You Won’t Believe Who Just Cheered Iran’s Islamic Revolution
OpenAI Fires Executive Who Warned About 'Adult Mode'
You Won't Believe What Iran's President Just Said About His Regime Murdering Protesters
In Defense of Female Inmates
Canada's MAiD Program Is About to Get Even More Horrifying
Backlash Grows Over the University of Notre Dame's Appointment of Pro-Abortion Professor
Somali Immigrants Are Now Claiming Parts of Minnesota Belong to Somalia
Wisconsin Students Left Out in the Cold As Evers Vows to Veto Federal...
Missouri Bill Seeks to Protect Gun Owner Privacy
Gallup Admitted What Voters Already Know
Megyn Kelly’s Moral Blind Spot: Refusing to Condemn Candace Owens
Democrat Ohio Senate Hopeful Sherrod Brown Supports an AG Candidate Who Vowed to...
The Slaughter Continues in Iran, As Nikki Haley Encourages Trump to Make a...
White House Blasts Washington Post Over ‘Breaking’ Story Trump Announced Last Year
‘Customer Has Spoken’: Ford Motor Company Faces $11 Billion Hit on EV Investments
Tipsheet

If Ron Paul Were President, Osama bin Laden Would Still Be Alive

Yep.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), who is poised to launch his presidential campaign tomorrow, said this week he would not have authorized the mission that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden, arguing that killing bin Laden was unnecessary and that he has "respect for the rule of law."

Advertisement

In a radio interview with WHO Newsradio 1040, Paul told radio host Simon Conway that, had he been president, he would have pursued an alternate strategy.

"I think things would be done somewhat differently," Paul said, of how he would have handled the situation, citing "respect for the rule of law and world law and international law."

Paul says that instead of sneaking into Pakistan and killing bin Laden, he would have cooperated with the Pakistani government and put the al Qaeda leader on trial - a strategy, he argues, that has worked for the United States in the past.

"I would suggest ...the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed," Paul told Conway. "We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he's been in prison."

Right, because bringing cold blooded killer terrorists to trial has worked out so well in the past.

The first former Guantánamo detainee to be tried in a civilian court was acquitted on Wednesday of all but one of more than 280 charges of conspiracy and murder in the 1998 terrorist bombings of the United States Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

The case has been seen as a test of President Obama’s goal of trying detainees in federal court whenever feasible, and the result seems certain to fuel debate over whether civilian courts are appropriate for trying terrorists.

The defendant, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, 36, was convicted of one count of conspiracy to destroy government buildings and property. He was acquitted of four counts of conspiracy, including conspiring to kill Americans and to use weapons of mass destruction.

Guy Benson recaps the pathetic Ghailani ruling:

How did the US government manage to amass its pitiful .0036 batting average in this case?  Crucial evidence was thrown out by a judge because, according to our criminal justice system, its genesis was legally questionable.


In addition, considering Osama bin Laden was hiding out in a luxuroius compound just outside of Pakistan's version of West Point, it seems working with Pakistan on the issue of finding bin Laden wasn't working out very well. Not to mention four other high profile terror suspects have been caught in major Pakistani cities, not hiding in caves as we were led to believe.




Advertisement

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement