Click the Pic Thank you, JoeProBono
Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!
Become a Monthly Donor
To End the FReepathons
Sponsoring donors will contribute $10
For each New Monthly Donor
Posted on 10/03/2011 10:32:55 AM PDT by Captain Kirk
The killing on Friday of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen described as a powerful al-Qaeda terrorist, has stirred considerable debate about whether it's appropriate for a president to order an American assassinated.
Evidently, Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain shares those concerns.
The above video was recorded just after the first nationally televised GOP presidential debate of the 2012 campaign cycle, held in Greenville South Carolina on May 5 of this year, according to its YouTube page.
"He should be charged. And since he's an American citizen, he should be tried in our courts," Cain said of al-Awlaki. When asked if he considered it legal for President Obama to order al-Awlaki killed, Cain said, "In his case, no, because he's an American citizen."
It has been known since early 2010 that the CIA and the U.S. military's special-operations division maintain kill lists with three to four Americans on them. Al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born cleric, was on the list. He was reportedly killed in Yemen on Friday in a U.S. drone and jet strike. A classified Department of Justice memo authorized the killing, The Washington Post reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
Should he have been killed, yes, was it lawful under the constitution, no, but then giving him citizenship because of accident of birth was wrong as well. By blacks law he was a citizen of his fathers country.
To the point of your question, YES! Thats who we need. No more political/Washington insiders.
To the accuracy of your question, Herman Cain ran for the US Senate in Georgia back in 2004.
Ahh, yes another one comes out of the woodwork.
I guess you think the founding fathers wanted career politicians in all branches of government.
The President is an executive position. He should have such experience. No where does it say he is required to be a life long politician.
Career politicians tend to have ties to groups/corporations that don’t have our best interest in mind.
So, basically are you saying that the president should never be able to sanction the non-judicial killing of someone like Awlaki or any other U.S. citizen who takes up arms against his own country no matter the circumstances?
Gingrich? You have a very short memory. I suggest that you do a little research on Mr. Gingrich.
The trouble is that there are two versions of Cain you could agree with. The older version took this position. The more recent version said he agreed with Obama. I prefer a candidate (Paul or Johnson) who is consistent on this issue.
Out in the battlefield, with the other side, he's another target.
That doesn’t wash. All these folks had been charged (and at least in the case of Dillinger) convicted of crimes. BTW, Dillinger was given a chance to surrender before he was gunned down. Regardless, it was a very different case.
Unfortunately, Cain, who most recently praised Obama’s action, doesn’t “thoroughly” agree with the most recent version of Cain on this issue.
The guy publicly renounced his citizenship and was plotting attacks against the US. He was a spiritual leader for an enemy that declared war against America and killed 3000 of our people on 9-11. I don't see a slippery slope here. Better we kill al-Awalaki via drone than be forced to risk American lives trying to arrest and mirandize him in the middle of the mountains in Yemen. It's not like our law enforcement agencies have any reach there, so it's take him out from the air or let him continue engineering attacks against us.
By the way, were you a chopper pilot?
Nope, not me.
Spilled Milk.
If we had captured him he would not have given us diddly.
You don’t really believe he hasn’t listened in to Obama’s no pain, no waterboarding BS do you?
He would have gotten an American trial since he is American , A smart lawyer and he would have been back in Muslim country doing the same thing he was doing when he got nailed.
No: I believe he is right where he belongs right now.
How do you expect we would have dug anythiong out of him? Waterboarding is out of the question under our Muslim President. Do you think he would have sat in a nice air conditioned cell in Gitmo and volunteered to tell us?
Sure it would have been nice to know, and I would have put him on a rack upside down and poured water into his nose until he sang like a bird, but we don’t do things like that any more , Bamaboy doesn’t like his friends questioned with methods that get answers.
I agree with you. I am OK with killing him, but only if the Executive Branch gets oversight.
Anwar al-Awlaki did not just surface today firing a gun at troops. He is a known enemy. Therefore, there was plenty of time to go to something like a three-judge panel with the evidence to declare him an enemy combatant.
Then, if he pops up, you can take him out.
If the President can arbitrarily decide which US Citizens are enemy combatants, just think of that power in Obama & Holder’s hands right after an Oklahoma City Bombing scenario.
We should also keep in mind who is the person ordering the military strikes. What is best for the U.S. isn’t always on the mind of the CinC that is currently occupying the WH.
Does no one remember John Walker Lindh aka Johnny Jihad? We didn't execute him 10 years ago, although many wanted it done. That, of course, was during W's administration. As an American citizen, he was entitled to and got his day in court. He was tried, sentenced and could get out as early as 2019. We may not be happy with that, but this is still America.
Whatever you say, Awlaki did nothing violent against America but conspire. He should have at least had a perfunctory trial in absentia where they condemned him to the death penalty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.