Today's Situation Room:

Wolf Blitzer delivers the most important breaking news and political, international, and national security stories of the day. Tune to The Situation Room weekdays 5-7pm ET on CNN.

Wolf Blitzer delivers the most important breaking news and political, international, and national security stories of the day. Tune to The Situation Room weekdays 5-7pm ET on CNN.

BLITZER’S BLOG: Impeach Obama? Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich disagree
October 6th, 2011
04:04 PM ET

BLITZER’S BLOG: Impeach Obama? Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich disagree

By CNN's Wolf Blitzer

(CNN) – When it comes to President Obama’s decision to kill Anwar al-Awlaki, Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul couldn’t disagree more. Gingrich says the president did the right thing; Paul says he’s open to trying to impeach the president.

“The fact is, Congressman Paul is wrong about the law,” the former House speaker told me. “He’s wrong about the Constitution.”

Insisting that al-Awlaki was an “enemy combatant,” Gingrich added: “The president was exactly right legally and he was exactly right morally in killing somebody who was a threat to everybody.”

Paul strongly disagrees. He says the president violated the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

“It’s pretty clear that you can’t take a life without due process of law, especially of an American citizen,” Paul told me. “We’ve never had a policy that said we can put somebody on an assassination list by a secret tribunal.”

Paul said Obama should have ordered al-Awlaki’s arrest and brought him to trial in the United States. As an example, he points to Israel’s capture of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in 1960 in Argentina. The Israelis brought Eichmann to Jerusalem for trial.

Paul has been suggesting that Obama could be impeached for ordering the killing of an American citizen. I asked him whether he would support introducing articles of impeachment.

“I haven’t introduced them, but I think it’s an impeachable offense,” he said. “If the mood of the country was such that they wanted to do it, yes, I could support that.”

By the way, on this issue and several other national security matters, Paul is clearly isolated from the other Republican candidates. He alone, for example, favors an immediate military pullout from Iraq and Afghanistan and from all other U.S. bases around the world.

So I asked him whether he would consider running as a third-party candidate if he didn’t win the GOP nomination. “I haven’t thought about it, and I have no plans to do that,” he said. “So, no, that wouldn’t be in the cards for me.”

He did run as the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1988.

RELATED: Rep. Paul: Impeachment a possibility for Obama

Post by:
Filed under: Anwar al-Awlaki • Newt Gingtich • Ron Paul • Wolf Blitzer
soundoff (275 Responses)
  1. Nina

    Ron Paul is the only person on the stage that makes sense and is honest.....I hope he wins. He would make a very good President.....2012 Vote Ron Paul he has integrity....and if he doesnt win, the USA seems to be doomed, the rest of them just do not have it.

    December 13, 2011 at 9:55 pm |
  2. Perk

    Fast and Furious.......who's held accountable ?

    October 11, 2011 at 3:07 pm |
  3. TLR

    You wrote Ron Paul is "isolated" from the other Republicans, which makes it sound like "far off in left field", when actually, his stance is always based on the constitution, which isn't isolating at all. He represents America on this, as usual. The constitution always wins it. We have it on our side. Please do more stories on Ron Paul, Mr. Blitzer, but please be mindful that America is aware of how articles and phrases can be slanted to make something sound a certain way.

    October 9, 2011 at 11:19 pm |
  4. Chickasaw

    The Revolution is here !

    President Paul 2012 !

    October 8, 2011 at 3:09 am |
  5. JohnG

    Newt Gingrich is calling out Ron Paul on the constitution? bwahahahahahahahah!!!!!!! That's a good one!

