Comments about ‘Middle East Matters: Al-Awlaki's killing: Why Ron Paul isn't ready for prime time’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Oct. 3 2011 7:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
anon oped

Dear Sir,

It saddens me to see you do not understand your own constitutional protections and are freely willing to give them away to another person.

The right of due process is in place to protect you the innocent civilian from unwanted government intrusion. Not to protect traitors. But the law has to be applied evenly.

Let's say someone powerful in the government suspects your father of doing some 'things' to children. Using your own logic, the state can declare him a bad man without proof and can now take unilateral action to remove him from society. Without habeas corpus, due process, etc.

You're actually supporting and backing the positions of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. I implore you to educate yourself.

You also have a responsibility as a 'journalist' to report news in a truthful light.


More inch-deep analysis for another media advocate for never ending war.

Elgin, IL

Ron Paul is not wrong about this and is actually just saying that doing things like this are against America's laws of due process because . It's true and it makes sense. Maybe we should stay at war for 10 more years and waste trillions more on an un-winnable mission? Seems to be what you want. Oh and by the way, this is not about religious differences, it's about occupation.

Please America...THINK!

Cedar Hills, UT

Why would Obama be against pouring a little water on a terrorists face, but OK with actually killing the terrorist and everyone else around him? I guess killing is not as brutal as water on the face?

Colorado Springs, CO

Apparently if you do not feel the way the writer does, you are not a thinker and are not ready for "prime time." My question: Has Al-Awlaki actually killed anyone, or merely encourged killing? Should Palin have been executed for the possible encouragement of people in America using force against our own administration? Get real, Mr. Opinion!

With that said, I have no problem with what happened. He may have been American-born, but was not really an American, in my opinion!

Colorado Springs, CO

@KM: Because it's defined as torture, and the US is against torture, that's why. And there is absolutely no data - even though Cheney said it worked - to prove that the practice provided any more intelligence than nontorture tactics. In fact, there are high-up interrogators who have publicly declared that their efforts through nontorture means provided much more meaningful intelligence than that obtained through waterboarding. With that said, do you disagree with Obama killing these folks or not?

Midway, UT

Wow...really juvenile article. It doesn't take any intellectual honesty to support the illegal but popular killing of an American citizen. It takes a statesman to protect our right to due process in the face of popular opposition. Ron Paul should be lauded for this principled stand in the same way that John Adams is remembered favorably for his defense of the British soldiers after the Boston Massacre.

By the way, journalists report facts. You have taken the liberty of attributing to Dr. Paul opinions that he "probably" holds or actions he would "most likely" take. In my opinion, that's the very definition of yellow journalism.

Thumbs down.

West Valley, UT

Torture, don't torture, does it really matter? These terrorists have thrown the rulebooks out the window.

This is what many people don't understand. It's the way Muslim extremists have been raised and indoctrinated. We are the infidel, the eternal enemy, and the greatest thing a jihadi can do in life is to kill us. They can't be reasoned with, diplomacy doesn't work. They would gladly exterminate every single one of us if they could, it's literally kill or be killed. To stop them you have to play their game, go anywhere and do anything in order to win. That is the measure of depravity we are facing.

We look in our history books and see that the Japanese held the same attitude in WWII. Every man, woman and child was willing to fight to the death in order to achieve their objective. That's why we firebombed Tokyo, that's why we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The only way to end this is to make them understand that we will exterminate their entire civilization in order to ensure the survival of our own.

Abe Sarvis
Cedar City, UT

VST - no, they were not denied their constitutional rights because there was a declared state of war: declared by Congress as required by the Constitution, not just started by a President without following the law. That's what Ron Paul is saying - if we're to be a nation of laws, then perhaps we should follow at least the major ones.

Gruffi Gummi
Logan, UT

Story: "For the second time this year, Americans can celebrate..."

That's the problem. Killing terrorists or enemy combatants is necessary. But there is nothing to "celebrate". One of the foundation of our European civilization is some elementary respect for death, even the death of a sworn enemy. Who thinks otherwise, belongs to the realm of savagery, dancing on graves. Shame on you, Mr. Paredes!

Salt Lake City, UT

*'U.S. Military deaths in Iraq war at 4,473 - AP - Published by the DSNews - 08/02/2011

Bottom line, I agree that we should leave Iraq and Afgahnistan.

*'Last U.S. combat brigade leaves Iraq' - By Rebecca Santana - AP - Published by DSNews - 08/19/10

'Seven years and five months after the U.S.-led invasion, the last American combat brigade was leaving Iraq, well ahead of President Barack Obama's Aug. 31 deadline for ending U.S. combat operations there.'

*'Obama likely to cut 10K troops from Afghanistan' - By Robert Burns - AP - 6/21/11

*'Obama address: Withdrawing surge troops by 2012' - By Julie Pace - AP - Published by DSNews - 06/22/11

And Obama has done that...

AND given the order to kill Osama Bin Laden and now, Al-Awlaki.

Strange that the same supporters of George W. Bush to INVADE Iraq and Afghanistan...

now criticize Obama for doing what George W. Bush, failed to accomplish in 8 years.

