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 ...
The history books should read....Obama avoids “interrogation” of most valuable target
If you’re in a warzone leading ragheads against US military, you better keep your head down.
Sort of like “hiking” in Iran and expecting Uncle Sam to bail your ass out. Don’t count on it happening more than once.
Why is this question asked of the GOP candidates and not the sitting _resident in the White Hut?
“And how many US troops lives are you willing to risk to get this SOB terrorist alive? I am so happy that he died the way he died.”
Considering how many plots he was involved in and the plans we KNOW he made, he was responsible for a lot already. If we had him in our hands and got him to cough up everything he knew, it could have been saving a LOT. And what makes you so sure any troops would have died taking him? He probablly would have pulled his skirt over his head and surrendered at the drop of a rag. The chances are he could have led us to a lot of the evil bastards still out there. How many will they kill? But, you’re probably right, Obama knows best.
I’m in the Cain camp, I don’t agree with him on this issue, but after all, he is siding with the constitution so I think he can stand on this.
“I have read that by joining the group he did, he effectively renounced his American Citizenship. One needn’t say “I revoke my American Citizenship” to do so, the mere act of joining a foreign military/terror campaign against the US effectively terminates your citizenship and all rights thereof.”
I think the key words are “joining a foreign military”
Since tea partiers didn’t join a foreign military, the govt shouldn’t be able to just take them out on a whim.
You are the ignorant one.
“There is a really simple answer to this problem. Do a trial in absentia (since he was in Yemen), there was plenty of eveidence, revoke his citizenship. Then take him out.”
Exactly how civilized people should protect their citizens. Bravo!
Terrorist acts fall into a murky area between criminal activity where the accused deserve a trial under the constitution, and outright war where the enemy has no such rights. Killing this guy was totally justified because his traitorous acts were well known.
But very few should be on such a kill list. One other who should definitely be on the kill list is Gadahn (sp?) the American.
That is the best solution I’ve heard so far, one that could get this guy off the books but not give Zero a blank check either.
Really want to establish the principal in US Law that it is just FINE if the US President order the non-judicial sanctioned murder of US Citizens?
You are relly this stupid? Put your mindless Perry worship on hold bot boy and actually THINK, if only for just a heartbeat, what you are arguing for here.
Really want to establish the principal in US Law that it is just fine if the US President order the non-judicial sanctioned murder of US Citizens, as long as he calls them "terrorists" first?
You are really this stupid?
The second amendment.
“Terrorist Awlaki was a traitor and therefore he was no longer a US citizen.”
Per http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html he would lose his citizenship for his acts, but only “if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction”.
Really want to establish the principal in US Law that it is just fine if the US President order the non-judicial sanctioned murder of US Citizens, as long as he calls them "terrorists" first?
YES!
Yep. Herman hasn’t the depth of concern or curiosity to actually learn what he’s talking about. Sell those books, line up that next talk radio gig, and thank you for your service.
That would be the case if our legislative branch had not specifically empowered the POTUS on this.
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.
Obama is the sitting POTUS. Evidently, he determined that this American citizen “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the September 11th attacks or harbored said persons or groups.”
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.