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.

  • RonPaul2012alldaylong

    Hopefully it will still be possible to ‘immigrate’ to another country when they start using drone strikes on USA… Of course people will take this out of context. They’re loss in my opinion. I value my freedom greatly.

    I’m sure Europe didn’t think Nazism was going to spread that fast either… It’s really something to think about. Has everyone forgot 70 short years ago, the atrocities of Nazism? the human being is capable of anything. Just because it is YOUR government does not mean that it can’t happen to you.

    Seriously this shit is reminding me of Terminator… Anyone else? Ron Paul is Sarah Connor trying to warn us of the machines taking over. I’m voting for Ron Paul for President regardless of who flip flops their vote to one of the Status Quo candidate.

  • KevronRees

    Dear doc i was gunna support you, but then you had to go use this law and constitution nonsense. Everyone knows jefferson was crazy. If we dont police the world everyone will team up and destroy the american cuz everyone hates freedom and stuff.
    Dont feed the trolls.

  • Duane Ranard

    Dear Doctor,

    I am surprised at yourserious lack of understanding and intelligence. Under the UCMJ and numerous other laws – as well as common sense – clearly explains that a “US Citizen”, who breaks his citizenship by becoming a hostile ex-patrioy, let alone an enemy combatant, is a self-proclaimed military target. You have said some very good things in the Debates (and some not-so-bright ones), but this one sets you adrift from any con, except the Unemsideration for any office, except The Unemployment Office”.

    • stasis30

      I am pretty sure of a few things:

      1) He was still a citizen.

      2) the UCMJ (whatever the eff that is, an intelligent person explains their acronyms when they are not obvious) and “numerous other laws” do not overrule the 5th Amendment.

      3) Ron Paul is spot on about this one.

      The enemy combatant argument is pure non-sense and a term that the Bush administration also used to circumvent responsibility to uphold either the Constitution or various treaties.


      • dabutchur

        @stasis30 UCMJ Uniform Code Of Military Justice….if you are or were former military, you would know that….otherwise, got google? The Constitution works a little differently for those in the military. Perhaps, you are aware of another common acronym…G.I….or General Issue. When you join the military you become property of the US government. Otherwise how could you expect a soldier to follow orders that may very well end up with he/she getting killed. Maybe you are unaware that you can be punished under the UCMJ for simply getting a tattoo (though not usually enforced) because you are defacing government property. Remember, during wartime, it was common to sentence soldiers to harsh punishment, even death, for desertion on the battlefield. Though based on the Constitution, the UCMJ is very different when it comes to personal rights and freedoms. For instance if I wanted to leave the base and my commanding officer forbade it, I could be arrested and tried for disobeying a direct order.

        • stasis30

          @dabutchur Well, thanks for the lesson. I did google it (and became irate because, well, if you are / were ever involved in the academic study of anything, unexplained acronyms are bad form). However, your comments are non sequitur, since this man was a citizen not in the US military.

        • BrianRaña

          @[email protected] Exactly. Dabutchur’s argument would only work if this traitor was part of the military.

        • dabutchur

          @stasis30 Well someone using the phrase “whatever the eff that is” when they can very well look it up themselves is not very academic. But is that what we’re getting into now…my academia is bigger than yours??? How childish. But if that is how it is, your use of the latin phrase is non sequitur is incorrect…but maybe you were a math major.

        • dabutchur

          @BrianRaña @stasis30 I wasn’t arguing anything. On the contrary, I agree with the both of you. You only need to see my other post below to see. It simply grinds my gears when someone who claims to be an academic uses a phrase like “whatever the eff that is” in an intellectual argument. If you don’t know…look it up. The phrase “unexplained acronyms is bad form” is choice too. Must every acronym be spelled out??? Kinda defeats the purpose of acronyms doesn’t it?

  • Duane Ranard

    Dear Doctor,

    I am surprised at your serious lackof intelligence and sense of rreality. Any “US CIT

  • dabutchur

    Ron, I am a very vocal supporter, but you just made it harder to explain your and my positions. I agree with you, but you have to realize that public statements like this will be used to club you over the head in the next debate…especially that slime ball Santorum. He’s just waiting for another way to monopolize your debate time negatively. You are a very smart man but you need to realize that some subjects, no matter how important to our support for the constitution, freedom and liberty, are too polarizing and easily misconstrued buy you opponents for their own gain. We want to get you elected…this country needs you. Please be more careful in the future.

