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

[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.

I stopped reading the thread here, so maybe this has already been addressed but I'm just not capable of wading through all twenty pages of this shit.

Anyways Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have been making the case too, or at least questioning the legality. The US bans assassinations, but this has been classified as a targeted assassination, meaning it was in self-defense and therefore legal under US laws and he was on a list vetted by the UNSC. The argument for its illegality I think is based on the belief that ObL was unarmed and therefore should have been taken alive and tried before the ICC, and that it violated the International Covenant on Civil and Human Rights, Part III Article 14, and the Geneva Convention's ban on summary execution.

Personally I'm taking any claims of legality or illegality with a grain of salt because I think there's too many unknowns right now to form a solid fact-based opinion.

If you are interested, here's a link to an article about legality. I think the guy makes some good points, including this:

Bin Laden could have been legally killed if he were holding a weapon and not firing—or if he were holding no weapon at all. Any soldier seeing bin Laden and recognizing him could make a reasonable assumption that he had “hostile intent.” After all, Al Qaeda bodyguards were nearby, and they were shooting at the Navy SEALs to defend him. “This is a guy who’s extremely dangerous,” John B. Bellinger III, legal counsel at the National Security Council and State Department in the Bush Administration, told the New York Times. “If he’s nodding at someone in the hall, or rushing to the bookcase or you think he’s wearing a suicide vest, you’re on solid ground to kill him.” Military law tends to recognize that soldiers must confront myriad, and potentially lethal, ambiguities amid the heat of battle.

News Desk: Bin Laden: The Rules of Engagement : The New Yorker

Very interesting read. Thank you.

 

[TheBrain]

Yep, might makes right, it's that kind of cowboy attitude that had the whole world so pissed off at Duby................ wait a minute.....................

I think it's just another example of how Obama is similar to Bush II when it comes to executive power and national security issues. Which is why I never really understood the right's criticism that he's soft on terror. Although I think the same groups that are raising legal questions now would be doing the same if this had happened in 2007.

To be fair I think Obama has shifted considerably on his stance towards terrorism. It is one thing to stand on niceties and negotiations when you are a candidate, it is another thing entirely when you are the man making the tough calls.

I don't think Candidate Obama would have ever dreamed of making some of the decisions that President Obama has. I give the man all the credit in the world for recognizing that he had to change his thinking on this subject.

 

[Ravi]

Yep, might makes right, it's that kind of cowboy attitude that had the whole world so pissed off at Duby................ wait a minute.....................

I think it's just another example of how Obama is similar to Bush II when it comes to executive power and national security issues. Which is why I never really understood the right's criticism that he's soft on terror. Although I think the same groups that are raising legal questions now would be doing the same if this had happened in 2007.

It's funny though, Obama promised if elected he would go to Pakistan to get bin laden if that is where he was...now that he has (figuratively speaking, of course) the rightwingloons are upset.

 

[Spoonman]

Yep, might makes right, it's that kind of cowboy attitude that had the whole world so pissed off at Duby................ wait a minute.....................

I think it's just another example of how Obama is similar to Bush II when it comes to executive power and national security issues. Which is why I never really understood the right's criticism that he's soft on terror. Although I think the same groups that are raising legal questions now would be doing the same if this had happened in 2007.

It's funny though, Obama promised if elected he would go to Pakistan to get bin laden if that is where he was...now that he has (figuratively speaking, of course) the rightwingloons are upset.

he also promised to restore the economy. honestly, i think most of us care about that more

 

[Sheldon]

Yep, might makes right, it's that kind of cowboy attitude that had the whole world so pissed off at Duby................ wait a minute.....................

I think it's just another example of how Obama is similar to Bush II when it comes to executive power and national security issues. Which is why I never really understood the right's criticism that he's soft on terror. Although I think the same groups that are raising legal questions now would be doing the same if this had happened in 2007.

It's funny though, Obama promised if elected he would go to Pakistan to get bin laden if that is where he was...now that he has (figuratively speaking, of course) the rightwingloons are upset.

2008 campaign. Town-hall debate.

Just for clarification, when I said groups I meant Amnesty and HRW etc. They've had the same position on extra-judicial actions and targeted killings since this issue for came up so it's not surprising they're raising questions now. At least their criticism is coming from a place of principle, and not political convenience.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yep, might makes right, it's that kind of cowboy attitude that had the whole world so pissed off at Duby................ wait a minute.....................

I think it's just another example of how Obama is similar to Bush II when it comes to executive power and national security issues. Which is why I never really understood the right's criticism that he's soft on terror. Although I think the same groups that are raising legal questions now would be doing the same if this had happened in 2007.

It's funny though, Obama promised if elected he would go to Pakistan to get bin laden if that is where he was...now that he has (figuratively speaking, of course) the rightwingloons are upset.

