I think the message to these terrorists that we're not going to stop tracking them down is an important message. We can't walk way because we're tired. We have to keep hunting them down. And yes, killing them. Immediately.

Off topic, but wanted to share this with you all:

UPDATE: Sports Illustrated's Jon Heyman reported Friday morning that Francona and the Red Sox are "parting ways." The Red Sox decided not to pick up his contract option and Francona is now aware he's out, according to Heyman, who says a formal announcement could take place today.

__________________

Nice going Red Sox players. You can't put yourselves on cruise control the second half of the season and expect to win anything. A bad year for Francona, no question. But the only bad season he had. Does that deserve a hand shake and good bye? I don't know.

But it's sad. He's a good guy. Smart as a whip too.

Pat - the White Sox lost Ozzie to the Marlins...

The winds of change are a blowin!

Tough times.

Killing the terrorists is good, but this guy was an American. Not due process, just summary execution.

This is extreme;y troubling to me. I would expect it would cause liberal heads to explode.

Cause see I recall just last week all the outrage over the execution of Davis - which of course happened only after a trial and lengthy appeals.

Today there was no trial, no appeal, just death from above.

So tell me Feisty, Jody, Amy Bev., Navy, et. al. if the death penalty is bad, why is this ok?

And if this was ok, where from here? How about Amindinajad, or Kim Jong Il?

Could ol' Ron be apologizing for America, here?

Is the death penalty bad? Why, no, silly Spankie. Perry told us so.

Spanky, I hate the death penalty. Leaders of terrorist organizations is a totally different matter. They're out to kill thousands of innocent people. They need to be stopped.

_________________________

{Feisty, I just went and decided to try and seek refuge somwhere. So I immediately thought of Keith. I went to see if he had any comments on this firing. And sure enough, he has this great article about Francona. Keith is quite a baseball fan, and fair about his team and all teams. Thanx Francona for the two World Series. And for the crap you had to put up with, with the lazy baseball players through the years. Great memories you brought us.}

http://keitholbermann.mlblogs.com/2011/09/30/terry-francona/

Ron Paul will NEVER be the Republican candidate. Even we conservatives think Obama is right in taking out this terrorist.

I always thought Paul was a loose cannon; now he's confirmed it!

Murderers. Period. Both sides (in case you are too stupid to figure that part out).

So Pat is for selective death penalty, who decides then? you? you either are for due process or not. Libs went crazy with Gitmo, use our justice system, but its ok when Obama openly orders the killing, totally justified then, don't need any justice system if Obama says its ok.

Who cares, the loser is dead. Moving on. What's for dinner tonight?

Still thinking of terrorism as a crime, something to be handled by civilian courts with due process?

Clinton certainly felt that way and passed on Bin Laden because we didn't have enough evidence before he ended up back in Afghanistan.

In case any of you forgot, didn't work out to well.

Feisty: I'm one of your biggest fans, but you're wrong here. To lose site of our way is not right. The Constitution must reign supreme, especially when we're in a war that's not a war.

An American court levied charges against this person. As an American citizen, he was supposed to be arrested and tried, not summarily killed.

Ron may have some whacked ideas about economics, but he right that the government should not be in the business of killing its citizens. You can't square this.

And BOB, yes it is a crime and has been handled in our courts for decades. Notice the recent arrest of the former Black Panther? He wasn't killed with a drone strike. He was arrested. And will be tried in our courts.

Va Ind, this is a strange argument. We went into Afghanistan to kill terrorists. Everybody agreed with this decision after 9/11. We have to continue to kill the leaders. These are the SOBs who plan to kill thousands of people.

They have to go. This guy was one of the worst.

ron paul:

damn that obama- he isnt protecting americans by tracking down and killin gthe bad guys/alqueda

advisor:

ron, obama just got another bad guy- osama bad guy sidekick

ron paul:

damn that obama- he is getting rid of all the bad guys- we wont have anymore bad guys to make americans afraid so they will vote for us

sorry ron- cant have it both ways.

@bob-1805084 Worked out fine and had been working fine for over 200 years until Bush failed at the single most important part of a presidents job. Protecting the country from outside invasion.

Pat---I heard on the radio this morning that Francona may be just as happy to be out of Boston. Best wishes to him and I hope you get a good manager.

We're not at war with any country, Spanky. Nonetheless we are at war, make no mistake about it, with a highly organized fringe group of religious fanatics. Oh yeah, they just happen to want to kill us and destroy our contry. Defeating them sounds a hell of a lot like war to me.

Oh, by the way, if you are calling me a liberal, those on this site familiar with me are going to die from laughter!

How is it that Feisty is the first to comment on so many stories? Does Feisty ever leave their computer? The second a political story goes up, Feisty pounces on it. Just curious.

These comments coming from the blod thirst Christian conservatives are funnier then hell!

These are the same people who cheer a Governor who has more then likely executed more then a few innocent U.S. citizens...

Only NOW cry for mercy for a known terrorist...

Man - you all sure have some F#@!ed up priorities!

What a glaring example of right wing hypocrisy!!!

How ironic...Conservatives pretending to care about "due process". This really takes the cake! It would galaticly funny if it weren't so pathetically hypocritical......

No.

One follows due process (The death penalty)

One doesn't (Assassination)

That's the difference. One is an express power granted the government, one isn't.

See how that works?

One is accepted as punishment by all legal documents against citizens who commit crimes, one isn't.

See what I did there?

Guess what? Regardless of where you are born, if you take up with Al Qaeda, you are subject to the rules of war, not the US criminal justice system.

It's touching to see all of the Republicans line up to support terrorists and sworn enemies of our country, but it's hardly consistent - are the memories of conservatives so short they can't remember haranguing the administration over whether to try KSM in a criminal or military court? Wasn't the whole anti-terror doctrine of 7-1/2 years of the Bush administration about how this is a WAR, not a criminal investigation?

You can't have it both ways. Al-Awlaki chose his side, and now he's explaining his sins to God. What he received is no less than what he deserved.

Feisty: I'm one of your biggest fans, but you're wrong here.

Thanks for the shout out!

As an American citizen, he was supposed to be arrested and tried, not summarily killed.

I chalk it up to him being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

When he surrounded himself with terrorists is a risk he took.... unfortunately for him it didn't work out so well.

So on this my friend - we'll have to agree to disagree! ;o)

I have no problem taking this guy out, or any other Al Qaeda that threaten us. This guy was a huge threat, and now he is not. Weird hearing some teapubs complaining.

bob-1805084

Still thinking of terrorism as a crime, something to be handled by civilian courts with due process?

Clinton certainly felt that way and passed on Bin Laden because we didn't have enough evidence before he ended up back in Afghanistan

In case any of you forgot, didn't work out to well.

bo0by trap,

In case you forgot. Clinton tried; Georgie boy didn't he let bin laden get away in the mountains of Tora Bora just so they could go off on they foray for the black gold in Iraq.

Flashback: Bush let bin Laden stay free, says ex-No. 3 CIA man

CIA operative says Bush, military leaders let bin Laden escape

In the book, Berntsen says his Jawbreaker team tracked bin Laden to Afghanistan's Tora Bora region late in 2001 and could have killed or captured the al Qaeda leader there if military officials had agreed to his request for an additional force of about 800 U.S. troops.

But the troops were never sent and bin Laden was able to escape, he said.

His account contradicts public statements by Bush and former Gen. Tommy Franks, who maintained that U.S. officials were never sure bin Laden was at Tora Bora.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/iraq/let_laden_escape.htm

The President is keeping you cowards safe.

For those saying he deserved a trial:

If I ever betray my country by joining Al Qaida and plotting terrorist strikes against her, feel free to drone strike my location and take me out. I don't deserve the benefits I decided to turn my back on.

Signed,

A guy with common sense.

As a US Citizen, we should've tried to extradite and try him.

We didn't, we chose to execute him.

Follow along with me here.

Suppose a true Tea Party fella gets in the WH.

And decides progressive ideaology is an imminent threat to the nation. Don't snicker, rounding up 'enemies of the state' is a pretty routine process when fascism gets into power.

Now, do you;

A) Want a precedent where the Executive power can kill indiscriminately based on what they perceive are threats?

or B) Want a trial in front of a jury of your peers?

lib50...

Weird hearing some teapubs complaining.

even more weird hearing all the libs cry out for more blood when it was you people pissing and moaning every day after Bush went into Afghanistan and Iraq. Which is it? bullets or no bullets? You libs can't have it both ways. I just hope when Barry is ousted and the next republican president engages in a military exercise, you libs keep your pieholes shut. If you are for Barry's aggression, you better be for the next guy's...

So some liberals are only for the death penalty when it's their man pulling the trigger? And what did this fellow do, (other than be muslim)? Sorry folks, but you're wrong on this one. It was murder. Ron is right again, as usual.

Maybe some of you libs need to think about what you will do when Mr. Obama decides you are the enemy.

Anyonw who thinks this is a good presedant is just plain INSANE.

I didn't get passed that line.

Ben...

Maybe some of you libs need to think about what you will do when Mr. Obama decides you are the enemy.

Agreed....he's already stated the fact. 50% of us are his enemies...came right out of his own mouth.

I disagree with Ron Paul on this one. This guy made a choice and now he paid for it!

President Obama said he would fight the 'smart war' & he is...

I'm impressed!

Due process is great, you know, I fully support it - BUT in order to get due process you have to be arrested! When a fugitive is on the run, he may be killed by the cops who are attempting to apprehend him - happens all the time. Do we call that "assassination?" IMO, that's what happened here, he KNEW we were after him and fled jurisdiction, to a place where he could be sheltered, just like OBL. And he was killed in an airstrike against terrorist targets, which means maybe he should have been more careful of the company he kept. No I don't feel bad for this guy, you make dumb decisions you have to live (or die) with the consequences.

Ron Paul might as well drop out of the race, he'll NEVER get the GOP nomination after THIS!

Ron is CORRECT, however, the DOUCHEBAGGERS ARE TOO SCARED OF HIM! The Douchebaggers love Ron because he created the philosophy that they lie that they follow. That's why no Douchebagger votes for Ron. They vote for idiots like Bachman, and pretend Ron is a crazy old man.

DOUCHEBAGGERS, backstabbing conservatives since 2009.

Hey Derek...

Are you 12? You certainly sound like you are...

(get) some sanity please,

@bob-1805084 Worked out fine and had been working fine for over 200 years

200 years ago we didn't 110 story office buildings and airliners that could be used as bombs to kill thousands.

More Americans were literally killed by 19 guys with box cutters than were killed by the Japanese Imperial Navy with 250 combat experienced pilots flying the most advanced at the time fighters, torpedo and dive bomb planes at Pearl Harbor.

500,000 Americans died over a 4 year period fighting millions of German and Japanese forces in WW II.

One nuclear device could vaporize that many Americans in the flash of light.

You guys don't get it.

until Bush failed at the single most important part of a presidents job. Protecting the country from outside invasion.

And how could he have stopped bin Laden?

Go through the Taliban court system?

Oh, boo-hoo, Rep. Paul.

Anwar al-Awlaki got what he deserved.

And, al-Awlaki had contact with at least two of the 9/11 hijackers. Given his activities since then, that's hardly surprising, is it?

Some people whined about Bin Laden's death as well.

Too bad.

Maybe the next American al Qaeda leader will turn himself in and face justice in an American courtroom before a Predator drone strike settles the issue.

If not...that'll work.

LOL! I've been reading post after post on other threads from loyal GOP/TP members claiming Obama had nothing to do with this and shouldn't get any credit (a la "getting" Bin Laden), and here is Ron Paul blaming him! Nothing like getting everyone on the same page, I guess.

The terrorist got what he deserved. I applaud Obama for continuing (and even stepping up) the Bush policies of taking out terrorist. It is one of the few things he has done that I agree with.

As a US Citizen, we should've tried to extradite and try him.

We didn't, we chose to execute him.

In order to extradite him, he would have first needed to be arrested by the authorities in Yemen - and what were THEY doing? Were they even LOOKING for him??? Surely the Yemen gov't knew we wanted him. If the drone strike hit him while he was sitting in a Yemen prison, then you'd have a point, but he was instead a fugitive wanted for treason hiding out in a terrorist camp. He rolled the dice and it came up craps, that's all.

Another wacko (and his followers) heard from.

Obama 2

Bush 0

(and no, Saddam doesn't count because he wasn't involved in 9/11, wmd's or international terrorism. He was too busy terroizing his own people)

American held hostage, day 273

Obama/Biden 2012

I wholeheartedly support the killing of this Islamofacist swine. But there was LESS EVIDENCE AGAINST THIS GUY THAN THERE WAS AGAINST TROY DAVIS. Can you liberals please help me understand your hypocrisy?

Also, when the Bush admin was in charge and they killed these scumbags, you people called Bush a "war criminal". Why is it ok when Obama does it. Again, I am in favor of using our military to slaughter ANY POS Islamofacist that urges the killing of my family, friends and fellow Americans. But you libs have some splaining to do as far as your support for this killing but condemnation of others.

So Obama is a hero and deserves the credit for killing this vermin with no trial, hearing etc...But if the Bush admin had captured him and put him in Gitmo, you people would be calling for Bush himself to be put on trial. Are you all bigger hypocrites or traitors?

I am a liberal and an Obama supporter (ooh boo hiss), but I dont think for a minute that this is OK. Sure Awlkawi is radical and Troy Davis looked, at least at some point suspicious, but everyone must have their day in court.

Fighting smart or not, the larger question here is what are we becoming? This is not good. This is very very bad kids.

Tony -- "I didn't get passed that line". Did you try to pass on the left or right? I got past it, though precedent has a rather unusual spelling.

No thing this government does will satisfy the GOP. If it was a GOP president that makes that call then it is the right call. Hypocrites!!!

You people that are for this are just disgusting human beings. Period.

just another indication of Ron Paul being out of touch (or should that be "touched" - as in "in the head")?

One follows due process (The death penalty)

One doesn't (Assassination)

That's the difference. One is an express power granted the government, one isn't.

See how that works?

Except that your analogy is still WRONG, since Awlaki wasn't arrested and therefore couldn't be tried. Now, if he had been sitting at a public restaurant (instead of hiding in a terrorist camp) and shot in the head instead of arrested, THEN you'd have a point. But that's not what happened; instead a strike drone bombed a terrorist camp - part of a government-authorized war on terrorism, I might add.

See how that works?

So, members of the democrat Congressional caucus referred to Tea Party folks as terrorists. By extrapolation the government is now allowed to kill all Tea Party folks. Do I have that correct?

To put this another way. Hitler gained his power through popularity. It's naive to think history can't repeat itself and bring in a new charismatic leader like Hitler who then has THESE POWERS ALREADY IN PLACE.

• A media that operates with complete bias and purposely tries to sway the public opinion.
• A Presidential office that can legislate using executive orders.
• A Presidential office that can declare wars without congress.
• A Presidential office that can execute Americans without Due Process
• An Intelligence agency that can monitor all activities of a citizen without a Search Warrant.
• A Police force that is increasingly being militarized. (e.g. the NYPD that can now "take down planes")

You people aren't seeing the forest through the trees. You're acting like sheep.

Gillie--At least I can credit you for being consistent. You were apparently AGAINST this sort of thing when Bush was in office and you are AGAINST it now. I was and AM in favor of it. Oh well. I can deal with you. These other hypocrite Obama worshippers will throw their (phony) principles out the window in a second to support Obama. Theseidiots are shameless.

Ron Paul, declared defender of terrorist rights! How low you have fallen! What? You are trying to top Michele Bachmann as the top Republican clown candidate? She claims that Obama is soft on terrorist Arab Democracy, while you claim that he is a brutal Killer of sweet old AL-Quida grandfathers? Get in your clown car and drive away slowly from the next debate. And please take Michele with you!

Ron Paul does not understand war. War is hell and we are at war. Our enemy does not wear a uniform, but they know they are the enemy. They have a choice, surrender or fight, that's it. Al-Awlaki was declared an enemy of the US and he made his own choice.

Ron Paul is not presidential material, that is what this article screams.

This is a perfect example of why Ron Paul is not a viable candidate. Of all the things Obama is doing, Paul shouldn't criticise one of the few things Obama is doing right.

Bev,

Nice try.

But how many troops were in Afghanistan at the time?

Where were they? What battles were they involved? Where would they come from? Where would they be staged? How would they be supported?

