Ron Paul Condemns Killing of al Qaeda’s Awlaki

[ProSense]

Ron Paul Condemns Killing of al Qaeda’s Awlaki

By Elizabeth Williamson
GOFFSTOWN, N.H.–Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul condemned the U.S.-backed killing of al Qaeda figure and U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki.

“Nobody knows if he ever killed anybody,” Mr. Paul said after a breakfast at Saint Anselm College’s New Hampshire Institute of Politics. “If the American people accept this blindly and casually…I think that’s sad.”

Mr. Awlaki, accused by the U.S. of planning al Qaeda attacks on U.S. citizens and recruiting terrorists, has been a longtime target of the U.S.

The libertarian Mr. Paul, a strong opponent of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, said his disagreement is based in large part on the fact that Mr. Awlaki is an American citizen, and U.S. authorities “have never been specific about the crime.”

In May, the Texas congressman supported the killing of Osama bin Laden by a team of Navy SEALs in Pakistan, writing at the time: “Osama bin Laden applauded the 9/11 attacks. Such deliberate killing of innocent lives deserved retaliation. It is good that bin Laden is dead and justice is served.” He also said bin Laden’s death was one more reason the U.S. should withdraw its troops from Afghanistan.

more

Revisionist: Ron Paul: I wouldn't have killed bin Laden

Hypocrisy:

Here was Ron Paul's response to 9/11: September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 (PDF)

<...>

(b) The President of the United States is authorized to place a money bounty, drawn in his discretion from the $40,000,000,000 appropriated on September 14, 2001, in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorists Attacks on the United States or from private sources, for the capture, alive or dead, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator responsible for the act of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, under the authority of any letter of marque or reprisal issued under this Act.

<...>

It's OK to authorize war as long as it comes with sending vigilantes to do the killing. Ron Paul isn't anti-war, he's anti government. He's against the military in favor of mercenaries and vigilantes.

[msongs]

1. criticizing GW Bush's rights to kill anybody anytime anywhere? Oh, Bush is no longer POTUS nt

[Ter]

14. He is no fan of Bush's

Paul has criticized Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama for doing things like this. He consistent in his beliefs.

[otohara]

18. So It's Not Okay to Kill

a bad guy, but it's okay to let your campaign manager die because he was uninsured?
That man helped raise 19 million for the good doctor, but the "job creator" Paul, didn't provide health insurance for his main guy.
What a dick!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. And the other side is SUPPORTING THE KILLING of...

...<insert defendant/perpetrator/victim's name>

[stevenleser]

5. These folks:

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/10/dead-captured-and-wanted/

(Those not already dead or captured)

[otohara]

19. the Uninsured

yeah, boo, yeah.

[Vattel]

3. Another blow to the fifth amendment thanks to Obama.

One would have thought that the federal government cannot deprive a citizen of life without due process of law. But now if the President says that you pose a threat to national security, he has a right to kill you even if you are no where near a battlefield and even if you pose no immediate threat of harm. The Prez gets to be judge, jury and executioner.

[stevenleser]

4. No it isn't. We're at war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates. If you join a foreign army or spy

against the US in wartime, you have earned the right to be killed.

[Cali_Democrat]

7. Sounds like something that would come from the spokesman for the Bush Administration

nt

[stevenleser]

11. No, the Bush administration would say, X group attacked us so we are going to invade someone else nt

[johnaries]

20. +1

[Tarheel_Dem]

8. Thank You. The hyperbole tends to thicken when these events happen.

:hi:

[Bake]

6. That's gonna win him a lot of points with the teabaggers....

Just sayin'.

:hi:

Bake

[DisabledDem]

10. With the true members

The poser Tea Party members will still ignore him and go right off to batshit crazy candidates such as Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann. Not that Ron Paul is technically normal but he has good positions on issues such as war and drugs. Otherwise, I strongly oppose 95% of what he advocates as a congressman. And I will never vote for the guy under any circumstance unless I had to vote in a election that his two opponents were Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot.

[Tarheel_Dem]

9. You mean Dr. Paul was for it, before he was against it?

:shrug:

[Major Hogwash]

12. Ha ha ha - totally dismantles Ron Paul's long history of hypocrisy!!

Man, what an idiot.
He'd rather bring him back here and let him use heroin until he was an addict.
Paul believes that ALL drugs should be legal to use.
A total fucking moran!!

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JoeyT]

16. *I* believe all drugs should be legal to use.

Adults should have complete choice over what they put in their bodies. Be it drugs, penises(penii?), or RU-486.
Paul's hypocrisy becomes evident when he supports the first, doesn't care about the second, and actively opposes the third.

He's pretty consistent in supporting the right of white rich guys to do whatever they want. So he's not even a hypocrite. He's just a dick.

[mikekohr]

13. When You Dedicate Your Life To Placing Bombs On Planes Filled With Innocent Men, Women, and Children

you should not be surprized when we fly an un-manned aircraft filled with explosives through your windshield

[otohara]

17. The Visual

of your comment sounds like a scene out of a movie.

:evilgrin: :hi: :nuke: :headbang: