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.

  • dahis39

    I am glad Dr. Paul spoke out about this too!

    It’s REAL Ron Paul.


  • JoeChabot

    this provides a much more succinct, and what I believe less incendiary response to this topic. After reading this I would hope that no one would still stop supporting Ron Paul. In my own opinion, this solidifies my conviction that he is the best choice. I can’t wait to see the debates this coming week as I am sure all of the other pinheads will say, “Yeah, without a doubt I would kill that *&^%er without even thinking twice. (And rick perry would say) Yes I’d have him killed. In fact, I would go get my 12 gauge, shove it up his ass as far as his throat and pull the trigger myself. Then, to make sure he was dead, i would chew off his head with my own teeth and I’d wear it around my neck like a trophy and hollar YEEEHAW I gots me a terrorist!”

  • dagobertotorres

    No person should be executed without a trial.

    Maybe our big government will start bombing anyone who doesn’t support them.

  • AustinRayWalter

    You guys are a bunch of babbling morons. Ron Paul is arguing the validity of the Constitution, and the legal procedures we’re obligated to follow, for all US Citizens. He’s not arguing the validity of the man’s crimes or actions. Ron Paul is simply arguing for our safety from our own government, as the legislation that Obama signed in could lead to future abuse of assassinating US Citizens. Which is a sign of communism, which is why the US Communist Party officially endorsed Barrack Obama in 2012.Get your heads straight.

    • Nitroindole


      Exactly so!! Ron Paul for the only meaningful president of this Country, while it is not yet slipped to tyranny!

  • RickDuffin

    Sorry to be a little off topic. I was just wondering what anyone thought of the idea that Ron Paul might visit with the Wall Street protestors and exchange ideas. After all, Dr. Paul is all about keeping Wall Street out of the trough – he just needs to convince the protestors that government was of course a big part of the crash and all the rest. But it presents a perfect oportunity to work with those on the Liberal side. They need a voice. A town meeting with a group from the movement? That would make a very interesting talk. What do you think?

    • dabutchur

      @RickDuffin If he was already the nominee…yes…positively! Right now, god no.

  • realitychk
  • realitychk

    Congress opted for nearly 2,000 more dead American soldiers, i mean invasion. Ask any of the parents of those children that are now dead, if they would have prefered Osama to be dead with a bullet in his head weeks after the 911 tragedy. My suspicion would be yes because they could have their child back. I am sure that if given credible evidence he would have acted in a similar manner with this now dead idiot, however, he would have followed the rule of law in regards to cases like these. The fact is, that since 911, the war on terror has taken most likely more than a million lives. Since this battle is not against a standing army it is unlikely that that million is entirely by people with guns shooting at our troops. We can now easily say that the collateral damage is not only all of the dead civilians from other countries, but also our economy, our image, and our right to claim the moral high ground any longer. We are now a rogue nation, and this new authority seals the deal.

  • realitychk

    Maybe they should bomb the protesters on Wall Street. Round em up, and summarily shoot them for disscent. The problem here is the media’s gotcha point. They ask Ron Paul about his reaction to this incident and, he answered. And I quote, “This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t deal with this problem, and go after these people but…just to do this casually, and to celebrate it i find very dangerous.” They then spin it to say that he is weak on terrorism. After 911 he submitted a proposal to capture or assasinate Osama. Not weak.

  • brettlurie077

    I honestly think you guys are looking at this too broadly. All Ron is saying is that he would have rather had al-Awlaki be given a fair trial. He acknowledged that he is a bad guy and that it is good that he is gone. He was simply expressing his fear that the president could use this authority to assassinate someone who he feels is a threat, but later turns out to be innocent.

  • WhattheHellBook

    True or untrue this is a killer for the campaign. I’m a Ron Paul supporter but I disagree with him on this and agree he should have held his comments about it. Unfortunately, this will probably be too big to overcome.

