Ron Paul Slams Obama for Extrajudicial Killing of U.S. Citizens


This is a rush transcript. If you notice any errors please report them using the “Help improve this post” link at the bottom of this post.

Neil Cavuto: Alwaki, another big terror guy goes down, and Ron Paul says praising it goes too far. Republican presidential candidate, Congressman Ron Paul is on the phone with me right now. Congressman, what’s your view on this terror bad guy taken out, what do you think of that?

Ron Paul: Well, it’s probably a net positive, nobody likes these kind of people. But I also like the rule of law and I like our constitution, I like the Fifth Amendment; that you don’t just target people and assassinate somebody who has not been charged and you have no proof of anything. So if we want to protect American citizens from that type of justice, we have to be more cautious. This has never been done before, this policy was announced about a year and a half ago by our administration that said that American citizens can now be targeted for assassination. This is very, very dangerous. Who knows what the future will bring, maybe just the (?) would be potential terrorist. Already it doesn’t take a whole lot to be a potential terrorist. Somebody who tried to institute sound money was charged with being a terrorist. That was one of the charges made. So I would say that we should be more cautious. This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t deal with this problem and go after these people and deal with it. But just to do this casually or celebrate it, I consider that very dangerous.

Neil Cavuto: Did you feel the same about taking out Osama Bin Laden?

Ron Paul: Yes, essentially that. But I’d deal with it somewhat different, because I voted for that authority. Bin Laden had bragged about how he participated in 9/11 and I voted for the authority to go after him. The disgusting part about …

Neil Cavuto: So had Alwaki too, right? It wasn’t as if the two were totally disconnected.

Ron Paul: Sure. The authority was given to go after the people who participated in the planning and the carrying out of 9/11, and that’s not what Alwaki’s charges are. Matter of fact, he wasn’t involved at all.

Neil Cavuto: But we do know that he was instrumental behind the Fort Hood attacks and many others. Let’s just focus on that for a second. Would President Ron Paul then just disband this policy because the fear would be that a President Ron Paul would sort of let terrorist do their thing.

Ron Paul: No, I would take seriously the oath of office to defend(?) the constitution, and say that we should follow the law.

Neil Cavuto: Yea, but these guys don’t care about the oath of office, or our constitution.

Ron Paul: I strongly object to the President institutionalizing a policy that explicitly says that he has the authority to target American citizens because he believes they’re bad people. You don’t protect bad people because they deserve it, you protect bad people and go through the process because you think a lot about innocent American people never being treated in this manner. This is something that is … this is major, in many ways, about following the rule of law.

Neil Cavuto: You might be right on the rule of law then, alright. Let’s leave aside for a second that people who make a mockery of our rules of law, and then they would see under a President Ron Paul that, “Wait a minute, he’s so strictly following the rule of law, that we can walk all over this guy, kill his people, he’ll be waiting to go through the process”.

Ron Paul: Common, Neil, you’re getting carried away.

Neil Cavuto: Do you see where this could potentially go if you try to do the right thing under the constitution while these guys are literally blowing it up.

Ron Paul: Well, maybe we wouldn’t be involved in this kind of stuff, maybe we would not precipitate the efforts to commit suicide terrorism against us; that’s the Number 1 problem that we’re facing. How many innocent do you think we’ve killed in the meantime while trying to assassinate this American citizen? Let’s say, for instance, we’ve killed a 100 innocent people trying to kill him with all our drones. How many new dedicated Al-Qaida are now out there. This is a great recruitment way, to kill innocent people.

Neil Cavuto: Understood. I do want to ask you a quick one – we’re going back to politics a second. We’ve seen a Democratic leading polling group, finding you within a percentage point of President Obama among Florida voters. Is Florida a state even within the Republican Party that you’ve got to win or that you think you can win?

Ron Paul: You know, I don’t deal in those details, probably some of my staff do. All I do is present the case for liberty, present the case for the constitution, sound economic policies, sound monetary policy, and a foreign policy that’s different. And I want to maximize my vote and maximize my effort and we’re doing quite well. But I don’t say, “Florida is do or die”, I don’t think in those terms. I do my very best to get the votes and so far the strategy has been working.

Neil Cavuto: Alright, Congressman, it’s good having you on. Thank you very much.

Ron Paul: Okay.

Neil Cavuto: Ron Paul.

  • Have you ever thought about creating an e-book or guest authoring on other sites? I have a blog based upon on the same topics you discuss and would love to have you share some stories/information. I know my visitors would value your work. If you are even remotely interested, feel free to shoot me an e mail.


