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.
You are aware that France -- our ally -- was actually occupied by an enemy power? Or were you not aware of that?
You are aware that German soldiers were uniformed combatants, who therefore under the US code could not qualify as US citizens, even if they had once been; I'll venture a guess that you were not actually aware of that fact, because you also seem to be unaware that...
... the President of the United States did not order US air strikes to kill particular Germans in France from a list.
You also seem to be unaware that you still haven't posted a serious reply. Here's a clue your content-free post doesn't entitle you to, but I'm a charitable person: Impugning someone's capacity may be considered a serious response among gamers, but it generally isn't on FR.
Now, do as you were instructed, and come back when you actually have a point to make.
Look, you posted "He was killed in a country we are not at war with, so the President's war making power has dubious applicability", implying that the presidents war making power does not apply to killing an enemy if he is "in a country we are not at war with". I posted "So I guess it was wrong for us to kill Germans in France?" where we killed enemies "in a country we are not at war with". See, it's simple. Either the Presidents war making power does extend to enemies "in a country we are not at war with" in which case attacking Germans in France was OK, or, as you stated, the presidents war making power does not extend to killing enemies "in a country we are not at war with", in which case it was not OK for us to kill Germans in France.
That is logic. You then went into a tirade about your father, FDR and other things that were not part of your statement about the presidents war making powers in a country we are not at war with.
That is not logic.
We’ve got an amateur in the White House now...why would I want another one?
LOL. That's funny. I understand it's the only way for you to possibly assert that the GOP field isn't weak. It's just a funny thing to see. It's so...ridiculous.
In the whitehouse right now is a machine politician with no experience in the real world.
We need neither of those....
With Cain you have extreme knowledge in leadership and business skills and a well versed individual in the art of gettin your point across.
He is everything but an amateur...!
Cain said in an interview last week that he would not be a VP to Perry but he would to socilaist Romney.
The supporters of him need to realize that although they are angry at Perry for many good reasons, Cain presents serious problems more along the lines of Romney.
I think the covering is starting to come off of him. When he said what he said about the VP thing...instead of his supporters being horrified of him saying Romney...they were thrilled he was slapping Perry. I mean how dumb is that?
Conservatives need to stop the mindless adoration idiocy and examine the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate. None are perfect. All are international elitists. Except for Michelle and she’s lost what she had going.
I can imagine what the Left will do with Cain - a man who served on the Federal Reserve. He’ll be tagged a bankster. A CEO - a rich guy. Every Democrat who ever worked for him will be paraded out to slander him as an uncaring, evil, rich corporate guy.
Conservatives need to weigh this decision with an open and focused mind. American voters need to swear off the habit and mentality that resulted in Palin worship and Obama worship. These fools running for our vote deserve to be treated like snake oil salesmen -not the Messiah.
It sounds to me that Cain has fallen for the “you can’t force your values on me” lie of the left, where what is morally good is declared a mere value, and what is often repugnant is declared a right.
Abortion cannot be a right because it involves the taking of life, and the Constitution was written for ourselves and our posterity - this includes people in the womb.
Gay marriage cannot be a right, because it means a changing of religion by law. What one wants to do cannot be a right when it is at the expense of others. Cain needs to learn this truth, or at least be able to articulate it better.
France, an ally of the United States, was occupied by Germany, an enemy of the United States. Killing uniformed, anonymous Germans in a declared war in that circumstance has NO ANALOGY to killing a specific American citizen in a country allied with the United States that is not under occupation by our enemies. Examine this carefully. There is actually NOT one point of common intersection between those two circumstances. Your pathetic attempt at an "analogy," lacks any kind of "logical" construction whatsoever.
There was no "tirade" about FDR or anyone else. I can report on good authority, because my father was there, that the President of the US did not issue orders to kill specific Germans who were US citizens, by name, in France at any time during WWII. Again, for those who genuinely understand syllogism, this sets the circumstances of your analogy, and establishes why it is false. For those who don't, but think they're "logical:" does the word "DUH" mean anything to you?
Logic: Please don't try it at home if you don't understand it.
Be comforted then, for no mind reading is required. Perry's exact words are: "... I don't think you have a heart." This does not differ in any meaningful way from the sentence: "... I think you are heartless." "-less" is a common English suffix, the meaning of which is "lacking, or not possessing." If you were unfamiliar with this suffix, I apologize; many people in Texas apparently do not speak English as their native language.
Your ire is misdirected. It should be directed at a supposed Republican who reduced himself to spouting a Democrat talking point. This isn't about compassion or the lack of it. It's about not giving illegals any more incentive to stay here than they already have, and not name calling those who disagree with those who do.
Oh well, if your father didn't know about any such orders than they must not have existed.
You are a nut!
You are correct in observing, however, that your own post demolishes your laughable thesis that Perry didn't call anyone heartless.
I merely took the time to point that out to you, and you're apparently intelligent enough to recognize that you managed to refute yourself; I am encouraged.
As for Perry, he's finished.
A person is heartless IF AND ONLY IF he has no heart. The two are identical in every English usage of the words. You appear to want to excuse this with some inane piffle about how Perry never used THE EXACT WORD "heartless." OK... he used three words, which MEAN EXACTLY THE SAME THING. So, in fact, he not ONLY DID call detractors of his policy "heartless," but in addition, he managed to do so with the same lack of word-economy for which Texas politicians have become famous on the national stage.
Congratulations. At least Bush sent out one of his (more articulate) flunkies to call conservatives bigots when they disagreed with his immigration policy.
Go away little associate. You’re rehashing something settled between others days ago. Either show me where Perry said the word “heartless” or don’t put quotes around it. That was and consistently has been my point.
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.