Oct 5, 2011 4:58am

Ron Paul Says Obama Has Committed an Impeachable Offense

gty ron paul jef 110923 wblog Ron Paul Says Obama Has Committed an Impeachable Offense

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Rep. Ron Paul expanded on his comments that the killing of a suspected al-Qaeda terrorist is an impeachable offense.

Paul, appearing this afternoon on Fox News with Megyn Kelly, denied that he directly raised the possibility, but said he was merely responding to a question.

He added that the precedent of killing an American citizen without a trial is “very serious.”

ABC affiliate WMUR reports that Paul was asked by a University of New Hampshire student Monday how Paul would hold Obama accountable for the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki.

Paul said impeachment would be a possibility, but there should be an investigation that holds Obama responsible.

Paul’s comments on Monday upped the ante on a series of pointed remarks aimed at President Obama over the killing of al-Awlaki.

Last Friday he called the strike “sad” and added that it’s “not a good way to deal with our problems.”

“If the American people accept this blindly and casually –  have a precedent of an American president assassinating people who he thinks are bad. I think it that’s sad,” he said.

Then in an op-ed piece published Sunday in the New York Daily News, Paul said “as president, I would have arrested Awlaki, brought him to the U.S., tried him and pushed for the stiffest punishment allowed by law.”

Paul wrote that he believes in the rule of law and the killing of al-Awlaki is the latest in a long line of unconstitutional acts by President Obama that includes military action in Libya and health care reform.

User Comments

Ron Paul is 100% correct…say the government suspected you of something and instead of taking you to trial they just decided to drone your house? But since it didn’t happen on american soil some people really don’t care… I’m not saying al awlaki wsnt guilty but everyone deserves a fair trial US citizen or not. We need to put a stop to ll this warmongering…hell even better yet what would you say if a foriegn country got a Drone over here and targeted your nieghbor? America would push for war would we not… so how do you think these other countries feel wit america using militry force wit impunity on their soil? Just askin… no politics just common sense

Posted by: peter | October 5, 2011, 6:24 am 6:24 am

Of course Paul is right — again… anyone who wants to support the unilateral killing of people BEFORE any charges, trial and evidence need to ave their head examined… you may be next…

when they came for the Communist…..

Posted by: Brian | October 5, 2011, 6:34 am 6:34 am

Ron Paul is a simpleton and @Peter, you may call it warmongering and I see it as protecting America from terrorists. This person you and Ron Paul feverishly defend was a terrorist that to me gave up his citizenship by joining a organization that wants to do us harm. Ron Pual and you would be singing a different song if terrorists was able to get in and do what they set out to do. Another thing I see is double standards, if Bush done it, nothing would be said, but Obama did it and he is supposely wrong.
Ron Paul is a geriatric person who I would never vote into office. Kudos to Obama for what he did.

Posted by: Lonewolf1044 | October 5, 2011, 6:37 am 6:37 am

Ron Paul is right. Look, Alwaki is a bad guy, but this is not about him. This is about ensuring that all Americans receive due process. The Obama administration has showed no proof and will not explain how they found justification to murder Alwaki. What’s stopping him from targeting you next?

Posted by: Andy | October 5, 2011, 6:40 am 6:40 am

All you Monday morning quarterbacks would be cheering at the top of your lungs if it had been Bush who offed this most vile of people. Don’t start waving the Constitution and American flag in everyone’s faces. You’re looking for any excuse to remove this President from office. You guys were probably yelling at Obama a couple of years ago when he said he wanted the prisoners at Gitmo tried in court. Or don’t you believe those people being held are allowed a fair trail, citizens or not? You’re two-faced, plain and simple.

Posted by: Bob | October 5, 2011, 6:40 am 6:40 am

All citizens are guaranteed due process by the 5th amendment. All presidents take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Do these oath’s mean anything anymore? If we are going to bend and ignore the Constitution at our every whim, why not just burn it and be done with it?
The 5th amendment exists to protect us all. Pandora’s box is being opened.

Posted by: KDanagger | October 5, 2011, 6:44 am 6:44 am

Well I can cross off Ron on my ballot. I swear americans are dumber than rocks. You want something one way and if someone does follow the letter of the law, and something bad happens then you scream forget the law, we want revenge. Once ali-whacky threw his lot in with bend-over-laden, his citzenship ceased and he became a traitor, plain and simple. His wasn’t just an off-handed remark, there was verifiable evidence and his fingerpints on the plots, what more evidence do you flag wavers need?

Posted by: Just saying | October 5, 2011, 6:56 am 6:56 am

This terrorist essentailly denounced his “American” citizenship! End of subject!

Posted by: AFRETIRED | October 5, 2011, 7:03 am 7:03 am

al-Awlaki gave us his rights when he became a Terrorist, plotting to kill his fellow Americans. Stop whinning, another al-Qaeda leader is dead…period, and I really don’t care how he was killed.

Posted by: FLADAWG | October 5, 2011, 7:03 am 7:03 am

You can watch the White House Press Briefing on Sept 30th and watch them try to weasel out of providing proof of any criminal activity…they just keep saying it’s a known fact… This is a dangerous precedent, especially given the current political climate in this country, and it doesn’t represent the values of a free and just society…I’m sorry…you war supporters can justify your barbarism any way you like but you only stoop to the level of your purported enemy. Our forefathers would be ashamed and appalled at the size, scope, authority, and aggressive nature of our govt.