  • Ahaa, its nice conversation concerning this paragraph at this place at this web site, I have read all that, so at this time me also commenting at this place.

  • Some really nice stuff on this website , I enjoy it.

  • I enjoy foregathering useful information , this post has got me even more info! . best reseller hosting | whm reseller |


    I agree with 30% of what Ron Paul says and applaud him for it. However, when he says things like we should have told the Pakistanis about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden and let them handle the matter (matter of taking him out, that is) and we should abolish the CIA, I find him and his supporters absurd. And by the way, how many libertarians are Pro-Life?? Government in ladies’ wombs, hmmm. Grow up…

    • cugir321

      @GORDO being a Libertarian has nothing to do with pro-life. It’s not legislating morality. You can be either and be libertarian. They believe the federal government has no place in it. Was watching the Ken Burns series on Prohabition. It verify’s everything Ron Paul says about drugs. The only people that benefit are the criminals and corrupt politicians. Thinking the government can control abortion, drugs, or alcohol is what’s absurb. You drive people to the underground market.

    • KevronRees

      Government should protect the fundamental right of life. That includes the life of an unborn human being. As for the Pakistan/Osama thing… It’s all about respect. If you don’t want China sending strike forces to Kansas City and taking out whoever they want without notice or permission, maybe we should think twice about doing it to others. Golden rule dude. Simple as that.

      • cugir321

        @KevronRees I agree we should protect life…..when you take away a persons freedom to do wrong you take away their humanity. Then you should force everyone to attend church every Sunday so they can inherit eternal life. Which according to Jesus is much more important then earthly life. You cannot legislate morality.

        • tripzero

          @cugir321 I don’t see personal morality that only effects you the same as morality that can hurt others. You have the right to make personal decisions but you don’t have the right to hurt others. Governments are created to protect your right to believe and do what you want so long as what you do doesn’t take from the rights of others to do the same. Murderers should be put away so that they cannot take life away from others.

          Can you legislate morality? no. But you should have laws and enforcement that prevents people from forcing their morality on me or trying to take away my right to life, etc.

        • cugir321

          When life begins is an issue that will never be resolved to satisfy both sides. How can someone force their morality on you and legislate your choice to choose life? Then, just the same there should be laws that prevent you from forcing your ideas on another person. If the people in that state decide abortion at a certain point is murder then you have the option to stay or move. To me it’s more about states rights verses the federal government. The state can deal with it the way it’s people see fit. If you don’t like it you can change states. You don’t have to agree with it. And you can fight it from your new state…..

          The rule of law will never be able to deal with a definative defination of life in terms of abortion. You may be able to define it in your own mind…others may not. (and some may abuse it because of morality issues) That’s the genius of the Constitution. You can change states…as long as the Federal government is removed from the equation as it should be. You can hold them in contempt, you can curse them, or you can try to understand them if you choose…’re free. It’s the amazing part of our Republic…the areas of law that we can’t agree on fall into a form of democracy.

        • afortaleza

          Well, actually life itself never ends, life only come from life. The point is where HUMANITY begins, not life. Given that no one will know for certainty when the humanity of a being begins, since we’re dealing with a possible human life then the HIGHEST stand of morality calls for the SAFEST approach possible, which is not to abort that life since it may well be a human since the conception.

        • KevronRees

          @cugir321 scientifically speaking, if you have 43 chromosomes and life, you are a living human and a distinctly separate entity than that of your parent.

        • cugir321

          @KevronRees I’m pretty sure there’s somebody that will argue another point. You’re free to keep fighting for your point. Because of the Constitution.

  • cugir321

    Mr Paul,

    Just saying asassinating Americans is not enough. The general public must know why you feel this way…..why the Constitution is about individuals rights instead of group rights. why we are republic and not a democracy. Why killing this terrorist is the same as attacking the second amendment for the good of the group instead of protecting the individuals rights and freedom. Many of my friends don’t understand this…..they don’t understand the rule of law. You need to address it in a major debate. People will be drawn to you if they understand why you feel as you feel.

  • knecht.morgan

    I Guarantee that some of these posters are working on anti-paul operations for other candidates. Nobody that is even remotely familiar with doctor Paul would or could give any credence to the nonsensical Terror paradigm that was custom built for ignorant sheeple. The folks that said, “you lost me because you aint fighting against terror”, were NEVER Paul supporters. What an absurdly stupid assertion.

  • afortaleza

    I agree with Ron Paul, is the law doesn’t fit, there are ways to change the law, the government can’t do this kind of thing.

  • Santiagojjjr

    The Ron Paul What if Speech: A Very Different Take!