News & Analysis
Ron Paul Is Out of the Mainstream on Awlaki Killing
Ron Paul (left) Continues His Controversial Comments ... Ron Paul shows no sign of backing off his controversial views, a trait which endears him to his admirers but makes him less acceptable to more orthodox Republicans. – US News and World Report
Dominant Social Theme: If you are not orthodox, you are not presidential material.
Free-Market Analysis: Wow ... US News and World Report just posted an article explaining that because libertarian congressman Ron Paul, now running for US President, found last week's killing of Anwar al-Awlaki unconstitutional and reprehensible, he's "outside" of the normal GOP perspective.
Paul has stated a position, actually, that is not outside of mainstream punditry at the moment. The supposed killing of Awlaki (now forcefully denied by those close to him) has raised profound questions about the legitimacy of the Obama administration.
The questions are clear-cut. If Awlaki was guilty of a crime, he should have been charged and a man-hunt launched to capture him to "bring him to justice." But because he was beyond American law, the administration decided to kill him instead. The issue is one of US constitutional justice. An American citizen has a right to due process. Since Awlaki was not charged with a crime, who decided that he ought to be killed – and for what?
Awlaki was said to have aided al-Qaeda in its propaganda efforts, thus helping in a war effort against American fighters. But since he was never charged or convicted, the statements of the administration regarding Awlaki are opinions, not legally binding.
Apparently, Obama received a Justice Dept. memo giving him legal cover to target and kill Awlaki. But increasingly, the US Justice Dept. seems to be justifying all sorts of extra-constitutional methodologies. The erosion of rights in the US is not alarming anymore – it is an unrolling catastrophe. Not only that, but mainstream media apologists continue to justify what is occurring. Here's some more from the article:
The Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate is now raising the prospect that it might have been an impeachable offense for President Obama to order the death of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen who U.S. officials say was a terrorist plotter.
Paul, a libertarian, didn't directly endorse the impeachment of Obama. But when asked at a Manchester, N.H. town hall meeting yesterday about last week's killing of the al Qaeda leader, Paul said the impeachment of Obama would be "possible" and he wanted to know more about the case. Paul added that the killing was a step toward "tyranny" and said, "I put responsibility on the president because this is obviously a step in the wrong direction. We have just totally disrespected the Constitution."
Paul's comments are the latest example of how his views on foreign policy and national security seem outside the normal positions taken by GOP politicians. No other Republican presidential candidate has opposed the targeted killing of al-Awlaki even though he was an American citizen and did not receive due process.
Some GOP candidates, including former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota have endorsed the killing.
What's astonishing about this squib of an article is the way it glibly announces a new standard of rationality for GOP congressmen. It is the "get along to go along" standard. Paul's comments are the "latest example of how his views on foreign policy and national security seem outside the normal positions taken by GOP politicians."
The implication is that because Paul's stated beliefs are not shared by other GOP "leaders," his enunciated positions are somehow less valid. If others shared them, presumably Paul's perspectives would be seen as more legitimate. Lost in this formulation is the idea that Paul's ideas are drawn from the US Constitution and that his positions are not subject to his popularity with others, inside his party or out.
The article also states that, "No other Republican presidential candidate has opposed the targeted killing of al-Awlaki even though he was an American citizen and did not receive due process." This is supposed to show us that Ron Paul is marginalized? The article should be focusing on the lack of due process rather than Ron Paul's congruence or lack of it, with his opponents.
That such a specious and even vicious perspective could appear in a mainstream US journal is far more of a comment on the state of American journalism today than Ron Paul's views on American justice – perspectives that seem absolutely justified, as a matter of fact. The mainstream media is a relentless carrier of the meme of the Great American Middle Class.
Most Americans are moderate, the US media reports over and over. Thus if Ron Paul is out of step with the moderate middle there is something wrong with HIS views, not with the electorate or the views of other candidates that hew to such perspectives. Lost in this babble is the important point that moderation and fundamental civil morality may have little or nothing to do with each other.
Conclusion: In this case, unfortunately, US media wants to conflate moderation with murder. The lawlessness of the American executive branch continues to expand and apologists for its malevolence grow bolder every day.
Posted by LibertyBelle on 10/06/11 01:47 PM
Geez Louise... love your mind Ross!
Posted by LibertyBelle on 10/06/11 01:31 PM
Thank you, Robert and all of you for letting me vent... It is very comforting to know I have all of you here at the DB, who understand, who have not lost the ability to think and look beyond the veil of propaganda!Ifthe thinkers can reach double digits we will win this.
There have ALWAYS been sheep to herd, that is not new. Truth is POWER,force is not, it is inheriantly weak as it is based upon lies and deception, we will win this eventually for we are a ceaseless, and relentless for we have the true POWER.
