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

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) admits on WHO Radio that he would not have ordered the bin Laden kill. Paul spoke to WHO's Simon Conway May 10, 2011.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• ron
• paul
• on
• bin
• laden
• Khalid
• Sheikh
• Mohammed

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.....

[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.

[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]

@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.

[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.

[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.

[samuelwcordrey1]

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