O S U CAN
BTW, type huntsman in Google and you end up with bunch of images of a spider.
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.
Are you saying that federal marshalls, secret service agents and FBI agents cannot take lethal action against a crazed gunman? What about killing a US citizen fighting along side Taliban fighters? A little clarity of language and thought would be helpful in discussing this issue.
The presidency is not an entry-level position.
America is not going to vote for a former CEO of a pizza chain with no experience at holding office. (though not for his lack of trying to get elected to something. He ran briefly for president in 2000 and for the Senate in 2004 and failed at both)
He has no foreign affairs experience, and that is going to be crucial with the Middle East aflame and Israel in the cross hairs.
I’m sure Cain is a decent man, but he is NOT our knight in shining armour. We need someone with experience and backbone to deal with the mess this country is in and to deal with foreign affairs.
No, we are not talking about law enforcement actions, we are talking about the President acting alone outside of the law deciding to take action to kill an American citizen.
Surely you can understand that this action is not only outside of our laws but way beyond Constitutional. If this occurred during a declared WAR, it would still be questionable if a decision was made by a single individual - the President!
You might as well give all powers to the President over life and death...
Practice what you preach and perhaps this forum will begin to grow again. It does not look good to would-be members observing this around-the-table, non stop food fight. Not to mention all the hypothetical back stabbing and throat cutting going on here lately.
We are not talking about killing an American citizen during a crime or treasonous actions. We are talking about the President okaying targeting an American citizen during his drive to - say his home... As much as I would agree that he needed to be taken out, I blanch at the thought that any President could order such a hit without consequences.
If this kind of action is accepted, you will rue the day when it happens to others....not because they should be taken out, but they are simply an impediment to the President.
Of course Perry found himself overwhelmed by it. Put yourself in his place, with Millions of people watching; And being the only candidate having to defend himself from several vicious attacks coming at him one after another.
I think the American public who watched this ridiculous spectacle also feel some sort of empathy for Perry. He handled himself with dignity through it all. The reason I say this is, shortly after the debate, Perry's contributions went up dramatically.
Trying not to be cynical or pessimistic, let's all wait and see what comes out of the next Town Hall format of debates, as well as how the rest of the campaign season turns out. Because really, if Perry was a stupid as you say he is, then his campaign would be a disaster by now. Instead, he is even better financed and organized now than he was one month ago.
Stupid people do not have that ability or know how on setting up such a strong campaign network in such a short time. It appears you are selling him painfully short.
One could argue the same scenario in regards to Cain. Which in Cain's case, he has no such established campaign and is winging it on a day by day, chaotic basis. He cannot keep this charade going on much longer.
If Cain should get in he will have a pretty steep learning curve.
As opposed to the ones who want to take out Perry? Either Perry or Cain would make a great candidate.
O S U CAN
BTW, type huntsman in Google and you end up with bunch of images of a spider.
Perry is a popular governor of our second most populous state which happens to be surviving the Obama Depression better than any other.
He has taken on and beaten the trial lawyers. He has defunded Planned Parenthood. He is pro life. He is attempting reforms that would weaken the very left academic establishment. He doesn't believe in global warming and is willing to say so.
He is fighting with the EPA over stupid and destructive regulations.
He supports the 10th Amendment and in fact joined a lawsuit defending Arizona's illegal-alien control law.
He opposes an open border. He opposes amnesty and the federal Dream Act.
He is outspokenly in support of the 2nd Amendment.
There are probably others but that's just off the top of my head.
Many of these same good things can be said about Herman Cain, btw.
Pot, Kettle, Black...
Perry also gets credit for the sweeping 2003 bill.
I'll grant the 0 income tax preceded him.
With regard to the oil industry and military bases, well, California has those things too. How are they doing?
If somebody from another state moves to Mexico and lives there for -- I think -- a year they get in-state tuition.
If someone from Mexico sneaks over the border he doesn't.
However, if someone from Mexico sneaks over the border with his kids and manages to enroll them into a Texas public school -- something which, btw, is protected by the SCOTUS -- and the kids spend at least three years in the school system and they graduate from a Texas high school they will get the in-state tuition.
chesty, I just saw your post and started grunting I was laughing so hard!
OK.
He’s a poo poo head in deep doo doo too!
That’s a good link, thanks for posting!
I ran across this little jewel there:
“If someone comes in the door and says, ‘Mitt, black is white,’ he’ll say, ‘Oh, no, black is black or black is red,’” Ann says. “He never takes anything at face value; he can argue any side of a question. And sometimes you think he’s like really believing his argument, but he’s not.” - Ann Romney
He certainly will. Far better than the current occupant, but not nearly as preferable as Perry IMO.
Flood non Perrywinkles with scads of paperwork which might touch here and there on a question, and declare it all answered. You have mastered Cloward/Piven, but whether you’ve shown Perry did anything about illegales besides push a pencil is dubious.
Hey, Perry’s helping the economy with all that campaign spending... how’s stock in button printing companies doing?
Like I told you yesterday when you followed MNJohnnie (as you usually do) and when I said the same thing to you then, why don’t you go read those docs. They have results of tested programs, what worked, what changes Perry made, what needed improvement, and those studies include what changes were made when they felt something could be better. If you want results and accomplishments that were either directly or indirectly related to Rick Perry, go read and find out.
As I told you yesterday, if you don’t care enough to do your own work when it is even put right in front of you, don’t expect me to give you more of MY time.
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.