Posted by rossbcan on 10/06/11 06:57 AM
"non-uniformed combatants are not entitled to Geneva Convention standards."
know this is not your comment, but, IMHO, there is a far better (more realistic) interpretation to this assertation:
This is because states are myopic, with selfish interests as opposed to agents and employees of those who pay for them, the people. States have slipped the leash of control. So, non-state actors, in state's opinion have no rights because, only states have rights. By arrogantly decreeing that "non-uniformed combatants" have no rights is to declare them "non-human", devoid of all protection of the law, to be dealt with as any other vermin.
States have now adopted the "wisdom" of Hitler and the Nazis, decreeing a final solution for those "who are not with us".
Be afraid, be very afraid, hopefully, enough to fight THEM.
Posted by John Danforth on 10/05/11 11:08 PM
Thanks for showing us what you are made of.
Phone me up when Congress declares war with Yemen, will you?
Oh, and let me know when you convince the accused to come out and stand in front of your gun like a good little soldier.
Now maybe you really do have a reason to fear people over there. Having relatives get killed for the crime of being nearby tends to incite murderous rage that lasts for generations.
Enjoy your fear.
Posted by sparky on 10/05/11 09:21 PM
Ron Paul's response to this issue citing Constitutional concerns makes him more valid not less. However, the bigger issue is why the "Mainstream" media is resorting to smearing him now that ignoring him blew up in their collective faces. Is it perhaps because he is now consistently polling in the top three, and ahead of Michelle Bachmann and could actually win?
Posted by Dave Jr on 10/05/11 09:08 PM
The US has been living with the treat of terrorism from the very beginning. It lead to the alien and sedition acts.
Click to view link
Posted by RF on 10/05/11 07:27 PM
I clearly agree the lawlessness will return to haunt the citizenry of tis country, in the same manner ,no doubt... ... Much of the history of human kind has been built on this sort of intrieuge, and death have been a constant in warfare states since the beginning of time... they always have murdered without decree-rumor has it Bill Clinton has a list-where is the cry for them??-? Why does this shock you so? Have you not read history?? I am not comfortable with it at all, Presidential powers in a state of war are broader than known..The diplomacy speaks for our times... I believe our current administration is leading us into a deep chasm-- I'm not sure the next will fare any better..
Posted by free on 10/05/11 05:11 PM
Ron Paul is an American treasure.
Posted by robert wheeless on 10/05/11 04:07 PM
Have faith, the DB may belatedly issue an commendation for a well thought-out and delivered response.
Posted by robert wheeless on 10/05/11 03:43 PM
US News and World Report!!! Enough said when you mention this government spin rag sheet. No need to waste your time, albeit someone must be buying this socialist crap. I thought DB's dialetical analysis of the article to be quite good.
Posted by jjkorman1 on 10/05/11 03:26 PM
Lest we forget, non-uniformed combatants are not entitled to Geneva Convention standards. They are without rights on any battlefield, and may executed or capturedd at will.
That the left and other weaklings consider to give them any rights is in contravention to all war policies since the 17th Century.
The left and its hypocritical hanger ons have transformed our language to destroy this civilization.
Ig Al Awaki were a real soldier he would have come to the battlefield and exposed himself to the risk associated with that effort. He like the cowardly Bin Laden hid out and deserved their fates for the cowards that they were.
Procrustes at Large
Posted by LibertyBelle on 10/05/11 02:20 PM
Thanks for the link... I enjoyed the read and that he, too saw this as the death of America.
Posted by AFC999 on 10/05/11 12:54 PM
"but makes him less acceptable to more orthodox Republicans"
... and the real problem is that those who've decided that they are "Republicrats" and "Demoplicans" just can't get over their arrogance that they are the only "right" thinkers on the planet. And look where their "orthodox[y]" has gotten us!!
Those who dun Representative Paul for his statements continue to misunderstand, or misrepresent, WHY he says those things. There is a rule of law, and a rule of intl law, that MUST BE FOLLOWED if you and all US citizens, and indeed the citizens of the world, can hope to be allowed to live to enjoy the liberties that should be ours and that were elucidated by our forefathers.
We all know "evil" people we'd love to see wiped off the face of the earth (being God-like in our knowledge of exactly who those people are, right?) and are convinced the world would be a better place should they be. Hmmmmm... who gets to decide? Suppose someone who knows you considers YOU to be on that list?
I for one find your statement about Ron Paul's NOT being "orthodox" as a deep compliment to the man. Thank God for him... what a relief that it is obvious that he is different from the rest of the political gray suits (and dresses... or is blue better for winning votes?) that parade and sell their "orthodoxy" to the press and the sheeple people for votes, yet are for the most part cookie cutter clones of what we've already had that have failed miserably and were "chosen" by the elites to run simply b/c they could count on their "orthodoxy"... ie, not "rocking the boat."
