Today's Situation Room:

Wolf Blitzer delivers the most important breaking news and political, international, and national security stories of the day. Tune to The Situation Room weekdays 5-7pm ET on CNN.

Wolf Blitzer delivers the most important breaking news and political, international, and national security stories of the day. Tune to The Situation Room weekdays 5-7pm ET on CNN.

BLITZER’S BLOG: Impeach Obama? Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich disagree
October 6th, 2011
04:04 PM ET

BLITZER’S BLOG: Impeach Obama? Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich disagree

By CNN's Wolf Blitzer

(CNN) – When it comes to President Obama’s decision to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul couldn’t disagree more. Gingrich says the president did the right thing; Paul says he’s open to trying to impeach the president.

“The fact is, Congressman Paul is wrong about the law,” the former House speaker told me. “He’s wrong about the Constitution.”

Insisting that al-Awlaki was an “enemy combatant,” Gingrich added: “The president was exactly right legally and he was exactly right morally in killing somebody who was a threat to everybody.”

Paul strongly disagrees. He says the president violated the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

“It’s pretty clear that you can’t take a life without due process of law, especially of an American citizen,” Paul told me. “We’ve never had a policy that said we can put somebody on an assassination list by a secret tribunal.”

Paul said Obama should have ordered al-Awlaki’s arrest and brought him to trial in the United States. As an example, he points to Israel’s capture of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in 1960 in Argentina. The Israelis brought Eichmann to Jerusalem for trial.

Paul has been suggesting that Obama could be impeached for ordering the killing of an American citizen. I asked him whether he would support introducing articles of impeachment.

“I haven’t introduced them, but I think it’s an impeachable offense,” he said. “If the mood of the country was such that they wanted to do it, yes, I could support that.”

By the way, on this issue and several other national security matters, Paul is clearly isolated from the other Republican candidates. He alone, for example, favors an immediate military pullout from Iraq and Afghanistan and from all other U.S. bases around the world.

So I asked him whether he would consider running as a third-party candidate if he didn’t win the GOP nomination. “I haven’t thought about it, and I have no plans to do that,” he said. “So, no, that wouldn’t be in the cards for me.”

He did run as the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1988.

RELATED: Rep. Paul: Impeachment a possibility for Obama

Post by:
Filed under: Anwar al-Awlaki • Newt Gingtich • Ron Paul • Wolf Blitzer
soundoff (275 Responses)
  1. don

    I'd like to thank all those who contribute their opinions to this thread. It has given me many chuckles between work asignments this evening. Not that this is a funny subject but in the fact that none of the contributing scholars has considered the fact that Mr Alwaki would need to be extradited from a country that is unlikely to have a treaty with the US. The administration has been going after Al queida in every way possible but the most affective( and likely least expensive) means, seems to have been the drone attacks.Where were all these armchair presidents when Bush tied Iraq to 9/11 and spent thousands of American lives and billions of dollars invading the wrong country?
    It never fails to amuse me how President Obamma , probably the most thoughtful and intelligent Commander in Chief to grace the white house can't seem to do ANYTHING right in the eyes of the critics. Smarten up America , get rid of the do nothings in the government before your country goes down the tubes taking the rest of us with you!

    October 6, 2011 at 9:51 pm |
  2. Burnz

    This was a drone-aircraft killing, not an arrest-execution. The man already had blood covering his hands. Good riddance ot bad rubbish.

    October 6, 2011 at 9:46 pm |
  3. Nick

    This is exactly like saying that since the police have evidence (that nobody is allowed to see) that you are dealing drugs, then they can just throw you in jail for 10 years without a trial or a jury.

    October 6, 2011 at 9:28 pm |
  4. Austin

    Im pretty sure a terrorist isn't just going to come freely back to the U.S for a court trial. Perry can say that he deserved a trial all he wants, but if Obama had brought him over for a trial and the courtroom got blew up, it would be blamed on Obama.

    October 6, 2011 at 9:13 pm |
  5. Carmen

    Look up Philadelphia Inquirer. They broke the story about the Justice Dept. lying about the number of terrorism convictions it obtains. Congressman Burton called for the GAO to investigate. The justice Dept. maintained that 288 terrorists had been convinced in the US of their heinous crimes. BUT the GAO found that at least 132 of these cases (~42%) had NOTHING to do with terrorism. The deception is even worse when you zoom in on the cases classified as "international terrorism". Out of 174 convictions, 131 (~75%) weren't really about Terror. Research that.

    October 6, 2011 at 9:05 pm |
  6. Carmen

    Even Saddam Hussein was charged, convicted, and executed by his own.

    Not a good look for Democracy love Americans huh?

    October 6, 2011 at 8:55 pm |
  7. dtm4u2

    Obama was wrong period. Actually his whole presidency is wrong.

    October 6, 2011 at 8:43 pm |
  8. Bob

    How do you know that he was a terrorist with ill intentions towards the US?
    Is it because of evidence in a court of law?
    Wake up people... This is exactly WHY due process is part of the constitution...

    October 6, 2011 at 8:21 pm |
    • dan in albuquerque

      No, he made tapes declaring his hatred against the US and actively planned thr mass murder of Americans. Obama was legally and morally right, but you have the right to support a terrorist if you wish,

      October 7, 2011 at 12:13 am |
  9. Sleuth51

    Just another Tim McVeigh, but harmless by comparison. He is only an enemy combatant if we have declared war against Yemen. Yemen could have handed him over. In fact, the Yemeni govt. told us where he was. So, go and arrest and extradite him.

    It is very important to add that if you kill one, you spawn another 100. How does that make us safer?

    The US achieved nothing by shooting a hellfire missile into a group of Muslims. How many innocent people were killed in the process? Nobody is asking that question.

    October 6, 2011 at 8:08 pm |
  10. Louis Nardozi


    Why in the world would Gingrich be associated with anything smacking of integrity? Now if it was cheating or wife beating, I'd be the first to give him a call. Denying it is tantamount to saying murder isn't wrong. It takes the application of the law to turn murder in cold blood to justice.

    October 6, 2011 at 7:35 pm |
  11. George

    If I'm of German heritage and born in America but signed up to fight on the side of Nazi Germany during WWII, Will you arrest me or shoot me if we met during war?

    October 6, 2011 at 7:22 pm |
    • njp289

      Depends if the US is specifically targeting you or not. If you're killed on the battlefield, that's a casualty of war. If they send in someone specifically to kill you, that's against the law. Due process means you must be tried, no matter how bad of a person you may be. I know a defense lawyer from my hometown who always used to tell me "I defend the scumbags so the prosecutors don't make mistakes". It makes total sense, for the most part he believes that the people he represents are criminals, but he believes so much in the system that he stands up against people who are looking for an open-shut case.

      October 7, 2011 at 9:53 am |
    • Micah

      If I was in the middle of a war I would shoot him and not arrest him. But I'm not sure what war we're in with Yemen that would allow me to go in there and see out a single person and assassinate them.

      October 7, 2011 at 10:32 am |
    • Blaine

      We declared war on Germany. We didnt declare war on the tactic of terrorism, which means it can be an endless conflict. We have this thing in our country called due process, Jeffrey Dahmer got it, Major Hassan got it, The Unibomber got it, Manson even got it. I'm for the rule of law, not for these measures the politicos take to outflank the law of the land with executive fiat and color of law slight of hand. If you want the terrorists to die so badly you should not be stateside. You should pick up a rifle and get yourself over there.

      October 7, 2011 at 1:08 pm |
    • Cantzon Foster

      We are not at war. Only congress can declare war. Obama has illegally and unconstitutionally committed troops without consent or approval from congress.

      October 7, 2011 at 2:21 pm |
  12. Normy

    This article is a joke right?

    -Obama has done NOTHING illegal. He's simply fought for the middle class. Any notion of him breaking a law is insane-!

    As such, any sort of prosecution would of course be completely POLITICAL. And....the American public would instantly see this. The reaction would literally destroy the republican party.

    So go ahead republicans.....try to impeach Barack Obama. I dare you-


    October 6, 2011 at 7:22 pm |
    • Marry

      I could not agree with you more, Normy!
      WOW, there are a few crazy’s coming out of the woodworks again! Incredible – not wanting to try any of the “Terrorist” held in Guantanamo on “American soil” because they have “no rights” – then blasting the President when he keeps the country safe by getting the real Terrorists without killing in the possess thousands of civilians (like Bush did and getting none of the real T.!). I think the GOP does not like it because it was too efficient and not enough spend for them to make lots of money.
      These “Constitutional Experts” are just despicable! Hopefully none of them are going to be back after 2012!

      October 7, 2011 at 2:20 am |
    • average_joe

      I guess you'd be alright with this awesome new power to assassinate Americans without due process resting in the hands of oh, say, Michele Bachmann?

      October 7, 2011 at 2:02 pm |
    • Jim

      You do realize Ron Paul is the only one here saying Obama did something wrong? All the other candidates are too afraid to look un-American by criticizing the President. Ron Paul is right in that we are setting ourselves up for scary precedents when we freely execute American citizens because we "deem" them threats. I'm against the Federal Reserve, Nation Building, and the majority of all other government programs, so this in their eyes makes me a threat. Should I be executed. And also, there was never any evidence brought forth saying what this person did. How can you rule someone a terrorist/threat without a trial and a judgment? Makes no sense to me.

      October 7, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
  13. Humanoid27

    If we can give Timothy Mcveigh a trial after what he did to us, then I believe Anwar al-Awlaki deserves one as well. The Government has been taking our freedoms away incrementally, and if we don't stop them now when/where will they stop. One day it will be a norm, waking up and seeing Americans being off'd for there indeferences with the Federal Government.
    Ron Paul / Andrew Napolitano 2012!!!

