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

[Flopper]

If The Obama ordered that OBL be killed even if he were unarmed and trying to surrender, then the accusation is valid.

If this were the case, and GWB gave the order, no liberal would disagree.

I don't believe it happened like that. I don't believe a Navy SEAL would commit cold blooded murder even if ordered to do so , and I highly doubt Obama would order it done.

I DO believe that they were told dead or alive and not to be overly concerned with giving him time to surrender. But that is just too damn bad.

This is the best of all possible outcomes.

 

[California Girl]

I still am confused as to why some of you dunderheads are incorrectly stating that the people on the right are claiming that Obama should not have authorized this mission.

I just haven't seen that. That doesn't mean a few nuts aren't, but the majority of people I have seen are thrilled that Obama okayed the mission and didn't tell the Pakistanis.

You need to understand basic bullshit like, if one right wing commentator makes a comment, that is taken as the opinion of all right wingers. The reason for this being that most on the left are not capable of individual thought so they can't cope with others who practice that skill.

Was it illegal to send Seal 6 into Pakistan without the permission of the Pakistani Government? Probably.

Was it illegal to kill Bin Laden? Since we have no hard facts, we cannot know.

Frankly, I don't care what laws we may or may not have broken, I don't care whether he was armed or unarmed. I care only that he's dead. Kudos to Obama, the CIA, the Seals and everyone else who played a part in this.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If The Obama ordered that OBL be killed even if he were unarmed and trying to surrender, then the accusation is valid.

If this were the case, and GWB gave the order, no liberal would disagree.

I don't believe it happened like that. I don't believe a Navy SEAL would commit cold blooded murder even if ordered to do so , and I highly doubt Obama would order it done.

I DO believe that they were told dead or alive and not to be overly concerned with giving him time to surrender. But that is just too damn bad.

Believe me - I'm more than happy he's dead.

But, the point remains:
-His life was a valid target because he made war against the US.
-The action aganst him has made in the context of that war, as opposed to law enforcement
-There are rules in war. You cannot simply kill unarmed combatants that try to surrender; to do so is a war crime.

If The Obama gave the order to do so - to kill, regardles - there is an issue.
If OBL was actually killed under such circumstances, the issue is greater.

 

[Avatar4321]

So have a variety of international law professors around the world. So?

I really could care less how he died. He deserved death and got it. A trial would have been a farce. **** anyone that whines about it.

I agree. I support the President 100% on this. We did the right thing, absolutely. But... was it legal under international law? Probably not.

The funny thing about international law is that it's virtually meaningless. It only applies if we accept it applies. And International laws change when we accept that they change.

The highest law of the land is the Constitution of the United States. And I'm sure you'd agree with me that there is nothing that prevents the President from doing what he did in the Constitution.

 

[TheBrain]

I still am confused as to why some of you dunderheads are incorrectly stating that the people on the right are claiming that Obama should not have authorized this mission.

I just haven't seen that. That doesn't mean a few nuts aren't, but the majority of people I have seen are thrilled that Obama okayed the mission and didn't tell the Pakistanis.

You need to understand basic bullshit like, if one right wing commentator makes a comment, that is taken as the opinion of all right wingers. The reason for this being that most on the left are not capable of individual thought so they can't cope with others who practice that skill.

Was it illegal to send Seal 6 into Pakistan without the permission of the Pakistani Government? Probably.

Was it illegal to kill Bin Laden? Since we have no hard facts, we cannot know.

Frankly, I don't care what laws we may or may not have broken, I don't care whether he was armed or unarmed. I care only that he's dead. Kudos to Obama, the CIA, the Seals and everyone else who played a part in this.

That's sad that we live in a time when people are more concerned with winning an argument on the damned internet then they are in being honest, thoughtful, and straight forward. I guess those quaint values mean nothing in today's society.

What a disservice to the tens of thousands who have paid the ultimate sacrifice to ensure that we have the freedom to debate.

 

[TheBrain]

If The Obama ordered that OBL be killed even if he were unarmed and trying to surrender, then the accusation is valid.

If this were the case, and GWB gave the order, no liberal would disagree.

I don't believe it happened like that. I don't believe a Navy SEAL would commit cold blooded murder even if ordered to do so , and I highly doubt Obama would order it done.

I DO believe that they were told dead or alive and not to be overly concerned with giving him time to surrender. But that is just too damn bad.

Believe me - I'm more than happy he's dead.

But, the point remains:
-His life was a valid target because he made war against the US.
-The action aganst him has made in the context of that war, as opposed to law enforcement
-There are rules in war. You cannot simply kill unarmed combatants that try to surrender; to do so is a war crime.

If The Obama gave the order to do so - to kill, regardles - there is an issue.
If OBL was actually killed under such circumstances, the issue is greater.

I agree with everything you just wrote. But once again, I find it almost impossible to believe that Obama gave an illegal order and that that order was obeyed all the way down to the individual SEAL who took the shots.

 

[TheBrain]

I really could care less how he died. He deserved death and got it. A trial would have been a farce. **** anyone that whines about it.

I agree. I support the President 100% on this. We did the right thing, absolutely. But... was it legal under international law? Probably not.

The funny thing about international law is that it's virtually meaningless. It only applies if we accept it applies. And International laws change when we accept that they change.

The highest law of the land is the Constitution of the United States. And I'm sure you'd agree with me that there is nothing that prevents the President from doing what he did in the Constitution.

You are of course incorrect. International law is a very real thing. There are laws governing what countries may do or not do in regards to others. That's kind of the point of the UN. They are of course a toothless organization without us, but that doesn't change the validity of international law nor the fact that we have agreed to abide by them.

 

[Vast LWC]

What does Libya have to do with terrorism?

You're kidding me, right? Google 'Qaddhafi' and 'Terrorism'.

 

[TheBrain]

What does Libya have to do with terrorism?

You're kidding me, right? Google 'Qaddhafi' and 'Terrorism'.

saadam husseing terrorism - Google Search

 

[M14 Shooter]

I agree. I support the President 100% on this. We did the right thing, absolutely. But... was it legal under international law? Probably not.

The funny thing about international law is that it's virtually meaningless. It only applies if we accept it applies. And International laws change when we accept that they change.

The highest law of the land is the Constitution of the United States. And I'm sure you'd agree with me that there is nothing that prevents the President from doing what he did in the Constitution.

You are of course incorrect. International law is a very real thing. There are laws governing what countries may do or not do in regards to others.

Yes. But if you decide to break those laws and no one can muster the power - political or military - to do anything about it, then nothing happens.

International law is founded on the principle that might makes right.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I'm sorry , but at THIS point I must point and laugh at your hypocrisy. For eight years we listened to the left ***** and moan about illegal wars and cry that Bush was a killer every time a civilian was killed in an unfortunate incident. I have ZERO doubt that chastised NONE of them for doing so.

Yes. And we still refuse to buy into the notion that we have to support Bush's actions in Iraq to support the war on terror.

No one on the left has ever objected to bringing Bin Laden down. In fact, most of us on the left objected to Iraq because it was a diversion away from Bin Laden.

Nice try, though.

Sir , as you well know, no war is illegal.

How 'bout when it supports Colonialism, over Democracy????​

"Ho Chi Minh met with the U.S. operative, Major Patti, and they agreed on joint anti-Japanese actions. The U.S. dropped supplies behind the lines to Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh helped Americans downed behind Japanese lines. The first American advisors helped train, equip and arm the Viet Minh. In 1945, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was formed with Ho Chi Minh as the first President. American planes flew over Hanoi in celebration of the founding. The Vietnamese Declaration of Independence echoed that of the U.S.: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...This immortal statement is extracted from the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. Understood in the broader sense this means: All people on earth are born equal. Every person has the right to live, to be happy, and free."

Ho Chi Minh asked the Americans to honor their commitment to independence, citing the Atlantic Charter and the U.N. Charter on self-determination. However, by the end of the war, the U.S. government had begun to redirect its foreign policy from the wartime goal of the liberation of all occupied countries and colonies to the postwar anti-communist crusade, which became the Cold War. In France, where communists had led the resistance to the Nazi occupation, American policy supported General Charles de Gaulle and his anti-communist "Free French." De Gaulle aimed to restore the glory of France, which meant the return of all former French colonies. U.S. relations with the Vietnamese turned sour. President Truman refused to answer letters or cables from Ho. Instead, the U.S. began to ship military aid to the French forces in Indochina."

How The Vietnamese Got SCREWED ​

*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT90Qu55O4U]YouTube - Viet Nam A Television History 1, The Roots of War 2[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erf52WGnM4g]YouTube - Viet Nam A Television History 1, The Roots of War 3[/ame]​

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Its the jews


THE Jerusalem Post reports:

[Israel's] Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee chairman MK Shaul Mofaz (Kadima) on Tuesday said that the killing of Osama bin Laden bears witness to the fact that the US has adopted the Israeli strategy of targeting terrorist leaders

. In an interview with Israel Radio, Mofaz said that the strategy was originally employed by Israel following the murder of nine Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. Mofaz called on the government to increase targeted killings of Palestinian terrorist leaders. The former defense minister said that targeted killings have been successful in curtailing terrorist activities.
Evidently the killing—some would say assassination or "targeted killing"—of Osama bin Laden is seen as legitimatising other countries' pro-assassination policies.

Moreover, celebrity legal eagle Alan Dershowitz argues that the non-response to Mr bin Laden's assassination from governments with a record of condemning the practice reveals the shady substance of these objections

Targeted killing: The ethics and realpolitik of assassination | The Economist

 

[Avatar4321]

You are of course incorrect. International law is a very real thing. There are laws governing what countries may do or not do in regards to others. That's kind of the point of the UN. They are of course a toothless organization without us, but that doesn't change the validity of international law nor the fact that we have agreed to abide by them.

International law is a hobby of mine. I know what I'm talking about. International law is made up by 1) Treaties & 2) International Customs. Both require nations to voluntarily accept them. And both can be changed when nations stop accepting them.

The UN doesn't make International law. Their resolutions aren't even considered law. They are not a legislature and have no power to create law. (Which is why I think we should just do away with the farce before they try to assert real power).

We have the power to change International Law by refusing to accept or by accepting customs or by making or breaking treaties. The ultimate authority is always the nation itself.

 

[TheBrain]

The funny thing about international law is that it's virtually meaningless. It only applies if we accept it applies. And International laws change when we accept that they change.

The highest law of the land is the Constitution of the United States. And I'm sure you'd agree with me that there is nothing that prevents the President from doing what he did in the Constitution.

You are of course incorrect. International law is a very real thing. There are laws governing what countries may do or not do in regards to others.

Yes. But if you decide to break those laws and no one can muster the power - political or military - to do anything about it, then nothing happens.

International law is founded on the principle that might makes right.

I think I said that on like page 3. So we broke the law. Someone come do something about it, **** them.

 

[Spoonman]

he look. the picture of osama dead that obama refused to release. it looks like it was provided by the same guy who did his birth certificate

 

[TheBrain]

Yes. And we still refuse to buy into the notion that we have to support Bush's actions in Iraq to support the war on terror.

No one on the left has ever objected to bringing Bin Laden down. In fact, most of us on the left objected to Iraq because it was a diversion away from Bin Laden.

Nice try, though.

Sir , as you well know, no war is illegal.

How 'bout when it supports Colonialism, over Democracy????​

"Ho Chi Minh met with the U.S. operative, Major Patti, and they agreed on joint anti-Japanese actions. The U.S. dropped supplies behind the lines to Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh helped Americans downed behind Japanese lines. The first American advisors helped train, equip and arm the Viet Minh. In 1945, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam was formed with Ho Chi Minh as the first President. American planes flew over Hanoi in celebration of the founding. The Vietnamese Declaration of Independence echoed that of the U.S.: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...This immortal statement is extracted from the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. Understood in the broader sense this means: All people on earth are born equal. Every person has the right to live, to be happy, and free."

