Response To Paul’s Al-Awalki Op Ed

This is a response to Ron Paul’s Op-Ed in the NY Daily News.

By way of this post, I’m officially flipping Ron Paul the bird.  I have to say I’ve never been a fan of Ron Paul. While he is brilliant in some areas, he waffles in others. I find him to be borderline tin-hat club that is perhaps one step away from disappearing to live off the grid on a mountainside complex that would make Rambo proud. His one size fits all application of the Constitution to every situation is something that has bothered me in the past, but today he sincerely pissed me off.

From The NY Daily News, the headline reads:

An unconstitutional killing: Obama’s killing of Awlaki violates American principles – By Ron Paul

Excerpt; emphasis mine:

Awlaki was a U.S. citizen. Under our Constitution, American citizens, even those living abroad, must be charged with a crime before being sentenced. As President, I would have arrested Awlaki, brought him to the U.S., tried him and pushed for the stiffest punishment allowed by law. Treason has historically been judged to be the worst of crimes, deserving of the harshest sentencing. But what I would not do as President is what Obama has done and continues to do in spectacular fashion: circumvent the rule of law.”

The bolded text is where Paul’s argument falls apart. Yes, Al-Awlaki was a citizen. He forfeit that citizenship the moment he declared jihad – Holy War- on the United States and its citizens. Al-Awlaki has a long list of terrorist activities next to his name. Much of which encouraging muslims within the U.S. to commit acts of terrorism; pushing Lone Wolf attacks was Al-Awlaki’s hallmark.

I would encourage Mr. Paul to become familiar with them and with the State Department criteria for forfeiture of U.S. Citizenship, since he is apparently has no clue on or is decidedly ignoring.  That’s not even considering the incitement of insurrection. Let us not forget Al-Awlaki’s involvement in 9/11 either, Mr. Paul — then again, you think that was OUR fault. You are maddeningly clueless when it comes to Radical Islam, sir. Whatever rationalization Islamists use to blame the U.S. for their blowing up innocent people is just that – a rationalization. Nothing we do or don’t do makes a hill of beans difference. They want us dead, period. Perhaps you should sit down with Colonel Allen West and learn a few things.

Track ’em down and bring them to justice. Worked really well with Bin Laden don’t you think? Ten years later and over 17,800 deaths from Jihad later? Mr. Paul, you’re all for hunting terrorists down on the soil of other sovereign nations but not much for actually killing them there without giving them their day in court first. Interesting morality there. I also noted you didn’t even mention Samir Khan, who was also killed in the strikes. Khan’s death isn’t a Constitutional or moral conundrum for you though now is he? He was killed alongside Al-Awlaki on the soil of a sovereign foreign nation but we get crickets on that account.

But he goes on about how this act sets a precedent:

“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.”

How exactly is this setting a precedent, Mr. Paul? The President announced this quite publically months and months ago. Where were you then? I’ve googled until my mouse protested – please point me to where you opposed this action. Only once the man is dead are you now ranting and stomping with outrage because a terrorist is now dead? Your following example of Eichmann is funny, because if you are comparing the two then you are admitting Al-Awlaki is a war criminal. Had there been the technology we have today, who is to say that a drone wouldn’t have landed on Eichmann’s house?  Look, I don’t trust Obama as far as I could throw a solar panel, but in this situation — I can’t believe I am saying this — well, Obama was right.

I believe in our Constitution just as much as you do, Mr. Paul. Your interpretation and application of it is in black and white, while we live in techni-color, sir. I suppose it’s some comfort that you are if nothing else, consistent.  It appears a lot of folks disagree with you as well…

PS – This screenshot is from around 9:45 AM EST this morning. Since then, the ‘No’ has shot up. My guess is the Ronulins are now on the case. Ah, democracy ala Paul.

 

About A.P. Dillon

A.P. Dillon is a freelance journalist and is currently writing at The North State Journal. She resides in the Triangle area of North Carolina. Find her on Twitter: @APDillon_
This entry was posted in Campaign 2012, Jihad Files, LL1885, Obama, The Articles and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Response To Paul’s Al-Awalki Op Ed

  1. Pingback: The Morning Links (10/6) | From the Desk of Lady Liberty

  2. Update: I received a “reply” on this post via twitter from someone named Clinton Sutts. The entire reply is based on the premise Al-Awlaki was still a U.S. citizen and took aim at my position that he forfeit that citizenship via engaging in allegiance with a foreign army/military combatant & his actions were consistent with insurrection. I’ve had to block said person since then.

    Like

  3. Pingback: The Morning Links (10/5) | From the Desk of Lady Liberty

Comments are closed.