As much as I despise Comrade O. and would love nothing better than to have him impeached, removed from office and imprisoned, I can’t go along with the reasoning of Ron Paul for the impeachment.
Ron Paul said Monday that President Barack Obama’s targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki might be an impeachable offense.
Asked at a Manchester, N.H. town hall meeting about last week’s killing of the American-born Al Qaeda leader, the Texas congressman said impeachment would be “possible,” but that he wants to know more about how the administration “flouted the law.”
Paul called the killing a movement toward “tyranny.”“I put responsibility on the president because this is obviously a step in the wrong direction,” Paul said. “We have just totally disrespected the Constitution.” Read the rest
There’s no question Obama has flaunted and willfully violated the constitution, and no doubt at all we’ve moved closer to tyranny under his regime than at any time in history with the exception of perhaps FDR. But I don’t think this is actually impeachable.
Anwar al-Awlaki is a traitor that committed treason against the United States, he’d get the death penalty anyway, so that pretty much justifies killing him. Also, I don’t remember reading in the constitution anything about not executing a traitor. So he didn’t get his “due process,” neither did Billy The Kid.