E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSMANCHESTER, N.H. -- Ron Paul said President Obama should be impeached for the killing of the al Qaeda-linked, American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. But, then again, so should every other president he's known, he said.
An "impeachment process would be possible,” he told students at a University of New Hampshire town hall. “You could do more investigating into this. I put responsibility on the president. This is obviously a major step in the wrong direction.”
Asked on what crime or offense he would impeach Obama on, Paul responded: "I just said almost every president I've known I'd probably have to vote for impeachment, because there's very little respect for the Constitution -- and certainly there's no respect for the Constitution for assassinating American citizens."
Leave a Comment:
Uh oh!
Big Bad Ron is throwing around the 'I' word again without a shred of evidence on what justification! lol
The right wing lunatics do love them the sound of just saying it!
Take your Aricept Ron - President Obama said he would take the fight to the terrorists and he's done just THAT!
Seriously? He said that?
Good grief.
It looks like he's taken himself right out of the running as a serious candidate.
Calling for your opponent's impeachment seems just a bit ...
... well, tacky comes to mind.
And not just a little self-interested.
Good old right-wing ethics.
Old Ron sounds like he's been paliln' around with Smiffie N' Spankie.
No doubt crazy old lefty Feisty was wanting Bush and Cheney to be impeached a few years ago, for capturing murderous Al Qaeda....
Lefty loons loved the "I" word back then, didnt they? Imagine the demonstrations if Bush killled an American citizen without trial...
Back then, in the good old days, fighting the War on Terror was considered an impeachable offense by lefties.
@Bob-1887910
Cheney prosecuted for for Iraq, torture, and murder of civilians... not for legit stuff like Al Qaeda
Don't try to twist history like TeaPublicans do.
Republicans are just jealous and trying to divert attention from their own incompetence in tracking down terrorists.
But as far as I'm concerned, they can call for impeachment all they want, as long as no one who is running for President is calling for it.
Paul should be forced to withdraw as a candidate.
I think that Ron is pushing a veiled threat to violence.
Has anyone else noticed that the GOP/TP platform pretty much comes down to Throw the Baby Out with the Bath Water? They are such an all-or-nothing group of idiots. Never once do they consider the positives of something as well as the negatives, or how to improve something instead of just destroying something. Through history conservatives have always had this start from scratch mentality. It's because simple minds can't grasp complex concepts.
As for impeachment, what crimes and misdemeanors is this based on? Well if Paul is serious he would have more success looking at the Teapublican Party first. Heck, just look at other candidates -- How did Perry get so wealthy on his government paycheck? Why does the GOP/TP protect Big Oil, Wall Street, Big Pharma/Insurance companies so much?
The Occupy Wall Street movement beat ya to it.
See now I thought he was the darling of the Left. Numerous folks here at MSNBC have been screaming "Ron Paul", "Ron Paul", for the longest time :)
P.S. This also explains my other point that his popularity is capped at 5% for a reason.
It is a tragic thing that so many Americans are as ignorant as you are. I'm not hurling an insult, I'm just identifying your lack of understanding, willing or otherwise on top of an obvious lack of reading comprehension.
1.) "Throwing around the "I" word without evidence."
Are you denying that the CIA killed Awlaki with a drone strike, without a trial? What was the evidence that Obama used to justify the extra-judicial killing of Awlaki?
I remember that it wasn't so long ago that so-called liberals were criticizing Bush, and rightly so, for locking people up indefinitely without due process...but now you think murder without due process is OK.
This also shows a lack of understanding about what you believe the role of the President to be, which is to execute Constitutional laws, hence "Executive" branch. Where in the Constitution does it allow the US President to label someone who has not attacked anyone (only alleged that he inspired people) as "enemy combatants" and to murder them extra-judicially?
Ron: 1
Roselle and all the commenters in agreement: 0
2.) Anna Molly - Ron was not calling for Obama's impeachment. He was asked about it and answered a question honestly, something few other politicians are capable of doing. Notice that he included Republican presidents under his umbrella of impeachable-ness. Good ol' right-wing politics HURR DURR!!
