Ron Paul to Obama: Don’t Assassinate American Citizens!

Congressman Ron Paul warned on the House floor that the assassination of American citizens by their own government is setting a dangerous precedent for the rest of us.

Location: Congress
Date: 02/24/2010


Ron Paul: My topic for this evening is “now, it’s assassinations”. What have we allowed ourselves to become? Are we no longer a nation of laws? Have we become instead a nation of men who make secret arrests? Are secret prisons now simply another tool of the federal government law enforcement? Is secret rendition of individuals now permitted out of misplaced fear? Have we decided that the writ of habeas corpus is not worth defending? Is torture now an acceptable tool for making us safe?

Unfortunately, the single answer to all these questions from the leaders of our country to many of our citizens appears to be yes. And now we are told that assassination of foreigners as well as American citizens is legitimate and necessary to provide security for our people. It is my firm opinion that nothing could be further from the truth.

Secret arrests, secret renditions, torture and assassinations are illegal under both domestic and international law. These activities should be anathema to the citizens of a constitutional republic. The real threat doesn’t arise from our failure to torture, rather desensitizing our nation to the willful neglect and sacrifice of our civil liberties fought and died for over the centuries, is the threat.

The concept of habeas corpus existed even before King John of England was forced in 1215 by his rebellious barons to sign the Magna Carta. This basic principle and expression of individual liberty which has survived 800 years greatly influenced the writing of our Constitution and our common law heritage. Today, we hardly hear a whimper, either from the American people or a stone-silent US government as our cherished liberties are eradicated. Instead, we have a government that deliberately orchestrates needless fear and makes people insecure enough to ignore the reality of their lost liberties.

The latest outrage is the current administration’s acknowledgement that we now have a policy that permits assassination not only of foreign suspects but of American citizens as well. Of course, the CIA has used secret assassinations in a limited fashion for decades despite international, domestic, and moral law. When done secretly as in the past, our government at least recognized that assassination was illegal and wrong. Frighteningly and astonishingly, however, the policy is now explicit.

National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair in open testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on February 3rd of this year, acknowledged that American citizens can indeed be assassinated at our government’s discretion. The US government attempted to assassinate Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen without even charging him with the crime. We’re told this evidence is secret, that he does not deserve any constitutional rights and that some unknown individual in the administration has the authority to declare him a threat, and therefore a legitimate target for assassination.

Yes, I know, he’s probably a very bad person. Yes, I know that only a few Americans are on the assassination hit list. Yes, I know that artificially generated fear makes a large number of Americans inclined to applaud this effort which supposedly will make us safe. But if this could become standard operating procedure and a permanent precedent is established, let me assure you that this abuse of the law will spread.

It’s time for Congress and the American people to wake up to the realities of the dangers we face. We must remember as members of Congress that we have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. It should not be that difficult to distinguish the difference between the danger posed by the underwear bomber and the danger posed by a government that endorses secret prisons, torture, and assassinating American citizens.


  • Really very good info is found on net blog.

  • jackellisdd

    Ron Paul is getting senile in his old age – happens a lot with true believer liberals and libertarians.

    Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki is an AINO – “An American in Name Only”. He was born in America to two Arab Muslim “students” and so by the insane/treasonous US policy of Birthright Citizenship he’s supposed to be….

    An American Citizen…

    who chooses to hang out in Yemen and dress, act and plan murder and mayhem the same as Osoma Bin Ladin, Mohammed Ata etc.

    Do I think the US should assassinate him? No, but I’m fine with paying some locals in Yemen to beat his filthy, ugly hateful *W#&$ and then forcibly shave all of his ugly, hateful facial and body hair and maybe try to get the guy to get out of the 8th century Jihadist barbarian lifestyle.

    We can’t continue to let these murderous, hateful Islamic extremists to move in and out of our country, do things like go to flight school in Florida, work at nuclear power plants, get bomb making training in the US military etc.

    I don’t care about some legal technicality like Birth Rate Citizenship – Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki is not now nor was he ever my countryman an “American”.

