Was Ron Paul right?

I think Ron Paul is correct. The guy should have been given a trial and had his fate decided there. What happened was he was murdered but nothing will come of it. It happened before and will happen again.

The government got away with 911, they can get away with anything.

Ron Paul has a very strong and loyal group of supporters but I am afraid he does not stand a chance without the media.

-- Dan - "Collector of Hand Planes"

Yeah, this all gives me a bit of a groan. In fairness, I doubt it’s anything new.

-- My dad and I built a 65 chev pick up.I killed trannys in that thing for some reason-Hog

As far as I know, it’s never happened in the history of the nation.
However a supposition that it’s been done in the past does nothing for the insane criminality of the thing today any more than the long and horrible history of murder in society makes a murder today any less criminal or horrible.
Presidents do not have super-Constitutional powers.
They are bound by the law just as you or I.
Anything else would be the worst form of tyranny.

While I am as happy as anyone else about Al Awlakai and Samir passing, and I am, I am astonished and appalled that any president would undertake the execution of a citizen without either a trial, or some substantial evidence that the person is actively engaged in combat or terror operations against the US or it’s interests.

It’s entirely new. This is a Constitutional crisis. The president says he has the authority to have you executed and to do so in secret.

This president has so often tossed the constitution aside because he is convinced that is is a passe, worn out, irrelevancy. Which position I can understand one might have if one is hell bent on destroying the Republic and replacing it with some species of communism.

But to be on the one hand claiming to be a liberal – - and on the other to be having citizens executed?
That speaks to something far, far darker than merely wanting a different kind of governance.

-- When the moderator chooses sides, his site sucks.

I also am unaware of any precedent. But I suspect I suffer from a general unawareness. This is when I defer to my buddies with constitutional law hobbies. Cr1 and Stretch both share this hobby and occupy slightly different perches on the tree, so I’ll listen. Also in fairness, this is all quite alarming to me. You’re also right to point out that a legacy of behavior doesn’t constitute an outline for behavior. The “secrecy” part is also worrisome but I’m too poorly educated on the subject. The secrecy suggests complicity, am I wrong? If this secrecy was deemed necessary, are we intentionally avoiding a relevant discussion about harboring?

-- My dad and I built a 65 chev pick up.I killed trannys in that thing for some reason-Hog

Ill give you a recent example… Osama Bin Laden…

No, he was not a citizen but he was NEVER charged for 911. We were told it was him and everyone accepted that fact… If the gov was so sure it was him why wasn’t he charged? I am not saying he was not the one to blame but should we not have charged him first and had some form of trial? When we killed him he was said to be unarmed and not to mention the fact he was suffering kidney failure.. Then dump his body at sea as soon as possible?

I am sorry but that just does not add up…

-- Dan - "Collector of Hand Planes"

OBL is an entirely different thing.

OBL was not a citizen and because of that the Constitution does not apply.
It might have been murder under Pakastani law. Maybe. I don’t know diddly about Paki’ law. The OBL kill is problematic because it required an armed military invasion of a sovereign nation with whom we are not at war. But that problem is solved by Pakistan’s disinterest in doing anything about it – not that they could.

”but should we not have charged him first and had some form of trial?”
I say definitely not. He was engaged in overt combat hostilities against the United States. It was an act of war he undertook, he continued to undertake them, and it was another one that ended him. By waging war he made himself a legitimate target of war. Additionally, he never declared a surrender or attempted to sue for peace, instead his war continued.
Now if he had come to the USA (or any of the territories) and been arrested then he would have needed that trial.

I thought the islamic funeral was way far over the top and hope it was just another islamist coddling lie by the administration. I hope we didn’t insult our soldiers that way.
The burial at sea makes sense to me if you credit the idea that leaving him laying there would only serve to create a shrine with a bona fide martyr’s body to worship as some kind of disgusting fetish. Given the president’s foolishness about buying into the notion that America has brought the wrath of Islam on itself, the burial seems a good fit with his thinking.

