Ron Paul lectures about the Fed's evils at Loyola University
-
During his lecture, Paul discussed one aspect of Obama’s presidency that particularly disturbed him. “This week I could not believe a headline that said the President was considering the legality of assassinating an American citizen.” Paul’s statement caused a surprised student to remark “oh my God.” http://www.examiner.com/x-3108-Baltimore-Republican-Examiner~y2010m1d28-Ron-Paul-lectures-about-the-Feds-evils-at-Loyola-University-Md[^] Here's a great thread-maker. What do you think about the Federal Government debating whether it's legal to assassinate a United States citizen? This is totally unamerican, and unfounded. To me, the Constitution only gives war powers to the President only when we are at war, on our land. A) We're not at war (these wars haven't been declared by the Congress), and B) we haven't had battle on our land. But there's more to the article than this, read up people.
-
During his lecture, Paul discussed one aspect of Obama’s presidency that particularly disturbed him. “This week I could not believe a headline that said the President was considering the legality of assassinating an American citizen.” Paul’s statement caused a surprised student to remark “oh my God.” http://www.examiner.com/x-3108-Baltimore-Republican-Examiner~y2010m1d28-Ron-Paul-lectures-about-the-Feds-evils-at-Loyola-University-Md[^] Here's a great thread-maker. What do you think about the Federal Government debating whether it's legal to assassinate a United States citizen? This is totally unamerican, and unfounded. To me, the Constitution only gives war powers to the President only when we are at war, on our land. A) We're not at war (these wars haven't been declared by the Congress), and B) we haven't had battle on our land. But there's more to the article than this, read up people.
josda1000 wrote:
“This week I could not believe a headline that said the President was considering the legality of assassinating an American citizen.”
Where did he see the headline, Fox News? And no, I am not making fun of him, I want to know who would publish such trash? I did a Google search for "President was considering the legality of assassinating an American citizen" and found not a single main stream place where this was a hit. So unless Ron Paul is reading conspiracy sites and somehow taking them as news, or something is wrong with his information.
-
josda1000 wrote:
“This week I could not believe a headline that said the President was considering the legality of assassinating an American citizen.”
Where did he see the headline, Fox News? And no, I am not making fun of him, I want to know who would publish such trash? I did a Google search for "President was considering the legality of assassinating an American citizen" and found not a single main stream place where this was a hit. So unless Ron Paul is reading conspiracy sites and somehow taking them as news, or something is wrong with his information.
http://www.examiner.com/x-25059-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2010m1d2-If-US-government-calls-you-an-American-citizen-terrorist-the-Constitution-is-gone-torture-is-o?cid=channel-rss-Politics[^] http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/07/american.mumbai.arrest/index.html[^] http://www.cbn.com/media/browse_videos_info.aspx?s=/vod/michigan[^]
ragnaroknrol wrote:
And no, I am not making fun of him, I want to know who would publish such trash?
Not like anything of worth comes from mainstream media anyway, IMHO. BUT there's always a glimmer of truth in what they print. So take a gander. If you continue to call it trash, that's up to you. But I think you need to do better at research. Sorry I didn't cite more sources earlier though.
-
josda1000 wrote:
“This week I could not believe a headline that said the President was considering the legality of assassinating an American citizen.”
Where did he see the headline, Fox News? And no, I am not making fun of him, I want to know who would publish such trash? I did a Google search for "President was considering the legality of assassinating an American citizen" and found not a single main stream place where this was a hit. So unless Ron Paul is reading conspiracy sites and somehow taking them as news, or something is wrong with his information.
-
http://www.examiner.com/x-25059-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2010m1d2-If-US-government-calls-you-an-American-citizen-terrorist-the-Constitution-is-gone-torture-is-o?cid=channel-rss-Politics[^] http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/07/american.mumbai.arrest/index.html[^] http://www.cbn.com/media/browse_videos_info.aspx?s=/vod/michigan[^]
ragnaroknrol wrote:
And no, I am not making fun of him, I want to know who would publish such trash?
Not like anything of worth comes from mainstream media anyway, IMHO. BUT there's always a glimmer of truth in what they print. So take a gander. If you continue to call it trash, that's up to you. But I think you need to do better at research. Sorry I didn't cite more sources earlier though.
I just read the CNN story you cite. There is no mention of any discussion of an assination. It simply says the individual is being charged with involvement with the Mumbai bombings. So do you even read the stuff you cite? Or do you just parrot whatever Paul says?
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
I just read the CNN story you cite. There is no mention of any discussion of an assination. It simply says the individual is being charged with involvement with the Mumbai bombings. So do you even read the stuff you cite? Or do you just parrot whatever Paul says?