    • Nitroindole


      I agree… Dr. Paul, please make efforts to be elected first. This is most important of all.

      Unfortunately there are 10s millions if not more the a half of the US population who will never accept your position on this point and hence will not vote for you. We need you to be ELECTED then all the rest.

      • dabutchur

        @Nitroindole Thank you for being able to put your emotions aside and think logically. Others on this forum are not able to do that. They have obviously not read The Art of War. Ron didn’t need to come out on this issue…he didn’t need to say anything. His view on this is too unpopular for a public feed with military industrial news. Not everyone is like us…most are still hypnotized buy Glen Beck and O’Rilley and can’t see the big picture like Paul supporters do. We can’t free people from the matrix if we give the matrix more ways to keep people ensnared. Some things are just too far down the rabbit hole for many people to handle immediately.

    • silvermullet

      I disagree, why should he compromise his principals to be appealing? I think that is what stands him apart from everyone else is that he never ever compromises his principals and his message just to appeal to an audience. @dabutchur _

      • Stone Serious

        @[email protected] Exactly, Mr. Paul never changes to please public opinion. His record in Congress proves that….look it up. That’s one of the things I find so admirable about this man.

        • dabutchur

          @Stone Serious @silvermullet Your missing the point entirely. No one is asking anyone to compromise anything. I agree with RP’s thoughts on this issue…I just wish he hadn’t voiced it. No one asked him, he made the conscious choice to say it. Come on, let’s be realistic. You honestly don’t think Santorum won’t use this as a weapon? You honestly don’t think it will lead to applause for Rick and jeers for Ron in a Fox debate? I mean come on, when fighting an unarmed man like Santorum, do you really think handing him a weapon like this does Paul any good?

  • Stone Serious

    Anwar Al Awlaki was a CIA operative, and a KNOWN visitor to the Pentagon. His name has been attached to every so called “bomber” terrorist in the last several years, because he was running them for the CIA! They just decided for some reason to take him out NOW… However, news reports will tell you that they suddenly “found” where he was!

    Gee, what a coincidence. Let’s see, Obama is at an all time low, the economy is in the tank, unemployment is sky high, what should he do? Yeah, I’ve got it…let’s knock off another terrorist and make it look like he’s actually fighting terror and defending the U.S…..that’s the ticket!!!

    Read between the lines people, don’t believe what MSM wants you to believe. This killing was completely fabricated in order to give you “doubt” about Ron and his stance on defending the U.S against terrorist.

    • Nitroindole

      @Stone Serious

      Thi is very likely.

  • atlblue01

    Stone Serious and others,
    The constitiion and rules that govern this nation apply to those who live and reside in this nation. To people like Mr. Alakwari who apparently didn’t reside here and chose to be on the other side, it really doesn’t apply. As someone who studies and does thisnfor a living, there really is no legal merit in your argument.

    From personal standpoint, ifnyou think it’s wise provide covernto your enemy who wishes to destroy you, by all means that’s your choice I guess. IMO not smart but your call.

    In any event, Ron Paul, it’s a shame that you cannot see the threats in front of you and you simply act like, and speak like, a liberal democract that puts this national in peril.

    • Stone Serious

      @atlblue01 Well that’s pretty sad if this is “what you do and study for a living”. You obviously haven’t studied enough to know who Mr. Alakwari actually was, he is simply a pawn for the government. Did you know that Mr. Alakwari was a CIA operative, dined at the White House after 9/11 and was at the Pentagon several times? Seriously, was this man a real threat to the U.S. when you know the facts?

    • KevronRees

      @atlblue01 your argument falls on its face. We try war criminals and terrorists hisorically regardless of their nationality. In America we sometimes treat others how we would like to be treated. Or at least we once did.

      • Nitroindole


        Now US “democracy” bomb every country in the world who wont comply with the US dictate.

