"Libertarian Presidential candidates Ron Paul and Gary Johnson now share the same official position with the Al Qaeda terrorist organization, that the killing of confirmed Al Qaeda terrorist Awlaki by the U.S. armed forces was an "illegal" action even though the U.S. was attacked by Al Qaeda on Sept 11, 2001 and Awlaki was a confirmed Al Qaeda leader. Today, Al Qaeda confirmed that they share the exact same position. Share your thoughts about this."
Go read some of the comments. We have some defenders fighting the good fight, but overall ...it's not going so well.
Rep. Ron Paul, (R-Texas), discusses his hearing on auditing the Federal Reserve and the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki.
Cheney, speaking on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday, offered support for the targeted killing by drone strike last week of the Yemeni-American radical cleric al-Awlaki, but he said that Obama now needs to reverse his past criticism of how the Bush administration interrogated suspected terrorists.
We all know that the MSM wont hesitate to ask Dr Paul about his stance on the Al-Awlaki death.
I think this would be a perfect opportunity to not only solidify his position as being the Constitutional position, but also for Paul to ask why Cain supported the Constitutional stance before Awlaki's death but then flip flopped after he died.
I sense that many people in the Liberty movement are somewhat disturbed about the supposed number of Americans that supported the killing of Awlaki.
Don't be fooled!
Polling question results are all about how they are phrased.
The way in which a question is asked can have significant influence on the outcome of a poll.
Here is a more accurate polling question:
"Do you think the president has the right to order the killing of an American citizen who has not been charged with a crime?"
Yes or No?
That's really all I can say about this..
Anwar Awlaki Never Actually a Member of al-Qaeda (they interviewed him once though)
"It fits poorly with the official US narrative that the man they assassinated today, Anwar Awlaki, was some high profile terror mastermind, but the US-born cleric was never even a member of al-Qaeda or its Yemeni affiliate. Indeed, he only ever appeared in one AQAP video, and that was as an interview guest."
U.S. citizens Donald Vance and Nathan Ertel wouldn't be innocent whistleblowers suing Donald Rumsfeld for wrongful detention and torture under Obama's assassination policy. They'd be corpses, and dead "terrorists." And every ignorant yahoo in America would be cheering their deaths.
Once again, Ron Paul is right. Obama seeks to repeal separation of powers all the way back to Montesquieu, and it will end badly if the yahoos have their way.
1. If we had captured Awlaki, would it be ok to torture him without a trial? If not, why killing him without a trial is ok?
2. If the president thinks that an American is not a terrorist but is a serial killer, or involved in some other criminal activities, may the President give an order to assassinate that American without a trial?
3. If an American assassinated by a direct President order is proven later to be innocent, should the President be tried for murder?
New member post! Please help me with this idea, to help Dr. Paul contexturalize the assault on due process and the Bill of Rights represented by the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki:
I sent the letter below to Dr. Paul's congressional site, please refine or add to this idea and tweet, FB or email him with ideas, because the majority of comments on MSM articles out there seem to uphold Obama's high crime of the murder of a citizen without due process under the law...they don't understand the ramifications of this henious action! Here's my email:
Dr. Paul & Staff,