Anwar Awlaki Killed by U.S....Ron Paul Responds..
 

I agree with Ron Paul...this is disturbing and will do -0- in this "islamlic terrorist" money transfer scheme....Read on..


http://discussions.latimes.com/20/la...ki-20110930/10

Ron Paul, the Texas congressman who is seeking the GOP presidential nomination, on Friday criticized the Obama administration’s action in killing Anwar Awlaki, the American-born cleric who advocated jihad against the United States.

Paul was the strongest critic on the Republican side in condemning the attack, which was praised by other candidates including Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, a libertarian like Paul, also questioned the tactic of killing a U.S. citizen without due process.

Awlaki, a prominent voice in Yemen’s Al Qaeda affiliate, and Samir Khan, an editor of a jihadist magazine, were killed in an air attack in Yemen by what U.S. and Yemeni officials say was an operation that involved U.S. military and intelligence assets. The attack is part of a campaign against Islamic terrorists that included the killing of Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in May in Pakistan.

After a campaign stop at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire, Paul told reporters that Americans need to think about such actions because Awlaki was born in the United States and was entitled to the same rights as all U.S. citizens.

"No, I don't think that's a good way to deal with our problems,” Paul said in a videotape of the questioning by reporters. Awlaki “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.”

Paul went on to compare the situation to Timothy McVeigh, convicted of blowing up a truck bomb at the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995. The attack killed 168 people and injured more than 800 people.

“I think, what would people have said about Timothy McVeigh? We didn't assassinate him, who certainly had done it,” Paul said. McVeigh “was put through the courts then executed. … To start assassinating American citizens without charges, we should think very seriously about this.”

Paul argued that the killing of Awlaki was different from the attack on Bin Laden because Bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington.

“I voted for authority to go after those individuals responsible for 9/11,” Paul said. “Nobody ever suggested that he [Awlaki] was participant in 9/11.”

Paul has been running behind the leaders in the GOP race for the presidential nod, but has been as high as third or fourth in many national polls, running at around 10%. Johnson has been far back in the pack, running in the very low single digits.

In an interview with Fox News, Johnson made the same points as Paul, warning that killing an American citizen without due process set a dangerous precedent despite the need for the United States to remain vigilant against terrorism.

Paul and Johnson represent the neo-isolationist wing of the GOP, but other parts of the Republican Party have advocated a foreign policy based on a more robust U.S. role abroad. Perry, the leader in most polls for the GOP nomination though his star has faded in recent days, praised the attack.

“I want to congratulate the United States military and intelligence communities – and President Obama for sticking with the government's long-standing and aggressive anti-terror policies – for getting another key international terrorist,” Perry said in a prepared statement.

Perry went on to call the death of Awlaki an “important victory in the war on terror.”

[Updated at 10:01 a.m. Sept. 30: Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney also praised the Obama administration in a prepared statement.

“I commend the president, the members of the intelligence community, our service members, and our allies for their continued efforts to keep Americans safe," Romney stated.]

Ironically, the libertarian opposition to the attack was similar to the argument by the American Civil Liberties Union in its disapproval.

"The targeted killing program violates both U.S. and international law,” ACLU deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer said in a prepared statement. “As we've seen today, this is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts.

"The government's authority to use lethal force against its own citizens should be limited to circumstances in which the threat to life is concrete, specific and imminent. It is a mistake to invest the president – any president – with the unreviewable power to kill any American whom he deems to present a threat to the country,” he stated.

Did Awlaki ever renounce his American citizenship?

yeah, we should take him prisoner and let him rot in jail, all the while recruiting more members and spreading his "word"

Here you go:

Process: fuel drone->arm drone->taxi drone->get drone airborne->search for target->push red button->land drone->refuel drone....

Goddamn. How long 'til the Govt. decides that "drug dealers" are terrorists and start sending drones after them too? Hell, they've already made that claim in the past...

The reason why this is terrifying, is because the average American citizen doesn't think its terrifying.

I think it is terrifying to an extent, for sure. The question becomes: where is the line? Problem is, if it doesn't cancel Jersey Shore of Survivor, nobody notices.

Uhhh....I'm pretty sure the line is clear here. You don't execute US citizens without them being sentenced to death row by jury trail.

Really shouldn't be executing anybody at this point, but hey, that's another thread.

so you're an above average american citizen, lol

So let me be devil's advocate: say someone is hanging around with someone known to be responsible for hundreds of deaths and the person hanging around with said scumbag is a sympathizer with the aforementioned scumbag.... Wrong place, wrong time or "let's capture the smaller fish so the bigger fish can get away and kill more people"?

Not taking either side, just curious.

Here's what gets me... The gubment is sitting around letting KSM rot in jail for 8 years, trying to decide if they should try him in civilian courts or via military tribunal... and they just drop a fucking bomb on this guy... So while we try to figure out what's most fair for a foreign enemy combatent who's list of crimes is as long as the post whore thread, we drop a bomb on an American citizen who hasn't been directly involved in any crimes... I don't disagree with killing the fucking guy, per say... BUT, there's a bit of hypocrisy swimming around this whole thing...

And Kaneman's right... it seems as though the government can really do anything it wants with no regard for logic or good sense and without any sort of repercussions...