It is the hague convention and since they are not as you say lawful combattants, they should be brought to court in Den Hague as war criminals.TDPerk wrote:As I said, not a fan of Ron Paul. but it is either democracy, or not.Skipjack wrote:Look, I am not a fan of Ron Paul for many things, but every now and then, he had a good point.TDPerk wrote:" Just look at what the republicans did with the Ron Paul supporters!"
What? We told the truth about how we felt about that idiot.
Back in 80's when he needed money, he played footsie with the Stormfront/NeoNazi types. He claims it's all Lew Rockwell's fault, but the prints came out with Ron Paul's name on them.
He's unintelligently isolationist, and doesn't seem to know the value of changing what can be better changed slowly enough that the changes don't cause more pain than the policies which should be ended.
And what's wrong with the NDAA? When should warrants ever be required for soldiers to kill the enemy?I really liked the way he argued against the NDAA, e.g.
By virtue of there being no protections in the Geneva Contraventions applying to them, unlawful combatants such as terrorists and pirates can be shot or hung when taken, and this no change from past practice, and is fully compatible with with Geneva Conventions and Constitution.
The single most common factor of Ron Paul and his supporters, is a disdain of and ignorance of right and wrong, and history as it relates to the US Constitution and Geneva Conventions.
For someone claiming to revere the constitution, he had an unusual ability to only see what he wanted to in it.
His view of state's rights, for example, are flatly contradictory to the 14th amendment, more the fool he and his.
And there is a reason why there are the rights for people as they are named in the constitution, because otherwise you will end up putting people away, or shooting them on sight just because their neighbour reported them as a terrorist, because their tree was hanging over the fence. We put laws into place for a reason, you know!