Ron Paul admits he would not have ordered the bin Laden kill

[Deist1965]

What if bin Laden had been in Afghanistan? would we have violated their national sovereignty in an attempt to get him. Oh wait we did do that!!! The "Authority for Use of Military Force" which Ron Paul voted for gave the President the Authority to go after bin Laden no matter where he was hidding. So shut your pie hole Dr. No!!!

[jneil2007]

I think the whole "war on terror" is bullshit. Paul is still my guy. But let's say bin Laden really did it. We should leave Iraq and Afghanistan. We should end foreign aid and quit bombing Libya and Yemen. And if we capture or kill a criminal we shouldn't bomb that country bc Pakistan had nothing to do with 911. If China put their military here looking for a criminal we wouldn't go for that at all. Be honest with yourselves.

[jesbeard]

"Admits" he would not have ordered bin Laden's murder? ADMITS? Obama has been very, very careful to AVOID admitting that he DID order bin Laden's murder. No one is questioning but that the United States could have and should have taken him into custody and brought him back here for trial, and if convicted and sentenced then also for execution. And no one would dispute but that if he resisted and the only way to take him was dead, then fine. But Obama ordered his murder, and THAT was illegal

[samuelwcordrey1]

@jesbeard illegal?!?! We are at war! should we be sorry for killing the germans or the japs in WWII. or the Brits in the Revolutionary war. Holy snot balls. He's not a bank embezzeler he is the enemy.

[jesbeard]

@samuelwcordrey1 If you defend Obama's order to have bin Laden killed based on your argument that the US is at war, you first need to establish that we are at war. The Constitution is very clear about who can put our nation at war, and that is Congress, and that requires Congress to pass a Declaration of War, which last happened in 1941. bin Laden could have been captured, but instead he was assassinated. That is illegal under the law of this nation or under international law.

[samuelwcordrey1]

@jesbeard It was a battle situation. They were shooting at us and we were shooting at them. They difference is our military is awesome, and apparently they weren't. The constitution demands an approval by congress for the use of the military. Never requires a certain wording our standard formal declaration, and an approval to use whatever force necessary to fight the war on terror is what we got.

[jesbeard]

@samuelwcordrey1 No. When a Seal shot bin Laden to death, bin Laden was unarmed. The idea that it was a "battle situation" is a total distortion. According to the official accounts of what happened, NO ONE fired at the Seals once they entered the house. It was simply murder, and Obama ordered it. The Constitution requires a declaration of war. The "Authorization for Use of Force" never even uses the word "war." You also can not fight a "war on terror" -- terror is a tactic.

[Deist1965]

@jesbeard what is "using military force"? Dropping bombs, Army Rangers taking airfields, marines taking cities, to remove the Taliban regime from power because they were affiliated and haboring bin Laden and his terrorist organization. Is that not a War? A War by any other name.....

[jesbeard]

@samuelwcordrey1 You also posted that the Constitution only applies to citizens, though you then apparently took that down. You need to read your Constitution. Nothing in the 5th Amendment ban on taking life without due process of law even suggests that it only apply to citizens. Nothing.

[Deist1965]

@jesbeard bin Laden and Awlaki were killed under due process of law!!! The Congress voted in favor of giving the President the authority to use military force against nations, organizations, or persons responsible for 9/11 or nations, organizations. persons who habor terrorists in an effort to prevent future terrorists attacks. The resolution (AUMF) became law on Sept. 18, 2001.

[jesbeard]

@Deist1965 Deist, there was no "process" at all. If Congress passes legislation which a president signs into law, and the legislation is itself clearly unconstitutional, can that legislation give to the president power or authority which the Constitution clearly denies? The AUMF can not give to the president power denied under the Constitution, such as having a US citizen murdered without a sentence, a conviction, a trial, or even an indictment.

