You will find that in most, if not all instances, the crime was adjudicated by local authorities or through a military tribunal.
NotCoach on September 30, 2011 at 1:44 PM
That seems to be a major failing here as well for those who think Paul is right. Our courts have no jurisdiction in foreign countries. Name a precedent in which our courts intervened concerning a US citizen on foreign soil and not in US custody.
NotCoach on September 30, 2011 at 1:49 PM
It seems to me that our legal system is equipped to grant warrants for mere surveillance of US citizens. Certainly they are equipped to grant a warrant for a targeted killing.
Are you serious? It happens all the time. Have you never heard of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act?
blink on September 30, 2011 at 1:54 PM
The executive and the people. You can vote against Obama because of this.
Comment less, read the AUMF more.
Your question is incoherent but if you are asking whether someone who argues for impeachment is declaring war on the government then I would say that your need to have an argument has overwhelmed your ability to be coherent.
Basilsbest on September 30, 2011 at 2:00 PM
I contend they are not equipped (as a legal matter) nor is such a warrant required when the citizen is outside of the United States. I do not believe there is a legal protection under the 4th Amendment outside our borders.
As a company operating under SEC rules the transaction is certainly moving through the US at one stage or another. It isn’t the same thing since the companies are operating within the US.
NotCoach on September 30, 2011 at 2:01 PM
Figures.
Interesting that he originally voted to go after bin Laden also, but whined afterward that we shouldn’t have gone into Pakistan to do it.
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/ron-paul-condemns-assassination-of-american-born-al-qaeda-leader
jdawg on September 30, 2011 at 2:01 PM
So, I disagree with Paul here.
But would it be worth it to you people if we got rid of HUD, EPA, DOE (both of em) the IRS the Federal Reserve, Obamacare, etc. in exchange not killing scum like Al-Al?
Aquateen Hungerforce on September 30, 2011 at 2:07 PM
In the other thread, I ask this question: For those who are saying that awlaki’s rights were violated here, what rights does Awlaki have?
The right to counsel? Right to a jury? Right to service of process? Habeaus Corpus? Protections from unreasonable searches and seizures? Right to an appeal? Since this is a death penalty being issued, is it cruel and unusual punishment? Death Penalty cases are automatically appealed, so not only do we have to figure out what court to try him in, but what court gets the appeal? Is it all ultimately down to Anthony Kennedy?
Vanceone on September 30, 2011 at 2:07 PM
I, for one, would like to thank the Ron Paul nitwit-fan boys for providing the conservatives here at Hot Air with a clear and powerful reminder why Ron Paul is ignored by everyone in the GOP except his clownish acolytes.
Jaibones on September 30, 2011 at 2:18 PM
What are you talking about? Did you only read the first sentence of Persons Subject To the FCPA? It’s not just for SEC registered companies. Read down a few more lines.
The FCPA makes it illegal for any U.S. citizen to bribe a foreign official for business even on foreign soil.
This has nothing to do with a transaction moving through the US at one stage or another.
Regardless, stop trying to move the goalposts.
blink on September 30, 2011 at 2:19 PM
Did you even watch the video I posted with him gathering his troops to attack the US and kill as many american citizens as humanly possible, or did you go “lalalalalalalalala” covering your ears like all the other Paulnuts? I guess we know the answer…
ChristianRock on September 30, 2011 at 2:23 PM
I don’t think I am. This law involves persons or corporations acting as agents for American interests, whether they be private or public concerns. If you are a US citizen operating a business out of Mexico and you bribe Mexican officials you will not be liable under this law.
NotCoach on September 30, 2011 at 2:33 PM
1. Your contention is wrong. Our legal system is certainly equipped to review cases in order to approve targeted killings. How many targeted killings are there?
2. Great. So you think that the executive branch has the power to kill any US citizen that it determines it should kill as long as the citizen is outside US borders.
blink on September 30, 2011 at 2:33 PM
You’re wrong. If you’re a US citizen and you bride a foreign official for your own personal contracting work, then you’ve violated the FCPA.