    October 6, 2011 at 7:16 pm |
  14. Jay Becker

    Wake up America and see this assasination for what it is and what it opens the door to. Wolf is just tryin to spin it and twisting Ron Paul's words. Nice try clown, but we arent all asleep and see what you are trying to do. Why the random statement about Ron Paul leaving for a third party?

    October 6, 2011 at 7:08 pm |
  15. yn5

    If they can get away with doing it to al-Awlaki, they can get away with doing it to ANY US citizen, and that's Paul's point and he's 100% correct. Due process was clearly violated – one of the very things that makes America what it is was sacrificed in the name of defending it. That's what matters, that's ALL that matters – it's irrelevant who the target was, because this sets the precedent that next time it could be you.

    October 6, 2011 at 7:06 pm |
  16. hstryrpeats

    Remember the golden rule "He who has the power makes or changes the rules". Americans get to enjoy their rights up to a certain point. Look at our history and you see numerous cases where Americans had their rights taken away or suspended. And god help you if your an enemy of the USA. By the time we get through dehumanizing you in the eyes of our people then you can expect all sorts of mayhem to ensue. So don't be surprised or dismayed by these types of killings. After all, "all is fair in love and war".

    October 6, 2011 at 7:05 pm |
  17. Grumpy

    Israel could go after Adolf Eichmann, try, convict and execute him without any backlash. There's the difference between Eichmann and Anwar al-Awlaki. To arrest al-Awlaki and bring to the United States for a lengthy trial would have put too many people in jeopardy. We'd have been on Code Red, or whatever code they use for natinal security emergencies, through the whole thing and beyond. It would have been too dangerous, and for the economic minded Mr. Paul and his ilk, far more expensive than they would like.

    October 6, 2011 at 7:04 pm |
    • WideAwake

      Are you saying there would have been "blowback" to a public lawful trial, but no "blowback" to an unprecedented, unconstitutional, assassination by drone strike on a US citizen in a country with whom we have not declared war? I wonder how many Yemeni Obama has just radicalized? These drone strikes from the sky by a remote power must be wonderfully aphrodisiac to a man like Obama? He probably gets a big stiffy as he fancies himself as powerful as Zeus or Thor or even the Judeo Christian "God" meting out "Justice" with his thunderbolts!

      October 7, 2011 at 3:36 am |
  18. Jay Becker

    Where is the EVIDENCE that this guy was such a "THREAT"? If we allow this so called President to get away with this, we are no better than the "terrorists" we kill in this bogus WAR ON TERROR. When we lose the RULE OF LAW, how are we any better than they are? We are opening the door for this administration to assasinate anyone deemed a "threat". So what is to stop them from sending a DRONE to you or me if we say orBLOG something deemed a "THREAT". Ron Paul is showing us day by day why he may be our last chance.

    October 6, 2011 at 7:02 pm |
  19. Benji Thompson

    The problem with this, is not the exclusion of constitutional protections that Al Alawki should've been afforded, but the due-process of law from which all other innocent Americans could be refused because of this precedent. We know that Alawki likely did some bad things, but we do not know what those specific crimes are. Rather, we know what the administration has told us and what the media has alluded to. What is now to prevent this administration from judging government dissenters and critics as terrorists, or to prevent acts of agression against those? It is unlikely that these events would happen to innocent Americans, but because of this precedent, it is now more likely than it was prior. This is the reason why a strict adherence to the constitution is so important.

    October 6, 2011 at 7:01 pm |
  20. twgloege

    Poor Ron, he's walking further into the deep end every day.

    October 6, 2011 at 6:58 pm |
    • Chris Scott

      Why do you say that? Because he goes against what the majority believes. He will uphold the constitution at all costs. That is what everyone in congress is supposed to do. The President was wrong...I think it is safe to say that he is walking further into the deep end.

      October 7, 2011 at 9:07 am |
  21. Greg, Ontario

    This Haji stopped being American the day he talked someone into trying to kill Americans under a guise of war. I like Ron Paul but he would be the second best thing for America (next to Obama). Doesn't matter though with CNN and Fox attacking Obama every chance they can and pumping up the GOP Obama doesn't stand much of a chance with such an uninformed country.

    October 6, 2011 at 6:58 pm |
  22. outspoken

    Obama is the president of USA. He can kill whoever he wants , be it Osama or or US citizen it does not matter.

    October 6, 2011 at 6:57 pm |
    • Louis Nardozi

      Yes, why bother with the rule of law. In point of fact, let's just nuke them all. While we're at it, let's just nuke everybody!

      I was kind of hoping we'd prove ourselves superior to yeast.

      October 6, 2011 at 8:51 pm |
    • Garland Cole

      Finally, thank you, thank you, thank you. I've been waiting 235 years for someone to agree with me – King George

      October 6, 2011 at 10:16 pm |
  23. Darth Cheney

    Paul betrayed himself – "the mood of the people" – that means he would only do it if it was popular and not because it's the right thing.

    October 6, 2011 at 6:56 pm |
    • Jim

      Eh, I think Paul meant that in the sense that he himself wasn't going to put any effort into it..but you could be right...I'm slightly biased as a Paul supporter.

      October 7, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
  24. Kittycat73

    At least we're saving some of the taxpayers' money... by not having that guy on trial. So there is a positive side to the story.

    October 6, 2011 at 6:56 pm |
    • Mark

      How much do you think those drones cost? They ain't cheap.

      October 6, 2011 at 11:15 pm |
  25. Wired

    Ron Paul is just trying to rally for Extremists.
    This guy wasn't some average Joe walking the streets: He was a terrorist, someone we are at WAR with since 9/11/01.
    So What, Ronnie. Are we going to persecute every soldier in our army?

    October 6, 2011 at 6:51 pm |
    • Garland Cole

      Finally, thank you, thank you, thank you. That's exactly what I said about that Ben Franklin guy, but noooo, they claimed he was just some average joe walking on the streets of Paris whispering backroom jokes into the ears of a couple of French Diplomats – King George

      October 6, 2011 at 10:27 pm |
    • Mark

      Oceana has always been at war with Eastasia...

      October 6, 2011 at 11:17 pm |
    • Micah

      What group of people did we declare war on? One sides terrorists are the other sides heroes. We cause just as much terror to innocent civilians whose countries we are constantly bombing. What country or group of people are defined as "Terror" that we're at war with? When we were at war with Nazi Germany would we be allowed to kill anyone anywhere that vocally supported the Nazis? Would they be defined as enemy combatants? Do you think it's ok that we imprisoned thousands of Japanese living in America when Pearl Harbor was bombed?

      October 7, 2011 at 10:38 am |
    • average_joe

      "this guy" was in the U.S. on 9/11 and left a year or so later,from what I've read, due to rising hostility toward muslims. Still have yet to see evidence that he deserved death without a trial or that he was actually a terrorist. Show me some evidence.

      October 7, 2011 at 2:28 pm |
  26. Jonny

    Yet another reason why Paul is entirely unelectable.

    October 6, 2011 at 6:50 pm |
    • Louis Nardozi

      Nice... so when the secret panel picks YOUR name with no explanation given or needed you'll get droned too. And, if your wife and kids are in the building – well they're just 'collateral damage' aren't they?

      Really? REALLY?!? You're okay with someone having that power over you, and having no restraint whatever on whom they might elect to place on that list? You're perfectly happy to undo almost a THOUSAND YEARS of common law, dating back to the Magna Carta, to give some unelected panel the right to vote dead whemever they wish for any reason or no reason?

      October 6, 2011 at 8:48 pm |
      • Jim

        He didn't get "randomly selected" to be killed. He announced to the whole world that he was joining Al-Qaeda and was going to help attack the US. Those are the words of a man who has declared HIMSELF the enemy of the country. And that has repercussions, especially when the organization you join has sworn to destroy this country. I love the way you right-wing nutjobs twist things. First Obama is "too peace-loving and soft", then he's a cold-hearted killer. Sorry charlie, you can't have it both ways. While the loss of any life is regrettable, the killing of a man sworn to destroy our country probably saved countless lives. Or maybe we should have waited for him to carry out his threats and organize another attack against our country?

        October 6, 2011 at 9:20 pm |
      • Jim

        You couldn't be more right Louis.

        October 7, 2011 at 3:31 pm |
  27. LeeVT

    Has anyone ever heard of: "Wanted: Dead or Alive"?

    October 6, 2011 at 6:50 pm |
    • Mike

      Usually in those situations at least charges are brought against the individual. This killing was done with the authority of a Justice Department memo with no charges.

      October 6, 2011 at 11:20 pm |
  28. Tim

    Seriously people......Obama was right...he was a terrorist and had plans to attack and terrorize our country....seems reasonable to take him out....Paul is a Moron that will never be president....hate to say it but I agree with Newt on this one.

    October 6, 2011 at 6:47 pm |
  29. Dave

    Al Qaeda, specifically, is "at war" with the United States through their own declaration issued more than a decade ago. Americans who join al Qaeda in any capacity are in fact taking up arms against this country and should be subject to military reprisals. Obama made the right call.

    October 6, 2011 at 6:47 pm |
    • Carmen

      "through THEIR own declaration" What about OUR declaration. There is NO declaration of war by Congress. Read the Constitution.

      October 6, 2011 at 8:42 pm |
  30. rvpe

    If this man is taking actions, on a regular basis, to harm American citizens, I do not see what the problem is. He had a choice to surrender or continue to elude captivity and suffer the consequences. What is the big deal? The president eliminated a person that a known threat to American citizens.

    If someone was working his way into your house with gun, what would you do? This is a no brainer.

    October 6, 2011 at 6:46 pm |
    • frobert

      He was not "in the act" if you think someone broke into your home and go to their home and kill them it is called murder.

      October 6, 2011 at 10:42 pm |
  31. Mary

    For those who favor Ron Paul in this debate, remember one thing. We did not send any one individual to this American's home to kill him. He was in a combat zone, riding and fighting with those we have declared our enemy, and he was killed during a military operation. Call it assassination if you like, but understand that Anwar, if given the opportunity, would have gladly made himself your worst nightmare and killed as many of you as he could manage.

    October 6, 2011 at 6:46 pm |
    • Mike

      We have turned the entire world into a combat zone and we are constantly at war. Would following the rule of law been so hard? Could we not have tried and convicted him in absentia? Or at least formally laid out charges against this American citizen? This flippant abrogation of the rule of law will lead us down the path to tyranny. Al Quaeda has already won when we start doing crap like this.

      October 6, 2011 at 11:26 pm |
    • WideAwake

      He was in Yemen on a road/street. We have not declared war on Yemen, although this is certainly an act of war. This was not a combat zone. You should read up more before commenting and muddying the waters with untrue statements.

      October 7, 2011 at 3:41 am |
    • RVInsight

      We are at war in Yemen also? Seriously, is there a place in the middle east not considered a combat zone with regards to drone strikes? As far as I know we do not have troops in Yemen so I would have to ask how was he fighting us? Why is it so difficult for the administration to provide any proof and why are people who are asking for this proof being called into question? If we have become a society that condones killing our own citizens while willing to accept the administration refusing to provide proof of why then i am afraid we are lost.

      One day your pastor might mention how dangerous the current administration is on the pulpit and the next Sunday your church might get hit with a drone strike for being a terror cell. I certainly hope someone will probe for proof then.

      October 7, 2011 at 3:58 pm |
  32. najat

    impeach Obama he broke the law, twice!!!!

    October 6, 2011 at 6:45 pm |
  33. geychie

    Ron Paul will have an office for al-Qa'ida ileaders in the Pentagon.

    October 6, 2011 at 6:45 pm |
    • Carmen

      Funny you say that, Al Qaeda leader who is one of the most wanted men in the world was invited for lunch at the Pentagon in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Go Google it.

      October 6, 2011 at 8:50 pm |
      • Mike

        You are right. Al Quaeda and bin Laden were creations of the CIA in the 80's. Saddam Hussein was a former ally. Ron Paul would put an end to this schitzophrenic foreign policy that is leading us to ruin.

        October 6, 2011 at 11:30 pm |
  34. Bogus Peavy

    There is one little issue to consider; the guy that was killed was a terrorist. Perhaps an American one but one operating with impunity in another country. One that openly threatened our way of life and looks to have actually tried the Detroit bombing. Traditionally, it's tough to locate, much less kill these guys. Perhaps it was a matter of timeliness? He there, lets get him type of situation? Get him while the getting is good?

    I think Obama was on the job on this. Point of law might be shaky but as far as I know (which is only as far as this media allows me), this was a very bad guy and he deserved/needed to be killed. Bravo. One less scary goon out there – a few million to go.

    October 6, 2011 at 6:43 pm |
  35. jdoe

    It comes down to the definitions of "enemy combatant" and "war zone". The problem is that the "War on Terror" is purposely vague. So much so that there's no clear definition on how or when it might end, that a "war zone" is pretty much anywhere in the world, and what criteria to define someone as "enemy combatant". This puts all Americans at risk, not to mention other people in the world. Ron Paul is right on this one.

    October 6, 2011 at 6:39 pm |
  36. Steve G

    Don't waste our time or money on impeachment of Obama, just let this be lesson learned, get him and his kind out of Washington. Vote "none of the above".

    October 6, 2011 at 6:35 pm |
  37. JoeT

    In a nation that should be shamed by the abuses of Gitmo "enhanced interrogation techniques" (i.e., torture), it is right to criticize the president's actions and to find them wanting. But I admonish many posters here for being inconsistent, and ask that those against this drone strike ponder whether they would have approved if the president happened to be republican.

    October 6, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
    • Micah

      There in lies the problem with the Republicrats. Ron Paul 2012!

      October 7, 2011 at 10:43 am |
  38. dan

    "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;"
    Just wanted to point that part of the 5th Amendment out. Many of you may disagree, but The Supreme Court of the United States says it's Constitutional and they're the ones who decide – fortunately. By many your definitions the Civil War would have not been Constitutional.

    October 6, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
    • Micah

      The full text says this:

      No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;

      It's referring to those who are serving in the military during a war or time of public danger. It's not referring to "Enemy Combatants".

      October 7, 2011 at 10:46 am |
    • RVInsight

      There is one small little detail missing. According to the constitution we are not in a declared war. Even if we were to declare war Yemen would not be involved in that declaration.

      October 7, 2011 at 4:07 pm |
  39. Jessie M

    Ron Paul is CORRECT. This is BLATANTLY violating the 5th amendment. ALL AMERICANS are INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY in the COURT OF LAW.

    Is that hard to understand? Is that a hard law to uphold? I think Dr. Paul is most upset because there wasn't even an effort to bring him to proper justice. We just assassinated him, without any kind of evidence submitted to any type of jury. Down with OBAMA, down with NEWT, down with CNN, and DOWN WITH ANYONE who wants to beat around the bush when it comes to the LAW OF OUR LAND, the CONSTITUTION!

    October 6, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
  40. ralk

    Impeach him yes.

    October 6, 2011 at 6:31 pm |
  41. LH

    Paul said Obama should have ordered al-Awlaki’s arrest and brought him to trial in the United States. How, exactly, does he think any president could do that? Yemen is just going to arrest him and send him here because we ask them to? Right! The Israelis broke Argentine law by spiriting Eichmann out. Is that what Mr. Paul proposes the President should do? And if the attempt goes bad, what would he say? Right.

    October 6, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
    • RVInsight

      Countries extradite criminals to the US all the time. No it is much better to invade their air space and launch hellfire missiles at cars on one of their roads. I am sure we would be cool with that if some other country did that to us.

      October 7, 2011 at 4:13 pm |
  42. Andrew

    These arguments are ridiculous. If you plan to violently murder innocent individuals and personally endorse such behavior , than your a terrorist without meaning or justification. Obama did what was needed to not only protect America but the human race. If you feel that these foes deserve any such defense your nuts! I'd consider any point of view within reason. America is not perfect, i can admit that.. which includes government , corporations and people. The act of terror is not a method of survival or the means to an end. What the youth are doing today , protesting on Wall Street is a good sign , America has finally come to terms it might be a great democracy but it's time for a real structural change. Change will hurt..

    October 6, 2011 at 6:24 pm |
    • frobert

      It has not been proved that he killed anyone, that is why he deserves a trial.

      October 7, 2011 at 1:08 am |
  43. Cautious

    It surprises me that so many people are willing to give the President unilateral authority to choose which American citizens are enemy's. Every President has some type of enemies list and would benefit from the power to eliminate their opposition at will.

    October 6, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
  44. Gary

    As a Historian I say this. Look if we tried to impeach every President that murdered a US citizen that was trying to hurt America, the list would be larger than you think...

    October 6, 2011 at 6:17 pm |
  45. Jean Sartre, Milwaukee, WI

    I do not agree with President Obama ordering the killing of bin Laden or a US citizen, namely, Anwar al-Awlaki. We had enough of that with the CIA and other Black Ops in American history killing in other countries with impunity. [KILL orders from the President?]

    That is not my America!

    I do not think I would go for impeachment of the President, however, I do think that I would like to see some sort of formal ruling and guidance by the SUPREMES regarding this kind of activity.

    October 6, 2011 at 6:12 pm |
  46. dtm4u2

    Obama the king can do what he wants and has proven that with useing the constitution as toilet paper. Ron Paul simply wants to follow the rule of law. He did say it was a net gain but we went about it wrong. Obama is setting a precedent with this american citizens killing and the war in Libya without a congressional declaration. Obama acts like a king and people stupidly follow him. Who is next on the list that Obama wants to take out? Thats right anyone he wants. No proof or trial needed. Great! This guy wasn't a good guy but he should have got a trial and perhaps we could have gotten more info out of him. Don't you find the assasination of Bin Laden and the supposed burial at sea a bit strange. I do. We could have gotten a lot of info from him to. People are letting America go down the drain when we bypass the laws. It really is sad and people just let it happen to them.

    October 6, 2011 at 6:12 pm |
  47. Mark

    Ron Paul is right. The people only agrees with Obama because it wasn't them that was assassinated. RON PAUL 2012

    October 6, 2011 at 6:10 pm |
  48. shojayxt

    Ron Paul needs to just go away. He will never be President so why is he wasting everyone's time with his nonsense?

    October 6, 2011 at 6:09 pm |
    • Mike

      Yeah. The rule of law, the Constitution, and due process are so boring.

      October 6, 2011 at 11:34 pm |
    • RVInsight

      That sounds like enemy combatant talk to me. Your name might get added to a list that get shortened occasionally.

      October 7, 2011 at 4:20 pm |
  49. larry c. wilson

    Americans seldom obey laws which they consider inconvenient.

    October 6, 2011 at 6:09 pm |
  50. eRkel

    Yayessss! How about "obstruction" for a start ...