Bush set the goals and objectives , left the tactical up to the the military and the same guys, the ODAs, ODDs, SEALs, SOG, CIA etc - the same huys that GOT bin Laden, are the ones whose success was so unexpectedly quick, that they literally outran their support had bin Laden sneak pass the SAS and Northern Alliance forces and Pakistani blocking forces at the start of Tora Bora battle.

Bill Clinton was offered Bin Laden on a silver platter by the Sudanese and he later remarked "I tried to get the Saudi's to take him, but they felt he was too hot a potato and wouldn't take him and we didn't have enough ...."

You are over your head ..... again.

Have a nice day Bev.

Do you all hate Ron Paul because he is consistent? Or is it because Douchebaggers are actually lying about what they believe in and therefore have to lambast Ron?

I pick the latter. DOUCHEBAGGERS backstabbing conservatives since 2009.

While I may agree with the assassination of al-Awlaki, the Obama administration either needs to change the law or live by the law, not hold itself and/or its political buddies above the law (as we've seen in multiple cases).

Ron Paul does not understand war. War is hell and we are at war. Our enemy does not wear a uniform, but they know they are the enemy. They have a choice, surrender or fight, that's it. Al-Awlaki was declared an enemy of the US and he made his own choice.

Ron Paul is not presidential material, that is what this article screams

Ron Paul served in a war pal... I think he understands war better than you and the rest of the ignorant war mongering people.

I certainly share some libertarian beliefs but unlike Ron Paul, I don’t go the libertarian route exclusively. I think committing to one dogma entirely presents a far too narrow view.

Having said that, Paul couldn’t be more wrong on this and we need to give Obama the credit he deserves for continuing the Bush drone program despite any campaign pledges he made to end it. It’s possibly the only success he’s had as president, don’t take that away from him.

This wasn't some guy who was hiding in Honduras for a crime committed three decades ago. This was a man engaged in active leadership of a terrorist organization, and who essentially had renounced his citizenship and declared his intent to kill Americans. I don't view this any differently than the other terrorist leaders our country has killed in these drone strikes.

Al Awlaki as very possibly a bad guy. Perhaps he deserved execution... but THAT IS NOT THE POINT.

In America we have a CONSTITUTION and DUE PROCESS. This is what sets as ASIDE from the CRIMINALS and TERRORISTS of the world.

Either we are a nation under the Constitution OR WE ARE NOT.

Obviously we ARE NOT and HAVE NOT BEEN for years since Liberals and Neo-Conservatives have been pissing on the Constitution for decades now.

America does not DESERVE Ron Paul... America does not deserve a man who is CONSISTENT with his PRINCIPLES EVEN when those IDEAS are NOT CONVENIENT for the desperate actions of the current populism.

Skippy,

Obama 2 - 0.

Unless you want to except the fact that the Obama administration in all their boasting, blabbed to the world that it was SEAL Team 6.

Because of this pathetic, absolutly clueless stupidity, the bad guys get to view it more accurately as .... 1 - 1.

Trading SEAL Team 6 for an old man watching old videos of himself on a 15 year old TV?

Horrible.

And that is the reality.

.

Ron Paul is wrong. Al-Awaki chose the wrong path, he left behind the country of his birth and took up terrorist arms to kill as many of his fellow citizens as possible. He is a traitor and in war treason is punishable by death. No mercy, as he didn't show any to us.

There is a huge difference between the Al-Awaki and Troy Davis cases.

I applaud the President and the Intelligence Community for a job well done. Some people do not deserve to live.

I think anyone who supports guantanamo has no right to complain about what happened to this guy.

We either have standards - and regardless of nationalism, all humans are guaranteed them...

or we have no standards.

I dont see a reason why "americanism" should trump "terrorism" - of any kind.

I do, though, hold our values dear...and all terrorists should have had their day in court...

Which is why I did not support the Afghanistan or Iraq invasion/occupations - THOSE PEOPLE DIDNT ATTACK US. Why are they paying the price?

Should we attack florida - they let the terrorists train there to ya know.

I am glad this guy is dead!

While I disagree with some of what you've posted, this is particularly brilliant:

I think anyone who supports guantanamo has no right to complain about what happened to this guy.

Quite the point.

Character is something you have when you think no one is looking. Ron Paul has shown himself to be a man of character. We have laws. One of them is you get a trial by jury for any crime you have been accused of and you are presumed innocent until "proven" guilty. This execution of a potential seditious citizen violates that principle. Authorities were instructed to kill him. Not capture and try - but kill him - period.

I emailed Ron Paul and preferred charges by memorial for the impeachment of president Obama. A man I voted for. Others feeling as I do about the importance of the rule of law are requested to do the same.

Derek:

I'm so conservative that Rush Limbaugh is afraid of me; however, I'm no fan of Ron Paul because, quite frankly, his ideas range from weird to bizarre. You can't run a country with NO government, and you can't isolate the country from the rest of the world. As for due process for the late terrorist, Awlaki, there is no such thing as due process in war.

The guy was a TRAITOR caught IN THE ACT.

Plain and simple: War is hell.

For sure! It would have been hard to find a jury of his peers, alive to prosecute him! (Sarcasm)

I applaud the President and the Intelligence Community for a job well done. Some people do not deserve to live.

I agree that some people should be executed... but that is not the problem.. The problem is that until today, the American Government has never executed a US Citizen without a trial. Even G. W. Bush didn't try and pull this off.

We have tried and punished HUNDREDS of terrorist for DECADES in FEDERAL COURTS THROUGH THE LEGAL SYSTEM and the US CONSTITUTION.

The fact that so many Americans think that changing this is a good thing blows my mind. I suppose the anti Constitution and pro war propaganda and FEAR mongering has really done its job.

America is a Shadow of its self and we have only ourselves to blame.

I'm so conservative that Rush Limbaugh is afraid of me; however, I'm no fan of Ron Paul because, quite frankly, his ideas range from weird to bizarre. You can't run a country with NO government, and you can't isolate the country from the rest of the world. As for due process for the late terrorist, Awlaki, there is no such thing as due process in war.

Please stop talking about Ron Paul. Ron Paul does not want to "Isolate America" from the rest of the world. The reason his ideas are bizarre to you as that you CLEARLY do not understand them and have learned about him from 3rd party fools who also don't understand him or have the intellectual honesty to realise Ron Paul is the ONLY CONSISTENT person whose Ideas make since.

Hummmmm

This issue is making some strange bed fellows today.

What Am I Seeing Here -

The Libbies and the Repugnut wing nuts are so sorry and scorn the killing of Al Duh Wacky - Ahahahahaha well boys I feel none of your pain this dog fomented terror and worse a traitor promoting the mass murder of Americans has a taste and the last taste of that which he promotes I say:

Adios Mother and Good Riddance.........Next

PS: I know disconcerting to those that think I am the L word and those that peg me as a righty - nope wrong on both counts I go my own way and do not follow my party line....well except for Jesus....among others....as Einstein

OMG.........NEVER thought I would agree with the radical Redhead!

Ron Paul...........just SHUT UP!

As for Ron Paul:

He talks in so many circles that they overlap! He reminds me of the smart kid who is bored and makes up stuff to get attention and make life interesting for himself. Ole Ron wants everyone to think like he does because he considers himself the only one Right. He makes just enough sense to hoodwink the gullible.

As far as I am concerned and with all the dangers and insanity aside, all the Republicans' self-contradictory circular logic has gotten very OLD.

Ron Paul served in a war pal... I think he understands war better than you and the rest of the ignorant war mongering people.

If that were the case he never would have said what he did, especially after the fact. He feels strongly about this and that is his prerogative. But knowing how he thinks tells me he is not presidential material. Perhaps Mr Paul could provide us with a list of the enemy that should not be killed and ask them kindly to stay clear of those not on the list.

I have no problem taking this clown out, and I had no problem executing Davis, he always said he did not kill the police officer. Did not say he wasn't there, just said he didn't pull the trigger. He is just as guilty as the guy that did.

Back on subject, just because you are an American Citizen does not give you the right to yell fire in a movie theater. That is not what free speech is about and if you commit a treasonous act while on foreign land during a war your executed on the spot. That is basically what happened here. If we started taking a few more clowns out for their vile disgusting views and conspiracies against the United States just think of what a wonderful world that would be without Mitch McConnel, John Boehner, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman, Ann Coulter and Dick Cheney & his daughter.

Americans have seen his regularly posted confessions. What's the problem?

"Tony-From-NJ

Anyonw who thinks this is a good presedant is just plain INSANE.

I didn't get passed that line."

LMAO wow! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black, you know if your gonna be calling someone out for grammar/spelling errors, it's best to not have any errors in your own post. You should have said "...get past that line."

This guy in my humble opinon lost all his right as a american when he took side against us. He was telling people they should kill Americans. So how does anyone think we should of offered him a trail before we killed him. He was trash and the President just cleaned up the trash thats all.

Bob "Bill Clinton was offered Bin Laden on a silver platter by the Sudanese and he later remarked "I tried to get the Saudi's to take him, but they felt he was too hot a potato and wouldn't take him and we didn't have enough ...."

and to be fair, the Afghanistan people had Bin Laden, and offered to extradite him to a 3rd country - they attempted this before 9/11 - after 9/11.

The day of 9/11 - Afghanistan (the taliban) rejected the attacks and codemned Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

Im willing to bet, not many people (conservative or liberal) have a clear understanding that The Taliban and Al Qaeda didnt work together, didnt agree with each other, and actually fought each other for control in Afghanistan. It wasnt until after we simply refused to do the right thing, and continued slaughtering the afghani's...that they joined forces and fought against us together.

I simply struggle to believe Afghanistan and Iraq (the invasions and occupations) had anything to do with 9/11 or terrorism...and had everything to do with America's continuation of colonialist policy.

Mr Rogers:

Ron Paul is consistent - consistently off the deep end. Try researching the real world.

Another example of Ron Paul being totally out of touch with today's world. You cannot fight today's wars with yesterday's weapons.

Except that your analogy is still WRONG, since Awlaki wasn't arrested and therefore couldn't be tried. Now, if he had been sitting at a public restaurant (instead of hiding in a terrorist camp) and shot in the head instead of arrested, THEN you'd have a point. But that's not what happened; instead a strike drone bombed a terrorist camp - part of a government-authorized war on terrorism, I might add.

See how that works?

There is a still a process for that, and it wasn't followed either.

It's not like this is some kind of new circumstance that has never ever happened before.

But they didn't even bring up charges against him, much less anything else such as asking for an extradition from what I've read.

You either support the US Constitution or you DO NOT...

You do not have the choice of picking and choosing the articles you want...

Even the POTUS EO's state that ASSASSINATIONS are ILLEGAL...

Armed drones when used by the Military in a war zone are LEGAL...

It is the CIA's use of these outside of these prescribed ares that are a VIOLATIONof the; US Constitution, POTUS EO's, International Laws and Treaties...

IMO - Did he deserve to DIE??? Sure, but when you violate the law doing it, you are no better that he was...

So it is okay to assasinate foreigners, but not Americans? Osama Bin Laden was never tried nor charged as far as I was aware of. The Taliban leader were never tried nor charged. Osama Bin Laden's deputies were not tried nor charged either when they were assasinated...

If killing is bad, then all killing is bad. The fact is that Ron Paul is trying to justify with special circumstances. I call that hypocracy.

jessica,

Bin Laden was offered by the Sudanese in Feb 2006.

Most of the rest of your comment is equally clueless.

Sheez .... maybe you should at least wiki something sometime.

My take is if you move to another country and start taking an active part in promoting terrorism against the US you have given up your american citizenship. Whether you have signed a piece of paper making you a Yemeni citizen or not at that point is irrelevant.

Dude got what he deserved. We have to defend ourselves.

Now Pat - you tell me which COUNTRIES we are at war with.

OH NO YOU DIDN'T!!! Tell me a conservative did not just trot out the same liberal argument against Gitmo, for the killing of the RECOGNIZED HEAD OF AN INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST ORGANIZATION??!

The Rock called, he said HE can smell the hypocrisy you are cooking!

Even the POTUS EO's state that ASSASSINATIONS are ILLEGAL

And an assassination is the intentional premeditated murder of a leader of an internationally recognized COUNTRY. Is al Qaeda a country now?

I must wonder what the take by some Tea Part members maybe on his statement. Look at how some came down on Perry about his immigration stand.

Published May 12, 2011

| FoxNews.com

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/12/ron-paul-ordered-bin-laden-raid/

Paul said the United States should have gone after bin Laden the same way it went after Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, architect of the Sept. 11 attacks, by working with the Pakistan government.

"They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us," Paul said, suggesting the same formula should have applied to bin Laden.

Though Paul is credited by some with inspiring the Tea Party movement, one faction of that movement was not happy with the comment.

"If there is any doubt that Ron Paul should not even get near the Oval Office, even on a tour of the White House, he has just revealed it," Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips said on his website. "For a Congressman to say the raid to kill the man who is one of the greatest mass murderers of Americans in history was, 'not necessary,' is simply nuts."

Other potential GOP candidates have expressed support for the way Obama handled the bin Laden operation. Asked about Paul's comments, an aide to businessman and potential candidate Herman Cain reiterated that sentiment.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/12/ron-paul-ordered-bin-laden-raid/#ixzz1ZSGkqTFh

I am not a liberal, not a Tea Party advocate but he is wrong ( Ron )

should we point out that 4 points shy might just as well be 4 floors shy of reaching the top floor?

I have a piece of advice for anyone finding themselves at the top of the most want list of the country in which you are hiding, the top of the CIA's most wanted list, and the top of the British Intelligences most want list. Should you desire a fair trial, you need to find a way to safely surrender as soon as possible. Failure to do so could not only be hazardous to your health, it may repulse the individuals that would see to it you get a fair trial.

I believe the general consensus is that Omar hated Bin Laden, but the Taliban started to form an alliance of common cause when Clinton launched missiles to try to kill Bin Laden (circa 1997-98). Personally, I support Clinton and think he was totally right in trying to destroy Bin Laden, but I think it is widely considered that any talk of the Taliban handing over Bin Laden after this time period was just diplomacy. The Taliban were extremely put off by a missile strike on their soil. They had no intention of ever handing Bin Laden after that point. Further, becauase Osama was bringing money to the Taliban, they had integrated his cause to their benefit by the time 9/11 happened.

Hmm, I don’t think I’ve ever checked one of spider’s posts before. But I did today. (#1.77)

Awlaki, chose to put himself in the middle of a war. He chose to take up arms against the USA. If it had not been a war zone it would be a different story.

All you bleeding heart Ron Paul / terrorist lovers should get together, get on a plane, and get over to the Middle East and AF/PAK.

MAKE IT KNOWN that you are there to arrest those poor misguided Al-Queda boys, and bring them to justice. Make sure you leave your guns at home, if you have any at all, because I'm sure you don't have any training with that type of thing, and you wouldn't want to shoot your self or a buddy by mistake!

You all think it's so easy to track the bad guys down, and think U.S. laws apply to foreigners - well, go to it, have fun, and make sure you have your will done first. Tell the Darwin Award people you are going too, so they can keep in touch!

actually, ATC one cannot give up their US citizenship except thru a formal renouncement procedure such as swearing allegiance to another country (and even then it's tenuous whether that action constitutes renouncement without a statement from the individual FORMALLY renouncing citizenship) He's STILL DEAD (and GOOD RIDDANCE)

The last time the USA declared War was in either in 1942 or 43...

Since then the USA has used AUMF's (Authorizations of Military Force), which bypass certain International Treaties and restrictions...

This is why the USA had problems when Obama/USA assumed command in Afghanistan from NATO. Rules of engagement and protection of prisoners, where just a few of the problems...

IMO - The use of armed drones will be decided in the Hague, and someone will be going to JAIL. There are too many countries that now have this technology and they are using these drones in other countries...

From the article: We didn't assassinate him, who certainly he had done it.

Does anyone know what this means? Or maybe proofreading before you publish is a good idea.