  • Tech

    I don’t see how anyone in the “government” can use these “events” to now kill Americans without any trial. Who will be making the decison to kill Americans? The Bankers? The CEO’s? Local police? FBI agents? Where does this BS end?
    My family has been here since before the beginning and fought in all the wars and paid in blood for the US constitution which I also took an oath upon joining the military to defend and this is ridiculous and illegal and wrong. Since the apppointment? of GW Bush by a split decision of the US Supreme Court things have gone downhill for the good old USA. I thought well OK the wealthy elite just wanted to stick a front boy in who wouldn’t do anything but then 911 “happened” and everything changed. We should demand a real 911 investigation because what they had was a joke. Then that anthrax? From our CIA lab? Then we invaded Iraqistan? Then they tell us we need the NSA to spy on us? Then they ram through the USA Patriot Act taking out our rights and freedoms? Now they want to be able to kill us? Hello!!! Anyone esle see this is leading to something really bad???
    We need to end the FED/IRS scam and the control of all the money by a few private banksters who looted the US Treasury and caused the economic mess, end the paranoia and the CIA idiots and just live here in peace and lead by example not bombing folks. We need some sanity and fresh air and I think we need some public hearings and trials and some people should be headed to jail.
    You want real terror? Out here in the midwest tornado season is about to start so we already have plenty enough to worry about without idiots in Washington with nothing else to do inventing more. Maybe if they had real jobs growing food or producing real goods they wouldn’t be thinking up nonsense. Ban lobbying, clean out the place and elect regular people!

  • Libertarian777

    “Fred the Protectionist
    Gee I thought you Libertario’s were the Great Defenders of the Constitution.

    USC Art 1 Sec 9: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

    If the Patriot Act was legal when Bush was president, and it was repealed today, you cannot try or convict Bush because that would be an Ex post facto prosecution.”

    Short memory Fred? BUSH passed an ‘ex post facto’ law, shielding the telecoms companies from prosecution and lawsuits regarding ILLEGAL wiretapping, AFTER they’d already assisted the government in violating the 4th Amendment, and without getting warrants required in terms of the FISA Act.

    For what its worth, Obama just renewed the Patriot Act.

    • Fred the Protectionist

      I’m suppose to believe testimony from a conspiracy theorist?

      • Libertarian777

        no, you’re suppose to believe everything the government tells you.

        As Big Brother says:
        War is Peace
        Freedom is Slavery
        Ignorance is Strength

        I don’t subscribe to the 9/11 type theories of government crashing planes into the 2 towers, but on the other hand I don’t close my eyes and refuse to believe that the government hasnt’ gotten involved in places it shouldn’t have and tells us otherwise (Iraq as an example… and no, not the 2003 war, I mean the financing given to Iraq in the buildup to the first gulf war, call it a conspiracy theory if you’d like… but it is well documented).

        And you don’t have to believe me, you can google search for Bush Ex-Post Facto law and you’ll find a lot of law reviews and commentary on the subject of telecoms immunity.

        And before making baseless accusations, please show where I’ve ever supported a ‘conspiracy’ theory?

        • Libertarian777

          to be fair, Congress actually passed the bill.

          Bush ‘only’ threatened to veto it if it didn’t have the immunity clause in it.

        • Fred the Protectionist

          War is Peace
          Freedom is Slavery
          Ignorance is Strength

          Obviously you missed the point Orwell was trying to make, cause your a neocon (libertarian), and too stupid to recognize it. Time to educate you:

          War is Peace (To have peace you must prepare for war).

          Freedom is Slavery (You confederate sympathizers think a person should have the freedom to own slaves).

          Ignorance is Strength (you)

          Orwell was taking propaganda, removing the euphamisms, and being dead honest about the true nature of politics.

          • Libertarian777

            If you read the whole of 1984 he is not saying what you’ve stated.

            Also, if you want to insult me, please spell correctly. “Obviously you missed the point Orwell was trying to make, cause your…” the correct term is “you’re” as in “you are”. Your indicates possession (your house, your car).

            In 1984, although there are many intracacies that cannot be summarised in a paragraph or two, the ‘War is Peace’ mantra relates to the way the state was continually waging war against Eurasia and then Eastasia. A lot of it relates back to FA Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” (using the term ‘proles’ as well), and how the state indicates that the citizenry is ‘under attack’… constantly. The fear generated in the population results in them supporting the state and the industrial war machine to keep them safe. By being in a continuous state of war (to consume resources), the current order is preserved, hence “War is Peace” (i.e. no threat to society’s order). It has NOTHING to do with ‘to have peace you must prepare for war’. In 1984 no one even remembers when the war started or who they were even fighting against as the state would overnight change the fact that they were at war with Eurasia and the Eastasia and change all history books, newspapers etc. reflecting such war.

            The ‘Freedom is Slavery’ relates to the fact that having choices results in people (or so Big Brother stated) making bad choices in life (as a relevant example today, the freedom to buy a house you can’t afford results in servitude to pay the debt). So Big Brother makes all the choices for you.

            ‘Ignorance is strength’ relates to the fact that proles are allowed the freedom to ‘think’, but they don’t ‘think’, hence they will never rise up against The Party (since they are ignorant).

            Those 3 all related to the ‘doublethink’ and ‘doublespeak’ terms, where citizens say one thing, even though they know its not true, but will convince themselves that it is such.

            Did you even read 1984? Or did you have to read the Cliff notes?

