"Freedom Watch" calls the President a criminal for killing Bin Laden

[edthecynic]

I saw Napolitano the other night and he didn't mention international law but our own law.
And he made a good case that we violated those laws. He went to far in suggesting Obama could kill anyone he wanted and justify it in the same way.
Personally I like what we did. But for those that claim we didn't violate international law, would you be ok if China, or Russia came into our country in a similar manner and killed a criminal?

Apparently that is the talking point the GOP sent to their hate media shills.

Here is the mouthpiece of the GOP elevating his hero to the level of a "FOREIGN LEADER" to rationalize the breaking of an American law.

May 3, 2011
RUSH: Now, let's review. Let's review, ladies and gentlemen, and let's do this with pure and total objectivity, exactly where we are today, just shortly after noon on the 3rd of May, 2011. An American president with admittedly incomplete intelligence, intelligence provided by people, techniques, and agencies reviled, ridiculed, and opposed by this American president, invades a foreign and supposedly friendly nation without its knowledge or consent, using information extracted from Guantanamo detainees, a place that the sitting president opposes, techniques to acquire this information opposed by this president and his regime.

The information provided by waterboarding, it was said last night by Peter King, congressman, New York, waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed produced the intel that led to the successful assault on that glorified hut in which Osama Bin Laden was living. All of this produced by techniques and policies steadfastly opposed by this current president. The president gives a -- some would say illegal -- kill order. We are proscribed because of an executive order from President Ford to assassinate foreign leaders, but nevertheless this president gives a kill order for a target in a private residence in a country, a friendly country invaded by us without their knowledge where there are women and children present, by the way. In the course of this attack, upwards of 22 foreign nationals are either killed or captured, including the targeted unarmed foreign leader.

 

[R.D.]

Going after Bin Laden in Pakistan the other day was no different than going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan 10 years ago.

Did Napolitano, and the rest of you who agree with him, proclaim that a violation of international law??

eh??

Assassination, not "going after him" is the topic. We'll never know but I suspect yes

 

[TheBrain]

Going after Bin Laden in Pakistan the other day was no different than going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan 10 years ago.

Did Napolitano, and the rest of you who agree with him, proclaim that a violation of international law??

eh??

I believe we were invited into Afghanistan 10 years ago. there is a chance I am wrong on that, but it is a small chance.

Iraq would have been a better example. Oh and certainly we violated their sovereignty . but you know what? WHO CARES. That's the point EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US is making. None of us are bitching that Obama did this, in fact we are PROUD that he did it, we are merely stating that it is hypocritical to claim that one was illegal and then deny that the other was as well.

 

[iggy pop]

So why is it ok to go into a country illegally and shoot an unarmed man in cold blood but it's a major violation to poor a little water on someone to get them to talk.

 

[geauxtohell]

Exactly.. and let's take it a step further... if Shrub had done this, they'd all be howling for his head... this is a certainty.

That's what this is really all about, isn't it? Payback for the way poor old George was treated?

As I said, I am just glad someone was able to get him. I don't care who was in office.

Of course, Bush never did get him, so your hypothetical will remain just that.

But information he had beaten out of the detainees is what lead to us getting him.

Really? We have proof that "but for" torture, this wouldn't have happened?

I don't have a problem with detaining and questioning people. I have a problem with torturing them.

The Times has already covered this lame attempt by the right to vindicate torture. You can go there for a more articulate argument.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm not 'defending' Bin Laden, and I support the President 100%. Does not change the fact that we could well have broke international law to do it. If we did, I don't care. But.... we probably did break it.

How?

Do you think the US would take kindly to France sending a special forces team into our country to kill a terrorist without permission?

Now it is my opinion that Pakistan can't be trusted, and I therefor don't give a shit if they are upset that we violated their sovereignty, but nonetheless we DID so.

Did we get permission from the Afghan government in 2001 to go in after Al Qaeda?

 

[Ravi]

There are international laws governing this kind of shit. I watched a discussion on the BBC about it. They had a panel of International Law Specialists, and they were all pretty convinced that we - technically - acted outside of international law. However, they all agreed with the action and none of them were critical of what we did.

If we broke international law - frankly, who gives a shit?

Again I ask: how?

We certainly violated Paki Airspace and probably a host of other Pakistani laws.

Who gives a shit? If Pakistan wouldn't have been shielding OBL, it could have all been avoided.

I don't believe you are correct. We have been using drones in Pakistan and doing other military operations with their permission.

 

[geauxtohell]

Going after Bin Laden in Pakistan the other day was no different than going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan 10 years ago.

Did Napolitano, and the rest of you who agree with him, proclaim that a violation of international law??

eh??

I believe we were invited into Afghanistan 10 years ago. there is a chance I am wrong on that, but it is a small chance.

Iraq would have been a better example. Oh and certainly we violated their sovereignty . but you know what? WHO CARES. That's the point EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US is making. None of us are bitching that Obama did this, in fact we are PROUD that he did it, we are merely stating that it is hypocritical to claim that one was illegal and then deny that the other was as well.

