Gingrich, Romney back Obama killing American accused of turning on U.S.
UPDATED 11:11 p.m. ET
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney on Saturday agreed with the Obama administration's decision to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, the American citizen who was accused of turning on the United States and recruiting terrorists for al Qaeda.
"The correct thing in an act of war is to kill people who are trying to kill you," Gingrich said at the CBS News
Al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born cleric linked to al Qaeda, was killed by a CIA drone in September.
Romney told CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley he "absolutely" would have made the same call as Mr. Obama.
Transcript of the debate
Full video
All debate video
Full coverage: The CBS News/National Journal debate
"In this case, this is an individual who had aligned himself with a -- with a group that declared war on the United States of America. And if there's someone that's going to join with a group like al Qaeda that declares war on America, and we're in a -- in a war with that entity, then, of course, anyone who is bearing arms with that entity is fair game for the United States of America," Romney said.
Gingrich disagreed with Pelley's characterization that Awlaki was not allowed "the rule of law" because Awlaki was found guilty by a panel that made its recommendation to the president but he did not get his day in court.
"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," Gingrich said.
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," Gingrich said.
Texas Rep. Ron Paul said he strongly disagreed, and questioned why so many Republicans who oppose Mr. Obama's vision for Americans should get health insurance would back him on a such a fundamental issue of the rule of law.
"I don't think we should give up so easily on our rule of law," Paul said.
When Rep. Michele Bachmann tried to compare Awlaki's killing to Osama bin Laden, Paul pointed out that the two cases are not comparable.
"I voted for the authority to go after bin Laden," Paul said.
"I was upset because it took ten years because we were diverted from going after him and doing the job. But that's a lot different than assassinating American citizens. I mean, he wasn't a citizen," Paul said.
Debate winners and losersFact checking the debate
Analysis: Cain held his own, but answers didn't show depth
GOP candidates on Pakistan: Friend or foe?
Perry: All countries start at zero foreign aid
Bachmann on increasing military spending
Cain on dealing with the Arab Spring
Post-debate analysis with CBS News political director John Dickerson
The commander-in-chief debate
Popular in Politics
- IRS' Lerner: "I have not done anything wrong" 666 Comments
- Obama to view Oklahoma tornado damage Sunday
- Christie: Keep politics out of Oklahoma disaster relief
- Former Miss America might challenge McConnell
- WH says criticism of its handling of IRS story is "legitimate"
- Anthony Weiner comeback try begins: Running for NYC mayor 120 Comments
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice"
- Major immigration overhaul passes first big test 68 Comments
Those committing acts of war against this country, should have their citizenship stripped by the Congress, to start with.
By your rules Tim McVeigh should have been shot on sight as should a lot of OWS people who advocate the violent overthrow of our government.
If "maximum covert operations" and other strategies failed there would be no other choice. First, however, the United States should consider "taking out their scientists" and "breaking up their systems, all of it covertly, all of it deniable."
The speaker of those words was addressing the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran which could threaten not only the State of Israel with obliteration but the entire Mideast with instability, and the United States with chaos.
The speaker was obviously not President Barack Hussein Obama who has demonstrated a distinct affinity for all things Islamic and who has waffled for months on the monumental issue of dealing with a nuclear, Muslim Iran.
The speaker was Newton "Newt" Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, inspiration for the 1994 "Contract with America, and current candidate for the Republican nomination for the presidency of the United States. He was responding to a question posed at Saturday night's presidential debate in Spartansberg, South Carolina.
Newt doesn't mince words, publicly articulating what all presidents practice but few admit to, that covert actions are sometimes necessary when the security of the country is involved, even when those actions require the pre-emptive elimination of threatening emplacements, and people, all done with plausible deniability.
As America slips into a second-rate economic status while China and India are gaining world ascendency, as our international influence wanes and pipsqueak nations such as Iran dare to bully us, as we wallow in a Carteresque malaise and our president embraces the anarchic Occupy Wall Street movement, we need a leader like Newt Gingrich. . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5952.)
You are either with us or against us, these politicians want all Americans to feel that they are in a damoclean position, and that they must never even think about questioning, the government, or these politicians, in particular.
A million Adolf Hitler's are no danger, unless they have followers, I ask my fellow Americans to not vote for these potential Adolf Hitlers, do not give these men a following.
We need a society where neighbors can snitch on neighbors and have them Liquidated at the FEMA camp.
If one is facing criminal charges we need a system where "if they can not do the time they just need to drop a dime on a neighbor". and send him to the FEMA CAMP, where the only way out is up through the chimney.
American exceptionalism? Sure maybe if we were in a position be seen as exceptional. I guess we can just dilute ourselves that having the bigger stick is what makes us exceptional...that is all I heard tonight. But let me ask this, what do you call the kid on the playground that walks around and takes whatever they want, certain of their superiority and righteousness only because they has the ability to crush everyone else? Yeah, that's what I thought. That's not what I want to be part of.
In fact, it is TIME for this country to set standards for the withdrawal of citizenship, for acts against this country, or for crimes against this country. Citizenship should be a privilege that can be lost, through misconduct.
I recall reading stories of Communist Germany in which people accused of crimes would volunteer information to the authorities about their neighbors, friends, and acquaintances in exchange for lesser sentences...the sad part was not many of the accusations where true and it just created a perpetuating cycle...but, this is America...who needs a judicial branch.