  • look_deeper

    I want to apologize on behalf of any poster who was disrespectful to you in their comments on this topic. I fear that frustration makes people resort to name-calling and those frustration-driven posts are not what we need happening in this conversation. I empathize with the feelings you have about Ron Paul’s statements on this issue. It does make it challenging to expand his base of supporters into the traditional war-happy republican base. I do not disagree with Ron Paul’s position on this issue, but this is a position that I wish he chose to remain silent about because it is an unpopular viewpoint to people outside of his loyal support base. Maybe this will be spun into a way that gets him more attention in debates where he can turn it around into a positive. I remain hopeful.

    • Ryanoceros



      Oh boy, you people crack me up.

      Don’t apologize on my behalf. I meant every word I said!

      ***look_deeper says, “I wish he chose to remain silent…”***


      *Sarcasm mode* oh yeah, that’s what we need, a silent President!…No, we can’t talk about all those Americans being killed in foreign lands for over a decade now. No, Ron, just stay quiet and don’t rock the boat!

      *shakes head at the incredible blindness of such a statement.*

      … no need for me to “look deeper”, I know what you are up to. 😛

      • look_deeper

        I believe that poster really was a Ron Paul supporter who lost faith today. We cannot afford to lose any supporters. I do not want Ron to be silent about anyone, Americans or Iraqis or Afgans, etc. being killed by our foreign policies. I only wish that Ron did not share his opinion on this polarizing assassination of a radical cleric. Just this one event. We need him to expand beyond his 10-15% support base. That means he’ll have to pick and choose which of his positions to highlight in order to get the nomination. I think we can disagree with other posters in a civilized and respectful way. I was frustrated to hear people say he lost their vote because of this. I think we can do our best to convince people to not write him off over this. But I don’t think we can be successful if we intentially insult people who feel that way. I was thrilled all of last week over how well the end of quarter push was going. Then I felt some fear last night after hearing the contraversy over Ron’s statement. We cannot lose momentum at this juncture. That involves skipping over certain alienating positions. Please look at my earlier posts, I was on here early (4th, 5th) because I wanted to reach out to anyone else who may have been shaken over this statementment in hopes of stopping any possible loss of faith.

        • jhony211

          ron paul needs to respond to these media idiots with one liners. if he could master one liners he would win for sure

        • Ryanoceros


          I disagree completely. This is exactly the kind of subject he needs to speak out on. This is what separates Ron Paul from the rest of the pack.

          This Awlaki guy was an extreme case, and extreme cases are exactly where we test our Constitution and it’s principled/philosophical correctness. The Rights of the people versus Government authority. Nobody, including Ron Paul is saying Awlaki was an angel. He was a murdering wannabe tyrant. What he is saying is that in a civilized society all citizens are treated equal under the law. The Government can’t just go out and bomb one of its own citizens, not to mention as recklessly as they did, using 2 Hellfire Missiles which easily could have killed innocent bystanders, just because he’s a wanted man. If they knew where he was they could have arrested him. I think most people would agree with that.

          Good for Ron to make the argument without fear of losing votes. I’ll tell you plainly, he’d lose a lot more votes if he didn’t take the principled stand just to tread lightly on a touchy subject.

          Ron will win because he fears no subject and stands firmly in support of the Constitution and the philosophic correctness of using the same standards for all citizens. This is the nation where all people are equal, which is why we have been an exceptional nation amongst all those nations that don’t treat people the same under the law.

        • dabutchur

          @Ryanoceros @look_deeper “I disagree completely. This is exactly the kind of subject he needs to speak out on.” Then you doom us all. Just watch the next debate if you don’t believe me. Honorable men never get elected…Ron needs to learn how to play politics for now and come out on stuff like this when he’s in the White House.

        • Nitroindole


          Well said!..

      • dabutchur

        @Ryanoceros @look_deeper We need Ron elected first. Put your emotion and ego away and see the big picture.

        • Ryanoceros


          I do see the big picture, and it doesn’t include staying silent, or avoiding difficult subject matter. That will lose far more votes.

          I simply disagree. We do indeed need to take on the tough issues right from the start.