    October 6, 2011 at 6:07 pm |
  51. hum-dinger

    To those that disagree with Paul , if you want the shoot now ask questions mentality to be used against American citizens then you are asking for hell for yourselves. You feel safe because you think they will leave you alone if you aren't wearing a turban? On paper you look just the same.
    From a concerned Canadian neighbour

    October 6, 2011 at 6:04 pm |
  52. Erik

    Quit quibbling. This isn't an impeachable offense. Move on with real problems.

    October 6, 2011 at 6:03 pm |
  53. Par in il

    Treason is definitely a capital offense. With all the unconstitutional acts of the previous administration, I'm baffled that we're just now hearing such things from Ron Paul. He has his own narrow little agenda, so is not the statesman that we need for any goovernment office.

    October 6, 2011 at 6:02 pm |
    • Mike

      Hes been consistent for 30 years .... Research

      October 6, 2011 at 11:26 pm |
    • Mike

      Shouldn't the person be formally charged with treason then? The Obama administration is keeping the justification for this hit secret. So much for openness and transparency.

      October 6, 2011 at 11:36 pm |
    • RVInsight

      You are kidding right? Go Google his speeches back during the Bush administration. If there is one thing that can be said about Ron Paul it is that he is consistent. It is not his fault if the media decides to give him a voice or not. BTW he supported impeaching GW Bush also.

      October 7, 2011 at 4:25 pm |
  54. gw

    I sure hope Paul forms a third party. The impeachment thing worked so well when Gingrich and the gang tried it on Clinton.
    I can just imagine folks on the far right explaining why traitors should be protected by the President. Right on!!!

    October 6, 2011 at 6:00 pm |
  55. HNL

    Fifth Amendment doesn't apply in this case. We are at war and he's a combatant. No due-process needed. Last I check, during battle, you shoot to kill, not asking them to stand trial.

    October 6, 2011 at 6:00 pm |
    • Mike

      At war with who? Terrorists? Protestors? Anybody labeled and enemy combatant? How do we know when we've won the war? Was it every declared?

      October 6, 2011 at 11:37 pm |
  56. Cedar Rapids

    "Paul said Obama should have ordered al-Awlaki’s arrest and brought him to trial in the United States. As an example, he points to Israel’s capture of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in 1960 in Argentina. The Israelis brought Eichmann to Jerusalem for trial."
    How come he didnt use Mossad's killing of the Hamas guy in Dubai last year as an example?

    October 6, 2011 at 5:59 pm |
  57. Janie

    Wait, so now we're not in favor of ignoring laws in favor of international safety? Since when?

    October 6, 2011 at 5:59 pm |
  58. mE

    I love Ron Paul, but disagree with him on this. The only thing good for a terrorist is being a dead terrorist, who cares where he got his passport.

    October 6, 2011 at 5:58 pm |
  59. howard

    So that would mean Lincoln should have been impeached, right? He ultimately ordered the deaths of a lot of southerns with the sort of due process mentioned. Of course the situation demanded it.

    Also, violent criminals caught in the act are often met with lethal force by police everyday, with no due process of the sort mentioned. Not many would suggest the police should be prosecuted for doing so in those situations.

    October 6, 2011 at 5:55 pm |
    • frobert

      IIf a known criminal is not a imminent threat and a officer shoots them, yes the officer is tried for murder.

      October 6, 2011 at 10:52 pm |
  60. shadysider

    At least both men have continued to hold the same views under a Republican and Democrat president.

    I agree with Paul in theory, like most libertarian stances, but when it comes to practice, a black and white worldview ignores reality.

    October 6, 2011 at 5:55 pm |
  61. American citizen

    Last time we legally declared war: 1941. I know very few of you understand that statement.

    After reading the 5th amendment, it sounds like he violated it. Never mind that the person killed was a bad person. There is a reason there is due process in this country.

    October 6, 2011 at 5:54 pm |
  62. George K

    Seriosuly all you people are trying to defend his "Rights" , all of your goverment given "Rights" were taken away the moment Bush Signed the Patriot Act. when has the Goverment ever played by the rules anyways they always use some backdoor loophole to get away with whatever they want. and BTW Ron Paul is a flip flopper that just wants to sit in the oval office and spouts nonsense to try to get there, running on any nomination he can , that is why they asked if he'd run as a third party... cause hes done it before.

    October 6, 2011 at 5:52 pm |
  63. Effelbee

    Alawi renounced his US citizenship, which is recognized by international law when you incite political violence and murder on the country you were born in. Read the 14th Amendment, not the Fifth. Armed rebellion from overseas works against due process.

    October 6, 2011 at 5:51 pm |
  64. Steve

    Newt's nothing but a chickenhawk just like 5 differment Dick Cheney. If he's so confident in being the Mr. Tough Guy, he could of at least walked the walked. It's alright for him to put their lives on the line, but not himself.

    October 6, 2011 at 5:49 pm |
  65. DrJStrangepork

    If this guy did not renounce his US Citizenship, then the Pres broke the law. If he did renounce his citizenship, then this is pretty much no foul. The result is the same though. He was either a terrorist or a traitor. Both titles are basically punishable by death.

    October 6, 2011 at 5:49 pm |
  66. Phyllis

    Well, according to some of the news coverage I seen of President Obama's Speech and hearing him take some questions for hour and fifteen minutes he spoke, I thought the question would be put to President Obama that since he just made it clear the Eric Holder is totally in charge of prosecuting individuals for the United States and Obama emphatically stated that "the President doesn't choose individuals to go after and prosecute" then how come Obama did choose al-Awlaki, the American who was killed by aireo andoit planes? Isn't that a form of Vigilantism by President Obama, to judge and kill anyone without a trial but solely on circumstancial evidence?

    October 6, 2011 at 5:48 pm |
  67. Eril

    Ron Paul should be next. He is giving com
    fort and aid to the emeny.

    October 6, 2011 at 5:47 pm |
  68. MattJ

    I agree with Ron Paul. Look, nobody supports Awlaki or what he stood for, but this is not about him. It is about the due process of law that all american citizens are entitled to. You don't stand up for due process to protect the guilty but rather to protect the innocent from abuses of our rights. The worst part is the Obama Admin provided no evidence against Awlaki and won't even justify where they got the authority to murder him.

    October 6, 2011 at 5:47 pm |
  69. Chris Scott

    Ron Paul is right...but more importantly the Constitution is always right. You do not as the president of the United States have the power to kill an American citizen without due process. This should scare a whole lot of people. One man cannot be judge jury and executioner, and to say that he was waging war against the United States is completely false. He was charged with nothing, and this administration took it upon themselves to circumvent the constitution. It is pretty sad that we will impeach a president for lying under oath regarding extramarital affairs, but we wont lift a finger to move to impeach a president who has ordered the killing of a U.S. Citizen without first being given a fair trial. To make things worse this administration will not release any evidence against Awlaki. Disgraceful.

    October 6, 2011 at 5:45 pm |
  70. Iconoclast

    Awlaki declared himself an enemy of the United States and waived his citizenship in doing so. Not only that he has aligned himself with a group we are at WAR with. He was an enemy combatant by his own actions and does not deserve the protection of the US constitution. I hope the same happens to anyone like him.

    October 6, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
    • Chris Scott

      He was definitely was not an enemy combatant, he never killed anyone, and they have no proof to say otherwise. Where do you get your information from? He was not fighting in Yemen. You cannot kill a US citizen for influencing people...especially if no formal charges were ever brought up against him. We all agree that he was probably a bad person, but you cannot kill someone without a trial based on presumptions. The constitution was circumvented and this event has set a scary precedent for this nations citizens.

      October 7, 2011 at 9:03 am |
  71. carlos mendez

    I would have say to Paul: Please don't waste my precious time anymore. I won't be voting for you anyway. Oh, and another thing don't waste any more of your time running for Presidents you're useless...

    October 6, 2011 at 5:44 pm |
  72. Kimberly Jones

    al-Alwalki is an enemy combatant and was treated as such. If he had blown something up in th US before he was eliminated, we would be mad that he wasn't caught or eliminated.

    October 6, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
  73. bcinwi

    ive been saying impeach him from day one, he is absolutely worthless

    October 6, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
  74. Mike

    Let's vote for the one man who will stand up for the people and the law. Vote for Ron Paul!!

    October 6, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
  75. Bit

    This president can't do anything right in the eyes of the American people. A terrorist whether American or not is a terrorist. Would you rather an American born terrorist kill Americans or international terrorist kill Americans. NO DIFFERENCE! When the president tries to protect this country he gets thumbs down. Way to go America!

    October 6, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
  76. Jess C

    This is why Paul has no change in ever becoming our President.

    October 6, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
  77. Zil

    Newt never mind the old man Ron Paul anyway he is out of this world and more importantly even if the presidential election is yearly, he will never be voted as president. For the last 3 presidential elections he is running and he is now laughing stock. Poor old man.

    October 6, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
  78. lgny

    The impeachment threat is pure nonsense, pointing to the trivialization of impeachment in today's Republican politics. If the President is less than perfect, then IMPEACH! - so long as it's a Democrat in the office.

    The Eichmann case is a poor example. Eichmann was not actively plotting against Israel thus giving Israel time to choose just the right time for his capture. Furthermore, he was not surrounded by armed aids eager to fight back in a nation with many supporters willing to join any battle that might ensue.

    If AA had been killed in the streets of Paris then Ron Paul would have a valid case, but Yemen is hardly a good location for a police-style arrest.

