Newt Gingrich Schools CBS's Pelley on Killing American Born Terrorists Overseas
During Saturday's Republican presidential debate in South Carolina, CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley arrogantly argued with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich about the "rule of law" concerning killing American born terrorists overseas.
By the end of the exchange, Pelley, with a smug, condescending expression on his face, looked quite foolish as the audience applauded and one of Gingrich's opponents on stage actually commented, "Well said. Well said" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
Scott Pelley: Speaker Gingrich, if I could just ask you the same question, as President of the United States, would you sign that death warrant for an American citizen overseas who you believe is a terrorist suspect?
Newt Gingrich: Well, he's not a terrorist suspect. He's a person who was found guilty under review of actively seeking the death of Americans.
Scott Pelley: Not-- not found guilty by a court, sir.
Newt Gingrich: He was found guilty by a panel that looked at it and reported to the president.
Scott Pelley: Well, that's ex-judicial. That's-- it's not--
Newt Gingrich: Let me-- let me-- let me tell you a story-- let me just tell you this.
Scott Pelley: --the rule of law.
Newt Gingrich: It is the rule of law. That is explicitly false. It is the rule of law.
Scott Pelley: No.
Newt Gingrich: If you engage in war against the United States, you are an enemy combatant. You have none of the civil liberties of the United States. You cannot go to court. Let me be-- let me be very clear about this. There are two levels. There's a huge gap here that-- that frankly far too many people get confused over. Civil defense, criminal defense, is a function of being within the American law. Waging war on the United States is outside criminal law. It is an act of war and should be dealt with as an act of war. And the correct thing in an act of war is to kill people who are trying to kill you.
Male Voice: Well said. Well said.
Maybe someone should tell debate moderators that the participants are supposed to debate each other not them.
Also fascinating about this exchange was how as he was being schooled, Pelley was heard saying "No," and the folks at CBSNews.com even included that in their transcript.
Let's understand that Pelley's bona fides as an expert on military law include attending journalism school at Texas Tech University with his bio not specifying if he actually earned a degree. From what I can find, he has not authored one book in his career on any subject let alone the one he was challenging the former Speaker on.
By contrast, Gingrich has a B.A. in history from Emory University, a Masters and Ph.D. in modern European history from Tulane, and has authored 25 books including seven on war.
So maybe Pelley ought to wipe that smug, condescending look off his face:
(H/T Right Scoop)
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Somehow I doubt...
Submitted by zenman1661 on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 10:40am.
that male voice saying "Well said" was Ron Paul.
Hell no, Paul is too wed to
Submitted by BD on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 1:35pm.
Hell no, Paul is too wed to his idiotic position to think that clearly.
I'm not positive, but I'm
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 3:58pm.
I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure it was Rick Perry.
Not following the script
Submitted by Huapakechi on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 10:46am.
Newt is being so UNFAIR! He's sniping back at the smug and condescending liberal 'news anchor' by citing law, sensibility, and precedence. I'm reminded of the old saw about "a duel of wits with an unarmed opponent." The really scary part is that this idiot talking head and his followers probably think he has won the point.
At one time Major Garett was
Submitted by ricklail on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:03am.
At one time Major Garett was a writer for the Washington Times and a Fox News contributor. What has happened to him?
Newt.....
Submitted by gailannr on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:28am.
Thank you for all your knowledge and experience! You contribute so much to these debates. Please keep up the hard work. Meet them head on now about the drum beat that has already started. Remind or share with the American public what they should know about you. Respond to them sooner not later. As a matter of fact you might address the personal issues first. Don't let it be a surprise to anyone! Least of all not to those who will support you.
Carry on, you fine, proud and true American!!
Does Pelley say that Abe Lincoln is a War Criminal ????????
Submitted by libBuster on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 1:39pm.
I presume in Pelley's anemic mind (this is a man who once said he would not interview Global warming "deniers" any more than Holocaust deniers), Abe Lincoln is a war criminal for killing American Citizens who were Confederate soldiers. In fact by Pelley's insouciant calculus the whole Northern effort in the Civil War was unlawful.
Never mind that Congress has the power to suppress "insurrections" and the President as Commander in Chief exercies that power. Homilies such as the "rule of law" are just too appealing to panjandrums like Pelley.
What an embarrassment for CBS to have this fatuous fool as anchor of their flagship "news" broadcast.
Or Obama for that matter
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 4:02pm.
He may have, but I don't recall Pelley, or very many others in the msm complaining about Obama doing the very thing he asked Newt about.
Exactly
Submitted by Marcus Porcius on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 1:49pm.
The first words out of my mouth if I'm on that stage would be "you mean like your idol Obama just did in Yemen?"
It would have been funny to see his face then.
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions." G.K. Chesterton
www.theconservativereview.com
BS
Submitted by ammo john on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 10:47am.
Well, people tune into CBS to See B.S.
I don't know why the cadidates have gotten together and agree to rally against these liberal moderators when the bias is showing. Make these moderators real laughstocks. Apparently, Newt is the only one slamming them at practically every debate.
LIKE IT: SEE-B-S = CBS
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 10:36pm.
All conservatives need to do this!
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Anwar al-Awlaki
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 10:49am.
So if the killing was illegal when will CBS call for obama's impeachment?
Illegal?
Submitted by Huapakechi on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:10am.
According to the holder (in)justice department, nothing the members and supporters of the current administration have done or will do could be illegal.
It's that "right wing conspiracy" that is causing the problems by their stubborn refusal to meekly submit to "o"bummer's stunning intellectual power and impeccable logic (the two years of total liberal majority in the House and Senate is currently being written out of the history books to facilitate that argument).
All one needs to do is look
Submitted by ricklail on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:16am.
All one needs to do is look at Fast and Furious. The left and Holder's crowd say it was a botched operation. The guns were bought illegally so the operation was illegally. Obama and Holder will never admit that.
Someone please explain to me
Submitted by ProudAmerican58 on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 10:50am.
Someone please explain to me again why Newt Gingrich is NOT a viable Republican candidate for President.
I'll refresh your memory, as I'm sure the media will too
Submitted by Texndoc on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:20am.
1. He sat on the couch with Nancy Pelosi and said we can all FORGET our differences, this Global Warming must be stopped (with carbon taxes)
2. When Paul Ryan was taking a firm stance on Social Security reform and was getting attacked, Newt said "the right should not be engaging in radical social engineering any more than the left." Newt had to call Ryan and apologize.
3. When in Congress and attacking Clinton/Lewinski, he was involved in an affair with his second mistress, who was an underling on his staff (like Lewisnsky) and his second mistress is now his 3rd wife.
4. He supported at one time the Fairness Doctrine, that states for every successful hour of Conservative talk radio there must be a government forced hour of liberal talk radio (which fails every time in the market).
Yep, he's a good debater. But he is no Reagan and is HORRENDOUS for wanting to be popular with the room he is speaking to - then when he gets to DC he has this nick for wanting to "reach across the aisle" .
Fine, if Newt is the nominee I'll vote for him. But he has more baggage than Heathrow.
Thanks for the good insights.
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 10:20pm.
Certainly a warning sign. He could sell you out w/o a tight leash!
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
The MSM made Newt out to be
Submitted by ricklail on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:25am.
The MSM made Newt out to be the devil when he was speaker. Every since he left office they have continued to hound him. Every book he wrote under went the 3rd degree. The sitting on the couch with Princess Pelosi was not the brightest move. Even though I support the Hermenator I consider Newt to be far above most of them as the sharpest knife in the drawer. He does have a doctorate degree. Him and Herman are the only ones that are throwing it back at the MSM. It is going to come to a point they won't be asked to appear on anymore talking head shows because they can't control them.
Yes he does have a lot of baggage. How he gets around that I don't know.
Yes I did say Princess Pelosi. It was kinder than saying Nazi Nancy.
No true conservative will vote for a man that cheated...
Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:30am.
...on his wife.
Anyone who would lie to their own wife wouldn't think twice about lying to the rest of us.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
And which Saint
Submitted by Ken James on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 4:52pm.
would you have us choose?
Why, the Hermanator, of course.
Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 8:59pm.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
That's because
Submitted by zenman1661 on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:40am.
since he left office (and possibly the reason why) he has been viewed as having become an establishment "for the status quo" Republican which was reinforced by his critique of the Paul Ryan medicare plan. It is through the debates that he has shown he has either not lost or regained the conservative bellyfire he had in his Contract for America days.
I thought that Newt did a job
Submitted by ricklail on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 10:53am.
I thought that Newt did a job good of throwing the questions back at them. As far as I am concerned Newt won this one. Huntsman is a realy dip sh%&. His answer on China sounded just like it was from an Obama telepromter. We have a smart a$$ here that writes letters to the editor. He thinks he knows it all because he worked in the State Department. Him and Huntsman as the same IMO.
What concerned me most was Ron Paul. I have a stinking feeling he is going to mount a thrid party campaign. He knows damn good an well he is not going to win the nomination and he can't win the presidency. He can assure that Obama is reelected. He really pisssed me off on his view of torture. I lean towards libertarian as far as government goes. His views are no where near mine.
also concerned
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:09am.
Ron Paul is not a Republican. He only runs as one to be able to be elected. Libertarianism has too many fringe ideas to be a national platform. My concern is as yours is that he will try to split the more mainstream Republicans from the Libertarian leaning Conservatives. He can attempt to do this by running a Third Party thereby reelecting obama and then attempt to fold into his party the anguished Conservatives who have given up on the GOP.
I'm no Ron Paul Fan
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:21am.
...but Chris Wallace asked him last week (IIRC) flat out, are you planning a third party run. And Dr. Paul answered a resounding "NO".
I believe the man. Thus far, he's done nothing to make me doubt his word. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. He, above all others, understands that a 3rd party run will hand the Presidency to Obama on a silver platter...and there is no way he would win. There's no upside to a run.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I think we agree
Submitted by ricklail on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:32am.
that if Obama is reelected this country is finished. Any third party campaign be it Michell Bachman or Sarah Palin will give him four more years.
Newt essentially won the
Submitted by BD on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 1:37pm.
Newt essentially won the entire debate in that 20 second sound bite.
Departing from the herd...
Submitted by Annie Ashe Fields on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:04am.
...I can't get past the "slippery slope" nature of this issue, kids.
What's the point of having a constitution if we're not going to use it - WHEN IT'S HARD?
If we can risk blood & treasure to do a helicopter-drop, surgical strike to KILL OSAMA, then dump his body in the ocean, do you mean to tell me the SAME THING couldn't be done for AN AMERICAN CITIZEN - TO CAPURE ALIVE? REALLY?
Sorry, gang. Newt's (and the candidates, except Ron Paul, are) WRONG on this. A bunch of guys in a back room is NOT due process. And his premise of it being "not criminal or civil" but an act of war is WRONG - It's a CONSTITUTIONAL issue, therefore, the BEDROCK BENEATH the "criminal" or "civil."
PS: Waterboarding is NOT torture. It's not torture, in my opinion, if you can walk away from it, unharmed. Alan Dershowtiz does a famous thing in his law classes at Harvard that goes right to the heart of this: "If you have a little girl in a hole with 24 hours to live, what WON'T YOU DO to save her?"
Waterboarding is an EASY choice in that scenario, and they're ALL that scenario because they're ALL SOMEBODY'S CHILD in that scenario.
I disagree
Submitted by ricklail on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:12am.
The constitution does not cover people committing acts of war. These guys denounced their citizenship when they started committing said acts. Therefore, they are no different than any of the other towel heads.
self defense
Submitted by MidAmerica on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:18am.
The principle is very similar to self defense. If an armed intruder comes into your home you are allowed to bypass the judicial system and use deadly force.
Congress is supposed to define an Act of War
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 1:55pm.
Congress is supposed to define an Act of War and how we, as a country, should respond, not the President. Congress has created laws which specifically prevent our own government from punishing in any way, shape, or form, an American citizen without trial and conviction, no matter where in the world the reside and what their actions may or may not be. There's still needs to be PROOF of a crime, they only kind of proof that a court will provided and a jury will decide. Allegations do not apply.
Since the President has, in violation of the Supreme Law of the Land, the Us Constitution, executed an American citizen for what HE claims are acts of war, and so many people, like Newt, are supportive of this extrajudicial execution, where's the protections for ANY American citizens against the unproven claims of our own government? They no longer exist.
Thank you, Newt, for proving to me that you really don't believe in the Constitution and the protections it extends to all American Citizens the world over. You will will NEVER receive my support, nor my admiration.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Sorry big guy.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 5:19pm.
...the unproven claims of our own government?
The United States government went above and beyond making the case Awlaki was commited to waging war on us and killing our citizens in cold blood.
+++
EXCLUSIVE: New Evidence Suggests Radical Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki Was an Overlooked Key Player in 9/11 Plot
+++
* The U.S . government claims that Awlaki has tried to obtain weapons of mass destruction – specifically poisons such as cyanide and ricin – for use in attacking Westerners.
* Awlaki specifically directed Umar Faruq Abdulmutallab in December 2009 to detonate the “underwear” bomb on board a Christmas Day Northwest Airlines flight to Detroit. The government said that Awlaki told Abdulmutallab to detonate the bomb while over U.S. airspace so as to maximize casualties.
* In October 2010, AQAP attempted to explode two U.S. cargo planes by detonating explosives hidden in ink cartridges mailed to synagogues in Chicago. The U.S. government said that Awlaki directly supervised this failed terrorist plot.
* In 2010, Awlaki communicated with Rajib Karim, then a British airlines worker, seeking a way to get a bomb aboard a plane at Heathrow Airport. Karim was convicted in March 2011 in a British court on terrorism charges, and sentenced to 30 years in prison.
* The U.S. government blames Awlaki for “inspiring” terrorist attacks against the U.S., including Fort Hood shooter Hasan – who emailed with him, having attended some of Awlaki’s sermons in Virginia. Failed Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad claimed to have been “inspired by” Awlaki.
* In March 2010, Awlaki said in an audio message that “America is evil” and called for violence against the U.S. “With the American invasion of Iraq and continued U.S. aggression against Muslims, I could not reconcile between living in the U.S. and being a Muslim, and I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding on every other Muslim,” he said.
* Awlaki wrote several articles for INSPIRE magazine, published by AQAP, to justify terrorist attacks.
+++
"If the situation remains we will see new Nidal Hasans appearing," Awlaki warned. "These American soldiers on their way to Afghanistan and Iraq, we will kill them."
+++
But the administration should also declassify and release Awlaki's emails with the Fort Hood Shooter, as well as any other threads of evidence that have been missed. Those bits of intelligence that are still highly sensitive because they deal with current operations can be redacted.
+++
The CIA have added Anwar al-Awlaki, the American citizen implicated in both the Nidal Hassan Fort Hood shooting and the failed underwear bombing on Christmas Day, to a capture-or-kill list of terrorist threats. Awlaki, born in New Mexico, required a special government review through the National Security Council to place him on the list, by virtue of him being a US citizen.
+++
Awlaki released a videotape in April 2010 in which he claimed he was "proud" to have trained Hasan and Abdulmutallab. "I am proud to have been their teacher," Awlaki said in the videotape, which was aired on Al Jazeera.
I would agree
Submitted by cocodrie on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:19am.
I would agree if it was an american citizen here in america under suspicion. This was an american citizen actively fighting on the side of an enemy of the US. He was an enemy combatant and fair game just as the other enemy combatants fighting against us.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
That's a cop-out
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 1:59pm.
