The Right Scoop
I'm the reporter who interviewed Herman Cain in May. You can see the FULL interview with Cain and Gov. Gary Johnson in re: al-Awlaki on abovetopsecret.com -
http://media.abovetopsecret.com/media/7935/The_Truth_Is_Viral_Premier_Episode/
I also interviewed citizens on the street in Charlotte North Carolina - now this was back in May remember - and interestingly, I could not find a single Obama supporter who would go on camera. Those who did however, all agreed that Obama's contract on al-Awlaki was unconstitutional.
OP, please incorporate the above link to the full interview into your story, crediting Bob Powell reporting for Abovetopsecret.com. Thank you.
I'm just a stupid country hick....you mind telling me exactly where you find this in the constitution? Please tell me just when this law was passed? Anything, anything at all so you don't sound so full of crap.
Mercenaries committing acts specifically against the US could be tried for treason if arrested, right? But they could also, under US law, be shot first without questioning, right?
I meant, the Constitution has nothing to do with the argument that it was wrong for the US government to kill Awlaki without a trial.
The Constitution and Bill Of Rights is to protect we the people against them the government. It's supposed to make life difficult for those in power. In our system the means are just as or even more important than the ends. I feel free to speculate on the motive in this instance because history has shown that this govt will freely trample all over your rights to achieve supposedly noble ends. In reality I believe those in power are only concerned with one thing: enlarging and enhancing their own power, and usually at your expense.
Jack, I have been into it with friends since this happened. I simply asked them if they thought that Hitler ran around saying we should kill all the Jews prior to taking power. The foundation must be constructed before the structure is built. No one is saying that this man was a saint or even anything but despicable. That isn't the point. The point is that when you agree with circumventing the rights of one, you lose your argument against circumventing the rights of all. It is not a stretch of the imagination to see that what happened in Nazi Germany to the Jews is showing similarities in America in respect to Muslims today. My question to everyone that thinks the assassination is justified is simple. Who's next and what will be the next excuse?
Virus, I have come to the rather rational conclusion that the Constitution has nothing to do with Al-Awlaki. He was on foreign soil, supporting our enemies, he was a regional commander for Al-Qaeda. He became an enemy combatant, regardless of citizenship. It would be like an American soldier going AWOL and joining the Taliban. We wouldn't worry about arresting him and charging him with treason. We would just kill him. And I am okay with that.
I think I was referring to the treason issue. (Can't remember, too many threads in Disqus). Either way, I don't think treason really matters in this case.
Came across this, written by Lawrence Auster:
"The treason clause in the Constitution is irrelevant to this case. The clause has to do with a legal proceeding in which a man is accused of and tried for treason. In this case, a non-uniformed combattant located in a foreign country was actively instigating jihad mass murder attacks on America. He was not an adherent of any government. He was not a U.S. citizen who was fighting under a foreign flag against the U.S. and had come under our power, a case in which a treason charge would be appropriate. He was the equivalent of a murderous pirate, a person outside any law, not loyal to or under the jurisdiction of any country, waging war against and causing the deaths of Americans. He simply needed to be killed, and he was killed."
Ah, I see. Forget treason. It doesn't matter in this case. What matters is that he became an enemy combatant.
Jeez Jack, I can understand why you'd think this way with this regime but I think this is just a little over the top. We know Obama's evil and his plans are evil but even Obama knows when it won't fly and unless your an Awlaki there ain't gonna be no assassinations...I hope.
I have no quarrel with Cain's changed view of killing the rat but I do expect him to get with the program as far as interviews with the liberal press. Number 1 never accept their premise in a question. If they can't or you can't verify it don't answer it. This is what happened with the stupid rock story about Perry from 30 years ago. It was an outright lie and Cain answered (as all good Republicans do) like it was gospel. It's time for these candidates to start vetting the press instead of the other way around.
