Why Ron Paul Would Not Have Ordered Osama Bin Laden Killing

May 12, 2011 1:07pm

ABC's Z. Byron Wolf (@zbyronwolf) reports:

Rep. Ron Paul took an interesting position for a likely presidential candidate Tuesday – he explained to a Iowa radio station why he would not have ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden.

The answer seemed to catch Iowa radio host Simon Conway off guard; he asked Paul to repeat it.

Paul was unequivocal: “No, not the way it took place,” Paul said of the killing of bin Laden.

Why?

“It was absolutely not necessary and I think respect for the rule of law, international law – what if he’d been in a hotel in London?" Paul asked. "We wanted to keep it secret. Would we have sent the helicopters into London? Because they were afraid the information would get out. No you don’t want to do that.”

Paul said the U.S. government should have worked with the Pakistani government, respecting borders, to get at Osama bin Laden. He pointed to other terror suspects who were captured and tried. Paul pointed to the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, widely accepted as the 9/11 mastermind, by Pakistani authorities. Mohammed now sits at Guantanamo Bay awaiting trial by a military tribunal.

Paul also pointed to the capture and trial of “Blind Sheikh”, Omar Abdel Rahman, who was arrested in Brooklyn and tried and convicted in U.S. court.

“What’s wrong with that?” Paul asked. “Why can’t we work with the government?”

Watch the video from WHO AM here:

 

Paul has a big day planned Friday. He will appear on Good Morning America first thing in the morning and then hold a campaign-style rally in Exeter, New Hampshire later in the morning.

UPDATE: This post initially identified WHO as being a New Hampshire radio station. It is actually in Des Moines Iowa.

You are using an outdated version of Internet Explorer. Please click here to upgrade your browser in order to comment.
blog comments powered by Disqus