NEW YORK BOSTON |#Popular: Irish Celebrity Gossip Irish in US Politics Irish Festivals Irish Roots Irish Entertainment Offbeat Irish

Home Page > Blogs > News blogs > People and Politics > Rachel Maddow, Ron Paul wrong -- US right to kill its own citizens when they are Islamic terrorists

People and Politics by Patrick Roberts

Rachel Maddow, Ron Paul wrong -- US right to kill its own citizens when they are Islamic terrorists

Posted on Saturday, October 01, 2011 at 10:43 AM

Larger Text

E-mail

30 Comments

RSS

30 comments

Previous Page 2 of 3 pages

HenrikLarsson | Nov 24, 2011, 07:46 AM EST

well you're Americans, just kill who you want and when you wish seems to be the ticket!

Report abuse

JohnODriscoll | Oct 10, 2011, 11:21 AM EDT

''Hanged'' Lord Haw-Haw. Meat is hung. Men are hanged. And William Joyce (assuming that's the Lord Haw Haw you mean, for there were several) was an American citizen by birth and a naturalised German citizen. He was hanged on a technicality because, guess what, he lied to get a British passport. Just like perhaps someone who would swear falsely to renounce their prior allegiances to get a US passport hmmm? Someone you were defending in another article on here. Truly the Golden Rule (in the Christian sense at least) is to do unto others as YOU WOULD HAVE them do unto you. I suggest you pause before posting to check your facts a little better in the future. And you think that murder by State is an appropriate response to those who print ''disgusting'' magazines that you don't like hey? Pity poor Hugh Hefner if the likes of you ever get back into power. My granddad died in 1942 torpedoed in the North Atlantic air gap caused by Irish neutrality. He went to war to oppose the sort of people who believed other people should be killed for what they were born as and for what they thought and said. Clearly, he and his comrades didn't get them all and clearly some of them have bred.

Report abuse

bonjouryall | Oct 09, 2011, 07:52 PM EDT

I'm amazed that Obama claims the right to assassinate Americans that are placed on secret hit lists (the ACLU unsuccessfully sought to make the lsits public). No jury convicted the subject Americans for a crime; they were not even indicted for anyting, despite ample opportunity by the Government. We've been fighting this war against terrorism for ten years. Couldn't we have done something like - pass a law - that authorized the actions in question? We could have attempted a capture similar to Bin Ladin, and, if he was killed resisting, then no problem. But there is no legal authority for assassinating citizens in American jurisprudence. I understand that international law also does not support this action. We kill a citizen after the SOB has had a chance to defend himself in court. This is the civilized rule of law. Obama follows in the footsteps of dictators such as Hitler, Putin, Stalin, and a host of African and Latin American dictators that have claimed the privilege. Didn't the US also kidnap someone in Italy a few years ago? Does anyone remember this? It makes me sick to think of how this country is sinking in so many ways.

Report abuse

eiriamach | Oct 04, 2011, 03:13 PM EDT

Wonder why 2Bor hasn't visited Cahir O'Dougherty's blog on bullying to defend his primary "avocation." Is it that making bullying a hate crime, as Cahir suggests, might crimp 2Bor's psychopathy, and then he'd have to find a new form of entertainment?

Report abuse

seanomelbourne | Oct 03, 2011, 06:36 PM EDT

God bless the misguided hate purveyors like 2B, not a coherent word can he speak.In another time he and his teahadist mates would be wearing SS uniforms and killing any one with a contra opinion to his rantings.

Report abuse

2BorNot2B | Oct 03, 2011, 02:57 PM EDT

To all the bleeding hearts here, longing for Utopia: Maybe you should go and join the crowd at "patchouli, BO and urine-stench square" - You know, go bare your meagerly endowed chest for the world to snicker at, while shouting worn-out clichés. -- That is, if you can manage a coherent word after a bong session, and inhaling with the children of the hippies, whose parents no doubt lathered their progeny with romantic tales of bank-bombings, anarchy and unpaid sex of times gone by. Go commune with the remnants of the Woodstock generation and the Vietnam war protestors hoping for a reprise of the 70's. Hey, Susan Sarandon is already there, and the fat greasy pig Michael Moore may soon step down from his limo to join you. Who knows, maybe you'll end up doing a cameo in one of his 'award-winning documentaries'. Won't that give a boost to your flagging present mood!