3.) True Patriot - I have not noticed that, since that is just some BS feel-good statement you just came up with. If you're going to identify Ron Paul as some kind of mainstream GOP-type, or having anything to do with the bitter Republicans who call themselves the Tea Party, then I can't take you seriously because you're not a serious person.
You obviously do not pay attention. Ron is a Republican, but that is only a technicality. He has almost nothing in common with anyone else in the Republican Party. Mentioning Paul and Perry in the same breath, without recognizing how different they are, is like saying the New York Yankees are like the Miami Dolphins because they both play sports that involve a ball.
Dr. Paul is right. It wasnt a battle scenario. He should have been captured and tried here where we could see him. History shows that government cant be trusted with that power. Why did he not indite Al'Awlaki and have a trial with him absent? Corruption is as corruption does.
I've always said Ron Paul is the only GOP/TP candidate, and probably the only conservative who has been consistent and shown integrity in so doing. That is not to say that he isn't "out there" (such as in this case) and perhaps a century or two behind. Even his supporters would concede that Paul is not mainstream, which is another word for "out there."
@ Greg -- he's never been MY darling. He scares the bejeebers out of me.
Dayum! Fiesty I think you and I agree on this one. Its cruel and unusual punishment to waterboard prisoners, so just vaporize em with a missile from a drone before they become prisioners, thats a concept I can learn to like. Once we get you warmed up to that you won't mind if we drop a couple of nukes from a B-52 would you Fiesty, LMFAO.
He's never been my guy, either. I recognized the John Birch Society as crazy 35 years ago, at this point all they get is a tired shake of the head from me.
OK, now I know for a fact that Ron Paul is senile!
Check around you will find back in the day Ron Paul also suggested that perhaps Bush and Cheney could be and perhaps should be impeached for torture and suspending some constitutional rights through the Patriot Act. He has basically called for the head of any and every president that was CIC of military campaigns that were not wars declared by Congress. You can see why he usually runs as an independent. While a few people like to hear his impeach Obama nonsense, he is a pain in the ass for the republican establishment, I like Ron Paul for one reason, he gives Karl Rove heartburn.
Causarius: "Ron is a Republican, but that is only a technicality. He has almost nothing in common with anyone else in the Republican Party."
You are so right. I respect Ron Paul because he cares deeply about our Constitution.....BUT..... While most Republicans want a fence built to protect our borders, Ron Paul said a fence like that will also serve to keep Americans in. I thought that was a stretch, to say the least ! haha
'Impeach'
please don't give Teapublicans another idea about wasting precious time and money (ie Obamacare, Clinton sex life, etc)
@LEONA-2986819
Look at the history of any country that goes to hell (read Chile or Cuba, although their fence is the Caribbean) and you will find the government trying to keep its population from fleeing with their wealth. The implication that it is impossible because we are "America" is ignorant at best. It is absolutely possible that a fence built to keep people out will at the very least impede a person trying to get out.
Another fine idea. From a guy that has a lot of them. To bad he doesn't have a chance at winning the nomination. The stuff these republicans come up with are hilarious. What a lost party. OCCUPY WALL STREET! Screw the t-stains. Obama 2012! Retake the house! Keep the senate! How else is the middle class ever going to make it in the future?
And Ron Paul is running for the presidency...to save us from...Presidents who kill terrorists?
I laugh so hard at these anti-gubment clowns who WORK for the freakin GOVERMENT!
He thinks not when he speaks !
Amy B. Portland, ME
And Ron Paul is running for the presidency...to save us from...Presidents who kill terrorists?
Amy, Ron Paul is crazy. He is just looking for a talking point to shore up base. First it was the birthers talking impeachment and now with the "I" word he thinks he get the after birthers (those who say they still don't believe and some who do belive the long form is legal) riled up too.