[jneil2007]

@samuelwcordrey1 He is saying we shouldn't bomb Pakistan killing innocent people and send their government billions in foreign aid. How would you feel if LA was bombed by China if they were looking for a criminal that killed Chinese people? Or would you rather have the Chinese work with our government to capture him, and kill him if necessary.

[samuelwcordrey1]

@jneil2007

1. we aren't bombing Pakistan

2. we don't hide terrorist

3. he's not a criminal he is an enemy.

4. the wheel man is just as culpable as the bank-robber.

5. We didn't bomb a city we took a compound they were hiding from us with expert precision in order to aviod killing the innocent by accident - good gravy we even saved his wives which Bin Ladin was evenusing as a human sheild.

[jneil2007]

@samuelwcordrey1 Yes we are and whether he is an "enemy" or "criminal" same thing. How would we react to China bombing us and sending in their military in to find a terrorist? Or would we rather let our intelligence and police forces track him down.

[LoonyRonPaul]

@jesbeard "Obama has been very, very careful to AVOID admitting that he DID order bin Laden's murder. "

You obviously didn't watch Obama's speech after bin Laden's death.

watch?v=K8j8LpwDo7Q

Obama: "And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda..."

Notice the word "killing."

How the fuck can you think it's illegal to order the killing of bin Laden?

[jesbeard]

@LoonyRonPaul Please take a look at the Constitution. There is no "bin Laden" exception to it. There is no "we hate the guy" exception to it. The 5th Amendment in relevant part states that "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." There was not even a declaration of war here. Ordering the "killing" of a person without due process (such as a criminal conviction) is ordering murder, regardless how carefully Obama might avoids the word.

[LoonyRonPaul]

@jesbeard Please take a look at the Authorization to Use Military Force Act, which was passed by Congress in 2001.

Just because Ron Paul is against killing bin Laden, doesn't mean that you have to be as well. Think for yourself.

[jesbeard]

@LoonyRonPaul I have read the Authorization to Use Military Force. It is not a declaration of war. Paul also did not say he was against killing bin Laden. Nor have I. Paul specifically said that if he were president, "I think things would be done somewhat differently." He also specifically said he would observe the rule of law. This is not a matter of thinking for one's self, but of thinking at all.

[samuelwcordrey1]

@jesbeard the constitution apply to citizens not enemies bent on killing you at all cost, and destroying America. Adolf Hitler has no rights.

[08996688]

Ron Paul 2012 !!!

[DerekPicklesimer]

The interviewer is a major douche. Do you not understand what Congressman Paul is saying? You have to repeat your question 3 times? Just listen to his responses. It's more than clear what his stance is on the issue and it's a good and reasonable one. Sucks that conservatives have to rely on this guy for news!

[LoonyRonPaul]

@DerekPicklesimer The interviewer keeps repeating the question because it's amazing that a candidate for president is saying that he wouldn't have ordered the killing of bin Laden. Yet another crazy position by the nutjob Ron Paul.

[thejustineaster]

I dont get why its a bad thing that he wouldnt order people to kill someone. Wouldnt justice be better served if he was locked up instead?

[TheGreatGniz]

So say, someone is wanted by al Qaeda and they are in the US.. or even in the government, and they come in to our country and kill them? This is right how!?

[toemasie]

What? TOTALLY taking this out of context. He didn't say he would not have ordered to kill Bin Laden. He said he wouldn't do it THAT WAY. Geez.

[wamhoffjd]

Ron Paul is the best man for president. One of the few men in politics to make rational and legal decisions allowed by our constitution.

Ron Paul for president in 2012!

United States troops support Ron Paul more than any other politician.

PFC USMC

[CHaLuPasRtAsTY]

Who exactly were we occupying when they attacked us on 911?? Ron Paul thinks we can cozy up to the Muslims, throw Israel under the bus and then they will leave us alone? Even if that would work (which it will not) it would still be a cowardly move. Elect Ron Paul and you'll need to change that last line in the Star Spangled Banner. Ron Paul is the only potential GOP nominee that would make me consider casting my first vote for Obummer,

[Gamabyu]

@CHaLuPasRtAsTY we have been occupying Iraq and Afghan long before 9/11, he wants to stop foreign aid to both the Middle East and Israel. The Middle East gets 2-3 times the Foreign aid than Israel, so how is that throwing Israel under the bus. It wouldn't be cowardly to leave, it would be the right thing to do and that takes a lot more courage. 

