Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Ron Paul does it again....why did we have to kill OBL?

with no more info than we have available to us, we don't really know how he died.

i just hope it wasn't quick and painless

I remember the days when a country was at war, it meant killing the enemy, not arresting them and reading their Meranda rights. Wacking OBL is probably the only positive thing that we will get out of this administration.
I think many are somewhat confused by the blatant hypocracy this administration has shown, by going after waterboarders, and others who have hurt the feelings of our enemies while doing their jobs for America. Just because some have become a custom to the PC/pussification and apologetic BS of our govt, doesnt mean when something happens that doesnt jive with the way they normally do things, that its wrong. But IMO, this was done without obamas knowledge. He just took credit for it after the fact to take advantage of the ratings boost.
Does anyone really think an anti-American, socialist, community organizer has the balls to do this without it turning into an un-organized cluster f#@! of compassion, bowing, hand kissing, and buying permission from the UN?

We all enjoy the liberties this country provides, but sometimes certain things need to be done to protect and preserve that. This is one of those things that has no room for political correctness. OBL is gone and good riddance.

You can't get any more on target than that.

As much as I dislike Obama, the chances of him not knowing about this Op are nil...

US troops invading a sovereign nation, armed to the teeth and ready to fight if necessary...Make that nation a nominal but crucial ally in the region and a nuclear power as well, and there is no chance this didn't have Presidential approval.

Well,one would hope that the pres would have something to do with it, but its just not his style. I read somewhere that Panetta didnt need approval to carry this out. It just makes no sense to me that this was an Obama lead evolution. IMO.

Bullschit. Hawk, you really ought to get your law school tuition refunded to you. what you label, in your usual overblown style, as an extrajudicial execution, was simply a continuation of a war that has existed for a decade with Al Quida.

Bin Laden was an enemy commander, responsible for and surely planning even more thousands of deaths of innocent US citizens. He enjoyed no more immunity to "execution" if you want to use the word, than Yamamoto did. To suggets otherwise is just lunacy, not law.

In fact, even if he had been a US citizen, he could still have been legally whacked.....note for benefit of "American Taliban" members.


All the President needs is evidence linking al-Awlaki to an imminent, military threat involving al Qaeda and its associated forces, and evidence putting him in a command and control position, and he is toast....whatever color his passport is.


A warrior fighting on the battlefield against U.S. forces in a conflict has no privilege against being killed because he is a U.S. citizen�that�s a well-settled norm of the laws of war, upheld by the Supreme Court in Ex parte Quirin (1942).

And BTW, statements like you support the troops but not their orders are indistinguishable from the treasonous Democrats who whined that they really really supported the troops fighting in Iraq, it was just that they opposed their illegal war against women and children based on a lie and, anyway, already lost.

This incident will serve a good purpose, illuminating just how far out of the American mainstream Paul and his disciples dwell.

In fact it's you, Steve, who constantly illustrates ignorance in this subject.

The rule of law, as I've consistently explained throughout my membership here, simply means that the state, through its agents, can legitimately take no action that is not authorized by a law, i.e., cannot operate outside of law. When it claims to be able to do so, we call that despotism, which is simply the counterpoint to the rule of law, i.e., the rule of men.

I hope that clears it up for you, Steve. One doesn't need to be an anointed member of the legal profession to understand and expound on this topic (It seems that this might even be a handicap in this regard, taking you as a typical example of a member of that profession). In fact, I'm sure the Founding Fathers hoped the ordinary educated citizen would be able to do so. It's a part of basic Americanism, after all. If you and your ilk are any indication, however, I guess they'd have been sorely disappointed.

You are such a clueless goofball!

Hawk:

You finished taking the last part of the bar exam, yet?

So, the Founding Fathers, whom themselves launched campaigns against Indian tribes and pirates, didn't fully understand the Constitution they they themselves had drafted?

Their actions and legal precedent trump your position, and handily so.

Whoever teaches Con Law at UF and let you slide through ought to have their tenure yanked and their ass-kicked.

State of war, plus pirate/terrorist enemy, plus one of said same encountered equals termination appropriate. Been that way since the Greeks, through the Romans, and the English, and the Founding Fathers, and carries through to today.

I briefly dabbled with the idea, but lacked sufficient motivation (and it takes a good deal of that) to see it through. I had no real interest in the actual practice of law. Might enjoy teaching it, but I get to do that here anyway.

Hawk:

I may be the only guy here who wants you to finish the bar and get yourself licensed.

Really, I do. I look forward to hearing about the legal arguments you put in front of an actual, real live judge. And, of course, what the judge says back to you.

Get off your azz.

- Tom

Teaching it without ever having done it. Well, you're in good company. Some of your law professors did it that way.

At this point, credit for the two exams I passed has expired, so I'd have to start the whole series over again. Not going to happen. Quite happy doing what I'm doing. Of course, if you'd like to fund my efforts, I would do it just for the challenge of it.

Now there is a a quote that shows how ignorant you really are TRD....I would put Steve up against you in a debate anyday...you would be annihilated! Heck I would pay to see it!

I wouldn't presume to teach the profession or practice of law (For that I gladly defer to those who've "done it," like Steve, et al). Only theory, for which the holding of a doctorate in a subject is pretty universally considered a qualification.

Excuses, excuses, excuses.............

Daddy must have pulled the checkbook...

You want me to compensate you for your laziness.

Right.

I suppose you'll be happier arguing the law to a group of high school students. They don't say cruel things back to you, like a judge sometimes does.

- Tom