Rand and Scheuer will be on Freedom Warch in the next hour

[tangent4ronpaul]

about 3 minutes from now - tune in!

[Sola_Fide]

Cant wait to see the tube.

[Jeremy]

Live feed http://www.watchfomny.com/Video/USA/01/Fox-Business/pop.php

[tangent4ronpaul]

I said Rand in the intro
er title....

[low preference guy]

The Judge criticized the assassination of Osama Bin Laden right out of the gate. Awesome.

[KramerDSP]

Col. Anthony Shafer. LOL.

[Sola_Fide]

The Judge criticized the assassination of Osama Bin Laden right out of the gate. Awesome.

I knew he would:)

[Jeremy]

The Judge criticized the assassination of Osama Bin Laden right out of the gate. Awesome.

He didn't seem to mention another criticism of it again though.

[anaconda]

Yes. these two on Freedom Watch TODAY is just what the doctor ordered.

[low preference guy]

He didn't seem to mention another criticism of it again though.

He's been interviewing people and doesn't have 2 mouths.

[Jeremy]

He's been interviewing people and doesn't have 2 mouths.

Not everything someone says to you is an argument.

[low preference guy]

The Judge:


Has the war on terror been worth all that money? Rand Paul says no, next.

But when Rand Paul was interviewed, he actually didn't say that.

[low preference guy]

The Plain Truth: Why the President did not have the legal or moral authority to kill Osama Bin Laden.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Blimp!

[low preference guy]

The Judge had a perfect closing statement.

[Romulus]

tubez?

[ctiger2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaywNka8HFA

[Wesker1982]

Judge ftw


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGexershHu8&feature=feedu

[Brett85]

So now people here don't even think we had the right to kill a guy responsible for killing 3,000 of our own people on 9-11? Why can't people understand the difference between non interventionism and pacifism?

[low preference guy]

So now people here don't even think we had the right to kill a guy responsible for killing 3,000 of our own people on 9-11? Why can't people understand the difference between non interventionism and pacifism?

They're not opposed to killing them, but opposed to killing them illegally. This could be used as a precedent to kill anyone that the President considers bad without due process. Today it is legal to kill even Americans without a trial if the President chooses .

[QueenB4Liberty]

They're not opposed to killing them, but opposed to killing them illegally. This could be used as a precedent to kill anyone that the President considers bad without due process. Today it is legal to kill even Americans without a trial if the President chooses .

He was supposedly going to kill himself if we didn't and instructed his body guards to kill him before we got a chance to if we didn't. So capturing him alive really wasn't an option. </devils advocate>

[Thomas86]

So now people here don't even think we had the right to kill a guy responsible for killing 3,000 of our own people on 9-11? Why can't people understand the difference between non interventionism and pacifism?

I don't understand what is so controversial about the rule of law.

You can't have a war on "terror". If he's so obviously guilty - try him in a court and give him the death penalty. Be a beacon of reason in the world.

[rnestam]

They're not opposed to killing them, but opposed to killing them illegally. This could be used as a precedent to kill anyone that the President considers bad without due process. Today it is legal to kill even Americans without a trial if the President chooses .

But you have to admit, this is a once every 3 generations event. Personally I'm very glad he is dead because my head would explode listening to the politicians jockey for position on what to do with him alive...what a nightmare distraction that would have been.

[Brett85]

Capturing him wasn't an option when they were firing back as well. Unfortunately, we had to kill him rather than capture him. Are we really at the point now where we have to read terrorists their rights before we kill them? We should have the right to kill the man who was responsible for killing so many of our own. The original war authorization after 9-11 authorized the killing of Bin Laden and the others responsible for the attacks. The resolution didn't give us the authority to occupy countries like we're doing now, but we've had the authority to take out Bin Laden since that resolution was passed.

[Brett85]

I don't understand what is so controversial about the rule of law.

You can't have a war on "terror". If he's so obviously guilty - try him in a court and give him the death penalty. Be a beacon of reason in the world.

If we could've captured him alive we would've. We weren't able to do that because of how the situation unfolded.