    October 6, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
  79. Barry

    Ron Paul said that Awlaki's death is probably a "net positive", meaning that it is probably a good thing, but the fact remains that Obama broke the law. Ron Paul respects the law and the constitution. You either agree with the constitution and the rule of law, or you don't. While everyone, including myself, are emotionally satisfied with the death of a bad person like Awlaki, we can not simply circumvent the law whenever we want just because our objectives are better served by doing so. Ron Paul 2012!

    October 6, 2011 at 5:39 pm |
    • Jay

      Ever heard of "WANTED: DEAD OR ALIVE!" apparently not.......

      October 6, 2011 at 5:49 pm |
    • phearis

      Republicans don't seem to have a problem circumventing the law when it suits them. See "Bush's Illegal Invasion of Iraq" as a major example and "Bush's Illegal Wire-Tappings" prime example. Yet you didn't hear a single Republican screaming "Impeachment" for that little skirmish, did ya.

      October 6, 2011 at 5:50 pm |
    • Hammer

      Didn't this "American citizen" commit treason going against his own country? And isn't treason punishable by death? So tell me again what rights this guy deserves.

      October 6, 2011 at 5:56 pm |
      • frobert

        A conviction for treason requires two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in court.

        October 7, 2011 at 1:13 am |
    • Todd in DC

      Fine, then you can start by impeaching Shrub for an illegal war in Iraq, and you can impeach Reagan for the arms for hostages deal.

      October 6, 2011 at 5:59 pm |
    • Michael

      We have an Attorney General who is approved by Congress who interprets the law for the executive branch in these instances. We also have judges who adjudicate cases based on the law, and their opinions are often less than unanimous. You may disagree with specific determinations these people make, but that does not mean the President respects the law or the constitution any less than Ron Paul.

      October 6, 2011 at 6:02 pm |
    • Michael Ivy

      Each time Blitzer misrepresents Paul, diminishes Paul, ostracizes Paul, two things happen. (1) Blitzer loses credibility and respect as a competent journalist/anchor/etc., and (2) 10 new Paulians are created. Here's the thing, were this taken to the Supreme Court it would be a lock, with no one dissenting that what Obama authorized was in direct violation of the 5th Amendment. There is no way the Supreme Court would, under any circumstance, allow for any exception to the 5th, precisely for the reasons Paul has explained on several occassions now; notably that it creates a slippery slope from which there is no protection or return.

      October 6, 2011 at 6:02 pm |
    • Haggisdog

      Oh come on, this guy is as much a political opportunist as the 'Washington insiders' he rails against. He would only pursue impeachment if 'the mood of the country' supported it?!? Way to stand by your principles! Let's not forget this is the same person who thinks FEMA should be dismantled, that there should be no IRS, we should have no military presence. I'm all for freedom of speech but how does someone like this get elected and why doesn't the media let him rant to himself in some coffee bar?

      October 6, 2011 at 6:02 pm |
    • blf83

      Ron Paul has no clue regarding the Constitution. His Constitution is the founded in the writings of Ayn Rand – no Constitutionalist!

      October 6, 2011 at 6:03 pm |
    • tom

      "You either agree with the constitution and the rule of law, or you don't."

      Have you ever read the constitution? Its written in vague and non-specific language in many cases. That's why we have a supreme court, to try interpreting it. Thats we keep fighting over "freedom of speech", "separation of church and state", etc. A conservative will interpret a specific clause in a completely different manner from a liberal. Reading the constitution is often like reading bible verses. Go read before posting.

      October 6, 2011 at 6:07 pm |
    • strangerq

      Ron Paul said that Awlaki's death is probably a "net positive", meaning that it is probably a good thing, but the fact remains that Obama broke the law.

      ^ Nonsense. No law was broken.

      If a law was broken – *prove it* – in court, or be silent.

      Awlaki joined a foreign army.

      He is an enemy combatant in war period.

      I law isn't broken just because Ron Paul says so – as he is not neither judge, jury or prosecutor.

      He is simply a cult leader and ideological extremist that some people happen to hero worship.

      Nothing more.

      Ron Paul respects the law and the constitution.

      ^ He knows neither. He only knows his own ideology. This is why he is doomed failure.

      October 6, 2011 at 6:08 pm |
    • Geoffrey

      Ron Paul is not a lawyer, he is not a constitutional scholar. The President is and so are his legal advisors. First, AlAwlaki publicly repudiated his citizenship and openly declared war on the US Government. That put him in the same legal status as every other person that has been killed on foreign soil. One could argue that he was just kidding, that he didn't man it, that he didn't know he was on the most wanted list but that would be silly, even for Ron Paul. So, Ron Paul is just doing what he does, flexibly re-defining the law to make talk.

      October 6, 2011 at 6:11 pm |
    • Cody

      If ron paul respects the law then why would he support the war on iraq even though by law war was never approved by the congress. In order for us to go to war congress has to approve of it.

      October 6, 2011 at 6:14 pm |
      • frobert

        First of all congress did approve the action in Iraq, second Ron Paul did oppose it.

        October 6, 2011 at 11:37 pm |
      • Eagle

        Ron Paul voted AGAINST the Iraq war. He did not and does not support the Iraq war.

        October 7, 2011 at 1:24 am |
    • andy

      Wrong wrong wrong. The constitution actually provides for the law you say he is breaking. You guys really need to read and research more before making these statements, you are completely, totally, factually, incorrect.

      October 6, 2011 at 6:18 pm |
    • matt houston

      “It’s pretty clear that you can’t take a life without due process of law, especially of an American citizen,”

      It's pretty clear that you do need due process of law IF the person's guilt is questionable. I'd like to see him cry due process if some American got a hold of nuclear or bio-weapons and had his finger on the button and was broadcasting his intentions in real time. Yeah...keep living in your idealistic world.

      October 6, 2011 at 6:45 pm |
    • Hey you

      How do you know that Obama gave an order to kill this person? It could have been a number of people lower down, or not at all. He was in an area drones have been known to target, so legally it would be very very hard to link Obama to this.

      October 6, 2011 at 6:55 pm |
    • The_Mick

      Yes, you either agree with the Constitution or you don't and the Constitution, as even Gingrich notes, allows you to kill an enemy combatant. It's Paul who doesn't agree with the Constitution. During WW2 in N.Africa, my father in the American Darby's Rangers fought against Americans who had joined the German army before America got into the War. According to Paul, the surviving Rangers should apparently be put on trial today because they fired at American citizens!

      October 6, 2011 at 7:06 pm |
    • Grumpy

      Barry, in words from some holy writ, "Giveth thou me a break!" Impeach away, if you like. Waste the taxpayers' money on court proceedings and lawyers' fees. Go ahead! No jury would convict. Not in this case. Wait!. We can send Ron Paul the bill.

      October 6, 2011 at 7:13 pm |
      • Eagle

        Ron Paul said this was an impeachable offense, but he never brought the impeach issue up. It has been asked of him first on several occasions and he has only responded accordingly.

        October 7, 2011 at 1:28 am |
    • Michael

      So, was Lincoln wrong to wage war against the South during th Civil War killing U.S. Citizens? The same "law" is in the Constitution as it was back then.

      Course somebody needs to show me in the Constitution specifically prohibiting killing a traitor.

      October 6, 2011 at 7:16 pm |
    • SFC Mike

      Absolutely true. Unfortunately for Ron Paul's argument, there was no violation of Federal law or of the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment applies to criminal prosecution, not warfare. The old "there's no declaration of war" argument doesn't wash, either. Congress has the sole power to declare a state of war between the United States and another nation or entity, but nothing in the Constitution prohibits the President as Commander-in-Chief from engaging in military action. If Congress doesn't agree, they can always withhold funds to carry out that military action. This issue was resolved in the late 1700s when the vast majority of the framers were still alive and politically active – in the actions against the Barbary pirates and in the undeclared naval war with France.

      Anwar al Awlaki chose to join an organization which has declared that it is at war with the United States, and which has attempted to carry out attacks against the US. He made himself a legitimate target of war. Too bad for him, and too bad for Ron Paul's limited libertarian party line understanding of the Constitution.

      October 6, 2011 at 7:16 pm |
    • Semper Fidelis

      Very well said. At least you respect the law and due process. You are a credit to what used to be a strong and respected nation.

      October 6, 2011 at 7:17 pm |
    • Fabes

      The thing that amazes me is that the US gov and their supporters go around the world talking about freedom and liberty, and the constitution. Why on Earth a world leader hasn't told the US govt straight to their face that they are full of it amazes me. The US govt can't even follow their own constitution, they can't even defend freedom nor liberty at home. Why on Earth should anyone else listen to a foreign govt that are a bunch of hypocritics and too arrogant to realise it too.

      October 6, 2011 at 7:36 pm |
    • Spike

      I live in the Bay Area and a man has been on the loose for shooting a couple people. The police found him and shot and killed him. He did not have the opportunity for a trial. Should the policemen be arrested?

      October 6, 2011 at 8:05 pm |
  80. John

    I am a liberal Dem and I am with Newt on this!

    October 6, 2011 at 5:38 pm |
    • Steve

      If Ron Paul's wrong on foreign policy and the rule of law, why does he receive more donations from active duty military workers than all other chickenhawk Republicans combined? Why does he receive more than Obama. Ron Paul is the only on fighting for a stronger national defense, not a weaker, even Reagan said that.

      October 6, 2011 at 5:54 pm |
    • strangerq

      Newt is right that Paul doesn't understand the law or constitution.

      Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

      October 6, 2011 at 6:10 pm |
  81. itsconstitutional

    "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

    October 6, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
    • itsconstitutional

      james lysiuk

      The above is a response to your post, nothing is wrong with the people who KNOW this act violates our federal laws-the problem is with people like you who do not understand those laws....who decides which person the gov't "takes out"?