    • Nitroindole


      This is very likely.

    • Libertarian777

      so the constitution doesn’t apply to us citizens who live and work overseas? So why then are expats required to pay income tax? Are they no longer afforded the protection of the US? Then we shouldn’t bother having embassies in foreign lands, and we certainly don’t need a military to ‘project’ power since we don’t afford protection to US citizens living overseas.

  • JoeChabot

    Anyone see this as a warning shot across the bow of freedom? This is stuff that China does to its own citizens in a time of dissent. Look at what is going on in Syria now, and what their government is doing to its people. How does it make us look any different from them? Granted, their government is and has been highly oppressive and the people are standing up for freedom now, and getting kicked in the ass. What’s to stop our government from doing the same to us as dissenters of the status quo? Remember, your passion to spread an idea can be more powerful than an entire garage full of TNT. I think those of you who drop from this movement because of your disagreement with a viewpoint that sides with lawful action, maybe ought to go live in another country for at least a year so that you can see the US from a different perspective. Countries don’t love us like you think they do. And they certainly don’t look up to us anymore as the beacon of hope.

    We didn’t even assassinate Al’Sader (or whatever his name was) in Iraq when he was leading forces against our troops.

  • atlblue01

    It amazes me that people desire to apply laws to those who reside in this country to those outside of it. Sure, Alkalwi may have been born here but he made a decision to simply switch sides. Why is it that some people cannot see the threat against this nation. When Ron Paul joins forces with Dennis Kuchinich, that all one needs to know. Mr. Paul, please do all of a favor and end your campaign and let those who are serious about protecting this nation, and understand the concept, handle it.

    • Stone Serious

      @atlblue01 Please educate yourself and read the Constitution again. You either don’t understand it or you have not been paying attention…perhaps both? If we’re going to throw due process for American citizens out the window, what’s stopping the government from issuing a drone strike on American soil? What makes you think it couldn’t happen? If we can just throw away the Constitution when it pleases us, what’s the point of having a Constitution?

    • tazgolftaz

      Dear Mr. Paul, PLEASE engage brain before opening mouth! I was a believer in you until you violated that cardinal rule. With your comment about that FORMER American, al-Awlaki, being denied due process for being targeted and killed, you lost all credibility with me and my vote. If part of defending and protecting OUR freedom and security as AMERICANS involves eliminating the obvious threat that al-Awlaki, the FORMER American (by his choice), was, then that’s what an AMERICAN President has do do. When al-Awlaki’s venomous sermons advocated killing AMERICAN citizens, he ceased being an American, gave up his “due process” rights, and earned the cross-hairs rights that terrorists deserve. And by the way, Stone Serious, would you be so supportive of al-Awlaki’s due process rights if he was your next door neighbor plotting how to dismember your wife and kids?

  • rdosumed


    You just lost any shred of hope to be elected to anything better than student council president with that al-Awlaki comment. I’ve been a pretty vocal supporter of your campaign up to this point. Now you’re just an embarrassment.

    • silvermullet

      @rdosumed You’d probly be better off on rick santorum’s website.

      • Stone Serious
      • rdosumed

        @silvermullet I’m just saying it’s sad to see what I feel was our one great hope for real change in a presidential candidate throw it all away over THIS. He jumped the shark, and no one will ever take him seriously as a presidential candidate again. You can try and spin it any way you want, but he might as well have been caught with a crack pipe or an underage girlfriend because no conservative in their right mind would vote for him now. If you believe otherwise you don’t understand the conservative base.

        • silvermullet

          I disagree with you, i think what he said was it is a net benefit and he just thinks it is dangerous for the same bureaucrats you want staying out of health care and all the other stuff people don’t want he doesn’t think it is a good idea for those same bureaucrats to be dictating who gets assassinated and I think he is right. I think this position makes him stronger in my eyes, but if you agree with all of these wars and policing the world then you’ll probably disagree with him on this. @rdosumed _

        • rdosumed

          @silvermullet I hope you’re right, I really do. I just see him getting railed for this from all angles.