Except that no one is happier that OBL is dead than the "rightwingloons'.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yep, might makes right, it's that kind of cowboy attitude that had the whole world so pissed off at Duby................ wait a minute.....................

I think it's just another example of how Obama is similar to Bush II when it comes to executive power and national security issues. Which is why I never really understood the right's criticism that he's soft on terror. Although I think the same groups that are raising legal questions now would be doing the same if this had happened in 2007.

To be fair I think Obama has shifted considerably on his stance towards terrorism. It is one thing to stand on niceties and negotiations when you are a candidate, it is another thing entirely when you are the man making the tough calls.

This is the natural outcome of liberal idealism meeting reality.
Says all that needs to be said about liberal idealism, eh?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You just can't be happy about this can you?
Good. I'm GLAD our President ruined it for you.

What a maroon.

I've said at least THREE times that I am glad OBL is dead.

If you do not have the capacity to undertand the point I've made, you need to go back to the kiddie pool and leave the adults to their conversations.

Some people are stupid bro. Like that Mr Shaman clown saying I am on the fence because I posted that I'm glad the guy's dead, and I don't care if it was done legally or not; but I could see how some people would call it illegal.

What's the difference between going into Pakistan to get Bin Laden now and having gone into Afghanistan in 2001 to get Bin Laden?

What's the difference between this and dropping bombs on all those al qaeda leaders like Zarqawi in Iraq?

Can't you answer?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What a maroon.

I've said at least THREE times that I am glad OBL is dead.

If you do not have the capacity to undertand the point I've made, you need to go back to the kiddie pool and leave the adults to their conversations.

Some people are stupid bro. Like that Mr Shaman clown saying I am on the fence because I posted that I'm glad the guy's dead, and I don't care if it was done legally or not; but I could see how some people would call it illegal.

What's the difference between going into Pakistan to get Bin Laden now and having gone into Afghanistan in 2001 to get Bin Laden?
What's the difference between this and dropping bombs on all those al qaeda leaders like Zarqawi in Iraq?
Can't you answer?

What do you call someone that doesn't have the stones to admit he was wrong?
Hint: Starts with NYc...

 

[Ravi]

I think it's just another example of how Obama is similar to Bush II when it comes to executive power and national security issues. Which is why I never really understood the right's criticism that he's soft on terror. Although I think the same groups that are raising legal questions now would be doing the same if this had happened in 2007.

To be fair I think Obama has shifted considerably on his stance towards terrorism. It is one thing to stand on niceties and negotiations when you are a candidate, it is another thing entirely when you are the man making the tough calls.

This is the natural outcome of liberal idealism meeting reality.
Says all that needs to be said about liberal idealism, eh?

Except Obama didn't shift his stance, as Pinky stated. He made a campaign promise to go after bin laden in Pakistan if need be....and he did.

 

[Mustang]

Here's the specific clip, for people who don't don't have much time:

Fox Business' Napolitano: Bin Laden "Killed On The Illegal Whim Of The President" | Media Matters for America

(And yes, its from "Media Matters", but it's just video of the intro of the show).

and here's the full show:

YouTube - Freedom Watch - Killing The Rule Of Law 5/2/2011

"Freedom Watch" starts about 50 Seconds into the video.

Judge Napolitano specifically states that Osama Bin Laden was assassinated "on the illegal whim of the president".

I wonder if Republicans will try to impeach Obama because he had OBL taken out.

 

[TheBrain]

What a maroon.

I've said at least THREE times that I am glad OBL is dead.

If you do not have the capacity to undertand the point I've made, you need to go back to the kiddie pool and leave the adults to their conversations.

Some people are stupid bro. Like that Mr Shaman clown saying I am on the fence because I posted that I'm glad the guy's dead, and I don't care if it was done legally or not; but I could see how some people would call it illegal.

What's the difference between going into Pakistan to get Bin Laden now and having gone into Afghanistan in 2001 to get Bin Laden?

What's the difference between this and dropping bombs on all those al qaeda leaders like Zarqawi in Iraq?

Can't you answer?

Why would I answer, when I have in fact never said that I personally believe it was illegal? Damn some people on here need to go to remedial reading classes. For real.

 

[California Girl]

Now back to the story on hand, sorry about the rude interruption from the uneducated and miserable old troll above.

It is only because America did the job. If anyone else had done it, they would be applauded and whoever initiated the attack would be given a Nobel Prize. But, because it's the USA, it is condemned, but maybe it's jealousy because I don't think anyone else has the same kind of equivalent and efficiency of our brave SEALS. Most countries have special forces, this I know, but can they go 1 on 1 with a SEAL, I doubt it.

Did you miss the part where the headline was false and the man did not actually condemn anything, or would you rather continue with your delusional trolling?

