Skip to comments.Cain's conditional al-Awlaki policy
Posted on 10/03/2011 7:24:06 PM PDT by PerryBachmann2012
(CNN) Businessman Herman Cain previously advocated for a criminal trial in the event that al Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki was captured.
But now that al-Awlaki has been killed by a drone missile, the 2012 GOP presidential candidate is "pleased that we have one less al Qaeda member that's threatening us," according to campaign spokesman JD Gordon.
When pressed on whether Cain's feelings represent a departure from his earlier views, that al-Awlaki was an American citizen and deserved a trial, Gordon said, "It would be better to try him in court (but) if that's not feasible, we don't want him out there."
In remarks made last May and posted on the Atlantic's website, Cain says al-Awlaki, "should be charged."
"And since he's an American citizen, he should be tried in our courts," he continued.
When asked if it would be legal for President to issue a kill order for al-Awlaki, Cain said, "In his case, no, because he's an American citizen."
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
Rick Perry previously mandated Gardasil for all teenage girls. Then he flip flopped.
Rick Perry was an active member of the Al Gore for President campaign team in Texas.
Actually, no he didn't. Perry still thinks it was the right thing to do he just said he should have had a conversation with the people of Texas first....or something similar. But he has not flip-flopped on the issue.
Perry’s nasty response to the legislature’s reversal of his order revealed much about the man’s character and none of it good.
So what. Perry has no immigration policy, other than “Let them in and give them a discount on college expenses.”
WELCOME TO FREE REPUBLIC, NEWBIE.
Are you a paid Perry campaign hack, or are you a volunteer?
Either way, you are spamming tonight. The kitties are getting restless...
Thanks for the clarification.
Cain speaks the truth. If Presidents are allowed to send a kill order out without due process, than WE ALL are subject to the same reasoning. Even Timothy McVeigh had due process and was tried by a group of his peers.
Try him in absentia. Revoke his citizenship. You can’t blow the guy up; he has rights under the Constitution.
Cain is ambivalent about a POTUS having the power to order American citizens assasinated. So am I if truth be told. Killed in firfight? No problem but Obama having this power and everybody being so sanguine about it gives me pause. I mean Joe Biden did say that tea party folks were terrorists, did he not? Waco and Ruby Ridge did happen, didn’t they?
I don’t have a problem with al-Awlaki as an al Qaeda leader killed in an overseas military strike who took up arms in a foreign army which has declared war against us and carried out many attacks us.
It’s not even a close case.
However, I would like for the Obama administration to release their legal reasoning on this so we can be sure that it accords with the Constitution. If he is secretly taking a broader view beyond what is constitutional that would apply in other cases, we ought to know that.
That name sounds like a flipflop
Hey, why discuss Cain or the article, when we can bash Perry?
“Try him in absentia. Revoke his citizenship. You cant blow the guy up; he has rights under the Constitution.”
maybe we should but we always need to check the constitution first
An astro-turfing Perry hack. Meow.
It is good to be in the top tier. CNN regulars have to be petrified to think Herman Cain will be the next POTUS.
The problem is who makes that judgement. In monarchies, Kings can and do. In republics we use other means. It is not like this is an exigent circumstance. I am all for killing jihadis, kill’em all as Cody said. But I would be more comfortable with a check on this power.
Does anyone believe trying to change the subject will avoid the public finding out Cain has not been consistent in his positions and always leaves himself a loophole?
A POTUS with no fear would have put a 5-megaton package on Qandahar on September 12, 2001. I tier of the US fighting with one hand tied behind its back.
Did the attack happen in a war zone? Was he on the good guys side or the bad guys side? Would it be practical to bring all the bad guys back here for a trial? Do you really think your birth place can exempt you from being a casualty in a war? Would you care to comment on the Bin Laden situation and Seal Team 6?
Who makes that judgment? Under our Constitution, judgments in military operations are made by the Commander-in-Chief. That’s why it’s important who is elected as Commander-in-Chief.
When Truman decided to destroy two entire Japanese cities with atomic weapons, he did not have to consult with Congress or ask the permission of a judge. It was a military operation, and therefore was his judgment to make.