[jonnyy40]

He introduced a Bill to do it the Constitutional way using 'letters of Marque and Reprisal.' Send in surgical teams to capture him.No wars.Just go after the terrorists who carried out and planned the attack.If the President can forego the Constitution to kill even the worst man,he can forego it to kill YOU.

[jbdream3]

Another Benedict Arnold!!!!!!

[jnar7]

smear smear smeeeeaaarrr

[DestroyZOG18a]

The reason the proles are wringing their hands is because they are not used to a politician who is so consistent on principle. If shooting an unarmed man is simply an 'act of war' then all of the soldiers who have been court marshaled by both the Obama and Bush regimes for doing the same should be pardoned.

[Asymmatrix]

Ron is a sicko extremist Libertarian Republican. All this drivel sounds nice until you realize Ron Paul would try to eliminate the entire safety net as President, dismantle as much regulation as possible, eliminate the EPA... dude is a scary joke.

[flatblackstrat]

@Asymmatrix Not true. He believes in it being illegal to pollute your neighbor's air. All things are far more simple with the rule of law in place rather than a fake democratic oligarchy run by the interests of a few. A republic always protects the people in the both the "Majority and Minority", only the rule of law stands as the deciding factor, not voters pandered to or politicians doing the pandering because they have the same interests as the people paying them, I.E. corrupt bankers.

[Asymmatrix]

@flatblackstrat Yeah unless your 'neighbor' is another State which decides to erect smokestacks and blow their pollution into your State, in which case you have a big problem without a Federal regulatory agency. A Republic certainly does not protect the majority and minority. It's why we fought the Civil War. Ron Paul is a remnant of the Confederacy.

[flatblackstrat]

@Asymmatrix If another state's people let such things happen it's the people's fault of that state and other states can enact certain regulation to bring a stop to it through state trade agreements and such. There is no perfect political system but a republic is by far the best. And a republic most certainly protects all people far better than a democracy. You really need to learn the difference between the 2. The civil war was for the union and to keep it intact as a republic. Free slaves after

[rbeelz]

@flatblackstrat Freeing slaves was a measure to win the war, not even a secondary reason for fighting it. Lincoln made slavery illegal to make the actions of the south seem less legitimate to foreign interests who might intervene on behalf of the south.

[flatblackstrat]

@rbeelz It was a condition. And yes it was never a reason for fighting the war. There are several reasons as to why it was made illegal though. But a republic is by far the most perfect form of government yet to be

come up with.

[ryanshaunkelly]

Remember the '07 - '08 campaign ...

Remember what they did, remember who did it.

nader paul kucinich gravel mckinney baldwin ventura sheehan

This time an entire citizen army of every stripe stands behind Dr Ron.

[flatblackstrat]

@ryanshaunkelly Damn straight Ryan. OIF veteran here who supports Dr. Paul. 

[ryanshaunkelly]

@flatblackstrat

vets are ready

This time an entire citizen army of every stripe stands beside Dr Ron.

Nam era USN

[flatblackstrat]

@ryanshaunkelly Nobody is tougher than you folks. All the shit you had to put up with after coming home. Nobody deserves how you guys were treated. Thats where a majority of my hippie hate stems from.

[ryanshaunkelly]

@flatblackstrat

hippie was just a label

judge everyone as an individual

[flatblackstrat]

@ryanshaunkelly Hippie was a movement and an ideology and still is in many parts of the west coast. It's fine to judge everyone as an individual from things like race, color, creed and religion.

[broncofan92slay]

i like ron paul even more now

[ISmellLikeASexyGuy]

Ron Paul is "crazy" because he would follow the Constitution of the United States and respect international law and the sovereignty of other nations?

