Fuck ron paul ---al awikidickhead is dead

VTXDave

VTXDave

Well-Known Member
dukeanthony said:
OBL is a religous FREAK
He didnt try to make things better where he went
He Tried to make People submit to his Brand of Tyranny
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but that's not the point now, is it? To a lot of people, he's a hero. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Why is this so difficult for so many to comprehend? But again....that's not the point. OBL attacked us because we "meddle" in the affairs of sovereign nations. Our brand of "democracy" is not his brand (or the Saudis for that matter), yet we're over their dictating policy. If China began establishing a presence within the US and began dictating policy, I'd be willing to bet more than a few Americans would take umbrage with it.
 
deprave

deprave

New Member
"I agree with Ron Paul, the administration has'nt even presented a case" for all we know its a fairytale

[video=youtube;Z_gCmBOERE0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_gCmBOERE0[/video]

If indeed he was guilty, sure, he deserved to die, "enemy combatant" no he was not, he was not in a warzone. If he did the things they say ...fuck him...Id prefer if it was true, I assume it is probably true that he was an enemy....just like you all assume as there is no evidence and there will never be any especially now. Do you remember this guy hangs out at the pentagon?

everyone talks about how he was an American citizen, sure thats the biggest issue, but assassination is actually illegal even of foreigners, even more illegal in sovereign land...

there is a lot of legal issues surrounding this, legal issue that protect human life everywhere...the questions is who is to say CHINA or RUSSIA won't drone bomb YOUR ass next...say you REALLY hate Canada and you talk shit about Canada a lot in the future because lets say they start executing marijuana growers...should they be able to assassinate you at your home in America with a robot because you are an enemy of the state?

Sure lets say al-awhatever is a really bad guy and plotted terrorist threats...then yea he deserved to die..but what of the legal repercussions of this? what about people not just in the united states but people all around the world. Will china start drone assassinating nepal next?

We just lost another human rights issue on this...no matter if we killed a really bad man who deserved it or what..human rights lost not only in America but around the world.

I think this is much bigger then just a BAD GUY getting pwont...We didn't just take out a bad guy cause he plotted to kill some people and spread propaganda, I honestly don't think the gov would care about that, he has been killed for a reason, for reasons of power.
 
Luger187

Luger187

Well-Known Member
dukeanthony said:
"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," Paul told reporters after a speech in Manchester, New Hampshire, Friday.
"Al-Awlaki was born here, he's an American citizen, he was never tried or charged for any crimes," Paul said. "To start assassinating American citizens without charges - we should think very seriously about this."
But U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-NY), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the lethal strike was lawful.
"It was entirely legal. If a citizen takes up arms against his own country, he becomes an enemy of the country. The president was acting entirely within his rights and I fully support the president," King said.
Click to expand...
yes but he was never tried for treason.
example: no matter how much the government knows you murdered someone, they MUST try you in a court of law before a punishment is given. they cant just suspect you of a crime and punish you for it. if a suspected murderer in america decides to go out of country, does that give our government the right to have a sniper team shoot him? or maybe use a drone strike on him? no, they must find and arrest him, then bring him back here to take him to trial.

i do think this guy deserved to be killed. but i also think it is MUCH better to arrest and interrogate him and hopefully learn some new info. plus you can try him in a court before you kill em. doing this doesnt make us look like a worldwide empire that pushes the rest of the world around by using military force. it looks like we are working hard to round up the bad guys so we can take them to trial.
 
dukeanthony

dukeanthony

New Member
UncleBuck said:
there you have it. strong, wealthy, industrialized nations without a central ban?