Ron Paul is one who WILL and PLANS TO rock the boat!! And he is the ONLY one with a plan that has any chance of bringing a change that could possibly, by the grace of God, turn us away from what otherwise would appear to be the unavoidable cliff overlooking the rocks of oblivion for this country far below. jt
Posted by oldman67 on 10/05/11 12:52 PM
This is from the book The Empire Has No Clothes. Our founders believed that a system of checks and balances would work because the president would assert his prerogatives and members of Congress would push back by defending that instutition's powers. Very few memembers of Congress however, stand up for institutional prerogatives. Instead they are more concerned about their re-election. They know when the president sends troops into battle-wheather the reason is good or not the public usally rallies to support him. This was the case in Iraq and Kuwait. Click to view link
Reply from The Daily Bell
Thanks. There's the little matter of the FBI and wiretapping. The US founding fathers conceived of neither, nor a technocratic Congress of sociopaths who are frightened of their own shadow, given what the FBI can do to them ...
Posted by rossbcan on 10/05/11 12:40 PM
"'memo' saying it's 'legal' is SECRET"
Trust us, we're JustUs...
Posted by John Danforth on 10/05/11 12:37 PM
"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;... "
This is a test. The test is whether they can get away with murder or not. There's no 'interpretation' needed here. No exceptions.
Whether the guy was guilty or deserved to die is beside the point. The bare fact is that the guy was murdered based on an accusation and a PR campaign.
Those who excuse this are telling you something very fundamental about their basic life philosophy. If you want to know why people reported on their neighbors who hid Jews in their attics in WWII Germany, how it is that people could do such a thing, here it is. In your face. That tells me all I need to know about a person. I remember seeing this, with horror, in the reaction to the burning of the children at Waco, complete with FLIR video showing snipers shooting at the exit while the fire burned. "They deserved it." These people are demonstrating to you what kind of a threat they are. Make what you will of it.
Oh, by the way, DB, I think you forgot to mention that the 'memo' saying it's 'legal' is SECRET. Secret? WTF??
Click to view link
Posted by gvanear on 10/05/11 12:33 PM
["Truth is treason in the empire of lies"
-Dr Ron Paul ]
I like this conservative line better than the longer line by Orwell.
"In a time of deceit, telling the truth is revolutionary"
Posted by rossbcan on 10/05/11 12:08 PM
FYI, Paul Craig Roberts did an excellent essay on this topic:
Click to view link
Its a good thing these matters do not require intelligence to sort out, just sufficient suffering.
Posted by rossbcan on 10/05/11 11:55 AM
"apologists for its malevolence grow bolder every day."
most likely because not to "go along, to get along" results in a career hit. We are not hearing what they REALLY think from many public mouthpieces. For certain, once the winds of fortune change, they will all do "mea culpa's" and start manipulating for the "new boss". To go along provides systemic opportunities. Not a cognent thought that destroying the Constitution and "rule of law" is to destroy the system dependent upon the pretexts it is based.
The suckers have fallen for their own propaganda...
The possibility also exists that Ron Paul is being intentionally marginalized, just to get him elected by the majority whom he resonates with. Of course, the hope is that he will preside over a collapsing union and take the blame, "proving", once and for all that "freedom and free-enterprise CANNOT WORK".
Posted by LibertyBelle on 10/05/11 11:19 AM
... on September 30, 2011.
And I am still grieving. Americans I speak to, who support this unconstitutional, usurption of power by the president..err King, have justified his actions by explaining to me,in rage or ever so slowly and condescendingly, that, the Constitution does not apply here as he was an enemy combatant or the founding fathers had no "concept" of terrorism!
Excuse me? What about the Jewish Zealots or Guy Fawkes or The "Reign of Terror" during the French Revolution -- the Barbary Powers that the founders lived through. Hello! the term "terrorism" was coined from this time. And given all this the founders created the most sublime Constitution created by man.
It would appear that both conservatives and liberals believe that the Constitution is a living document after all.
Additionally, I get this response: "... The most important thing is to get them first to keep America safe and we need to use this punishment as a deterrent... ".
So, I am responding, ever so slowly and condescendly, that maybe we need to remember that force creates counter force, and we need to stop and critically analyze what has just occured through the lens of logic:
In the process of Obama targeting and killing this one man, he also killed, the day before, two untargeted people, in a missed attempt on Alwaki's life. The next day, they did hit him (now a maybe) along with the man unlucky enough to be in his proximity. So, a total of four people are killed to get this one man. What do you believe will be the reaction of the friends, associates and families of these four men? Will they love America for it's justness? Will they decide that terrorism is a bad idea? Or have we just created the motivation for a new terrorist cell, of now very angry people, hell bent on revenge? Perhaps many of these people had never before considered becoming terrorists, but this has now motivated them to act. Has this punishment deterred, or advanced terrorism? Is it possible, by this act we are now less safe -- the very opposite of what we intended (or are being sold) as the outcome?
I am in shock and disbelief that they applaude the loss of 800 years of good men and women dying so they could have those rights... Good bye Magna carta, good bye habeus corpus, hello King Obama, the despot. The masses who thirst for revenge, in ingorance,anger and fear are not only forging the chains of their own slavery, they forge mine too... and I am angry.