Amy, that one cuts right to the point of how ridiculous Ron Paul's comment is--good one!
I'm opposed to any move to impeach President Obama.
Sorry, Ron. But, incompetence isn't an impeachable offense.
If it were, President Obama would certainly qualify.
It isn't, so...
We'll address this on Election Day, 2012.
In any event, President Obama handled Anwar al-Awlaki in exactly the correct fashion.
He got out of the way, and let CIA Director Panetta and the national security people do their jobs.
Speaking of "presidents that kill terrorists,"- I'm thinking back on all the nontroversy over the recent assasination of the "Citizen' terrorist.
Has any of the usual detractors of Obama weighed in yet as to how they felt about the Dickster ordering the military to shoot down passenger flights laden with US CITIZENS on 9/11 if they didn't follow commands to land or divert if ordered to do so?
LOL, incompetence. Teapublicans thy name is hypocrisy. Don't even try to go there.
No Sir. Ron Paul, IS NOW, and has always been a Libertarian.
It is amazing how fickle left-wingers are. Five years ago you all cared about the rule of law, but now with a Democrat in the White House you don't care about anything because if Obama does it then ipso facto it is the right thing.
PROVE HE IS A TERRORIST. Do people not deserve a trial anymore, just because the President claims that person is dangerous?
What do you posers not understand about the rule of law? I doubt for a second that any of you were OK with the Bush administration labeling anyone they wished as an "enemy combatant" so that rights we all enjoy did not have to be extended to them, and that the names on the list of enemy combatants were "state secrets" ...one more previously loathed Bush-power that Obama has held on to, and which left-wingers now accept as legitimate.
How do we know Anwar al-Awlaki is a U.S. citizen did Fiesty see his short form, LMAO.
Amy: "And Ron Paul is running for the presidency...to save us from...Presidents who kill terrorists?"
hey Amy, I guess you and all your liberal friends want to apologize now for calling Bush a "war criminal?" After all, at least BUSH WENT TO CONGRESS and got their approval before he killed any terrorists.
Another Old man shouting at the clouds! I guess he forgot to take his medicine.
You folks really need to glance at the Constitution more often. Anwar Al-Alaki was an American citizen. As such, under the provisions of the 5th Amendment he has a right to DUE PROCESS before sentencing. If a liberal Barack Obama, as President can order the assassination of an American citizen without due process, then a neoconservative President in a later term can do the same against those people he deems an "enemy of the state." It's a dangerous precedent which sets the stage for politically-driven murder.
Pray you're not the next targets.
And what advice would Ron Paul have given to President Lincoln when trying to preserve and protect the Union?
...and lets begin with YOU and your son.
Sounds like a great place to start.
Feel free to begin the impeachment process by identifying a reason.
HINT: Being a partisan myrmidon is not a justifiable reason
I'm not a big fan of Ron Paul and I support the killing that muslim terrorist piece of crap.
To the bigger point though Obama should spare the nation and not run for a second term.
As a clear majority recently polled shows if obama was a ceo of a corporation he would have been fired by now.
Results do matter. And this president is a failure.
Failure only in your dreams. There's a long list of President Obama's accomplishments. Just because you don't like some of them doesn't mean he's a failure. Your comment makes about as much sense as Ron Paul's does.
not just MY dreams Jody.....
majority of americans do not believe he deserves reelection
They didn't think Clinton or Bush 43 should be re-elected either.
"There's a long list of President Obama's accomplishments"
Yes, I know, the "long list" was on the NY Times bestseller lists, for fiction.
Closed Gitmo...oops...