Cool, our government just OK'd US citizens to assassinate anyone who we believe is threatening our lives! No more due process for anyone... Remember kiddies, whatever actions the government deems appropriate, they can then be used by the citizens. ;)

T Bourlon

Due process is great, you know, I fully support it - BUT in order to get due process you have to be arrested! When a fugitive is on the run, he may be killed by the cops who are attempting to apprehend him - happens all the time. Do we call that "assassination?" IMO, that's what happened here, he KNEW we were after him and fled jurisdiction, to a place where he could be sheltered, just like OBL. And he was killed in an airstrike against terrorist targets, which means maybe he should have been more careful of the company he kept. No I don't feel bad for this guy, you make dumb decisions you have to live (or die) with the consequences.

Ron Paul might as well drop out of the race, he'll NEVER get the GOP nomination after THIS!

Actually, if an officer shoots a subject running away from him, that is murder. They do it sometimes, but they aren't supposed to, and they can be charged with murder, if there's is enough evidence to bring the cop/s to trial.

Actually molemanisalive, if you do not believe that is an American right in many states, just try to enter a few homes in a menacing way and see what happens. Too bad you will not be around for all the parties afterwards.

Ron Paul just came out and said something that isn't popular, but he's got the stones to stick to his principals that the Constitution comes first and rule of law presides.

In most cases, an American citizen should have been arrested and tried before execution. What I think allows for this action, and something that Ron Paul may not be taking into consideration is that the AUMF (Authorization of Military Force against terrorists) states

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

We should probably have congress approve a formal declaration of war against Al-Queda to formalize actions such as this and remove questions.

I generally agree with Ron Paul, and think some of his ideas are what America needs right now. This isn't one of them, but I still support him over a lot of others, including the current president.

Ron Paul - the Libertarian the blithering none candidate candidate

It has been my observation year after year to see and hear this empty windbag spout his antiquated heartless rhetoric over, over and over and the America, to it's credit have in terms of votes totally rejected Paul's hallucinations over, over and over and will forever.

This the grim reaper said if a person is ill but can be saved as they have a treatable illness but lack insurance, an American citizen no less, the patient should not be allowed any medical assistance if they lack Health Insurance and allowed to die, yes he is of that opinion and as justice would have it a staffer of his died and had no health insurance lol, now that is a little justice. You Paul apologists please take your vindictive heartless politics to the trash bin of history where it belongs. But, as about 4% or less across the nation he (Paul) agrees with what I am saying I have been promoting the withdrawal of our troops long before Paul I do not agree with Paul he agrees with me. Otherwise he can go with Al Duh Wacky and commiserate yes maybe hold hands.

You Libertarians need to find another country as your dog won't hunt in these woods...an old adage

Ron Paul is an Anti-Christian Liberal who supports Abortion as well. If anything, Ron Paul should be running under the Democratic ticket...

@WM: Nobody supports abortion. Thinking people support the right to have an abortion.

McA: whahahahaaaa...that was a good one! Sounds just like a wacked-out Bachmann comment! LOL!

Damn, I messed up on my post. I'm upset about that. But not upset enough to remove this grin from my face because another terrorist was blown to pieces.

The same liberal hypocrites are cheering for obama as another terrorist falls that scream murder everytime a convict is executed. You people are sickening. I guess thats what happens when you have a cow like fata$$ red head as your muttled,mis-informed,racist,lying leader of the parrot tribe. Losers.

For those saying he deserved a trial:

If I ever betray my country by joining Al Qaida and plotting terrorist strikes against her, feel free to drone strike my location and take me out. I don't deserve the benefits I decided to turn my back on.

Signed,

A guy with common sense.

The laws are not made to protect the guilty, they are made to protect the innocent.

It's not that situation for which the laws exist. They exist so you can't be accused of doing those things and be killed while you are innocent.

The reason for the trial is to determine if you are innocent or guilty.

Common sense? You just failed to grasp the basic concepts and reasoning behind the bill of rights and the constitution.

For those that wish to compare the execution of a criminal who has went through the court system to the assassination of a terrorist, may I point out that we do not assassinate terrorist that we have in custody. When a criminal, American or otherwise, is wanted by the law with a warrant for his arrest he is subject to be taken into custody dead or alive if the charges are severe enough ( as in Bonnie & Clyde). If al-Awlaki had surrendered to answer the charges against him in a court of law then he would not have been killed but since al-Awlaki chose to fight and not surrender he was killed as a soldier for our enemy. Evidently Paul failed to see the difference.

Four Points Shy Of Genius

No use trying to get them to see the light tekishan. Until the shoe is on the other foot, nothing their lord and savior (Obama) does is wrong.

But the day some Neo-Con (which obviously excludes Ron), gets in power and uses the exact same power to declare "leftists" in this country "terrorists" (such that they can be assassinated without due process) they'll be screaming for justice. They just have their blinders on right now, that Obama is wielding a power NO PRESIDENT, NO AMERICAN should have over another American (Assassination and no Due Process.)

It's indescribably moronic to not see that all the powers are now in place for a tyranny in America.

A media that operates with complete bias and purposely tries to sway the public opinion.
A Presidential office that can legislate using executive orders.
A Presidential office that can declare wars without congress.
A Presidential office that can execute Americans without Due Process
An Intelligence agency that can monitor all activities of a citizen without a Search Warrant.
A Police force that is increasingly being militarized. (e.g. the NYPD that can now "take down planes")

RON PAUL ISN'T AGAINST THE FACT THIS GUY IS DEAD. HE'S AGAINST NOT OBEYING THE RULE OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. THE ENDS DON'T JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

This post right here, is the EXACT same thing I was thinking when I read this article, execution without trial!!! This is terrible, no POTUS has that right, ever! And you sheep following the lead, especially those of you that call yourselves "left-wing" are going to let this happen? It doesn't matter what the crime, ALL US citizens have a right to a trial! Remember John Walker Lindh? He was an American citizen actually fighting with the Taliban, but they still captured him and brought him back over here for trial, they knew that was the only acceptable practice. If G.W.Bush had just had him assasinated, I don't think for a second it would have been acceptable. It worries me, that it is this time. Is this due to our being used to our constitutional rights being stripped away, one by one, on a daily basis, so now the masses are so used to it, that this practice has actually become not just tolerated, but actually condoned by the majority? THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! And if you aren't outraged, you need to take a long look at yourself, and ask why not?

Now you are killing your own citizens off hand?

A new low for America.

All you bleeding heart Ron Paul / terrorist lovers should get together, get on a plane, and get over to the Middle East and AF/PAK.

Most awesome quote ever.

I did get on a plan and fly to the middle-east. I had an M-16 strapped to my back, some NVG's, etc. Had a pair of boots on, a parachute on my back.

because I love my country. Hard to go into SF without a real hard-line patriotism.

And, because I love my country and what is stands for, this sickens me. This entire administration? the one before it? Sickening. But this president has made greater attacks on Civil Liberties than even Bush did by assassinating a US CITIZEN without due process.

That's great that everyone thinks Al should be dead. I do too. But there's a right way to go about it, and a wrong way. And when we get to pick and choose which way is best, that's when license for abuse opens up.

Everyone saying 'good riddance', remember that not everyone agrees with all your views. What happens when you are accused, and executed, without trial? Do I get to say 'Got what he deserved'?

No. Because, love or hate, US Citizens have certains right under their government that we cannot let the government strip from us. Not when it's convenient, not 'just cuz', not because 'this guy murdered 1,000,000 people...we think...'

If he did it, a court will convict him.

But that's why we have courts. If we wanted someone who could run the country and order assassinations and executions at will, Mr. Washington would've accepted the King offer.

This post right here, is the EXACT same thing I was thinking when I read this article, execution without trial!!! This is terrible, no POTUS has that right, ever! And you sheep following the lead, especially those of you that call yourselves "left-wing" are going to let this happen? It doesn't matter what the crime, ALL US citizens have a right to a trial! Remember John Walker Lindh? He was an American citizen actually fighting with the Taliban, but they still captured him and brought him back over here for trial, they knew that was the only acceptable practice. If G.W.Bush had just had him assasinated, I don't think for a second it would have been acceptable. It worries me, that it is this time. Is this due to our being used to our constitutional rights being stripped away, one by one, on a daily basis, so now the masses are so used to it, that this practice has actually become not just tolerated, but actually condoned by the majority? THIS IS AN OUTRAGE! And if you aren't outraged, you need to take a long look at yourself, and ask why not?

Please stop talking about Ron Paul. Ron Paul does not want to "Isolate America" from the rest of the world. The reason his ideas are bizarre to you as that you CLEARLY do not understand them and have learned about him from 3rd party fools who also don't understand him or have the intellectual honesty to realise Ron Paul is the ONLY CONSISTENT person whose Ideas make since.

I agree that some people should be executed... but that is not the problem.. The problem is that until today, the American Government has never executed a US Citizen without a trial. Even G. W. Bush didn't try and pull this off.

We have tried and punished HUNDREDS of terrorist for DECADES in FEDERAL COURTS THROUGH THE LEGAL SYSTEM and the US CONSTITUTION.

The fact that so many Americans think that changing this is a good thing blows my mind. I suppose the anti Constitution and pro war propaganda and FEAR mongering has really done its job.

America is a Shadow of its self and we have only ourselves to blame.

Character is something you have when you think no one is looking. Ron Paul has shown himself to be a man of character. We have laws. One of them is you get a trial by jury for any crime you have been accused of and you are presumed innocent until "proven" guilty. This execution of a potential seditious citizen violates that principle. Authorities were instructed to kill him. Not capture and try - but kill him - period.

So, members of the democrat Congressional caucus referred to Tea Party folks as terrorists. By extrapolation the government is now allowed to kill all Tea Party folks. Do I have that correct?

An American CITIZEN was just KILLED by the GOVERNMENT without DUE PROCESS!

So that's the sort of power you wanted vested in a president, eh?

What happens when you are the 'suspect', you want the president to just order your death without a trial?

What happens when a Republican is president, ye olde Libs-R-Us team, you guys think that your ideologies fly high in those years?

Or a less scrupulous Democrat, ye mighty Republican army? You think it's okay for your political rivals to have that much power over causing death without due process?

This is a dangerous precedent to set, this much power at any one person. You guys are crazy if you think this is a good thing, I don't care what party you're a member of.

Everyone always thinks it can't happen to them.

But news flash, it can. Ask any of our deployed soldiers if they honestly imagined what getting shot at felt like. Or bombs going off.

No one is prepared for that until it happens. No one thinks it can happen to them, and unless the rank and file get their head out of their @$$ and start doing something about it then there's no telling you won't be the next casualty of 'suspicion'

Sodom and Gomorrah were to be saved if just one Godly person could be found. While this certainly isn't a religious issue, It gladdens my heart to know that the psychotic masses have amongst them a few sane people.

I want the traitor brought to justice too, just not under the umbrella of unconstitutional tyrannical power.

All of you anti Ron Paul jokers need to wake up...

why is it ok to excute an American just cause the president says so... what makes his word any better than mine?

Spanky-

Tough times.

Killing the terrorists is good, but this guy was an American. Not due process, just summary execution.

This is extreme;y troubling to me. I would expect it would cause liberal heads to explode.

Cause see I recall just last week all the outrage over the execution of Davis - which of course happened only after a trial and lengthy appeals.

Today there was no trial, no appeal, just death from above.

So tell me Feisty, Jody, Amy Bev., Navy, et. al. if the death penalty is bad, why is this ok?

And if this was ok, where from here? How about Amindinajad, or Kim Jong Il?

I just want to be clear on this one: you are defending a known terror leader, who was loose in the world, who was clearly involved in terror attacks aimed at innocent Americans? Seriously?!? This is your stance?

And then to compare this collaborator of the Fort Hood shooting and underwear bomber to Carl Davis, who most had concluded may have been innocent? It shows how your side sees only black and white, and no degree of compromise and one has to seriously question your party's ability to rationalize logically anymore. In fact it should be conservative heads exploding from the shock of the sudden and instantaneous 180-degree flip flop!

This is war, Spanky, and this guy was a known enemy of the state lending aid and comfort to the enemy. Taking him out was nothing extraordinary during wartime, American citizen or not.

Who would ever have imagined that in this instance, it would be the liberals telling the conservatives to grow a pair.

Look at the bright side! It is about time Ron Paul has shown some sort of aggression towards something.

Rick's Real
I just want to be clear on this one: you are defending a known terror leader, who was loose in the world, who was clearly involved in terror attacks aimed at innocent Americans? Seriously?!? This is your stance?

Can you even read? Several of us have said the same thing, here, let me quote it for you AGAIN:

RON PAUL ISN'T AGAINST THE FACT THIS GUY IS DEAD. HE'S AGAINST NOT OBEYING THE RULE OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. THE ENDS DON'T JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

This IS NOT OKAY!!! NO POTUS can just bypass the Constitution at will to execute ANYONE!

None of us are saying this terrorist should not have been punished, but we are saying there is no reasonable excuse to skip the justice system in order to do so.

Here here Tony! What are we going to do, send in our military and lose more sons and daughters or just take out the target? Or if we try to "capture" him and he gets away and is successful at a terrorist attack on US soil, are you gonna say the say thing everyone, "he deserves a trial"??

I just want to be clear on this one: you are defending a known terror leader, who was loose in the world, who was clearly involved in terror attacks aimed at innocent Americans? Seriously?!? This is your stance?

The problem here is you - Rick's Real. You are assigning to Spanky that he is "DEFENDING" a terrorist. He's DOING NOTHING OF THE KIND.

HE'S DEFENDING THE RULE OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION. Everyone (except a extreme pro-life anti-death penalty person) would want the guy executed for Treason, but not while @!$%#ting on the rule of law and the constitution.

I don't think ANYONE here is "Defending" a terrorist.

Ron Paul is in the right party, don't try and pass your crap over to us democrats.

I find it interesting that Paul thinks that if you are a sick American without insurance you deserve to die, but if you are an American terrorist in a foreign country you need a trial first.

The sick un-insured American doesn't get a trial to see if they deserves to die only American terrorist deserve that privilege. So Paul thinks that 40 million uninsured American deserve to die and he stands behind that cold hearted stance. But Paul is right there to protect the rights of American traitors.

No I don't this American traitor dying at an enemy camp via drone strike is going to translate into killing Americans at home without trials because the current president doesn't agree with you politically.

Perry is the only one who is proud of how many American citizens he has killed. Maybe you should think twice about voting for Perry?

I find it interesting that Paul thinks that if you are a sick American without insurance you deserve to die

He didn't say that. In fact he said something quite the opposite. You are either a liar or seriously steeped in the Ministry of Propaganda's BS.

An American CITIZEN was just KILLED by the GOVERNMENT without DUE PROCESS!

Kinda like Pat Tillman, huh? Oops, not supposed to mention that one, are we?

The point that many people are missing here isn't the fact that terrorists and murderers should be killed.

The point is that he hasn't been proven to be anything at all. Everything we've heard is from our own government and the media.

He hasn't been tried for crimes, and now he never will. That is not an America that I want to live in. That is essentially a decree from a king that designates someone is guilty.

Remember innocent until proven guilty? I have no love for killers, but the way most are talking, it's lynch mob mentality. Hey! The king says he's guilty! Let's string him up!

No thanks. We should have made an attempt to arrest him, and try him. If he was guilty, by all means off the guy, but American citizens are afforded the right to due process, even if it is hard to do, and even if it goes against our need for revenge. That is one of the things that is supposed to separate us from them.

Ron Paul: "Al-Awlaki nobody ever suggested that he was participant in 9/11"

Wikipedia: One 9/11 Commission staff member said: “Do I think he played a role in helping the hijackers here, knowing they were up to something? Yes. Do I think he was sent here for that purpose? I have no evidence for it." A separate Congressional Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks suspected that al-Awlaki might have been part of a support network for the hijackers, according to its director, Eleanor Hill.

BBC News: Awlaki later became imam at a mosque in Fort Collins, Colorado, before returning to San Diego in 1996, where he took charge of the city's Masjid Ar-Ribat al-Islami mosque. During his four years there, his sermons were attended by two future 9/11 hijackers, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. The two men were also seen attending long meetings with the cleric.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hd1UbSPx-E&feature=related

He SAYS to the question "Should society just let him die?":

"NO... We never turned ANYONE way when I was practicing medicine... It's the bureaucracy that made it too expensive and made people dependant on governement."

If you understood his positions rather than just parroting what the Ministry of Propaganda tells you to think, you'd know where he's coming from in greater depth.