"He was an enemy combatant and fair game just as the other enemy combatants fighting against us."
The man wasn't shot on a field of battle. He was executed in an allied country! There was no trial, no jury, no legal procedure, no due process at all. He was declared an enemy of the State, by the State itself, and summarily executed! That should bother everyone!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Sorry big guy.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 5:32pm.
There did not need to be a trial, jury, legal procedure or due process. This is one reason, a very clear reason, that should give terrorists pause. If you think you can conduct actions of war against the United States and use the claim of extranationality as a way of hobbling any response of this country, why then we reserve the right to rain hellfire from above.
He was not executed. He was killed on the field of battle. The field of battle being a 50 yard in diameter circle surrounding the terrorist.
And Mr. Gingrich is correct. The President has the legal authority to kill those waging war on us no matter the nationality.
+++
THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM
The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.
The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.
The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.
http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm
+++
The president's decision to add Anwar al-Awlaki to the list of al Qaeda operatives that the military and/or the CIA can target for attack is, therefore, hardly surprising. The fact that al-Awlaki is a U.S. national makes no difference. Americans who join in armed hostilities against the United States are enemy combatants. They are subject to attack, capture, and detention pursuant to the law of armed conflict, just like any other enemy combatant who is not a citizen. This was established in the World War II "Nazi saboteur" case, Ex parte Quirin (1942), in which the Supreme Court approved the trial by military commission of eight German agents, at least one of whom was an American citizen. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this basic principle more recently in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), in which it approved the capture and detention (without criminal charge or trial) of an American who was taken fighting with the Taliban.
In both cases, the court invoked the law of armed conflict. It is this body of law in particular that permits U.S. forces to attack, without warning or any effort to capture, enemy combatants including al-Awlaki. Enemy combatants are not criminal suspects and the U.S. military is not a police force that must first attempt to effect an arrest before using deadly force. The only limitations on the use of force against such individuals involve the basic principles of distinction (forbidding direct attacks on civilians) and proportionality (requiring that the likely collateral damage to civilians from a military operation is justified by its overall objective). The use of technologically innovative instruments, such as remote-controlled drones, in no way violates these well-settled rules. Indeed, technology has long been a handmaiden of war. As a matter of law, drones are no different from aerial bombs, artillery shells, bullets, or bayonets.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/04/07/the-american-terrorist-...
when you publicly renounce your citizenship...
Submitted by dmacleo on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 12:22pm.
and then try to kill citizens you are a combatant.
and we kill you.
too many pussies in the world.
This is how tyranny begins
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 2:03pm.
This is how tyranny begins, with a simple announcement by the government that a given citizen is a threat to the State and shall be executed, without guilt being established in a Court of Law via due process. Tyrants execute their own citizens without trial and convictions. Constitutional Republics do not. Which one would you prefer to live under?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Ignoramus. And that's being generous.
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 2:22am.
Try reading the actual law.
Title 8 Section 1481 USC. Subparagraph a.7 :
"committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction."
The persons you are assigning the rights of citizenship to are in fact NOT US Citizens. They forfeited their citizenship by waging war against the United States.
NL..I'm on your side of this issue.
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 2:47am.
But subparagraph a (7) requires a conviction in a military tribunal or other court of competent jurisdiction. However, that is not a precondition in all instances. John Yoo prepared a survey of the law on expatriation in 2002. It's well worth the few minutes required to read it. Here's a very brief excerpt:
"In at least two relatively recent decisions, however, courts have concluded that the requisite intention to renounce U.S. citizenship can be inferred from the act of serving in an armed force engaged in hostilities against the United States." [my emphasis]
Jer
...And thus the imperitive to
Submitted by BD on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 5:02pm.
...And thus the imperitive to cause them to achieve room temperature ASAP.
I would hold that ...
Submitted by NL207 on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 1:49am.
being slain on the battlefield while in the act of levying war against the United States, which is more or less what happened to al Awlaki, renders the judicial proceedings moot.
Furthermore, the statute allows a military tribunal to decide who is an enemy combatant. I believe in al Awlaki's particular case, exactly this has happened without fanfare. He was been named as the instigator of Major Hasan's deadly shooting rampage at Fort Hood.
You have to be convicted,
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 1:48pm.
You have to be convicted, in a court of law, of Treason before the government can, "punish" you by any means, ways, shapes, or forms. There's still the presumption of innocence for EVERY American citizen, no matter where in the world they reside. Just because you're outside the territorial resound of the US doesn't me that you are now exempt from your Constitutional protections by members of your own government.
We can't, we mustn't, summarily execute our own citizens no matter how "bad" the government says they are. WE STILL need proof, the kind of proof that can only be established in a Court of Law.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Al Awlaki was not being
Submitted by BD on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 4:35pm.
Al Awlaki was not being punished. Punishment is a legal concept.
He was being killed in persuit of victory in a time of war like the millions of our nations enemies who have ended up in the crosshairs of our weapons. We did not punish the Japanese soldiers on Tarawa, we destroyed them. Al Awlaki is no different.
That is a key point you make
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 1:08pm.
Thanks for bringing that up:
Al Awlaki was not being punished. Punishment is a legal concept.
He was being killed in persuit of victory in a time of war like the millions of our nations enemies who have ended up in the crosshairs of our weapons. We did not punish the Japanese soldiers on Tarawa, we destroyed them. Al Awlaki is no different.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
I have to ask though, with
Submitted by ant on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 10:33pm.
I have to ask though, with all due respect, can the charge really be treason if you expatriate yourself and join the enemy in combat in foreign soil? Technically, one must still be American to commit treason.
ant...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 11/16/2011 - 11:56pm.
I haven't looked at this in depth, but I believe that is the very reason why paragraph a.(7) of the applicable section of Title 8 of the US Code compels a judicial determination by a military tribunal or other court of competent jurisdiction when treason is the issue. In other instances, the procedural requirements are far less rigorous.
Jer
Thanks, Jer
Submitted by ant on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 12:52am.
So, basically, a review of charges against an enemy combatant/terrorist leader, which we know was done and was public knowledge, should be sufficent to determine his fate. We should be very alarmed if an actual citizen was targeted, especially for unclear charges or a belief that government had grown tyrannical in violation of Constitutional restraints, (wish I could site that section calling for removal of a Fed gone bad, but my memory is failing me now), allegiance to Islamic radicalism and taking arms against the Country and it's people is a different story, IMO. WACO and Ruby Ridge should be more alarming to Americans than terrorists overseas who have effectively renounced their citizenship. Government officials have taken license plate numbers where libertarian party meetings have taken place here, so a terrorist doesn't get much sympathy.
When the 'citizen' in question
Submitted by NL207 on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 10:44pm.
is slain while participating in the enemy's militia encampment, one might question the need for any judicial review.
Oddly enough, this is more or less what happened in the Haupt case. SCOTUS rendered a decision in his case in 1944, nearly two years after he and 5 of his co-conspirators were executed in 1942 as spies and saboteurs. These men were 6 of the 8 Nazi saboteurs landed on our shores by submarine in 1942. Haupt had held US Citizenship. SCOTUS decided after the fact of his execution that he had renounced his US citizenship by joining the Nazi Army and was therefore not entitled to normal due process in the civilian courts. It is this precedent that the current court overturned in the recent Hamdi case. His US citizenship rights were affirmed despite his membership in Al Qaeda.
*
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 12:01am.
delete
*
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 11/17/2011 - 12:01am.
good grief...delete also
Annie
Submitted by 26CX on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 2:23pm.
What's the point of having a Constitution if you're dead?
Since when does the moderator
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:14am.
Since when does the moderator get to participate in a debate?