Saved the economy...oops..
bipartisan ...oops...
pretty sure clinton and bush didn't have 9+% unemployment staring them in the face
Bob lotsanumbers. Why isn't Gitmo closed? Check the facts--it was Congress that refused to fund the closure; it was republicans and some democrats who fear mongered about terrorists being brought to trial in the USA as if our judicial system and maximum security prisons were unreliable. As for the economy, I would say bringing the country back from the brink of another Great Depression ranks as saving the economy. FYI, big Bob numbers, the economy was growing, was improving, private sector jobs were being added by the thousands every month last year until the GOPTP took over the House and went on their deficit/debt reduction spree reducing money to states and the public sector causing layoffs and hindering the fragile recovery. Economists, right and left, say that. You might try checking facts and checking out why something did or did not happen instead of buying what your party sells as truth.
I'm still waiting for a conservative to state what the GOPTP has done to help economic recovery. Where's that long list? Not surprising no one ever answers since they have done zero.
The only reason we have 9.1% unemployment is the failed policies of Bush and the GOP. That's not political ideology, that's simple facts. What did Bush pay for in his 8 years? You can't start two long, drawn out wars, cut taxes twice to unsustainable levels and not have a negative impact on the economy. It's not ideology, it's just common sense. Since conservatives like polls so much, they still consistently show a majority of Americans blaming Bush for the economy.
(Rob in MA) Results do matter. And this president is a failure.
* * *
Rob,
Yes they do AND I am not really much of an Obama fan. However, we don't "impeach" presidents for doing a lousy job; no, we go to the polls and vote.
jODY: "The only reason we have 9.1% unemployment is the failed policies of Bush and the GOP. That's not political ideology, that's simple facts. What did Bush pay for in his 8 years? You can't start two long, drawn out wars, cut taxes twice....."
IS that why when OBAMA HAD BOTH HOUSES of CONGRESS for 2 YEARS , HE CHANGED ALL THOSE THINGS????? NO. Obama chose to craft Obamacare (I call it the UN-Affordable Healthcare Act). How did that work out? Obamacare will be repealed because it doesn't keep costs down like it was suppose to.
He didn't, Leona. He had a theoretically veto-proof majority for 10 weeks of business. Before that Republicans kept Senator Franken from taking the seat he EARNED for MONTHS. After that Senator Kennedy became too ill to serve, died, and was replaced by Tea Party Senator Scott Brown. Even during that time their "veto-proof majority" depended on the votes of two independents, one of whom had already been thrown out of the Democratic Party for voting against the party and endorsing the President Obama's Republican opponent.
And still he's managed to keep 147 campaign promises, plus 44 more with compromise. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ Imagine what he could get done if the GOPTP would make their main priority the advancement of America instead of the defeat of President Obama.
hey John B , You can believe all the kool aid theories you want from all the state run media. I have 2 words for you from David Axelrod....."Titanic struggle." p.s. the ship sank.
Just pointing out that facts are absent in your posts, Leona...and every regular reader here knows it.
Need more proof that Ron Paul is not presidential material? Looks as if Ron Paul dumped a load of manure today--impeach, impeach, impeach. Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen who denounced his country and was intent on killing Americans; he was a traitor. The Constitution doesn't guarantee a trial to traitors. How about impeaching Ron Paul for stupid, irresponsible comments.
Ever read the constitution? Most of these comments are ridiculas
Whether you like it or not, he WAS an American citizin. People call him a terrorist, but who proved that? A judge certainly did not. If Obama can make exectutive orders to assassinate whomever he "sees" as a "threat" whenever he wants to, we got a big problem.
You know when a president is sworn into office, they swear to follow the constitution.
Seems to me like Obama isnt aware of the Rule of Law.
Actually, Jody, the Constitution requires it, with at least two witnesses:
Article 3, Section 3, US Constitution.
From The Telegraph, London-
"He profoundly alarmed Western intelligence agencies by eschewing grand attacks and advocating what British officials dubbed the "just do it" theory of terrorism – whatever you can pull off, just do it – after an article in Inspire, the English language online magazine he co-founded last year. "Assassinations, bombings, and acts of arson are all legitimate forms of revenge against a system that relishes the sacrilege of Islam in the name of freedom," he wrote."