            One would thnk the ThoughtPolice had gotten to you already.

          • Fred the Protectionist

            How unfortunate your conceptions are derived from the very thin surface. But you’re a neocon (libertarian), so what does one expect.

          • longshotlouie

            “How unfortunate your conceptions are derived from the very thin surface.”

            WTF? How long did it take you to piece together that generic response?
            If you are going to show up, bring something besides that weak shit.

            Even if you lack self-awareness, surely you have some pride.

          • Fred the Protectionist

            You obviously don’t understand Orwell.

            Big Brother, and all the political mantras of that fictional state, is the most honest tyrannical government ever conceived.

            And George Orwell was no Ayn Rand cult member. He was actually pretty far on the left side of the spectrum, the last laugh is on you anarchists.

          • Fluidly Unsure

            There is a difference between wanting a small government and wanting no government.

            The times that a government is needed was laid-out very well in (I think) “Capitalism: the unknown ideal”: 1) protecting us from external aggression (national defense), 2) protecting us from internal aggression (police force), and 3) keeping us to our contractual arrangements (civil court system).

            Looking around literature forums, I see that a lot of people see a parallel between “1984” and “Anthem”, even though they came from completely different POVs.

  • Dfens

    Ron Paul and his feckless supporters agonize over the “rights” of traitors to the United States of America like this:

    [S]he called herself Jihad Jane in a message saying she was “desperate to do something somehow to help” Muslims.

    From December 2008 to October 2009, LaRose engaged in electronic communication with the five co-conspirators about their shared desires to wage jihad and become martyrs, according to the indictment.

    LaRose is also linked to the online organization — where she was a subscriber, again using the name Jihad Jane. The site is run by an American Muslim who has called the Army psychiatrist accused of a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, a hero. – CNN

    I can assure you, if you are one of these traitorous bastards, you do not want me to find out about it. I will assure you, I will have no respect for your “rights” what so ever. Your mother will not be able to identify your dead and rotting carcass you pile of sorry pig crap!

    • Mike

      Your problem is that you are so incredibly stoooopid that you just fell off the bottom rung of the intelligence ladder. Most likely an injury related to use of mercury filled vaccines. Were sorry for you. Extremeism is created by extremeist Nazis in the CIA and didn’t exist before they created it. Secondly most of these so called jihadist nut jobs are actors paid to put up those websites and do that, an many times that’s been proven. But I have a great idea to fix all of this: let’s trash our rights and freedoms burn them forever and create a surveillance society police state track and control grid infrastructure so that the Muslims won’t be able to take away the thing they hate the most our freedoms since we won’t have them anymore. Yep that makes sense. Then we can spend all the money bombing them to hell since that’s how you teach people about freedom and liberty you bomb it into them. After when you’re poor and living in a third world police state that will prove to them that you really meant it about freedom.

      • Give it to him or her Mike!

      • Fred the Protectionist

        “Most likely an injury related to use of mercury filled vaccines.”

        If it were up to you Libertario’s you’d abolish the FDA so people could sell mercury filled vaccines. You wouldn’t want no “regulation”, y’all.

        • longshotlouie

          You’ll have to excuse Fled. He still is unable to grasp the ‘federal’ part that we have a problem with. Probably something to do with a lack of education.

          • Fred the Protectionist

            I guess you regressives would prefer to return to the good old days of mercury filled vaccines, radioactive water sold like mineral water, and x-ray machines for shoe fitters in shoe stores.

            Child labor
            No minimum wage

          • longshotlouie

            “The states simply lack the knowledge of the Feds. The Feds are so much smarter than the people of your state. If it weren’t for the Feds each and every state would be in complete collapse.” says our resident statists.

            Not sure how that accounts for the states currently in collapse.

      • longshotlouie

        yepper, Lord knows the states could never function without the leviathian.
        We need our fat nanny state. We are dependent enablers. We must accept this.

    • Dfens

      Fortunately for every person like Ron Paul or his followers who are bent on selling out their country there are many more people like these:

      While the rest of America was stunned to hear that a suburban Pennsylvania woman allegedly used the Internet identity of Jihad Jane and tried to join militant jihadists, for a group of ‘Net vigilantes it was old news.

      Suburban Pennsylvania woman is charged with recruiting extremists online.In fact, at least one of the Web sleuths claims to have alerted the feds to Colleen LaRose’s alleged efforts to raise money and recruit fighters for Islamic terrorists and to carry out her own jihad.

      Groups like JawaReport, Quoth the Raven and the YouTube Smackdown Corps claim they had been monitoring LaRose’s growing militancy for three years, and watched as the Internet — particularly YouTube — fed her fervor.

      They also said “Jihad Jane” is not the only one on the Internet that the groups are monitoring. – ABC News

      • longshotlouie

        Cool, the extremist, ‘Dfens’, is online and angry about another extremist.

    • plato

      scary,your a joke

  • What next is the question I must ask Americans. It is time we stand up for freedom. Perhaps it time for any eye for an eye in response to this policy.

  • Gabriel

    The constitution is under attack! IMPEACH OBAMA IMMEDIATELY!

    Direct your attention to Susan Harkins’ comment!

    • Like Bush-Cheney should’ve been!

      • Kale Ray

        Agreed. These people are a threat to democracy.. someone must have sworn to protect the constitution from both domestic and foreign threats. I’m seeing a whole lot of domestic tyranny pointing fingers at foreign nations.. anyone else?

    • Fred the Protectionist

      How is the “constitution under attack”? hmmmm

      • longshotlouie

        Will you be answering your own question?

  • We are in trouble with big government and big business married to each other! He hit the nail on the head! Are Civil Liberties are at risk! The idiots in congress passed the extension of the Patriot Act yesterday to spy on us innocent Americans! Which is not an effective way of detecting dangerous individuals! It will actually enable them to escape being detected!

  • Susan Harkins

    NEWS ALERT: SECOND AMENDMENT NOW BEING NULLIFIED. Prominent Politician now engaged in circumventing U.S. Constitution (Bill of Rights) by establishing a binding treaty between U.S. and other countries. Since ratified treaties supersede individual rights, protected in the Constitution, the ‘Treaty Route’ is being employed to nullify the Second Amendment. Details developing —

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just announced the Obama Administration would be working hand in glove with the UN to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.” Disguised as legislation to help in the fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN Small Arms Treaty is a massive, GLOBAL gun control plan. Ultimately, the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is designed to register, ban and CONFISCATE firearms owned by private citizens.

  • Susan Harkins

    Nice work, Ron Paul! Can anyone here say the word: TREASON? How about, we have a nice little Nerumberg-style trial for all political officials who have attempted to push legislation through, or voted/ruled/executed agreements and acts which were in direct contrast to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Let’s go out for 20 years and haul them all in for hearings. TREASON is TREASON, my friends. I can see sentences from the smallest ($1000 fine and barred from public service), to the largest (life in prison or even hanging).

    No harm in hearings for all 3 branches of Government…I am sure that they will all profess their innocence, so there is nothing for them to worry about. Surely none of them acted AGAINST this country’s [the peoples’] best interest, whilst slinging around legislation, voting on it, and executing it, right?

    • FuturamaFry

      Brilliant idea! Let’s put Bush in jail, with that Paitriot Act of his, brutally murdering the Constitution and all…and while we’re at it, let’s also charge him and Cheney for single-handedly destroying the economy. You know we spend $17 billion on the War every month?

      • Fred the Protectionist

        Gee I thought you Libertario’s were the Great Defenders of the Constitution.

        USC Art 1 Sec 9: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

        If the Patriot Act was legal when Bush was president, and it was repealed today, you cannot try or convict Bush because that would be an Ex post facto prosecution.

        And charge Cheney for “destroying the economy.” You guys are nuts.

        • longshotlouie

          Now we have Fled trying to convince us that understands the law.


          • Fred the Protectionist

            You libertarianos are as radical and unConstitutional then the socialists who you revile.

          • longshotlouie

            Are you projecting out of malice, or ignorance?

  • Susan Harkins

    You can bet it will set a precident — we see it time and time again. Ron Paul is right on the mark [as usual]. The reason why I abandoned the Republican Party, and joined the Libertarian Party, was because of war-mongering, big-spending, big-government, interventionist, greed-driven attributes of the current Republican Party. None of these attributes are classic to ‘Conservativism’. These are Liberals that only give lip-service to conservative ideals. These officials are TRULY as cancerous and anti-american as the Democratic Party. Retraining these monkeys to become conservatives is not going to happen — they have already been compromised to the core.

    • Fred the Protectionist

      Pacifism or Hawkishness is neither Conservative or Liberal.

      In history many arch-Conservatives started wars, in history many arch-Conservatives were Pacifists. In history many arch-Liberals started wars, in history many arch-Liberals were Pacifists.


      • longshotlouie

        As usual Fled, history does not support your assertion.

        Why are we not surprised?

        • Fred the Protectionist

          Pacifism/Hawishness is neither Liberal or Conservative.

        • longshotlouie

          Now we must wonder, are you trying to convince us or yourself?

          Maybe if you repeat it three times and click your heels you will get back to Kansas.

          • Fred the Protectionist

            Pacifism/Hawishness is neither Liberal or Conservative..

          • longshotlouie

            Better leave it to Toto to get you out of this one.

          • Fred the Protectionist


  • Libertarian777

    I haven’t actually heard a rational argument from Dfens, just more fear mongering.