Regardless, you ARE moving the goal post.
blink on September 30, 2011 at 2:35 PM
I would think that such a video would make a conviction in absentia easy to procure.
blink on September 30, 2011 at 2:36 PM
Btw, I despise Ron Paul.
I also despise Orwellian powers being handed over to executives.
blink on September 30, 2011 at 2:38 PM
It (and knowing he is ipso facto an Al Qaida leader) makes it unnecessary.
ChristianRock on September 30, 2011 at 2:47 PM
How would a US court have any jurisdiction over a company operating out of Mexico and the bribary occurring in Mexico? They don’t. It does not matter if the person involved is a US citizen.
1. No it absolutely is not. Foreign affairs are strictly the purview of the Executive Branch. They are only equipped to do so if they are granted the authority to do so. And even then they can be ignored.
2. The President can kill anyone in the world and be immune from prosecution as the sitting president. Again, under such a circumstance it is our responsibility to hold him to account. And if anyone acts in a contrary manner to US law while acting as an agent of the United States they are subject to criminal prosecution if there are any laws covering their actions. But a soldier acting under the authority of the President is not subject to any such laws. We have the UCOMJ to deal with anyone acting contrary to US law while in uniform and abroad. They will be tried by a military tribunal and serve their time in a military prison, not a US criminal court.
You don’t like Alawki was killed while acting as an enemy combatant on foreign soil? Tell your elected officials, but no laws were broken and our courts have no jurisdiction over the issue even if there were a law protecting him from our military.
NotCoach on September 30, 2011 at 2:51 PM
That’s the law, and it hasn’t been successfully challenged yet.
Well, the judiciary branch has certainly made bribes to foreign officials their purview. There is absolutely no reason why the judiciary can’t make targeted killings their purview, too.
Also, foreign affairs aren’t only strictly the purview of the executive branch. The senate is needed to confirm all treaties and congress is needed to declare war.
Now, you’re moving the goalposts AND you’re throwing everything against the wall and hoping that something will stick.
Btw, have you ever heard of the PROTECT Act of 2003? That makes it illegal for a US citizen to have sex with a child in a foreign country. Now, please tell me again how just purview is impossible for the judiciary?
blink on September 30, 2011 at 3:01 PM
Who knowing?
blink on September 30, 2011 at 3:03 PM
Anyone ever been convicted under the Protect Act? And has any US citizen ever been convicted under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act not acting as agent for any US private or public concern?
I already stated that just because a law exists does that mean the courts now have jurisdiction. And even the courts themselves recognize this fact. They have struck down laws in the past as unconstitutional stating that they have no jurisdiction over the matter.
You ignore half of what I post and assume you are correct on the enforcement of our laws and you blame me for moving the goal posts? Produce some cases that involve convictions as described in the first paragraph that were not overturned on constitutional or jurisdictional grounds. Then we can start to argue how our courts have overstepped their bounds if you do.
NotCoach on September 30, 2011 at 3:08 PM
A clarification. Anyone ever convicted under the PROTECT Act after committing a disgusting act of sexual exploitation on a minor while outside of the US.
NotCoach on September 30, 2011 at 3:13 PM
Of course.
Now, how are you going to move the goalposts this time? What are you going to throw against the wall now?
>>And has any US citizen ever been convicted under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act not acting as agent for any US private or public concern?<<
I don't know. AI could research it, but it wouldn't matter to you if I did find a case. You would simply move the goal post by saying, "well it didn't go to the Supreme Court" or something like that.
Just admit that you used the wrong argument and it backfired on you.
blink on September 30, 2011 at 3:15 PM
Look at how pathetically you need to qualify everything. I’m not finding a case for you. You would simply make the type of claim that I mentioned above. Face it – you lost this one.
blink on September 30, 2011 at 3:17 PM
Brillaint. Sports teams should use this same tactic. When down 49-0 zip a football team should say, “We win!” and take their ball and go home.
Committing sex acts on a minor outside of the US while sitting at a computer in the US can certainly be made illegal. And that is why I made the clarification because I figured you would be dishonest. Thanks for proving me right.
NotCoach on September 30, 2011 at 3:24 PM
So, you admit that you’re down 49-0 in this argument.
blink on September 30, 2011 at 3:32 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4