@ Four Points Shy of Genius, Mr. Rogers et al -

You are totally under a mind cloud created by your own bias you have no cognitive awareness that the traitor has taken up arms with the enemy and thus is a fair target and a traitor to the United States of America he needs no trial he has in all essence denounced his citizenship. When you promote mass murder and suicide bombers to murder Americans and others you are fair game.

You limp willed cowards grab flight and join those you have so much compassion for leave America join your brethren they need you and in so doing you lose all rights afforded by our constitution. It seems the idea of a treasonous act and the active engagement of activities and plots to murder Americans is lost on your disjointed thinking process.

When you are on the side of those that plot mass murder of Americans you are no longer afforded the protection of our constitution this premise should be clear and plain to understand.

Why do so many not understand when you join an organization to promote mass murder you surrender you citizenship and are now a traitor a soldier as on the battlefield and subject to the same treatment so stop with all the smoke and mirrors and more disingenuous flimsy arguments as per the rights of an active traitor engaged in the battle.

Post #1.136 Paul in front of the nation in a debate stated very clearly that the patient had to face the consequence of not having a Health Insurance plan and would just have to die that we canot take on the care as a nation for these patients. But by law he could not turn away patients in practice not that if he had his way they would be turned awasy - Please stop with the spinning it really is tiresome - you did see the debates? I doubt it..............

Americans First-3238795
No I don't this American traitor dying at an enemy camp via drone strike is going to translate into killing Americans at home without trials because the current president doesn't agree with you politically.

If you fail to see it, then maybe you need to remove the blinders from your eyes, It is one more step in the systematic removal of our Constitutional rights. First it was the "Patriot Act", then the TSA, who is now a virtual Gestapo, violating our rights as free citizens against search and seizure on a daily basis.
And now, our right to a trial has been undermined. It might be an actual terrorist overseas today, but next week? month? year? Will you stand up then, if/when it happens here in our Country? These actions are not the America I was taught in grade school, this is how they take over a country, one step at a time, one Constitutional right at a time. The Nazis did it once, we can't let that happen again, especially not in our own "Land of the Free".

He doesn't need a trial, in his own videos he confesses to his crimes.

He might as well just hold up a sign "Please drone strike me".

But I guess some of you would wait until he exploded a bomb full of nails and they went through your kids before you decide it might be a good idea to remove him from the world.

The liberals posting here are most likely schizophrenics, who are off their meds. What a miserable display of selective morality, especially the Bonehead Redhead in Roselle IL. Based on their statements, they are simply not rational beings. They attacked Rick Perry for executing criminals AFTER they had received a trial and gone through the extensive appeal process. But, they applaud Obama for summarily executing a person, who is merely suspected of being a terrorist along with anyone who happens to be standing near him. Another example, they wanted to close Gitmo because it was evil and try the detainees in the US. But, Gitmo is still open. I guess Obama should remove all the guards from Gitmo and authorize drone strikes on the prison to save the cost of multiple trials. Then the looney lefties attack Ron Paul for saying the same thing Michael Moore said about killing Bin Laden. The lefties thinking processes are simply not rational. When Obama does the same thing Bush did, they contort themselves into knots explaining how what Obama did is right, but when Bush did it....it's still wrong. Does the Patriot Act ring a bell.

You are totally under a mind cloud created by your own bias you have no cognitive awareness.

When you are on the side of those that plot mass murder of Americans you are no longer afforded the protection of our constitution this premise should be clear and plain to understand.

Wow are you the victim of your own words.

As has been said OVER and OVER:

You are assigning to Spanky that he is "DEFENDING" a terrorist. He's DOING NOTHING OF THE KIND.

HE'S DEFENDING THE RULE OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION. Everyone (except a extreme pro-life anti-death penalty person) would want the guy executed for Treason, but not while @!$%#ting on the rule of law and the constitution.

I don't think ANYONE here is "Defending" a terrorist.

RON PAUL ISN'T AGAINST THE FACT THIS GUY IS DEAD. HE'S AGAINST NOT OBEYING THE RULE OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. THE ENDS DON'T JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

You seem to be the one with a clouded mind. You keep pointing at the tree (he's a traitor) and calling those trying to show you that you're standing in a forest (obeying the constitution) "cowards" and "on the side of traitors". You think you're being patriotic, but you're not. You think you're making a point by telling people that we (the consitutionalist) don't love the constitution and should go join traitors in another country. Sorry but those statements are clueless.

One more time to try to open YOUR mind. The problem isn't that the guy should or shouldn't be dead, I could even give you hypothetical ground and say, MAYBE in this case IF we call this "ENGAGED IN WAR" that his death "is just part of just war", but the part you seem so intent on not getting is where @!$%#ting on the laws of this country to justify the ends, LEADS.

As I said above:

It's naive to think history can't repeat itself and bring in a new charismatic leader like Hitler who then has THESE POWERS ALREADY IN PLACE.

• A media that operates with complete bias and purposely tries to sway the public opinion.
• A Presidential office that can legislate using executive orders.
• A Presidential office that can declare wars without congress.
• A Presidential office that can execute Americans without Due Process
• An Intelligence agency that can monitor all activities of a citizen without a Search Warrant.
• A Police force that is increasingly being militarized. (e.g. the NYPD that can now "take down planes")

Furthermore we ARE NOT AT WAR. IT'S NEVER BEEN DECLARED BY WE THE PEOPLE. It was declared by a guy with the powers of a King. Declare it and follow the constitution.

Post #1.136 Paul in front of the nation in a debate stated very clearly that the patient had to face the consequence of not having a Health Insurance plan and would just have to die that we canot take on the care as a nation for these patients. But by law he could not turn away patients in practice not that if he had his way they would be turned awasy - Please stop with the spinning it really is tiresome -

As I said, if you would stop doing the very thing you accuse me of, and read a little about the guy or listened to you tube's of his positions, or read his books, you'd have a greater depth of understanding. But we both know the truth. It's not me that's the coward. It's you. You're afraid to leave the little box you've created for yourself where you're the only one that's correct and you've amassed all the evidence only from the people that agree with you and support your position.

you did see the debates? I doubt it

I linked it. Are you really this clueless?

Good luck with all that.

Teknishan,

To answer your hypothetical. I do not thing it would matter because if that person was armed the Secret Service would probably shoot them if they headed for the Oval Office. However if they were not killed then yes they should stand trial.

However In this case this guy was the next head of AQ. Several movies come to mind for this quote but Star Wars Episode 2 is the freshest in my mind where Mace tells Anikin that Palpatine is too dangerous to be left alive.

We also did not put Bin Laden on trial either. It does not matter if he was American or not, if he is a confirmed leader of Al-Qaeda, a group we ARE at war with, then he would have been killed anyway for treason, sedition, and a number of other charges.

Extraditing him is a pipe dream, as if a terrorist would come quietly or the country he was holed up in would have the ability or want to go find him and send him back.

Ron P. was raising a stink because he is like all the other Con. runners, looking for any excuse to try and put a chink in Obama's armor. He also lied at the end. He knew full well we would be going after Al-Qaeda, not just Bin Laden.

I am against the death penalty or executions when there is reasonable doubt however there was no doubt of this guy's guilt. It does not matter if he actually killed anyone personally because Bin Laden did not kill anyone personally on 9/11, yet we still shot his face off. Same with the guy in Massachusetts the other day; he was only planning to fly those RC planes into the Pentagon but he did not carry out that plan because the FBI arrested him.

If you join with Al-Qaeda then you become an enemy of the state.

I don't care about Bin Laden.

He's not a US Citizen, and my Constitution affords him zero, zip, zilch, nada.

I am concerned that a US Citizen can be gutted to the cheers of the mob, without due process.

We knew where he was, why couldn't we extract him? If he offers resistance, THEN shoot him as it becomes self-defense.

Heck, we could've stripped away his citizenship (it can be done) and I wouldn't be having a fit. At that point, he wouldn't be a US Citizen.

But we didn't do that.

I don't mind the outcome.

I mind the process.

The Ends do NOT justify the Means.

We ignored the rule of our own law because it was 'convenient'.

That's un-sat on all levels with me.

If Ron Paul would have gone to Yemen and brought this POS over to stand trial in the US and then Obama would have ordered to assassinate him, I would agree with Ron, but that wasn't the case, the man was wanted and at large and Paul didn't go to get him; I think "Wanted dead or alive" applies to this case.

Prohibition doesn't work

Rick's Real
I just want to be clear on this one: you are defending a known terror leader, who was loose in the world, who was clearly involved in terror attacks aimed at innocent Americans? Seriously?!? This is your stance?

Can you even read? Several of us have said the same thing, here, let me quote it for you AGAIN:

RON PAUL ISN'T AGAINST THE FACT THIS GUY IS DEAD. HE'S AGAINST NOT OBEYING THE RULE OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. THE ENDS DON'T JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

This IS NOT OKAY!!! NO POTUS can just bypass the Constitution at will to execute ANYONE!

None of us are saying this terrorist should not have been punished, but we are saying there is no reasonable excuse to skip the justice system in order to do so.

There isn't a court in the land, civilian or military, who would deny this guy was a clear and present danger to the US.

There isn't a court in the land, civilian or military, who would deny this guy was a clear and present danger to the US.

Then have the congress (e.g. We The People) declare war, not a President who doesn't have that constitutional power.

WOW, I'd never think that I would have to defend Ron Paul and condemn President Obama.

However, Ron Paul is right. The US does not (at last check) have a dictatorship where the emporer's word is law. President Obama should not order the assassination of US Citizens. I would never have thought that I would agree with many of the conservatives on this vine, but SPANKY, teknishan, and a few others are absolutely correct.

THIS IS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

Once we start down this path, what is to prevent the government from deciding that it does not need to try citizens on US soil. After all, we are at war with terrorism, right ?

The only thing is, there is NOTHING in the US Constitution which allows the government to suspend the rights granted in the Constitutions at any time, not even during declared wars. It was wrong when Lincoln did it in the civil war, it was wrong when FDR did it in WWII, when Bush did it and now that Obama has done it.

I never thought I would say this, but President Obama has lost my vote and support.

That's okay, Dirp.

We can both vote for mickey mouse as the next president. :)

Wow, a drone missile strike that not only took out a top al-Qaeda leader, al-Awlaki, but also ended the third presidential campaign of a Rep. Ron Paul. That was quite a shot!

This is truly a new precedent. The liberals have given their ok not only for the death penalty, but for whoever is president to decide who is to be executed. No trial is necessary. No 20 year appeals process. Texas doesn't even have it that good. And muslims will be executed first. The only person complaining is that pesky congressman from Texas who carries a Constitution around with him.

How many years did it take Hitler to turn the German national police into the Gestapo and the most modern country on the European continent into Nazi Germany?

He didn't even have a teleprompter.

Strange he didn't say a thing about them killing Troy Davis last week or Willingham either for that matter. Neither were terrorists, but it is possible that they were both innocent Americans who were executed. This old prune is quite welcome to go over there and handcuff Al ZaWahiri for us. I'm sure the soldiers wouldn't mind.Question: Does he really think they had time to handcuff and arrest this man in Yemen? If so he has no business running for dog catcher.

teknishan
Heck, we could've stripped away his citizenship (it can be done) and I wouldn't be having a fit. At that point, he wouldn't be a US Citizen.

But we didn't do that.

I agree with you, for the most part, but this, I'm not sure if I agree with, since I think it would be too easy for it to occur, even on our own turf, ie. they want to execute someone, so they simply delcare them a terrorist, strip away their citizenship, then they are free to execute them, skipping the justice system, once again.

Prohibition-

It takes an act of congress to revoke citizenship. It must be introduced to congress. And it was, for Al-Awkali, in 2010.

And the bill failed :)

Yeah Dreeves.

We do.

Aside from our Air-bases in Qatar, our presence in Kuwait, an amphibious assault ship (LHD) and nuclear aircraft carrier (CVN) in the gulf at ALL times, our various bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, 5th fleet HQ in bahrain, and a smattering of smaller airfields in the UAE...

I'd say we had plenty of manpower to go 'extract' Al-Awkali.

Wouldn't you?

Dreeves
Strange he didn't say a thing about them killing Troy Davis last week or Willingham either for that matter.

And once again, they had their day/s in court! Their executions were fair, under the U.S. Constitution! This one wasn't.

Gratz Ron Paul, you just lost any chance of becoming President.

I can't believe the liberal progressives. You're ok with assissinating someone without a trial, but scream because a murderer is executed? You protested and complained about all the poor terrorists held at Guantanamo without trial because it was unconstitutional?

Yet, when a candidate criticizes the government for doing exactly what you've been complaining about, you side with this president simply because he's democratic. There are hypocrites on both sides, but please consider what you protest simply because it's from the other party rather than yours.

Four Points - What is your take on my post above in 1.112 and the applicability of the AUMF in this circumstance?

My take without being completely familiar with it (other than a quick wiki search) is that it would seem to authorize the action. However what's not clear to me is the caveat of "the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution." Since I couldn't readily find Section 5(b) to read, I have to assume this is saying that per the war powers act we hereby authorize the president to kill terrorists that caused 9/11.

But if it's legal... its a HORRIBLE law that was obviously enacted by a pissed off American people only 7 days after the attacks. Why? Because it is overtly over-reaching. It like the Patriot Act should be repealed and reduced in scope.

Now it could be said that it authorizes only "persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001". One could say that is very specific, but it obviously wasn't very difficult to spin this into an attack on Sadam or in a sense anywhere in the world that there is a terrorist that specifically planned the 911 attacks. (That is to say if one member of the planning was in France, this would say the president could declare war on France.) - Obviously not that it would happen, but this shows how easily this supposedly specific law could be broadened.

You make a reasoned point that it "was authorized", and to be honest I'll have to read up about it some more, and see if I can find something that clarifies what would look like on the cover, a contridiction for Paul. (Without diminshing the principal which he is standing on which is valid).

I won't be able to do that in the course of this commentary, but I welcome the information and will check it out. I hope others on this commentary who are in opposition to me and others in Paul's court, will do the same and read more about Paul from Paul (not the media).

P.S. I say all of the above on the assumption that there's some evidence that he was a planner. But that brings us full circle back to evidence to "execute" (and where that would be heard to make a "case") and just executing people the government declares a terrorist.

HA - I think I just talked myself out of seeing how the AUMF is an authorized way to serve justice or protect.

Who's deciding who is an enemy of the state and "planned" the attacks if it's not a court? According to the worlding "he" is (meaning POTUS). Doesn't that make him Judge and Jury?

Anyway you slice it it comes up... TOO MUCH POWER in the POTUS.

People don't really get that this isn't about al-Awlaki. The supreme court refused to make a ruling on the issue saying that it is reserved to the executive branch. The supreme court is supposed to make rulings regarding constitutionality of issues. Where in the constitution is the president given authority to arbitrarily declare someone an enemy combatant. Remember people this was one of the issue that had us all riled up over the Patriot Act. It seems the courts think the Patriot Act equals the constitution.

@FourPointsShy - your supporters we (Americans) have absolutely rejected your ideas - in Elections

Post #1.141 - I stated the American people have "over, over and over," rejected you idol Paul he is the epitome of the perennial candidate that over, over and over the same absolute rejection in relative terms by the American people so pathetically rejected that we are only left with his minions as you to suffer the espoused worn out antiquated ideas. He (Al Duh Wacky) is operative and has the same legal standing as Charles Manson if to only in legal terms or purposes.

Manson was tried here where I live in California Manson never committed the murders he planned, promoted, coaxed the perpetration of the multiple murders. Manson, as a Mafia Don, orchestrated the murders and was subsequently sentenced to life and would have been sentenced to death but we had disallowed the death sentence.

This is as if Al Ducky declared War on America he went on radio thousands of times urging the mass murder and engaged real actors that carried out acts to murder hundreds if not thousands of Americans (three of the 911 Twin Tower bombers). What is the name of the cute article published on his website "How to build a bomb in the kitchen of your Mom". To murder Americans.....you make me sick.

He denounced his citizenship when he declared his allegiance to Al Quada to death.After shich he declared WAR on America then went on to promote the mass murder of civilians...Did you miss that?

He radicalized thousands of otherwise innocent souls with promises of another world of paradise the unholy verbiage of the Islamists the radicals and murderers. This was an active perpetrator of promoting mass murder if you would take the time and google his recordings and come back and tell us all of the words of love and community he espoused and how he never promoted the mass murder of Americans then you at least have made one single reasonable statement.