    He must have a short memory. The US invaded Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with 9/11, and had NO weapons of mass destruction. Yes Saddam Hussein was a ‘bad man’, a bad man who happened to gain his power due to the support of the USA. And while Dfens may think that our armed forces are ‘protecting us’ from ‘potential evil’ by the likes of Saddam (who hadn’t attacked any US forces at the time), if you ask why then he doesn’t support Congress declaring war on North Korea and he will remain silent. Or what about Pakistan? should the US just declare war on every country then?

    While I do think it is courageous for those in our military to be in combat zones, I agree with Ron Paul in asking the unasked question… why are we always IN a combat zone? Where in the Constitution does it allow the US to be the world’s police force? Or even have a perpetual standing army?

    Dfens, come up with a rational argument, or show me the Constitutional article or amendment that supports your stance.

    “Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country”
    Hermann Göring (German Nazi party politician)

    • longshotlouie

      You will have to excuse Dfens. There’s a terrorist under his bed, and maybe one in the closet.

      • Libertarian777

        interestingly from Merriam-Webster’s dictionary:
        ter·ror·ism (noun) :the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
        1 : a state of intense fear
        2 a : one that inspires fear : scourge
        b : a frightening aspect
        c : a cause of anxiety : worry

        and lo and behold… the US Treasury, and Federal Reserve (and TSA) fall under those categorisations. ‘Fear’ of economic meltdown (give us $700 billion please or the world will end {coercion}, no accountability required). ‘Fear’ of terrorists (let us search you, your home and your emails {a cause of anxiety}).

        • Fred the Protectionist

          You are so easily terrified.

          • longshotlouie

            Is it like your fear of cavemen without a standing army, navy, or air force?

          • Libertarian777

            I’m so easily terrified? Your logic escapes me.

            I didn’t support the $700billion TARP bailout, or full body image scanners. So how does that mean I’m ‘terrified’? I’m the one saying we DON’T need these things, the government is the one saying we do (because of ‘terrorists’).

            I’m not the one seeing a terrorist on every flight or a terrorist in every indian, pakistani or muslim person around.

            The proles are being told that to keep us safe from terrorism, we need to relinquish our right to privacy for our protection.

    • Fluidly Unsure

      Actions in 9/11 were different than actions now that the dust (of the towers the victims, and the early responders) has settled. As much as the current action is an outrage, past were justifiable by self-defense.

      “The US invaded Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with 9/11”
      Why haven’t I heard anyone screaming that the WWII allies invaded Normandy and not Germany? Isn’t strategic planning counter-intuitive sometimes? Ever play chess or bridge? What about the fact that the fact that Sadam provided a safe shelter for the Al-Qaeda trained attackers on the WTC in 93? What about the UN reports that listed talks between two people that considered the US enemies- enemies are known to become allies in the face of a common threat. (Didn’t America work with Russia in WWII?)

      “[Iraq] had NO weapons of mass destruction.”
      Sadam sure tried hard to act like he was hiding a nuclear device and that he was willing to attack other countries with long range missiles. (Gee, what does nuclear device + missile equal?) Actually, Bush never said Iraq had WMD. He said they were starting their nuclear program up again and Iraq probably already had one. Not quite what the mass media wanted us to buy into. It’s sad how well their propaganda push worked.

      “[Sadam] hadn’t attacked any US forces at the time”, IIRC the US was attacked almost 20 times in the previous 10 years by Iraq’s allies (OBL). If you consider international treaties, those attacks were on American soil (a ship and the embassies that flies our flag is our land and attacking them is like attacking an American citizen in his house). BTW: I’m not counting the attacks on civil bars our soldiers frequented.

      “why are we always IN a combat zone?” Very true. This is not a need for self-defense and we shouldn’t be wasting money.

      Excuse me while I get off track here for a moment. But why was the “no standing army” [sic] framed by someone who said we needed a bloody revolution every 20 years?

      • Libertarian777

        Fluidly Unsure, in response to your posts (i’m copying the headings)

        “The US invaded Iraq, which had NOTHING to do with 9/11″

        I’ll re-iterate the point, that the USA supplied financial assistance (and indirect military assistance) to Iraq and Saddam. One of the reasons Saddam did NOT support the radical muslim ideologies, is because of the tension between the Sunni and Shia. He maintained a largely secular state as a result (contrast to the 2006 unrest where a civil war almost broke out).

        Why was the USA supporting Saddam? Because he saw Iran as a threat. The USA didn’t like Iran. Why? Because the Shah of Iran (supported and largely put in power by the indirect help of the US) was overthrown by radicals (Khomeni), and they had overtaken the Embassy.