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

I have noticed something about Ron Paul. He doesn't like Israel as much as most other politicians. Whenever he says something that is a little out of mainstream, big Israel supporters, like Michael Medeved, and Mark Paredes, will criticize him as being out of the mainstream, not ready for prime time, etc.

It leaves me wondering, are these political hits that are being made against him because he doesn't support Israel. Basically, the price a politician pays if he stands up for US interests over those of Israel?

In terms of the issue at hand, my view is that this guy was at war with the US so I think that it is justified, but I respect Ron Paul for making the stand that he did. It shows integrity and that he is a free thinker.


Where is the objective point of view in this story? The whole story is completely one-sided! Nowhere in this article does he mention the reasons Dr. Paul gave for his stand on what happened to Al-Awlaki. Not to mention the ridiculous inefficient background he gave on Dr. Paul. I am assuming you did this to try and discredit Dr. Paul. You lack absolute logic in your article!
Question: Since you provide a lack of evidence to support your claims about his inability to handle prime time What then makes you so special or credible that the readers should just take your word for it?? What makes you qualified to deem Dr. Paul, who has fought relentlessly to protect the constitution and stood firmly without budging on his values (that also represent the values this country were founded on) for over THREE DECADES as unprepared or unelectable? There IS NO candidate out there that could even come close to Ron Pauls experience, knowledge, and squeaky clean voting record. I know this because of something called RESEARCHsomething every American SHOULD DO before they vote instead of swallowing this vomit they call news.

Midway, UT

@ Delta.

Yeah! Let's just send over a few hundred ICBMs to root out the terrorists hiding amongst the millions. Those that die innocently are just collateral damage anyway.

I'm assuming you are in favor of pulling all or our troops out of the Arab world. Since the extremists over there can't be reasoned with and don't care about diplomacy there's no point to us training their security forces, building their hospitals, schools, bridges...spilling our blood. We should also stop funding the Arab world with aid too, right? Which candidate proposes these measures anyway? Just askin'.

Richard Saunders
Provo, UT

Mr. Paredes,
You are wrong on several accounts. Ron Paul is not an isolationist, he is a non-interventionist. He did not say the fact that this man is gone was sad, but the fact that we casually are accepting the idea that the President can target American citizens for assassination without due process is sad. If you look deeper than your visceral reaction, Ron Paul is always talking about the principle, not so much the specifics of a given event. No politician in America is ready for prime time, for clear headed thinking about what is best for America than Ron Paul.


I agree 100% with author. If you'd defected during the revolutionary war you'd have been treated as an enemy combatant. The same holds true of every war since, up to and including this one. The world isn't a perfect place and rounding up international terrorists isn't as easy as it sounds. There's no going in and arresting international terror suspects. It puts lives at risk, but not yours, so what does it matter - right?

Nan BW
ELder, CO

Ron Paul comes the closest to be a constitutionalist of any of the highly visible candidates. Of course he will step on some toes of those who have some particular political ax to grind. I am not at all sad that this guy was executed, but celebrating isn't appropriate because of respect for life, and the fact that it is just an isolated instance, not a real victory in the war against terrorism. And of course there is the due process issue, not be be taken lightly. I also suspect that the article does not explain Ron Paul's full explanation of his position. I'm not impressed with the article.


I think the thing that bugs me more about this is that Brother Parades is a member of my High Council here in LA. I know he means well and does a lot of work in bridging the Jewish and LDS communities together but this does not mean he is correct on this issue either from an LDS perspective or a constitutional perspective.

Our prophets have warned us over and over again (especially Ezra Taft Benson), to adhere to the Constitution and learn it and understand it and defend it. Its an inspired document that we are to fight for. What happened is not constitutional in the slightest bit and we should be worried about that. As an LDS member it saddens me when our own leaders do not listen to our Prophets and stand up for our Constitution. Justifying the killing of a US citizen, without due process is throwing out our rule of law and placing the Constitution on the back burner while our government makes the decision of who should be assassinated or not. This is not what are country is about. We need to defend the Constitution!

Midway, UT

The Whiskey Rebellion took place in the infancy of the nation when the ideals of redressing the government were not enshrined yet. To use that as a comparison case similar to one in which laws have been in place for 225 years is a little bit of a stretch, no?

The differences don't end there of course. The rebellion had actually become physically and verbally violent before the militia was called up to put it down. Washington had also sent a peace delegation, before engaging the militia, which was rebuffed. There is a place for homeland security, I don't think anyone would dispute that keeping the peace is an important value to hold. I think the response to the Whiskey Rebellion was disproportionate and excessive. Summary executions or premeditated assassinations of individuals (particularly American citizens) without any redress or due process is flat out illegal. If you don't like it, change the law, but be prepared for the Orwellian fallout.

spring street

While I agree with the author in principal I do find it disappointing that they spent so much time attacking Paul and less time explaining why they think the killing was in keeping with the law and ethics of our country. Again while I agree with the author in principal I think this is an important discussion to have about if and/or when it is appropriate to kill American citizens that have engaged in terrorist and war time acts. who gets to make those determinations and what level of transparency is needed to avoid abuses are two questions that come to mind. During anytime of war (declared or not) we have had these types of issues, maybe we can learn from them what worked and what did not.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments