Former presidential candidate and Texas congressman Ron Paul (R) is criticizing President Obama for the “targeted assassination” of Americans in al Qaeda.
While Obama apologized Thursday for airstrikes that killed two hostages, American Warren Weinstein and Italian Giovanni Lo Porto, Paul said the media should be paying more attention to the two American terrorism suspects who were killed.
“There were other people killed, but you won't read about it in the media I’m quite sure because they were two Americans who had joined al-Qaeda, so they are automatically very bad people,” he said during the “Ron Paul Liberty Report,” which was postedto YouTube.
“Being an American citizen means nothing in this day and age of no law and order so they were literally assassinated, this was a targeted assassination of Americans because they were doing something we didn’t want them to do.”
Paul is the father of Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who is running for president in 2016.
White House press secretary Josh Earnest said President Obama hadn’t signed off on the two strikes on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, and that counterterrorism officials followed protocol that seeks to ensure that al Qaeda members are the target.
But the White House stressed that the government did not know the two American terrorism suspects, Ahmed Farooq and Adam Ghadan, were present. That means it’s unlikely that the strikes were cleared through the Justice Department, as has been standard practice other times where American citizens are targeted.
It’s unclear how the strike was carried out, but TheWall Street Journal and other media outlets have reported that it was a drone attack.
Paul is a noted anti-interventionist and a frequent critic of the administration’s drone program. On the campaign trail during the 2012 presidential election, he bashed the president and said that the strategic gains don’t outweigh the animosity against America that is fostered by the accidental killing of civilians.
“It's still heartache no matter what because I don’t think we should be hitting anybody with drones under the conditions we have today,” he said.
RP is definitely taking hits at Obama who was visibly disturbed when he explained that he was responsible except that the CIA actually ordered this and carried it out without his orders.
The element missing here is that Obama has now delegated his drone-kill authority to CIA (and possibly others) to take himself off the hook for ordered murders that will inevitably include innocent civilians.
When Rand took aim at drones used on Americans (3 that Obama admitted to later), Obama pulled back on his drone program for a while. Apparently, he has now delegated this to the CIA so he can pretend to be out of the loop.
Good for Ron Paul. He has definitely landed a few blows on Obola.
Former presidential candidate and Texas congressman Ron Paul (R) is criticizing President Obama for the “targeted assassination” of Americans in al Qaeda.
Gimme a freaking break,here!
Just how old are you,anyhow?
If you didn't think innocents would be killed or wounded,WTF did you think happens when nations start firing at each other?
I'm normally a fan of Ron Paul,but he needs to put his Big Boy panties on when it comes to this,and admit this is faked shock and outrage.
Besides,IIRC,at least one of the Americans needed killing.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
The element missing here is that Obama has now delegated his drone-kill authority to CIA (and possibly others) to take himself off the hook for ordered murders that will inevitably include innocent civilians.
You are implying there is such a thing as a drone strike that only harms armed enemy.
Look at the huge number of killed and wounded innocent civilians that died from bombing attacks during WW-2.
This sort of thing is one big reason why we should never go to war against another nation just because we can,and can get away with it. If we don't have justification serious enough to dismiss the deaths and injuries of innocents,we don't have enough justification to go to war.
Besides,what we need to be doing is targeting the people that fund the fundies that fight for Islam. Nobody has EVER won a war by killing Privates. Take out the leadership and the money to pay for the war,and the war ends.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
--- what we need to be doing is targeting the people that fund the fundies that fight for Islam. Nobody has EVER won a war by killing Privates. Take out the leadership and the money to pay for the war,and the war ends.
Absolutely. We now have the technology to stop dictators and warmongers in their (literal) tracks.
One problem, -- and probably why it will never be used against the true leaders.
It's low tech enough that our leaders are at risk, too...
You are implying there is such a thing as a drone strike that only harms armed enemy.
It is entirely possible for a drone strike to only take out enemy combatants. It just happens rather rarely. For instance, we got started with drone strikes by using them to target convoys of vehicles transporting AQ leaders. In some of those cases, no civvies were killed.
One problem, -- and probably why it will never be used against the true leaders.
It's low tech enough that our leaders are at risk, too...
No,the big problem and the reason it isn't done is because the ultimate targets would be international bankers,and they are the ones that have financed wars ever since wars began.
After all,you can't target international bankers that are Swiss or French citizens,for example,and NOT target international bankers that are US or Israeli citizens living in NY or Ct because if you exempt any of them,all you are doing is making more money and creating more political power for the ones you ignore.
And let's face it,the international bankers OWN political parties in the west outright.
To sum it up,there are mega fortunes to be made by fighting wars that focus on killing Privates and destroying structures and infrastructures,and no money or power at all to be gained by stopping wars.
Call me cynical,but I don't see these wars stopping until the bankers control the whole world. Even then there are going to be minor wars as one big banker sees an opportunity to take out another big banker and seize his assets.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
It is entirely possible for a drone strike to only take out enemy combatants.
Once again,only killing Privates,and letting the Generals and their bosses sit in their compounds safe and secure.
These people are smart enough to surround themselves with innocent women and children in order to make themselves safe. Follow your policy and all you end up doing is killing the messengers and the hired help while letting the bosses go free.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
"The element missing here is that Obama has now delegated his drone-kill authority to CIA (and possibly others) to take himself off the hook for ordered murders that will inevitably include innocent civilians."
But if some bigwig terrorist is killed, Obama can still claim that he, personally, ordered it.
But if some bigwig terrorist is killed, Obama can still claim that he, personally, ordered it.
And if something goes wrong, Obama can nobly claim his responsibility while pointing the finger at the CIA and its operatives. And will use executive privilege to shield them and obstruct Congress as long as he is in office.
So, yeah, win-win with special political implications.
It is entirely possible for a drone strike to only take out enemy combatants. It just happens rather rarely. For instance, we got started with drone strikes by using them to target convoys of vehicles transporting AQ leaders. In some of those cases, no civvies were killed.
And when the enemy learns that keeping American hostages in close to them will provide a nice fat libtard compassionate shield for them... like ISIS does, then what?
I personally don't have an ounce of compassion for any person that willingly travels to the middle east and provides a target rich environment for ISIS to have a never ending supply of hostages they can bargain with and behead later.
A message to all non-ISIS: if you get caught by ISIS because YOU traveled to diaperheadville, expect to die. We will not pay or bargain for you. In fact, we will encourage them to kill you quickly.
Signed ~ O'bunghole
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
I personally don't have an ounce of compassion for any person that willingly travels to the middle east and provides a target rich environment for ISIS to have a never ending supply of hostages they can bargain with and behead later.
Me either.
At least half of the Westerners executed by ISIS had good cause to know how dangerous it was to try to work there as journalists or even as aid workers.
Some of them did get caught unaware early on and were held as hostages for several years as ISIS rose in power. I don't really blame them much as they were the first taken.
The ones taken in the last year or two have far less cause to cry foul. They knew how dangerous the ISIS area is. They had to know that they were very valuable hostages and that anyone who betrayed them to ISIS would get big payoffs.
