Gingrich defends Obama's "right" to kill at will

[Brian4Liberty]

Anyone catch Wolf Blitzer interviewing Newt Gingrich on CNN? They took the opportunity to attack Ron as if he didn't know what he was talking about, and defended Obama's right to essentially kill anyone at anytime.

[turbobrain9]

Yep, I watched the whole segment...Blizter set up the question "Do you agree with Ron Paul on the..." Newt "Ron Paul is wrong..."

[Brian4Liberty]

More, Gingrich on "due process":


“They got due process,” Gingrich said. “The president signed an order to kill them. That was due process.”

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/09/30/gingrich-obama-was-right-to-order-the-killing-of-al-qaeda-operative/

[Brian4Liberty]

Yep, I watched the whole segment...Blizter set up the question "Do you agree with Ron Paul on the..." Newt "Ron Paul is wrong..."

Yeah, you knew something was up when Wolf so pointedly used Ron Paul's name several times...

[Sola_Fide]

What a liberal....

[Dary]

As long as you are first labeled an enemy combatant, enemy combatant. :eek:

Newt saying that Ron is wrong about the Constitution. What a joke.

[ctiger2]

What a dictator....

fixed

[Brian4Liberty]

Hey Newt, maybe some people are weeping over the death of the Constitution, not al-Awlaki...





http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46634

Newt Gingrich
The ACLU Weeps Over Dead Terrorists
by Newt Gingrich
10/05/2011

The ACLU is aghast. Liberal bloggers are proclaiming the end of the Bill of Rights. Even some on the right have joined in the hand-wringing.

The source of their angst? News last Friday that one of Al Qaeda’s most senior leaders, Anwar al-Awlaki, was killed in a U.S. drone attack on his convoy in the Yemeni desert.
...
On this issue, the president’s critics are dangerously mistaken. Planning and directing terror plots to kill American civilians en masse is not a crime, to be handled through the judicial system; it is an act of war against the United States. Anyone engaged in war against the United States, whether an American citizen or not, is subject to the use of force by the U.S. As John Yoo put it this week, “American citizens who join the enemy do not enjoy a roving legal force-field that immunizes them from military reprisal.”

President Obama was entirely within his rights to take action against a top-ranking member of a group that has declared war on the U.S., and who was actively seeking to launch new attacks against this country. Congress gave the president that authority explicitly in 2001, when it granted him permission to use “all necessary and appropriate force” to prevent acts of terrorism. It is, moreover, established Constitutional law that Americans engaged in war against the United States are owed no due process rights, just as Americans caught working on behalf of the Nazis were not during World War II​.

[jkr]

so newt supports obambza?


and makes teh comercial with nancy pelosi aboout the climate "change"

AND fucks around on his wife because he is so dedicated to ...his job?

fuck this blood thirsty asshole

[LibertyEagle]

Anyone catch Wolf Blitzer interviewing Newt Gingrich on CNN? They took the opportunity to attack Ron as if he didn't know what he was talking about, and defended Obama's right to essentially kill anyone at anytime.

Why am I not surprised.

[Brown Sapper]

Man does anyone see a pattern here? People wait for Paul to take a side on a position, if its praised they jump all over it and claim it as their own. If its admonished the go all out attack on Paul. For once I'd love for them to take a position before Paul does.

[braane]

Why does everyone claim this guy declared war (is "terroristic practices" really a declaration of war)? I don't remember ever being told to gear up for battle. I could be mistaken...but war is something that is made public.

In any event, we should all declare Newt an enemy combatant... and then see if he still thinks that gives the President the right to take his life. I bet he asks for rights then...

[asurfaholic]

I can understand the act of war part, I don't think anyone is upset that the guy is gone. But gone also is the constitutional guarantee that us citizens get due process. If all someone does is claim they hate the president and what he stands for, and the govt attaches a "terrorist" label, does this mean he can be assassinated too? Due process is not designed to protect the guilty, but rather protect the innocent. Protect our rights as citizens.

Newt obviously has an agenda, I am curious about what it is. He is intelligent, and should understand the implications of this recent news better. I bet the next debate will be filled top to bottom with critisim of Paul's position. It can only be a good thing since it will really show that he is different than the rest. Ron just has to articulate his side very carefully, he can't be seen as "siding with terrorists."

[acptulsa]

Newt obviously has an agenda, I am curious about what it is.

Who wants the level of 'perks' reduced on the job they're applying for?

Considering he's the only sitting Speaker of the House ever reprimanded for ethics violations, seems to me we should take the possibility of him gaining this power very seriously, indeed.