Posted by: Lysander Spooner | October 5, 2011, 7:04 am 7:04 am

Ron Paul is right on point! Btw, I put Ron Paul in my original comment and it told me i was posting to fast and to slow down…yet it was my one and only comment. The media is crazy afraid of us voting for this guy.

Posted by: Lysander Spooner | October 5, 2011, 7:06 am 7:06 am

the govt can now kill a drug dealer by claiming he is an enemy in the war on drugs since civil rights are discarded for enemy combatants during time of war.

Posted by: nick | October 5, 2011, 7:07 am 7:07 am

Ron Paul is right.

President Obama’s Oil Spill response, Arming Mexican Drug Cartels with American weapons in hopes the backlash damages the 2nd Amendment, Solyndra, Droning an American citizen, etc etc

what’s next ???

Posted by: Lynn | October 5, 2011, 7:14 am 7:14 am

Okay class today’s homework : Google “Richard Jewel” .He’s the guy that the FBI said (1996) was responsible for the Olympic bombing in Atlanta,We were told he was a home grown terrorist. He was a loner, a security guard looking for fame.The media plastered his name on the front page and everyone was calling for his head.One problem he was the WRONG man. Thank God we didn’t have drones back then. ;

Posted by: professorjoe | October 5, 2011, 7:15 am 7:15 am

I get the argument …, but I think people are conveniently forgetting who this guy was, and what he was all about.
“supposed evidence… no evidence” look it up ! It was pretty clear. You’ll find him on youtube saying everything needed to be said. He was a bad guy who wanted to kill us. He didn’t want to bring us to court.

Posted by: walstib01 | October 5, 2011, 7:31 am 7:31 am

He just lost my vote.

Posted by: Paulie | October 5, 2011, 7:35 am 7:35 am

Ron Paul is right, and mob rule should not decide what happens. Obama should follow the rule of law and put Awlaki through the process then punish him. You’re clueless and a radical extremist if you think Americans should be targeted for assassination based on accusation alone. You idiots realize the liberals in office believe that people who carry the constitution in their car, want to end the Fed and want Obamacare over turned should be recognized as homegrown terrorists right? Should they start targeting Tea Party activists based on accusition alone. Please turn your brains on and look into some traditional conservatism neo-cons. Just because people THINK Awlaki gave up his citizenship does not mean he OFFICIALLY did so.

Posted by: Red Leader | October 5, 2011, 7:39 am 7:39 am

So who decides when someone forfeits their citizenship rights? The president, the government, an angry mob, you?
It can’t be repeated enough times apparently. This is not about Awlaki. He was obviously a bad guy who should have been tried and punished to the full extent of the law when found guilty. The issue at stake here is the destruction of a system that protects potentially innocent people from misguided rage.

Some of you are advocating government sponsored lynch mob behavior. That is extremely dangerous. When this mentality catches on, enormous numbers of innocent people are slain. History is replete with examples of this. The middle ages witch burning, the french revolution, and on and on. This is the ugliest facet of human nature that must be avoided by any means possible. The founding fathers understood this very well – which is why they sought to place protections against it into our Constitution.

Posted by: KDanagger | October 5, 2011, 7:44 am 7:44 am

So all you supposed “conservatives” are ok with killing “terrorists” wherever and however we can right? I will bet you are sure glad that the govt. would NEVER use this against you. I mean, it would just be terrible if you ex military…or disenchanted voters….or tea party people were named possible terrorists by the DHS in a memo. Because then they could use the Patriot Act to watch, investigate and tap your……..oh wait……they already did that in 2009……….NEVERMIND! Nothing to see here folks move along.

How long have they been watching you already?

Posted by: BulletG | October 5, 2011, 7:54 am 7:54 am

Ron Paul is a simpleton and @Peter, you may call it warmongering and I see it as protecting America from terrorists. This person you and Ron Paul feverishly defend was a terrorist that to me gave up his citizenship by joining a organization that wants to do us harm. Ron Pual and you would be singing a different song if terrorists was able to get in and do what they set out to do. Another thing I see is double standards, if Bush done it, nothing would be said, but Obama did it and he is supposely wrong.
Ron Paul is a geriatric person who I would never vote into office. Kudos to Obama for what he did

_____________________________________________

UMMM sorry but you do not decide who loses citizenship. LOL are you awake yet? No one is defending the “terrorist” when are defending the Constitution which is there to protect us when the gov call us a terrorist when they need something done. You are beyond the simpleton. You are trusting your gov to kill America citizens because they said they were a terrorist. Have you seen what makes yu a terrorist? recording police on a camcorder will but you on a terrorist list. Thats just one. Wake up man.

Posted by: David | October 5, 2011, 8:12 am 8:12 am

So who decides when someone forfeits their citizenship rights?

_______________________________

According to LONEWOLF above it is him LOL

Posted by: David | October 5, 2011, 8:14 am 8:14 am

The “terrorist” are winning. Bye Bye freedom………This is what you get when the average US voter IQ is 80.

Posted by: David | October 5, 2011, 8:16 am 8:16 am

This is the first time I have disagreed with Ron. This guy needed to be wiped off the earth.

Posted by: Zubie | October 5, 2011, 8:17 am 8:17 am

I’ve lost any modicum of respect I may have harbored at one time for this man; he seems intent on bemoaning a irrevocable event which eliminated a national threat (a GOOD thing). Rather than focus on our future and ways to overcome problems, he’d rather dwell on things we shouldn’t have done and should have done better. Looking backward is useful for filmmakers and authors, perhaps he should become one.

Posted by: Aaron Ververs | October 5, 2011, 8:18 am 8:18 am

And right here is the PERFECT EXAMPLE of why Ron Paul.is unelectable on the national stage….just like Rick Perry. They are not smart enough from a ‘world perspective’. They are ‘small-time’ politicians with small, narrow minds and only appeal; to voters of ‘like mentality’.

Posted by: CND FOX | October 5, 2011, 8:20 am 8:20 am

IMO, we don’t know the whole story. It bothers me that an American citizen was assassinated. On the other hand, he was guilty of treason. His own words confirm that – he publically advocated the murder of American citizens. I’m sure it was a difficult decision for the administration to make.

Posted by: Office Goddess | October 5, 2011, 8:22 am 8:22 am

I’m very torn on this issue. While I believe that Representative Paul is correct from a legal standpoint, I believe that President Obama has the right and responsibility to protect us from our sworn enemies. If al-Awlaki was approaching a police officer with a gun, then that officer would have the right to shoot him in self-defense. I find al-Awlaki’s ultimate demise no different. al-Awlaki never denied he was a terrorist. In fact, he seemed to relish his role in al-Qaeda. If al-Awlaki had claimed innocence, then I believe he should have been given his day in court. But ultimately, I believe that President Obama not only had the right to take out this terrorist, but also the responsibility to do it.

Posted by: jacksmith0110 | October 5, 2011, 8:22 am 8:22 am

And there you have it. Ron Paul is pro-terrorist. Ron Paul supports terrorism instead of his President. The guy has now joined the lunitic radical right. No wonder he is a libritarian running as a republican.

Posted by: Wayne | October 5, 2011, 8:24 am 8:24 am

Brian said: “… anyone who wants to support the unilateral killing of people BEFORE any charges, trial and evidence need to ave their head examined… you may be next…”

If I act in the manner of al-Awlaki, I’ll DESERVE to be next. See, the thing is, I abide by the laws of the land and both support and respect my country, so I don’t think I’ll have to worry too much about that.

Posted by: Aaron Ververs | October 5, 2011, 8:26 am 8:26 am

Hard to believe the number of people that support this. Seems we have totally forgotten the only thing that protects our freedoms is the constitution and rule of law. Unfortunately as tyranny develops it is usually accepted by the people because as the people are convinced it is required to keep them safe.
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 understand Ron Paul’s concerns.
If you ask people in general do they trust the government, you will get a very low percentage. So how can it be that all of a sudden we say “government, we totally trust you with the power to kill any citizen without evidence or trial based on who you say is a terrorist for which there is no legal definition”

Posted by: Liberty2012 | October 5, 2011, 8:26 am 8:26 am

Some of you who advocate government sponsored lynch mob justice should watch the movie “The Siege” (1998). In particular, you should watch the ending – the confrontation between FBI agent Anthony Hubbard (Denzel Washington) and Major General William Devereaux (Bruce Willis).

Actually, I think that everyone should see this movie. It sends a clear and very important message about the times we live in.

Posted by: KDanagger | October 5, 2011, 8:33 am 8:33 am

If any of you knew that you were Awlakis next target, would you still be saying he deserved his day in court? Probably not. If it were Bush who made the decision to take him out, would you still be saying he deserved his day in court? Probably not. Taking him out was the right thing to do for all Americans regardless of what President made the decision.

Posted by: howdymo1 | October 5, 2011, 8:35 am 8:35 am

Hilarious stuff. These tea party types seem offended because a black man has accomplished during his short time in office what a redneck said was his number 1 priority during 8 years in office while they did nothing but string us along while Halliburton cashed in. The only courage demonstrated by the previous draft dodging admin and tea party types is their eagerness to spend US lives to extort money from their citizens.

Posted by: george | October 5, 2011, 8:36 am 8:36 am

To those who claim “he just lost my vote” — I doubt he ever had it anyway. To those who claim he “gave up his citizenship” — where is the evidence? If that is true, then the Obama administration should have produced that evidence before targeting him for assassination. Or will we just allow any future president to kill people and claim that they had given up their citizenship after the fact?

Posted by: Nickolaus | October 5, 2011, 8:36 am 8:36 am

LIBERTY2012 pondered: “What if …?”

Got no time for “What if…” – My family and I live and deal in the here and now.

Posted by: Aaron Ververs | October 5, 2011, 8:39 am 8:39 am

Mr. Paul, Bush’s deception of congress and the American people on the WMDs in Iraq was an impeachable offense not blasting this terrorist.

Posted by: Moby49 Detroit | October 5, 2011, 8:44 am 8:44 am

@ MOBY…I guess you didn’t see all of his response or the context. He said that EVERY president has committed some type of impeachable offense since he’s been in office.

Posted by: Ed | October 5, 2011, 8:47 am 8:47 am

Ron Paul is correct. You can’t just kill American citizens at random. We follow laws in this country.

Posted by: Jim | October 5, 2011, 8:49 am 8:49 am

What Ron Paul may say come off unusual, until you realize that a few years back the southern poverty law center actually stated that third party voters such as those who vote for Ron Paul and tea party tend to be terrorists. Its a slippery slope. Can we the people now kill someone we know to be a terrorist without due process and not be punished?

What if a Republican becomes president and decides that PETA and those Americans who go after Japanese whaling ships are terrorists because Japan who holds a LOT of American bonds pushes the US to attack them on open waters?