        • dabutchur

          @Ryanoceros @look_deeper Sorry, you are just to short sighted on this. He will never get elected voicing controversial opinions like this and us agreeing with his positions will not change that fact. And that is the point isn’t it? To get him elected? Otherwise, why are we wasting our time.

        • Ryanoceros


          No, I am not short sighted. To the contrary, I, along with Ron Paul, think it is better to stay consistent and not avoid subjects that arise.

          And you and the other poster clearly aren’t true supporters of his in the first place if you can’t see the absolute need to stay principled and strictly in support of equality of rights… that, my narrow minded friend, is the point, and the only point relevant. He will not win by staying silent, or worse, by lying about his position. The issue exists because Obama ordered the killing of a US citizen. Ron can’t hide from the fact, nor should he stay silent about it. He’s doing exactly what he should be doing… that is, disagreeing with the unconstitutional action that it was. Period. Get over it. Ron is doing the right thing, and you and the other poster need to face the fact that we can’t win by being the same as all the other flip-flopping losers that make up the establishment of the Republican party. We need to stand firmly in support of the Constitution. Period. And it is not a waste of time to do so. Right is still right whether people are too blind to see it or not.

        • dabutchur

          @Ryanoceros @look_deeper – Not a true supporter? Really? I have nearly $5000 in this pony race over the last election and this one. I’m almost maxed out for contributions to Ron Paul’s 2012 campaign. How much have YOU contributed? Are YOU a member of a meet up? How many sign wavings and events have YOU been to? No, I am fully vested in Ron Paul and the message of liberty, freedom, peace and the constitution. It is very pretentious and infantile to assume otherwise. You don’t know who you are talking to on this forum. Grow up. I have converted dozens to our cause and I will promise you you will not gain another single soul if you bring up this issue to any potential inquirer into Dr Paul. Most people can’t warm up to truth when they have been so systematically indoctrinated into the military industrial complex mentality. You obviously have become a convert from the left side of the aisle and don’t understand the mind of the right. We both agree that Paul is right, but you want to argue semantics. Though correct, these are not views that will get him elected in a Neocon dominated Republican party.

        • Ryanoceros


          Let me spell it out in simple terms you can grasp. Ron Paul disagrees with you! Period! … Or, he’d take your advice and ignore the complex or extreme issues like this one… But he doesn’t ignore issues like this, important issues, and he never has. That is what makes him different from all the rest, that he never wavers when it comes to the Rights of the People and the Constitution.

          Furthermore, I disagree with you as well, like it or not. And I too, never waver in the rights of the People and the principals of the Constitution.

          In short, YOU ARE WRONG! PERIOD!

          You say “Most people can’t warm up to truth when they have been so systematically indoctrinated into the military industrial complex mentality.”

          Horse hockey! I’ll tell you what the people can’t warm up to, they can’t warm up to a cowardly candidate avoiding important subjects, subjects that will clearly be brought up in the coming debates whether they like it or not. They can’t warm up to ignoring or lying about their position on those important issues either. The Government does not have the Right to assassinate citizens that have broken a law. And Ron Paul has boldly and correctly stated the truth, that it is beyond the powers granted the President in the Constitution. Why should he stay silent?

          You say, “You obviously have become a convert from the left side of the aisle and don’t understand the mind of the right”.

          And you are a complete idiot to say something you can’t back up. I’ve been a RP supporter since the late 90’s. And on my most liberal day, I’d still be a light year to the right of you. For it is you who are making the “liberal” argument here, that Ron should stay silent so as to not offend people. That is a Liberal mindset for sure!

          Treading lightly is not what made RP popular in the first place. Why start now? That would be political suicide and he clearly knows it. The question is, why don’t you grasp the concept of “Consistency”. That’s all Ron is doing. He’s saying exactly what everyone expects him to say. If anything, they’d be angry if he didn’t stand up for the Constitution on this issue.

          Ron could not win by ignoring issues. But he will win by standing firm and doing exactly what he is doing. Never back down and always defend the Constitution. Simple.

        • dabutchur

          @Ryanoceros @look_deeper wow…your ego is compelling.