We certainly were not invited into Afghanistan. We went into Afghanistan because the Taliban refused to surrender Bin Laden.

 

[iggy pop]

I saw Napolitano the other night and he didn't mention international law but our own law.
And he made a good case that we violated those laws. He went to far in suggesting Obama could kill anyone he wanted and justify it in the same way.
Personally I like what we did. But for those that claim we didn't violate international law, would you be ok if China, or Russia came into our country in a similar manner and killed a criminal?

Apparently that is the talking point the GOP sent to their hate media shills.

Here is the mouthpiece of the GOP elevating his hero to the level of a "FOREIGN LEADER" to rationalize the breaking of an American law.

May 3, 2011
RUSH: Now, let's review. Let's review, ladies and gentlemen, and let's do this with pure and total objectivity, exactly where we are today, just shortly after noon on the 3rd of May, 2011. An American president with admittedly incomplete intelligence, intelligence provided by people, techniques, and agencies reviled, ridiculed, and opposed by this American president, invades a foreign and supposedly friendly nation without its knowledge or consent, using information extracted from Guantanamo detainees, a place that the sitting president opposes, techniques to acquire this information opposed by this president and his regime.

The information provided by waterboarding, it was said last night by Peter King, congressman, New York, waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed produced the intel that led to the successful assault on that glorified hut in which Osama Bin Laden was living. All of this produced by techniques and policies steadfastly opposed by this current president. The president gives a -- some would say illegal -- kill order. We are proscribed because of an executive order from President Ford to assassinate foreign leaders, but nevertheless this president gives a kill order for a target in a private residence in a country, a friendly country invaded by us without their knowledge where there are women and children present, by the way. In the course of this attack, upwards of 22 foreign nationals are either killed or captured, including the targeted unarmed foreign leader.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[geauxtohell]

Again I ask: how?

We certainly violated Paki Airspace and probably a host of other Pakistani laws.

Who gives a shit? If Pakistan wouldn't have been shielding OBL, it could have all been avoided.

I don't believe you are correct. We have been using drones in Pakistan and doing other military operations with their permission.

That's very different then invading a small compound in Pakistan with American forces.

What if this compound turned out to be full of Pakis and we killed them?

 

[TheBrain]

Again I ask: how?

We certainly violated Paki Airspace and probably a host of other Pakistani laws.

Who gives a shit? If Pakistan wouldn't have been shielding OBL, it could have all been avoided.

I don't believe you are correct. We have been using drones in Pakistan and doing other military operations with their permission.

Along a very defined corridor on the border of Afghanistan, this site was well outside that corridor.

 

[geauxtohell]

Oh I see, so yall on the left believe that the COTUS protects the rights of everyone in the world, but that the US military should not protect the lives of everyone in the world.

What an odd world view.

I don't believe that the the Constitution, the basis for our laws, applies to anyone but us.

I haven't heard anyone else claim that it does.

You have got to be fucking kidding me. Come on man, I thought you were going to be someone I could disagree with, but still enjoy an honest debate.

The ENTIRE war cry of the left over waterboarding and GITMO has always been that it violated the COTUS because it protected EVERYONE.

As I said before, can you draw a straight line between torture and this event?

Here, this OPED says it better than I can:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/opinion/05thu1.html?_r=1&hp

 

[TheBrain]

Going after Bin Laden in Pakistan the other day was no different than going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan 10 years ago.

Did Napolitano, and the rest of you who agree with him, proclaim that a violation of international law??

eh??

I believe we were invited into Afghanistan 10 years ago. there is a chance I am wrong on that, but it is a small chance.

Iraq would have been a better example. Oh and certainly we violated their sovereignty . but you know what? WHO CARES. That's the point EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US is making. None of us are bitching that Obama did this, in fact we are PROUD that he did it, we are merely stating that it is hypocritical to claim that one was illegal and then deny that the other was as well.

We certainly were not invited into Afghanistan. We went into Afghanistan because the Taliban refused to surrender Bin Laden.

That may be so , but the actual government of Afghanistan gave us permission to enter and in fact cooperated with us, to an extent of course.

 

[TheBrain]

I don't believe that the the Constitution, the basis for our laws, applies to anyone but us.

I haven't heard anyone else claim that it does.

You have got to be fucking kidding me. Come on man, I thought you were going to be someone I could disagree with, but still enjoy an honest debate.

The ENTIRE war cry of the left over waterboarding and GITMO has always been that it violated the COTUS because it protected EVERYONE.

As I said before, can you draw a straight line between torture and this event?

Here, this OPED says it better than I can:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/opinion/05thu1.html?_r=1&hp

What are you talking about? I am not arguing that torture led to this event (but we both know it did) I am saying that it is a fact that I have read just yesterday even that some on the left are adamant that the COTUS applies to everyone whether they are citizens or not. Do you deny this fact?