    October 7, 2011 at 5:43 pm |
  6. average_joe

    Obama assassinated an American citizen (well ok, two. but only one was on the list) without a trial, a judge, jury, an arrest, charges, indictment or even the vaguest hint of due process. To date, no EVIDENCE has been produced to verify the oft repeated CLAIMS that the now-deceased was actually guilty of anything other than exercising his RIGHT to free speech. If you can defend Obama's claim to the right to do this to him, you are also defending his claim to the right to do it to you. Oh, it was done to keep America safe but now we have to be even more careful because there might be someone out there who's heart and mind has not yet been won over. Thanks alot Barack

    October 7, 2011 at 1:45 pm |
    • joanne

      Obama has actually killed 3 American citizens that we know of & possibly several others that were 'unintended'. We have to get this guy out of office immediately. He is building up troop presence against both Russia & China. One small spark in Syria or Iran & we are going to be in NUCLEAR world war 3. Get Obama's finger off the button, NOW!
      There are 7 counts for impeachment as detailed in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32h4E2dGE28&feature=channel_video_title

      November 17, 2011 at 2:15 pm |
  7. FIREMALLNDC

    I think everyone agrees that this was a really bad guy and he had bad intentions. My problem is that the President could have taken his case to the congress and gotten a "Letter of Marque and Reprisal" and basically done the same thing within the confines of the Constitution. Now we have precedent that says a President can kill you just because THEY choose to. This was a very bad day for individual liberty and the Constitution. Or what’s left of it...

    October 7, 2011 at 9:49 am |
  8. livefreeordie

    The Declaration of Independence acknowledges 'all men are created equal', thus citizen and non-citizen alike are entitled to a judge and jury.
    Shouldn't a Constitutional law professor know this?

    October 7, 2011 at 9:09 am |
    • Jorja

      Intelligence and siplmciity – easy to understand how you think.

      December 24, 2011 at 6:29 am |
  9. AAAAANDRE

    George asks:
    Q: "If I'm of German heritage and born in America but signed up to fight on the side of Nazi Germany during WWII, Will you arrest me or shoot me if we met during war?"

    A: YES! That would be a declared war, and you would be pointing a gun at me on an active battlefield.
    Obama killed Alwaki in an UNdeclared (not a) war just driving around in a truck for the "crime" of helping the FBI/Defense Dept recruit and train so-called terrorists through emails and phone calls. He was killed to shut him up.

    October 7, 2011 at 2:42 am |
  10. Eagle

    Ron Paul never brought the impeach issue up. It has been asked of him first on several occasions and he has only responded accordingly.

    October 7, 2011 at 1:30 am |
  11. frobert

    According to the administration he was never charged so how was he indited?

    October 7, 2011 at 1:21 am |
  12. frobert

    Treason is only proven with two witnesses to the same overt act or upon confession in a court of law.

    October 7, 2011 at 1:03 am |
  13. bigdowner

    Gee, Ron Paul actually thinks the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is to be taken literally. What a wing-nut!

    VOTE RON PAUL 2012

    October 6, 2011 at 10:09 pm |
  14. Jiehu

    Vote for Ron Paul, he speaks truth

    October 6, 2011 at 9:59 pm |
  15. Garland Cole

    "Paul has been suggesting that Obama could be impeached for ordering the killing of an American citizen. I asked him whether he would support introducing articles of impeachment."

    “I haven’t introduced them, but I think it’s an impeachable offense,” he said. “If the mood of the country was such that they wanted to do it, yes, I could support that.”

    Principled? Integrity? Leader or sheep?. Why hasn't Ron introduced it? Are his actions, or in actions based on the mood of the country, or on the Constitution? Maybe I have got it wrong. Maybe its not the congress that has the duty to initiate impeachment hearings, or maybe congresspersons are exempt from the duties of congress, or maybe its another branch of government responsible for holding the president accountable. Maybe its Donald Trump, or Donald Duck, or maybe its just another mouth.

    October 6, 2011 at 9:53 pm |
    • Timo

      For those that didn't realize bofree that Alex Jones is mentally unstable very insightful. For those that do not think a Ron Paul foreign policy would be a nightmare to the world it could be insightful if the facts and history are studied closely. I've noted the use of Neocon by Paul Cattle. Liberals were the only ones to use it bofree except for fringe groups like people that listen to Alex NUTCASE Jones. I'm a TRUE Conservative with NO political party. Nazi's? Are you mindless?

      August 3, 2012 at 12:59 am |
1 2

Post a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.