        • silvermullet

          Nah, he will catch some heat but it is going to be from the same people he always catch heat from which are the war mongering neocons and I don’t mind when they get into it with him. It tells me we must be doing something right when the establishment candidates are speaking out against dr. paul. Plus he shows how he never compromises. Why do you think an entitlement loving guy like Jon Stewart comes to Dr. Paul’s defense when he is treated unfairly? It is because he knows he disagrees with him on a lot but he also knows Dr. Paul is consistent and doesn’t compromise his principals to please some neocons. @rdosumed _

        • BrianRaña

          @[email protected] I don’t get it! Why is it such a CRIME to want to give a war criminal a court hearing? What is this nation becoming where wanting american criminal justice for every citizen no matter how dire the crime is somehow comparable to pedophelia? The spirit of the founders is truly dead and gone if what you are saying is true. If that’s the case, we need a brand new revolution and a brand new nation, because this one is dead.

        • Libertarian777

          @BrianRaña because everything the US government tells them is the truth and you’re a traitor if you dare think for yourself and ask the ‘wrong’ questions.

          ‘truth is treason in the empire of lies’

  • Mr. Tad

    What amazes me the most is that the same people that critzice the right of bureaucrats to redistribute the taxpayers’ money to bailout scammers and help all the Solyndras out there, agree and applaud when the same bureaucrats sign selective targeting orders disregarding any legal considerations. I think it’s pretty ridiculous to say to the government “hey, don’t mess with my property, my money” and at the same time allowing them to decide, at their own discretion, whether anyone is allowed to live or die…Remember the Nuremberg Trials? And those guys were really butchers, but even them were allowed to make their case.

  • look_deeper

    This action will be used 10, 15, 20 years from now as a precedent that allows the president to initiate the execution of US citizens who the president categorizes as terrorists without due process. Since none of us know what the future holds, how do you know that 20 years from now your own child will not be somehow categorized as a terrorist by the president and assassinated without a trial? Ron Paul submitted a bill to authorize the assassination of Bin Ladin. Instead, the government went to war with all of Afganistan. In the end, Bin Ladin was assassinated in Pakistan after nearly 10 yrs of war in a country other than Afganistan. Ron Paul also voted in favor of authorizing the assassinaton of terrorists involved in 9/11. He is not weak on national defense. He is thoughtful and deliberate and does not use a one-size-fits all approach.

  • look_deeper

    I understand that at first glance, the reaction to this statement is that it is an unpopular position. BUT, the fact is that Ron Paul DOES NOT base his position on a specific event, such as the the assassination of this one person, nor does he base his position on a single situation, such as the existance of several hundred terrorists that want to do America harm. He bases his position on the ENTIRE outcome of a policy decision. For the first time, the US has assassinated a US citizen. Yes he was a bad man. But the president did not have Congressional authorization to do this. This occurred in Yemen, and we do not have a declared war on Yemen. To my knowledge, we did not even revoke the US citizenship of this assassinated terrorist. Ron Paul did say that there is a net-gain to this man’s assassination, but that the way it was done is reason for great concern.

  • stbartels12

    When people say “you just lose my support’ because he is being weak on protecting this nation and weak on terrorism. You must not have been listening to him at all in any of his speeches. He wants a strong nation defense. He wants to bring out troops home.

    Do you know why we are being attacking by terrorist in the first place? It is not because we are free, or have more money. It is because we are in their country killing their children, forcing our values and views onto them, starting preemptive war, intervening in their problems that have nothing to do with us. Tell them how to run their country.

    This is called BLOWBACK. They are attacking us for what we did many years ago. And the only way to stop this, or lessen the blow-back is to get our troop our of every country around the world, and have them only protect the American citizens this nation, not others.

    And the countries we are attacking have a 3rd world/rate military!

    And since the government is assassinating their own people, what makes it so different from the other people that do the same in other countries, that we call terrorist?

  • miketorr

    He is right the government shouldn’t be in the business of assassinating American citizens.

  • miketorr

    Dr Paul is

  • oldberretateam

    You just lost my support. We need leaders who will protect this nation from terrorism and the people who fight against us. You have just shown you to not have the courage to make the difficult decisions.

