Posted on 10/07/2011 9:02:40 PM PDT by smoothsailing
Jason Pye
October 7, 2011
Back in May, Herman Cain answered a few questions from Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic dealing with Libya and civil liberties issues. Cain’s answers on the USA PATRIOT Act were disappointing; and quite frankly, showed a severe lack of respect for the Fourth Amendment, especially for someone that supposedly wants to restore the Constitution.
Oddly though, Cain rejected the idea of a president authorizing the death of American citizen, as in the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, without due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Here the relevant part of the interview (Friedersdorf’s questions are in bold):
President Obama has said that he has the authority to assassinate American citizens if he’s declared them an enemy combatant in the War on Terror. Al Awlaki is one guy who is on the official government list where he can be taken out. Do you have any thoughts on that? Is it a good policy because it allows us to take out Americans who may have joined Al Qaeda? Or is it a bad policy-
Well first of all, this is the first that I have heard - you’re saying it’s okay to take out American citizens if he suspects they are terrorist related. Is that what you said?!
Yes, that’s what I said.
I’ve got to be honest with you. I have not heard that. I had not heard that’s something that he said. I don’t believe that the president of the United States should order the assassination of citizens of the United States. That’s why we have our court system, and that’s why we have our laws. Even if the person is suspected of being affiliated with terrorism, if they are a citizen of this country, they still deserve the rights of this country, which includes due process. Osama bin Laden was not a citizen of the United States of America. So I would not have changed the decision the president made in that regard. But if you’re a citizen, no, it is not right for the president to to think he has the power to have you assassinated. No. He has the power to make sure you’re locked up, but you have to go through due process.
What about other people who are locked up? Where should we try terrorists when we capture them? Military tribunals? The court system?
I firmly believe it should be military tribunals. I don’t believe we should clog up our court system trying terrorists. They’re not citizens of the United States. They are a threat to the United States. I think they should be tried by military tribunals. The process would move a lot faster, and we are much more likely to get the proper judgment against these people who have killed many of our citizens, and who have a desire to kill more of our citizens.
While Cain was unaware of the situation in question — a troublesome revelation in and of itself, you can see that there is no ambiguity in his answer, even if the American citizen in question is engaged in terrorist activities, as Cain says, “they still deserve the rights of this country, which includes due process.”
But this week, just days after Awlaki was killed without due process, Cain expressed support for President Obama’s action and denied that he ever said anything to the contrary (emphasis mine):
During a brief phone interview this afternoon with The Weekly Standard, Cain responded to questions that have been raised about his positions on the war on terror and taxes.
Asked why he had backed off his opposition to the U.S. military’s targeting Anwar Awlaki, the al Qaeda terrorist and American citizen who was killed Friday by a drone strike in Yemen, Cain denied that he had ever opposed taking out Awlaki.
“I never said that [President Obama] should not have ordered [the killing]. I don’t recall saying that. I think you’ve got some misinformation,” Cain said. “Keep in mind that there are a lot of people out there trying to make me sound as if I am indecisive.”
Uh, we didn’t have to try, Mr. Cain. You’re doing a pretty good job of making yourself sound indecisive. Of course, this isn’t the first gaffe Cain has made on foreign policy issues. Remember, he bombed Chris Wallace’s question on Palestinian “right of return” during a visit on Fox News Sunday and other answers on foreign policy questions have been essentially that we’ll have to elect him to find out what he believes. Unfortunately for Cain (but thankfully for the rest of us), it doesn’t work that way.
Cain has also been backing himself into a corner on Rick Perry. It’s become obvious that he’s not Perry’s biggest fan, it seems for political reasons more than anything else, as evidence by overplaying his hand on the hunting camp story that was recently brought to light.
During an interview yesterday with the National Journal, Cain said that he’d consider the vice-presidential spot on the ticket with any of his rivals…except for Perry:
Herman Cain said Thursday that he would consider an invitation to join an eventual Republican presidential nominee as a vice presidential candidate — unless the nominee is Rick Perry.
[…]
“I would not say no to being vice president of the United States,” Cain said. “But it would depend upon who got the nomination. I will support who gets the nomination. I know I have said that there are some people right now who I cannot support, but I wouldn’t say no to it. I could say yes. But it has to be someone who I believe I can complement them in their job by being able to bring my skills to the table.”But, Cain told the National Journal, “Quite frankly, based upon Governor Perry’s position on some issues, I would not be comfortable being his vice presidential nominee.”
Cain said that while he hasn’t “totally gone through all of [Perry’s] positions, but a lot of positions I have questions with” including “being soft on the border, issues relative to tuition for children of illegal aliens.”
Interestingly, Tax Hike Mike Huckabee held a similar position as Perry on in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants, but that didn’t stop Cain from sending Huckabee $2,300 during the 2008 primary.
We’ll have more on Cain later. Stay tuned.
REM did some pretty cool covers over the years.
And Ricardo Perry is wayyyyyyyyyyy to soft on illegals.
There....now we are even lol.
I don’t depend on the MSM, I made that clear.
We will have to go through it again. It's like the actual object of their affection is beside the point. It's their NEED for someone to elevate and admire that is driving it. No vetting. No skepticism. Just utterly blind, misguided faith. Now they're gonna go on the rebound with Mr Federal Sales Tax, setting themselves up for their next disappointment.
