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 ...
Would you prefer somebody who had virtually done nothing in his whole adult life but run for office?
Oh wait....we have that now. Your preference speaks for itself.
WOW, he ran for US Senate and lost the primaries, and still he is totally unqualified to run for President.
That’s your opinion. Who, according to you, is qualified?
Exactly that is what the court should have ordered and stripped his citizenship, but no one in the government saw fit to do that.
Perry and Gingrich.
Appreciate the answer. Either of them would be far better than the incumbent.
DTxAg Since Jun 25, 2011Welcome to FR
What exactly is the definition of an enemy combatant? We have not declared war on an enemy, so what could possibly be a sound criteria? Perhaps one criterion could be kills or is associated with killing Americans. Would planned parenthood and the Democratic congress then be considered enemy combatants and subject to assassinations? Perhaps those who speak of the destruction of the American economy and way of life, even actively requiting disciples to do the same. But then would most university collage professors be enemy combatants and subject to the assassins whim? Perhaps being Muslim makes him an enemy combatant, would fundamentalist Christians be also future targets? Perhaps the the most basic criterion might be that an enemy combatant is working against our national interest without a recognized national government overseeing it - like code pink for instance.
Without a legal definition of enemy or combatant, anyone or everyone can executed by a government unrestrained by legal process.
We had been trying to find and KILL this guy for awhile now.
The act of finding and capturing al-Awlaki is not the same as capturing a fugitive within the US. al-Awlaki had a large support base in an unstable nation that would have negated traditional efforts of a type of law enforcement capture. We would have most likely sustained casualties, perhaps many, and certainly much in the way of funding. I would not like to be the POTUS trying to explain how a chopper full of SPEC OPS guys got killed due to al-Awlaki’s supporters getting a lucking shot off with an SA-7. I don’t think you could square this with the US people.
It’s not like swearing out a warrant, going and getting the guy at his house across town. Some people are just to GD dangerous to try and take alive.
I have to give Obama his due. He doesn’t say no when there are terrorists that need killin’.
I’ve got mixed thoughts on this particular killing and the precedent it might set. While I’m in favor of killing terrorists, it wasn’t so long ago that Janet Incompetento listed returning vets, 2nd amendment advocates, anti-abortionists and other conservatives as terrorists. Other prominent demonrats have labeled teaparty people as terrorists. This is very, very treacherous ground we are treading on here.
By the way, were you a chopper pilot?
So it’s based on “time of crime”...
On the small scale if I do it quickly (within the time of crime) it’s okay.
In this larger case the “time of war crime” is still going on - so it should be okay...
The limits are "all necessary and appropriate force" against those who "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the 9/11 attacks.
The sitting POTUS gets to determine who fits the criteria.
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (Pub.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001), one of two resolutions commonly known as "AUMF" (the other being "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"), was a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.
So what if they can’t capture the guy? None of our forces in the area. Let him go on his merry way?
Are you?
Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment
.
~
That precedent was established in the thirties (and maybe before that) when the FBI and other law enforcement agencies gunned down Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, Bonnie and Clyde, and other public enemies. Not much due process in those cases. The public didn’t weep much either for their deaths.
“We had been trying to find and KILL this guy for awhile now.
The act of finding and capturing al-Awlaki is not the same as capturing a fugitive within the US. al-Awlaki had a large support base in an unstable nation that would have negated traditional efforts of a type of law enforcement capture. We would have most likely sustained casualties, perhaps many, and certainly much in the way of funding. I would not like to be the POTUS trying to explain how a chopper full of SPEC OPS guys got killed due to al-Awlaki’s supporters getting a lucking shot off with an SA-7. I don’t think you could square this with the US people.
It’s not like swearing out a warrant, going and getting the guy at his house across town. Some people are just to GD dangerous to try and take alive.
I have to give Obama his due. He doesn’t say no when there are terrorists that need killin’.”
I am glad to see that once he got into office and saw that people really are trying to kill us, he’s taking them out the way he is.
This is the only thing I can think of that I’m saying, “Bravo, Obama.”
But I had another thought. What if his motivation is not just because they are trying to kill Americans. Maybe he found out that he is now their #1 target.
But even then, he’s doing the right thing, regardless of motivation.
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.