        See how the slippery slope starts? The USA started ‘helping’ Iran, and ends up in war with Iraq (and again potentially Iran now). Rather we mind our own business. Although China is not a politically free society, how many countries have they invaded in the last 20 years since their economic prowess increased? Not saying they perfect, but they are taking a different approach. The Chinese believe in trade, as opposed to war. If you look back at the history of China, they had fleets capable of circumnavigating the globe back in the 15th century. China could have invaded Europe during the Middle Ages, but didn’t. The only current use of military force is Tibet. The Chinese do not have any military bases of any significant size in 130 countries around the world as the USA does.

        “[Iraq] had NO weapons of mass destruction.”

        Again, the report I’d read (Iraq Study Group) also stated that Iraq was purporting to have nuclear capability in order to keep Iran in check. While they may have ‘started up’ the capability (which was largely lost when Israel bombed their reactor), North Korea HAS existing capability, as does Pakistan. Pakistan has a large fundamentalist muslim population. North Korea has already denoated 2 nuclear devices. So if we’re using the excuse of ‘Iraq was developing a weapon it shouldn’t have’ {like we’re using for Iran now}, then why haven’t we invaded North Korea and Pakistan already? Since they ALREADY HAVE the capability? How many radical terrorists and Al Qaeda have come from Pakistan?

        “[Sadam] hadn’t attacked any US forces at the time”

        As regards attacks on soldiers in civil bars, did Saddam send agents into bars in military bases on US soil? or was this in some other foreign sovereignty where the US had a base and soldiers?
        You are now saying that Iraq was an ally with Osama Bin Laden. Again this was refuted in the same report. Osama had approached Saddam for support, but Saddam did not see any benefit to supporting him.

        “But why was the “no standing army” [sic] framed by someone who said we needed a bloody revolution every 20 years?”
        Because the revolution should be an uprising of the CIVILIAN population (although I believe the revolution should be done through politics by not voting in the encumbant Democratic or Republican parties, not through violence). Hence the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms (an armed civilian population can form a militia.. 2nd Amendment does not restrcit the right to keep and bear arms to a militia only. It is an individual right as SCOTUS has confirmed). A standing army, at the control of the government (federal or state) would suppress any civilian revolution. That is why the framers wanted the CIVILIAN population to be armed, to stand against domestic (and foreign) tyranny.

        The constitution also precludes the government from using the military against the civilian population. However the government gets around this by militarising the police and FBI.

        And no, the National Guard is NOT the ‘militia’. It is also a standing army. The Federal Governemnt still controls the NG, and deploys them to combat zones (so much for guarding the nation, more like International Guard).

        • Fluidly Unsure

          Sounds like we have read different reports. The one I read speaks of how they (Sadam and OBL) courted each other at different times. Their tag game never came together, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t try. BTW: If the computer my copy was on hadn’t died I would give you more exact references. Sorry.

          About the attacks in the bar; when I put together a list of attacks by OBL/taliban on the USA, there were a couple that many web-sites included that I didn’t think should be. Largely for the reason you stated.

          Maybe Iraq wasn’t a good choice, but it was in the position to look like one at a time that a reaction was what I would call urgent. Ignoring the situation would be worse than shredding the records of a repeat pedophile.

          I have a problem with ideas based on the words of a supposed pacifist that said “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”. After doing some research I no longer appreciate TJ as much as I once did. John Adams and John Locke have taken his place.

          I think TJ’s idea of all defense being handled by a militia is as unrealistic as requiring that everybody live an agrarian lifestyle.

          • Libertarian777

            I appreciate your well thought out response Fluidly Unsure… see this is what debate is about, not name calling / trash talking as 1/2 the other posters do here.

            While I agree that we can’t go back to the exact same way things were, and while I don’t agree with everything Ron Paul says or stands for, 2 things stand out for me. 1. he is consistent in his stance
            2. he’s challenging the status quo.
            Whatever your thoughts on him, there’s no way you can believe that the Republicans and Democrats are any different. The past 20 years have proven that.
            Both have gotten this country involved in wars, supported despotic regimes and spent the country into oblivion.
            Even the head of the Federal Reserve (Bernake) is the same as Greenspan.

            The fact that we have huge societal problems now clearly indicates that the status quo is NOT working, and until now everyone’s been ready to tow the party line(s).

            As I’d mentioned in my previous post though, one of the larger issues on foreign policy is how the USA identifies a ‘greater’ and ‘lesser’ evil, then supports the ‘lesser’ evil, until the ‘greater’ evil is destroyed… then the ‘lesser’ evil becomes an issue.

            Saddam being the primary example.

            Our next worry is going to be Harmid Karzai of Afghanistan. Everything seems fine and dandy now, but I get a feeling he’s going to end up being a dictator in a few years once the US pulls out and after he’s consolidated his power thanks to the US.

