Current Events

Re: "Assassination of American citizen"

Mises Pieces — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 17:48:32 GMT

Forget principles for a moment... how dumb is it to commit an extralegal assassination of a civilian in pursuit of a "war on terror"? Aren't we supposedly trying to convince Islamic radicals that these kinds of attacks are WRONG?

It seems like it's just a "cover your ass" move by the political leadership just so they wouldn't have egg on their face in the event that this guy did end up doing something. I'm sure they're well aware that whatever unintended blowback results from this will never be traced back to their actions.

Re: "Assassination of American citizen"

limitgov — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 17:04:00 GMT

"I'm saying that RP appears himself to be mixed up."

Ron Paul himself said, there is no evidence presented. Plus, as onebornfree points out, RP and myself know there needs to be a trial, not just evidence.

Re: "Assassination of American citizen"

onebornfree — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 15:05:05 GMT

Wheylous:

I'm saying that RP appears himself to be mixed up. If the claim is that there was no proof that this guy was a terrorist, then RP doesn't support it, as he appears to think the guy was a terrorist.

But the Ron Paul article you linked states, near the end:

" ....The precedent set by the killing of Awlaki establishes the frightening legal premise that any suspected enemy of the United States - even if they are a citizen - can be taken out on the President's say-so alone."

regards, onebornfree.

p.s. what I find far more troubling in that same article is the following :

" In 2001, I supported the authority to capture and kill the thugs responsible for 9/11."

Re: "Assassination of American citizen"

Wheylous — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 14:43:28 GMT

"The article I quoted was RP himself."

Again, there is no evidence presented. So, Obama is using that news article as evidence? That is sad and pathetic.

I'm saying that RP appears himself to be mixed up. If the claim is that there was no proof that this guy was a terrorist, then RP doesn't support it, as he appears to think the guy was a terrorist.

Re: "Assassination of American citizen"

onebornfree — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 14:19:27 GMT

Wheylous:

I think the situation may have been a lot better had the government provided any proof of his guilt.

No, it would not.

In these situations [ a government accuses an individual of criminal acts], all government "evidence" is "supposed" to be presented in court to a jury, and before defense attorneys freely able to cross examine all witnesses/ evidence presented by the government, according to the stipulations for evidence listed in the [Federal] Bill of Rights.

All government "evidence", and all government witnesses are supposed to be automatically assumed to be suspect [i.e. held to a higher standard of truth], until proven otherwise, in court .

Which is of course, exactly why the man was murdered. Regards, onebornfree.

Re: "Assassination of American citizen"

limitgov — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 14:00:13 GMT

"While you consider him a fellow 'citizen', he considers all of you a kufar who cannot be trusted and must be killed for the establishment of a religious world order. "

You really believe that? Regardless, there is still no evidence provided to show he used violence against anyone? Much less killed someone, or much less killed a whole bunch of people. On the other hand, the New World Order, which is doing a heck of alot better at establishing their one world order than the islamic folks, have killed thousands of innocent people to setup their government order all around the world. And of course, they have massive contracts with super advanced weapon manufacturers, unlike the Islamic folk.

But you really believe Islamic folks are trying to take over the world? It doesn't make more sense in your mind, that they might be trying to defend themselves from western powers setting up puppet governments where they live?

Re: "Assassination of American citizen"

limitgov — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 13:53:23 GMT

"The article I quoted was RP himself."

Again, there is no evidence presented. So, Obama is using that news article as evidence? That is sad and pathetic.

Re: "Assassination of American citizen"

Clayton — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 07:38:18 GMT

Paul Craig Roberts:

Before some readers write to declare that Awlaki’s murder is no big deal because the US government has always had people murdered, keep in mind that CIA assassinations were of foreign opponents and were not publicly proclaimed events, much less a claim by the president to be above the law. Indeed, such assassinations were denied, not claimed as legitimate actions of the President of the United States.

The Ohio National Guardsmen who shot Kent State students as they protested the US invasion of Cambodia in 1970 made no claim to be carrying out an executive branch decision. Eight of the guardsmen were indicted by a grand jury. The guardsmen entered a self-defense plea. Most Americans were angry at war protestors and blamed the students. The judiciary got the message, and the criminal case was eventually dismissed. The civil case (wrongful death and injury) was settled for $675,000 and a statement of regret by the defendants.

The point isn’t that the government killed people. The point is that never prior to President Obama has a President asserted the power to murder citizens.

Re: "Assassination of American citizen"

Anarcho-libertarian — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 06:11:58 GMT

Wheylous:

Extended warning: all of them are very big :P

I'll add those to my list after the 1955 history of Standard Oil.

Edit: re-read this post and am wondering what I'm doing with my life.

Here is the short explanation, from The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose:

Another example of irrational statist doctrine is the concept of the "rule of law." The idea is that rule by mere men is bad, because it serves those with a malicious lust for power, while the "rule of law," as the theory goes, is all about objective, reasonable rules being imposed upon humanity equally. A moment's thought reveals the absurdity of this myth. Despite the fact that "the law" is often spoken of as some holy, infallible set of rules spontaneously flowing from the nature of the universe, in reality "the law" is simply a collection of commands issued and enforced by the people in "government." There would be a difference between "rule of law" and "rule of men" only if the so called "laws" were written by something other than men.

Re: "Assassination of American citizen"

Wheylous — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 01:13:46 GMT

Extended warning: all of them are very big :P

I'll add those to my list after the 1955 history of Standard Oil.

Edit: re-read this post and am wondering what I'm doing with my life.

Re: "Assassination of American citizen"

Autolykos — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 00:51:54 GMT

Wheylous:
Link please?

E.g. here, here, here, and here. Warning: the last two are big PDF files.

Re: "Assassination of American citizen"

Wheylous — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 21:46:50 GMT

*Hasnas

Re: "Assassination of American citizen"

John James — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 21:43:57 GMT

Wheylous:

Hans-Hermann Hoppe gives the best dismantling of this notion vis-a-vis government that I've read so far.

Link please?

I'm not sure which one he's talking about, but Hasnas' is pretty popular:

"The Myth of the Rule of Law"

*EDIT*

Total typo. I always hear "Hasnas" in my head but the finger didn't push the button.

Re: "Assassination of American citizen"

Wheylous — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 21:41:55 GMT

We're saying the media is lying about that part. or at minimum, implying he committed violent acts against people, which people on this forum are saying, no he didn't.

The article I quoted was RP himself.

Re: "Assassination of American citizen"

Wheylous — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 21:41:09 GMT

Hans-Hermann Hoppe gives the best dismantling of this notion vis-a-vis government that I've read so far.

Link please?