Ho Chi Minh asked the Americans to honor their commitment to independence, citing the Atlantic Charter and the U.N. Charter on self-determination. However, by the end of the war, the U.S. government had begun to redirect its foreign policy from the wartime goal of the liberation of all occupied countries and colonies to the postwar anti-communist crusade, which became the Cold War. In France, where communists had led the resistance to the Nazi occupation, American policy supported General Charles de Gaulle and his anti-communist "Free French." De Gaulle aimed to restore the glory of France, which meant the return of all former French colonies. U.S. relations with the Vietnamese turned sour. President Truman refused to answer letters or cables from Ho. Instead, the U.S. began to ship military aid to the French forces in Indochina."

How The Vietnamese Got SCREWED ​

*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VT90Qu55O4U]YouTube - Viet Nam A Television History 1, The Roots of War 2[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erf52WGnM4g]YouTube - Viet Nam A Television History 1, The Roots of War 3[/ame]​

Hello again clown.

Once again, NO military action taken by the POTUS is illegal unless and until he exceeds the 90 days limit without Congressional approval.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You are of course incorrect. International law is a very real thing. There are laws governing what countries may do or not do in regards to others. That's kind of the point of the UN. They are of course a toothless organization without us, but that doesn't change the validity of international law nor the fact that we have agreed to abide by them.

International law is a hobby of mine. I know what I'm talking about. International law is made up by 1) Treaties & 2) International Customs. Both require nations to voluntarily accept them. And both can be changed when nations stop accepting them.

Absolutely correct

The UN doesn't make International law. Their resolutions aren't even considered law. They are not a legislature and have no power to create law. (Which is why I think we should just do away with the farce before they try to assert real power).

Though, when you join the UN, you become party to a treaty that stipulates your following the resolutions the UN passes, especially in regards to the security council.

We have the power to change International Law by refusing to accept or by accepting customs or by making or breaking treaties. The ultimate authority is always the nation itself.

Correct. Recourse for the offended party is limited to whatever force they can muster, alone or in concert with others.

 

[BlindBoo]

True enough.

I am unconvinced that is was illegal and if it was too bad. The rightwingloons and the Pakistanis can make their case to have Obama imprisoned.

Do you even realize that every "rightwinger" in this thread is saying exactly what you just said? Illegal? Tough shit. Good call Mr President.

Damn some people argue just to argue.

Precisely... I never criticized the Pres on this... I just like to point out how they've now embraced the nature of pragmatism when it comes to protecting this country. Under Bush, they were crying to have these scumbags afforded every constitutional protection under the sun. Now that a (D) is on office, nah, not so much.

What constitutional protections are there for dead men?

Oh did you mean the illegal combatants capture on and off the battlefield don't you?

Deflect much?

I think most Americans would have celebrated bin Ladens' long overdue death even if President Bush had been in office when it was done.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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?

bin Laden was NOT considered a representative....

.....of any Country.

That's the difference.​

sir you are now suggesting that it is illegal to assassinate representatives of another nation, but if you are not an official representative of another country your ass is fair game?

That's our policy.

You don't like it? You always have the option of moving....or, getting your Republican-buds to change that policy.​

 

[BlindBoo]

I still am confused as to why some of you dunderheads are incorrectly stating that the people on the right are claiming that Obama should not have authorized this mission.

I just haven't seen that. That doesn't mean a few nuts aren't, but the majority of people I have seen are thrilled that Obama okayed the mission and didn't tell the Pakistanis.

You need to understand basic bullshit like, if one right/Left wing commentator makes a comment, that is taken as the opinion of all right/Left wingers. The reason for this being that most on the left/right are not capable of individual thought so they can't cope with others who practice that skill.

Was it illegal to send Seal 6 into Pakistan without the permission of the Pakistani Government? Probably.

Was it illegal to kill Bin Laden? Since we have no hard facts, we cannot know.

Frankly, I don't care what laws we may or may not have broken, I don't care whether he was armed or unarmed. I care only that he's dead. Kudos to Obama, the CIA, the Seals and everyone else who played a part in this.

I inserted my own thoughts toward your first paragraph. I agree with your last paragraph entirely.