      Defend and Apply the constitution, it is the only answer to the mess we are in...the UN, NATO, Dept of EDU, all these are UNCONSTITUTIONAL as well as Obamas action.

      Hppy the guy is gone, but the action violated our laws

      October 6, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
      • dan

        "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;"
        Just wanted to point that part of your post out to you. The Supreme Court of the United States says it's Constitutional and they're the ones who decide – fortunately. By your definition the Civil War would have not been Constitutional.

        October 6, 2011 at 5:45 pm |
      • Larry

        He deserved to die. A traitor is a capital offense punishable by death. During WWII there were German Americans who went back to Germany to fight for Germany, are you saying they should have been captured and brought back for a trial. The President did the right thing here. Enjoy your feeling of safety from being killed by an attack from this terrorist.

        October 6, 2011 at 5:57 pm |
      • Richard Griffith

        The constitution, written over two hundred years ago could not logically cover everything the government wished to establish in the future. That does not make everything unconstitutional. That's what we have a Supreme Court for. As far as Anwar goes, if you renounce this country and try to kill US citizens, you forgo your due process. Moreover, we know there are terror cells in the US. Some of these individuals have attained US citizenship. You want to give them due process... Seriously??

        October 6, 2011 at 6:03 pm |
      • hillary for pres

        the debate is around the act of war piece – and if that qualifies for awlaki to be killed given his statements of war (jihad) against the US. If that factor is proven fact, then I don't believe a law was violated.

        October 6, 2011 at 6:13 pm |
      • Jerry

        Why doesn't this apply, "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;" ?

        October 6, 2011 at 7:06 pm |
      • Semper Fidelis

        Congratulations to you. You indeed the voice of reason. Thank you.

        October 6, 2011 at 7:20 pm |
      • SFC Mike

        For what capital or otherwise infamous crime was al Awlaki held to answer? He was an enemy unlawful combatant member of an organization at was with the United States. End of story. Note that the Fifth Amendment says NOTHING about citizenship – it clearly sates "No person" not, "No citizen." By your stretch of the Fifth Amendment, US forces engaging the Taleban or al Qaeda in Iraq were obligated to try to arrest every combatant they found, and only use force if they were fired on.

        October 6, 2011 at 7:21 pm |
      • Louis Nardozi

        What part of US Citizen is your brain having trouble processing? If they can kill HIM, they can kill YOU. Do you understand there is no practical difference? When no proof is required, only an assertion the entire population is a criminal. We can be disposed of if the committee disapproves – no evidence necessary.

        October 6, 2011 at 8:54 pm |
    • Effelbee

      Alawi was certainly a public danger to all American citizens. Get it?

      October 6, 2011 at 5:52 pm |
    • Jake

      Do you understand the word "TREASON"? This alone is capital punishment by death!

      October 6, 2011 at 5:55 pm |
      • frobert

        After a trial.

        October 7, 2011 at 1:20 am |
    • Someone

      OK – is this not a time of Public Danger then?

      October 6, 2011 at 6:03 pm |
    • Geoffrey

      Awalaki was indicted by a Grand Jury. He was not in the US, he had given up his US Citizenship and declared war on the US. For those combined reasons, he was not within the protection of the US constitution. He has no more rights than anyone else who was killed by a drone attack.

      October 6, 2011 at 6:13 pm |
    • Bill Duke

      al-Awlaki recieved "just compensation" for his traitorous acts of warfare.

      October 6, 2011 at 6:32 pm |
  82. Adam Goerger

    I am not on Twitter. That said, how often is the "hashtag" #ronpaul2012 on there? Twitter seems to be a way that the media can be bypassed to show how people are really feeling. Get 50k people doing that and suddenly people have to take notice of the "trend" and maybe the media would have to pay it more due attention. Get some movement behind that and I will join Twitter just to spread the word.

    October 6, 2011 at 5:32 pm |
  83. John Barton

    The odd thing is the current administration went to great lengths to try to provide a civilian trial for some of the 9//11 masterminds, even wanting to have it in New York city instead of a military tribunal. All that fuss for a non citizen. Here an actual US Citizen, albeit one with most likely evil intents to this country. was not afforded the same process, and instead a secret DOJ document was drafted in the quiet of the night that "gave" the right to target and kill him. I believe that even though there would be risk in capturing Anwar, it would have been beneficial for intelligence as well as protecting his constitutional rights, even if he had waved them by condemning the USA.

    October 6, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
    • VikingsLost

      America is at war with terrorists bent on harming us. Al-Awlaki is a known terrorist whose actions and words reaffirmed his commitment in encouraging harm and death to America and its citizens. The President was correct in defending our nation against those terroristic threats.

      Obama/Biden 2012

      October 6, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
    • VikingsLost

      Al-Awlaki had been targeted by the CIA for years because of his ability to appeal to other Americans to carry out attacks. According to the 9/11 Commission report, he was in communication with three of the 9/11 hijackers and was also in contact with Major Nidal Hasan, the man who opened fire at Ft. Hood in 2009, killing 13 people. There are also indications that he was in contact with contact with Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, who is facing trial as the suspected underwear bomber.

      "His death takes away their (AQAP) ability to recruit Americans," said Allen, who insists that it doesn't mean AQAP is no longer a threat. "They have a lot of fighters, hundreds of them. He is not the leader, and I believe they will fight harder now against the Saudi monarchy, which has been one of their main targets."

      October 6, 2011 at 6:49 pm |
    • Semper Fidelis

      Your Commander-in-chief did the same with Osama BL It's getting to be a nasty habit with him.
      With OBL there was a public and very PROUD speech by the C-in-C. With this one it was hole-in-the-corner stuff that smells a bit iffy to me!

      October 6, 2011 at 7:25 pm |
  84. Janice McLain

    Why are the Wall Street protesters liberals according to you? I'm a moderate middle-income senior and I am hopeful the silent middle class will finally find a voice and make sure more Americans understand that Republicans do no stand with them.

    October 6, 2011 at 5:26 pm |
    • Jess C

      Simply because anyone who disagrees with a conservative (esp. far right conservative) is labled liberal when in fact, so many are simply moderates. The moderates among us have gotten squashed by the extremists...very sad. We need to be more obnoxious I guess, to get attention.

      October 6, 2011 at 5:45 pm |
  85. Andrew

    Ron Paul 2012!

    October 6, 2011 at 5:21 pm |
    • Par in il

      You're kidding, right?

      October 6, 2011 at 6:03 pm |
  86. nader paul kucinich gravel mckinney baldwin ventura sheehan

    Which man combines honesty, compassion, intelligence, and guts?
    Newt Gringrich or Ron Paul?

    blows against the empire
    – Starship as in Jefferson

    October 6, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
    • NSL

      Neither one. They're both horrendous opportunists who would kill America for their own benefit. The both profess to love America, while they both clearly don't care one bit from Americans.

      October 6, 2011 at 7:09 pm |
  87. James

    Congressman Paul is not wrong. assassination of an American citizen is wrong and dangerous. wait till people in America wake up and realize this is just the first assassination of many more to come. you will soon understand what Dr. Paul is talking about after assassinations become the new war on America.

    October 6, 2011 at 5:18 pm |
    • Semper Fidelis

      My condolences to all the decent Americans who stand up for freedom of speech. You could be on the hit list sooner than you think! Really.

      October 6, 2011 at 7:27 pm |
  88. slob

    Dr. Paul didn't say he was open to it, he said it was possible strictly from a constitutional standpoint. He is right and your twisting his words.
    Ron Paul 2012

    October 6, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
    • Ryan

      Shame on you Wolf, Ron Paul never said he was open to try and impeach the president!

      October 6, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
    • Earthling

      He also said he'd be open to the idea if "the mood of the country was such that they wanted to do it". What conviction he has!

      October 6, 2011 at 5:31 pm |
  89. Hershowitz

    Ron Paul is 100% correct.

    October 6, 2011 at 5:16 pm |
    • andy

      And your statement is 100% incorrect. Read the Treason act.

      October 6, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
  90. John

    Funny how Ron Paul is the only candidate in the field that is ever asked if he will run as a third party candidate. They would never ask that to the other clowns running. Ron Paul is right on this issue. It wouldn't be an issue if Obama had CHARGED the guy and provided EVIDENCE to a GRAND JURY. But no the rule of law just doesn't apply anymore. Pathetic. The one guy looking out for the people gets bombarded by the media and his message distorted in brilliant fashion. Losing a lot of faith in the country that used to be a beacon of hope. Maybe the people will wake up. Doubt it. Maybe the media will do it's job. Doubt it. Maybe the economy will recover when we vote Obama out. Doubt it

    October 6, 2011 at 5:09 pm |
    • The American People

      I agree that Obama has been bombarded by the media and his message distorted in brilliant fashion. Other than that...maybe this John fella will stop leaving his clueless opinions. Doubt it.

      October 6, 2011 at 5:49 pm |
    • andy

      Read the Treason act in the Constitution, you are wrong.

      October 6, 2011 at 6:25 pm |
      • frobert

        iIf there was a "treason act" it would be unconstitutional, treason is defined in the constitution and it specifically excludes any other definition.

        October 6, 2011 at 10:32 pm |
    • Tom

      Funny that Ron Paul is the only candidate that has run as a third party candidate...

      October 6, 2011 at 6:54 pm |
    • Semper Fidelis

      Well done Sir. You have just outlined the 'Brave New World' that is America 3-5 years from now.