    • rdosumed

      @oldberretateam you are spot on with this one.

      • JoshAbravanel

        There is a difference between courage and fortitude. Ron Paul has the fortitude to prefer putting a terrorist on TRIAL rather than stooping down to the level of a terrorist and assassinating a US citizen, disregarding the 5th amendment. I would say if anything infiltrate Yemen only to capture him and put him through the US courts, if he is guilty we will find out after he has been fairly tried and you can cheer when he is punished to the extent that he deserves after a just and constitutional trial. The most important thing here is not to give authority to the president to assassinate US citizens at HIS discretion.

  • rlduncanjr24

    You just lost me congressman. Maybe it’s time for you to retire. In case you forgot, let me remind you there is a large group of people out there in the world who have been attacking this country and our interests around the world for well over 25 years, hate the United States, and will stop at nothing to destroy us. Anything our Federal government does to defeat these people, and I mean anything, whether they are US citizens or not, is OK with me. In my opinion, if you attack this country, sympathize with, or otherwise support or defend anybody who attacks, or supports attacks against, this country, you are, if a US citizen, a traitor and should be put to death. We are at WAR, sir! Wake up and face reality. You’re either with us standing against terrorism and those that support it or you’re wrong. Which are you Mr. Ron Paul?

    • Stone Serious

      Are you serious? We are in Two UNJUSTIFIED War’s at the moment….. that we started!!! Gee, I wonder why some parts of the World hates us? Because we are bullies, we march into other countries and tell them how to live their lives. Here’s a thought, STOP listening to the MSM, everyone is not out to kill you or everyone in the U.S. The MSM magnifies and fabricates stories….so you will live in fear. Don’t be so naive to fear an unknown terrorist, when you should be fearing your Government right now. You have 1,000 times better chance of being hurt by the U.S.Government… than ever a terrorist.

    • Libertarian777

      if we are at war, president Obama should put a bill to congress to declare war on Yemen. If this guy was guilty of terrorism, charge him with treason and bring him to trial. If you don’t trust the courts then you have a problem with the judicial branch of government.

      either we are a nation of laws or we have a dictator for a president. Which is it?

      • highmore


        Yemen has refused to extradite Al Awlaki on multiple occasions. Even if the courts found him guilty of treason, do you think that he will climb on a plane and return to the US to serve his sentance. Grow up!

    • KevronRees

      @rlduncanjr24 wow, anything? Really? So if the government took your family and tortured themin the name of defeating terrorism, it is okay with you?

      You can stand against terrorism without killing the along with n number of innocent lives. Killing a human for anything should be a last resort type thing. Not this kill first ask questions later stupidity.

      • rlduncanjr24

        KevronRees, One of the primary responsibilities of our Federal government is to protect this nation from all threats foreign and domestic. If members of my family were involved in terrorism and trying to bring about the destruction of this nation then, yes, the Federal government should do everything within their power to stop them. Whatever it takes. And if I were still serving in the US military and had to take the life of one of my own family members to prevent them from taking the lives of thousands of others I would do it without hesitation. It’s about defending this nation and the freedoms we have been blessed with and enjoy. I don’t care how bad you think this country is; it’s still the best, freest, most democratic nation on this earth and worth defending – at all costs.

  • highmore

    Any (slim) chance of a Ron Paul presidency just went down the toilet with this highly unpopular viewpoint. The vast majority of voters favor drone strikes of enemy combatants.

    • Libertarian777

      we’ll see how unpopular it is when they come for you.

      When the creator of the ‘Liberty Coin’ is called a domestic terrorist, when raw milk providers are called food terrorists, the question is can Obama order them to be assassinated too without trial?

      If you’re on the ‘terrorist’ no-fly watchlist you’re a de facto terrorist, no trial no charges. Now the president can have you assassinated.

      Speak out against the current administration? that’s treason! You are a terrorist. You can now be assassinated by drone.

      And down the slippery slope we slide

      • KevronRees

        @Libertarian777 weeeee!

  • McKGraKucPauNad

    Puppet President Barack Obama the Stealth Neocon

    things are gonna get mighty rough

    here in Gomorrah-By-The-Sea