Killing al-Qaeda leaders overseas by a bomb from an aircraft is a military operation.
In the case of an al-Qaeda member found in an area under control of our country such as an apartment in Queens, then we don’t need to make a military strike against him, but nevertheless as a member of a foreign army who has taken up arms, he would be subject to the jurisdiction of military tribunals.
Who is more likely to sign legislation to build a fence, refuse to negotiate taxes ala Reagan, putting conservatives on the courts, dial back the agencies? Perry, Romney, or Cain. Vote for what you want. It is neither a horse race nor American Idol.
Does anyone figure the Perry pimp spamming this story and throwing rocks ought to notice there is a big glass house in TX?
>>Did the attack happen in a war zone? Was he on the good guys side or the bad guys side? Would it be practical to bring all the bad guys back here for a trial? Do you really think your birth place can exempt you from being a casualty in a war? Would you care to comment on the Bin Laden situation and Seal Team 6?
No. Bad. No. No, it was an assassination on foreign soil. Not related.
The point is, he is an American on foreign soil and was assassinated for a crime that he was never tried for. THIS IS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION. He probably is two steps away from the devil’s uncle, but he still has the same rights and you and I do.
That's true, but if
1. I take up arms in al Qaeda, which
2. is a foreign military organization which has declared war against us and which Congress has authorized the President to make war against, and
3. I am in the field outside the ability of the US or one of our military allies to bring in peacefully, then
I may constitutionally be killed in a military operation in no different manner than any other member of al Qaeda operating in the field.
We probably could go on all night about this. We probably agree on most things. But not this. I have a hard time differentiating him from Bin Laden.
Deflecting from the subject doesn't change the truth it just delays the time till people see it.
Cain was asked to sign a Pro-Life pledge and said he was Pro-Life but wouldn't sign a pledge to that effect.
Cain has proposed adding a new national sales tax without eliminating the income tax.
Cain has made it clear he doesn't know anything about foreign policy, but says he will work on it.
Cain says he's opposed to the mosque in TN, but then flip flops and says he's not.
Cain generates a lot of excitement because he is so rough around the edges and inexperienced. In a general election it won't be perceived as an asset. Also, he didn't hesitate to jump into using racial politics to smear Perry given the opportunity by the media. All in all not somebody I can vote for.
It would be refreshing for politicians to say “I’m not sure; I’ll have to look into that some more”, from time to time. The electorate would punish them for it, though. You get whom you vote for.
However, I don't think Cain can raise enough $$$ to beat Romney and the RINO establishment. And I don't think he can get a majority of delegates. Above all, I don't think he can beat back the Lamestream media, as his unfortunate interviews with Amanpour and Chris Wallace (yes he is part of the LSM like O'Reilly) showed. He was played like a fiddle on the hunting camp issue. Just wait till the LSM actually starts to ask him some tough questions.
In summary, Cain will realistically not be the nominee, but will be among Mitt's top choices for VP. He'd beat the pants off Biden in a debate.
And we're screwed again. Say hello to Pres. Romney, the third leg of the Rudy McRomney stool (and stool is the key word here). If you're looking for flip-floppery on a massive scale, just wait till Feb. 2013...
Have you read Cain’s campaign platforms on his website? You don’t sound as though you have taken the time to examine them.
Meanwhile Obama continues EPA drone attacks on ANWAR al-Alaska.
Rick Perry chaired the Gore campaign in Texas. That is a little more notable than just being “active”. He was Gore's man in Texas. I am sorry but that is an issue for me.
The person who posted this thread has been very busy since they first joined FreeRepublic a couple of weeks ago. He/she seems to spend most of his/her time attacking Herman Cain. I don't think I have seen any threads from him/her that had anything to do with the other candidate in his/her pseudonym.
Would you believe there has been some revisionist history about whether Perry held the title of Al Gore's TX campaign chairman? Seems some anonymous sources now say Perry didn't have that title. What is it with Texas and anonymous sources?
Bin Laden was not American. He did not have the Constitution on his side.