Now I need not look up the "Walk Back" of the Libertarian Paul I only need to see and hear his own words clearly stated that "the ill person would just have face the consequences of not carrying a good health plan" I paraphrase but very close later I can produce the exact words of your leader. Don't twist and deflect to some "walk back" of his own words and he was mandated by law not to turn emergency cases you do no wish to address this fact. Your cloudy thinking in understood as you are stitched to hip of the Ann Ryan discredited Objectivism, what a trollop this Ryan was, which is in large part the whole of Paul's and your neurotic psycho-talk.

Nice try but none of your dots can be connected your bucket of specious ideas has a leak.

BTW in today's news that seemingly dishonest phony economist Hayak the economic guru of Libertarianism was paid by David Koch to fashion academic work promoting learned thought of the idea of Laissez Faire. They do not or have no sense of integrity but should I be surprised as neither do their followers. By taking money to twist academic research to some end is lol........you as I stated peddle your muddy thinking along the lines of your hero Paul, you make my point.

Americans have consistenly rejected Ann Ryan Libertarianism since you raised your ugly political face.

@teknishan:

Aside from our Air-bases in Qatar, our presence in Kuwait, an amphibious assault ship (LHD) and nuclear aircraft carrier (CVN) in the gulf at ALL times, our various bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, 5th fleet HQ in bahrain, and a smattering of smaller airfields in the UAE...

I'd say we had plenty of manpower to go 'extract' Al-Awkali.

Well, maybe we don't- which takes me back to my original statement: why don't you saddle up and go get Al-Queda yourself, if it's so easy? Be sure to take your bible- those Muslims LOVE that....

I get the feeling you were in the service at one time. DD? UD? Too bad.

Next.....

Here's the Ministry of Propaganda's Terrorist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5PRLuRNZB0

So now you want a Presidential power that allows the POTUS to assassinate "Terrorists" without Due Process? Now I see why you're for this...

Biden (THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES) AGREED with the commentator that the Tea Party (Millions of Americans) are Terrorists.

Of course you Obama minions don't see a problem here!

Oh and here's the clear and concise response from The Great Leaders office: http://www.breitbart.tv/abcs-jake-tapper-challenges-carney-on-legality-awlaki-killing/

Ron Paul is the only way out of this insanity.

"President Obama said he would fight the 'smart war' & he is...

I'm impressed!"

No point in telling this fountain of vomit that her hypocrisy is the greatest of anyone who's ever posted here. If she's deaf, dumb and blind enough to be praising the establishment of a Stalinist state and the murder of American citizens without due process, she's obviously too deaf, dumb and blind to take a clue from little old me.

Besides, I've been instructed not to cast my pearls before swine.

But there are more than such swine reading this, and some of you CAN take a clue. She and her ilk will still be praising her murderous thug idol when she's an armed part of his secret police (not just a paid semi-literate lackey slouching her fat cells in front of a video screen) and the Americans being murdered in cold blood for daring to disagree with her turds of advice are on this soil. And under that "administration." Because it's sooner than you think, people. The inching toward that Stalinist state has been obvious since this creature oozed out of his swamp to run in the first place. Every step has been down the same path and in the same direction. The outcome is absolutely predictable. This is the most evil thing that has happened yet in our lifetime.

It isn't that some Neo-Con or some Fascist or some right-wing ideologue may SOMEDAY use this evil precedent to begin murdering Americans for their opposition to a right-wing extremist ideology. It is quite the danger that soon THIS marxist tool and her idol will be murdering Americans for believing in God, for speaking the truth in public that an unborn infant is a human being, for speaking the truth in this forum that homosexual behavior is evil, sinful, and destructive to a stable society. She and her idol, the murderer-in-chief are the ones who will be pulling the triggers. She cheers this use of unlawful violence because she is herself a wanna-be murderer.

This is what every marxist is.

And this paid lackey for marxist-lenninism and its poster-child-in-chief have "marxist" written all over them.

MURDER!

It's what they do. It's what they're planning to do.

It's what they've been planning to do since they sat at the same table with Bill Ayers and his pals and discussed long-range plans for the genocide of those who won't buy into their "progressive" agenda because it's treacherously godless and immoral. This is written all over every word they say.

The hypocrisy of this tool's flip-flopping position on the death penalty is entirely consistent with its role as a murderous lying deceiving marxist-leninist.

MURDERERS!

When the children of the devil speak lies, they are only doing what comes naturally to them, for he was a liar from the beginning and the father of it."

Everything they say is a lie.

"When you promote mass murder and suicide bombers to murder Americans and others you are fair game"

Those words of yours make you fair game now, Persevere. (We'll assume for the sake of your education that a drone aircraft bomb is also a "suicide bomber.") You are the one who is championing the murder of an American and praising his murderer. That makes YOU the "fair game." YOU are "promoting" the murder of an American.

"You limp willed cowards grab flight and join those you have so much compassion for leave America join your brethren they need you and in so doing you lose all rights afforded by our constitution."

Are you speaking of the rights that murdered lowlife was also entitled to? Or of only a special class of "rights" that you are willing to grant to those who agree with you? If someone can lose his rights just because you say they should, doesn't that make such "rights" rather worthless? Would you risk your life to defend "rights" that could be taken from you whenever I think they should be? If someone craps his pants in your yard and you don't like the smell, can you shoot him because THAT made him "fair game"? Or is something more than hating him "for good reason" required? Suppose someone comes running down your street, points a finger at me and says simply "HE did it!" Does than make me "fair game" to be shot on sight right there in front of your house? Suppose the accuser is a TV reporter. Still okay with shooting me without a trial? What about a breathless mob? Still okay with that? No trial? Because I'm not now the least bit concerned about that accused terrorist. He's dead. What does it matter what I think of him? I'm wondering what you might do to ME with your sickeningly frightening view of what the Constitution ought to mean. What are the rules in your bizarre view of things? Do only YOU get to make them up? Under what circumstances does an American citizen "lose his rights" in your world? On whose say-so? In MY world, the Constitution you toss around so casually spells out the process for that much more explicitly than YOU have: only a jury of my peers is able to take those rights away from me, and only in a court of law and only for a violation of a clearly expressed law, and only if that law is consistent with the Constitution, and only if that specific violation has been proven to that specific jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

"It seems the idea of a treasonous act and the active engagement of activities and plots to murder Americans is lost on your disjointed thinking process."

How very, very strange. I have been so sorely tempted to say exactly these same words to you. What a case of Deja-Vu all over again, as Yogi Berra once so famously said. How is it not "treasonous" for a president to abort the constitution? How is it not a "plot to murder an American" for a president to order the murder of an American citizen without a trial? Are you really so dense in the brain that you can't absorb the fact that the president engaged in "plots to murder [an] American"?

"When you are on the side of those that plot mass murder of Americans you are no longer afforded the protection of our constitution this premise should be clear and plain to understand."

Does this mean that the president is now "fair game" in your view of things? I, for one, believe that he is "on the side of those that plot the mass murder of Americans." Is that enough? Or must I have a major newspaper and TV station agree with me on that? If I get MSNBC to agree, does that count? Or is this constitutional protection you speak of something the president is entitled to, quite apart from my opinion, unless a court of law has actually found him guilty of the things you and I mentioned? How does someone in your world obtain these constitutional protections if a court of law is not necessary for him to be pronounced guilty as accused and executed without a trial? Somehow it seems to me that your use of the words "protection of our constitution" have no meaning at all whenever they come forth from your mouth. You might as well be saying "thbbbm mmbbb thbbb blbzzzb" as anything resembling English.

"Why do so many not understand when you join an organization to promote mass murder you surrender you citizenship and are now a traitor a soldier as on the battlefield and subject to the same treatment so stop with all the smoke and mirrors and more disingenuous flimsy arguments as per the rights of an active traitor engaged in the battle."

You could be describing any soldier here, American or otherwise. Good thing we have juries to make nonsense of your nonsense and truth of honest testimony. God help us if someone like you ever gets to decide our fate on a whim. You can't think straight about the simplest concept. When you leave out important words and just "assume" that everyone else is going to plug in the same modifiers, nouns, and verbs that you forgot to include, you commit a serious error. Thank God we don't (yet) have to answer to laws that are written as poorly as your screeds.

Because it sounds to me that you probably fit your own definition of a person who is "fair game" a "traitor" a "soldier as on the battlefield" and therefore, according to your own definitions, ought to be "subject to the same treatment," though it isn't yet quite clear to me just what kind of "same treatment" you may be referring to, although I suspect you're not talking about being treated for halitosis or ingrown toenails. Your "same treatment" covers everything from being fed to being killed.

The muddled, can-make-anything-of-it nonsense that streams out of your keyboard is a prime example of that which demonstrates exactly the reason that we have for so long a time thought it precious that we lived in a nation of laws that applied to everyone, and in any case WERE NOT DICTATED DOWN OUR THROATS BY MINDLESS DEMOGOGUES AND MALEVOLENT TOTALITARIAN MONSTERS ACCORDING TO THE WHIMS OF THEIR OWN AMBITION.

Because, as you have just shown us, anyone who follows your rules HAS JUST CONDEMNED HIMSELF TO AN ARBITRARY DEATH OUT OF HIS OWN MOUTH.

Stupid.

Beyond all plausibility,

stupid.

"Limp-willed coward," you say?

"Shoot first and ask questions later" is the philosophy of a limp-willed coward.

Nicely said John.

Here's a further response from Dr. Paul: http://ht.ly/6LPrW

I agree with Ursula. I think it was the satellite that fell on him.

Ursula - maybe if he'd gotten himself an helmet, who knows, he could have survived it. Poor american citizen, Al-Alwlaki , rest in pieces.

Ah, the minds of libbies.

Obama did something you hate - execution, and this is the best you can do?

Sad, the spinning in your own minds.

SPANKY

Libbies minds are filled with reality and that's what you're experiencing. REALITY.

Ursula: Collateral damage is a bitch!

He was probably just there as an innocent tourist - and BOOM. Talk about bad luck! We should talk to the Yemeni about providing better protection for US citizens who are visiting their country.

Well then I guess we should just kill all guys in Guantanamo. At least then you could close it.

Summary execution is OK as long as it's for the right reason, huh?

Nothing was proven, and NO showing made against Al Alawki (?)

This is part and parcel with my issues with the Patriot Act - the government should not get to arbitrarily decide who dies, who it spies on...

Davis was found guilty as per the criminal standard. It withstood multiple appeals.

And yet you all hated that execution. Both guys are dead. One after due process, one not.

So Grover who else out there is a grave threat? Once we start, where does this end.

Or let me put it this way - I kinda think you are going to hate President Perry getting all jiggy with drone execution.

Spanky, according to some on this site, Rick Perry is the most dangerous man in America today.

Think he should be watching out for drones?

Spanky-

Ah, the minds of libbies.

AH, THE MIND (?) OF SPANKY....

Please enlighten us Spank =

What is your esteemed opinion of what W did to Saddam?

Was he justified in your mind to spend trillions of U.S. dollars and 5,000 U.S. citizens' lives to "get" Saddam? Care to expound upon how you, prima facie support and/or defend one yet condem the other? How can you vascillate between the two? What are ya, some kind of lawyer or sumpin'?

Too funny, Amy---did they ever figure out where that satellite fell?

Grover Lipscomb--I think you put it well. Enjoy your posts.

It still confounds me how the liberals praise the killing of Bin Laden and now Al Alawaki but condemn the death penalty of convicted felons. Where do they draw the line on justice? Seems like selective reasoning to me, your side bad, our side good.

Stupid - you ought to look up who killed Saddam, and how he was executed.

After you get that basic fact down, then come on back, and we can apply your newfound wisdom to the Troy Davis case, as they are far more alike than this.

As for the rest - Iraq was fully authorized by the Congress, or have you forgotten that already? I presume you must of forgotten, or you just don't know what the word "Authorized" means.

So off yo go Stupid. I'll wait.

WCA - these libbies, now that their guy set the precedent that using drones to execute is cool, are just going to love President Perry, when he takes over, right?

Or will they not be so supportive of President Romney when he unleashes drones?

Killing Davis=bad?

killing Al alawaki-good?

I guess 2+2=5, eh gang?

SPANKY

Where are you going with this nonsense? the same place you ended up with your tax code, volt car, EPA, and all of your order absurd claims? Is pathetic the right word.......um.

Spanky and ksw, you have no idea what a "liberal" believes. I don't like the death penalty except in the most egregious cases, but I have no problem taking out terrorists. Just like I would have had no problem bombing Hitler or any other mass killer. We don't all have the "all or nothing" mindset. There are degrees of heinousness, and it is not all black and white, there are plenty of shades of grey,something most teapubs don't seem to get. I have no idea how you can compare the Davis case to an international terrorist who wanted as many Americans killed as possible. Can't you see the difference?

@lib50 To use your logic then it is ok to apply the death penalty to a serial killer just not someone who was convicted of killing one person. How many people does the person have to kill in your mind to warrant the death penalty? Where do you draw the line? Your logic is flawed.

Now, Spanky...

Let us clear things up without your spin on it. What I recall is

1. W repeatedly asking in national tv, "Is the world better off without Saddam?" when asked to explain Iraq;

2. Congress and the U.N. being lied to by W and his agents about WMD's cocked and pointed at US;

3. The U.S. going on national tv happily shouting, "We got him!" when Saddam was brought in.

Now, are YOU going to attempt to deny these facts? You obviously are attempting to mislead and rationalize that the United States technically had nothing to do with Saddam H.'s death. Then you try to say it was Congress, NOT W. who got us into the Iraq quagmire, and thus the Democratic Congress and not the Republican President is to blame for the financial disaster and loss of American life in that war.

Re-read my user name and try again with your explanations...

I'll wait.

Is it too early in the morning for you? Need another cup of coffee to get the brain shifted into gear?

Oh my, Spanky...!

You've uncovered hypocrisy in the positions of the First Read liberal/progressives?

Who knew?

By the way...I love the Patriot Act AND al-Awlaki's demise.

But then...I'm a reactionary. So, that's to be expected.

Although...I'm beginning to strongly suspect that the constitutional law professor in the White House loves the Patriot Act even more than I do.

lol

Sometimes God kills with lightning, sometimes with meteors, sometimes with stones shot out of volcanoes. All of them are death from above. My be he did it with a falling satellite or maybe a drone. Let us all praise the creator for his justice.

NO VIRGINS FOR YOU!

I thought we were at war with terrorism? If this is the case then regardless of citizenship, that person who identifies himself with our adversaries should not be considered an American if he was born in this country. Remember the Civil War where hundreds of thousands of "Americans" were killed by each other? It was war regardless of citizenship. This person will probably never get captured yet he will find ways to kill his fellow Americans if not stopped.

Due process is not possible in this case so let the missiles fly and eliminate the bastard. If he was in our cross-hairs and we didn't do anything to eliminate him, there would have been a greater outcry that we didn't take out a terrorist. If any American joins a terrorist organization that is dead set against America then they should have their citizenship revoked. That goes for domestic terrorist too. If you cannot capture them, resort to other means to eliminate them. Fire a warning shot in their head.

Mixed Bag, no fair pointing out to the libs what is going on here.

It's fun having them think we are the hypocrites......

I don't have but a few spare moments so I will not be able to address the heat I will take until much later this evening. I believe in the death penalty, if your most precious right is the right to your life, then unfortunately you have to have a punishment equal to that, if you would blatantly, and willfully take another life, you should pay with your own, there are some people who should be removed from society in the most ultimate fashion. I know if my wife or children were murdered I would want the SOB smoked, and I would prefer to do it myself. The problem with the death penalty is the time frame in which we apply it, the average stay on death row is like 12 years, the whole thing should be speed up. A fair trial, 90 days to mount an appeal, if they lose the appeal, they are executed. The death penalty is not an effective deterrent because the time frame in which we apply it is far to long. But it could be a deterrent, because there are streets where a 12 year old kid will walk down the street with thousands in a paper sack and nobody will get near him because that money belongs to a drug dealer, and there is a death penalty for messing with it, and it won't take 12 years, the next time you are seen on the street you are killed. The death penalty works quite well when applied in a timely fashion. Most of these punks can't see 3 days into the future so a death penalty that takes 10 years means nothing to them. I am ok with executions and I think a lot of people would change their mind if it was their child that was the victim, I just think the whole process needs to speed up greatly, yes you might execute an innocent every once in a while but nothing is perfect, and justice should not take 10-12 years, because we might make a mistake now and then. The fact of the matter is that there are people who are so effed up they need to removed from society in the ultimate fashion, and we need to say to the world that our right to our life is sometimes going to be protected by the ultimate punishment, after a fair trial, and one chance at an appeal, and no more governors pardoning people, why should they have the power to reverse our law.

