http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-decri...151645191.html

I for one would not have thought of this perspective.

 

Nor I. I feel Al-Awlaki represented a "clear and present danger" to the US. I think we were entirely justified in exterminating him.

- Jack

 

Innocent until proven guilty?

No more trials, just shoot all criminals.

I agree with Ron Paul.

 

Yea maybe. If the scum bag was taken out in Downtown Anywhere U.S.A.

The P.O.S. has vids all over the internet calling for our distruction and a very long "history" of aiding those who are our enemies.

I say, I HOPE THE WORMS ENJOY HIS ROTTING FLESH!

His citizenship is just to make a mockery of our system. Ron Paul is an IDIOT.

 

Ron Paul is clearly smarter than you.

 

Guess we should not have targeted Osama bin Laden, as he never stood trial either ?

This is the 1st time I have ever seen someone side with terrorists....

 

I totally get his side of the issue being that the guy was an American citizen and should have been afforded "due proccess" but I think we were justified in what we did. The game changed on 9/11.

 

The answer is obvious to those who understand that freedom cannot be exchanged for security.Ron Paul

 

Perhaps. Now if he would just use all those smarts to protect our country instead of splitting frog hairs like some kind of ACLU dimwitt, maybe he could get more traction with his ideas.

Or maybe his tin foil hat is just a little too tight!

 

I'm with Paul on this one. An American citizen is guaranteed certain rights under the Constitution.

If we play a la carte with citizen's rights, who does the choosing and when/where does it end ?

 

So, how would you folks feel if his citizenship had been revoked before they took him out? At least then the citizenship issue (which was just a ruse) would be off the table.

My bet is Ron Paul would be against that too.

Waddya think?

 

Even though I am glad this guy is worm food, I do agree with you on this point. It starts as a guy who is accused (rightfully so) of being a terrorist. Several people have already accused groups they politically disagree with as terrorists, should they be shot also? Where does it stop? I have the tv on right now and it just happens to be on some WWII documentary. The people who disagreed with Hitler were branded "enemies of the state" History shows that good intentions can go bad very quickly when evil people gain power.

Depends on how that is done. If it was done following the established laws then possibly. However, this still could lead down a slippery slope. I don't like the idea of giving carte blanche privileges like that to government officials. Most of the time they are not very trustworthy and prone to use their powers to their own benefit. I prefer a government that must work harder to follow the law than one that is free to take the easy way out. Who knows when you will be on the wrong side of the political pendulum...

 

I agree with Norm who agrees with Ron Paul.

Although he may have been potentially dangerous, what has he done? Rallied some troops? C'mon people, wtf? This basically sets the precedent that if you are found to be an 'enemy of the state' for ANY reason, the state can revoke your rights and kill you.

 

You say tin foil hat, I say perceptive.

Many would have said he was wearing a tin foil hat when he said this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hJTisovvjc

That is just one of the many:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5nGCpzel6o

So, you know what, perhaps people should stop calling Ron Paul the crazy guy and listen to him, he understands what is going on.

 

The difference between this guy and OBL is his citizenship. What if someone tipped the government off saying you are a terrorist? wouldn't you want a trial, despite how true or false the claim is? the constitution applies to all citizens, even terrorists.