          • Fluidly Unsure


            The noise level in these rooms are not perfect, but it is better here than most other political forums. You can have an honest debate here.

            I know of no politician whom I agree with 100%. Every time I thought RP comes close, but there are disagreements. That is why I change my party affiliation every couple of voting seasons.

            BTW: I like that point about Karzai. I didn’t think of it before, but it does fit into America’s MO.

  • longshotlouie

    Ol’ No-Neck Dfens still waving that flag of corporate fascism.

    Have you been able to control that drooling problem?

    • Mick

      You low piece of garbage. What are you – cointel pro – got your psyops uniform on, taking that hefty paycheck at the expense of justice and liberty? Feeling proud of yourself? Got any life force or spirit left in you of anything good at all? Or just totally succumbed to your evil nature? One day, all of us living on this planet will be dead, and you will have to face how ugly you were, and what a sad excuse for a man or woman you were, making comments like that. One day even before then, you will be old. Pray that time is kinder to you than you deserve. For those who don’t realise that Dr. Paul is, while not perfect, an angel for humanity a lonely voice of reason in a sea of madness and corruption, grow a brain and get educated. He is MILD compared to what is really going on.

      • longshotlouie

        You may have been confused by where my post landed. It was a response to a post by ‘Dfens’, which you can find while reading down the thread. Your response leads me to believe that you saw my post as being aimed at Ron Paul.

        Sorry about the confusion

        • Mick

          Sorry looks like I got the complete wrong end of the stick there. Apologies. I retract the statement!!! Haha.

    • Dfens

      Sadly, no enemy of the United States would ever target people like you, because clearly you’re capable of causing much more damage to this country alive. Obviously your fearless leader is in the same category. There are, on the other hand, soldiers of the US armed forces, young vibrant people with brains, who are threatened by these psycho terrorists that people such as you seek to coddle. Not only should these people need to worry that the US govenrment is going to kill them, they’d better worry about what will happen to them if I ever find out that they are trying to harm even just one of our brave young men in uniform. I can assure you, I will have no respect for their “rights” at all.

      • longshotlouie

        Remind me D, was it your kind that put our soldiers in the snake pit ….. or was it my kind?

        • Fluidly Unsure

          Isn’t your kind those who filled the pit with dirt after the soldiers were put there? During Vietnam, that kind (you?) also hit the soldiers with the shovels when they finally escaped.

          • longshotlouie

            I’m going to have to assume that the response was for Dfens.

            Since I was there, it could not apply to me.

  • Chris D.

    “What the hell happened to “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law”..?”

    You didn’t hear government took that away from people…they just forgot to tell everyone.

    Ron Paul, Keep Fighting! People are starting to listen, and I’m making more and more people believe in you and spreading the rEVOLution!

  • Libertarian777

    Dfens… way to go to tow the party line.

    You know how the apartheid government stayed in power for so long in South Africa? They separated the races and kept telling each race that the other one was a lesser citizen, resulting in the races looking at each other suspiciously, while not realising who their real overlords were. So the government will keep telling you that everyone else is a potential threat to keep you from asking if the government itself is not the threat.

    WWII was a DECLARED war, by Congress. This ‘war on terror’ has no declaration by Congress (as required by the consititution), but instead by executive decree. Fighting and killing an enemy in declared war is distinctly different from being an ‘enemy combatant’ as defined by the US government, who doesn’t, by their admission, afford them the Geneva Convention protections of prisoners of war. Sure what these ‘jihadists’ do is terrible, suicide bombings, beheadings, executions etc., so your suggestion to defeat the devil is to become a more evil devil yourself?

    Don’t you understand, if the government can remove all rights to ‘enemy combatants’, what prevents them from marking YOU as an ‘enemy combatant’ at ANY POINT in time. With NO charges against you, and NO lawyer allowed, you have no redress, you’ll just disappear. Sure it will never happen to you, will it? Because you have ‘nothing to hide’ so they can search you at will?

    The government is always espousing that we have this and that enemy, constantly, so that it can have a standing army and perpetual war. When is the last time the USA has NOT been involved in an armed conflict? Can you mention even 1 year in the last 80 years? after WWII, the Korean War, then Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Bosnia, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq. How many times has the US itself been implicit in creating the conditions for war. Haven’t you been hearing about how the US military is PAYING the Taliban (oestensibly for guns. If I was a Taliban, I’d sell all my old guns to the US, and buy new ones)? Or how the CIA gave stingers to the Mujahadeen to fight the Soviets, these same stingers now being a threat to civilian airliners and the helicopters in Afghanistan? Or how about the weapons and aid supplied by the US to Saddam Hussein during his Iran/Iraq war?