I think in all cases possible any criminal or enemy that can be captured should be and tried in the US, we hold our legal system and the right to adjudication as one of our more precious liberties, we should not be moving away from that, when it is possible to capture them, give them a trial and then the ultimate punishment if warranted. Early on Obama wanted to have some trials in NY and many people pitched a bitch, I think we should have, that's who we are, what is the point if your going to eventually become just like the crazy bastards you are supposed to be protecting yourself from. I'm rushing here so I hope my post makes enough sense I would like to discuss this one but don't have the time right now, I know I will take some heat on this, but it is my honest opinion.

Hey Whitey, so what is a lib in your definition, anyone that has a different opinion from yours?

I get so sick of all you. You think and act like this because you're a -- dem, liberal, teabagger, repub, and on and on and on. The intolerance amongst yourselves is truely abhorant. When folks read these comments, it is very clear why this country is flying down into the dirt. There is nothing intelligent about trashing other people and I always thought these blogs where to discuss issues in an intelligent manner. But all I see is one after another seeing who can toss out the biggest baseless but nasty insult. How about just the fact that we are Americans and this man killed and wanted to kill Americans, should be the only reason needed to take him out. Do any of you remember 9/11. Shame on all of you bleeding hearts. We can tell from your posts that you did not lose someone you loved in that horrible manner. And for an American to defend this person for any reason is just pure treason. Either you are for protecting this country in any and all manners, or you have loyality issues which from what I can see from these posts, I believe some you do. If you don't like this country and the freedom it stands for, get out. The rest of us normal Americans do not want you or your commie ideals.

White Collar Auto

Mixed Bag, no fair pointing out to the libs what is going on here.

It's fun having them think we are the hypocrites......

I think you over-estimate your worth to these 'boards.

Not as stupid as yo uthink,

We only captured Saddam Hussein. We didn't try him nor execute him. We did hand him over to the Iraqi people so they could try him. They found him guilty of war crimes, mass murder, etc. and they executed him by hanging. So Saddam had his day in court. Our government openly killing a US citizen, even a terrorist, with out a trial violating his right to due process is something liberals cry about every time a cop kills a suspect (whether by accident or on purpose). So explain to me how the US killing Al Awlaki is in anyway the same as the US handing over Saddam to the Iraqis to be tried.

It's Ron Paul is trying to teach particle physics to a bunch of monkeys.

The actions of the US has already killed 3000 American civilians and many more soldiers have been killed while the US goes bankrupt.

These actions are killing your country and you don't even realize it.

This guy may have been born in the US but he was no American. Kiling him in Yemen saved the taxpayers a needless long term expense if nothing else. He gave up his rights when he started ploting to kill Americans.

I don't think this country has formerly declared war on any one, however W declared war on terrorism which is a tactic used by many rebels including the Israilis before Israel became a formal nation recognized by the U. N..

Congress and the President needs to clarify this situation by formerly declaring war on all members of Al Quaeda, however this presents another question of proof of membership.

I guess we are in an unending war which may last for humdreds of years, which will suspend our constitutinal rights for hundreds of years.

Personally, I prefer to look upon terrorists as criminals, as opposed to suspending our constitution indefinitely, which only plays into the hands of those who do not believe in freedom and insults all those who have died to protect our constitutional rights.

We, the people are in trouble and we must be willing to protect our laws and comstitution, regardless of the risks to ourselves.

TO Wicked Wanda: Wow well spoken! Like a real American. Not like a clown car riddin' Texan!

Your logic is flawed.

No it is not. Case by case basis, one size does not always fit all. There are plenty of death penalty cases I have no problem with, but I do think it should be for the worst of the worst. Just my opinion. I don't draw a line, I look at each one separately. The death of this TERRORIST is a good thing in this case. As was OBL. Do you prefer this guy breathing and planning more attacks on us?

Wanda,

Well said. However I fear it will fall on deaf ears. Logic is no longer a staple in American ideology or politics, it is also about trashing the other side now damn the consequences. How did we end up with so many people unable to think and how did they get into the Government?

He was a traitor to his country...He went to the dark side...

@FourPointsShy - your supporters we (Americans) have absolutely rejected your ideas - in Elections

Post #1.141 - I stated the American people have "over, over and over," rejected you idol Paul he is the epitome of the perennial candidate that over, over and over the same absolute rejection in relative terms by the American people so pathetically rejected that we are only left with his minions as you to suffer the espoused worn out antiquated ideas. He (Al Duh Wacky) is operative and has the same legal standing as Charles Manson if to only in legal terms or purposes.

Manson was tried here where I live in California Manson never committed the murders he planned, promoted, coaxed the perpetration of the multiple murders. Manson, as a Mafia Don, orchestrated the murders and was subsequently sentenced to life and would have been sentenced to death but we had disallowed the death sentence.

This Al Ducky declared War on America he went on radio thousands of times urging the mass murder and engaged real actors that carried out acts to murder hundreds if not thousands of Americans (three of the 911 Twin Tower bombers). What is the name of the cute article published on his website "How to build a bomb in the kitchen of your Mom". To murder Americans.....you make me sick.

He denounced his citizenship when he declared his allegiance to Al Quada to death.After shich he declared WAR on America then went on to promote the mass murder of civilians...Did you miss that?

He radicalized thousands of otherwise innocent souls with promises of another world of paradise the unholy verbiage of the Islamists the radicals and murderers. This was an active perpetrator of promoting mass murder if you would take the time and google his recordings and come back and tell us all of the words of love and community he espoused and how he never promoted the mass murder of Americans then you at least have made one single reasonable statement.

Now I need not look up the "Walk Back" of the Libertarian Paul I only need to see and hear his own words clearly stated that "the ill person would just have face the consequences of not carrying a good health plan" I paraphrase but very close later I can produce the exact words of your leader. Don't twist and deflect to some "walk back" of his own words and he was mandated by law not to turn emergency cases you do no wish to address this fact. Your cloudy thinking in understood as you are stitched to hip of the Ann Ryan discredited Objectivism, what a trollop this Ryan was, which is in large part the whole of Paul's and your neurotic psycho-talk.

Nice try but none of your dots can be connected your bucket of specious ideas has a leak.

BTW in today's news that seemingly dishonest phony economist Hayak the economic guru of Libertarianism was paid by David Koch to fashion academic work promoting learned thought of the idea of Laissez Faire. They do not or have no sense of integrity but should I be surprised as neither do their followers. By taking money to twist academic research to some end is lol........you as I stated peddle your muddy thinking along the lines of your hero Paul, you make my point.

Americans have consistently rejected Ann Ryan Libertarianism since you raised your ugly political face.

I reserve the right to strike out against those this terrorist no matter what ground he stands on as we went after Randy Weaver, David Koresh, Tim McViegh and all and each of those that dare to threaten the American people from within or without. You do not scare me in the least you and your anti-American people hate speech will get you only so far only the far out fringes fall for you Sophistry pure muddy thinking.

The American people will be protected from within and from without....just for your information

ksw62118

It still confounds me how the liberals praise the killing of Bin Laden and now Al Alawaki but condemn the death penalty of convicted felons. Where do they draw the line on justice? Seems like selective reasoning to me, your side bad, our side good.

Firstly, your kind gets confounded if your Starbucks is too hot. Secondly, this guy was a known terrorist. Everyone's seen him on video, in english and in his own voice, calling for the deaths of Americans. He's linked himself to acts of terrorism against Americans. He posed a clear and present danger.

Carl Davis' story is different, in that a lot of people who once thought he was guilty were now having second thoughts, including most of the people who testified against him in his trial. There was no physical evidence to convict him, only eyewitness testimony, which has proven to be unreliable in recent years. Why not be sure in an instance like this? Why rush to kill someone who may be innocent? And then you compare that to the Afghani traitor? Apples and oranges.

ksw62118,

We are not the ones with the problem, you are. Somehow you have equated felons to terrorists. How do you even justify that distinction in your mind? Terrorists and felons are on two entirely different planes of existence in the terms of the justice system. I feel sorry for you if you cannot even understand something as simple as that.

ksw62118

It still confounds me how the liberals praise the killing of Bin Laden and now Al Alawaki but condemn the death penalty of convicted felons. Where do they draw the line on justice? Seems like selective reasoning to me, your side bad, our side good.

No, it's not selective reasoning, KSW... it's just called reasoning.

Your long winded diatribe of minutiae and blithering attack is humorous.

I can still sum up your problem in one simple concise idiom: You can't see the forest for the trees.

Four Points of Sanity - Post #2.39 el al

If you are stating you are a Libertarian idiot I agree and so do many others as 95% of the American people now go commiserate with your idol father and son "Paul" and plead for Al Alawacky but if you ever espouse threats against America you will be dealt with please don't ever forget that for your own longevity.

Your pathetic rebuttal is that of a coward......and a girly boy...just take your place in the dust bin of discarded rejected thought maybe you can be another one of Ryan's boy toys? No don't answer questions or offer a rebuttal you would only make yourself to be more of a delusional disciple than you all ready have.

PS: the latest national polls have your favorite the fountain head of your thought "Ron Paul" at the very last just behind Michele Buchmann Ahahahahahahahaha need I say more. I am vindicated and you rejected so go hide with Hayak that bought and sold academician what a lot you people are total rejects lol.

ksw62118

It still confounds me how the liberals praise the killing of Bin Laden and now Al Alawaki but condemn the death penalty of convicted felons. Where do they draw the line on justice? Seems like selective reasoning to me, your side bad, our side good.

I am not usually so forward but I am SO SICK of hearing this stupidity!!!! You talk as if people are somehow clones? It is as if we all have a chip in our brains that controls the way people think. I guess there are two sets of chip implants, one half has liberal implants and the other half has conservative implants and there is absolutely nothing in between. Do you have any idea how STUPID this makes you sound? This is done on both sides of the fence. It makes Americans appear as if they are complete morons.

I for one don't believe EITHER of these people should have been executed nor do I feel prisoners should be executed! So much for your "liberal" none sense!

Persevere:

The only person you've vindicated yourself with is... yourself. You mention in 1.83 “I go my own way and do not follow my party line....well except for Jesus”. It would seem the "love thy neighbor as you love thyself" Golden rule (you know, the summing of the entirety of the bible by Jesus) isn't working out real well for you. You should probably think about how well that personal self-centered vindication will work out for you at the final accounting.

Go ahead and have the last venomous word to stroke your ego. I’ll turn my cheek, and pray for the hatred in your heart to be softened.

Nice try Bob . . . if President Bush had done HALF as well as President Obama at fighting terrorism . . . he would be on a dollar bill by now. Presidents Bush/Cheney were the Keystone Cops of fighting terrorism.

For reals.

Now just give it up for our kick a$$ President . . . he is doing one hell of a job. Period.

Presidents Bush/Cheney were the Keystone Cops of fighting terrorism.

Thanks Nash - that visual will stick with me all day!

ROTFLMAO!

I never gave Bush credit for killing a terrorist and I won't give Obama credit either. As Commander in Chief, the president sets the rules of engagement for our military and covert operatives. It is the responsibility of the military to complete the tasks. I give all the credit to the military for completing this mission. Well done. One less goat humper that wants to kill Americans walking around the planet.

It's unfortunate Paul. this is the kind of statement that warrants compulsory psychiatric evaluation.

al-Awlaki, an "American citizen" says Paul..."merely exercising his basic freedoms" in plotting the destruction of his fellow citizens.

I guess the President just did not really understand him. Neither did millions of other people, including me.

Paul, you seem to be the only really sensitive citizen here....sorry fella....

Would the "outrage" over the moral and legal standing of this hit had been an issue if we were not in full campaign mode - an unpopular president on one side and aggressive opposition on the other?

Theater.

Ron Paul, if you thought al-Awlaki should have been arrested and tried, why did you not use the powers of Congress to order him to appear for a Congressional Investigation? If the committee had found probable cause, surely an arrest warrant and indictment would have followed.

Bob

And Republicans used to give arms to Osama bin Laden to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein. Guess the lesson is, Americans really don't know how to judge characters from the middle east.

And now the ATF and Dept of Justice is giving arms to the Sinola Drug Cartel in Mexico.

So how about them Mexican criminals Amy? How many Americans and Mexicans have been killed witht he guns bought with our money and given to the bad guys here in our country.

Amy you do know that the guns were given by the ATF to the cartel here in America, then the cartel took them to Mexico.

Why would our government do that AMY?

Why would our government do that

(shrugs)... Ask Oliver North maybe. He seemed to have all the answers about that type of conduct, and the justifications why it was okay.

Got it Stupid - the old, but they did it too argument.

Yeah, that's always a winner.

Oh and you libbies were supposed to be better than the stupid republicans. Not so much?

Oh and how many of North's guns were used to kill American citizens?

Amy,

I believe Charlie Wilson was a Democrat. From Texas, no less!!!

No, not really Spankster...

Just pointing out the hypocritical double standards you republicans, teanuts and lawyers always use, and to let you know we eventually catch on and learn about your tactics.

Ever have that type problem with a judge and jury?

@Amy at 4.1

That policy is called "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." The government doesn't look to character of the regimes it supports -- only what is politically expedient and serves its purpose given the circumstances at the time. If you look at history - that's the way of ALL governments over human history have operated. Not the best for ideologies, but it all boils down to survival.

(Ho Chi Minh first asked the US for help in getting the French out of Vietnam. Of course, France was our ally, so we certainly couldn't help a colonial country throw off that yoke like we did in 1776. Soooo..... Ho Chi turned to the Russians for support... ooops.)

Spanky-

... How many Americans and Mexicans have been killed witht he guns bought with our money and given to the bad guys here in our country

... Oh and how many of North's guns were used to kill American citizens?

Snarky,

Do you have the answers to these questions? I'm guessing that you haven't the foggiest idea, nor -- really -- any interest in the answers. You're just being your typical self.

I'm tried of reading your troll-bait bull@!$%#. Not once have I seen you back up one statement with a citation or fact-check.

You snipe and troll all day long. There is never any substance in your posts. Hate, hate, hate, hate, and more hate is all you ever type.

Don't you have something more important to do, like earn a paycheck?

[Got it Stupid - the old, but they did it too argument]

Oh Lord...that is rich, Spanky...RICH I tell ya!

Strive for adequacy!...reach for those stars, Turd Blossom!

Spanky, fast and furious was started by bush and the republicans in 2006 and was a program continued by President Obama. Who would have thought that republicans were not for republican started programs?

Major respect.. "Fed up Senior", we will continue to disagree on his leadership, but cudos to you for giving due when it is warranted.. Very big of you!!

So, Dr. Die-In-A-Ditch without health insurance is bleeding over that poor terrorist. I call that selective compassion! Ron Paul=hateful, mean old creep.

Ron Paul is not crying over the death of a terrorist, he's bemoaning the death of our democracy.

He may not be right about much, but on this he is absolutely correct.

This is wrong. The US should not be ordering the assasination of its citizens.

Oh common dirp101, "He may not be right about much" balogna...don't be afraid to stand for the guy, the revolution is upon us, and what better man to take charge than Dr. Paul?

Let's talk this out...tell me what he's not right about.

I don't think he's right that FEMA should be eliminated. I don't think we should leave the uninsured to die is proper (he did not say that, but it was implied.)

I think that his total elimination of all government controls on business would NOT be a good thing. Without regulation, the market would not control business. Businesses would lie, cheat, commit fraud for profit, and if totally unchecked by government, do so forever. A few examples: Enron, Bernie Madoff, tobacco companies manipulating nicotine, Standard Oil Company.

Still, I support Ron Paul as it is unlikely he will be able to wholesale dismantle the entire US Government.

Thank you for the civil response and debate, it's a refreshing change for this board..

"I don't think he's right that FEMA should be eliminated."

First I should note that FEMA is billions of dollars in debt currently. Also, their history of actually helping in an effective and efficient manner is very poor, and I believe this cannot be argued.