Just to put it to rest the FBI did charge him
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden

And an impartial magistrate examined the evidence
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/17/osama-bin-laden-criminal-charges_n_879094.html

-- When the moderator chooses sides, his site sucks.

buying into the notion that America has brought the wrath of Islam on itself
fo real?

Edited to agree with GregD below re RP.

-- My dad and I built a 65 chev pick up.I killed trannys in that thing for some reason-Hog

The question of when it is appropriate for a government to authorize the killing of a person is a very interesting one. The killing of Al Awlaki is one important example to consider.

On the other hand, the debate about the precise meaning of the U.S. Constitution started, I expect, while it was still being drafted, and that debate continues unabated to this day. This particular event hardly suggests a constitutional crisis. I’m happy to leave it to the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether or not it was a violation of the Constitution, should anyone choose to push the question that far.

But again with the ranting against the 44th President of the United States? “Destroying the Republic with some other species of communism”??? There is certainly room to argue that he may be making a mess of certain things – as well as room to argue that he isn’t, by the way – but this hyperbole is vacuous.

Ron Paul seems to have a lot of substance. I often find his comments interesting. It is dissappointing that he doesn’t get more coverage.

-- Greg D. -- the price of freedom is tolerance

This is not the first time a US Citizen has been summarily executed by the Federal Gov’t. During WWII a US Citizen (born to german parents) who had returned to Germany was landed on the US coast as part of a Nazi Sabotage crew. All were caught, tried by a MILITARY tribunal and were exectuted. The SCOTUS at the time upheld the act by unanimous vote.

Now – this was a US citizen on US soil….so there is precedent to treat a US citizen as an enemy combatant. Think about the Civil War – how many southern spies were imprisoned/executed with no trial, no nothing? And all of them US Citizens.

Now do I like that they did it? It makes me a bit queesy…where does it stop? What IS the defenition of enemy combatant? So was Ron Paul right? Is it unconstitutional? A SCOTUS decision says no, but I am not so sure of that myself….

According to my Big Blame theory the answer to this question depends entirely on one’s party affiliation. So far I’ve never observed a deviation from my theory.
Critics, however, insist that the question is theological, hence rational thinking does not apply.

Viktor, might you summarize your theory or point me toward a discussion of it? I have no preconceived notion of it and I’m entirely unexposed. I’m just genuinely interested.

-- My dad and I built a 65 chev pick up.I killed trannys in that thing for some reason-Hog

If there were a basis for the proposition that it is an act of war to be inspirationally hostile to the USA then the Dixie Chicks and Rosie O’Donnel should also be enemy combatants

Rosie for sure, along with Michael Moore.

-- “Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it” ― Thomas Sowell, The Thomas Sowell Reader

Like most of us, I’m glad the SOB is dead and gone.
Like cr1. I’m a little concerned with the constitutionality of the act of killing him.
There is language in the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) that might give the POTUS cover. However, as I read it, the AUMF only applies to actions in Iraq.
I’d like to see the question adjudicated.

-- Gene 'The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.' G. K. Chesterton

^I, like Gene, would like to see this question tended to.

-- My dad and I built a 65 chev pick up.I killed trannys in that thing for some reason-Hog

Vern -
Those guys weren’t summarily executed . They were captured (a couple of them surrendered IIRC), tried in a legitimate court, sentenced, and executed. It was all as legal as a church.

As much as I’m glad that Al Awlaki and his American born compatriot were killed, I think that there are legitimate agruments opposing this action. While their actions were unquestionably illegal under U.S. law, it still takes a trip thru the legal process to make execution legal. “Everybody knows” just isn’t enough. Our legal system also requires that charges be filed, a trial held, witnesses testify, the accused be allowed to cross examine those witnesses, and even testify themselves if they choose. Then a jury has to decide guilt and a judge hand down a sentence.

Our real problem here is that our law doesn’t adequately address this kind of situation. Apparently, these drone attacks are the subject of much discussion in the oval office before they are carried out, and this particular case was discussed even more because of the citizenship issue. As much as I agree on an emotional level, I’m troubled on the intellectual level. Personally, I think that a trial in absentia might close up that hole.

-- Adversity doesn't build character...................it reveals it.