[juleswin]

He was supposedly going to kill himself if we didn't and instructed his body guards to kill him before we got a chance to if we didn't. So capturing him alive really wasn't an option. </devils advocate>

And yet he did not kill himself even though the walls were closing in on him. And who in their right mind believes that Osama Bin laden "the most wanted man in the world" would be living in a heavily guarded house? not a back room or false wall but a fricken compound with guards. Gaddafi, the leader of a country is cowardly hiding in shacks and underground bunkers because he is afraid of us but Osama is living openly in a heavily guarded house.

Sometimes I wish we can divide this country up so people gullible enough to believe anything the govt says can go live with their kind.

[low preference guy]

If we could've captured him alive we would've. We weren't able to do that because of how the situation unfolded.

No, the mission was to kill.

[Brett85]

And yet he did not kill himself even though the walls were closing in on him. And who in their right mind believes that Osama Bin laden "the most wanted man in the world" would be living in a heavily guarded house? not a back room or false wall but a fricken compound with guards. Gaddafi, the leader of a country is cowardly hiding in shacks and underground bunkers because he is afraid of us but Osama is living openly in a heavily guarded house.

Sometimes I wish we can divide this country up so people gullible enough to believe anything the govt says can go live with their kind.

That just shows that the Pakistan government really isn't our "ally" and has been actively working against us since 9-11. It's just a good reason to quit giving them foreign aid.

[low preference guy]

Sometimes I wish we can divide this country up so people gullible enough to believe anything the govt says can go live with their kind.

So do I, and I hope the free state project accomplishes exactly that.

[rnestam]

No, the mission was to kill.

I heard that on the radio today...a "clean kill" order or something...do not take him alive. But only heard it once

[Aldanga]

He didn't seem to mention another criticism of it again though.
Jeremy, I really wish you would quit with this intentional divisiveness. It's petty and doesn't help the situation in any way.

[Vessol]

So now people here don't even think we had the right to kill a guy responsible for killing 3,000 of our own people on 9-11? Why can't people understand the difference between non interventionism and pacifism?

Two important things.

1. Usama bin Laden was never formally accused of the 9/11 attacks by the Federal Government. Check the FBI site, it's not on his list. That's because there is little evidence linking him to the crime besides him praising it.
2. What the Judge is arguing is that the rule of law should've been followed. Do you think that the Constitution should be given up to the whims of the President or what the People want?


If we could've captured him alive we would've. We weren't able to do that because of how the situation unfolded.

That's not what I've heard. There was no capture orders, only terminate. With extreme prejudice.

[nobody's_hero]

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine

[Brett85]

2. What the Judge is arguing is that the rule of law should've been followed. Do you think that the Constitution should be given up to the whims of the President or what the People want?

What exactly is "unconstitutional" about what we did? We didn't start a war against a foreign country without getting authorization from Congress. We simply killed the man responsible for the 9-11 attacks, and Congress authorized this right after 9-11. Actually, we finally accomplished the original purpose of the war resolution.

[anaconda]

So now people here don't even think we had the right to kill a guy responsible for killing 3,000 of our own people on 9-11? Why can't people understand the difference between non interventionism and pacifism?

There is no compelling evidence that Bin Laden had anything to do with 9-11. FBI also stated this publicly.

[Vessol]

What exactly is "unconstitutional" about what we did? We didn't start a war against a foreign country without getting authorization from Congress. We simply killed the man responsible for the 9-11 attacks, and Congress authorized this right after 9-11. Actually, we finally accomplished the original purpose of the war resolution.

Osama bin Laden has never been formally accused for the 9/11 attacks. He has been formally accused of many other attacks such as the USS Cole Bombing, but not the 9/11 attacks.

[Vessol]

"On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2623

[tpreitzel]

Scheuer,

WHERE'S THE FLIPPING BODY? Again, there would be minimal conspiracy talk IF the government weren't intentionally DESTROYING evidence! In other words, the government is the culprit in promoting conspiracies, not the people who legitimately doubt the words of a lying government. Furthermore, just because the Saudi government allegedly refused Osama's body does NOT give the government the right to destroy EVIDENCE! Got it!!!!? ;) What a damn apologist for a lying, corrupt government .... WHERE'S THE FLIPPING BODY?????