That aside for a moment, ask yourself the question: Why should a government agency be allowed to insure areas where it is not economically feasible to do so? Opposing FEMA on economic grounds certainly does not equate to leaving the uninsured to die. Neither does opposing it because of its waste. And neither does opposing it because of the fact that it MUST, in reality, force others not involved to cover those who are.

Your argument is perhaps the common one: Then who helps those who can't afford the insurance and they've lost their home, etc, etc?

Ron Paul argues, unequivocally: the free market and charitable organizations. This is no different than his approach to health insurance. And one primary reason WHY this is the only feasible way to solve the problem is this: when a government agency (Federal ESPECIALLY) gets involved, when it has no immediate connection to the area, answers to no real governing authority, and suffers from political manipulation, bureaucracy, and must use force of some sort to enforce its mandates, we can quickly see that enormous pitfalls, waste, inefficiency, and ineffectiveness are inevitable. No, FEMA is not the correct answer to helping those in need. Not to mention, abuse of power in agencies of government can create a nightmare of a whole new level...only exacerbating the issue further.

That's where, from what I know, Ron Paul stands in the FEMA situation. Let me know how you think he's wrong and how.

"I think that his total elimination of all government controls on business would NOT be a good thing. Without regulation, the market would not control business. Businesses would lie, cheat, commit fraud for profit, and if totally unchecked by government, do so forever. A few examples: Enron, Bernie Madoff, tobacco companies manipulating nicotine, Standard Oil Company."

You're inaccurately portraying his position on deregulation. In creating a friendly environment for businesses to begin and grow, he proposes to remove the corporate tax and also to allow companies with capital oversees to return to the U.S. without being taxed MASSIVELY (as is currently the case).

As far as removing regulations, he has stated the Glass-Steagall Act, although it contained some bad parts, should not have been repealed.

His position does not equate to allowing companies to "lie, cheat, commit fraud, etc, etc". He is adamant about ENFORCING laws against fraud and such. We already have the necessary laws to deal with companies in these situations, but regulations are not laws...rather they are a way for large corporations to stamp out competition. This is due to the fact that large corporations can more easily afford the regulatory costs, but a starting or small business has a very difficult time in the same industry. The current issue we have with business is not due to too little government regulation, it's due to corporations running the show -- essentially writing the regulations in their favor.

The examples you give, were all (more or less) able to do what they did PRECISELY BECAUSE OF their government connections and their ability to be legally exempt from the laws that should have taken them down a LONG time before what actually occurred.

There is, of course, a ton more to discuss about this topic...one primary issue being the Federal Reserve, which is a large part of our economic issues. But I challenge you to come up with your solution, how is Ron Paul's solution wrong and someone else's better?

No, lets wait for others to be killed like al-Awlaki was calling for. I think, if someone calls for the murder of other people and instigates murder, which al-Awlaki did many times over, it is our moral duty to stop him.

(*in March 2010 he called for a "holy war" against the US )

Ron Paul is a man of principal, who reveres the US Constitution as it was conceived and written. He is probably correct that Obama didn't have the right to do this. And as President, Paul would not have done it this way. Paul doesn't flip-flop. He is consistent. And I agree with most of what he says. (I'm pro-choice. He's not.)

All that said and done, and no matter if it was wrong or not, I'm glad al-Awlaki is dead.

You'd better wake up there have been political assassinations since the 60's. We Americans have really been "dumbed down." Leaving out the partisian hatred amongst various groups, we should realize that we are Americans and may have to take up arms in our homeland to protect and defend each other regardless of race.

I'm very curious! Are supporters of the Bush Doctrine of Preemptive action against terrorist threats recanting? So does that mean that you think the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were based on an illegal premise? Or do you just object to the use of this doctrine by a non-Republican President?

If you're truly curious, Ralph, I was unaware of the deceit of the Bush Administration at the time...and being (what I thought was) a conservative I went merrily along with what he did.

Within the past few years, I have come to realize a great number of things. One of them being that the entire justification for our war-mongering for the last decade has been based on a lie. Bush was the puppet in office when it occurred, and Obama continues to further the power grab to this day. This is an agenda that goes beyond left/right, FAR beyond Republican & Democrat (like they're really that different anyway!).

Once you realize the deception around 9/11, and the perpetrators behind it, you come to an understanding that pits fundamental concepts against one another: tyranny and liberty, freedom and slavery, truth and deceit. These are the concepts involved in our current dilemma, as in all of history...this is nothing new. And you realize that Democrat or Republican, by and large are gravitating toward tyranny, slavery, and deceit.

The current issue we are debating, is of course fundamental to this entire dilemma, and if we cannot understand its implications, we are doomed to repeat the darkest days of human history. It is not difficult to realize the truth in what I say...but it IS difficult to ADMIT.

Why?So now he's not allowed to talk?We're still allowed to voice our opinion in this country, and because he's telling the truth,he's not allowed to run for president?Poooooolease!He's right.If this guy was a suspect, you don't go and Asassinate him.A dumb ass idea made up by a bunch dumb asses. Assassinations supposedly ended in the 70's.Of course we all know what a crock of sh it that is.

The guy should of been captured and brought to trial like all the other scum they have sitting in the jails here.Then to add insult to injury this scum bag was an american citizen.So now we go out and assasinate our own citizens for whatever reason?

You and all the rest of the Bobble Heads on this board can't see past your nose.Do you realize how dangerous this policy is?Probably not!I don't give a flying rat's ass who the criminal is.Today it's him, tomorrow it may be you for some obscure reason or any reason they deem fit.I'd think about what I said before I'd open my mouth.You and all the rest of the cheering Rah Rah Bobble Heads on this board.

My Dear Gloria, I fear that you confuse the right to say dumb ass things with the idea that there should be no consequence for being a dumb ass. The average American voter will not vote for an advocate for terrorist rights! Have Republicans lost their minds? Has Ron Paul lost his mind? How many votes do you expect to get from Jihadies in the US?

I love Ron Paul. I would never, ever (never in a million years) vote for him, but I love him. The man actually knows what he believes and can articulate it, in detail, consistently. And, most important, isn't afraid to say what he knows will be unpopular. What's not to like about that?

I love him too, and will vote for him. Gloria above is correct. If are government is above it's own law, then our citizens have no rights at all. This is opening a can of worms that should not have been opened. Please think of the long term ramifications, instead of JUST the short term and temporary victory. Either we have the Constitution or we don't.

The citizens already have no rights if Paul thinks that 40 million deserve to die because they don't have health insurance.

I truly can't believe this is even a debate, but we must have it nonetheless I suppose.

Gloria is absolutely right on. Paul's issue would never be with condemning an individual who deserves it...and this is quite obvious. For those who attempt to use a controversial topic, as they always do, and play it to become something entirely different to destroy a person's character and their credibility, you have committed the most heinous of logical crimes known to man: calling the truth a lie and the lie a truth. You have insanely distorted Paul's position and display your ignorance for all to see.

I'm going to make an example out of this comment:

"The citizens already have no rights if Paul thinks that 40 million deserve to die because they don't have health insurance."

That is so absolutely asinine, distorting to the EXTREME what Dr. Paul said...let's dissect this, shall we??? This is the logical flow of the above statement:

1. 40 million citizens (legal citizens? numerical accuracy?) are without health insurance

2. The questions and answers:

Wolf Blitzer: "A 30-year old exercises his right not to purchase health insurance, gets in an accident and needs medical care for six months...who pays for it?"

- Ron Paul said: "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks"

Wolf Blitzer: "Should society let him die?"

- Ron Paul: "No...when I practiced medicine the churches took care of them, we never turned anybody away."

4. Dr. Paul believes a citizen should be allowed to exercise his right to not purchase health insurance

5. Dr. Paul believes the government cannot FORCE others to pay for this man's medical bills

6. Dr. Paul thinks that all citizens without health insurance deserve to die

7. Therefore: citizens already have no rights

Good grief that was painful...the lack of logic is stifling! And this folks, is what goes on in our media and in our society day after day...often taken at face value, with little scrutiny and thought. Use your brain people, I know the vast majority of people are smarter than this, keep trying Americans First, you got a long ways to go.

at one time the answer to the hyper and hypothetical would have been "the family, the community and the religious". in many parts of the usa, unvisited by the press and by the plutocrats, this same scenario occurs on a daily basis.

with the government intrusion into too many american lives, the discussion turns into simulated talk much like these posts, divorced from reality, like the blather of the ancient romans sitting in the coliseum disccussing the merits of the next chariot race or sword fight, oblivious even as the barbarians encroached little by lttle into the outlying areas whence came their water, bread and future.

say what you will about mr paul, he is consistent in his personal and religious philosophy unlike the philosophy of situtation ethics of virtually all the other politicians.

Just another giant tear in the Constitution Drive By.

I'm sure that does not concern you in the least.

Ignorance really must be blissful, as evidenced by you list earlier.

[Just another giant tear in the Constitution Drive By.]

Would that be the same Constitution that you dislike, or at least parts of it...like the Fifth Amendment, perhaps?

Or it is some other Constitution, "counselor"...perhaps the one read by the GOP...you know the one...with all the really relevant parts conveniently edited out?

I didn't read that he disliked the Constitution. Neither did you.

[I didn't read that he disliked the Constitution.]

You're a day late and a dollar short...go back and read "counselors" posts on the Constitution from a couple days back...it's almost entertaining if it weren't so ignorant.

I disagree. This individual is directly responsible for the recruitment, training, and planning of attacks on American soil. He was an enemy to the United States, regardless of his place of origin.

His preaching, organization, and leadership went well beyond his First Amendment rights. He denied his citizenship and took up a life elsewhere to promote hatred and terror, and with that he denies his rights to due process.

And were we supposed to use a bullhorn to announce the strike so that the one "American" terrorist leading the fight would have time to be served with a warrant? This established no precedent for anything

The laws of war are different from the laws of peace. please learn to discern the difference.

Had the evil doer turned himself in peaceably to the US authorities, he would now be waiting for his trial.

That was not the decision he made. Instead he chose to make war on YOU! he chose to send one murderous attack after another against YOU! He chose to run and hide to escape justice for his crimes. The cops pursued him, he resisted arrest, and unfortunately paid for his crimes and his foolish judgment with his life.

Who among you will step forward to demand the arrest for murder of the Valiant US Armed Forces who put him to death by this duty bound operation? No one? Just as I thought all - all sound and furry, signifying nothing!

Ed - So if this is not establishing precedent, then what is. The Tea Party: "are terrorists" "can go straight to hell" "only want to see blacks hanging from a tree" "are a racist thing" So as a Tea Party member, do I need to be looking over my shoulder now? Do I have to shut up? Can I no longer go to any rallies? Is the Tea Party the enemy? It is precedent whether you agree or not. Done once, it's a precedent. Do we scrap our laws for anothers lawlessness?

You must be quoting from some new law of which I am not aware!

Apparently you don't know of his affiliation with the CIA or officials at the Pentagon shortly after the 911 incident. This evidence would argue against your allegation that he was solely responsible for anything:

Official government documents obtained by Fox News last year revealed that Al-Qaeda terror mastermind Anwar Al-Awlaki, the man who helped plot the aborted Christmas Day underwear bombing, the Fort Hood shooting, the Times Square bombing attempt, and who also preached to the alleged September 11 hijackers, dined at the Pentagon on February 5, 2002.

The documents included the minutes of an FBI interview conducted after the Fort Hood shooting in November 2009, that stated Awlaki was taken to the Pentagon as part of the military’s “outreach to the moderate Muslim community” in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.

Awlaki was vetted before he was invited to attend a luncheon at the Pentagon in the secretary of the Army’s Office of Government Counsel. His appearance at the meeting was deliberately engineered despite Awlaki’s ties to three of the alleged 9/11 hijackers – Nawaf al-Hazmi, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Hani Hanjour – who were identified as the suicide pilots that slammed Flight 77 into the Pentagon.

Following the Fort Hood shooting it was also revealed that shooter Major Nidal Malik Hasan had been in contact with Awlaki before the rampage. Awlaki preached to both Hasan and the 9/11 hijackers at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia in 2001.

Now Fox News has obtained more details on the Pentagon event, including an internal Department of Defense email that describes the event in detail.

The email was sent to over 70 members of staff by a lawyer from the Pentagon’s Office of the General Counsel.

It describes Awlaki as the featured guest speaker on “Islam and Middle Eastern Politics and Culture.”

“I have reserved one of the executive dining rooms for February 5th, which is the date he (Awlaki) preferred,” the defense department lawyer wrote in the e-mail.

The lawyer, who was responsible for vetting Awlaki, goes on to write that she “had the privilege of hearing one of Mr. Awlaki’s presentations in November and was impressed by both the extent of his knowledge and by how he communicated that information and handled a hostile element in the audience.”

It is inconceivable that a top Department of Defense lawyer was unaware that Al-Awlaki was interviewed at least four times by the FBI in the first eight days after the Sept. 11 attacks because of his ties to the three hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Hani Hanjour.

Confirmation that Awlaki met with Pentagon officials after having inspired the very 9/11 hijackers that are blamed for flying a commercial airliner into the Pentagon provides yet more startling evidence that the highest levels of Al-Qaeda are completely penetrated and run by the US military industrial complex, which via patsy handlers like Awlaki is staging false flag attacks to boost their own domestic and geopolitical agenda.

Matt it was quite alright to scrap our laws and throw people into GITMO with no charges, no proof and throw away the keys. Had to take them to a foreign country to get around the rule of law.

It was quite alright to scrap our laws and move people to secret prisons and torture them. Cheney defends torture to this day as if it isn't against world law.

But now for protecting American terrorist you are worried about the rule of law.

To the person concerned if he should be able to go to tea party meetings now. I would say no if the tea party meetings are planning the over-throw of the government and killing innocent people on the way.

But, I think you are okay if you are just having a little tea with you whine and crackers.

That's exactly right TOR. And it's very interesting how this all ties in with 9/11. Once we get to the point (I have faith that we will) where we've determined that 9/11 was a false flag attack, engineered in the most devious manner to begin this "War on Terror", only THEN can we truly get back to liberty and freedom and what this country was founded on...because until then, the criminals who perpetrated 9/11 will retain their power and elite status.

The Tea Party: "are terrorists" "can go straight to hell" "only want to see blacks hanging from a tree" "are a racist thing" So as a Tea Party member, do I need to be looking over my shoulder now? Do I have to shut up? Can I no longer go to any rallies? Is the Tea Party the enemy? It is precedent whether you agree or not. Done once, it's a precedent. Do we scrap our laws for anothers lawlessness?

We're not talking about the Tea Party, we're not talking about American citizens on American soil voicing their opinion in a politically charged manner. Your examples are media sensationalized views of a political party, are conjecture at best, and not of a terrorist organization who actively engages in jihad on Western civilization as a whole.

This was the killing of an enemy combatant, overseas, by the armed forces. The man was an enemy to the United States and perceived as a threat to national security as an individual, not by affiliation alone. These threats were directed not at one specific group or creed, not locally or regionally, but to all Americans. The fact that he was an American citizen is of no bearing or consequence, in my opinion, given the circumstances. This does not set the precedent you are seeking to prove.

Hey dolphigirl1119. I agree with you. It's funny Ron Paul takes issue with killing a known terrorist, but can easily let some American die on a gurney because they don't have Health Insurance. Ron Paul is a true idiot and I can't understand how anyone could vote for him or his son. I'm surprise he's even in the running for President. These Tea-Party candidates are so ignorant, it's frustrating.

You just don't get it, its not the death of the terrorist Ron Paul is condemning, its the slaughter of our Constitutional rights, one step at a time, little by little, until, before you know it, we have no rights.

As to the US Citizen who was MURDERED, (i.e. killed without cause or a conviction) by the US Government, if you are in support of that, well, I hope you are never accused of supporting a terrorist organization. YOU could find yourself at the wrong end of a lethal bomb or bullet.

Wow, find a happy place dude! Let's have some civil debate here, don't get all Rambo just because you're anonymous on the interwebs.

1. "You stand NO chance of being elected"

Google: Ron Paul Obama Harris Poll

2. "This poor excuse for an American was guilty and got what he deserved"

What's the proof of his guilt? What were his crimes? If they are so immense and atrocious, why can we not behave like adults and try him with the evidence?

3. "while people like you try to justify and/or make excuses for his crimes."

Again, what were his crimes?