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
That may not be referencing an assassination, but it is talking about a citizen being charged with something "terrorist-like". Notice he wasn't interviewed... that's my problem with calling people terrorists. The man charged is never interviewed, we don't know anything about him except what the government says. It's a single sided issue to them.
-
I just read the CNN story you cite. There is no mention of any discussion of an assination. It simply says the individual is being charged with involvement with the Mumbai bombings. So do you even read the stuff you cite? Or do you just parrot whatever Paul says?
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
Actually, there is... Had to dig for it a bit... http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-mulls-legality-killing-american-al-qaeda-turncoat/story?id=9651830[^] Basically, they think he joined Al Qaeda... I would like to think that they'd find PROOF and charge him before thinking about assassinating him. If they can prove it, then wouldn't joining Al Qaeda constitute treason? In that case, MAYBE assassination is justified IF he won't return to the US to stand trial. But PROOF first... "suspected" ties shouldn't be NEARLY sufficient.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
During his lecture, Paul discussed one aspect of Obama’s presidency that particularly disturbed him. “This week I could not believe a headline that said the President was considering the legality of assassinating an American citizen.” Paul’s statement caused a surprised student to remark “oh my God.” http://www.examiner.com/x-3108-Baltimore-Republican-Examiner~y2010m1d28-Ron-Paul-lectures-about-the-Feds-evils-at-Loyola-University-Md[^] Here's a great thread-maker. What do you think about the Federal Government debating whether it's legal to assassinate a United States citizen? This is totally unamerican, and unfounded. To me, the Constitution only gives war powers to the President only when we are at war, on our land. A) We're not at war (these wars haven't been declared by the Congress), and B) we haven't had battle on our land. But there's more to the article than this, read up people.
Ron Paul quoted:
This week I could not believe a headline that said the President was considering the legality of assassinating an American citizen.
Surely "continuing the policy of authorising the killing of citizens of the USA overseas, when they are linked to terrorist actions against the USA" would have been more accurate. Hasn't Obama merely inherited this 'Wanted - Dead or Alive' policy from previous administrations?
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
-
Ron Paul quoted:
This week I could not believe a headline that said the President was considering the legality of assassinating an American citizen.
Surely "continuing the policy of authorising the killing of citizens of the USA overseas, when they are linked to terrorist actions against the USA" would have been more accurate. Hasn't Obama merely inherited this 'Wanted - Dead or Alive' policy from previous administrations?
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
Bob Emmett wrote:
Hasn't Obama merely inherited this 'Wanted - Dead or Alive' policy from previous administrations?
Pretty much. See my other post in this thread.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Ron Paul quoted:
This week I could not believe a headline that said the President was considering the legality of assassinating an American citizen.
Surely "continuing the policy of authorising the killing of citizens of the USA overseas, when they are linked to terrorist actions against the USA" would have been more accurate. Hasn't Obama merely inherited this 'Wanted - Dead or Alive' policy from previous administrations?
Bob Emmett @ Ynys Thanatos
Bob Emmett wrote:
when they are linked to terrorist actions against the USA
And this makes it right? What happened to due process?
Bob Emmett wrote:
Hasn't Obama merely inherited this 'Wanted - Dead or Alive' policy from previous administrations?
Agreed... but it used to be only for foreign terrorists (not saying that this is morally right either). This is unconsitutional, again. Amendment 5 "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." These terrorist activities are crimes, absolutely. But as read above, No person shall be held to answer for a crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. These cases did not arise in the land/naval forces, did not arise from any militia we have, and we are not in a time of war. Plus, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process, which hasn't been given. Totally unconsitutional; this is why Paul is angry and afraid, and so am I. I have been since 9/11, because the Consitution went out the window.
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
when they are linked to terrorist actions against the USA
And this makes it right? What happened to due process?
Bob Emmett wrote:
Hasn't Obama merely inherited this 'Wanted - Dead or Alive' policy from previous administrations?
Agreed... but it used to be only for foreign terrorists (not saying that this is morally right either). This is unconsitutional, again. Amendment 5 "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." These terrorist activities are crimes, absolutely. But as read above, No person shall be held to answer for a crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. These cases did not arise in the land/naval forces, did not arise from any militia we have, and we are not in a time of war. Plus, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process, which hasn't been given. Totally unconsitutional; this is why Paul is angry and afraid, and so am I. I have been since 9/11, because the Consitution went out the window.