Report abuse

eiriamach | Oct 03, 2011, 09:05 AM EDT

I'm sick and tired of living in a "warrior tribe" society! I'm sick of the wars we're fighting abroad and the horrendous toll they have taken in human lives and handicaps, and in the trillions of dollars paid to support the fighting. I'm sick even of driving through any American city and seeing streets and highways named for military heroes, Colonel so-and-so street and General such-and-such highway and pvt. someone-or-other street! Does anyone really think that the soldiers who fought for this country did it to have street signs constantly reminding us all that we cannot stay out of war for the length of a generation? In this economy, when we cannot afford to build memorials to those who died in the wars, we opt for freebies like renaming our geography for our military. Everywhere the military mentality, the strike-force approach, seems to find casual acceptance. And this article by Patrick Roberts is just another symptom of that illness. I suggest that we stop for a few moments and ask what kind of a people we are becoming. Ajreaper might consider the Japanese Empire and the Nazis' Third Reich, which he cites, as examples of warrior tribes that met the fate of every warrior tribe known to historians. That's ultimately what you're prescribing for the USA.

Report abuse

eiriamach | Oct 03, 2011, 08:33 AM EDT

It's ironic that Ajreaper and others think that we who insist on the rule of law are the cowards who should hide under our beds until they tell us it's safe to come out. In the kind of police state they're advocating, no one is safe from those with the gunpower once they let the "power" part of that strike-force mentality inspire them to ... shall we call it "excessive zeal"? And they haven't far to go to get there. Under the rule of law, we accept formidable risks. Just to insist on the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' subjects us to living with criminals and terrorists in our midst whenever law enforcement cannot find the evidence to convict them. But such risks are the price we are willing to pay to preserve our freedoms. Freedom is not to be had for the price of a gun. It takes some guts to insist on following due process, whereas you guys who want a gun pointed at anyone who looks cross-eyed at you only delude yourselves that there's safety in striking first and putting the dead on trial afterwards.

Report abuse

seanomelbourne | Oct 02, 2011, 06:42 PM EDT

AGREAPER you have just graduated to grim reaper you and your cohort 2B should be careful what you wish for it might bite you in the bum.The law which allows the president to kill by drones does not exclude the U.S. Imagine a bachmann or a Palin or the rest of the looney right obtaining that right.

Report abuse

maryosullivan | Oct 02, 2011, 06:33 PM EDT

Shame on America, Just when you think the government has hit rock bottom it goes one step lower I am almost at a point where Bush looks good

Report abuse

capmotion | Oct 02, 2011, 04:27 PM EDT

If you believe in a rule of law, and if you believe in the Constitution, and if you believe in due process as a vital part of the constitutional rule of law, you cannot, by any artifice of clever rationalization, support executive assassination of people because they are ostensibly bad, even excessively bad, people. Where would that regime of executive terror end? Who decides when one's malefactions have crossed the line from entitlement to due process to status of outlawry, where anyone can exterminate? We have become what we pretend to abhor, and "decent" people find no problem with it. Shameful and Hitlerian!

Report abuse

Ajreaper | Oct 02, 2011, 08:58 AM EDT

LOL, review the evidence? The whack job made recordings that are essentially confessions- the government never had to label him because he did it himself. He was a leading member of an organization that has declared war on us- are we going to have a trial for each one of these nutt jobs before we send them to paradise? The 6th ammendment does not apply to enemy combatants in a war and the definition of war and enemy combatants has changed a great deal since our constitution was written and adopted. But hey if you want to be paranoid about how all your rights have been taken from you and the government is going to get you just go hide under your bed- we'll let you know when it's safe to come out.