Awlaki was a traitor. Nobody's disputing that. Here's the question: why didn't they strip Awlaki of his citizenship first? Last year Rep. Charles Dent (R-PA) had a bill that would've done just that and got no support. Why? Because they wanted to assassinate Awlaki while he still had his citizenship to set the precedent.
If the treasonous rat had been on American soil where he could have been arrested then arrest him and give him due process, but he wasn't so I agree with it being done after the fact but it presents a slippery slope, one I wouldn't trust this regime or any politician with. If you get my drift.
And as usual you're totally missing the point. Perhaps you might change your mind when the govt assassinates somebody you care about, which now that the precedent is set will happen inevitably.
Again, this isn't about Awlaki. He's dead and no one will mourn him. The question is whether the President should have the power to unilaterally assassinate anyone, much less an American citizen. If you read the Williamson article above you'll note that even Reagan signed an executive order banning assassinations (presumably of foreigners). The fact that the definition of "terrorist" could really mean anybody who disagrees with the govt, that should give you some pause.
I, for one, do not trust Obama to ride a tricycle the right way. I do, however, trust the military leaders as they are close to the battlefield and put themselves and their men in harm's way. If they decided that Al Quacko had to die, then I have to agree with them. If we don't want this to happen anymore, we need to pull out of the Middle East. Why are we in Libya again? I was just wondering...
I encourage everyone here to read the following two articles:
Ron Paul editorial in the NY Daily News yesterday
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/10/02/2011-10-02_an_unconstitutional_killing.html
Kevin Williamson in National Review from last year on Awlaki
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/278845/assassin-chief-kevin-d-williamson
IMHO Awlaki, who or what he represented, means nothing. The way in which he was killed means everything. If one looks to history, whether it be the Civil War, WWI, or WWII there is always the attempt by the executive to circumvent civil liberties and the constitution. It is doubly dangerous that this has gone on since 9/11 due to the open-ended nature of the GWOT. Considering that the current administration has already declared that so-called "right-wingers" are a greater terror danger than your "Islamo-facists" I don't see how anyone here can be celebrating this latest travesty.
Treason IS an overt act. And treason is defined as aiding, adhering to, and comforting the enemy, right?
Herman Cain got this right, before he knuckled to political correctness and got this wrong. It's funny how SOME conservatives who don't trust Obama to run healthcare or fix the economy, trust Obama to be judge, jury and executioner. Are teocons so full of amnesia that they forget the Obama administration recently called them "terrorists" have they forgotten the MIAC reports that called people who support the constitution "terrorists"? If the administration can, without any hearing, just put someone on an "assassination list" then what's going to happen when it comes for YOU?
I wouldn't have know who he was either unless you said, "Anwar Alwaki, the leader of external operations for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula". Without their descriptive titles it's just alphabet soup to me with these lesser operatives.
1) You're not running for POTUS so it doesn't matter if you know or not.
2) Treason is treason. It shouldn't matter if this was a "lesser operative". Is the standard going to be "assassination of U.S. citizens is okay but only if you're high enough up the food chain?" When Herman Cain was asked about this TWICE he was told each time that this was a citizen that the president said should be killed. Common sense would say that the allegations against the target would be serious.
3) So far Awlaki hasn't been proven to be anything. All we've got are some allegations and some vague internet postings. There's no more evidence against Awlaki now then there was against him when he was being invited to have dinner at the Pentagon.
Sorry, I don't control when items make the news. And also, his comments about Perry and the n-word rock wasn't an 'error'. He willfully made those comments.
And regarding this post, it's just part of the vetting. He put himself on the record and I've also updated with his most recent comments on the issue. People can decide what they will.
But if you believe that candidates shouldn't be vetted, even candidates that we like, then you are probably at the wrong place.
good catch. This proves my contention that Herman Cain did not know who Anwar Awlaki was when that guy asked him that question.
Well, I think any American who witnessed his speeches, videos, etc. calling Muslims to jihad against America would qualify as witnesses to the overt acts of treason, right?
witnessing speech, videos, etc. is not the same as witnessing the ACT. Which by the way, where is the evidence to support the ACT. What ACT was he charged with anyway?? We don't have any charges. Not saying he was not a BAD man. But there are heinous crimes occurring everyday by Americans to Americans, but even when caught they have a trial and all the evidence is brought forward with testimonies, all done by the rule of law. We the People are privy to all the details. If this does not concern you and others...then you need to wake up from your deep Sleeping Beauty nap!
I came across this explanation online, and I think Awalaki certainly was aiding and comforting the enemy, particularly by providing them instruction and motivation for jihad:
TREASON
This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.
The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. (lectlaw.com)
Well "banana republics" hold trials in abstensia. While that goes against the U.S. system of justice and fair play, it's certainly better than extra-judicial killing. We've had civil trials of people in abstensia before (Osama Bin Laden for example) so it's not totally unprecedented. As for evidence of him aiding and abetting enemies after moving to Africa, so far I haven't seen any. I've just seen vague allegations in the media. The government and the media said he was guilty so by God he must have been guilty! It's just like what they said about Richard Jewel. Only Richard Jewel hung around to defend himself and was exonerated.
How do you hold a trial for someone living with the enemy in another country?
Did he do nothing to aid and abet enemies after he moved to Africa?
What you've given is not evidence of anything. Rather its the legal definition of treason. Nobody debates that. But there was never a trial. Al Alwaki was arrested by the U.S. government before and after 9/11. (A few months after 9/11 he was even invited to have dinner at the Pentagon.) With each arrest he was released based on a lack of evidence against him. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki) The most "damning" evidence against him was his giving encouragement to the Somalia jihadist group Al-Shabaab. But Al-Shabaab has taken no action against America. By contrast Obama gave aid and comfort to Libyan Al Qaeda leaders who have killed American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html) So if the government is going to go around killing people who have given aid and comfort to the enemy.....?
Like all the politicians they don't keep themselves informed and up to date and like the morons who voted for Obama still get their news from the main stream media. They better get their campaign workers online to find out whats going on before they go for these interviews. Better still they need to listen to Rush every day.
And if you were told that Iran has a nuclear missile pointed at us, I am sure your opinion would be to strike first. If afterward, you found it was a fake, you would retract your decision. Cain, when presented with all of the facts, makes good conservative decisions. He will NOT have all of the facts to create a solid foreign policy until he is in a position to receive the intelligence reports. Until then, he continues to be outspoken about what he believes at the time. I, personally, find that refreshing instead of hearing someone repeat over and over again that they cannot answer at the time.
I wouldn't retract my decision to strike first if I believed I made the decision based on the best information available.
I just don't think there was a question in anyone's mind that Awalaki was a traitor to America based on his behavior and speech and the fact that he was knowingly and willingly helping the mujahideen against America.
I agree that Awalaki is a traitor and should have been targeted. However, I have had the opportunity to research the facts. Cain was on the spot.
What I find REFRESHING is someone that is NOT a FLIP FLOPPER. First he says he doesn't support an audit of the Federal Reserve, then he says he supports an Audit of the Federal Reserve. Next, he says he supports TARP, then he says ""I thought TARP was going to be an opportunity for the government to allow any bank that needed to to restructure its balance sheet," Cain said. "But it didn't. It only picked its friends. That's when I turned against TARP." FRIENDS HUH? Isn't he friends with the FEDERAL RESERVE, I mean he's a former friend, uh! uh! I mean former Chairman of the Federal Reserve. First he supported it, then when it didn't "stop the bleeding" he said it was bad. Then he supported the 2008, NOW, he says he opposes the bailout TODAY!. YOU GETTING THE PICTURE YET?? All these can be found in Youtube and online articles. MASTER PANDERER that Cain is.
NO CHANGE WITH HERMAN CAIN!!!
What I find very REFRESHING is CONSISTENCY!! That would be RON PAUL 2012!!! Wake up people!!
Yeah, another Paulite with false facts against a fellow party member. Here we go again...
Cain NEVER said that he was against an audit of the Fed. He said that he did not believe that there was anything to be found. He said he was OK with an audit, but never called for one.
Cain supported TARP in its initial language. Even you have to agree that since all the TARP funds were not used, they did not spend according to plan. Once Cain learned of the bailouts and cronyism, he FLIPPED. Good for him.
Cain is not the FEDERAL RESERVE.
You can bash and whine all you want. I will not bash Ron Paul, because unlike you, I am not obsessively following "my master". I have been vetting Cain since he announced and have not found any reason to believe that he would destroy America. If I did find something, he would be out like an old pizza box.
I don't think Herman Cain knew who Anwar Alwaki was. If the man explained that he was the guy in Yemen making bombs overseas he would have answered differently.
There should be a better procedure than the president getting to declare someone as an enemy. Even police must go through the court system to get warrants and so forth. Couldn't the justice department seek a ruling from the courts declaring someone an enemy with all the evidence provided to the public for their scrutiny?
In the constitution it says during time of war and during a time of inserrection and the pubic safety is at stake Habeus Corpus may be suspended. Alwaki had his Habeus corpus suspended.
Wow! Never thought of that. I like it. Of course that wasn't all that was suspended.
Did you hear what Cheney said about Obama using policies the Bush administration put into place. The reporter ask Cheney if he thought the Obama administration owed the Bush administration an apology. Cheney agreed as did his daughter Liz. Of course hell will freeze over before that happens but heck it's nice to see it on the record.
Oh, Herman...lately you've been saying things, especially regarding racism, that make me pray you are just playing the game to attract black voters. And now this nonsense about arresting Awlaki. By fighting with our sworn militant enemies, he made himself an enemy of the state, guilty of treason and deserving nothing less than death.
Natassia, I'm confused. In one post you say:
"There should be a better procedure than the president getting to declare someone as an enemy. Even police must go through the court system to get warrants and so forth. Couldn't the justice department seek a ruling from the courts declaring someone an enemy with all the evidence provided to the public for their scrutiny?"
But in this post you seem to be saying that Al Alawki was "already guilty". So should Americans declared by the government and the media to be traitors have some type of due process or no? We look down on banana republics that try people in abstentia, but even that seems an improvement over what Obama is doing.
There is enough evidence, I think, that any court would find him guilty of treason. I am not particularly upset with his death, but I understand the ramifications of our government's actions and believe the process can be greatly improved with less power in the hands of a single man (or woman).
In 2009, wasn't he a high-ranking member of Al Qaeda?
I mean, doesn't that qualify as treason?
Actually the media made him look like a traitor. The media made Richard Jewel look like a terrorist. The media made Randy Weaver look like a hatemongering killer. The media made the Branch Davidians look like a dangerous child killing doomsday cult. Maybe Al Awlaki was a traitor. Maybe he wasn't. But it's not enough to find someone guilty via the media and then execute him through extra-judicial killing. Considering how I don't trust the media, that's not the kind of America I want to live in.
Fine. Have a trial. But I have seen "public evidence" evaporate in these cases. Case in point is Randy Weaver or Richard Jewel. In both cases the government and the media made both of those men look like "terrorists". If they could have been conveniently assassinated before having any kind of a hearing would the truth have come out? It's the precedent that's the most important thing, and that's what gets lost in looking at specific cases like Al Alwaki. As you said, that kind of power shouldn't belong to a single man or woman.
Herman had no way of knowing if what the interviewer was saying was true. It was an appropriate response. I still am not sure I believe Rick Perry's story regarding this.
How can Herman Cain not READ the Patriot Act? There's no excuse for anyone running for office to not be well-informed enough to make decisions that effect the lives of millions. He flip flops all over the place AFTER he realizes that he's wrong. I don't need a leader like that. I don't want someone that has no kind of insight and is a self thinker. Instead he's a follower and will say anything to get elected.
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.