[Jeremy]

Jeremy, I really wish you would quit with this intentional divisiveness. It's petty and doesn't help the situation in any way.

I'm not sure how expanding on what the Judge said has to do with "intention divisiveness".

Let me reference my post from earlier: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?290495-Rand-and-Scheuer-will-be-on-Freedom-Warch-in-the-next-hour&p=3244506&viewfull=1#post3244506

[anaconda]

I have never been more impressed with Napolitano. I love how he suggested that the the government could be "pulling a fast one."

[Brett85]

Osama bin Laden has never been formally accused for the 9/11 attacks. He has been formally accused of many other attacks such as the USS Cole Bombing, but not the 9/11 attacks.

It's been proven that Bin Laden was the master mind behind the attacks, which he's admitted to many times. He's the leader of Al-Quaeda, and Al-Quaeda was responsible for the attacks on 9-11, unless you happen to be one of the 9-11 truthers.

[Vessol]

I'm sorry, but how was expanding on what the Judge said have to do with "intention divisiveness".

Hinting to something entirely off-topic as potential flamebait.

[Vessol]

It's been proven that Bin Laden was the master mind behind the attacks, which he's admitted to many times. He's the leader of Al-Quaeda, and Al-Quaeda was responsible for the attacks on 9-11, unless you happen to be one of the 9-11 truthers.

Ah, go directly to the ad hominem attacks when your argument fails, trying to call me crazy.

I'm not talking about 9/11 Truth. I'm talking about statements by the U.S Government. Why has Usama bin Laden never been formally indicted for the attacks like the other attacks if it's been proven?

[Jeremy]

Hinting to something entirely off-topic as potential flamebait.
I never said something off topic here was flamebait. I'm not sure what you're referring to.

[anaconda]

Scheuer,

WHERE'S THE FLIPPING BODY? Again, there would be minimal conspiracy talk IF the government weren't intentionally DESTROYING evidence! In other words, the government is the culprit in promoting conspiracies, not the people who legitimately doubt the words of a lying government. Furthermore, just because the Saudi government allegedly refused Osama's body does NOT give the government the right to destroy EVIDENCE! Got it!!!!? ;) What a damn apologist for a lying, corrupt government .... WHERE'S THE FLIPPING BODY?????

This is a very poignant observation. WE get derided as "conspiracy loons" when the government obfuscates, destroys and conceals evidence, and breaks laws willfully.

[Jeremy]

This is a very poignant observation. WE get derided as "conspiracy loons" when the government obfuscates, destroys and conceals evidence, and breaks laws willfully.

Calling you "loons" would be uncalled for. But by the very definition, saying that OBL was not killed yesterday is a conspiracy theory. If you're insulted when someone calls you a conspiracy theorist... well I don't know... but it's not an insult, just a statement.

[anaconda]

Ah, go directly to the ad hominem attacks when your argument fails, trying to call me crazy.

I'm not talking about 9/11 Truth. I'm talking about statements by the U.S Government. Why has Usama bin Laden never been formally indicted for the attacks like the other attacks if it's been proven?

Exactly. And, why are half of the folks on this forum parroting the official fairytale talking points as a premise for their arguments? This "mastermind behind 9-11" crap is completely without substantiation.

[Vessol]

I never said something off topic here was flamebait. I'm not sure what you're referring to.

You stated:


He didn't seem to mention another criticism of it again though.

I guess you were talking about your laundry?

[Jeremy]

You stated:



I guess you were talking about your laundry?

I was saying The Judge didn't go into it beyond his intro. He didn't until the end of the show. (FYI, the first posts of this thread were posted while the show was airing.) But let me bring this up again: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?290495-Rand-and-Scheuer-will-be-on-Freedom-Warch-in-the-next-hour&p=3244506&viewfull=1#post3244506

And as a mod, can I say to everyone, please, please calm down about this. Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn't mean they will try to tare you down like some might.