Delusional trolls can do nothing more than troll with their self important delusions. I (r)eally laugh at this one.

 

[California Girl]

Here's the specific clip, for people who don't don't have much time:

Fox Business' Napolitano: Bin Laden "Killed On The Illegal Whim Of The President" | Media Matters for America

(And yes, its from "Media Matters", but it's just video of the intro of the show).

and here's the full show:

YouTube - Freedom Watch - Killing The Rule Of Law 5/2/2011

"Freedom Watch" starts about 50 Seconds into the video.

Judge Napolitano specifically states that Osama Bin Laden was assassinated "on the illegal whim of the president".

I wonder if Republicans will try to impeach Obama because he had OBL taken out.

I wonder if you were born stupid or did you have to study?

 

[CMike]

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. Fuck 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.

Do I care?

 

[Mustang]

Here's the specific clip, for people who don't don't have much time:

Fox Business' Napolitano: Bin Laden "Killed On The Illegal Whim Of The President" | Media Matters for America

(And yes, its from "Media Matters", but it's just video of the intro of the show).

and here's the full show:

YouTube - Freedom Watch - Killing The Rule Of Law 5/2/2011

"Freedom Watch" starts about 50 Seconds into the video.

Judge Napolitano specifically states that Osama Bin Laden was assassinated "on the illegal whim of the president".

I wonder if Republicans will try to impeach Obama because he had OBL taken out.

I wonder if you were born stupid or did you have to study?

I don't really wonder if Republicans will try to impeach Obama because he had OBL taken out. You're kinda stupid for not realizing that!

 

[EriktheRed]

What John Cole says here pretty much sums up how I feel:

when I heard that Osama had been killed, I’ll be damned if I didn’t think “Thank God that monster is gone.” Sure, in my ideal world he’d be brought back to the US, tried, and then imprisoned for the rest of his life. But you know what? I can not honestly say I give a damned that he took a double tap to the skull. Sorry. And I’d be also willing to bet that is where most of you all are- this may or may not have been legal, but you don’t give a shit, because that scumbag is at the bottom of an ocean somewhere and got what he deserved. I’d be lying if I didn’t admit that a primitive part of me was sort of sad he didn’t experience any pain.

But even this silver lining has a cloud:

I’m the hypocrite here. I’m stridently against extrajudicial killings, the death penalty, targeted assassination, etc.

The thing to remember, though, is that it isn’t Glenn [Greenwald] or those who question the administration who are out of line or straying from their principles. It is me. This kind of reminds me of that ass in Orange County who emailed the blatantly racist Obama pictures to every one, and when caught, immediately started screaming “I’m not a racist! Everyone knows I’m not a racist! Ask all of my former black friends!” We’re in some bizarro world where being called and labeled a racist is somehow worse than, you know, being a racist and sending racist emails.

 

[Vast LWC]

The Executive Director of Human Rights Watch is criticizing the U.S. for killing Terrorist Leader Osama Bin Laden without Due Process. What do you think of this criticizm?

Human Rights Watch chief condemns bin Laden killing | The Daily Caller

Yeah, on the surface, it would seem that that guy sucks too.

Couple of things here, but before I start, I'd like to ask, Why is it that when any organization's goal is to protect human rights, people assume that it is "liberal" in nature? Do Conservatives not care about Human Rights?

But I digress:

Where in that article does the gentleman in question definitively state that Obama committed a criminal act? Or, in Napolitano's exact words an "illegal killing on the whim of the President"?

Indeed, the guy from Human Rights Watch criticized Ban Ki Moon for his comments, not the President. And then he went on to ask about the circumstances of the engagement.

You do see the difference there, right?

And... if you go to the FULL article, you find this:

In a press release Wednesday afternoon, Human Rights Watch clarified that the organization has taken no official position on the legality of bin Laden’s killing.

“Human Rights Watch has said that we do not have enough information about the killing to draw conclusions about whether it was lawful or not,” the group said. “Human Rights Watch calls on the US government to provide that information.”

The release went on to say that “[t]he inability to bring bin Laden to trial for crimes against humanity means that an important avenue for justice has been lost, but that is quite different from determining
whether the killing was legal.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/4/human-rights-group-raps-us-bin-laden-killing/

So, um, I'm thinking that's not the same thing at all, is it?

 

[Vast LWC]

The Executive Director of Human Rights Watch is criticizing the U.S. for killing Terrorist Leader Osama Bin Laden without Due Process. What do you think of this criticizm?

Human Rights Watch chief condemns bin Laden killing | The Daily Caller

I think hes a joke and he can go fuck himself.

I would too, except that's not what the article says... The title is quite misleading.

 

[Vast LWC]

Probably some limp wristed piss weak UN type thing with no teeth behind it.

But I'm going to have to agree here. That is exactly what Human Rights Watch is.

LOL.