In the war on the wrong side, citizen or not, come home and be tried or stay and do battle and suffer the conseqences. Had Bin Laden been born in Cambridge Mass, we would have treated him differently?
Cain was a registered Republican prior to 2002-2003.
Your posts look like you are going postal. I’m happy you are supporting Rick Perry.
How well does anyone know Cain ???
Does ncalburt think that his hateful posts in this thread and others actually win anyone over? Why is it that so many of Gov. Perry's supporters are so nasty? I sure wouldn't want to spend any time with them. If we Sarah Palin supporters had been so sensitive to people criticizing our candidate we would all have been sent to the funny farm by now. It is hard to imagine so much screaming, crying, and baby aching all about someone saying that a racial slur written on a rock was “insensitive”.
ncalbert since you have called NautiNurse a liar for stating that Gov. Perry supported Al Gore... maybe you can also get the Wikipedia entry on Gov Perry corrected that states, “Perry supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic presidential primaries and chaired the Gore campaign in Texas.”
You probably should try to get the references thrown out also:
Jay Root, Rick Perry: The Democrat Years The Texas Tribune July 14, 2011
“Rick Perry Was Al Gores Texas Campaign Chairman in 1988”. Enviroknow.com. 2011-06-23. Retrieved August 7, 2011.
While you are at it... you had best correct the folks over at www.politifact.com who state, “But Medina correctly nudged Perry about his Democratic roots. And she was close to right about his Gore connection, though a visitor from another planet might read her statement to mean Perry was improbably Gore's national campaign manager. Instead, he was Gore's Texas chairman.”
There are so many liars and so little time. After you are through correcting Wikipedia and Politifact you better head over to Time Magazine who said, “There's an inconvenient political truth for Texas Governor Rick Perry: he was his state's 1988 campaign chairman for then U.S. Senator Al Gore's first run at the presidency.”
After you finish correcting those lies, I will send you a few thousand other links for you to get corrected; it would probably be a better outlet for your excess energy than attacking other conservatives on this forum. You are not doing your candidate any favors by acting like a hate monger on this forum.
Two words: William Ayers
>So when did CAIN the former RICH DEM leave the Dem party ??
>I think 2002 or 2003 !
>Sorry troll .
That dog won’t hunt.
I am not going to agree with you, but I will give you credit for making me really pause and think.
>>I am not going to agree with you, but I will give you credit for making me really pause and think.
The only reason I restate this so adamantly over and over again is that I can imagine a scenario in which a President suspends an election due to specious circumstances, and then uses this exact same rationale to hunt down and destroy American “terrorists” with drone weapons.
If for nothing else, Obama should be impeached for this breach of the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments.
When our President, no matter who he is, starts to eliminate dissenters on American soil with drones then I’ll be concerned. This guy, of very dubious citizenship, was targeted in a de-facto combat zone. By his actions he had denounced any American citizenship by his actions. He had fomented murder and mayhem on legitimate U.S. citizens and had totally removed himself from any means of proper U.S. jurisprudence without the MILITARY taking risks that would require many servicemen putting themselves at extreme risk. Exactly why should this happen? This man was not only a prior risk but also a future risk.
For a Republic to operate properly it requires that laws be applied with regard to the varying circumstances. That’s why, based on circumstances, you may have a murder, manslaughter, accidental or a self-defense verdict when someone dies. This man, on the face of it was, at least presumed guilty of conspiracy to commit murder based on the evidence provided. This is no way analogous to your scenario.
Had this defendant wanted to give himself up I believe that he should have been put up before a military tribunal, not a court of law. His actions were performed in a lawless combat zone. Calling him a citizen affords him rights that are not given to anyone else in that theater - you can’t kill him and you can’t capture him.
You made the initial claim, YOU prove it. Post where Cain said he used to be a Democrat, and also if you are claiming a timeline, state when he was last a Democrat.
Or knock it off.
You have previously been warned about refraining from over-the-top personal attacks with no basis in fact. You apparently did not take that warning to heed, so your posts will be reviewed by the moderators until such time you can learn to refrain from such.