ron paul superwimp

[2minkey]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/09/30/ron-paul-condemns-killing-of-al-qaedas-awlaki/

this is just sad.

maybe we should have just sent flowers, huh ronnie?

i wonder what the illuminati think of paul. golly, considering how dangerous he is to them, it's strange that they have not used their super powers to silence him.

 

[catocom]

I wonder how many conservatives Obama has saved or created with this action.

 

[Gotholic]

Minks, this is a pathetic attempt of a shot at Ron Paul. This is the U.S., not Russia. You are innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.

As someone said in the comments of that article:

The US government – in particular, the executive branch, directing the military, has become the judge, jury, and executioner of an American citizen, with absolutely no due process. This is chilling to any American with sense.

 

[Gonz]

It is an intriguing situation. Since he is inciting terror against the USA, in a foreign land, doesn't that place him under the enemy combatant umbrella? If I recall, traitors,in a war zone, were shot. How much difference?

 

[2minkey]

Minks, this is a pathetic attempt of a shot at Ron Paul. This is the U.S., not Russia. You are innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.

ron paul takes plenty of shots at himself.

i'm not sure how much proof you need of guilt.

 

[Gonz]

Proof of guilt? Is that necessary in a war setting, with a war criminal? This guy didn't rob the local 7-11.

 

[2minkey]

well it seems to me the "proof" is simply certainty of his status as an enemy combatant.

 

[Gonz]

Yep, which takes the Constitutionality out of this altogether

 

[2minkey]

yeah what do you think of that?

i can't imagine the framers anticipating this level of ridiculous inhuman shit.

i think they would throw napalm all over it.

sometimes you kinda know who the assholes are.

 

[Gonz]

They'd just shoot him move on...kinda like what happened

 

[Gotholic]

It is an intriguing situation. Since he is inciting terror against the USA, in a foreign land, doesn't that place him under the enemy combatant umbrella? If I recall, traitors,in a war zone, were shot. How much difference?

The difference? How about he is in a non-declared battle field and that he is a U.S. citizen? Or how about all that is against him are allegations?

Ron Paul Elaborates

Jeremy Scahill: 'Sad Day for America' I hope you check that one out.

This whole thing sets a terrible precedent.

 

[2minkey]

a non-declared battle field

yeah the twin towers weren't a declared battlefield either, tweety.

but that was our fault anyway, right?

 

[Gonz]

The Military Commissions Act of 2006, passed by Congress on Jan. 3, 2006 and signed into law by President Bush on Oct. 17, 2006, stated:



"The term 'lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is:
1.a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;

2.a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or

3.a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.

The term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means:

1.a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or

2.a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."

Sounds like the Geneva terms