"In a statement in March 2009 he said: "Jihad [holy war] is becoming as American as apple pie and as British as afternoon tea.""
"Awlaki sent an internet message to Rajib Karim, a British Airways worker in Newcastle: "Today we need men who are willing to go all the way and not hold back anything from Allah ... The compensation is the jannah [paradise].""
Just a few examples of his work that I'm sure was read and heard by more than two witnesses.
There are many examples of people creating the conditions that lead to crimes and terrorist acts but not being the ones that perpetrate those acts and we do go after them. Afterall, Bin Ladin didn't fly the planes and I didn't hear any of those on the right scream for his "trial".
Am sorry but Anwar gave up his American citizenship when he became a terrorist.
vwterry,
Last I checked, threats and hate rhetoric is not a crime punishable by death.
And the US Constitution (you know, that little piece of paper that gives all the gun nuts and bible thumpers something to yell about) specifically points out what is needed to convict for treason AND also provides all kinds of things for a trial.
NOWHERE in the Constitution is the President authorized to summarily execute a US Citizen.
Oh how I love you blue hawks and red doves. Hypocrites...all of you.
Are you saying that al-Awlaki was not a traitor? He could have surrendered to prove himself innocent but instead he chose to direct and aid the killing of Americans. It isn't hypocritical to consider a terrorist for what he is. Last I checked President George W. Bush began the "War on Terror." War is war whether it is against a nation or against a radical group of murderers like Al Qaeda--we either fight it with our best effort or we come home. While I am anti-war, I am not naive enough to think al-Awlaki's citizenship deserved any more special consideration than Osama bin Laden, after all, he joined their organiztion and preached death to Americans in videos.
Who ruled him a terrorist? Isnt a judge suppost to do that? Not some beurocrat. Not the president.
I think you Jody, are missin the whole point.
Last I checked, threats and hate rhetoric is not a crime punishable by death.
Ron Paul's statement seems irresponsible. What would he have done?
We don't know and God willing, we shall NEVER find out.
Mr. Paul, Please go home. Sometimes you make a world of sense. But more times than that, you don't. Its time to enjoy life with the grandkids.
What A Maroon!
If you need to hear it, Play this. Thats for the laugh Ron!
The more I listen to Paul, Cain, Perry and soon Christie, the more I see Romney will be the Republican nominee and it will be an easy Obama re election come 2012. Romney and his wife are so disingenuous that people just won't show up to vote.
What has this President failed at? We are a lot better off now than before he was elected. Just because he hasn't address all of our concerns does not make him a failure. You guys watch too much of faux news. Any way, the repubs have no one with credentials to become The POTUS. Ron Paul need to just shut his pie hole. You guys should suck it up and admit, it was a grave mistake to put the repubs in congress. The party of no. In 2012 believe me they will begone as quick as you can say Faux news.
(AC) What has this President failed at?
* * *
The health care "ram down" comes to mind. The promise to "change the tone" comes to mind. 9% unemployment (which he did inherit to be fair), but has not fixed, comes to mind.
However, merely doing a bad job, is not grounds for impeachment. No, it is not like he "lied under oath" like Clinton, which is a felony.
Yep. We're better off.
Zero job growth.
Gas Four dollars a gallon.
Record debt.
Downgraded credit rating.
Housing still collapsing.
9% unemployment (actual 16%+).
Half a billion dollars wasted on Solyndra.
Financial institutions still commiting crimes; CEOs not prosecuted.
Threats from Communist China.
Two wars raging.
Protests on Wall Street ignored.
Gay rights still in violation.
Absolutely no bi-partisan governorship.
FEMA broke and turning their backs on tornado and flood ravaged states.
Gulf of Mexico polluted with oil while BP snickers.
Thanks, Obama!
Ron Paul shooting off his mouth before engaging his brain, pandering to the fringe!
