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 ...
Where did you read that this law, which authorized the Afghanistan war, was being used as legal justification by Obama for the strike on Awlaki?
The AUMF stipulates "That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
It was determined by the Bush administration that al-Qaeda planned and committed the 9/11 attacks.
al-Alawki was a member of al-Qaeda and not just a member but a chief "officer" of al-Qaeda.
Therefore, under the AUMF, Obama is authorized to use all necessary force against al-Alawki. The AUMF does not specifically limit his use of force to foreign nationals.
I didn't read anywhere that Obama is using the AUMF as justification.
Awlaki, as far as I’m concerned, forfeited his citizenship when he became a traitor. Thus, while it would have been better to capture him and obtain intelligence (if that was a real option), I have zero problem with his being killed in a military strike. No tears shed here. Any other American who has become (or becomes) a traitor to their country deserves the same fate.
You just put into words the very fear that I have about this situation. Given Obama's reliance on Chicago-style tactics, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see this very scenario play out with a major bombing attack somewhere in the US blamed on the Tea Party. The Left has been demonizing the TP for months now, planting the seed that the Tea Party is a bunch of racist terrorists with more in common with the KKK than with the Founders, and I think they just gave us a hint as to what they intend to do.
Remember, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean you aren't right.
True colors? So are the Rights ensconced in the Bill of Rights only for those you agree with? Like it or not, this Jihadi was an American and until a Court of Law stripped him of his citizenship, those Rights applied to him just as much as they apply to you.
Anyone, be it Perry, Cain or Palin, who rejects the Rights granted to American citizens by the Constitution in favor of populism will never get my vote and frankly doesn't deserve to share those Rights with other Americans.
Like it or not, this guy was an American and still retained his rights as such until a Court stripped him of them. That a Court didn't do this and the President, who is sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, assassinated an American citizen in violation of that same Constitution, shows just how far gone we are at this point. Our Founding Fathers wouldn't even recognize us today as their descendants.
One of the big strikes on Cain is that he often seems clueless on foreign policy.
My argument is that something should either have been done to try him for treason in absentia or his citizen should have been revoked before the strike.
Even a flash proclamation revoking his citizenship a minute before the attack would be enough for me.
>>People who take up arms against their nation are no longer citizens.
Hope the Democratic party doesn’t make us eat your words if they ever suspend the elections and we choose to fight back.
Revoked, not revoked. I don’t see a problem either way. Awlaki received his reward.
>>Revoked, not revoked. I don’t see a problem either way. Awlaki received his reward.
Let’s just hope the tea party doesn’t ever become the next al-qaeda.
If it ever reached that point, why would it matter?
al-Awlaki murdered people who were very happy to just leave him alone and let him live his life as chose.
His rights were never violated.
No, they're traitors but they're still citizens; otherwise we couldn't hang them for treason now could we?
I see a few in here who see the danger of what happened, but most are too busy jumping for joy that this guy got introduced to a Hellfire. I'm glad he had the introduction too, but how he got that introduction is what troubles me more.
You're right. In fact, by that logic, we should stop trying to kill any member of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or any other terrorist group. Maybe we can take away our soldiers' guns, just to make sure they don't kill anyone who might reveal, under interrogation, some valuable information.
All that may or may not be true, but it's immaterial. When was AAA stripped of his rights as an American? Government cannot strip you of those God-given rights without due process and I'm not seeing where due process was followed.
Actually, by killing him without a trial and by not stripping him of his citizenship before tasking the military to kill him, his fifth Amendment rights were violated. Remember, he was still an American citizen, like him or not. Due process applies to us all, equally, or do you believe some people are not worthy of rights?
I’m not so sure anyone is arguing that this guy needed to be arrested. In fact, the 5th is silent on the topic of arrest. The 5th requires someone OTHER than the executive (a grand jury) to indict, before someone is “held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime.” It also requires that no one be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
This does NOT seem to mean that people can’t be punished or even killed. It means that NO SINGLE PERSON NOR SINGLE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT can kill someone.
Paranoia is not befitting.
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.