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

[Vast LWC]

The Judge knows the Constitution & Law better than anyone on this Message Board. If he's saying it than you know there's something to it. Freedom Watch along with Stossel's Show are the best shows on Cable News. Very interesting Shows.

ROFL.

"Freedom Watch" is one of the farthest right shows on cable today.

Of course you like it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This man needs to be fired.

Why? Because he has an opinion?

 

[Vast LWC]

Kenneth Roth opined on bin Laden’s death via his Twitter account (@KenRoth), taking aim at comments made by the U.N.’s secretary-general: “Ban Ki-moon wrong on #Osama bin Laden: It’s not “justice” for him to be killed even if justified; no trial, conviction”.





So he's just playing word semantics... But the headline says he "CONDEMNS" the killing.

The headline is misleading, to say the least, see my post 3 posts ago.

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

You know what? I'm going to agree with that. If someone from another country had done it, I'm pretty sure that they would in fact have gotten less flak over it.

 

[Vast LWC]

But we DID get a Nobel Prize remember?

They gave it to him for what he was going to do. Guess that includes assassination.

Ahh, but how many lives did he save by committing that assassination? I thinking a lot.

Now, yeah, I know, "terrorism isn't over" blah, blah, blah, I understand that, but this is definitely a blow to recruiting.

 

[Vast LWC]

Eh it's tricky. I mean IF the US declared war on someone and they had a SF team break into the WHite House and shoot the President , we would consider that a crime, not just a part of war.

I see you're point, but, well, you said it yourself: The US would declare war on someone, and they would probably be attacking military targets, or at least trying to.

Bin Laden isn't the leader of a nation, therefore he didn't "declare war", he just started blowing up thousands of civilians, and he specifically targeted civilian targets, so the situation is not the same.

 

[Vast LWC]

That's where I'm at too. This is al-Qaeda's figurehead, so he's probably going to have a lot of security around. It can see there being a suicide button nearby for him to push and the whole compound goes up in smoke, or something like that. The argument that he could have been taken alive is unreasonable, imo--considering how quick I'm thinking the firefight went down, room to room, just a split second to make a decision.

If ObL did in fact surrender (doubtful, but maybe), I think that could change the scope of legality. International law is a pain in the ass so it's a good thing we're the big kid on the block.

These are good points considering Al Qaeda's general weapons of choice are suicide vests or other types of hidden, high-powered explosives.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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...

Admit i was wrong about what?

Can you tell us the difference between going after Bin Laden now, and going after Bin Laden then?

No, you can't, because there is no difference.

So anyone who has questions or 'issues' with the legality of the action Sunday is questioning the legality of the action into Afghanistan in 2001.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Osama Bin Laden was not a head of state. He was, essentially, the boss of an international crime syndicate.

 

[Vast LWC]

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

Not for nothing, but Obama has been gung ho about getting Bin Laden since the campaign.

He's made many strong statements about how he would root out and kill Al Qaeda from day one.

Here is is, telling you exactly what he was going to do in the 2008 campaign:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej8HpXcR6_s&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Obama Will Kill Bin Laden[/ame]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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".

Why do people continue to call bush a criminal? No wait they're talking about obamush

 

[Vast LWC]

Why? Because he has an opinion?

No, because he makes stupid, knee-jerk-reaction judgements and then airs them on national television, no matter how offensive they may be.

 

[Vast LWC]

Why do people continue to call bush a criminal? No wait they're talking about obamush

Because people are dumb. Bush isn't a criminal, he was just a bad president who made a lot of serious errors.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why do people continue to call bush a criminal? No wait they're talking about obamush

Because people are dumb. Bush isn't a criminal, he was just a bad president who made a lot of serious errors.

and obamush is doing the same thing Bush did.

 

[Trajan]

Why are people claiming it was illegal under international law? Which law, specifically. Or agreement, or whatever you wish to call it.

I think there are some UN articles 31 and 51 ( I am not sure, sorry) they trotted then out ala Reagan going after Qaddafi etc....

edit, yea I had the numbers half right...its iffy;

Some observers held the opinion that Article 51 of the UN Charter set limitations on the use of force in exercising the legitimate right of self-defense in the absence of an act of aggression, and affirmed that there was no such act by Libya. It was charged that the United States did not bother to exhaust the Charter provisions for settling disputes under Article 33. Others asserted that Libya was innocent in the bombing of the West Berlin discothèque.[36]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_El_Dorado_Canyon

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why do people continue to call bush a criminal? No wait they're talking about obamush

Because people are dumb. Bush isn't a criminal, he was just a bad president who made a lot of serious errors.

and obamush is doing the same thing Bush did.

Who here accused Bush of criminality in going after al qaeda after 9/11? We invaded Afghanistan, remember?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Because people are dumb. Bush isn't a criminal, he was just a bad president who made a lot of serious errors.

and obamush is doing the same thing Bush did.

Who here accused Bush of criminality in going after al qaeda after 9/11? We invaded Afghanistan, remember?

obama invaded the sovereign nation of Pakistan or at least that’s how Pakistan is spinning this.

 

[edthecynic]

Eh it's tricky. I mean IF the US declared war on someone and they had a SF team break into the WHite House and shoot the President , we would consider that a crime, not just a part of war.

I see you're point, but, well, you said it yourself: The US would declare war on someone, and they would probably be attacking military targets, or at least trying to.

Bin Laden isn't the leader of a nation, therefore he didn't "declare war", he just started blowing up thousands of civilians, and he specifically targeted civilian targets, so the situation is not the same.

Somebody better tell Stuttering LimpTard that!!

May 3, 2011
RUSH: So, again, to review, an American president, with admittedly incomplete intelligence, invades a foreign and supposedly friendly nation without that nation's knowledge or consent. Using information extracted from Guantanamo detainees subjected to allegedly illegal enhanced interrogation methods, i.e., waterboarding, the president gives a kill order for a target in a private residence where there are women and children present. And in the course of this attack, upwards of 22 foreign nationals are either killed or captured, including the illegally targeted unarmed foreign leader.

 

[Harry Dresden]

He is in fact protected by the first amendment, from prosecution. However, nothing in the Constitution prevents people from complaining, loudly, to the person's employer, and nothing in the Constitution prevents said employer from firing said employee.

I also have a right to free speech, and I'm using it to express my opinion that this jackass should be fired.

just a question if you dont mind.....were you this upset when leftist commentators were calling the Bush boy a criminal on network TV for Iraq?.....i heard a few on TV and the Radio.....i dont remember you bitching like this in the threads on it.....just wondering.....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why? Because he has an opinion?

No, because he makes stupid, knee-jerk-reaction judgements and then airs them on national television, no matter how offensive they may be.

Do you consider them stupid, knee jerk judgements when you agree with him?