I don't understand that logic.

[D40P]

Ok, let's get one thing straight: Ron Paul never said that the bringing of justice to Osama was "not necessary"; rather, he was referring to the way in which Osama was killed--entering an independent nation to hunt down an individual. If people would take time to watch or read anything else that Ron Paul has to say, they will know where he stands on Osama's death--he believes that it is a triumph. Although I am unsure of where I stand on Ron's argument, he has got me thinking.

Ron Paul 2012

[SeedOfEulogy]

The showhost is annoyingly smug and selfrighteous, he clearly has no interest in what his guest is saying beyond being able to desperately grab at any opportunity to score political points by being "the one" to 'break' what he hopes will be a major story or scandal.

[guyjohn59]

Ha the host thinks he's got gold, like his radio show will actually be something if he makes ron paul say something he isn't saying. But put that as the title of the article and people wont bother reading his actual quotes or listening to them. This video was posted on breitbart's site, the majority of the commments made it clear they did not even listen to the 2 minute video. Some people would rather look ridiculous than learn something.

[MooseOfReason]

Letters of Marque would have allowed us to get Bin Laden without spending hundreds of billions of dollars, without the use of torture, without ignoring Article 1, Section 8, without the transfer of war power from the Congress to the Executive branch.

[MooseOfReason]

Letters of Marque and Reprisal ten years ago could've got bin Laden.

[antidoteco]

@EidSeimmoc - you are a freak....keep smoking your breakfast

[Altasshrug]

@EidSeimmoc The days of the war mongering fools that have taken over the Republican party are coming to an end. Not because of Ron Paul but because of the people!  The people are fed up with both war mongering parties a revolution is upon us!

Ron Paul 2012

[engine2truck6]

WHAT?!? You mean that you wouldn't attack Libya without a Declaration of War from Congress? Or order the US military to kill a private individual on foreign soil without a Congressional Letter of Marque & Repriasal? OMG you "shriveled up old commie" how DARE you suggest that Presidents uphold the Constitution and rule of law. EidSiemmoc, YOU are the Commie.

[SeedOfEulogy]

@Davviiidd

Very likely they would have announced it as soon as possible; Obama badly needs the PR boost. Even if it was kept secret, the Taliban would still know, so that advantage doesn't exist.

[SeedOfEulogy]

@LeJimster

what makes you think we wouldn't have done it to China? ;)

[SeedOfEulogy]

@mattisava @shiftstart

please take your unfounded conspiracy theories to a place where they are wanted, like Art Bell Coast To Coast.

[SeedOfEulogy]

@DaJinXx

the only way Bin Laden might have ever conceivably given us any form of useful intelligence would have been under the influence of torture, where the viability of such intel is, at best, questionable. Would you balance this dubious advantage over the chance of him escaping justice again?

[SeedOfEulogy]

@gatorade848 The United States does not negotiate with terrorists. Are you insinuating the government should change this policy?

[ElvisOsama]

Ron Paul is a looney

[sucktackular]

I now have a newfound respect for Ron Paul.

[DaJinXx]

Positions like these is the reason why he is electable! Imagine what we would of learned from OBL if he was captured alive, REAL INTELLIGENCE!!! The fact that he is no longer "available" for questioning, makes things even more complicated because we don't understand what is their "real" motive is (at least for the major population). It would aslo help us bring our troops home.. Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand.. RonPaul2012!!

[gatorade848]

@DaJinXx lets say we captured OBL alive, what are you going to do when terrorist retaliate by capturing an elementary school abroad or even here in the us, threatening to execute bunch of kids every hour until OBL is released? do you really think OBL would all of the sudden open his mouth and spill everything after he is captured?

[Davviiidd]

@gatorade848 good point, but do you think the US would announce his capture? i doubt it ... not until they got what they needed to know out of him first, or executed him. also, what's keeping "terrorists" from doing that now?

