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.
True.
But when a Perry poster (I'll stand up to testify) posts an article with facts, it is assailed in the most blatantly disruptive manner. Details are meaningless and truth is turned on its head. Personal insults stand in for rebuttal or discussion of a candidate running for the GOP primary.
While alternatively what in years past were considered "crimes" of character or unwritten truths that someone must sign pledges, are now just fine and excused while a proven record of success is attacked and misrepresented as "evil."
There is no debating facts and records, there is only kill the messenger and "raise up" your candidate by tearing down someone else with lies. If you have to do that for your candidate, they are in big trouble.
The pack mentality is alive and well and American exceptionalism is fading fast.
Good observation
Not that it has anything to do with Cain's flim-flam answers to important questions.
How about I write a Cain joke...
Q: What did the German-American say when asked if he supported a National Sales Tax?
A: Nein! Nein! Nein!
And now, back to Al Green: Here I am (come and take me)
There is no excuse for the former. As Perry supporters keep saying of Cain, "this is the big leagues." Well, that being so, why has Perry been so ill-prepared to engage the other candidates? You don't go to the show if you can't communicate your message; and right now, Perry is making the Bush family look articulate.
As for the latter, his response was an infantile and infuriating slander right out of the Democrat playbook: "People who don't agree with giving illegals free college are heartless." Really? We can be called racists by Democrats -- and it's an effing LIE -- so there's no reason to hire someone from our own ranks to do it.
Certainly sounds like Cain is trolling to be Myth's VP pick.
Sorry there are so many things to focus on how this administration has shredded the constitution, but this doesn’t seem to be one of them. I won’t be losing sleep over this cleric’s death. He forfeited his due process when he traveled to another country and took up arms against the US. He was an enemy combatant regardless if he had been issued a social security card. I was hoping Perry would be a better candidate than he has turned out to be. Seems pretty petty of the Perry supporters taking Cain to task over a supposed flip flop, when Perry has basically called many of us who believe in the constitution “heartless.” Perry will have my support if it comes down to him or Obama, but that’s rapidly becoming the only scenario where he’ll have it.
Yes, I understand that and that is why Perry is my 2nd choice, Cain being 1st.
The soft on illegals is one thing, but what worries me even much more is that we had professional politicians in the WH for as long as I can remember. And the country is getting worse. In fact it is in such a deep economic quagmire, we need a leader who can think outside the box, and not just fiddle around the edges. Perry is still a lifelong politician. But he will be better than the rest except Cain at this point in time.
I've seen in other posts you were upset about Perry using the word "heartless."
Then I see how you refer to him. Heartless was much too kind of word for you. lol
I've got a laptop and a DSL connection. Anyway, what I'm talking about is observable. It's not that deep or tough to figure out.
•Why you believe it's smart politics to call potential voters names or impugn their beliefs or motives because they don't agree with you?
I don't think it's politics at all to say what I'm saying. It's criticism. I'm just expressing my impressions. I don't really care what the political effect of that is. I'm pretty sure the net effect is immeasurably small. I do it because I enjoy doing it.
Conservative opposition to Perry -- toward whom I was leaning and could still be brought back -- centers around two things
I'm right there with you on Perry. I call him The Dunce. And yet I might be stuck with him. Not sure yet.
Perry is making the Bush family look articulate.
I agree.
My view is that this is a pathetically weak GOP field. So weak, in fact, it should serve as a glaring indictment of the GOP as a national party, that this is the best they can do.
From my point of view, it's The Dunce, The Shill, Ms. Gadfly, Mr. Social Issue, Mr. Tin Foil, Mr. Ego (aka Pelosi Couch Potato), and Mr Federal Sales Tax.
For me, it's between the Dunce, The Shill, and sitting out the primaries in disgust.
Nothing here that disqualifies Cain at all...plenty that does with Perry..not supporting e-verify and supporting magnets that attract more illegals to his state...forget about it! He is done.
Running for office has become a good career move for grifters and talkers and sellers and self-branders. Part of the growing business of right-wing infotainment.
First: We've taken terrorists alive all over the world. Second: there's a Constitutionally approved way to deal in countries where we have no police authority; it's called a Letter of Marque. Third: as I said, IF a FISA Court had issued an indictment and a warrant, I'd have had no problem with killing him when he refused to surrender to US protection. That refusal could have been implicit simply in his remaining a fugitive. There is a FISA ruling in his case, but it doesn't go far enough. The fact that there was a FISA opinion concerning him should tell you that the DOJ was not completely happy with the fact of killing him -- even outside of New Jersey.