        • Ryanoceros


          Well, I do what I can.

          … But I’m not running for office, so you can relax. 🙂

    • dabutchur

      @look_deeper Thank You! That’s what I’ve been trying to convey. I’ve found so many to be too locked up in emotion to think logically on this. Ron just handed Santorum a club to beat him with. As Ron Paul supporters, we understand the big picture and know exactly where he is coming with this…but, as Ron Paul supporters we must also understand that others are too narrow sighted to see what we do. They need to be educated…however teaching algebra to 4 year olds takes patience and care. You can’t hit them over the head with complex equations before they can understand 2+2=4.

    • silvermullet

      @look_deeper I am with ryanoceros on this one i am glad Dr. Paul spoke out about this. He never compromises his principals ever and that is why he is Ron Paul. That is why people who disagree with him still knows he is honest and has integrity because he never compromises his principals to please some audience. He addressed this in the book Liberty Defined so this isn’t the first time he’s spoken out about this.

  • The Historian 219

    At the next Republican debate, every candidate on that stage will now say the Paul is soft on terrorism. The game is over.

    I find it disturbing that, until today, you would have seen me as a friend – now I am a moron? People, either we find a way to bury the hatred; or WE THE PEOPLE will tear this country apart – regardless of who is nominally in charge.


    This is my last post on this subject or Ron Paul and my last visit to this website.

    I sincerely hope you can find a candidate to endorse, though the field is mediocre at best.


    • look_deeper

      @The Historian 219

      I want to apologize on behalf of any poster who

  • silvermullet

    Thanks you Dr. Paul for showing us how once again you are always consistent and never compromise your principals in order to please some big government neocons. It is this reason that sets you apart from the others, you have been consistent your entire life on the message of freedom. Whether it comes to personal freedoms or economic freedoms you are consistent on having small government and obeying the constitution.

  • The Historian 219

    Dear Mr. Paul:

    I do not know if you or staff read these posts. However, as of today, October 1, 2011, I no longer support your candidacy for President.

    By every definition, Anwar al-Awlaki was a traitor to the USA. His efforts represent nothing less than providing aid and comfort to the enemy. Is it that you believe that the USA is not at war with al Qaeda? Did you want him to live? If there had been an American manning a megaphone for Japan but not a gun on Tarawa, would you have raised a stink if he had been killed by US troops?

    As you Republican candidates continue to implode, you are indeed giving the 2012 election to President Obama.

    I strongly suggest you now discontinue your candidacy and support someone who has the chance to appeal to independents otherwise, you risk losing not only the Presidency but both houses of Congress.

    To say the least, disappointment does not begin to describe how you have let down your supporters.

    • silvermullet

      There is no way you could have ever been a supporter of Ron Paul if you think it is a good idea for the bureaucrats to be deciding which u.s. citizens get assassinated or not. This is how it starts with them killing some u.s. citizen overseas and that continues for a justification for killing u.s. citizens on u.s. soil and it won’t stop until we are a full blown authoritarian government. That is why Dr. Paul has been consistent on having a small government all the way around, not just when it is convenient for him. @The Historian 219 _

      • The Historian 219

        I find it interesting that in WWII MILLIONS of civilians were killed by the allies. There was not much of a ruckus then – why now? Traitors have always been executed on the spot – I see no difference here. Bureaucrats did not make the decision to kill al-Awlaki, the duly elected President did. Similar previous decision has been upheld by Federal Courts. Al-Awlaki was believed by U.S. authorities to have inspired acts of terrorism against the United States, including a fatal shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, and the December 25 bombing attempt to bring down an airliner flying to Detroit. Even the ultra conservative National Review does not take issue with the decision to kill him. Do you really think Paul as President would have made a different decision? That is one of the niceties of getting to criticize without responsibility – no responsibility means you can say about anything. Face it, Paul is wrong on this one – just as wrong as not coming out in support of the death of Osama bin Laden. This is nothing but a poor political gamble and it will blow Paul out of the race.

