This is why I will never vote for Ron Paul.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/30/paul-criticizes-obama-on-al-awlaki-killing/
This man does not understand what the war on terror is all about. He is still of the delusion that terrorists should be captured and prosecuted in the US. He does not understand that terororists fall outside the normal criminal law and that they have no rights under the Geneva Convention. Ron Paul thinks that WE are the aggressors.
He has no business being president. He will be weak on terror.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I agree with Mr. Paul.
This action is a disgrace to our constitution.
The Constituion does not require us to surrender to our enemies or traitors. Awlaki went off and joined the enemy "army' to take up war against us. He is fair game.
The same goes for Adam gadahn, who hopefully, will be next.
Who said anything about surrendering? I simply believe in upholding our constitution, and due process in particular. The President didn't even try to apprehend Awlaki, he was just summarily executed (or assassinated).
So following your logic that means we must follow the Geneva Conventions and treat them as POWs when we capture them, right?
You can't have it both ways.
You are wrong Gary. EITHER this man is engaged in war, and therefore IS subject to the laws of war, OR he is not, in which case civilian due process does apply. Don't get hysterical.
The fact is, Awlaki was on foreign soil actively engaged in a paramilitary organization launching irregular military actions against the territory of the United States. Therefore, he was a legitimate military target.
No need to make up ill-defined statuses of convenience to refute Ron Paul's sincere but misguided argument.
Anonymous,
Explain to me how Awlaki was entitled to geneva Convention laws. He was not a soldier in uniform in any army giving allegience to any country under laws of war. If captured alive, he should have either been charged with treason or taken before a military tribunal. Killing him in comabt is entirely legal.
Believe it or not, Siarlys has a pretty good take on Awlaki and his "rights". Had he been a German American fighting for the 3rd reich in WW 2, it would have been clearly legal to kill him in the thetre of operations.
Awlaki got about what he was entitled to under the Geneva convention. Was the Geneva convention violated when the U.S. air force shot down Yamamoto? Was there any rule that he should be offered the option to ground his plane and surrender?
Since when does an army in battle required to radio enemy combatants several miles away, urging them to surrender, before firing artillery in an attempt to kill them?
Now if Awlaki had been waving a white flag and sending podcasts saying "I want to surrender," then the Geneva convention would have entitled him to be captured alive.
He's not an "unlawful combatant," whatever that is. He is a combatant. Opposing forces may legally kill combatants who are not offering to surrender.
Post a Comment