    You are saying that because there is a ‘potential’ threat that the government must do something. Don’t you see how that becomes a case for government to list any arbitrary thing as a ‘potential’ threat and use such to take YOU out?

    They always talk about ‘potential’ threats. Yes, Iran may be developing nuclear weapons, I’m not saying I want them to have them either, but North Korea HAS nuclear weapons, but then everyone’s talking about bombing Iran but not North Korea. Ask yourself WHY.

    • Fluidly Unsure

      On 10/11/02, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution authorizing President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States against Iraq (H.J. Res. 114). HR passed it 10/10 with a vote of 296-133. Senate passed it the next evening 77-23.

      • Libertarian777

        That resolution was a declaration of war against Iraq.

        There was no declaration of war against ‘terrorists’. It’s just listed as ‘war on terror’. No start or end state defined. Government just keeps adding more and more powers to itself in support of this ‘war’.

        • Fluidly Unsure

          Sorry, I guess my t’s weren’t properly crossed. I jumped to conclusions (connecting the ‘war ag. terror’ with our military actions in Iraq) that could be interpreted in ways that don’t fit into this thread very well.

        • Fred the Protectionist

          “There was no declaration of war against ‘terrorists’. It’s just listed as ‘war on terror’. No start or end state defined.”

          lol, that’s new, a declaration of war with a start or end state defined. You neocons (libertarians( are so naive.

        • Fluidly Unsure

          Isn’t the colloquial meaning of “neocon”, believing in pre-emptive actions, a willingness to be aggressive and start a fight? I can see you thinking I do, but not other libertarians.

          There is no formal “war on terror” but what are our reactions to 911 called? There was no ‘war to end all wars’ either, but what was WWI called? I also have problems knowing if the comma/period should come before or after a closing quotation mark.

          Are libertarians naive? Some are to some degree. That is the reason I was impressed with the fact that RP was willing to suspend his rebel thoughts to actually have a chance to win (by running on the republican ticket).

      • longshotlouie

        Read the War Powers Act, then come back for a discussion.

  • Fluidly Unsure

    I can see this happening at the heat of the moment, like immediately after 9/11, and would be lenient at that time. But the time has come and gone.

  • Jim T

    I am the son of a career naval officer that fought and was badly wounded in the Pacific in WWII. I volunteered for service in 1964 at the beginning of the Vietnam war. I need to say that I am appalled at the course this country is taking. I strongly support Dr. Paul and his views.

    We had better wake up or we will lose this country to those to whom the Constitution and the Rule of Law mean nothing.

  • Dfens

    This is an outrage! This conspiracy goes back farther than you think, comrades. Did you know that in WW2 there were American citizens who were born either in Germany or of German parents who fought for Germany in the war? And did you know our soldiers killed them just like they did all other Germans, without even once reading them their rights or giving them due process of the law? Oh the humanity! They should have had lawyers in the trenches with them to tell them if these apparent enemy combatants were potential US citizens so they could have been apprehended and justly tried, rather than handled as enemy combatants. I mean, just because they were firing on our troops, that doesn’t give them the right to fight back, right? I mean, just because someone comes into your house with a gun, that doesn’t give you the right to kill them without due process, right?

    Oh, this is so horrible. Isn’t it amazing how Ron Paul’s enemies are always fellow citizens? He never has any problems with terrorists, foreign nationals, or the Chinese. It’s always Americans that are out to get him. Isn’t that strange? It must be a conspiracy, because clearly he is not a traitor, right?

    • ClydeCoulter

      DFens, there’s a difference.
      I don’t have the right to hunt down someone who broke into my house, but I DO have the right to shoot them in self defense if they brake into my home. Why? It’s called self-defense. I am threatened at the moment. If they brake in but they run when they notice that someones home, then I can’t chase them off the property, I have to take them to court.
      Not every situation fits the same law, and that’s for a reason, and that’s why we have courts, otherwise I could just go grab someone, kill them and say “I felt threatened by them”

      • Fluidly Unsure

        You don’t have the right to self-defense anymore. That is unless you are willing to be driven to bankruptcy caused by all of the lawsuits.

  • Joseph Ochs

    This is proof that the government has turned against the people and the Constitution. No one in the Government has the Constituional Authority to authorize the Assasination of an American Citizen. The Senetate needs to remove The National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair and hold hearings on these new directives and Policies. Any one involved in these Assasinations needs to be arrested and Charged with first Degree Murder. Ron Paul is right what is there definition of a threat. Politicians and Activists who are agianst the current Administration could be viewed as a threat. We already seen Janet N the head of the Homeland Security classify Conservatives as threats. So are we as Conservatives facing the possibility of Assasination from our very own Goverment.

  • Kale Ray

    What the hell happened to “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law”..?