        • silvermullet

          ” Al-Awlaki was believed by U.S. authorities to have inspired acts of terrorism against the United States” the keyword is believed. What is wrong with bringing him back here to try him? If he is as guilty as you say he is why can’t we prove it in court instead of just assuming he guilty and killing him. I agree he probably is a bad man, but i would rather it play out in court than let some dictator decide. Go to some other website you would be better off ,go support obama go on his website and tell him how proud you are of him for assassinating this guy.

    • Ryanoceros

      Ridiculous. In fact, utterly stupid. And speak for yourself as far as “letting down your supporters”.

      Ron Paul is saying the government doesn’t have the right to disregard our Constitutional rights. Ron Paul, in no way, is saying that the guy is innocent, or not a traitor. He is simply saying the government must abide its own laws and uphold the Constitutional rights of its citizens. Arrest the criminal, put him on trial, and send him to prison through legal means.

      I would much prefer to see the guy facing a public trail for treason, and all the humiliation that goes along with it, than to allow our government to potentially kill innocent bystanders with a friggin hellfire missile all to get one guy.

      Nobody is sad to see him dead. But sane people are sad to see our rights eroded away by “TRAITORS” like Obama, and apparently you too. Moron.

      • The Historian 219


        I find it interesting that in WWII MILLIONS of civilians were killed by the allies. There was not much of a ruckus then – why now? Traitors have always been executed on the spot – I see no difference here. Why is my question about an American on Tarawa ignored? And I would rather see these “innocent bystanders” (and just how do you know that), killed before they have a chance to kill American servicemen or citizens. Face it, Paul is wrong on this one – just as wrong as not coming out in support of the death of Osama bin Laden. This is nothing but a poor political gamble and it will blow Paul out of the race.

        • BrianRaña

          Not united states citizens. That nuclear bomb was an act of war and we warned the japanese that it was going to happen, but WE NEVER SHOULD HAVE DONE IT. Now let us get something straight. What is your issue with trying a traitor? YOU TRY IN COURT and prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the citizen is guilty, and then you decide their fate. Obama deciding to kill US citizens based on just his will alone is dictatorial and COMPLETELY unamerican. The founders would be ashamed.

        • Ryanoceros

          @The Historian 219

          Face it, you’re a partisan puppet, motivated purely by a lust to kill, not to defend Americans.

          Ron Paul is exactly right on this one. And he will win because the people are waking up to the realities of endless war and left-wing blood-lust. You partisan puppets are through. We are taking our nation back whether you morons like it or not. “Civilization” will exist once again, very soon.

          Yours truly,

          a Patriot of Individualism and Liberty,


        • The Historian 219


          You sir need a history lesson. It was Bush II who started both wars. It is the so called “left-wing” that are finally bringing the troops home. It was the Republican Party that started the Vietnam, Gulf, Afghanistan and Iran wars. You are NOT a patriot since you do not believe that EVERY AMERICAN IS ENTITLED TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS you claim only for yourself.

          Go home and clean your guns – with your attitude, you are going likely going to need them.

        • Ryanoceros

          @The Historian 219

          LOL. Dude, put that crack pipe away. And stop sniffing that glue bottle! It’ll destroy what very few brain cells you have left!

          And who ever said you don’t have 1st amendment rights here? Definitely not me. I’m a very strong supporter of Free Speech. Go ahead and spew your left-wing diatribe, and your reworking of History. It’s fun shooting down that bumbling idiocy like a clay pigeon. I’m simply exercising my 1st Amendment right to tell you what a robotic partisan puppet you are you are… And frankly, I think you need to tighten those neck bolts down a few psi more.

          … and an occasional breath of oxygen wouldn’t do your brain any harm either. You might actually have a self-initiated “thought” for the first time in your life.