The fact that we keep prisoners outside of US jurisdiction who are not American citizens -- precisely because we do not want them to fall under the heading of "US Persons" should tell you that US Constitutional protections are taken seriously, even by nominally conservative Presidents.
The Constitution isn't a technicality, and this is not a fine point. You want to grant the President this kind of power, OK. The Founders didn't. And I don't either.
We'll have to agree to disagree about that. I don't see the investment. I see people wanting a candidate with whom they identify, and that's typical. It's even typical of people who think they're logically "above" the process. They go with the "smart" candidate; as if anyone could tell such a thing on the basis of the controlled presentations successful candidates put on.
I maintain that Barack 0bama is an absolute moron; millions find him "brilliant." About quantified science or mathematical reasoning, he's clearly borderline dull-normal, at best. I actually do not believe he even understands the difference between a billion and a trillion.
My view is that this is a pathetically weak GOP field.
This is the Democrat talking point, and it's 100% BS.
Asked the question, "How's your wife?" Oliver Wendell Holmes replied: "Compared to what?"
Compared to the current President of the United States, this is a very strong field. Putting a hat-on-a-hat there's nobody in the Republican leadership as abysmally stupid as Nancy Pelosi or as slimy as Harry Reid. I've already given you my assessment of the Great Pretender. Biden supposedly was the dude who lent this pathetic administration gravitas. Just so. Unfortunately their "heavy-hitter" is also the senile uncle who takes a piss in the living room closet at Thanksgiving. So what does that say about the leftist party as a national party?
Weakness is relative. Team 0bama has betrayed a complete incompetence in every single non-political undertaking it's attempted. We only have to be better than thoroughly disgraced.
By comparison, it's a strong field.
Please see post #167.
Do you honestly think he would have voluntarily surrendered to the authorities to be extradited to the US?
Look, I appreciate your concern for the constitutionality of the operation, but I think you are missing something somewhere. I recall something about German terrorists who were US citizens actually living in the US during WWII, and my understanding is that SCOTUS agreed that they could be tried as enemy combatants in a military tribunal. If that’s allowed by the Constitution, then I suspect that flushing this piece of crud down the toilet is too.
No. I don't. And, like any other US citizen, armed and charged with a crime for which he has fled from US jurisdiction, his failure to surrender himself alone would be grounds to take him, and kill him if he resists. I also have no problem with killing him as a anonymous combatant in the company of other terrorists, and if the drone strike had not specifically targeted him I again would have found no fault. My issue here is that the President on his own and no other authority issued a kill order on a US citizen; he was not charged with a crime.
The Germans you're talking about were spies dropped off by a U-boat on the Florida coast, and sent to infiltrate the US as saboteurs. The SCOTUS ruled that military tribunals had jurisdiction. No surprise there. None of them were US citizens, and since they came to the US from a government with which the US was at war, they were handled properly. They had no presumptive right as "US Persons" under the Fourteenth Amendment, because they were not "subject to [US] jurisdiction."
They were not owed any Constitutional protections, and, as a matter of fact (just like al Qaeda) as non-uniformed combatants, they were not even entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention.
A Essay on Mitt Romney. Its damning.
There arte some things I'm willing to give Cain a pass on. Being a "civilian", there are a lot of issues he has had no reason to ponder over to develop any form of solid policy/philosophy on. I'm confident that as he does develop his philosophies, they will be well-grounded and if he makes a mistake, he's not so proud as to stand by it - he'll correct as he goes. For the critical things, I'll bet he employs some of the best advisors we've ever seen.
In fact, I'm all for not trashing anyone but Romney until we have our final candidate. That concept might be tough for the average Perry hater, but we really need to be sure Romney gets another ticket home.
mmmm They have been enemy combatants in enemy territory. ‘Nuff said and good riddance.
“All I said was the mere fact that that word was there was ‘insensitive.’” Cain responded. “That’s not playing the race card. I am not attacking Gov. Perry. Some people in the media want to attack him. I’m done with that issue!”
Herman Cain lied. Here are Cain’s actual quotes:
1. And since Governor Perry has been going there for years to hunt, I think that shows a lack of sensitivity for a long time of not taking that word off of that rock and rename the place. It’s just a basic case of insensitivity.”
2. “For him to leave it there as long as he did before I hear that they finally painted over it is just plain insensitive to a lot of black people in this country,” Cain said.
_________________________________
Cain pulled the race card.
He attacked Perry and LIED about it, saying he didn’t.
He has shown himself.
He is no different.
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.