I'm not saying that it's right, but I think it's technically constitutional.
josda1000 wrote:
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger
Even if you don't call the Iraq/Afghanistan thing a "war," it's definitely a time of "public danger." And if the guy is part of Al Qaeda (As said in my other post, I think they should have to PROVE this first), then I think he could be considered an enemy combatant, making this a "case arising in the land or naval forces".
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Actually, there is... Had to dig for it a bit... http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-mulls-legality-killing-american-al-qaeda-turncoat/story?id=9651830[^] Basically, they think he joined Al Qaeda... I would like to think that they'd find PROOF and charge him before thinking about assassinating him. If they can prove it, then wouldn't joining Al Qaeda constitute treason? In that case, MAYBE assassination is justified IF he won't return to the US to stand trial. But PROOF first... "suspected" ties shouldn't be NEARLY sufficient.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
I'm not saying that it's right, but I think it's technically constitutional.
josda1000 wrote:
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger
Even if you don't call the Iraq/Afghanistan thing a "war," it's definitely a time of "public danger." And if the guy is part of Al Qaeda (As said in my other post, I think they should have to PROVE this first), then I think he could be considered an enemy combatant, making this a "case arising in the land or naval forces".
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
I don't see any "public danger" here. I see it in the other countries that we've occupied. When we see two incidents in the past couple of months, but nothing for the previous eight years, I'd say we're doing fine. It's hyped up garbage that the government needs to advance the police state, as noted in the other article
-
Bob Emmett wrote:
when they are linked to terrorist actions against the USA
And this makes it right? What happened to due process?
Bob Emmett wrote:
Hasn't Obama merely inherited this 'Wanted - Dead or Alive' policy from previous administrations?
Agreed... but it used to be only for foreign terrorists (not saying that this is morally right either). This is unconsitutional, again. Amendment 5 "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." These terrorist activities are crimes, absolutely. But as read above, No person shall be held to answer for a crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. These cases did not arise in the land/naval forces, did not arise from any militia we have, and we are not in a time of war. Plus, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process, which hasn't been given. Totally unconsitutional; this is why Paul is angry and afraid, and so am I. I have been since 9/11, because the Consitution went out the window.
-
That may not be referencing an assassination, but it is talking about a citizen being charged with something "terrorist-like". Notice he wasn't interviewed... that's my problem with calling people terrorists. The man charged is never interviewed, we don't know anything about him except what the government says. It's a single sided issue to them.
josda1000 wrote:
That may not be referencing an assassination
... and so was irrelevant to the point you were trying to make. I understand your wish to get a more complete story (and your fear of sheeple being inflamed by bogus government claims), but you've gone from an article on a tangentially related subject, and the fact that it's lacking an interview, to claiming this is proof of Ron Paul's unambiguous claim that the government is assasinating US citizens. That's a pretty flimsy chain. :suss:
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
-
No, but it's the same issue, isn't it? EDIT: Wait, nevermind... I'm wrong. Different case, but I think the name was mentioned in the original link.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
No, but it's the same issue, isn't it? EDIT: Wait, nevermind... I'm wrong. Different case, but I think the name was mentioned in the original link.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
I don't see any "public danger" here. I see it in the other countries that we've occupied. When we see two incidents in the past couple of months, but nothing for the previous eight years, I'd say we're doing fine. It's hyped up garbage that the government needs to advance the police state, as noted in the other article
We've discussed this one before... But the constitution doesn't state a specific amount of danger... It just says "public danger"... One guy tried to crash a plane (Linked to Al Qaeda), and one guy shot up a Texas military base (Was supposedly communicating with Al Qaeda). I think that's enough to call it "public danger," albeit a limited amount.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
Only marginally; that's my point. The CNN story doesn't support the allegation of assasination at all.
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
No, the one I linked is related to the ORIGINAL post. If you click his original link (Trying to ignore all of the propaganda) and click on the "legality of assassinating" link near the end of the article, it pops up a small blurb about the guy my abcnews.com link discussed.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
No, the one I linked is related to the ORIGINAL post. If you click his original link (Trying to ignore all of the propaganda) and click on the "legality of assassinating" link near the end of the article, it pops up a small blurb about the guy my abcnews.com link discussed.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Christ, I'm getting lost now... :laugh: :laugh: Gimme a minute. [edit] Must be CP effect - IE can't display that web page. And I'm not sure what relevance it has to the point I was trying to make; that is, the CNN article he cited didn't support the allegation. I understand that some of the others did; I'm not disputing that. Although, as you've been arguing, Paul is clearly misrepresenting the nature of the issue for sensational purposes. (That is what you were arguing, wasn't it? :-D ) [/edit]
L u n a t i c F r i n g e
modified on Thursday, January 28, 2010 2:37 PM