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

[TheBrain]

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?

They neither know nor care about that concept.

 

[Contumacious]

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

Who gives a shit about due process of law when re-election is at stake.

.

 

[Vast LWC]

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.

That fat old ass needs to retire. He's siding with Bin Laden too now. What a piece of work that guy is.

 

[Vast LWC]

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?

They neither know nor care about that concept.

Who is "they"? And give me an example of a knee-jerk judgement that I would agree with.

One that doesn't take the side of Osama Bin Laden perhaps.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

They neither know nor care about that concept.

Who is "they"? And give me an example of a knee-jerk judgement that I would agree with.

One that doesn't take the side of Osama Bin Laden perhaps.

How is pointing out that killing unarmed old men who are barely awake is not justice siding with Osama?

 

[WillowTree]

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.

stick your head it.

 

[Sallow]

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.

stick your head it.

Woah..touchy.

Must be because your sigline, failed.

 

[Ravi]

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]

Bombing of Libya (1986) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

bin laden wasn't the head of state and the UN charter does not apply to him.

 

[Ravi]

They neither know nor care about that concept.

Who is "they"? And give me an example of a knee-jerk judgement that I would agree with.

One that doesn't take the side of Osama Bin Laden perhaps.

How is pointing out that killing unarmed old men who are barely awake is not justice siding with Osama?

Yes.

 

[Stephanie]

well I guess we see the NEXT Obsession for the left.

FREEDOM WATCH..

poor Rush, he has fallen so far down the list.

 

[edthecynic]

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]

Bombing of Libya (1986) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

bin laden wasn't the head of state and the UN charter does not apply to him.

Not to the leader of The CON$ervative Movement!
What an

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.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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]

Bombing of Libya (1986) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

bin laden wasn't the head of state and the UN charter does not apply to him.

Not to the leader of The CON$ervative Movement!
What an

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.

hey Ed.....does Rush say who he thinks is going to win the NBA Championship?.....

 

[Robert]

You just have to to shake your head in Disbelief at the hypocrisy of the left.

Watching the pundits last night absolutely decry the Interrogations and the policy of Interrogations while at the same time absolutely not having a problem with State Sponsored Assassination. Never mind that it was the interrogations that allowed the president to find and Assassinate UBL.

So Interrogations are Bad but State Sponsored Assassination is good can there ever be a clearer view of the confused mind of the left.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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".

The judge is legally accurate that the assasination of bin laden and of the quadaffi family is unconstitutional.

this puts me in a dilemma, I dont have issue with what we did but I dont feel right ignoring a violation of the constitution either. Congress is supposed to authorize this stuff, not the president.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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]

Bombing of Libya (1986) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

bin laden wasn't the head of state and the UN charter does not apply to him.

Well then what is to stop the next president from assassinating say, a citizen somewhere in the USA or elsewhere in the world?

What if im president and think you are a threat to national security......your not a head of state so would it be ok for me to assasinate you? Remember your a threat to national security after all..........sorry ron paul got in my head

 

[Too Tall]

Michael Moore says Obama had Osama executed. Should he be fired?

 

[jillian]

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".

The judge is legally accurate that the assasination of bin laden and of the quadaffi family is unconstitutional.

this puts me in a dilemma, I dont have issue with what we did but I dont feel right ignoring a violation of the constitution either. Congress is supposed to authorize this stuff, not the president.

there is nothing in the constitution that speaks to this issue. international law speaks to the issue. and in accordance with international law, we had the right to go in. pakistan knew we were running ops. they can feign ignorance. but they already knew we were flying drones.

the bar to assassination is, i believe, a matter of executive order, but i'm not positive about that.

and, frankly, if it wasn't quite legal, i couldn't give a flying. pakistan violated their agreement with us not to harbor him and to work with us on the WOT ... for which agreement they were paid quite handsomely.

 

[Bosun]

the united nations has launched an investigation into illegality of the bin laden raid and subsequent deaths of peace loving muhammadans...

expect much fallout from the eu, who is fearful of retalitory strikes....

obama administration department of justice, under the watchful eye of the eric holder and the democrat leadership, continues to move forward into the eventual prosecution of cia interrogators who helped break the al qaeda relocation program...

as the world turns completely upside down america is slipping down the toilet drain.


god help the usa......

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

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".

The judge is legally accurate that the assasination of bin laden and of the quadaffi family is unconstitutional.

this puts me in a dilemma, I dont have issue with what we did but I dont feel right ignoring a violation of the constitution either. Congress is supposed to authorize this stuff, not the president.

there is nothing in the constitution that speaks to this issue. international law speaks to the issue. and in accordance with international law, we had the right to go in. pakistan knew we were running ops. they can feign ignorance. but they already knew we were flying drones.

the bar to assassination is, i believe, a matter of executive order, but i'm not positive about that.

and, frankly, if it wasn't quite legal, i couldn't give a flying. pakistan violated their agreement with us not to harbor him and to work with us on the WOT ... for which agreement they were paid quite handsomely.

article 1, section 8, clause 11 gives the congress the authority to issue letters of reprisal, not the president.

EDIT: and like I said...it puts me in a dilemma because I dont have a personal issue with what we, as a country, did with bin laden the other day but at the same time I can't stand for direct violations of the constitution.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/lmr/lmr.htm

 

[Contumacious]

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".

The judge is legally accurate that the assasination of bin laden and of the quadaffi family is unconstitutional.

this puts me in a dilemma, I dont have issue with what we did but I dont feel right ignoring a violation of the constitution either. Congress is supposed to authorize this stuff, not the president.

there is nothing in the constitution that speaks to this issue. international law speaks to the issue. and in accordance with international law, we had the right to go in. pakistan knew we were running ops. they can feign ignorance. but they already knew we were flying drones.

the bar to assassination is, i believe, a matter of executive order, but i'm not positive about that.

and, frankly, if it wasn't quite legal, i couldn't give a flying. pakistan violated their agreement with us not to harbor him and to work with us on the WOT ... for which agreement they were paid quite handsomely.

The zombified never cease to amaze me.

According to Fräulein Jillian, the prez has the authority to murder suspects, because when the President does it, that means it is not illegal."

And when the Prez says that he murdered OBL instead some innocent Pakistani retiree , well we mere mortals must accept his version of events as the gospel truth.

heil Hitler.

.