Ron is making people think, and it hurts. 'Are Government Ordered Assassinations Legal?'

[sailingaway]

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2011100614658/editorial/us-opinion-and-editorial/are-government-ordered-assassinations-legal.html


I write this blog with mixed feelings. My mind tells me that our soldiers have eliminated a grave threat to the country, but my heart tells me that our government has made a humongous mistake.

I am not a backer of Ron Paul for president, though I often pay close attention when he speaks because he is straight forward not always wrong. In this issue, I fear he is correct in voicing his opposition to the killing of an al Qaeda operative in Yemen....

[slamhead]

Why is it that the most difficult thing to do in converting a "hawkish" person is convincing them that they do not attack us because we are free and prosperous? I have some neo-con friends that are so blind to the propaganda they are fed. It is that tipping point that brings them back into the true conservative mindset.

[bluesc]

Well that article got progressively worse..

[69360]

I believe the killing was jusified based upon the post 9/11 aumf. The aumf did not exclude using military force against US citizens if you read it. Did anyone anticipate it being used in this manner? Maybe not. Perhaps there should have been a trial in absentia for treason, that would have been more paletable for some. But I think perhaps we should be considering changing the aumf rather than impeaching a president for using the power given to him. But the real long term solution is to withdraw our troops, we all know that the reason we are attacked is simply because we are there. The aumf and killing terrorists is a short term solution, getting out is the long term solution. I've discussed it with people in these terms and I believe the general public is coming around on this issue.

[sailingaway]

Do you believe the 9/11 aumf applied to Yemen?

[heavenlyboy34]

I believe the killing was jusified based upon the post 9/11 aumf. The aumf did not exclude using military force against US citizens if you read it. Did anyone anticipate it being used in this manner? Maybe not. Perhaps there should have been a trial in absentia for treason, that would have been more paletable for some. But I think perhaps we should be considering changing the aumf rather than impeaching a president for using the power given to him. But the real long term solution is to withdraw our troops, we all know that the reason we are attacked is simply because we are there. The aumf and killing terrorists is a short term solution, getting out is the long term solution. I've discussed it with people in these terms and I believe the general public is coming around on this issue.
The aumf cannot strip Americans of due process rights.

[heavenlyboy34]

Why is it that the most difficult thing to do in converting a "hawkish" person is convincing them that they do not attack us because we are free and prosperous? I have some neo-con friends that are so blind to the propaganda they are fed. It is that tipping point that brings them back into the true conservative mindset.
IMHO, because propaganda is so ubiquitous and plentiful-not to mention it sounds appealing on the surface.

[69360]

Do you believe the 9/11 aumf applied to Yemen?

Yes I believe it does. It gave the president broad reaching powers.

Specifically in this case I believe the justification the BO administration used was that Anwar Al-awlaki was a member of Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was the terrorist organization that committed 9/11. The AUMF authorized the president to use all necessary force against any person he determines aided or harbored that organization to prevent future attacks. It did not specify this force could not be used against a US citizen or what country this force could be used in.

I think we should look at changing the AUMF.

[69360]

The aumf cannot strip Americans of due process rights.

The way it is presently worded it already has. Was that the intention? Probably not. But it was likely the justification used for this killing.

[sailingaway]

Yes I believe it does. It gave the president broad reaching powers.

Specifically in this case I believe the justification the BO administration used was that Anwar Al-awlaki was a member of Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was the terrorist organization that committed 9/11. The AUMF authorized the president to use all necessary force against any person he determines aided or harbored that organization to prevent future attacks. It did not specify this force could not be used against a US citizen or what country this force could be used in.

I think we should look at changing the AUMF.

I completely disagree. I think Congress has to declare war and as broad a delegation as you suggest would be unconstitutional usurption of the separation of powers in the Constitution.

I would, all the same, be happy to change the aumf or withdraw it.

[sailingaway]

The way it is presently worded it already has. Was that the intention? Probably not. But it was likely the justification used for this killing.

The Constitution trumps Congress alone.

[Carole]

The aumf cannot strip Americans of due process rights.

Totally agree. Also I believe the Patriot Act is unconstitutional as well. Patriot Act strips Americans of their rights as well if I recall correctley. Search and seizure, rendition, no habeas corpus, etc.

But to the point, since when does the Constitution allow "secret" laws that give a president the right to assassinate Americans? It does not. And then locking away in secret the laws that we cannot even see. This is the behavior of tyrants and dictators.

[CaptainAmerica]

Why is it that the most difficult thing to do in converting a "hawkish" person is convincing them that they do not attack us because we are free and prosperous? I have some neo-con friends that are so blind to the propaganda they are fed. It is that tipping point that brings them back into the true conservative mindset. Its difficult to convince them of the truth because they are very afraid,and it scares them to think that everything they were told and trusted was a lie .

[Carole]

Yes I believe it does. It gave the president broad reaching powers.

Specifically in this case I believe the justification the BO administration used was that Anwar Al-awlaki was a member of Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was the terrorist organization that committed 9/11. The AUMF authorized the president to use all necessary force against any person he determines aided or harbored that organization to prevent future attacks. It did not specify this force could not be used against a US citizen or what country this force could be used in.

I think we should look at changing the AUMF.

I would argue that it gave the president broad-reaching unconstitutional powers. Period.

[Elwar]

We are trained from childhood..."kill the bad guy".

[69360]

I completely disagree. I think Congress has to declare war and as broad a delegation as you suggest would be unconstitutional usurption of the separation of powers in the Constitution.

I would, all the same, be happy to change the aumf or withdraw it.

I won't argue that the powers granted by the AUMF are likely unconstitutional. That ship sailed 10 years ago. I suppose I am upset about calling for impeaching a president for using the powers granted to him rather than seeking to reign in those powers as a real solution. I see it as hypocritical. I always look for real solutions to problems.

Just impeaching Obama for it won't fix the problem, another president could do the same.

[sailingaway]

Ron didn't say he was going to impeach him, he was directly asked if it was an impeachable offense and said yes, he thought so, but that strictly speaking probably every modern president could have been impeached for violation of the Constitution and he had no intent to pursue it, because it would have no support.