As for the post you quoted... I wasn't even disagreeing with anyone, so I'm still not sure what you're referring to.

[Vessol]

I was saying The Judge didn't go into it any more than his intro. He didn't until the end of the show. But let me bring this up again: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?290495-Rand-and-Scheuer-will-be-on-Freedom-Warch-in-the-next-hour&p=3244506&viewfull=1#post3244506

And as a mod, can I say to everyone, please, please calm down about this. Just because someone has a different opinion than you doesn't mean they will try to tare you down like some might.

As for the post you quoted... I wasn't even disagreeing with anyone, so I'm still not sure what you're referring to.

Ah sorry Jeremy, guess I'm a bit tired. You make a good point.

[jmhudak17]

Ah, go directly to the ad hominem attacks when your argument fails, trying to call me crazy.

I'm not talking about 9/11 Truth. I'm talking about statements by the U.S Government. Why has Usama bin Laden never been formally indicted for the attacks like the other attacks if it's been proven?

He wasn't indicted for the USS Cole either even though we know he was involved. They didn't need to indict him on everything; they just needed to be able to bring him to trial and could then add more. He was also named as a co-conspirator in 2007.

[anaconda]

Calling you "loons" would be uncalled for. But by the very definition, saying that OBL was not killed yesterday is a conspiracy theory. If you're insulted when someone calls you a conspiracy theorist... well I don't know... but it's not an insult, just a statement.

tpreitzel's point was that the government instigates the controversies and justifiably incurs great skepticism. Yet when reasonable people object to their deeds or repression of information they seek to condescend that these people are somehow irrational. Is a homicide detective a "conspiracy theorist?"

[Jeremy]

tpreitzel's point was that the government instigates the controversies and justifiably incurs great skepticism. Yet when reasonable people object to their deeds or repression of information they seek to condescend that these people are somehow irrational. Is a homicide detective a "conspiracy theorist?"

Well if Obama and the US military lied and said that they killed Osama, when they really didn't, it would be a conspiracy. If you theorize about this, then you're a conspiracy theorist, correct?

[Vessol]

He wasn't indicted for the USS Cole either even though we know he was involved. They didn't need to indict him on everything; they just needed to be able to bring him to trial and could then add more. He was also named as a co-conspirator in 2007.

I checked and you are correct. The main bombings he is formally indicted for is the Embassy Bombings in 1998. However, you don't need to go to court to actually be formally indicted on something.

"Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/usama-bin-laden/view

[torchbearer]

Well if Obama and the US military lied and said that they killed Osama, when they really didn't, it would be a conspiracy. If you theorize about this, then you're a conspiracy theorist, correct?
i'm pretty certain, a conspiracy was set up bin laden the other night. our military conspired to raid his fort and take him out. the puppet is dead. long live the conspiratours!

[anaconda]

Still looking for tube of Rand & Scheuer...

[low preference guy]

Still looking for tube of Rand & Scheuer...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaywNka8HFA

[tpreitzel]

well if obama and the us military lied and said that they killed osama, when they really didn't, it would be a conspiracy. If you theorize about this, then you're a conspiracy theorist, correct?

where's the flipping body?

[Vessol]

where's the flipping body?

Why does his body have to be flipping?

[torchbearer]

where's the flipping body?

http://www.maryjoscheibl.com/images/photos/Swimming-fish.jpg

[tpreitzel]

Why does his body have to be flipping?

It's flipping with the fishes, or flippin' with Flipper if you prefer ... It's time for those seals to dawn their gear and fetch Osama's alleged remains from the fishes' jaws if necessary.

[anaconda]

Well if Obama and the US military lied and said that they killed Osama, when they really didn't, it would be a conspiracy. If you theorize about this, then you're a conspiracy theorist, correct?

You are correct. But you inferred that I was insulted by being referred to as a conspiracy theorist. Not in the least, unless it is being used in the pejorative sense. For example, every homicide detective is a conspiracy theorist when he asks the question if the assailant acted alone.

