War in my statement is a general statement to any combat against a group of individuals who wish to militarily destroy America. What was the point of that question; I believe my statement was quite clear. Dr Paul is NOT infallible.
Not Helping His Case-
- Thread starter returningliberty
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
War in my statement is a general statement to any combat against a group of individuals who wish to militarily destroy America. What was the point of that question; I believe my statement was quite clear. Dr Paul is NOT infallible.
SpeedRacer
Well-Known Member
If nothing else, I respect Ron Paul for sticking to his beliefs, even though he knows good and well it goes against popular opinion. I can count the number of politicians that are willing to do that on one thumb.
I'm as happy as anyone when one of these terrorists is blown to smitherenes. However, our laws and constitutions are in place for a reason. People want to bend the rules when it works in their favor, but cry when they are bent the other way.
I'm as happy as anyone when one of these terrorists is blown to smitherenes. However, our laws and constitutions are in place for a reason. People want to bend the rules when it works in their favor, but cry when they are bent the other way.
jimdana1942
oldtimer
Personally, I think if America assassinates someone who is a dire enemy of Americans, our Govt. should be quiet about it and not broadcast it to the world and act all giddy about it. Keep it hush hush and just go on and do what we gotta do.
You can't always catch someone you are after, you just have to get them anyway you can, even if that means drone strikes.
We have an even bigger enemy of America and that is Iran. We should use B-2's on them.
But no, I ain't a RP supporter because of his whimpy foreign policy ideas.
You can't always catch someone you are after, you just have to get them anyway you can, even if that means drone strikes.
We have an even bigger enemy of America and that is Iran. We should use B-2's on them.
But no, I ain't a RP supporter because of his whimpy foreign policy ideas.
If we don't start talking about why they attacked us how are we gonna change anything the past 10 years haven't worked out so great. I'm sorry not everybody thinks it is a religious war. He does not blame America for 911 he is questioning the foreign policy of the people running the country. Since when is questioning the government actions crazy. Why does real discussion on issues scare people seem most would rather the reality tv he said she said crap we been getting.
With no real or dependaple info for the average citizen we have no capability to judge whether foreign actions are good or bad. We are told doing unconstitutional things are the only WAY. and we have no real info that we can trust with which to judge
FWIW...close the borders and seal them with the military and STFO of other countries. We have the ability to reach out and touch any one on earth ( as proven ) why not leave others alone till they give us a reason ??
I don't call 911 a reason btw, there are still too many questions about who what and where unanswered, it was not directly nation sponsored, the perps were dead...yet we bombed the **** out of A Stan ( what we are told were " training camps " )
Foreign poicy is a total mess, if someone wants to come in and rewrite it I'd say give 'em a chance. Lets see what they have.
BUT what president would NOT bomb somedambody after an event like 911 ??
FWIW...close the borders and seal them with the military and STFO of other countries. We have the ability to reach out and touch any one on earth ( as proven ) why not leave others alone till they give us a reason ??
I don't call 911 a reason btw, there are still too many questions about who what and where unanswered, it was not directly nation sponsored, the perps were dead...yet we bombed the **** out of A Stan ( what we are told were " training camps " )
Foreign poicy is a total mess, if someone wants to come in and rewrite it I'd say give 'em a chance. Lets see what they have.
BUT what president would NOT bomb somedambody after an event like 911 ??
Hate to throw a monkey wrench into the mix. Technically, al-awlaki was de-facto, no longer a US citizen.
defacto surrender of a citizenship....
8 USC 1481.
a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(7) committing any act of TREASON against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or BEARING ARMS AGAINST, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy WAR against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
No harm, no foul.
defacto surrender of a citizenship....
8 USC 1481.
a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(7) committing any act of TREASON against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or BEARING ARMS AGAINST, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy WAR against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.
No harm, no foul.
He is a wimp because he wants to abide by the Constitution? You are just fine with us entering any country we want with drones and blowing people up? What happened to sovereignty? You would change your mind if the drones were flying over your house or if China was here attacking people that claimed were terrorists.
Nobody says abiding by the constitution is what we're against. You lump everything together when we're only talking about ONE part of his platform. YOU may believe that somewhere in teh constitution that it says we can't bomb out enemies because it violates their territorial rights. YOU may believe there is some specific verbage in written in the constitution that says what exactly a declaration of war must state. YOU may believe that the constitution states how we are to handle enemy combatants whether they were born overseas or right here. These may be YOUR beliefs but they are not all of ours. We can have legitimate differences in opinion of how our foreign policy should be handled but it does not make us some Washington and Jefferson hating constitutional shredding liberals. Most people on this board agree with 90% of what Dr Paul says, we just don;t agree on one policy. Instead of trying to attack everyone how about we just stick to having an honest, open discussion and where we have legitimate differences agree to disagree and stay focused on the real enemies of this nation who we both disagree with 80+% of the time. We have a real enemy that is actively destroying our Country from within, they are they ones we must stop. How we fight our wars will not destroy us but the acts of teh PROGRESSIVES in BOTH parties can and eventually will. I'm not trying to pick on you personally, you were just the last Paul postonce I have reached my boiling point.
Once again, lets stay focused on teh issues which unite us, those areas which are leading us to destruction, and work out our differences in the less important (at least in terms of our liberty) once Obama and the RINOs are out of office.
Had he been convicted in any court ? I'm just asking .
He was clearly an enemy combatant that was attempting to kill americans. As a police officer if my life or teh life of another person is in danger I will carry out the death penalty against a bad guy without a trial. The same concept is going on in war. This is not a perfect argument but I believe it gets the point across. The man admitted he was out to destroy America and her allies. During the revolutionary war as well as the civil war you had "americans" being killed by american soldiers in a war. No different here.
I don't know. Possibly a court martial or military tribunal. The statute allows military trial. Such could very well not be made public.
I think we should also bear in mind that the Geneva Conventions don't even apply to non-uniformed irregulars, saboteurs or spies.
Last edited:
if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction
A guy has a gun pointed at you and says, 'I am going to kill you.' Assault, yes or no. Wait until he kills you to defend yourself?
And for all the sticklers. Adversaries declare jihad (WAR, by their definition) on you. Do you actually contend that absent a declaration by Congress, we're not really at war, so it'll be okay to just ignore them.
I'm as much of a strict Constitutionalist as any of you, more than many. But, someone famous once said its not a suicide pact. If we are destroyed by a technicality, it goes away anyhow.
And for all the sticklers. Adversaries declare jihad (WAR, by their definition) on you. Do you actually contend that absent a declaration by Congress, we're not really at war, so it'll be okay to just ignore them.
I'm as much of a strict Constitutionalist as any of you, more than many. But, someone famous once said its not a suicide pact. If we are destroyed by a technicality, it goes away anyhow.
Last edited:
if a six year old child tells you that he's going to kill you... death penalty?