It's bad enough that they ask their questions in the form of 2-minute speeches; this is just ridiculous.
Pelley doesn't have a clue about what a debate is and/or how to moderate; to him, it's a mass interview.
None of the other maimstream media guys are any better.
Newt should have just told him to butt out.
But I have to admit, the putdown was great.
Update: Well,Noel, I'm proud of having done the GMTA thing with you. First time around speed-reading, I missed your comment about participants debating each other, not the moderator.
Or maybe it seeped in subliminally. ;-)
You did it again, mb!
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:26am.
As I read through the transcript (after having seen it last night)...my thought was along the lines of "if this tool Pelley wants to debate the issue(s), he can jolly well mount a campaign and run, in order to have the privilege of debating on the stage."
Too often, these left wing media fools believe it is their role to DEBATE the issue, rather than frame (don't get me started!) the question(s).
I think Newt has a long term strategy here...and I wish the rest of the candidates would get with the program. He no longer lets these idiots skate on their questions (or attempted debate points). He slams them back down when they get out of line, destroying their liberally framed questions, or in this case, the liberal argument buttinsky point. At some point, the "moderators" will become afraid of Newt (I'm kind of surprised they aren't already)....and only ask questions without inserting a POV. Hoping, anyway.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
You're right -- These are not true debates
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 12:53pm.
The so-called moderators are merely performing in front of their peers, hoping to stimulate have that "Gotcha" moment for which their industry will celebrate them. The GOP thought it was being clever by lining up a ridiculously long series of debates sponsored by others.
At one level, this appeared to be smart, because it afforded all the GOP candidates national exposure regardless the amount of $$$ in their warchests.
But the downside has been over-exposure in front of often hostile 'moderators' with an agenda.
They should've stuck with two debates: the first focused on domestic policy, and the second on foreign policy. The moderator would merely pose the issue or question without engaging in conversation with the candidates. Every candidate would get the same question, and after each candidate got a chance to respond, the candidates would get time to rebut each other.
The smartest move for the GOP would be to scuttle the primary system and go back to selection through state and national conventions.
Newt
Submitted by NewLife56 on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:12am.
Newt's class was in session, and the left wing kiss Obama Butt media had better be careful a few more of these teaching debates and some on the left will wake up
Scott Pelley is an enemy-coddling traitor
Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:17am.
Back when this country was actually still America, traitors were either strung up by their necks or rudely thrown up against a wall and shot.
Now they put them on TV and pay them millions.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
I think that after WWII it
Submitted by ricklail on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:40am.
I think that after WWII it changed. Hanoi Jane was the first one that was allowed to skate and it went downhill from there. I'm not that big of a history buff on the politics of WWII but didn't any US citizen that fought for the Japan or the Axis powers get treated like they gave up that citizenship?
rick,
Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 1:03pm.
I don't know what it was about WWII, but this country began its slide shortly after that war ended.
I think it rather telling that it was the last war this country actually won.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Yes, actually,
Submitted by MacWell on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 8:19am.
It's was the mid 50's when we the people allowed one woman to throw God out of our children's classrooms.
But .... the liberal Pelley
Submitted by ant on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:21am.
But .... the liberal Pelley must be right....it's how he...feels.
I watched the Newt highlight
Submitted by helomech on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:33am.
I watched the Newt highlight reel earlier today and he kicked butt. I have noticed there is no back stabbing in these debate formats among the candidates. Something I'm sure the lib moderators have be pissed about because it seems to me, they're doing their best to make the candidates turn on each other and it hasn't happed....
The newsers do not think that
Submitted by BD on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 1:43pm.
The newsers do not think that it is good TV to have harmony on the stage. THey do not recognize good logical thought that resonates with the public when it is placed in front of them.
Note that Newt once again devastated the Newsers when he replied to the question about whether he would criticize Mitt Romney's position and he simply replied "NO" with a smile. Then went on to zap Obama by reflecting on the fact that all of the candidates on the stage would be superior.
That drove the newsers nuts.
Awlaki participated in anti
Submitted by poseA on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:33am.
Awlaki participated in anti American propaganda during a time of war. Therefore, the lawful option would have been to try him in absentia and hand down the sentence accordingly. No panel or committee has the authority to act as judge, jury, and executioner.
Perhaps...
Submitted by Chupacabra on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 12:12pm.
not as judge, jury *and* executioner - but there are panels and committees that are empowered to act as judge and jury.
I, for one, find it incredible there are people like you who would support animals like this "American Imam" who has called for American citizens to be murdered in the name of "Allah"
Nonsense. Awlaki was the G5
Submitted by BD on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 1:50pm.
Nonsense.
Awlaki was the G5 of AQ. Since my comrades who are in US Army G5 wsould be considered fair game for targeting, so would old Awlaki.
No panel required, he occuppied a position on an enemy staff in time o f war and was thus targeted and killed. Sucks to be him.
Imagine the fantastical situation in which 100,000 Armed Cubans descend on south Floriad and seize everything south of Tampa. Then imagine we located the Cuban G5 staff in a tent outside of Miami.
Now, imagine that the actual G5 himself was a US citizen who defected to Cuba at the time of the Mariel Boatlift.
Would we be legally capable of dropping a GBU on that tent and taking out the G5 and his staff? HELL YES.
Anwar Al Awlaki is no different.
Beat Down!
Submitted by Edhenry on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:59am.
Not all corrective statements to the media are this black and white and effective.
This was a true beat down. Newt may not be able to win nomination, but he needs to continue just to kick the BS media is the @$$ at every turn.
Scott Pelley
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 12:01pm.
Now how many Americans were killed by Abraham Lincoln's troops?
I'm just saying, Pelley is a doofus.
Not correct on this one...
Submitted by retrocon on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 12:07pm.
Newt is not correct on this one, but he is playing to the republican base... being a true conservative (constitutional conservative), i would point out:
1) as Bush said in his 9/11 anniversary interview, he deliberately chose NOT to formally declare war.
2) Awlaki was not in a theatre of battle, at least, i don't believe that we (even informally) declared war on Yemeni
3) He was not engaged in any kind of active conflict
4) He was a US citizen
5) He was not tried, an executive committee decided his fate
I would merely ask those who continually support the "hit:"
What happens when an executive decides that speaking against him is "treason?"
Maybe protesting Planned Parenthood is "dangerous to society?"
Protesting in food lines would be disruptive to the community?
Having a firearm makes you a risk to the world based on the UN small arms treaty?
Insulting Michelle's style makes you an enemy of the sheik?
If you say that the first or second amendment protects any of these, i will just say that the 5th amendment protected Al Awlaki, right?
Give me any one of the following and i will be OK with (and even willing to go do) this kind of stuff:
1) a constitutional declaration of war
2) due process for citizens from the judicial or legislative branches (not the executive, they cannot be both the jury and executioner, too much power in one branch, exactly what the framers didn't want... in absence is perfectly ok in situations like this (habeas corpus and all that can be worked around)
3) the action happening in a country that is a theatre of war (or at least, a formally declared military action)
4) active resistance to arrest, detention, or recon
5) a non-citizen
I'm not unreasonable, but without at least one of those, it was cold blooded assassination of a US citizen on orders of the POTUS.
Once Awlaki declared war on America...
Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 1:19pm.
...which he did the moment he took sides with the enemy, his American citizenship was forfeit and thus he was fair game from that point on.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
1) as Bush said in his 9/11
Submitted by BD on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 1:58pm.
1) as Bush said in his 9/11 anniversary interview, he deliberately chose NOT to formally declare war.
* A congressionally mandated use of force is same-same declaration of war.
2) Awlaki was not in a theatre of battle, at least, i don't believe that we (even informally) declared war on Yemeni
*Actually, there was a US finding in about 2003 that extended the GWOT to just that, Global. It authorized US SOCOM efforts to operate globally.