[DaJinXx]

@gatorade848 My point is that, occupying these foreign countries is the reason why they attack us. If we fail to understand that, then we have a problem. You really think by killing OBL is going to make things better? The example of foreign and domestic school threats is irrelavent because it can happen at anytime, even if OBL name is not in the picture. We need to start asking the better questions and understand what their motives are, now that we have dug ourselves inside this hole.

[TheGreatReckoning]

@DaJinXx Not to mention the tens of thousands of children and innocent civilians that have been killed as a result of these, "wars". What do you think the family members and friends of those victims think of the United States? Do you think those people have any animosity towards the American people for killing their innocent loved ones? These wars will undoubtedly create more people that hate the United States and Americans.

[jonnyy40]

He did vote for the Afghan adventure only insofar as it gave permission to capture or kill Bin Laden and the other 911 people thought to be there.He did not intend for there to be nation building.

[Sigkim]

Ron Paul touting the rule of law?

He must be out of his mind!!!!(can you smell the sarcasm?)

Bin Laden died years ago.

Bin laden is in the sea.

They actually captured Bin Laden have have him hidden away somewhere with jumper cables hooked up to his balls.

We may never know.

Ron Paul 2012(there can be only one)

[mattisava]

Capturing Bin Laden would have provided massive amounts of intel. Killing Bin Laden was a massive failure... unless Bin Laden had information the US did not want to get leaked. .....Like..OBL had nothing to do with 911.

[shiftstart]

@mattisava

Agreed, if Bin Laden was captured alive, he would've spill the beans on a lot of important people involved in a lot of bad things.

[radiofriendly]

This won't work as an attack on Ron Paul - he has been calling for a surgical strike on Bin Laden since 2001...you have to put this in context. You can't argue that 10 years of Afghan invasion was a smashing success. Ron is more nuanced than just..."wouldn't have..." Come on.

[RosenKrantz666]

Jan Mickelson ROCKS! Oh wait, this ain't Jan.

WhoTF is Simon CONway?

God damn ClearChannel: WTF is Iowa doing inviting a RedCoat to lecture Americans against?

Hm, oddly there seems to be a rise in # of STATIST Britons in American MSM lately, as if to suggest voice of commanding reason can only come from a RedCoat?? NYC & DC I get, but Iowa? WTF?

[knightryderrwn]

@RosenKrantz666,

Simon Conway is the radio host who replaced Steve Deace.

[LeJimster]

I didn't like how the questions are being worded. But we know that Ron Paul voted for going after Osama Bin Laden in 2001. But I agree with him, invading another country and taking out an unarmed man when they could have easily disarmed and brought him to justice is just wrong. Could you imagine if they had done this in China? No they wouldn't do it there, but it's ok because it's Pakistan?

[RosenKrantz666]

Simon, the fact you delusionally proclaimed a-priori that Dr.Paul's above response "effectively end[ed] his campaign for Pres." before it even began, exhibits you have NO CLUE who you are dealing w/. Google 2007 GOP SC debate, then ask the midget Nazi from NYC, one Rudolph 'a DoucheBag who likes to divorce his wife on TV is a real Conservative' Ghouliani, how that went down. Besides, if you're of the camp that deludes RP has no chance whatsoever, as you clearly are, WTF does it matter 2U anyway?

[RosenKrantz666]

Simon, stop acting like a King's subject, u're an American. IF u really want2 embody REAL Am.values, don't u think u should READ the Constitution? Sure, OBL should be dead. But if u really are a Constitutionalist & believe in rule of law, even a pedophile/rapist/murderer/terr­orist NEED to be: 1.INDICTED 2.ARRESTED 3.Trial via full due-process of law 4.CONVICTED, then sentenced. Only degenerate inbred KINGS order ExtraJudicial MURDERS. Funny, go ask FBI; they NEVER indicted OBL for 9/11.

[TheTrueGamble]

"Not the way it took place.."

But inevitably, would have ordered it.