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 don’t get elected Governor of the most conservative state in the union three times if you’re not doing a good job. Perry has a solid conservative executive governing record for the last 11 years. He’s worked hard to keep his state competitive in creating jobs, keeping taxes low with restraints on spending. Along with serious tort reform and reductions in regulations.
If he became potus Perry would govern as a fiscal conservative and reign in spending and regulations. With a GOP Congress on his side Perry would also lower taxes, then work on real entitlement and tax reform. Those policies and rolling back Obamacare would set in motion serious economic growth that would help to create jobs everywhere in America.
Perry supports a strong military and national defense, lower taxes and less spending, limited govt, tax-tort- regulation and entitlement reform, is pro-life, pro-gun, pro-traditional marriage, pro-family, pro-Constitution and opposes blanket amnesty.
Perry is a Reagan conservative. All the way.
Within minutes the Perry supporters rushed around whining about how “Cain had attacked Perry”
All the while the Perry camp had been engaging in every sort of slander, lie and innuendo about Cain they could dream up for days.
Here is a notion for you. Make a case FOR Perry.
Just do it ONE time.
It would be a refreshing change from this non stop slander based Cult of Personality bot behavior we are seeing from the Perry camp.
You all either whine about how tough it is for Perry, make up fantasies about some conspiracy to "get Perry" or you are busy slandering everyone else.
What is Perry Presidential plan and agenda? Plans and ideas NOT slogans and “He was a great guy in Texas” bloviating
Where is it?
Make the case for Perry without mentioning any other candidate. I bet not ONE of you can do it.
Let he who has never changed their mind, or their position based on further information or reflection, or forgotten one statement (out of 100s if not 1,000s) made 6 months ago - let them cast the first stone!
I do find it interesting that neither Cain nor Bachmann have engaged in attacks on Romney.
Vetting - not sure you mean what you seem to be saying..
To the MSM - it means finding out everything negative that they can find out about a Republican candidate.
For Democrats - means finding out everything positive that they can find about the candidate.
Now let’s see - the MSM finds negative things about the conservative candidate but reports positively about the Democratic candidate...hmmm, seem like good news to me...
Well, you can take you vetting by the media and shove it up your throat!
Within minutes the Perry supporters rushed around whining about how “Cain had attacked Perry”
All the while the Perry camp had been engaging in every sort of slander, lie and innuendo about Cain they could dream up for days.
Here is a notion for you. Make a case FOR Perry.
Just do it ONE time.
It would be a refreshing change from this non stop slander based Cult of Personality bot behavior we are seeing from the Perry camp.
You all either whine about how tough it is for Perry, make up fantasies about some conspiracy to "get Perry" or you are busy slandering everyone else.
What is Perry Presidential plan and agenda? Plans and ideas NOT slogans and “He was a great guy in Texas” bloviating
Where is it?
Make the case for Perry without mentioning any other candidate. I bet not ONE of you can do it.
W had that in the Patriot Act...I do see your point when I think about it. Our lovely DOJ went through everything thoroughly and gave the thumbs up on the action.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I see two violations here: Anwar al-Awlaki was (clearly) a traitor to the United States, a capital crime, executed without the presentment of an indictment. He was deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process. If a FISA Court -- or even a military tribunal -- had found him guilty of waging war against the United States, there would be no issue. But the President of the United States is not part of "due process."
He was killed in a country we are not at war with, so the President's war making power has dubious applicability. Bin Laden, and 99.999% of the other terrorists aren't entitled to Constitutional protections. Unfortunately, the two Americans killed in Yemen were.
I am very happy he's dead. I'm very happy the other American is dead, too. But you cannot possibly believe that it's a good idea to give Barack 0bama the authority to kill a US citizen on his own authority. It isn't.
Do some research. I’m on a tablet so I don’t have the links on hand but he has no problem denying certain religions the right to practice their faith and he thinks that the 2 amendment is a states issue.
Are you blind? See #61 and try to control yourself.
Told you earlier, stop eating those bennies like their candy. They'll kill ya, boy! LOL
Never gonna happen.
>> Herman Cain still has a lot of vetting to go through.
Vetting?
Orientation. I trust he’ll be okay.
The scum lost his citizenship when he plotted against the United States. The Constitution is not a suicide pact, we have the right to stop those trying to kill us by any means necessary.
United States Code, TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part III > § 1481 Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen;
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States,
Thank You!
I don’t think it disqualifies him, he’s extremely qualified. I just like Perry better. Maybe it’s the Harley.:)
I just did! I didn't mention any other candidate either. Just the facts!
Gonna run away again?
Very nicely said!
Perrywinkles???
What looks worse to the average voter in America?
A.) To have a supporter of a candidate play "The Mormon Card"?
B.) To have a candidate HIMSELF play "The Mormon Card".
Herman Cain: Mitt Romney Can’t Win Because He’s A Mormon (VIDEO)
Thank you for proving my point.
You cannot make a case FOR Perry, you can only recklessly attack everyone else or whine about how Perry has supposedly been treated.
Utterly absurd for the Perry campaign to complain now given the reckless arrogant tactics they have been engaging in.
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.