Perry has every thing going for him to beat Milt but he seems to have no idea how to argue it. Otherwise he would be a fine candidate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9zMo-BPADU
I will stick with Santorum till the Fat Lady sings. Otherwise, Perry better get his shit together or we will end up defending the biggest RINO America ever saw. Personally, I think Cain is going to out run these stooges right now. Just my opinion. He is a solid Conservative.
Perry INHERITED 1) no state income tax 2) tort reform 3) oil industry 4) military bases. Perry was dealt 4 aces. This is one item I can agree with Mittens.
From Heartless conservative.
Cain is obviously in over his head. He’s trying to BS his way through this process. Which means he’ll be a perfect fit for wayward Palin fans.
My favorite version of this tune.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmex-3CGTv0&feature=related
Rock on brother.
It’ll all shake out one way or another, hopefully the nominee will be anybody but Romney or Paul.
Rock on!
We’re seeing the evidence of that daily, is it any wonder Cain wants to go on a book tour? May hay while the sun shines Herb.
He’s been flip floppng and back pedaling since he entered the race , which is why I no longer support him .
LOL. Yes Sir.
Ha. That’s pretty cool. I admit I haven’t listened to much Sammy. I’m more of an Al Green kinda guy. But I dig Sammy’s soul vibe take on this tune. Not really one of my favorite tunes.
” Herman Cain still has a lot of vetting to go through.
“
You can say THAT again . Right now his nickname is Flipper .
Gov. Perry took in by far the most money last month. What do they do with that type of money? Most will probably be spent on Ads, but a lot is also spent on high priced political consultants and pollsters. These people come up with strategies and tactics to keep their client on top. I have a theory that might seem improbable, but may fit the pattern that we are seeing.
How does Gov. Perry attack someone who has a compelling story, amazing credentials, is extremely likable, and has qualities and a personality that inspires and like no one since President Reagan? He is a person who is so likable that almost every other candidate has said that they would like him to be their running-mate.
They started out by insisting that he was a unelectable fringe candidate incapable of beating President Obama. Then it seems that Gov. Perry's advisers made the decision that the best way to attack Mr. Cain was to first portray Gov. Perry was a victim of an unfair attack from Mr. Cain. Then they could pivot from that sympathetic position into full fledged attacks using innuendo and twisting Mr. Cain's record.
Who would even know about the “Ni****head rock in the first place? Where in the world did this story come from? The answer is that it was fairly likely a set-up by Mr. Perry's own people? Twenty million dollars in one month buys political consultants that are skilled political chess players. These guys are capable of playing both the Washington Post and Herman Cain.
To me the entire scandal has the appearance of being a completely manufactured dirty trick designed entirely to trip up Mr. Cain who is a candidate who speaks from the heart without looking for help on every syllable to high priced political consultants. The entire episode is a nonevent that is nothing but an irritating distraction for Mr. Cain and has very little negative impact for Gov. Perry.
Do I have any evidence that this was a campaign tactic from the Gov. Perry camp to attack the unattainable Mr. Cain? Nothing other than a pattern of attacks in the media on political blogs and even here on Free Republic. Almost all of them start out by trying to portray Gov. Perry as a victim of the nasty “race baiting” Mr. Cain and then lead into attacks trying to tie Mr. Cain to Gov Romney and then attacks on Mr. Cain's qualifications, etc..
Do we find any threads here attacking Gov. Perry posted by Mr. Cain's supporters? None that I am aware of. Mr. Cain's supporters have mostly posted threads that play up positive aspects of Mr. Cain's record and successes.
I think the efforts of the Gov. Perry team have been completely ineffective here and pretty much everywhere else. If this was something thought up by Gov. Perry's advisers... I think that it has completely backfired. Mr. Cain is a man who seems to rise to any challenge. Attacking him only increases his name recognition and makes more people aware of what a great man that he is. When conservatives take a closer look they really like what they see.
I think that Gov. Perry's only hope to salvage his failing campaign is to get out in front of the crowds and in front of the cameras and express a positive and optimistic message. If he can't do this; I am afraid that even with the massive amount of money that he has raised... his presidential bid will go nowhere.
Um, he didn’t screw it up. He understands that less government interference is better for business and liberty. Look at the destruction zer0 has done in less than 3 years.
Please note that the interview in question is 5 months old.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Obama administration did NOT have a publicly stated policy at that time favoring the targeting of US citizens with deadly force. Or if they did, it was not stated as such by Obama himself, and it was not widely commented upon.
I certainly was unaware of it, and I follow this stuff fairly closely.
The public controversy only arose after Al-Awlaki was killed.
“Now, somebody on this thread has pointed out that according to the US Code, serving in a foreign military is de facto renunciation of one’s citizenship... OK, I can also accept that, I guess, but the problem we come back to is — who gets to decide? Does Barack 0bama get to decide that members, posters, or financial contributors to FRee Republic have de facto renounced their American citizenship?”
Oh, come on, get serious. Had he been living in New Jersey, then yes he should have been arrested and charged. But he was living in Yemen for crying out loud. You can’t see the difference? For starters, we don’t have police authority in Yemen, and even if we did, it would be a very risky arrest. Why should our guys have to risk their lives in a foriegn country to avoid killing this precious pile of excrement?
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.