      October 6, 2011 at 7:30 pm |
  91. deepwater

    obama has more wars going then bush! Ron Paul is right. Ron paul gets more donations from active military then all other candidates combined including president . The troops want to come home and defend our borders! try asking some troops if you think otherwise

    October 6, 2011 at 5:04 pm |
    • hillary for pres

      My son is one of these troops – he just came home – wants to go again. Doesn't care about paul... wished christie would run. just sayin

      October 6, 2011 at 6:16 pm |
    • andy

      Pfftt... that's an ignorant statement. Let's count the "wars Obama is in"

      Iraq- Illegal war, excuse to make money for Haluburton : BUSH STARTED
      Afgahistan: Revenge for 911, excuse to make money, BUSH STARTED
      Libya: Not a War.

      Hmnn. I count zero.

      October 6, 2011 at 6:27 pm |
    • rob

      More wars than Bush!!! Republicans should love him.

      October 6, 2011 at 7:13 pm |
  92. AverageAmerican

    I listened to your interview of Ron Paul and the clip of Newt Gingrich supporting Obama's decision in regard to al-Awlaki. Ron Paul is absolutely correct on this issue. Anyone can be made into a threat by the administration and the media. Your questions as to what other candidate could Ron Paul support are insulting as well. You might as well have said - you're not going to win, so who's going to get your supporters? I would not put too much faith in your polls as they come from the same place as credit ratings for mortgage derivatives. Many of you underestimated the impact of the Tea Party and were shocked after the 2010 elections. I think you'll find that there is much more support for Ron Paul out there than the media leaves us to believe. And most Ron Paul supporters are vowing to write him in if he does not get the nomination. They said Murkowski could not do it, so who knows?
    I would not vote for 'snake oil' Newt if he was the ONLY candidate.

    October 6, 2011 at 5:00 pm |
    • kikaha

      I don't support him.

      October 6, 2011 at 5:38 pm |
    • kake79

      I will be voting for Ron Paul via ballot or write-in or I will not be voting. He is the only politician I know of that actually cares about the law and Constitution and about doing what is best for the U.S. and its citizens. He speaks plainly and honestly about his beliefs even if they aren't popular unlike every other person running for election that would tell you anything you want to hear if it means a vote.

      October 6, 2011 at 6:22 pm |
    • Dave

      Ron Paul is not going to be elected President. All he might accomplish as a third party candidate is to draw off enough Republican votes to ensure Obama's reelection. So I definitely encourage him to run.

      October 6, 2011 at 6:53 pm |
    • Semper Fidelis

      You're absolutely right. The American people in their unthinking, deranged way KEEP voting clowns, thickos and novelties to the presidency. They'll do it again in 2012.
      Ron Paul shows every attribute that a President should have so he has NO chance.

      Who was it said the country gets the president it deserves?? At the moment you obviously don't deserve much at all. Sad thAt you can't see it!

      October 6, 2011 at 7:36 pm |
  93. CaliforniaBC

    The guy may be an American citizen BUT he was in another country fighting against America and plotting attacks to kill innocent American citizens. He was essentially an enemy soldier who knew the situation he was putting himself in and the potential consequences for his actions.

    October 6, 2011 at 4:59 pm |
    • Ryan

      This American was not an "enemy combatant". We are not at war. You can't make up the law as you walk along! Guess what, hate speach is protected by the 1st Amendment!

      October 6, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
      • sqeptiq

        You need to learn the difference between de jure and de facto. He was a de facto enemy combatant. Would you suggest that we ask enemy soldiers for an ID proving citizenship before we shoot them?

        October 6, 2011 at 6:13 pm |
      • hillary for pres

        We aren't at war??? Really? wow.

        October 6, 2011 at 6:17 pm |
      • genp

        But not masterminding terrorist attacks

        October 6, 2011 at 6:23 pm |
      • Bill Duke

        His citizenship is 100% irrelevant. He was an enemy commander fighting a war against us. He's no different than the American citizens who fought for the Germans in WWII.

        October 6, 2011 at 6:30 pm |
      • andy

        Ok smart guy. Tell that to the sailors on the Cole. Tell that to the 3000 dead people from 911. If blowing up American citizens because they are Americans isn't war, I don't know what is. I'm sorry but times have changed. The enemy doesn't get its pressed Red Coat on and line up in the field for a nice game of war anymore. It's Terrorists on You Tube, plotting attacks like the Cole and 911 that we are after. Citizen or not, if you are a traitor, we have a law, and a punishment. Why suddenly blow off the constitution? You people are reading one part about US citizens, and forgetting the big article outlining what to do if that citizen turns against us.

        OK: NEW RULE: IF you leave the U.S. and you are not on vacation and you post ONE You tube video calling for America's death you get an automatic citizenship revocation. How about that. Now he's not a citizen,

        Go look up the definition of enemy combatant, and go read the Constitution. So much ignorance and idealism around here. Are you people seriously defending a known bad guy???

        October 6, 2011 at 6:35 pm |
      • Dave

        We are in fact "at war" with al Qaeda – bin Laden declared war in so many words on the United States more than a decade ago. Taking up arms against your country is not "protected speech" – it makes you an enemy combatant subject to military reprisals.

        October 6, 2011 at 6:50 pm |
    • kikaha

      Exactly. He was a traitor and was killed for his decision to become one.

      October 6, 2011 at 5:39 pm |
      • Paul

        Treason is CRIME punishable under the LAW. Just because he was a traitor doesn't mean he doesn't get a trial. Geez. People don't think anymore. Ron Paul is correct. If this is to be a Constitutional Republic with equal protection under the LAW, then we have to follow the law ALWAYS. Otherwise we're a nation of men, not laws and everything can be rationalized away.

        October 6, 2011 at 8:39 pm |
    • Der

      Were not at war? Thats news to me.

      October 6, 2011 at 5:40 pm |
      • Rolland

        We are at war? That's news to me. Only congress has the power to declare war and the last time it has was WWII.

        October 6, 2011 at 6:00 pm |
      • Pyrometman

        Show me the formal declaration of war against Yemen. Don't you guys get it. The law is the law and it is meant to be followed or unintended things can happen that you won't like. If you want to change the law, write to your Representatives and Senators to do so.

        October 6, 2011 at 6:09 pm |
      • TrojanMan

        Really? We never officially declared war on any nation and we haven't since World War II. You do realize this don't you?

        October 6, 2011 at 6:15 pm |
      • Jessie M

        No, we are not at war. When is the last time we declared war? Answer: WW2. If you don't declare war, it is not a war, according to the great stack of papers we were founded on: the constitution. Educate yourself before speaking.

        October 6, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
      • Edward

        Actually, no we aren't at war. Only Congress can declare war, and they haven't done that since WWII. Just because a bunch of stuffed suits puts our military in harms way and decides to kill a bunch of people, doesn't technically mean we are in war.

        October 6, 2011 at 7:09 pm |
      • MNAND

        It's not a war . . . it's an overseas contingency operation!

        October 6, 2011 at 7:31 pm |
      • Paul

        Legally speaking, in order to actually be at war the Congress is the only body able to DECLARE war. No declaration of war has been made since WWII. So, technically, we are not at war. Oh yeah, and I spent two tours in the Middle East, one in Iraq.

        October 6, 2011 at 8:42 pm |
    • gw

      He was a traitor with blood on his hands. Period.

      October 6, 2011 at 6:01 pm |
    • Jose Mora

      Sorry, I missed the headline, "CONGRESS DECLARES WAR ON YEMEN." I guess I've been busy.
      If that didn't happen, then please tell me why we are doing in the territory of a SOVEREIGN nation and killing an American citizen at that?
      Also, isn't that nation in the middle of an uprising? When did we become the AIR FORCE of ALI ABDULLAH SALEH?
      I'm sure that will win over the population in that country, not to mention the new government once this dictator is overthrown.

      October 6, 2011 at 6:59 pm |
  94. Jane

    Just curious....why no discussion about the racial make up of the protesters in New York? They look pretty white to me. With all the obsession by the media on how many white people were at Tea Party rallies, why is there no talk about this predominately white Wall Street protest?
    Could it be that the media has preconceived notions about conservatives and liberals? The media believes that liberals can't be racist, but that conservatives always are?

    October 6, 2011 at 4:58 pm |
    • Someone

      I don't know what you are thinking, but the answer is simple – the Tea Party wants to get rid of the safety net that many minorities rely on, including health care. The Wall Street protesters are angry over a corporate structure that has adapted a profit at all costs mentality – regardless of the color of the persons skin. This is a simple difference that you fail to grasp.

      October 6, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
      • hillary for pres

        no – the tea party wants to get rid of a "safety net" that has oppressed the minorities for decades. Handouts do not equal opportunity, and rarely if ever equal success.

        October 6, 2011 at 6:18 pm |
    • Pyrometman

      Perhaps because nobody at those protests has been shouting anything about race? I am a Ron Paul supporter but DO NOT associate myself with the Tea Party. The Tea Party has been infiltrated by too many warmongers and racist types for my liking.

      October 6, 2011 at 6:13 pm |
    • @home

      IWhen I saw coverage of the Tea Party.. plenty of them had Racist signs depicting Obama as a witch doctor with a bone thru his nose etc... I don't recall seeing anything like this so far in the coverage of the wall street protest.

      October 6, 2011 at 6:54 pm |
  95. The Real Tom Paine

    Paul neglects to mention the Israelis violated Argentina's sovereignty when they grabbed Eichmann: had we done that, Paul would be complaining about violating another country's sovereignty. Paul needs to shut up and enjoy the moment.

