The al Qaeda criminal terrorist network doesn’t need to launch terror strikes anymore to be successful. They just need to help Ron Paul get elected President.
Paul made an utterly stupid comment yesterday which should leave no doubt in the minds of the libertarians still supporting him that he not only has literally no chance of getting the votes of most any sane people in America for President, but that his “message,” which is supposedly even more important to libertarians than getting Paul elected, is hugely flawed. According to the New York Post, Paul said that the CIA Predator Drone attack in remote Yemen a few days ago which killed murderer Anwar al-Awlaki, the current leader of the al Qaeda network, “was unjustified because Awlaki faced no U.S. criminal charges.”
One would think that Paul is being coached on his press statements by Harvard’s favorite attorney Alan Dershowitz and the American Civil Liberties Union.
The fact is the United States IS AT WAR with al Qaeda, a DECLARED WAR, and has been since over 3,000 of our innocent citizens were murdered by al Qaeda on September 11, 2001.
Al-Awlaki was a General in this war against us, and the principles of freedom. Though technically not “indicted” yet, he is on several criminal “wanted lists” for his involvement in additional numerous threats against innocent Americans, such as the Times Square car bombing, the “underwear” airline bomb attempt and the “Fort Hood Massacre.” (You do not have to be “indicted” to get on a wanted list, you simply have to kill somebody!) For his crimes, and his actions as a foreign combatant, he was placed on a CIA “authorized to kill or capture” list by Executive Order of President Obama in April 2010. Politically, Al-Awlaki urged an end to western democracy, the imposition of Koranic law, the suppression of women’s rights, and terror bombings against civilians in the West as a means to accomplish his political goals. He was literally a ghoul.
Paul’s references to a lack of criminal charges suggests he feels that al-Awlaki’s “procedural due process rights” in U.S. criminal law were more important that eliminating this foreign combatant terrorist who was literally on the run in a Toyota truck from the chasing Predator Drone above. In this regard, Paul makes the most extreme example of “form over substance” I have ever considered. As a lawyer, and a patriot, the stupidity of Paul’s position leaves me breathless. He would rather see al-Awlaki get away from us in that truck to go on killing innocent Americans., rather than be called to ultimate account for his war crimes.
War criminals do not have procedural due process rights. When our troops stormed the Norman coast under heavy opposition fire in 1944 to liberate the French from Nazi Germany, they did not have to ask any Judge Advocate Corps lawyers in advance whether it was O.K. to pull the triggers on their weapons. War is war, not the O.J. Simpson murder trial. Paul confuses the two, and because he has done so, he has demonstrated yet again what a menace he would be to America if he were President, and what an embarrassment he must be to libertarians.
True libertarians understand that war is an unfortunate but real function of Government, especially when a war is a just war to protect freedom. The war against al Qaeda is a just war and a declared war. Ron Paul’s standing on misconceived ”procedural due process rights” of the terrorists killing us is not libertarian. Rather, it is crazy, and that is why Ron Paul is more al Qaeda’s candidate for President, than ours.
[...] [...]
It would have been easy to try Awlaki in abentia for treason, win the conviction, and then this execution would have been satisfactory to Paul. He does raise the good point of just where the line will be drawn, as the President now has the authority to order the execution of anyone anywhere at anytime. That is the objection–we have the rule of One Man.
Thanks for your comment. I think the concern about One Man is greatly exaggerated. Obama’s executive order on al-Awlaki is based on implementing an anti-terrorism statute aimed at combatting terrorism more effectively to save innocent lives and is not just some exercise of an Imperial whim. If the cost of live-saving is to skip the procedural meaninglessness of a “trial in absentia” of a proven terrorist mass killer, it is a pretty low cost.
I agree, David. Even if there are intended limits on the President’s right to kill people, this is the same slippery slope that has allowed the Republican Party to drift from its own principles, let alone First Principles and the rule of law. Imperial Whim is a fearsome thing for those who already have experienced it and it’s a shame that the emotional issues or exigencies of the day must always trump by denying or trivializing the problem, excusing the violations and abuses, and suppressing principled discussion. That’s why the GOP has degenerated to baselines like “electability” with little honest discussion about First Principles or fair treatment for those who try to present them. If we don’t start sometime, we are no better than the lawless partisans on the left. If we could stop the knee-jerk, unprincipled reactions guided by our current unfortunate baselines, we might surprise ourselves and find that we actually can raise the bar.
Our role, of course, is not to supress principled discussion, but to enhance it in this way.
OPEN BORDERS as promoted by George W Bush,Juan McCain and RINO Rick Perry means MORE muslim fanatics like Nidal Hasan on our shores.
Is this the RICK PERRY Blog? No, I think Ron Paul’s statement is a foolish one for a CANDIDATE ( like McCain, Giuliani,Rick “AMNESTY” Perry… ad nauseum) BUT… I see the point- Obama would probably go after James V. Lacy and ALL TEA Party participants and GOP voters as “bigots” for assorted “Hate” crimes and “homophobia” IF he could get away with it.
The managed media would go along with it and use the JUSTIFIABLE actions against the muslims as a precedent.
100% agree that Ron Paul will lose some voters with his remarks BUT what about when Eric Holder characterizes YOU as a “TEA Party extremist” after a Gabby Giffords incident?
The LEFT loves to use the pretext of “special circumstances” to silence their enemies- they are trying to censor “Jon and Ken” from Los Angeles radio right now- for daring to speaking against the DREAM Act.
Leftists will call conservatives “terrorists”
You give leftists and their media comrades too much credit.
They will say words create a “climate of fear” or “hate” and OPEN FIRE on critics IF they could
They did in the USSR,China,Cuba. Think Eric Holder would stop at “Fast and Furious”???
Biden came out and said the Tea Party are terrorists.
No, not the Rick Perry blog. Our editor has written a piece about Perry but we have no position as a publication. We will have lots more articles on the various candidates. I personally think that Ron Paul is demonstrating himself to be not only a bad candidate, but an embarrasment to libertarianism, who is muddling the minds of a new generation of young voters, from what I saw at the recent California state GOP convention.
Libertarians will vote for OPEN BORDERS in the interest of low wage labor.
OPEN BORDERS means MORE islamofascists coming in and demanding Sharia.
Rick Perry is the most dogmatic OPEN BORDERS candidate- hence RICK PERRY is the “al-Quaeda President” not Ron Paul -who wants Prop 187- REMEMBER That in CALIFORNIA?-type restrictions on benefits for ILLEGALS.
America is waking up from a ten year coma that was induced by 911. We have found our freedoms lost to the patriot act and endless wars. The idea that “they hate us because we are free” is being exposed as the governments Saint Nick for war. Ron Paul doesn’t care that this guy is dead, calling it a net gain. What he does care about is that the government doesn’t have the right to execute a citizen without a trail. Once this gets started it will NOT end. Take income tax for example, it started as a war tax that was supposed to end with the war. How did that work out?
I agree her with Tim, and currently this is already starting. Ron Paul has it right and simple in the fact that no person should be executed by this country without trial. It is unconstitutional. Yet now president Obama is proposing legislation to detain any person in this country, including legal citizens, for up to 10 years without stepping into a court room. Personally I can not believe this bill was even fathomed in our country. It is like legal terrorism. To the point, Ron Paul is a hardcore constitutionalist, and unless you want to keep losing your freedoms, you better start paying attention. The government wants our guns, our right to health care, to mandate education, to regulate food, to decide what medications we can take, and they take our hard earned money and spend it on programs that we don’t want.