 

[geauxtohell]

I believe we were invited into Afghanistan 10 years ago. there is a chance I am wrong on that, but it is a small chance.

Iraq would have been a better example. Oh and certainly we violated their sovereignty . but you know what? WHO CARES. That's the point EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US is making. None of us are bitching that Obama did this, in fact we are PROUD that he did it, we are merely stating that it is hypocritical to claim that one was illegal and then deny that the other was as well.

We certainly were not invited into Afghanistan. We went into Afghanistan because the Taliban refused to surrender Bin Laden.

That may be so , but the actual government of Afghanistan gave us permission to enter and in fact cooperated with us, to an extent of course.

You couldn't be more wrong. The Taliban was the government of Afghanistan at the time.

Not the Northern Alliance.

 

[WillowTree]

Why? If the action was, indeed, illegal under international law, why should anyone be fired for saying so?

Surely, you are not so afraid of international law that you want to silence those who raise the legality of it?

Isn't the left the ones who kept shrieking about the illegality of the Iraq war etc etc etc? So, international law was fine and dandy then.... but now that it's your guy, it's suddenly not ok?

Fucking hypocrites.

Once again I do not give one good rats ass how, who or why Osama Bin Lade4n was killed. I don't care about any claims of illegality. He declared war on us. he got killed in his war.

There is no such thing as International law. There are treaties between Countries and even those can be ignored if a Country so wishes. The only "foreign" law enforceable on a Sovereign nation is that law that is agreed to by said Country or enforced after losing a war.

There certainly is such a thing as international law. They govern the interaction between countries. And, what we (and I say we because Obama, as President, acts on behalf of We, the People) did was, possibly, illegal under international law. Do I care that we may have broken international law? Nope. But commentators are perfectly entitled to call it illegal, just like they did when the US invaded Iraq.

Napalitano is an ass. But I see no reason why he should be fired for this.

Correct. We sneaked into Pakistan and assassinated Bin Laden in a Covert operation. The law was broken,, Funny,,, innit.. we call the mexicans illegal for sneaking into the USA,, same applies to us when our militiary sneaks uninvited into another country. get over it.. ANd no Napolitano is not an idiot but the person who called him one might be.

 

[geauxtohell]

You have got to be fucking kidding me. Come on man, I thought you were going to be someone I could disagree with, but still enjoy an honest debate.

The ENTIRE war cry of the left over waterboarding and GITMO has always been that it violated the COTUS because it protected EVERYONE.

As I said before, can you draw a straight line between torture and this event?

Here, this OPED says it better than I can:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/opinion/05thu1.html?_r=1&hp

What are you talking about? I am not arguing that torture led to this event (but we both know it did) I am saying that it is a fact that I have read just yesterday even that some on the left are adamant that the COTUS applies to everyone whether they are citizens or not. Do you deny this fact?

Deny the fact or the sentiment?

For the fact, produce a link. I have no reason to deny it.

Deny the sentiment? Yes. I do not think the Constitution applies to people outside of our country.

I don't make a further link to claim that makes torture permissible, in case that is where you are going with this.

 

[R.D.]

No. Not a mass murderer. A mass murderer of Americans. That's an important distinction. Bin Laden was far more than a scary Muslim terrorist. He was responsible for killing Americans.

That justifies our actions. I do not think we are justified in using our military to go and kill every other scumbag in the world.

Oh I see, so yall on the left believe that the COTUS protects the rights of everyone in the world, but that the US military should not protect the lives of everyone in the world.

What an odd world view.

I don't believe that the the Constitution, the basis for our laws, applies to anyone but us.

I haven't heard anyone else claim that it does.

Obama's Assistant Attorney General Tells Senate: Terrorists Captured on Battlefield Have Constitutional Rights

 

[geauxtohell]

Correct. We sneaked into Pakistan and assassinated Bin Laden in a Covert operation. The law was broken,, Funny,,, innit.. we call the mexicans illegal for sneaking into the USA,, same applies to us when our militiary sneaks uninvited into another country. get over it.. ANd no Napolitano is not an idiot but the person who called him one might be.

We didn't fucking "assassinate" anybody. You don't "assassinate" a combatant. You morons using the terms "assassinate", "execute", and "hit" are unwittingly besmirching the military personnel involved in this operation.

This is more than a semantics issue. Pull your head out.

 

[geauxtohell]

Oh I see, so yall on the left believe that the COTUS protects the rights of everyone in the world, but that the US military should not protect the lives of everyone in the world.

What an odd world view.

I don't believe that the the Constitution, the basis for our laws, applies to anyone but us.

I haven't heard anyone else claim that it does.

Obama's Assistant Attorney General Tells Senate: Terrorists Captured on Battlefield Have Constitutional Rights

I must have missed that. I disagree with it. They should be treated in accordance with military regulations that have governed how we treated prisoners from previous conflict.