    October 6, 2011 at 4:56 pm |
    • Brad Brinke

      Much like when we violated Pakastans sovereignty when we killed Osama?

      October 6, 2011 at 5:30 pm |
      • andy

        Who cares about Pakistan. They support Terrorists. They are a corrupt, ignorant, hateful, lying country. We should do whatever we want in Pakistan if they harbor terrorists.

        October 6, 2011 at 6:43 pm |
    • Derek Smalls

      Ron Paul also fails to fault the Isrealis for ALL the "extra-judicail" assisinations they have commited across the world.

      Of course the Isrealis don't give a DAMN about "laws" except as they can be twisted to serve their purposes.

      October 6, 2011 at 6:45 pm |
  96. John Harders

    Ron Paul is wrong on all accounts. He also as clueless as many others in congress about both the al-Awlaki issue and the occupy grass roots movement underway.

    October 6, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
    • Brad Brinke

      I am curious as to why you think he is wrong. Have you read the 5th amendment? We are not in a time of war, war has not been declared since 1941. The administration has not provided any credible data that Al Awlaki was a terrorist at this point. He was a citizen of the United States and such, he was protected by the Bill of Rights. I am sure Awlaki was a bad man, but this sets a precedent that should not be set. Your constitutional rights are withering away.

      October 6, 2011 at 5:34 pm |
      • kikaha

        Did you also complain about the Patriot Act?

        October 6, 2011 at 5:42 pm |
      • Jessie M

        John Harders thinks Dr. Paul is wrong because he heard that that he was wrong in this article, and probably on the O'reilly factor. He probably hasn't read the constitution, like most Americans, and he is probably brainwashed.

        October 6, 2011 at 6:24 pm |
      • Bogus Peavy

        I had not realized that I HAD any rights left. Thanks for pointing out the scraps.

        October 6, 2011 at 6:48 pm |
      • average_joe

        Now that you no longer have the right to your own life (the federal gov't owns it now) the rest of your constitutional rights mean absolutely nothing.

        October 7, 2011 at 2:34 pm |
    • Barry

      When you say that Ron Paul is clueless, it proves to me that YOU are either clueless, uninformed, or have no respect for the rule of law. You disregard the law simply because you are more emotionally satisfied with Awlaki's death than you would otherwise be if he were captured and tried in a court.

      October 6, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
  97. Michael R in Phoenix

    Why not post the 5th amendment up on your blog and see how people interpret it?

    October 6, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
  98. Julio

    well that's just great, Bravo CNN. Way to catch a headline by allowing the reader to assume Ron Paul is calling for impeachment, rather than showing he's arguing the case that it is an impeachable offense.

    October 6, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
  99. Ben

    I don't understand how Ron Paul could support someone, even though he is an American, who is waging war on his own country yet wish death to those law abiding and true citizens of the United States who can't afford or don't have health insurance. Sounds kind of hypocritcal...

    October 6, 2011 at 4:40 pm |
    • rezblade

      He didn't say he supports Anwar Al-awlaki, he just said all Americans have the right to due process. If you decide that some people don't get due process (even someone as bad as a suspected terrorist), then everyone's right to due process is under threat.

      October 6, 2011 at 5:36 pm |
    • John Barton

      There is a process that must be given diligence. Take the case of Richard Jewel, the man who was first hailed as a hero for saving people at the Atlanta Olympic bombings, then targeted and smeared as the one who plotted it. It wasn't true, yet the media, the Department of Justice and FBI, and the public at large tried him in the court of public opinion. Without due process he was unfairly made into a scapegoat. He was innocent, yet his life was ruined without any due process. I'm not saying that Anwar is not guilty, but as a US citizen he deserves his day in court even if he doesn't believe in the US justice system or even if he renounces it.

      October 6, 2011 at 5:37 pm |
    • Scarlett, TX

      Ben, he never wished death on people with no health insurance. He clearly said "no" when Wolf asked him if we should "let him die" and he said when he was working at the hospital, he never turned anyone away. I don't understand how you can twist words like that.

      October 6, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
    • DeathToCorporateMedia

      The simplicity of the American mind is troubling. Ron does not support this guy but rather supports us, good honest Americans.

      "Respect for the rule of law never has been for the protection of monsters like… Awlaki, who should meet their just fate – but for the protection of the vast majority of innocent citizens who should never become subject to mere governmental whim…” – Ron Paul

      October 6, 2011 at 5:51 pm |
      • carmen


        "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you."
        ~Don Marquis

        October 6, 2011 at 11:58 pm |
    • Kendal

      Ron Paul is not defending Alwaki he is following the law. Likewise he is not against the uninsured he is for accountability. Our government is not held accountable and therefore does not follow the contstitution... this is very bad for America and Americans. It's time we held them accountable. I'm voting RPaul.

      October 6, 2011 at 5:51 pm |
    • Chan Fonseka

      Wow, Ben, you're right : it DOES sound hypocritical! Two slight problems though: (1) Ron Paul never said he supports Al-awlaki, and (2) He never wished death to people who don't have health insurance. Would you like to back up what you said?

      October 6, 2011 at 6:19 pm |
  100. james lysiuk

    what is wrong with people today ! the president did the right thing why can't people see that. does everybody have blinders on !

    October 6, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
    • Jay Noble

      Jack Bauer would have done the same thing as Obama. It is a small price to pay for the better good of all citizens!!!! Go Obama!!!

      October 6, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
    • Matt in Vancouver

      Because doing the right thing is never possible when you go around the law to do it. The only thing that has blinders on here is justice, as it should. Ultimately, the President committed an illegal act to kill this man. That is an impeachable offense.

      October 6, 2011 at 5:49 pm |
    • Kendal

      The president broke the law. The problem is not that one more "bad guy" is dead... it's how it was accomplished. The President can't legally assasinate an american citizen regardless of their ALLEGED crime. Don't forget we are innocent until proven guilty in the court of law.

      October 6, 2011 at 5:59 pm |
    • Rolland

      You are the one with blinders on. Irrespective of al-Awlaki's guilt or innocence, it is clearly a violation of the US Constitution to kill someone for a crime without due process. People say al-Awlaki was a traitor, an assertion that I will not dispute, but Obama as POTUS swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution an he is every bit as much of a traitor as al-Awlaki. And what does that make you and others who condone this illegal action?

      October 6, 2011 at 6:10 pm |
    • TrojanMan

      @james lysiuk
      You are right with one thing in your comment. ONE.

      The American people do have blinders on and have had them on for quite some time. Unfortunately, when you allow the media to make decisions for you, you fall into the group that thinks that all people who criticize the gov't are terrorists.

      Was Al-awlaki an enemy to the state? Yes, but did we have direct evidence that he had committed these crimes? No. To just decry someone as a terrorist and kill them just goes to show how much of a tyrannical gov't we have become. It is very sad that we have become what so many men died fighting against in the Revolutionary War.

      October 6, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
    • RJ

      He violated the right to due process for a U.S. Citizen.
      The ends do not justify the means.

      Yes, the guy was a terrorist, but that doesn't revoke his right to due process.
      Even Tim McVie got a trial.before he was executed.

      October 6, 2011 at 6:21 pm |
    • Jessie M

      It is you who are blind sir. Our President, as well as most of the Contributors @ CNN, have absolutely no clue when it comes to upholding Justice and our Constitution. Read it sometime, maybe you'll learn a thing or two, like: ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS ARE TO BE TRIED IN COURT BEFORE PROVEN GUILTY.

      October 6, 2011 at 6:26 pm |
    • najat

      he broke the law!!!! how do i know you are not a terrorist????

      October 6, 2011 at 6:46 pm |
    • Kelsey

      Yes they are crazy. If they are republican all they want to do is impeach the president. If they even start discussing it then the President should go after the war criminals and the wall street criminals. Which quite frankly he should have done to start with but he still always can.

      October 6, 2011 at 6:58 pm |
      • Adam

        So anybody who is killed in a drone attack is guilty and deserves no trial? Do you know how many innocent people including women and children are killed in drone attacks? Ron Paul's main complaint is the way this was carried out, not whether this guy was a threat or not. Why do you think there are so many terrorists out there wanting to kill Americans? You are occupying their lands and supporting puppet dictators just so you can secure the oil supply and feed the military industrial complex. Why don't they want to kill Chinese or Japanese or Spanish or German etc. ? Just remember one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

        There would have been no harm in giving this man a trial, he probably would have been convicted and suffered the same fate. When you invade these countries under the banner of 'freedom' and 'human rights', if you want any credibility at all, it has to be a case of do as I do, not do as I say! For every innocent civilian that dies in a drone attack, a hundred more 'terrorists' are recruited at zero cost!

        Truth never damages a cause that is just. What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?
        – Mohandas Gandhi

        October 7, 2011 at 8:07 am |
    • Liberty2012

      There is a price to pay for violating the rights of just 1 citizen. Is it worth it to give up all our protections?

      What if the president were to address the nation with the following…
      I the president of the United States come to you to ask for expanded powers to keep you safe. These powers are the same powers that many dictators around the world enjoy; however, I assure you I am no dictator and will use the powers responsibly. I need the authority to kill any American citizen who I determine may be threat to your safety. I promise you I will not abuse this authority.
      So I ask you, do any of you find that disturbing. If you do I believe you understand Ron Paul's concerns.
      If you ask people in general do they trust the government, you will get a very low percentage. So how can it be that all of a sudden we say "government, we totally trust you with the power to kill any citizen without evidence or trial based on who you say is a terrorist for which there is no legal definition"

      October 7, 2011 at 1:46 pm |
1 2

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.