          As for my use of “Left-Wing”, that always refers to all Democrats and Neocon-Republicans. All of which are indeed Left-Wing compared to me, as a philosophical libertarian and supporter of the Constitution..The Constitution is Center of political reason in this country, like it or not. All disagreement with it is either left or right. In the case of Democrats and Neocon-Republicans, they are left of that ideal with their constant nanny state, collectivist, open borders, globalization, war-mongering, economic-suicidal, welfare-parasitical, big-brother, UnPatriot Act treason.

          Democrats and Republicans are two peas in a pod.

          ***Historian 219 says, “Go home and clean your guns” …***

          Uh, brain bone, I am home. What, you think I’m sitting in the middle of a rain forest typing this message?

          … And my Rifle is always clean…. And I use Vasoline too, so the bullets come out just a little faster than the liberals bullets. 😛

        • Libertarian777

          @The Historian 219
          Wait so let me get this straight. Every american has a 1st amendment right. Except when they speaknout against the government? So does al awaki have the same right or not? Ok so you’re going to say you can’t yell fire in a crowed theater, or scream ‘murder americans’ on YouTube. But where is the evidence?

          Should the occupy wall street movement be designated terrorists and summarily be executed? What about those politicians who said things like “tea partiers should be rounded up”. Are they not suggesting killing Americans? Should we not send a drone after them?

          No one liked bush. Yes he started 2 wars. Who attacked Libya? Who attacked Yemen? Who attacked Pakistan? Who is threatening war with Iran. It’s the Nobel peace prize laureate, Owebama.

          The dems and the repubs have shown they are of the same cloth. The only person who doesn’t follow the one party line of ‘more war’ is Ron Paul.

        • Libertarian777

          @The Historian 219

          Every American is entitled to their 1st amendment right, except al awaki because he umm is a ‘terrorist’ because the administration said so. No court of law no trial has proven he was responsible for any deaths.

          Sure you can’t scream fire in a crowded theater, and no you shouldn’t say ‘kill americans’ on YouTube, but neither should you make porn, S&M, or violent video games.

          If al awaki is guilty, bring the evidence and put him in court.

          And for the record, Bush was an idiot, and started 2 wars. Obama started war in Libya, Yemen and Pakistan and is pushing for war with Iran. Deems and repubs both want more war. Ron Paul is the only one standing up against the status quo.

          Don’t kid yourself. The only people who appreciate US military interventions are the US ‘friendly’ dictators, like the shah of Iran, the Saudi monarchy, Mubarak, Karzai, etc

        • highmore


          Courts of law and trials don’t apply to terrorists during war. Al Awaki lost his American citizenship when he went to the darkside.

        • Ryanoceros


          Wrong. A person does not lose their citizenship for committing treason or any other crime. They are put on trial, and sentenced accordingly, if convicted.

    • Stone Serious

      @The Historian 219

      Sure, the guy was a traitor, but there is no proof he killed anyone. And I welcome you to provide the facts that he did. So, he committed Treason. BTW, did you know Anwar Al Awlaki was a CIA operative?

      FACT: The American government has killed far more foreign innocent civilians than those that died on 9/11 or in any other “terrorist” acts OR all of them combined.

      So, who’s the real “terrorist” ….Historian?

      • The Historian 219

        @Stone Serious

        I find it interesting that in WWII MILLIONS of civilians were killed by the allies. There was not much of a ruckus then – why now? Traitors have always been executed on the spot – I see no difference here. Why is my question about an American on Tarawa ignored? There is absolutely no proof that Al Awlaki was a CIA operative – another urban legion that has wings because of the internet. Since when has the CIA ever made public their operatives (a certain death to ever they may be)? Face it, Paul is wrong on this one – just as wrong as not coming out in support of the death of Osama bin Laden. This is nothing but a poor political gamble and it will blow Paul out of the race.

    • Stone Serious

      @The Historian 219 A little “history lesson for you….”those who sacrifice a little bit of liberty for a little bit of security, deserve neither liberty or security.” – Thomas Jefferson You my friend are what is wrong with America today.

    • dabutchur

      @The Historian 219 If this is the reason you are leaving, then you were never a supporter anyway. I call you out as a troll and probably work for the Santorum campaign.