Report abuse

fuzzywzhe | Oct 01, 2011, 11:12 PM EDT

You stupid fool. You just gave up your 6th amendment rights. All the government had to do was to issue a warrant for his arrest, try him in absentia, and convict him, and then kill him. But no, instead the government just DECLARED he was a terrorist, had NOBODY review the evidence, and killed him - without any trial at all. You idiots just gave up your right to a trial. This was a GROSS violation of the constitution, and there was already a path to conviction. He's been out there for 15 years, and the government never bothered to do a trial - like they have done with all the other terrorists, including NON Americans. You people are idiots.

Report abuse

hollabackgurl | Oct 01, 2011, 09:44 PM EDT

Yeehah, bombs away. Because THAT always works. We can't afford due process anymore because of THOSE people see. What do you mean we become THOSE people by denying them our hard one freedoms. I can understand your passion, but it shouldn't override your good sense (and I'm afraid it has here).

Report abuse

2BorNot2B | Oct 01, 2011, 08:17 PM EDT

Bravo Patrick Roberts, on this one I'm with you! I'd like to know how many of those crying foul here would grant full 'constitutional rights' to any terrorist animal if they themselves, or one of their dearest ones had been a victim of their savagery. -- Wasn't Awlaki the mentor and spiritual guide of that fanatic who killed 13 and injured 32 at Fort Hood? How long before shooting did Nidal Malik Hassan consider the rights of his victims? And wasn't Awlaki also connected to the 9/11 muslim pigs who hijacked and exploded 4 planes killing some 3000 innocents? Swine like Awlaki deserve to be fed strychnine and die a slow painful death. A death by hellfire - which btw he must be enjoying by now - is too good, too easy and too fast for these pigs.-- Eric Holder who refuses to brand them as 'terrorists,' along with Rachel MadCow and Ron Paul deserve to have an unfriendly encounter with one of those foul smelling turbaned troglodytes, after which I'm sure, their idea of 'multiculturalism and tolerance' might undergo a slight correction.

Report abuse

joycean | Oct 01, 2011, 07:58 PM EDT

BarryKeane, "Any state" cannot use predator drones: only those which have them. And so far, that is only the US. No other country has the technology and the willingness to expend the money for these weapons which cost millions each. We are not at war with Yemen; Yemen is an ally of ours which assisted in this attack within its borders. We are at war with Al Qaeda, of which Al Awalki was a leader. Al Qaeda declared war on US, rather than vice versa. Obviously, not all wars are between nation states.

Report abuse

Ajreaper | Oct 01, 2011, 07:49 PM EDT

Some of you are so full of crap and ignorant of history- did Japan "win" the 2nd world war because we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki? How the firebombing of Tokoyo- did that allow Japan to "win"? Did the Nazi "win" after we fire bombed Dresden? Spout your silly moral high ground garbage but the fact is governments have ignored that to fight and win wars since the start of history- even those who believe in rights and freedoms. Put a lid on your whine cause history says its a pointless position to take.

Report abuse

mamaginnty | Oct 01, 2011, 07:44 PM EDT

Innocent UNTIL proven guilty. Lose that and YOU are lost.

Report abuse

myingling | Oct 01, 2011, 07:10 PM EDT

The White House just released a new list of terrorists. One of them was named "Patrick Roberts", so he is no longer allowed due process. If anyone encounters this terrorist, do not hesitate to take him out!

Report abuse

seanomelbourne | Oct 01, 2011, 07:08 PM EDT

Lord haw haw was denied freedom of speech,as was Alwaki who was denied his constitutional rights. The CIA allgations will now never been proven. A shoot to kill policy is a cowards way of avoiding the truth or embarrasment

Report abuse

Rebelforce | Oct 01, 2011, 06:35 PM EDT

Giving American citizens their due process rights in a court of law before they are executed is such Twentieth century stuff. Enough already with the bleeding heart questions about blowing people up without a trial. If The Government says you are a terrorist---you are a terrorist----and you deserve to be blown up by a drone missile---no questions asked. Case closed. Because afterall, we are the GOOD GUYS and "they" are the EVIL DOERS.

