Ron Paul said Monday that President Barack Obama’s targeted killing of the American,Anwar al-Awlaki, might be an impeachable offense, Politico reports.
Asked at a Manchester, N.H. town hall meeting about last week’s killing, Dr. Paul said impeachment would be “possible,” but that he wants to know more about how the administration “flouted the law.”
Paul called the killing a movement toward “tyranny.”
“I put responsibility on the president because this is obviously a step in the wrong direction,” Paul said. “We have just totally disrespected the Constitution.”
I am not sure what further information Dr. Paul needs. Obama could make his defense at his trial.
ReplyDeleteOff subject a bit, but if Obama labeled Dr. Paul a terrorist and had him killed, would there be an outcry? Perhaps a little, but not all that much I suspect.
Careful you don't make a list for posting this Mr. Wenzel! Laughable but sick at the same time!
ReplyDeleteTo me the idea that the Republicans, as much as they hate Obama, will impeach for killing an (alleged) terrorist is pure fiction.
ReplyDelete“We have just totally disrespected the Constitution.”
ReplyDelete"We" have been doing that a lot lately. Especially in the last 150 years or so...
The point of this is to condition the public school/TV-watching Democracy Borg to except a political terrorist murdering at will and to think nothing of it.
ReplyDeleteWe (tried to) impeach Clinton over (perjuring himself to a federal grand jury) about a blow job.
ReplyDeleteAuthorizing the murder of an unarmed and unconvicted former federal government agent and citizen of the US should be a no-brainer. Of course he should be impeached, for this and many other crimes.
But if we do, then his predecessor, his staff, and the advisors involved from 2001 onward would also be open to criminal and civil punishment by the US courts and the (abominable) International Criminal Court in The Hague, facing punishment for war crimes and untold nefarious illegal and immoral activities.
Such action would make people question the very nature of our government and The Global War on Terror, and as such, even mentioning it in public makes Dr Paul an enemy of the state.
Since Dr Paul has now proclaimed himself to be an Enemy of the State, it makes me wary of attending any speaking engagements for him- who knows when they might send in the drones to kill him, making those killed in the process "collateral damage".
I urge everyone to re-read the above, and realize that I am not engaging in hyperbole or some fantastic imagining of a non-reality. As of now, if the President orders your murder, US citizen or not, you have NO protection from them, and the lapdog media will demonize you and proclaim it a victory for democracy and "freedom".
It makes me fucking sick to my stomach.
Ron Paul is, rightly, reluctant to direct personal attacks towards Obama in the same vein as most of the other candidates.
ReplyDeleteHowever, can you think of a more appropriate method for him to use conservative hatred of Obama to his advantage in the campaign than to be the first to introduce articles of impeachment for Obama?
RD Fitzgerald, you are correct. It's just a shame that the average "citizen" is a jingoist, and that this will probably give Barry a "bump" in the polls.
ReplyDeleteIt's tough to tell if this was 'deep politics' on Ron Paul's part--ever the underrated politician, or truly, spontaneous, but what a move it is.
ReplyDeletePlay this out, I say.
Wenzel, check out this clip of Herman Cain from a few months ago saying the US should NOT kill citizens without a trial first. I am sure he has flip flopped by now like on the Fed and TARP, but watch this clip from back in May where he agreed with Paul's position.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPQw1xkAEow&feature=player_embedded
Why give Obama a trial? Just declare him "not president."
ReplyDeleteMe thinks the people will race to defend their tyrant.
ReplyDeleteI'm a huge supporter of Ron Paul, but he really needs to avoid these questions as much as possible because they will do nothing but damage his chances. I've gone to great lengths to further explain Dr. Paul's position to many people that I have been able to get into his camp. Now, they are almost all going in another direction. This is just bad all the way around for him.
ReplyDelete@ Anonymous 6:27
ReplyDelete"...if Obama labeled Dr. Paul a terrorist and had him killed, would there be an outcry? Perhaps a little, but not all that much I suspect."
That would be up to us. Would you not cry out? Would millions of Ron Paul supporters just go home and be quiet, out of fear for themselves?
If we let things get that far, then welcome to Nazi-Gestapo-Thought-Crime America, where people will say some day in the future: "We did not know, we did not see it coming, and when we did, there was nothing we could do, it was beyond our control, we were just following orders, it was not our fault." When in reality it was their fear, their failure to act and speak up IN TIME, while it still would have been possible without being singled out and taken to the concentration camp. It is never too late, it just gets ever more dangerous the longer we wait. (Not unlike a Ponzi/pyramid scheme: The pain inflicted by the inevitable collapse becomes bigger and bigger the longer one waits. And on the way to the final collapse, the force and violence applied, where such scheme is state-run, to coerce new entrants into such failing scheme becomes ever greater towards the end.)
@ Dale:
"Since Dr Paul has now proclaimed himself to be an Enemy of the State, it makes me wary of attending any speaking engagements for him- who knows when they might send in the drones to kill him, making those killed in the process "collateral damage""
Please Dale, do not give in to fear. They win if they know you are afraid. The more people that overcome their fear for their own lives, the harder it will be for the killers to kill.
While I disagree with Paul Craig Roberts' conclusion that there is nothing we can do, I think this is a good summary:
http://lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts328.html
You just know that this is going to come up in the next debate! I can't wait.
ReplyDelete"I'm a huge supporter of Ron Paul, but he really needs to avoid these questions as much as possible because they will do nothing but damage his chances."
ReplyDeleteHaven't people been saying this to him for thirty years? Yet hes always proven right and looks even better for it. He should be as vocal as he can be because he has on his side all he needs: the truth
"I'm a huge supporter of Ron Paul, but he really needs to avoid these questions as much as possible because they will do nothing but damage his chances."
ReplyDeleteIt is up to us to re-frame the context of this issue so people get it.
This is one way Ron Paul or others could move people to a different point of view of how to understand the significance of this issue.
State it like this...
"What if the president were to address the nation with the following...
I the president of the United States come to you to ask for expanded powers to keep you safe. These powers are the same powers that many dictators around the world enjoy; however, I assure you I am no dictator and will use the powers responsibly. I need the authority to kill any American citizen who I determine may be threat to your safety. I promise you I will not abuse this authority.
So I ask you, do any of you find that disturbing. If you do I believe you are on my side of this issue and understand why I as well am deeply concerned"
Anon@350am-
ReplyDeleteI was being a bit facetious- if I was scared of these fascist thugs I wouldn't be posting my full name here. I'm a proud enemy of the state and passionate supporter of Dr Paul!
@Axios
ReplyDeleteHuh? He should avoid speaking out about the president openly endorsing the killing of a US citizen without a trial? There are few issues more dire than speaking out against this precedent.
If impeached, Obama wouldn't come anywhere near being convicted, but that shouldn't stop Ron from trying.