Newt nails Scott Pelley on killing al-Awlaki

Scott Pelley calls al-Awlaki a terror suspect and says his killing was extra-judicial and not the rule of law. It is the rule of law counters Newt, who clarifies that if you're engaged in war against the United States, you're an enemy combatant and you should be killed.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• newt
• mitt
• debate
• coptic
• rule
• of
• law
• national
• journal
• major
• garrett
• cnbc
• rick
• perry
• al-awlaki

[druckernut]

@Maverick1552 Whether or not congress declares war is of no importance. Bin Laden and Al Queda have declared war on the United States, Isreal, and the West several times. Al-Awlaki was a commander in Al Queda who called for jihad and planned attacks against the US, et al. Therefore, he was an enemy combatant and Speaker Gingrich is correct. Newt in 2012.

[JesusDillinger]

@trottheblackdog I don't assume that. There is a limited time in which the pres may unilaterally make war, w/o congressional approval. That time has long past. Obama is now officially and lawfully a murdering dictator.

[trottheblackdog]

@JesusDillinger You assume that since Congress has the power to declare war that war must always be declared. That is not the case.

[JesusDillinger]

Newton Gingrich is lying here, and knows it very well.

Because Obama does not declare war in accord with the Constitution, there can be no legal theory to underpin Obama's death order.

Obama is therefore by definition a murdering dictator.

The reason Newton defends Obama on this is that he wants the same power himself.

[maverick1552]

@AnotherNutJob 1. He did not need to 'declare war' on America to be considered a very real threat.

2. He did not engage in 'armed conflict' which for some odd reason is what you consider a qualifier. He did engage in 'acts of war'.

3. Again, he did not have a 'military force' nor did he need one to be considered a real threat. ACT OF WAR is a broad term purposely. He was a fighter by proxy, much as Iran does in Iraq.

[AnotherNutJob]

@maverick1552 If you believe al-Awlaki (an American) was at war with America then wouldn't that mean it was a civil war? Imagine reading this in a history book: The American civil war of 2011 started on September 30, 2011 and ended that same day when two Predator drones fired Hellfire missiles at a vehicle containing al-Awlaki.

[AnotherNutJob]

@maverick1552

#1 Did al-Awlaki declare war on America? Please provide evidence of that.

#2 Did al-Awlaki engage in armed conflict? Please provide evidence of that.

#3 Did al-Awlaki have a military force engaged in armed conflict? Please provide evidence of that.

If you cannot answer any of these questions then you have only proved me right.

[loismlsx]

What a joke Newt is, stick a fork on this guy.

[maverick1552]

@AnotherNutJob Why rely on a dictionary? We have law, which Newt cited. Here is a clearer definition for you. From United States Code Title 18

(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—

(A) declared war;

(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or

(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and

Silly peoples can commit acts of war without the 'backing' of a nation.

[AnotherNutJob]

@maverick1552

War (Noun):

A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.

I guess you and newt never heard of a dictionary, LMAO. >.<