"none"

i just looked at your posts. please ignore the munch box reference, i was mistaken.
Click to expand...
So comes off as the same
And Look
He only has 13 posts and just joined
 
Prefontaine

Prefontaine

Well-Known Member
PeachOibleBoiblePeach#1 said:
your hypocrite's If a REPUBLICAN,,,was in charge it would be a "monumental event",,,Democrate it's a "New Violation of freedom",,,Bullshit,,,Under obama the "Big target's",,,are getting dropped like flie's,,,instead of sacraficing innocent's and money,,,He was Born in America,,,He "Definatly was not a American",,,,See you "republican's",,,also want "Mexican's",,,Born in America,,,not to be American's,,,,but a "Known Terrorist is OK",,,Kiss my ass you fuckin' hypocrit's....Sorry for my anger had a bad week and people are stupid,,,Especially These "Republican douchbag's".....
Click to expand...
anyone that brings political affiliation into a conversation about civil rights is a fucking sheople. there is no party line, our presidential elections are basically wwf main events, so shut up about the party bullshit and grow up a little
 
WillyBagseed

WillyBagseed

Active Member
For you Libertarian "gotta do what the Constitution says literally " people...............and anybody else who thinks killing people is ok.

Amendment 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

I do not see anywhere that you have to be a citizen, just a person.

*The "beacon of light " went out a long time ago, we are supposed to be a "just" country according to our considerably ignored Constitution. You do not have to like it but if you truly believe in the United States Constitution you have no choice but to condemn the unjust killing of this bad person.
 
dukeanthony

dukeanthony

New Member
Willyßagseed;6387921 said:
For you Libertarian "gotta do what the Constitution says literally " people...............and anybody else who thinks killing people is ok.

Amendment 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

I do not see anywhere that you have to be a citizen, just a person.
Click to expand...
Enemy Combatant on Foreign soil
Nullifys anything you just said
 
WillyBagseed

WillyBagseed

Active Member
Read it again, that just means he can be held to answer. Anything else is made up shit that is not in the Constitution.

And don't get me wrong, other than personal freedoms I can't stand RP.



*Under current law and not in the Constitution you could be , as an American citizen or person, declared a terrorist threat and held without charge, rendered and tortured.... errrrrr "questioned" and your 5th amendment rights and more, nullified.

To use an overused phrase, this leads us down a very slippery slope.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

"Enemy Combatant on Foreign soil" is a phrase the Government uses to try and deny your rights as a person, let alone a citizen.

I did not like the guy, and yes I am glad he is dead. HOWEVER, we once again doused the beacon of light with some water from the denial of rights jug.
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
dukeanthony said:
Guy Renounced his Citizenship
Is a high ranking member of Al Qaeda (was)
Took up arms against us

YOu know all he had to do was turn himself in and Hire a Lawyer
Click to expand...
Remember, there were no charges filed against him. Nothing to turn himself in for.
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
The Ruiner said:
If that guy wanted a "fair trial" and to be part of the American process he could have turned himself in at any time, and probably been treated quite fairly for the Intel value he could have provided. He chose otherwise, and got otherwise.
Click to expand...
Turned himself in for what? He didn't have any charges against him.
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
Total Head said:
shit i swore i wasn't going to be one of those assholes who copies and pastes the same thing in multiple threads but since you asked:

"the law" is as follows:

us code, title 18, part I, chapter 115

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.


article 3, section 3 of the us constitution
　

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


i purposely neglected to highlight the parts of interest for fear some might not read the whole thing, but you might want to pay attention to the "2 witnesses to the same overt act" deal. testimony in this case does not require a court, as evident by the inclusion of "open court" when discussing an ourtright confession.
Click to expand...
Where in that does it say a trial need not take place? It says the punishment can by by Congress. Nowhere does it say murdering American citizens without a trial is acceptable.
 
dukeanthony

dukeanthony

New Member
"We're not commenting on any specific individual or operation," the official said. "As a general matter, it would be entirely lawful for the United States to target high-level leaders of enemy forces, regardless of their nationality, who are plotting to kill Americans both under the authority provided by Congress in its use of military force in the armed conflict with al-Qaida, the Taliban, and associated forces as well as established international law that recognizes our right of self-defense."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top