I am not a huge Ron Paul supporter nor do I usually affiliate with a particular party but I believe you all are missing the larger point and It is MSNBC's fault for omitting this from the article.
President Obama ordered the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. I am not arguing that he did not deserve to leave this planet but It must not be overlooked that he, no matter how evil he was, is an American CITIZEN. He is granted explicit rights under our constitution.
The issue is not that he was killed, it is how it was done. The president is not above the law and took an oath to defend our constitution.
This sets a very dangerous precedent and Ron Paul is right in his criticism.
It seems like I agree with "Cooky Uncle Ron" here and maybe he is a little less Cooky that I was first led to believe.
Sorry for the length I know no one will probably read this or I will possibly just be labeled as Anti-American.
Thank you.
People on this site make me cringe sometimes
I disagree with Ron Paul on this issue, but how nice to read comments by a Republican candidate that do not reflect a goosestepping acceptance of everything that the military and the CIA do.
On the other side of this issue, how 'bout Obama's national security credentials now? No president in recent memory has had such a win streak in degrading our enemies. His administration has been masterful in the use of covert actions and drone attacks. W. never really accomplished much - and blew the easiest chance to get Osama at Tora Bora. No Republican in the last 50 years has had success like this!! Obama's take-out successes make Reagan look mamby-pamby.
And this same person who is assasinating his own citizins was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize... What is peace nowadays?
A person automatically looses their citizenship rights by serving in the military of a country or group that is currently hostile to the United States. Seems like that description fits Anwar al-Awlaki pretty well.
It says any persons is due process. Not citizen....
So what are you trying to prove?
"And this same person who is assasinating his own citizins was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize."
What are you trying to prove?
This dried up old prune-faced clown seems to be the darling of a fringe group that doesn't realize that his utterances are those of an old man who would be a disaster as President of the United States...he is a master of stirring up the caldron of hate, stupid and demented ideas. He, and all the other teapublicans can dish out all the new world order, ultra-conservative evangelical religious rhetoric, fear-mongering rabble they like, but the hot air they're spewing out will burn them all to a crisp next November 4th, 2012. Look at this man, folks...if he is elected POTUS (not a chance, old man!), he will become even more decrepit and senile as the years drift by him...our diplomacy would be a joke throughout the entire world community, and he would have the elderly die before helping them (remember death panels...the teapublicans wrote the book!)...he is also one of the brain-dead repubs at the last debate who didn't stand up for a serving soldier as the audience booed...not presidential material, any of them.
First of all, there were probably about 3 people who boo'd that solider.. These moronic actions do not and should not change the image of any candidate / party. But for you to insult this man, who is far more intellegent than you in many areas, is idiotic.
I suggest you go read the Constitution.
Don't forget to read the amendments.
Yeah, no, 'cause we're better off with him still alive, right?
That's ignorant for you to decide, is it not?
American citizen or not I still can't get over the fact that the Bush presidency is responsible for over one million dead Iraqis. GW hasn't traveled outside of North America because he'll be sued by foreign human rights organizations but here he can throw out an opening pitch.
Paul didn't want to kill a terrorist because he was born in the US, but during the debate he was more than willing to let an American uninsured accident victim die.
G. Rose Marie: no, he just would not have the government paying for the uninsured's care. Its not a matter of whether or not the person would be cared for, just a matter of who would pay for the care. Since most of the hospitals can trace their not-for-profit roots to being tied to religious organizations, Mr. Paul indicated that those organizations would pay. In reality, the hospital would "eat" the care and pass on the additional cost to those who do pay, much like they do without the ACA.
You took that question that Wolf asked Paul and twisted it just like they wanted you too.
Did you know Ron Pauls campaign manager in 2008 died of pneumonia about three years ago. Guess what, he didnt have health insurance, did he leave him to die? No.... I for one, found this question that they asked him insulting, as well as your comment...
Way to show your ignorance.
