Ron Paul: I wouldn't have killed bin Laden

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).

/ Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

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."

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."

"What's wrong with that?" Paul asked. "Why can't we work with the government?"

A Paul source told CBS News on Friday that the longtime Texas lawmaker will formally launch his presidential campaign Friday morning in Exeter, New Hampshire. Paul is known for his unapologetic Libertarian views - which have over the years earned him a passionate, if limited, following -- and has repeatedly demonstrated that he is not afraid to stand by a controversial argument.

[Bendech]

This shows how out of touch Ron Paul is.
Osama had been living in a big house right next to Pakistan's military academy for years.
The Pakistani's MUST HAVE KNOWN he was there. Osama felt comfortable enough to live right in the middle of a Pakistani city instead of on the lawless border between Pakistan and Afghanistan where his friends the HAKANI network resides.
So cooperating with the Pakistanis would only have lead to his ESCAPE.
Someone in the Pakistani military would have TIPPED HIM OFF just like they have tipped off the Afghan Taliban with regularity.
Why else did the US have to swoop into Pakistan unannounced.

Ron Paul may have some good economic ideas....but as far as foreign policy....HE'S CLUELESS

[baileyccc]

That monster had to die, Ron Paul might as well pull out now.

[hurrrrrrr]

And so we end up with a situation, were we shoot him while unarmed and dump him in the sea, instead of being able to capture and extradite him here where we might actually be able to pull some servicable information on other terrorists as well as cast some light upon the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks. Instead he was at the bottom of the ocean before we even knew he had been killed. Yea, that is SO much better.

[smirk5]

Paul has zero chance of getting the Republican nomination. To get the nomination, you must be pro-war, pro-mega defense spending, pro corporate welfare and pro drug war. Paul just doesn't have what it takes.

[hurrrrrrr]

Sadly, what you describe has been the case in the past, but times change and hope remains that many are beginning to see the facts.

Over one third of our national deficit is due to military spending, most of which would not have been neccessary without the war in Iraq based on false premises, the war in Afganistan which should have been a police action and not a military assault, as well as the new Obama wars.

The fall of almost all great empires throughout history has been due to an overexpansion of military forces coupled with devaluation of the currency due to the amount of resources it requires to maintain said military empire. We are charting a course identical to the final years of ancient Rome.

The drug war locks up non-violent americans for choosing to consume something, which is as anti-freedom as you can get because if nothing else, freedom should at least mean autonomous control of your own body. On top of that it funnels money into mexican cartels, literally the primary cause of the carnage wreaking havoc with our mexican neighbors, as well as more than likely being a primary driving force behind much illegal immigration.

Corprate welfare is mainly a result of the laughable concept that corporations are "people" with individual rights. If this is true, then any gathering of multiple people can be classified as "persons". This along with the traitorous citizens uninted ruling that basically amounts to a financial sector coup d'etat of the US government, will rapidly destroy any existing concepts of American ideals over the next decades if not stopped. This along with unsustainable foreign policy are the biggest dangers facing America today. (as well as the rest of the world - collapse of world powers historically have plunged the world into bloody chaos)

[smirk5]

Chances are that Bin Laden would have disappeared from that house if we had informed the Pakistanis beforehand. Therefore, Paul probably would have let Bin Laden get away.

[JV1970]

I kind of liked Ron Paul until I heard a statement that he made this morning. He said that if he were president he wouldn't help the disaster victims in the US and he would expect them to recover by themselves with no help from the federal government. He also said that he'd do away with FEMA. He lost my vote! I'm a Republican but there's a list of other Republican candidates and potential candidates. I'll choose one of them!

[MemeberTheAdamo]

That statement also kinda got me thinking. How strange. But then I thought about it. It makes sense. That's why we have insurance. And there are plenty of organizations, churches, kind humans that assist. Why force the kindness of humans via the govt. If we stopped expecting the gov't to do so much, then I imagine we start taking responsibility for ourselves and our hurt neighbors voluntarily. Perhaps. :)

[JV1970]

MemeberTheAdamo The Mississippi delta is one of the poorest areas in the country. It is second only to Appalachia. The people there mostly live on less than a thousand dollars a month. They barely live from month to month and many of them live in ramshackle houses and trailors that don't even have indoor bathrooms or electricity. Property insurance is a luxury they can't afford.

[noloyalisti]

Is Paul that blinded by his libertarian pyscho babble that he does not realize this was a Mafia type hit job. Is he that naive that he does not realize who us running things for all of us? The giant corporations and the greedy filthy rich knew that Osama knew too much so they had him rubbed out by their military ops. It's really quite simple Ron.

[steeepe]

Clearly the Obama administration doesn't trust the Pakistanis. They must have good reason. Paul, in his ignorance, thinks that the Pakistanis would have done exactly what we wanted. Naive.

[myopinionpal]

Ron did OBL have any respect for the rule of law or did he just want to capture everyone in the twin towers.

[JBentham]

This headline is very misleading. Paul's actual suggestion was that we cooperate with Pakistan to arrest and extradite Bin Laden and that he be tried. Paul's comments left little doubt that he anticipated Bin Laden would have been convicted and executed. As Paul points out in his public statements on the issue, we tried the Nazi leadership after the end of WWII, and they were guilty of crimes at least as horrific as Bin Laden's. Those of us as old as I am remember that even Eichmann was tried after he was finally tracked down in South America. Getting Bin Laden with a SWAT team and killing him is emotionally satisfying, but if it destabilizes Pakistan (and there is that risk) and Pakistan's nuclear weapons fall into unfriendly hands, our emotional satisfaction will have come at a high cost. Whether you agree with Paul or not, I don't see how you can dismiss this as "idiotic." Was trying Nazis idiotic?

[bradkt1]

We have NOT tried, convicted or executed a single significant Al Qaeda figure that we have had in our custody for years. We don't even have a military tribunal system that has passed legal muster with the Supreme Court yet...it's been struck down twice.

Had we captured Bin Laden alive, there would be no end to the terrorist plots to free him. Finally, there would have been this big legal fight over whether to execute him...with endless court appeals.

Osama Bin Laden would have probably died in prison of old age before anything happened.

Far better to just kill him. He was still in operational control of Al Qaeda, now is no longer a threat and justice has been served.

As far as Ron Paul's suggestion that we should have cooperated with Pakistan...they just would have tipped him off and he would have fled and eluded capture...once again. It would have been Tora Bora all over again.

Ron Paul is just plain wrong about this. The American people strongly agree with president Obama's decision to just send in Seal Team 6 and kill him...

...of course, we have to say that we officially wanted to capture him...but we all know that this was a hit...

...and I strongly approve!

[Mortarman429]

Brad, how would terrorists get to Gitmo to try to free him? That isnt even possible.

[bilrobi1]

First as a Liberal Democrat that Ron Paul has some interesting ideas. While at this point I would stay the course with President Obama,Ron Paul is so for the most reasonable candidate,except for this. I keep saying and I'm kind of tired of it. It's nice to say bin Laden should have been taken alive.The reality is that none of us are in a position to second guess the SEALS that were there. In terms of working with Pakistan,that certainly should be discussed. However bin Laden would have been hard to miss. Is it more important that he was stopped? Or was it more important to work with Pakistan and take the chance that someone would have tipped him off? I don't know. I do think it would have not been possible for bin Laden to be there that long without some level of collusion.