Posted by: Adan Rodriguez | October 5, 2011, 8:53 am 8:53 am

JIM declares: “You can’t just kill American citizens at random.”

Hey, Jim – remind me what took place the World Trade Center.

Posted by: Aaron Ververs | October 5, 2011, 8:56 am 8:56 am

Please write your congressional representative that you are not in favor of the Presidents vigilante justice against American citizens. Ask them to voice their concerns of the President’s disregard for the Constitution and the law in assassinating American citizens without due process.

Posted by: David | October 5, 2011, 9:00 am 9:00 am

OMG, Can’t believe what I’m hearing here. If I pick up arms against this country especially in wartime, guess what? I will be killed unless I surrender, citizen or not. If al-Awlaki wanted a trial all he had to do was surrender. End of story. This is one ridiculous story, I can’t believe it was actually published. If troops were sent in to arrest al-Awlaki, do you think he and his comrades would have dropped their weapons and put their hands up? Let’s be realistic at least.

Posted by: nomas167 | October 5, 2011, 9:02 am 9:02 am

So did Timothy McVeigh also give up his rights as a citizen? Should we just have assasinated him?

Posted by: shannon young | October 5, 2011, 9:04 am 9:04 am

Ron Paul did not defend a terrorist. He defended the right of every American citizen, even a terrorist, to a fair trial. The judicial branch of government is responsible for determining if an American citizen is a terrorist, through a trial in a court of law.

Posted by: morely | October 5, 2011, 9:07 am 9:07 am

Please see the actual Interview with Megyn Kelly on Ron Paul’s campaign website, and you will realize just how much the media is distorting his statements. Paul is a threat to the status quo and big media is like a scared animal backed into the corner.

They can’t get any real dirt on Ron Paul like the other candidates, so they have to manufacture drama in order to discredit him. I guess completely ignoring him wasn’t enough to keep him down!

Dr. Paul has a lifetime of consistent, sound reasoning – something no other candidate has. Read and listen to him in his own words and you’ll find truth, rather than the garbage the media wants to shove down your throat.

Posted by: Prometheus | October 5, 2011, 9:07 am 9:07 am

Hmmmm, let’s see….Isn’t there an article of the Constitution that stats “…any person or persons that plot the overthrow of the U.S Government by violent means, and/or conspires with foreign governments to do the same are guilty of treason…where U.S. citizens, by birth or naturalization, hold dual-citizenship with a foreign country, by birth or laws of said country, plots or conspires by terrorist actions, to kill maim or overthrow the U.S. is guilty of treason and forfeits the rights of citizenship in the U.S. and are subject to the laws and punishment of the U.S…”paraphrased in most areas.

Either damn way, evidence has been show where al Awlacki conspired with and instructed U.S Army Major Nidal Hasan in the shootings at Fort Hood to maximize the deaths. Class dismissed, Moron liberals

Posted by: nabi2007 | October 5, 2011, 9:12 am 9:12 am

Ron Paul is right….again.

Just because you think the guy should have lost his citizenship does not make it automatic. Yes, he was a bad man but the government can’t go around assassinating people. Ask the Jews how it worked out for them in Germany.

Posted by: anonoped | October 5, 2011, 9:14 am 9:14 am

@David, sorry but this is not wartime.When did we declare war? We are fighting an undeclared war. If the law was followed in the first place and we had declared war, maybe it would be different. And when exactly do we expect citizens of this country suspected of committing a crime to just put their hands up? Right, because American citizens never resist arrest????

Posted by: shannon young | October 5, 2011, 9:22 am 9:22 am

Ron Paul 2012!!!! Long live America & the Constitution!!

Posted by: Apryl | October 5, 2011, 9:23 am 9:23 am

JIM declares: “You can’t just kill American citizens at random.”

AARON declares: Hey, Jim – remind me what took place the World Trade Center.

Foreigners killed random Americans. Apples and Oranges, friend. No one has ever said the law is perfect. It never will be. Regardless, America is an experiment where we are ruled by law, not by men (and fear). So many Americans are eager to give up on that idea. I find that far more frightening than random acts of terrorism. Hard cases make horrible law.

Posted by: Jesse | October 5, 2011, 9:25 am 9:25 am

You got to love the media. The headline makes it sound like Ron Paul is trying to get the President Impeached. The REAL story is just that he actually truthfully answered to a question at a town hall meeting. He went on to say every president in his life time has violated the constitution in one way or other. I believe he is absolutely right here. Sure al-Awlaki was bad, but the ends do not justify the means. No evidence will be disclosed, so basically we have to trust the Government that it was justified and they had overwhelming proof. Of course, the Government has never been wrong before.

Posted by: Jim Harmon | October 5, 2011, 9:31 am 9:31 am

“Hey, Jim – remind me what took place the World Trade Center.”

Posted by: Aaron Ververs | October 5, 2011, 8:56 am 8:56 am

So that gives the Prez carte blanche to kill anybody he wants? Look, I realize you have trouble understanding logic, so I’ll use smaller words. Nobody here is defending al-Awlaki, they are saying since he was an American citizen he had a right to a trail and due process.

If you were accused of a punishable crime, wouldn’t you want a fair trial, or are you OK with the Prez just having you killed?

Posted by: Nunya Biznezz | October 5, 2011, 9:34 am 9:34 am

Anyone who defends this killing is certifiably insane.
You lose your citizenship when you RENOUNCE it – not through joining some group. What if the government referred to Tea Partiers, gun owners, and veterans as terrorists and put them on a similar list?
Oh wait – THEY DID.
Every last drone that defends trialess killing of Americans should renounce their citizenship and leave the country. If you don’t respect the Constitution, you have no place in America.

Posted by: Seamus | October 5, 2011, 9:38 am 9:38 am

To anyone who does not agree that Ron Paul is right on this issue.

You do not support the Constitution of the United States. If you think that the Government has the right to ASSASSINATE American Citizens regardless of WHO the President is. Regardless of ANY circumstances. The RIGHT of American Citizens is to have a fair trial where they are considered innocent until PROVEN guilty and are guaranteed in the Constitution.

Was his offenses bad enough to warrant arrest, trial, and punishment? Yes.
Big Government ALWAYS abuse power. What makes you think that now that they openly condone and commit murder and assassination of American Citizens that you are safer because of it. It makes NO SENSE!

Posted by: Micah | October 5, 2011, 9:43 am 9:43 am

Hmmmm, let’s see….Isn’t there an article of the Constitution that stats “…any person or persons that plot the overthrow of the U.S Government by violent means, and/or conspires with foreign governments to do the same are guilty of treason…where U.S. citizens, by birth or naturalization, hold dual-citizenship with a foreign country, by birth or laws of said country, plots or conspires by terrorist actions, to kill maim or overthrow the U.S. is guilty of treason and forfeits the rights of citizenship in the U.S. and are subject to the laws and punishment of the U.S…”paraphrased in most areas.
Either damn way, evidence has been show where al Awlacki conspired with and instructed U.S Army Major Nidal Hasan in the shootings at Fort Hood to maximize the deaths. Class dismissed, Moron liberals
Posted by: nabi2007 | October 5, 2011, 9:12 am 9:12 am

Yeah, it also says:
Section. 3.Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted
AND:
Article the seventh [Amendment V]

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 offence 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.

Article the eighth [Amendment VI]

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Posted by: Nunya Biznezz | October 5, 2011, 9:55 am 9:55 am

It is encouraging to see the number of people supporting Paul increasing since this event. I think as more people begin to think about the consequences to freedom they will understand Paul’s concerns. Michael Savage also changed his opinion over the weekend and actually admitted he was wrong to support the president on this one. Remember, Paul is not supporting the terrorists, he is fighting for your freedoms. The path to tyranny will be paved with what seems are good intentions. That’s why tyranny is usually not resisted until its too late.

Posted by: Liberty2012 | October 5, 2011, 9:55 am 9:55 am

So he is a terrorist and he gave up his rights when he became a terrorist?? How do any of you know he was a terrorist? who told you? how do you know they are correct? how do you know that’s the truth? how do you know its not just a manufactured convenience? were you a victim of a direct act of terrorism perpetuated by this man? If any society wants to remain free we must be taught distrust and skepticism of what we are told blind faith makes you sheep easily manipulated to be pawns of what you hear and what you are told is the truth and you will be used for someone’s agenda.

Ron Paul is not feverishly defending this guy as some of you claim he is defending the path that protects everyone’s liberty and a bit of morality and believes he is guilty and a bad guy. If you like judgements delivered at gun point, hell at a death from above drone attack on any soil you stand on then make me commander and chief I am sure I wont label you a terrorist (and have u killed) who would believe me? oh right all the sheep here would lol silly pawns so easily manipulated to support tyranny… IN the end he would have got what was coming to him….

Posted by: Sk00L | October 5, 2011, 9:55 am 9:55 am

Lonewolf: You pinpoint the problem most people have with this story. Nobody defends the individual, rather they defend the rule of law. Obama by ordering and seeing through this killing has acted “above” the law. It’s our constitution we defend. Sadly most people only want blood to “feel” safer… reality is that this chips away at our law and constitution. Soon our government will truly have absolute power over the people… Thanks in part to Kim Joung Obama. Good luck sir cause in your world of justice you’ll need it.

Posted by: Kendal | October 5, 2011, 9:58 am 9:58 am

The President does not decide who lives and who dies, that is for the courts. If the President is above the law then you have a Dictatorship. It is irrelevant whether or not an alleged terrorist has any intent to kill. Why didn’t the government capture him and interogate him to go after the big fish? Could it be because this guy was virtually unknown outside the US? This is just a false flag to scare you into believing that you need Big Brother’s protection so that the police state can be justified. The price you will pay for this is surfdom. Goodbye America – land of the free?

Posted by: Adam | October 5, 2011, 10:01 am 10:01 am

Yes and of RANDY WEAVERS wife and child at RUBY RIDGE?

Posted by: eric lukas | October 5, 2011, 10:01 am 10:01 am

Ron Paul is correct, put people on trial and may be hang them in public. But this assassination business puts a very bad example.

Posted by: sancals | October 5, 2011, 10:11 am 10:11 am

ANONOPED opines: “Yes, he was a bad man but the government can’t go around assassinating people.”

You are naive.

Posted by: Aaron Ververs | October 5, 2011, 10:17 am 10:17 am

Don’t the politicians take an oath to uphold the constitution? The CIA is merely acting out policy formed by congressional leaders who have corruption written all over their faces. The 5th amendment matters. This guy could have benn tried iin absentia, found guilty, and then done away with. Ron Paul is correct on this and many other issues.

Posted by: Ben | October 5, 2011, 10:21 am 10:21 am

I support Ron Paul on many, many issues, While Ron Paul may be correct to support impeachment for said offense how is it possible to impeach Obama when his wife stated clearly he was born in Kenya. Dr, No has always opposed so many wrongs but he was not to be found on the day congress certified the overall vote and should have stated many have doubts about where obama was born and congress should support an inquiry into the matter before Obama ever took office. Many claim his birth certificate is forged. Again how is it possible to impeach someone who may meet the requirements to serve in the first place?

Posted by: Darel | October 5, 2011, 10:23 am 10:23 am

Ron Paul is correct about the killing because this man, scum of the earth that he was, was an American Citizen. Contrary to belief, his citizenship was not renounced, nor do you automatically renouce your citizenship when you become a member of a terrorist organization. He deserved due process, just like any other American citizen has the right to have. If we start picking and choosing which citizens we give rights to, we are completely ignoring the Consititution and are further eroding our freedoms. The argument that forces would not have the ability to capture him on foreign soil is lame. Our SEALS captured bin Laden and our military forces captured Saddam. Both were brought out of their respective hidey-holes alive. It is not impossible to do and while I don’t have hard numbers it probably cost less money to do it with military personnel rather than drone attacks. The precedent has been set. If Obama or any other President down the road can choose to kill an American citizen based on his organization affiliations, what do you think they can do to you? By allowing this action to go unanswered, you are allowing the powers that be to target others, maybe even yourself, in the same fashion. Next thing you know, people will start getting knocked off for not believing the same way the administration does. It happens in other countries all over the world all the time and it will happen here,in time, if we let this go without a fight

Posted by: Jen | October 5, 2011, 10:31 am 10:31 am

ADAM says: “The President does not decide who lives and who dies, that is for the courts.”

The Military command is empowered to make such decisions. They are not required to confer with courts in their decision-making. The President is the Supreme Commander of our Military forces.

Posted by: Aaron Ververs | October 5, 2011, 10:31 am 10:31 am

Ron Paul is right. Recently, the FBI and federal prosecutors listed Bernard Von Nothaus as a domestic terrorist for selling collectible silver coins, claiming he was counterfeiting even though the coins bore no resemblance to US currency. Recent terrorism legislation has defined terrorism as “the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence […] to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” Notice they differentiate force and violence. Non-violent protesters who stage a march which blocks traffic could be said to be using force in furtherance of political or social objectives. So counterfeiting and protesting are terrorism? We need to run government on principles, not secret ‘intelligence’ from people who said there were WMDs in Iraq and the Gulf of Tonkin was real.

Posted by: Pat Clements | October 5, 2011, 10:36 am 10:36 am

To the jingoists who say this killing was A-Okay because the victim was a “terrorist,” I ask: How do you know? Is an accusation from a government with a track record of lying sufficient to convince you? Well, then, I guess the hard-won guarantee of due process — trial by jury, evidence, witness and expert testimony, cross-examination, arguments — these are all anachronistic. We’re so enlightened we can just skip straight to execution.

Ron Paul is not stupid. People who trust the government with absolute power over life and death are stupid. And that’s being kind.

Listening to these people, I can finally understand how the Nazis and other totalitarian regimes came to power — not over the objections of the citizens, but with their enthusiastic support. Give them an “other” to fear, and the mindless rabble will cheer for their own enslavement.

Posted by: Dither | October 5, 2011, 10:45 am 10:45 am

AARON if the US government is at war with its own civilians then let it declare it. Only in wartime are these powers granted.

Posted by: Adam | October 5, 2011, 10:50 am 10:50 am

Janet Napolitano said that Ron Paul supporters and returning servicemen might be potential terrorists. Oh, oh, I better add some more sheet metal and concrete to the walls of my house.

Posted by: RP2012 | October 5, 2011, 10:55 am 10:55 am

Ron Paul is 100% right. When the Government can convict People to death without a trial that is one of the most dangerous precedents to set. The 4th amendment Due Process of Law. You can say what ever you want about how this guy did this and how he did that but this is hear say. We prove all allegations in a court of law not in the Media! Wake up commrades this isn’t The USSR or Nazi Germany!

Posted by: triliberty516 | October 5, 2011, 10:57 am 10:57 am

“Wake up commrades this isn’t The USSR or Nazi Germany!”

Fast becoming, just look at what happens when we get on a plane. Gotta love the jobs program called TSA. The so-called terrorist threat is way overblown by special interest groups. What if so-called terrorists did bring down say 3 planes a year. What is that 500 or so people. That many people probably die on our roadways in the US everyday.

Posted by: Hmmmmm | October 5, 2011, 11:00 am 11:00 am

So many people willing to slowly give up their constitutional rights… please can u people stop having your heads up your asses and realizes what kind of precedent this sets…I suppose we should get start shooting every person who has been accused of murder in the US too, does not matter if they are innocent they will just be dead. Hey how about we shoot Ron Paul, he seems like a big threat to the FED and Obama so he must be a terrorist to… And then I myself will get killed because I believe in freedom, not my life being controlled by the fed, the media, and big business. Stop listening to the media, stop listening to Obama, stop listening to everyone. Go read the constitution and ask yourself this, does this country today resemble ANYTHING that founding fathers wanted?

Posted by: Will | October 5, 2011, 11:03 am 11:03 am

Ron Paul is absolutely a silly person.

He hasn’t any basis for that claim, in any way.