Supposing he was completely guilty of everything you could imagine, how does proposing following the rule of law equate to justifying and/or making excuses for his crimes???

You disguise the truth in lies.

You call going against the entire GOP's so-called "conservatism" of the last few decades weak?

You call what he's done and said for our country for the last few decades passive?

Wake up and smell the roses....

He is the only BRAVE one up there, willing to speak the truth, just like Kennedy did...just like Susan Lindauer is doing today, Ken O'Keefe, Prof. Steven Jones, Barry Jennings, Michael Scheuer, and MANY more.

If you toe the line with the media's bias against Ron Paul, you will deserve what you get in the next few years as you encourage others to stay silent...while our liberties are destroyed, bit by bit. Welcome to the Second American Revolution....get on or get out of the way.

Just out of curiosity, what is this "obvious idiocy on other issues" you speak of? Enlighten me, I love some good debate!

That's what I want to know...is that such a hard thing to ask?

Garth, correct! He was a traitor and in times of war, the penalty for treason is death. He plotted, planned and recruited others to comit war against the US and our people.

I'm asking an honest question here: What is the proof we have of your accusation?

lol, he protects us from the boogey men right! You were telling a joke right? Please tell me you were telling a joke!!

Drivel. Move on folks.

So far, 16 people have moved on, RaySJ; but not before putting a checkmark next to SYRPTUS' comment. I don't see any next to yours. Maybe you should just move on...

Haha, yeah right...shows you the state our country is in huh?

My statement is patently true, what he said was absolute drivel...not sure how anyone can argue with that? The fact 16 people liked it does not make it any more valid, and doesn't surprise me, as millions of Americans are glued to their corporate media brainwashing stations and have forgotten how to think.

Let's talk cold hard facts and we'll see how far we get with the truth of the matter...Ron Paul is right in this, the only ones who wish to argue with him attack his character and come up with stupid statements like SYRPTUS did. Sadly, people often gravitate towards that because they're part of the status quo, they feel they have some deep connection to those who support war-mongering against "terrorism" while liberty in crapped on...the sheeple you might say. They have little spine and find true research & investigation repulsive in their laziness and apathy.

No, I'm not moving on until our Country is taken back or I die...

You'll never take my country. We'll do our best to miss you.

Sad... "You'll never take my country." Sounds like some sick globalist that thinks you've already taken America.

We're taking BACK our country, not taking it...open your eyes.

Stubble- Not defending the old man, but how many has he killed? Any sources or stats?

Only an idiot would not realize that a terrorist recruiter is responsible for death and destruction.

Really Jimee? What proof do we have of that? And if the proof is so prevalent and he's so obviously a bad man, why can't we try him and be done with it? Open your eyes fellow human, it's time to wake up.

al-Awlaki was calling to murder Americans. I think, if someone calls* for the murder of other people and instigates murder, which al-Awlaki did many times over, it is our moral duty to stop him.

(*in March 2010 he called for a "holy war" against the US , in May 2010 he asked all US military to kill their fellow soldiers....he succeded with at Ford Hood)

And we need to wait for a trial?

Terrorists are terrorists no matter where they happen to be born. Fanatics turn against the US citizens all the time. I say kill them all (the known terrorists) and let God sort them out! If they are innocent, I guess they will get their 7 virgins as reward!

Hemi- Great idea, until the powers that be decide that its a scapegoat to get rid of anyone in the way for you to drill, mine your way to riches (see Iraq/oil). Its great to steal the Iraqi oil, but the US taxpayer is picking up the dime while oil companies are pouring in the spoils.

OMG! If it were made aware that we knew of a terrorists whereabouts, and we did nothing, Paul and those like him would be the first to jump all over the president and his administration. C'mon man! This is ridiculous. Even Bush said that those in any way connected with 9-11 needed to be rooted out and destroyed. That is one of the few things that Bush said that I agreed with. After all, what did this guy represent? He hated us and would do anything to destroy us, and now a clown like Paul is advocating for him. What next? This is beyond absurd.

Obviously corporate America does or else this wouldn't be headline news. Every chance they get, they try destroying him. I don't really agree with his policies (he is a Libertarian in Repub clothing) , but I do think he has some valid points. Would I vote for him? Probably not, but I wouldn't vote for Obama, Perry either.

Extremely valid point. The globalists and corporatists are out in full force and will be for the foreseeable future because Americans are waking up -- in large part due to Ron Paul's incessant message of upholding the Constitution & liberty. Our Founders would be proud of him.

This guy is as made up as the tooth fairy. I think they keep bringing out these boogeymen so we keep spending BILLIONS every day in Iraq and Afghanistan (for oil, copper and other resources).

Sad...please wake up.

Not sure why I bother, but this entire thread (if it's not full of hired bloggers to discredit Ron Paul) disgusts me and should disgust every single American who values their liberty.

What we are witnessing here is the blatant destruction of the rule of law. There could NEVER be a more damning approach to freedom and liberty than that of the destruction of liberty and the rule of law in the name of safety.

You're an idiot. He's the only one who understands blowback. Obviously you don't. Hence you're an idiot. Look up blowback please.

Ron Paul FTW: "You're an idiot." That's a no-no in this forum! Nobody likes rude people. Behave yourself!

I appreciate the rule of law but we are rapidly approaching a place both with domestic laws and international laws where we are so handicapped by legal minutia that no one is held accountable.

Why was he an enemy? Because he supported violence against Americans? But wait a second - he was an American. So why is it ok for you to support violence against him? You are also supporting violence against an Amercian. By that logic, the government is justified in killing you with a missle too.

So who was he shooting at?They only thing I saw this guy shooting was his mouth off.That's neither here nor there.We have laws in this country,or at least we had laws, where a person is tried and convicted before they're executed.

You really don't get it do you?If they can target this enemy on a so called battle field, They can use the excuse to target any American Citizen they like with the excuse they were on a battle field.They target whom ever they dam well please if they feel if they were an enemy of the state for whatever reason.In other words sir it would be a free for all, and don't think it can't happen in this country, because it can.

Anwar Al Awlaki quotes and activities ... just a smidgen of them:

“To the Muslims in America, I have this to say: How can your conscience allow you to live in peaceful co-existence with a nation that is responsible for the tyranny and crimes committed against your own brother and sisters? How can you have your loyalty to a government that is leading the war against Islam and Muslims?”

As a Washington Post article stated, this is a call for a U.S. Muslim revolt

Planners of the 9/11 attacks and the attacks on the USS Cole were Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who later on 9/11 hijacked American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon. Al-Awlaki served as their spiritual adviser.

On August 31, 2006, al-Awlaki was one of a group of five people arrested on charges of kidnapping a Shiite teenager for ransom, and involvement in an al-Qaeda plot to kidnap a U.S. military attaché.

In March 2010, a tape featuring al-Awlaki was released in which he urged Muslims residing in the U.S. to attack their country of residence. In the video, he stated:

To the Muslims in America, I have this to say: How can your conscience allow you to live in peaceful coexistence with a nation that is responsible for the tyranny and crimes committed against your own brothers and sisters? I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad (holy struggle) against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding upon every other able Muslim

FBI agents had identified al-Awlaki as a known, important "senior recruiter for al Qaeda"

Al-Awlaki’s recorded lectures were also an inspiration to Islamist fundamentalists who comprised at least six terror cells in the UK through 2009.[87] Michael Finton (Talib Islam), who attempted in September 2009, to bomb the Federal Building and the adjacent offices of Congressman Aaron Schock in Springfield, Illinois, admired al-Awlaki and quoted him on his Myspace page

Al-Awlaki influenced several other extremists to join terrorist organizations overseas and to carry out terrorist attacks in their home countries.

He wrote as well: "We will implement the rule of Allah on Earth by the tip of the sword, whether the masses like it or not."

In the months before the attacks, Fort Hood attacker Hasan increased his contacts with al-Awlaki to discuss how to transfer funds abroad without coming to the attention of law authorities.[128] al-Awlaki said the shooting was acceptable in Islam because it was a form of jihad

Underwear bomber Abdulmutallab told the FBI that al-Awlaki was one of his al-Qaeda trainers in remote camps in Yemen. And there were confirming "informed reports" that Abdulmutallab met with al-Awlaki during his final weeks of training and indoctrination prior to the attack.

British passenger plane plot

British Home Secretary, Theresa May, said on November 3, 2010, that an associate of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, who was in touch with al-Awlaki, had been arrested in 2010 for allegedly planning a terrorist attack on passenger planes in Britain

THERE's PLENTY MORE, David and Gloria. OPEN your EYES!

The American police routinely kill alleged criminals fleeing from their crimes all the time! Where are all you bleeding-heart pro-terroroist conservatives when that happens? Do you demand trials for the cops? No you don't! And I don't; either! It's the same thing - al-Awlaki was running and hiding from his crimes and the cops got him in a shoot out! Wasn't IT George Bush that proclaimed "Wanted. DEAD or ALIVE!" Now you have moral scruples about the Bush Doctrine? You should be ashamed of your selves! You are not real Americans!

Bleeding Heart Pro Terrorist.2 words to you BULL SH IT!

Oh and on the Real American Part, NEITHER ARE YOU! Oh yeah and Have a nice day!

Michael Buie my eyes are wide open.You don't get it do you.I mean you really don't get it.I don't give a flying rat's ass if he was Lucifer.He was still an american citizen.He never gave up his citizenship.You're list can be 3 miles long it still doesn't change the fact he was a citizen.

My point is, now read carefully, you start doing this these things to these sort of people, and you are opening up a pandora's box. They're putting the whole country in danger.
Why you say? Because that gives them carte blanche to kill whom ever they please, no matter who! They can make up any dam excuse that they want, if you don't fit into their agenda Bang!

We have laws in this country we are suppose to follow those laws not just start shooting and asking questions later.Get my point?,Because the next person might just you or me because some whacko in the government thought you or me were a threat even though were not.You get the picture?

Gloria, tell that to the thousands who died 9/11. Or one of your family or you if we don't defend you.

Mike, he wasn't around on 9/11, nor was this piece of sh it in the picture.He came later.All I'm saying is this is dangerous.The government has opened up a whole new can of worms.It affects you, me and everybody else running around in this country.If they can pull this kind of stuff, then it's open season on everybody.All you need is a Psycho in office.Don't say that can't happen either.

You have to go through the legal process.I don't care what Obama says.He's just covering his ass.Let's call it as it is shall we?

I think it's appropriate here to point out to people the fact that the lies and misinformation surrounding 9/11 are so enormous, we do ourselves, and all those killed that day and the millions since because of our ravaging about the globe, a terrible disservice .

Just so you know, I don't enjoy the thought of our government being thoroughly involved. I believed the official story for a while, and I sincerely wish it were true, it would make things a whole lot simpler. But countless hours of open-minded and unbiased research have inevitably led me (along with millions of others) to realize that the truth about the 9/11 atrocities has not come to light, and those responsible have not yet been tried.

With that said, let me put forth some facts & evidence:

- WTC 7 was not hit by a plane, suffered minimal structural damage, had fires burning on a few floors, completely collapses at 5:20 PM on 9/11/01, straight down within seconds

- Eyewitnesses heard numerous explosions both before the first plane hit and before the buildings collapsed

- Barry Jennings, an eye-witness to explosions in WTC7, died 08/19/08 of an extremely mysterious death

- Reports of molten STEEL were found in the rubble MONTHS after the collapse

- Nano-grade thermate was found in the dust of the twin towers

- Extensive terror exercises were ran on 9/11, many military employees were confused if what was happening was real or not

- Susan Lindauer, whose credibility has been established by expert witnesses, was a CIA asset working as the go-between for the U.S. and Iraqi governments. After stating she desired to testify that much of the intelligence community (and the government) had foreknowledge of the events of 9/11, and claims that the war against Iraq was planned before 9/11, was arrested by the FBI under the Patriot Act, accused of conspiring to act as an agent for the Iraqi intelligence service, and incarcerated for over a year. She was under indictment for 5 years and before she was brought to court was declared to be mentally unfit for trial and Assistant U.S. Attorney Ed O'Callighan sought a court order to force medicate her. She was also called a religious nut. In the end the charges were dropped. She has since taken it upon herself to write a book about her experiences and tell the truth to the American people.

So, without having performed an independent and thorough investigation, if we continue to base our discussions on the official story -- that planes brought the buildings down, the high-jackers were solely responsible, and our government had nothing to do with the whole ordeal -- we are bound to distort the truth about subsequently related events and are likely to head down a complete rabbit trail.

Uh oh ... another conspiracy theorist who believes demolitions or space rays brought down the towers.

Good job Michael Buie, you just proved your blissful ignorance and/or arrogance.

Now, if you're half a man, you'll face the facts, instead of attacking my character and avoiding the discussion...even though what I just posted is completely factual.

Let me say it again:

Just so you know, I don't enjoy the thought of our government being thoroughly involved. I believed the official story for a while, and I sincerely wish it were true, it would make things a whole lot simpler. But countless hours of open-minded and unbiased research have inevitably led me (along with millions of others) to realize that the truth about the 9/11 atrocities has not come to light, and those responsible have not yet been tried.

With that said, let me put forth some facts & evidence:

- WTC 7 was not hit by a plane, suffered minimal structural damage, had fires burning on a few floors, completely collapses at 5:20 PM on 9/11/01, straight down within seconds

- Eyewitnesses heard numerous explosions both before the first plane hit and before the buildings collapsed

- Barry Jennings, an eye-witness to explosions in WTC7, died 08/19/08 of an extremely mysterious death

- Reports of molten STEEL were found in the rubble MONTHS after the collapse

- Nano-grade thermate was found in the dust of the twin towers

- Extensive terror exercises were ran on 9/11, many military employees were confused if what was happening was real or not

- Susan Lindauer, whose credibility has been established by expert witnesses, was a CIA asset working as the go-between for the U.S. and Iraqi governments. After stating she desired to testify that much of the intelligence community (and the government) had foreknowledge of the events of 9/11, and claims that the war against Iraq was planned before 9/11, was arrested by the FBI under the Patriot Act, accused of conspiring to act as an agent for the Iraqi intelligence service, and incarcerated for over a year. She was under indictment for 5 years and before she was brought to court was declared to be mentally unfit for trial and Assistant U.S. Attorney Ed O'Callighan sought a court order to force medicate her. She was also called a religious nut. In the end the charges were dropped. She has since taken it upon herself to write a book about her experiences and tell the truth to the American people.

So, without having performed an independent and thorough investigation, if we continue to base our discussions on the official story -- that planes brought the buildings down, the high-jackers were solely responsible, and our government had nothing to do with the whole ordeal -- we are bound to distort the truth about subsequently related events and are likely to head down a complete rabbit trail.

I've already had this discussion with another devout conspiracy theorist. Most of the "evidence" you offered are lies. The rest are supposition and false assertions. I've been through all this garbage over and over and people like you who choose to believe any lie posted on the internet will stand by it until Kingdom come.

PS: And yes ... if you are consistent, space rays from orbit are another conspiracy theory you all embrace.

You've had this discussion huh? In your self-righteous arrogance I can understand why you continue to uphold the lies you're told by the media, it fits your into your little bubble without giving you the need to think and research for yourself into what the truth actually is....either that or you know the truth and you're working hard to keep it hidden.

If all you can do is lay out blanket statements like

"Most of the evidence you offered are lies."

or

"The rest are supposition and false assertions."

Then I'm afraid you've only strengthened the position of truth -- and the need for a thorough, independent investigation. That's the ironic thing about the truth, any and every thing that's said to try and hide or ignore it will only serve to ultimately reveal it.

P.S. If you'll notice, I never posted anything about ridiculous theories of space rays from orbit, that would be very unreasonable since there is absolutely no evidence of that occurring.

I've had an intense debate with someone esle about this before and researched it heavily. I looked into all their little conspiracy theories.

Lies, half-truths, half-baked theories by crackpots ... you, sir, are so pitiful to believe such drivvel. Demolition and take-down efforts twisted by theorists as if we blew up our own buildings were really used to safely manage debris. Buildings of such size and design are made to pancake downward. There were NO explosions heard BEFORE the planes hit. There were terrorists on board these planes. People gave up their LIVES to thwart the terrorists on one of these planes.

G.W. Bush is not even smart enough to coordinate such a convoluted conspiracy!

You fall for the terrorists' agenda by feeding into these lies and conspiracy theories. Shame on you.