  • jasonfanjf

    Hussien Obama is already raising illegal wars in Lybia. Of course he has the capacity to unlawfully execute citizens. It’s not like he follows the law or anything. Better yet, didn’t he tell everyone that he’s an expert on the constitution because he has a law degree? I refused to give in to peer pressure and vote for this puppet back in ’08 and I still won’t vote for him in ’12.

  • look_deeper

    Killing this person is basically killing the messenger, while the message still exists. Treating the symptom of a problem does not eliminate the problem, it just postpones the consequences. People did not ‘follow’ this radical cleric because he was an appealing person, they followed his message. If he had no message to ‘sell’ for recruiting terrorists, our country’s safety would not be jepordized by him or others like him. It seems that the US policy is to keeping killing ‘enemies’ until they are all gone. But how long will that take? After 10 years in Afganistan, have we rooted out and killed everyone who hates us yet? We have 100,000 soldiers there.

    • Stone Serious

      @look_deeperIt will never end, UNTIL we get out and stop occupying their country.

    • JoeChabot

      This is a good viewpoint. As any good doctor would do, they would try to seek the root cause of the disease and eliminate from there. We, as a country, should be combatting the message by acting in an appropriate manner and setting ourselves apart from lawless dictatorships that kill based on perceived need. Yes, it is probably better he is dead, but of the thousands that follow him that are now pissed-off as a result, another leader will emerge. Are we really going to keep going further and further into debt to China (the real sublime threat) in order to blow-up people in third world nations because they disagree with us?

      I think that Ron Paul’s answer was intelligent, and far from idiocy. The news will always ignore how he qualified his belief that his death was a net benefit. In other words, it is beneficial not to have people like this spewing hate and inciting horrific acts. The meat of his argument is that it should be done in a lawful manner. Don’t we love it when the police gun down suspected criminals? Foul is cried every time, I don’t find it much different.

      • Liberty

        @JoeChabot I totally agree with you. These wars are costing us in the Trillions. China is more than happy to get us to be more indeaded to them. We just had the largest cyber attack by the Chinesse government regarding our military technology and defense. Our government has no retributions towards China regarding this serious breach of security. And, why? We are beholding to them financially and we don’t want to adversely affect our U.S. job killing manufacturing status with them. And, soon if not already they may militarily surpass our military.

    • Liberty

      @look_deeper I totally agree with you. Now that we have killed all of our enemies, will we end all the declared and undeclared wars? Return our courgeous troops to their families now. Or, will our government look for another war or person to continue their endless deployment.

  • Bill Williams

    Ron Paul ia a fucking idiot!!!!!!!!!

    • kungpau

      Wow, really, Bill? Read the Constitution. This was a US Citizen…if this is allowed then “technically” YOU or YOUR FAMILY could be assassinated WITHOUT anything more than a Public Relations campaign labelling YOU a terrorist. That’s why there are LAWS; so someone who doesn’t “like” you can’t simply “off” without using the JUDICIAL system. OMG, Do you understand there are 3 branches of US Govt. FOR A REASON?

      • Stone Serious

        @kungpau Apparently laws don’t apply to Bill Williams judging from the intellect of his post. Seriously Bill, please take your double digit IQ over to the CNN boards where you’ll certainly be appreciated. Your mentality is not understood here.

  • Bill Williams

    What a fucking idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Nitroindole

      @Bill Williams

      And you are f..g slave. Sorry for you…

  • Liberty

    He probably was guitly according to all the intelligence that we had on him. But, what happened to the fifth amendment. Is it right that thru executive order by passing our Constitution that now the President is the Jury, Judge, and Executioner. Who to say that this couldn’t happened to you or me because you have been deemed to be a threat. The power of executive orders by this current President and past need to be reviewed and drastically reduced.

    Go Ron Paul 2012

  • Graff

    Freaks from US goverment and CIA have just made 10 or more Anwar Al Awlaki’s. As you can see it’s endless …….till US stops it’s sick foreign policy. It’s like sitting on a train that goes to nowhere…..I’m not buying a ticket.