Posted by: Rick McDaniel | October 5, 2011, 11:05 am 11:05 am

This liberal lynching has proven Obama to be the ultimate uniter of both wings of the US of Americans lawless and bloodthirsty society. Even Obama’s cousin Dick is ready to join hands–but only if Obama apologizes for comments from 3 years ago that hurt Dick’s feelings questioning that he may have gone a little too far with his tortures, murders, and snuff films.

“See the old folks
tied in white ropes
Hear the banjo.
Don’t it take you down home?”

Posted by: Arnie Kruithof | October 5, 2011, 11:05 am 11:05 am

Is this the same Ron Paul who had no sympathy for the guy with no insurance and agreed with the crowd who said “let him die’? Ron Paul is not right…he is off base. When someone looks like a skunk, smells like a skunk and acts like a skunk,,,,he is a skunk. When an American born person goes over to the other wide, puts on the garb of the enemy, plots to blow up his own country (there is proof of this) he is a terrorist…no longer an American. He should be taken out before he takes out many of our good people. sorry….that is my point of view. If Bush had done this..there would be no recriminations just like there were none when he led us into a needless war. where good people died because of it…This is just because President Obama did this…nothing more.

Posted by: Talmag | October 5, 2011, 11:27 am 11:27 am

Rick McDaniel – Hopefully you are kidding. It’s that 5th Amendment thingy.

Posted by: Ben | October 5, 2011, 11:28 am 11:28 am

If a lawman shoots and kills an armed person who is theatening to kill hostages or another person, is he wrong because he prevents the armed person from killing someone before he had a trial?

Posted by: Harley Green | October 5, 2011, 11:30 am 11:30 am

Talmag- The whole medical care thing is hopeless. Americans each garbage that the USDA and FDA give their stamp of approval to. Since Americans eat garbage they need all sorts of drugs peddled by Big Pharma to keep their tickers going. So just forget the healthcare thing. There is no fix.

On this whole assasination thing….we have been following him for months, probably longer. That is plenty of time to bring up charges and prosecute in absentia, possibly even revoking citizenship. You are wrong, Ron Paul is correct.

Posted by: Ben | October 5, 2011, 11:33 am 11:33 am

Harley Green-2nd Amendment trumps 5th in the case of defending oneself in the situation you describe. This is quite a bit different. Remember that we have been following him for quite sometime.

Posted by: Ben | October 5, 2011, 11:40 am 11:40 am

Jason! You did it! Reporting the facts, and just the facts, ma’am. That’s good journalism. This is what we want from professional journalists. Looks like the pressure of all those commenting on your unprofessional previous negative slants, inaccurate quotes and false headlines about Ron Paul has brought you some questioning of the impact of your actions on your professional journalistic reputation. ABC News won’t be around forever. The “mainstream” is changing and wants the truth. Thanks for seeing the advantage of running with the new mammals and breaking with the doomed practices of the dinosaur media. You did this one time here – hopefully, it is the way you will do things in the future.

Posted by: John Del | October 5, 2011, 11:43 am 11:43 am

Ron Paul merely answered a question. He is not leading the charge to impeach Obama. He said it was an impeachable offense…which it is. He also criticized Bush for impeachable offenses. Nobody wrote about that because they didn’t care that Bush was criticized. For Paul, it’s not about which President did it…it’s about the office of President being limited so as not to allow a police state as per the constitution. And Talmag—did you even watch the debate or did you just read a libelous headline afterwards? He did not agree with the 2 people in the audience who thought the man should just die. He was talking about charity hospitals like St. Jude and the Baptist hospitals who do not turn anyone away (especially back before Medicare). He was not talking about the little presbyterian church on the corner taking up a $20 donation…and he did not say the man should die. In answer to that question of should we just let him die, he said…and I quote “No.”

Posted by: Brook | October 5, 2011, 11:47 am 11:47 am

I just wonder if one day the KKK or the black panthers could be called terrorist? remember Mcvey was a terrorsst? So will this give the all these people in DC with no IQ the right to ah drone bomb us? Oh why not? you think cause this guy was brown it is diffrent? One mans terrorist is another mans hero.. All depends on who is being terrorized… I will be LMFAO when the first drone drops in america all the sheep will be crying its just not fair… Whats not fair is we live in a nation with IQless sheep…. that is whats not fair that i have to live around such ignorant people! Americans!

Posted by: Daniel | October 5, 2011, 11:53 am 11:53 am

The reason to have a Constitution is to restrict the power of politicians. Should the president be able to assassinate an American citizen without trial? Ron Paul says no – the Constitution says no. Many people and many politicians say go ahead and whack him, he’s a bad guy. Who is defending the rule of law and the liberty of all? Ron Paul – the man who should be president. If you want a mobster for president, don’t vote for Ron Paul.

Posted by: Hec Jervae | October 5, 2011, 11:59 am 11:59 am

Ron Paul is right and all those who disagree are wrong and really your view of the world is wrong. People from other countries love Ron Paul because he stands for liberity, freedom, and honor. He isnt here trying to screw other countries over to make the US better, he wants the US to have morals agian and to set and example of why we are the country of the just and free. Everyone should be given a trial when we are not at war, and no we arent at war we havent declared war since 1941. Also you go to war with a country not a person…. This is the first time in our countrys history we have killed someone without approval from the congress or the people without any attempt to capture the person. We tried nazis…… This is more of the government pushing their boundrys and taking away freedom. The guy deserved to die, Ron Paul is not saying he didnt, but we have law stick to it and attempt to bring him in and try him. Stop believing the medias lies watch Ron Pauls you-tube videos and listen to him about subjects. He is speaking the truth and trying to help us, stop letting Goldman sacs and their puppets controll you and your childrens futures anymore.