3) He was not engaged in any kind of active conflict
*SO US troops serving on a G5 staff in Iraq are not engaged in any form of conflict? REALLY, you want to go there? If so I will contact my PAO friends and let em in on that secret.
4) He was a US citizen
*So was every Confederate soldier in the Civil War.
5) He was not tried, an executive committee decided his fate
*So? Targeteers should have been the ones making the call anyway.
I would merely ask those who continually support the "hit:"
What happens when an executive decides that speaking against him is "treason?"
*Then I take up arms agains the tyranny. Perhaps if Al Awlaki had done it in reverse order he might still be suckin in air instead of taking a dirt nap.
Maybe protesting Planned Parenthood is "dangerous to society?"
* See above
Protesting in food lines would be disruptive to the community?
* and again see above.
Having a firearm makes you a risk to the world based on the UN small arms treaty?
* And again.
Insulting Michelle's style makes you an enemy of the sheik?
* And again.
1) as Bush said in his 9/11
Submitted by retrocon on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 2:34pm.
1) as Bush said in his 9/11 anniversary interview, he deliberately chose NOT to formally declare war.
* A congressionally mandated use of force is same-same declaration of war.
Um, no it's not, it's a way around a declaration of war, that's not listed in the constitution as legit, and derives from the war powers act, which does not supersede the constitution, since it was a law, and not an amendment. If it were the "same-same," then the president would have had far more authority to execute the war than he did.
2) Awlaki was not in a theatre of battle, at least, i don't believe that we (even informally) declared war on Yemeni
*Actually, there was a US finding in about 2003 that extended the GWOT to just that, Global. It authorized US SOCOM efforts to operate globally.
Um, see number one, while there is a way to accomplish what you've mentioned, to declare war on an entity other than a state (as with the Barbary Pirates), that was not done... According to what you just wrote, why don't we just kill citizens in the US who plot against the government, ON US SOIL... i't part of the "global" theatre, isn't it?
3) He was not engaged in any kind of active conflict
*SO US troops serving on a G5 staff in Iraq are not engaged in any form of conflict? REALLY, you want to go there? If so I will contact my PAO friends and let em in on that secret.
Huh? Yemeni is Iraq suddenly? Did i miss something in mergers and acquisitions? Anyway, if we have permission by the Yemeni gov to be there, we are working with them.
4) He was a US citizen
*So was every Confederate soldier in the Civil War.
A rebellious attempt at state succession presents a different problem, to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.
5) He was not tried, an executive committee decided his fate
*So? Targeteers should have been the ones making the call anyway.
If they were engaging against non-citizens, sure. If they were, for example, engaging a convoy that was resupplying enemies, or positioning for battle, or such, sure.
If they were targeting a US citizen, on a "hit list" made by the POTUS. I say it was an illegal order.
I would merely ask those who continually support the "hit:"
What happens when an executive decides that speaking against him is "treason?"
*Then I take up arms agains the tyranny. Perhaps if Al Awlaki had done it in reverse order he might still be suckin in air instead of taking a dirt nap.
Um... have you looked around? And sure, you can say that, but the reality is that these things "sneak in" and by the time you think it's time to take up arms, you're either dead, disarmed, or in hiding.
We just enabled in the POTUS a power that he did not have before, and had never executed in such a manner before (open and supposedly justified). Thanks, dude.
What, as long as a citizen is assassinated without due process for reasons that you agree with, it's OK.
right.
Like i said before, due process to strip him of citizenship, convict him, or do any number of other things was available and simple and wouldn't take much time. Then you and i would be in agree with this action.
Putting citizens on "hit lists," and then killing them, is a new power for the POTUS, a new power by popular opinion. That's the problem, that's what sneaks up on you. That's what the founders and framers wanted to avoid.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/comment/reply/51707/1593820#ixzz1dbwDxlfv
If it's any consolation, retrocon, Al-Qaeda believes you make
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 5:58pm.
a marvelous argument.
Jer
Points in descending
Submitted by BD on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 3:26pm.
Points in descending order.
1.) Your positin is that there is something inviolate in the term of art "Declaration of War." This is not so. It has been held that a congressionally mandated use of force is more than adequate to commit US troops and has been since the founding of the Nation.
If we were to perform analysis of the approriate sectionso f the constitution we find that the approrpriate passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. I use to say that no where in the governmental formflow program will you find a document to fill out that says "Today we go to war with _______(Fill inthe blank.)
No where in the constitution does it say that "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase in it or within its header. In the courts, the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals during the Iraq issue. Bush said: the text of the October 2002 use of forces resolution approved by congree itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war." in effect saying a formal Congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution. THis is the operative understanding today.
2.) Since the phrase "Declaration of War" is not necessary, it is not necessary to uphold the SOCOM world Wide positoin. By the way, In no use of force that you would apparently approve of will you find a declaration that specifically frames approriate locations for combat to my memory. Not even 1812.
3.) No, but it is extra positional to your arguement. Yeman = Iraq if you cannot accept combat there.
Were US troops allowed to invade a nation that had not been declared war upon in WWII? I speak specifically on Morrocco in Oct 1944. It was owned by France which we were NOT at war with according to your position.
4.) Nonsense, he was a member of a group (AQ)has declared itself at war with the US. The same cannot be said for the Confederate soldiers. Time for him to take a dirt nap.
I cannt fallow the ogic in the reaminder of your points so I will stop at this point.
BD is correct.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 5:49pm.
The constitution did not come with a set of ready made fill in the blank documents. The October 2002 resolution did in fact give the President permission to, and I quote, "unleash the dogs of hell". Ok, that was techically me quoting me speaking previously on the subject. The October 2002 resolution authorized the use of force, that is introducing our troops onto foreign soil without permission - a definite act of war.
Vielen Danke!
Submitted by BD on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 6:21pm.
Vielen Danke!
When you jump the shark into
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 4:15pm.
When you jump the shark into the absurd, you've lost the debate. And that is exactly what you did when you compared a terrorist fighting for the enemy against this country with someone insulting Michelle's style, or protesting Planned Parenthood, two things which aren't even remotely in the same ball park.
Good job, Fonzie.
You gotta love Newt!
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 12:16pm.
It is time to remember OUR heritage! Used to be, if you screwed with the USA, you died, plain and simple. Other countries didn't necessarily love us, but they damn sure smiled and pretended to. More importantly, they feared and respected our power.
As Gus so succinctly said in the greatest American Western novel, "Some people just need killin".
And....
Submitted by retrocon on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 1:07pm.
I think Mao, Stalin, Hitler all said that, too...
Power in defending our nation is great... turning that power, without due process, against our own citizens, is the difference.
So if a hypothetical 50,000
Submitted by BD on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 2:03pm.
So if a hypothetical 50,000 US citizens decide to take up arms against the US society in South Florida and dig a tenchline from Tampa to the east coast and occuppy everything south of it and shoot bunches of people the US Army's 1st Cav Division will have to serve warrents before engaging them at long range with 120mm HE fire?
REALLY?
WIll we be able to engage their staff in tents behind the lines without trying to serve a supervised warrent?
REALLY
Wake up.
I like the trench line plan, BD, ...
Submitted by Newsbubba on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 2:20pm.
... but can we move it a little further south to say, just north of Key Largo?
Long live the Conch Republic! "We seceded where others failed."
I have to go to FLorida in a
Submitted by BD on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 3:27pm.
I have to go to FLorida in a week, will investigate (HA!)
Well
Submitted by retrocon on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 2:47pm.
The argument is not only silly, but works counter. 1st Cav could not go in under posse comitatus without some specific constitutional authority, like an act of congress, anyway. Certainly, while that was happening, some legal due process would occur, law passed, not just the executive branch ambushing the 50000 citizens.
I'd say that there are 50,000 anti-abortion activists in this country, right? I think they have been known to shoot abortion doctors, right, i think, the current POTUS believes that abortion is an absolute constitutional right, and infringing upon it is as bad as digging a trench across Florida (since he won't win that again anyway), right?
So, send in the troops.
You all miss the point. I'm not against the action, i'm against the lack of due process when there was plenty of time...
Like it or not, believe it or not, this was the POTUS exercising a newly created power of the office that will not go away if we don't speak up. And it will just happen again and again, until we are comfortable that those smart people are doing the right thing to "protect us."
The taking of new powers always happens this way. Small steps that seem to make sense to the public, then more, and more, and we get numb to them.
Act of Congress? What's that?
Submitted by ant on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 3:41pm.
Act of Congress? What's that? Besides, no need to send in the troops, when you can just strip the citizenry of their rights little by little. I remember when the TeaParty protests were getting numerous and some hair-brained politicians wanted to define flag staffs and poster-board as 'dangerous weapons'. Ya see, that's all you gotta do, put the boot on the People's necks by violating the Constitution with executive order or tyrannical law, and if they don't comply after that.........then send in the guns.
Ant, dude....
Submitted by retrocon on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 6:20pm.
was curious, did you mean to reply to me?
i agree with everything you've said, and you make my points for me.
And yes, i think congress screws up, too, but at least they aren't the POTUS with some artificial war mandate giving him unlimited power.
Yes, I did. But not in the
Submitted by ant on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 9:48pm.
Yes, I did. But not in the argumentative sense. Just in making a point about petty tyranny and our current politicos habit of ignoring those restraints designed to tie their hands before the People.
US troops would respond
Submitted by BD on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 3:31pm.
US troops would respond regardless of whether there was a document signed by the Pres with the "Declaration of War" verbage in it. WItness US troops engaging Japanese troops on Dec 7-8 regardless of posse comitatus which indicates US forces cannot engage in Law enforcement acticities without approval.
THis is obviously NOT a case of Law Enforcement and nor is the current conflict against AQ which has declared war upon the US.
Therefore civil rights do not apply to those who have sworn allegiance to a combatant power.
I think Mao, Stalin, Hitler all said that, too...
Submitted by MightyMouth on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 3:08pm.
You make bubba's point. Those guys all had a good killing coming for screwing with the USA!
Noel, Just an impression, but…
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 12:16pm.
I didn’t see the smugness of Pelly or Garrett last night. I thought it was a reasonable exchange vice a contentious one and thought both moderators did a reasonable and mostly fair job.
Of course that’s just my opinion and it’s probably influenced by the negativity of the moderator’s from all of the other debates who have been overtly hostile to the participants (i.e. – Blitzer, Williams, King, et. al.).
- Grump :o)
Hi Grumpy
Submitted by mom_rox on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 1:36pm.
Check out the embedded video at 33 seconds to see the expression on Pelley's face. I call that a smug look. While watching the debate last night, I stopped and replayed that segment to point that out to my sons who were watching with me.
OK mom_rox, I stamd corrected.
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 3:34pm.
And properly so! That was a smug expression.
But I still think both moderators did a better than usual job ib handling the debate (with the caveate that it is not a mean feat given the other moderators at the previous debates).
Thanks for pointing out my error.
- Grump :o)
no hay problema
Submitted by mom_rox on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 5:35pm.
It was a very minor blemish in your otherwise excellent analysis (in the OT). I only mentioned it since you reposted here and Noel so kindly provided the video.
i am giving all this up for awhile. Been a lot of fun so far.
Submitted by ricklail on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 12:59pm.
Since Scam and the Panthers are playing the Titans on CBS I get to watch the Falcons and Eagles on Fox. Or at least I hope so. If they are not on I'll listen to the game on the radio. I'd much rather hear Wes Durham's call of the game anyway.
Any joker that participates
Submitted by ConservativeRex on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 1:03pm.
Any joker that participates in a war against America needs killing by any means necessary.
I don't care if he's walking down the street in Chicago (which could result in him getting killed by anyone but our government) he is fair game to be killed by our government.
That goes for Khan as well. We all ought to be ashamed that our so called representative government apologized to his family.
Newt was 100% correct. Pelley just informed the country on how out of touch a CBS news reader is.
As far as Newt's "baggage". I guess we forgot all of Billy Jeff's baggage. If you think Newt can do the job, then he's the man for it. But there's not a soul up there that doesn't have some sort of baggage.
As far as the MIC, if anyone were allowed to read anything about his past, you'd find a ton of baggage on him as well.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
wow
Submitted by retrocon on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 1:08pm.
A "Conservative" who's never read the US Constitution, or history.
Or more than you it seems.
Submitted by BD on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 2:04pm.
Or more than you it seems.
Article 1, Section 8: Powers
Submitted by retrocon on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 3:27pm.
Article 1, Section 8: Powers of Congress
""To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
I see no power about assassinating US Citizens. There was no declaration of war.
Amendment 5: Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings
"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 don't believe that he was "in actual service in the time of War of public danger..." that was to cover our troops serving. So, no exception for him.
Ever wonder why the BoR is cluttered with stuff about pesky trials and rights and jurys and such?
What fom number do I call up
Submitted by BD on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 3:34pm.
What fom number do I call up in Form Flow to draft a declaration of war please?
BTW, CR
Submitted by retrocon on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 3:36pm.
i was probably a little trite on that last reply, and i apologize. But you first line really bothered me.
He was treasonous, and we have laws about treason.
I am glad he got what he got.
I am not glad that we, good conservatives, are justifying a new power for the POTUS based on our own biases.
A "war against America" can be defined many different ways, by many different people. You and i may not agree with the next definition.
Standard liberal shortthink
Submitted by SaguaroJack on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 1:05pm.
Liberals can only marshal one idea at a time in their small brains. Gingrich adduced the classic understanding of "rule of law" under the Constitution, using a series of interconnected concepts to explain why nothing was amiss in taking out Awliki.
Pelley, besides greatly exceeding his proper role, could only think of the phrase "rule of law," which to liberals means "rule of a judge." Since no judge was involved in the Awliki takeout, Pelley and liberals think "rule of law" was violated. They don't grasp that law comes from the legislative branch; they think law issues forth from judges' lips.
Their belief in a Moses-like lawgiver makes liberals more like fundamentalist religious believers than the worldly, secular heroes they see themselves as. It's just so much easier to oversimplify everything down to what one Super Authority says, than to trace the complexities of something as complicated as the Rule of Law.
No...
Submitted by retrocon on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 1:15pm.
Newt appeased the hawks in the conservative base (one of which, i normally consider myself).
By attempting to define an executive branch committee as a source for due process (outside of military tribunals), he gave more power to the executive branch than is allowed.
Due process of law. Where was the due process, where was the law enabling that due process???
What you all consistently miss is that there were plenty of options to this goal... using congress to strip his citizenship, having him convicted in absence, there wasn't even a judicial warrant issued from what i have heard.
Are our soldiers fighting for freedom? Of for a government that can do whatever they want to it's citizens if they "perceive" a threat, without a lick of due process?
He forfeited his citizenship
Submitted by Free Thinker on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 5:22pm.
He forfeited his citizenship when he committed acts of war against the US. It was his choice and there are already laws in place that validate that forfeiture, Title 8, section 1481 of the United States Code. Subsection (a)(3) states that you voluntarily give up your citizenship when you: (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… He was no longer a US citizen with rights guaranteed under our constitution. He died on the battlefield of his choice. If it was any other way I imagine there would be serious legal actions or even serious debate. Pelley is a tool that Newt conveniently used.
Well
Submitted by retrocon on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 7:32pm.
i would absolutely like to go with this.
the only problem is, the premise used by Newt, and the government, was that he was an enemy combatant, no foreign state was involved.
Enemy combatant by definition is without a host country.
So, he didn't die in a battlefield. Lots of folks, like Paul and others, want legal action but Obama supporters protect him from one side, republican hawks protect him from the other (because they "agree" with the hit).
The problem is, we hadn't stripped him of his citizenship. If something would prove that, i'd be OK with his termination. Haven't see that yet.
Battlefield is global.
Submitted by BD on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 3:35pm.
Battlefield is global.
retrocon...
Submitted by MightyMouth on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 3:39pm.
You do realize it only takes one side to declare war? And that anything that side does to prosecute that declaration is considerd by the opposite side an act of war? Did we check the passports of Volksdeutschers before we shot 'em in WWI and WWII? (answer is no)
The statement: "The problem is, we hadn't stripped him of his citizenship." Are the words of an academic with no sense of reality. Let's cross the t's and dot the i's when peoples lives aren't at stake, okey dokey?
Newt is brill, but he still
Submitted by amyshulk on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 1:51pm.
Newt is brill, but he still creeps me out - Shallow, I know. I'd rather him than Mitt or Huntsman though.
Ronald Reagan
There must be something about
Submitted by Slyrr on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 3:38pm.
There must be something about being a liberal Democrat, that, when you get older, makes you look like a total candy-@$$ with wispy, feathery hair and a build so slight you may as well have hollow bones.
Vice President Joe Biden
Submitted by Wall Watcher on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 7:28pm.
Vice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit, according to several sources in the room
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html#ixzz1dd9rijkg
Remember DHS has compared the tea party to the weather underground
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/14/confirme-the-obama-dhs-hit-job-on-c...
Dear Mr. Pelley.............
Submitted by Herbster on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 9:21pm.
Dear Mr. Pelley. As Goethe said, "There is nothing more froghtful than ignorance (Or sheer stupidity) in action." I suggest you take this advice to heart.........AND WIPE THAT SMUG LOOK OFF YOUR OVERLY MADE UP FACE!
Here's some free advice......do NOT pick on the Newtster. He will eat you alive. Just stick to reading the news...........
There are more issues with
Submitted by redfish on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 9:57pm.
There are more issues with the policy than Newt is admitting to.
When you aren't talking about wars between countries that can be declared by an act of the Congress, the line between criminal acts and acts of war become blurred.
So the executive branch could in theory declare anyone who committed a crime against a public building a terrorist, and thus a war combatant, whether he was overseas or a native born American citizen and living in the country.. And the executive branch, without judicial review, could make this decision based on wrong evidence or insufficient evidence, and order an assassination on mistaken information.
It historically does NOT
Submitted by BD on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 5:53pm.
It historically does NOT become blurred.
Examine the conduct of US forces in the "Quasi War" with France.
Also check out the effort to control the Whiskey Rebelion.
Civil War?
In all the time the US has existed only five occurrances have caused the US to declare war on another nation. It would be more fair to say that the standard US policy has been to NOT declare war and thus conduct operations based on what is the current modus operandi.
If a US person willingly joins a group that has willingly declared war on the US then they will die regardless of nationality.
And in Awlaki's case ----
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 6:10pm.
---- his buddies will have to clean up his corpus delecti with a sponge and tweezers upon his passing our earthly world.
What if....
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 12:57am.
What if say a bunch of Americans 'Occupied' a publicly owned space, set up tents, call for the overthrow of the current system, commit acts of vandalism, violate all laws regarding assembly, health codes, drug laws and noise ordinances? Can we call in the drones?
OWS are enemy combatants! The
Submitted by redfish on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 2:01pm.
OWS are enemy combatants!
The real issue I think though, which even Ron Paul is avoiding talking about, is whether assassination is a legitimate tool of warfare, irregardless of the citizenship status of the person you're targeting. Assassinating political or military leaders has long been considered to be against the rules of warfare, we've even signed treaties against it. The Geneva Conventions refers to this as "treachery." Its true that terrorists aren't a party to the conventions, but part of the reasons for rules of warfare is to keep some standards for the rule of law, its not necessarily about "being nice."
At the end of the Shay's rebellion in the 1780s, once the conflict was contained, all of the leaders were captured and brought to trial, because that was the way people assumed it needed to be done. The legal stance of some conservatives today would have been used to justify assassinating the leaders instead of capturing them.
At any rate, the citizenship status of the people in question has more relevance to jurisdiction of the final matter, not to whether the policy of assassination is legitimate.
MA,
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 2:17pm.
By drones do you mean the blathering media and associated talking heads?
If they either declare war or
Submitted by BD on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 5:55pm.
If they either declare war or act in a warlike manner - batter up. PLAY BALL!
Nice pwnage by Newt.
Submitted by MightyMouth on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 2:58pm.
"So maybe Pelley ought to wipe that smug, condescending look off his face"
Ha.. Pelley dosen't even know how much he was schooled. How many freakin bobble headed debate 'moderators' do the GOP front runners have to b*tch slap before they get any serious debate time in?
Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh talked quite a bit...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 3:34pm.
about this Gingrich-Pelley incident on their radio shows today.
It seems Pelley is one of those liberals who is so stupid that he is oblivious to just how stupid he is.
I usually watch these debates, but except for an occasional sports event, I never watch CBS, so I didn't even realize it was on.
I guess I need to get a schedule.
Everyone who is agreeing with
Submitted by hillbillyhatfield on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 5:09pm.
Everyone who is agreeing with this, are leading themselves into the wolf's den. Is american born terrorists evil? absolutely. Should they be hunted down. As soon as possible. I have no like for anyone who attacks americans.
Should they be killed without an apperance in court. 1000% NO..
We have the right to trial when we break any law, and that includes treason. The whole when in war we have different laws, is just misunderstanding the whole bill of rights. Those trump every other law in the books. Even in war. Only noncitizens do these rules dont apply. When the government can throw out the god given rights that our founders gave us, then we can be killed at will. These laws are for the good as well as the evil vile citizen. Do not close a blind eye, just because you hate a person. Because someday you may be the hated person.
Only thing the government has to do is decide we are a terrorist, and we can be killed without trial. This is a very slippery and dangerous slope.
Today it's a terrorist, tomorrow it might be a protestor. All the government has to say is you may be a terrorist and you have a price on your head. And nothing will save you.
All citizens have rights. Unless they denounce there citizenship, a bounty, or contract for there death should never happen. We are opening our selves up for our own destruction. And we are acting like sheep, with no though of our own.
Lets read up on Rebellion or insurrection according to law. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/115
But to get to the definition of guilt, you have to "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury. Capital is treason.
I think even for non-citizens
Submitted by redfish on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 5:39pm.
I think even for non-citizens we need to have some system with proper judicial oversight. The government should have some proof that the people they're targeting are actually terrorists, and that they aren't unnecessarily killing non-involved persons who happen to be in the range of fire.
I don't see that it would have been more difficult to take these men into custody than to kill them. The only reason they were killed was political PR, so they could go on TV and say they "got the bad guys." That is just demagoguing national security issues, imo.
It is unfortunate you feel that way Sir.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 6:01pm.
Because the proper judicial authorities say otherwise ---
“The court recognizes the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion – that there are circumstances in which the Executive’s unilateral decision to kill a US citizen overseas is constitutionally committed to the political branches and judicially unreviewable,” Bates wrote in his 83-page decision. “But this case squarely presents such a circumstance.”
He added that the political question doctrine “does not contain any ‘carve-out’ cases involving the constitutional rights of US citizens.”
I'm not referring to the
Submitted by redfish on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 6:40pm.
I'm not referring to the Constitutionality of the issue. Obviously the Constitution is designed with regard to people within US jurisdiction.
Its a matter of international law and rules of warfare. In regard to that, we're already prohibited from assassination of leaders in parties to the Geneva Conventions, as that is one provision in the conventions. Un-uniformed combatants are not a party to the conventions, but they were meant only to codify well understood rules of warfare, not simply serve as a protective pact.
As to the issue of the Constitutionality of killing citizens, the more important matter is whether the President has the authority to act in any way military matter without the direction of Congress, and whether the Congress has the power to give those directions. Military action against insurrection and in order of defense is already granted, since it that is assumed to be within the necessary and proper powers of the executive branch in order to carry out its function. In order to enforce laws, you need to use force. In order to defend laws, you need to use force. In order to defend treaties, you need to use force. All of these are authorized directives on the executive use of military force. But that implied authorization of the use of force stops when that use of force is no longer necessary and proper to execute the function of government. Tenth Amendment,or the point of the Tenth Amendment anyway, since this isn't a federal-states issue -- that the government has limited powers. The executive branch doesn't have unlimited power, just as the legislative branch doesn't.
I do not ascribe to the legal theory that the executive branch has unchecked supremacy on military matters, instead they would need directive authority from Congress. And given that, there is also the question of whether the legislative branch has the authority to issue such assassinations on US citizens.
Judges are sometimes wrong.
Almost correct. It has been
Submitted by BD on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 6:39pm.
Almost correct. It has been a few years since my course in the Law of Land Warfare so hold on.
The conventions were an attempt to codify acceptable rules of conduct in warfare. The intent being that if both sides acted in accordance, then acceptable behavior would be the result.
The original logic also stated that if one side did not act in accordance withthe prescribed rules, then the other side had the right if not duty to persuade them to act in accordance with those rules with what were called justifiable repriasals.
If one side were to begin executing prisoners caught on the battlefield out of hand, then the other side would be called upon to similarly execute a proportionate number etc.
If one side begins to attempt to assinate foreign leaders then the other side would be called upon to do similarly in an attempt to persuade them to readhere to the Conventions.
now, this is all well and good, except if one side decides to not SIGN the LOLW Treaties. I can guarantee you that the AQ and Taliban have not.
Generally the US in that case adheres to the spirit of the treaty regardless of the signatory status - but can deviate when appropriate as listed above.
AQ has attempted to assassinate many of our leaders (and have had some success particularly against ambassadors). In my view that allows for the assassination of key AQ targets.
Al Awlaki was their G5. A key leader. He is now blowing in the wind....
I don't think many people of
Submitted by redfish on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 6:55pm.
I don't think many people of the signatory countries would agree that there was a duty to target civilians or use torture if the other side did, as that rationale would imply.
The assassination of terrorists is not a legal issue covered by the Geneva Conventions, I agree. The question is whether its a good idea from the perspective of the exercise of law. What if the information on who is a terrorist is wrong -- is it ever possible to kill the wrong person? What if killing terrorists with drone strikes harms innocent civilians in the way? The issue for me isn't any sympathy for terrorists.
But the information was not wrong, now was it?
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 7:00pm.
So the what if questions are just that. As I showed above, clearly, beyond all doubt, this man was a murderous thug committed to killing our civilians. And we did not need a government body deciding that. It was all published in the clear.
As to killing civilian, again, see my post above. If you find your self within the 50 yard circle that surrounds a man on the terrorist kill list. My advice, move to safety rikky tik. You are standing on the battlefield and civilians should not be doing that.
Is the government even
Submitted by redfish on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 9:40pm.
Is the government even required to publish all evidence, or have that evidence available? The issue with law is what type of precedent you're setting for allowing the government certain powers, its not about particular cases.
Sorry big guy.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 10:51pm.
You are not going to persuade me with arguments to the future and slippery slope arguments or even arguments by question. As I showed above and in past posts on this subject. The Awlaki guy had more than enough evidence right out there in the open, not listed from dark government offices, more more more than enough evidence to convince all that he deserved to be on the list of people that needed taking out.
There are plenty more people on the list of future dead terrorists. If you have an issue about any one of them. Please bring them and we will examine the wheres and whyfores. Until then, what was done was both legal and just. And please, I say this with all due respect, from one conservative to another.
Arguments to the future and
Submitted by redfish on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 12:32am.
Arguments to the future and slippery slope arguments are fallacies when dealing with certain arguments, but not when dealing with law. Our entire Constitution in part is founded on the idea that giving up free speech or right to arms or right to assembly may be a slippery slope that will create a tyranny. May be doesn't mean necessarily; but the point is to put strict rules on what government can do.
Whatever. Prove you are not serious.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 12:50am.
I said it was legal and just. I gave proof many times here and on other blogs at this site. Now all I am getting is piffle. If anyone really cares anymore, someone stop by and translate what this guy is saying.
Vet, I was never arguing it
Submitted by redfish on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 12:52am.
Vet, I was never arguing it was illegal or injust.
I was just opening a debate on what US policy should be.
All right. Sorry.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 1:11am.
The policy we have seems to work just fine.
Gee, racking my brain I
Submitted by BD on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 1:42pm.
Gee, racking my brain I cannot recall the US ever publishing all evidence that led to the killing of any of scads of German and Japanese combatants in WWII.
Al Awlaki was not a civilian.
Submitted by BD on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 1:07pm.
Al Awlaki was not a civilian. He was a member of AQ and thus an enemy combatant. In fact he was their equivalent of a G5 and thus a key leader.
And yes, the signatory nations specifically emphasized that there was a critical need for the repriasal concept in order to force non-compliant nations to readhere to the conventions.
What if the information on the target is wrong? Hell, it is not a perfect world and I can cite more incidents where targeteers have gotten it wrong than you can possibly imagine. But acting on the best information available in a professional manner is a shiled against liability.
Killing the wrong person? Hell, want me to tell you of the thousands killed in WWII when targeteers put steal on empty facilities and killed civilians by mistake? No liability attaches.
I have no love for this guy
Submitted by hillbillyhatfield on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 6:02pm.
I have no love for this guy or any of the other crazy bomb nuts. They can all be raped to death by rapid buffalo because i'm indifferent. I dont applaude the death of anyone, but i will not lose sleep over them either. But the whole our government can decide who is criminals without trial by peers is extremely dangerous. If they were killed in routine military operations, that is fine. But to actually put a bounty on there without trial is beyond scary. If he denounced his citizenship this would a non issue. But from what I have read he still had duel.
I have heard elected officals call tea party members terrorists(any search for teaparty and terrorism will show you all you need). Even out Vp has called us that. And you know how stupid that is. Who is to say these same officals in the future, call for our deaths. Todays patriots may be tomorrows terrorists in the eyes of the government.
Citizens are citizens, regardless of how good or evil they are. We were blessed with being born american. And americans have rights. Even mass murderers.
I cannot seem to recall Abe
Submitted by BD on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 5:58pm.
I cannot seem to recall Abe Lincoln Executing no-knock warrents on the Army of Northern Virginia.
War is different... even when waged by "all enemies "foreign and DOMESTIC."
When our own congresspeople
Submitted by hillbillyhatfield on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 7:21pm.
When our own congresspeople state there being held hostage by jhadists(tea party). I pay attention and dont want them to have the right to say who will die or not. Because apparently some think I'm no beter than someone who straps bombs on.
I just dont want to wake up one morning and find out if I go and protest a bill or budget, I'll be targeted as a terrorist to be killed. Like I said a slippery slope.
also the confederates denounced there citizenship.
Operations must be conducted
Submitted by BD on Tue, 11/15/2011 - 1:45pm.
Operations must be conducted with logic and common sense. A simple adhereance to all facets of civil law during time of war adheres to neither of these.
Newt is schoolin' them
Submitted by B.Soetoro on Mon, 11/14/2011 - 6:54pm.
Newt has been setting them straight at every "debate".
No there're not debates, just liberal target practice.
Newt might be the only real conservative.