[angelatc]

So now people here don't even think we had the right to kill a guy responsible for killing 3,000 of our own people on 9-11? Why can't people understand the difference between non interventionism and pacifism?

I'm with you. In theory, I suppose they're right. In reality....buh-bye .

[angelatc]

There is no compelling evidence that Bin Laden had anything to do with 9-11.

He admitted it. Good enough for me.

[Vessol]

He admitted it. Good enough for me.

Three years after the fact. And four days prior to Bush's re-election day to boot.

He initially denied any involvement.

[anaconda]

Sounds like someone has gotten to Scheuer. He is parroting the official story. "Bin Laden was in charge." Etc. He's not even incredulous that there is no body and no evidence. BAD Michael Scheuer.

[torchbearer]

is anyone ever really "ex" CIA?

[anaconda]

He admitted it. Good enough for me.

He denied it.

http://www.911review.com/articles/usamah/khilafah.html

[tropicangela]

In the video translation he said he had an occurence of striking the towers come to his mind. But, did he mastermind and carry it out?

"I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind." - UBL

[anaconda]

It is so flipping cool that Ron Paul can now refer back to his Letters of Marque & Reprisal. And Rand can refer back to it.

[emazur]

So now people here don't even think we had the right to kill a guy responsible for killing 3,000 of our own people on 9-11? Why can't people understand the difference between non interventionism and pacifism?

I agree, I thought the Judge was being too soft here. Paul's Marque and Reprisal Paul authorized private parties to "capture, dead or alive, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator responsible for the act of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001". If WE (by that I mean the U.S. govt) have the specific info it is our obligation to get it done - tipping off Pakistan (http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/after-bin-laden-pakistans-cooperation/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+VoicesforReason+%28VOICES+for +REASON%29&utm_content=Twitter) or asking them to take care of it could lead to Bin Laden getting away. If America had to violate Pakistani borders to get this job done, so be it (in the interest of diplomacy, I could see an apology to Pakistan and possibly some sort of reparations to smooth things over)

[low preference guy]

Paul's Marque and Reprisal Paul authorized private parties to "capture, dead or alive, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator responsible for the act of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001".

did it pass?

[emazur]

He denied it.

http://www.911review.com/articles/usamah/khilafah.html

Bin Laden predicated an attack in a video discovered Aug. 2001 (not sure when it was recorded), and a private letter from Oct. 2001 shows bin Laden was somehow connected to 9/11 b/c he spoke of his goal of bankrupting the U.S. that would result from the attack. He founded al Qaeda, he financed al Qaeda, and he might not have directly planned or carried out 9/11 but he surely was an accomplice

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sL0TAzLxmY

[emazur]

did it pass?

I'm pretty sure it didn't. The point was, Paul was prepared to authorize the killing of bin Laden, I'm saying (in this case anyway) it doesn't matter if America does it or private parties do it

[PaulConventionWV]

Well if Obama and the US military lied and said that they killed Osama, when they really didn't, it would be a conspiracy. If you theorize about this, then you're a conspiracy theorist, correct?

No, because the conspiracy is no longer a theory. It's a fact, and the government is a liar. Beside, the buzz connected to the very mention of "conspiracy theory" sets up undue bias toward the person theorizing. That's the kind of political environment that's been given us by our mass media.

There is a difference between investigating facts and theorizing about conspiracies. I would call myself a conspiracy investigator. In some instances, I actually am a conspiracy theorist, but that is a more abstract way of thinking.

[low preference guy]

I'm pretty sure it didn't. The point was, Paul was prepared to authorize the killing of bin Laden, I'm saying (in this case anyway) it doesn't matter if America does it or private parties do it

i hope Ron can articulate that if he needs to.

[Feeding the Abscess]

What would stop us from hiring trained CIA teams under a letter of marque and reprisal? In effect, it'd be a private party comprised of government agents.

Serious question.

Judge's closing statements were freaking epic, I should mention.