Report abuse

gleason | Oct 01, 2011, 02:38 PM EDT

The Obama Admin deemed this guy a "belligerent" and therefore a ligit target for military response. By extension all current residents of Gitmo must be considered belligerents. This means that civil trials must be out of the question. Another article in this paper decries the use of the death penalty. Are you not championing the death penalty by Hellfire Missile as opposed to lethal injection? Seems to be a wiff of hypocricy here.

Report abuse

jamthecat | Oct 01, 2011, 12:10 PM EDT

I'm not surprised you're supporting the murder of a US citizen by the US government without benefit of trial or guilty verdict. Nor am I surprised you compare whose who don't like it to Nazis. This is the usual right-wing response to any sort of criticism -- paint their detractors as the ultimate evil, even as they, themselves, support building a totalitarian state, like they had in Russia. After all, this sort of assassination is exactly what Hitler and Stalin did a lot of. So I'm not surprised you and others like you admire their tactics.

Report abuse

eiriamach | Oct 01, 2011, 12:02 PM EDT

What's left of American freedoms worth defending when we decide to "do every thing [we] can to make the fight as unfair as [we] can and [we] do that till they are extinct"? When we're willing to do that, we'll know that the terrorists have won! They will have destroyed the way of life that we say we are willing to fight to defend. No, THEY will not have destroyed it-- they will have driven US to destroy it ourselves! Perhaps that is the most ignominious form of defeat.

Report abuse

ellenfromcork | Oct 01, 2011, 11:58 AM EDT

Well Patrick,you're quick enough to throw the Constitution in the garbage can and The Golden rule is actually, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Slightly a bit different than your version. When we start picking and choosing which American citizens are worthy of having their rights upheld, we're on the slippery slope leading to nobody's rights being upheld.

Report abuse

Ajreaper | Oct 01, 2011, 11:48 AM EDT

bleeding heart morons- we did not kill an American citizen we killed a terrorist. This guy was not on U.S. soil, its not like they nailed him coming out of a Starbucks in Boise. Why is it so many folks think its completely acceptable for terrorist to play by no rules what so ever but those who try to capture or eliminate them must grant to them rights they have never granted to others? Fight them on their terms with their tactics and do every thing you can to make the fight as unfair as you can and you do that till they are extinct. Rights are not a blank check every American citizen has by birth, they come with responsibilities and if you choose to ignore those responsibiities understand that brings consequences to include, we hunt you down and kill you.

Report abuse

BarryKeane | Oct 01, 2011, 11:29 AM EDT

What a wonderful world, where any state can launch a drone to assassinate an enemy - and without even bothering to declare war against a state territory. England will soon be launching drones into Ireland to take out IRA members. China must have plenty of enemies all over the world - enemies perceived or real, what does it matter? Whoops, what's that? An explosion down the street? Oh I'm sorry, it was just a Mexican drone taking out some drug traffickers in my neighborhood. Silly me, for a moment I thought it was something serious.

Report abuse

McSpartacus | Oct 01, 2011, 11:11 AM EDT

There is the slight issue of the US Constitution, but don't worry about it - wrap yourself in your Chinese-Made flag instead

Report abuse

eiriamach | Oct 01, 2011, 11:03 AM EDT

Roberts writes, "We need to take out these fanatics where ever and whenever we can." As John Milton wrote, "Necessity-- the tyrant's plea." If we do not hold firmly to the rule of law, we place at risk the rights it protects. Notice that Maddow and Ron Paul, two people on opposite ends of the political spectrum, agree that we should hold Americans accountable in courts of law rather than assassinating them. If Anwar al Awlaki had been taken out when he was planning or about to commit an act of aggression against Americans, then we would be justified in dealing with him as an enemy combatant. But a planned assassination of American citizens without a jury's judgment of guilt? No, not justified, and very troubling. Beware of approving this procedure because it can be politicized, and then we'd see people in power taking steps to silence permanently those whose views they do not wish to hear.

Report abuse

irismonkey48 | Oct 01, 2011, 10:40 AM EDT

I do not think our government handled this well. Americans are losing more and more rights. These guys needed to be dealt with but if it OK to kill Americans without trial it will be Ok to do that to any American.

Report abuse

Previous Page 2 of 3 pages