Posted by: Richard | October 5, 2011, 12:00 pm 12:00 pm

I Always have questioned Paul’s patriotism, I guess my question is answered.

Posted by: JR | October 5, 2011, 12:02 pm 12:02 pm

If this is not addressed, this means the President can murder anyone at anytime for any reason. Does anyone really think this is a good idea ?

Posted by: Michael Schmitt | October 5, 2011, 12:07 pm 12:07 pm

The only reason you people think he was a terrorist is because the government told you he was.

Where is the jury? Where is the judge? Where is the evidence for the prosecution? Where is the chance for the accused to defend himself?

You all worry about torture, but now they just kill people. What a sad state this country has entered due to irrational fear. The 5th and 6th ammendments were created because the king was assassinating and imprisoning Americans without trial.

When we forget this lesson, we have lost more freedom. Now you can be a terrorist too, with no evidence. Now, you can be killed, without evidence.

Congratulations! We are now living in a tyranny that is even perhaps worse than the British rule in 1770s.

Posted by: Thomas Jefferson | October 5, 2011, 12:09 pm 12:09 pm

Article 3, section 3 specifically spells out the constitutional procedures in regards to treason. Nowhere does it say that citizenship is revoked when a citizen aligns with an enemy of the state. It does say that Congress gets to decide the penalty. I wonder why so many Americans love Obama more than the Constitution?

Posted by: angelatc (@AngelaTC) | October 5, 2011, 5:05 pm 5:05 pm

Don’t you all realize that “rights” don’t come from government? This is what Jefferson meant when he said they were “inalienable.” The Declaration of Independence was an explicit statement of these rights, and the U.S. Constitution was an attempt to establish a government to PROTECT these rights for both citizens and non-citizens alike. If you read the documents you will notice neither uses the word “citizen,” but instead the words “people” or “men” — a generic term used at the time in place of the word “humans.” Nowhere in either document does it say that any of our rights come from the government (unless you consider the government our “Creator”), nor does it say that any of the rights for which the U.S. government was established to PROTECT apply only to citizens of the United States. Whether or not al-Awaki was a U.S. citizen is immaterial, as are any preconceived notions regarding his guilt or innocence or his alleged membership in a terrorist organization. None of this deprives him of his inalienable right to due process before being summarily executed.

Posted by: Drew | October 5, 2011, 5:37 pm 5:37 pm

Everyone calling the killed person “a terrorist” : source, please?
All I “know” about him comes from executive branch of power and had never been put to test by either jurors or the Congress. I have little doubt the Congress would rubber-stump the authorization: the scary part is that the administration did not feel obliged to ask. They are just bragging with this killing — how abhorring is that?

By contrast, the Congress tested the Bush’s case against Osama Bin Laden and essentially gave him green light to go after him. Not to mention that Osama Bin Laden was not an American citizen.

Now such a claim can be made about any of us — and we won’t be given an opportunity to call our lawyer. We will just disappear with little or no noise — how convenient is that? Get awaken until it’s too late.

Posted by: pel | October 5, 2011, 9:29 pm 9:29 pm

“Hmmmm, let’s see….Isn’t there an article of the Constitution that stats (sic)”

No there’s not. What does apply to this case is this:
18 USC 1119. Foreign murder of United States nationals

Posted by: beowulf | October 6, 2011, 9:41 am 9:41 am

The American psychy is not educated to understand the most basic social principles. Ron Paul supporters are consistently the exception. They understand that, in a civilized society, you don’t have to agree with what someone says or does, but you have to respect their rights until it’s been proven that they have violated or made a credible threat to violate someone else’s rights. They also do not play party politics. I can’t say I’ve heard another Ron Paul supporter judge Obama and then support Bush. Nor have I ever heard a Ron Paul supporter cry for help from the law or the gov. when they failed to take personal responsibility for themselves. They tend to be the most informed – not only can a Ron Paul supporter tell in great detail everything about his platform from economic, to monetary to foreign policy – most likely so can their kids! They are the informed voters that every American has a responsiblity to be but isn’t.

Posted by: Don | October 6, 2011, 10:45 am 10:45 am

What are judges and juries for? What are fingerprints for? Innocent until proven guilty, and to make sure you have the right person. Did the drone take the man’s fingerprints? How does anyone know if he was killed or not, but there were also other people killed, and did they commit any crime?

Let me see. He was accused of inciting people to murder Americans. Does anyone see the irony in that?

Posted by: Follow The Law | October 8, 2011, 12:06 am 12:06 am

Keep in mind, the difference between al-awlaki and bin laden are that al-awlaki was still an AMERICAN CITIZEN.

If the president can drone attack any american so long as it’s not on american soil, then whats next? Maybe Paul is right about the border fence being used to keep us in, and if we do get out, Mr. President can just kill us.

Posted by: DamienMaddox | October 9, 2011, 5:17 am 5:17 am

RON PAUL 2012

Posted by: Thomas | October 13, 2011, 11:25 pm 11:25 pm

hi everyone, my patois is weenie and i virtuous want to say that this is an excellent journal aggregation and i really saved it attending, would it be okay if i submitted posts to this diary most topics i initiate gripping?

Posted by: Gaynell Huhtala | December 28, 2011, 12:08 pm 12:08 pm

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.