It is sad that Ron has to say time and time again that he would not let someone like that die, and he has proven it with action and not just claimed it with words. Dr. Paul is, of course, a doctor...and he has detailed many times how doctors like himself used to give out a lot of free care to poor people.
I guess telling the truth and being honest are like Klingon to Obamadrone's ears, since they are so used to hearing lies and believing that is the truth.
Ron Paul is an old grouchy republican like the rest of them. They have bitched about Obama from day one. It has gotten old by now. Ron Paul would let any American die if they didn't have health insurance to cover it. He is a hypocrite
So what about the Ameicans dying in Iraq? One of obama promises is to bring them all home, almost three years now and they still are getting killed. If was for are freedom, ok, but for the rich to get richer.
Goldfinger, aka Ron Paul, lives in a libertarian island in his own mind - reality does not intrude.
Good point, ScommaG. It's a radical island where the only reason Conservatism isn't the ONLY philosophy of government is because it's never been tried...despite 8 years of Ronald Reagan and 8 years of GW Bush. Usually from their the argument then claims that deregulation hasn't gone far enough, there's still too much social safety net, too much government meddling in the economy...
If you really think that you have more in common with the campus Marxists of the 1970s than anyone else in the political world. You'll never get a Conservatism "pure enough" for it to work. That sort of Conservatism is a theory only, a hot house flower that cannot survive in the real world.
Weather you like Ron Paul or not, or agree with his statements or not, He is at heart a decent man. I live in Texas, been watching this guy for about 10 years. He is the real deal. He is a strict constitutionalists, all arguments lead back to the constitution. He gives back to his community and does not accept corporate political donations. His view of the FED is right on, which is why the establishment wants him out of the game. It seems his new tact is to convey his ideas into controversial talking points, just so the media will notice him. Sad really, he is the only REAL patriot standing to run for president. Check into to his long history and you will find he has been consistant on his message for 20 years. He also was one of the only people warning about the wall street collapes. His predictions that were made in 2005-2007 are earily accurate, and easy to find on the net.
And isnt it sad to see all these people who are too ignorant to listen to his message?!
indeed!
Really interesting responses kill an American without trial guess what your next without trial. Protect the constitution bring this guy in for treason and hang him for everyone in the world to know we stand behind our constitution and what we the US do to people who commit treason. No, not nuts just correct again, everyone everywhere should see how we Americans stand with our constitution our forefathers gave to us. There is a reason we put people on trial who commit treason; for the world to see who they are before they are hang them. What a missed opportunity and let down letting the terrorists control our moves. A much bigger statement would have been; we catch traders, expedite their trial and hang them when found guilty. And show the world have a strong constitution that the American people have as a foundation that is unmatched by any others.
So should all the GOP/TP presidential candidates, House and Senate members that signed an oath with Grover Norquist be charged with treason or sedition?
Yes Cynthia, they should!
In this day and age, our politicians on both sides get sucked into a machine they believe they are the head of, but are only the talking head. The best we can do as Americans is try to find honest people running for office, that will at least tell us the truth, weather we like it or not. Ron Paul fits this bill.
You've got a be a very bad guy to make the "kill or capture" list. At best, maybe, we need to set and publish some standard qualifications for that esteemed honor. But once a person is on it, he is subject to being killed outright, US citizen or not.
Now if you think you should not be on the list because you are innocent, contact the authorities and appeal your inclusion, require that they prove your worthiness with hard evidence of how bad you are, otherwise you better duck.
Just when I think Ron PAul may be an OK guy he comes out with another piece of ill considered, unworkable nonsense. You can't capture these guys Ron, they don't want to be captured, they are armed and dangerous and they fully understand that its a kill or be killed situation for them.
If we do capture them, then we have to debate about where they will be tried and of course that just causes bickering. The way Bush handled affairs was just fine with the right. The way Obama handles affairs is OK with theleft. There is a democrat in the white house now and he gets to make decisions based on what he thinks is right. Losers should shut up and take it from Obama. We had to take it from Bush.