Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Honesty? Where is that in anything this guy does? We haven't had a moment in the past two years of this administration that wasn't done under the guise of political expediency. Don't be hold us to standards you don't have any intention of holding yourself to. That is directly out of 'Rules for radicals' and we see that.
j-mac
Is OBL a world leader now?
j-mac
Have you read what I said about this? If it was an assassination, I don't support it. If they were trying to capture him and he was killed in the firefight, **** happens. My preference would be that he stand trial. While I won't cry or moun his death, assassination is just as illegal as EIT.
Well the Obama administration has admitted it was a "kill operation", and that Bin Laden was unarmed, in fact only one person apparently was armed.
Do you not support the killing of OBL? yes or no.
The answer was a clear no concerning assassination. No is a pretty striaghtforward word. And yes, I did hear one person was armed, and shooting. That doesn't however mean that OBL wasn't killed in the cross fire.
Still, my answer is clear, no I don't support assassination.
Say you're rigth. Obama is the most dishonest person to have ever takena breath (hard for that to be true considering we all know Bush), how does that excuse anyone else of their dishonesty?
And j, I do try to be honest. And I can't help that you red silly **** and think it applies where it doesn't. you're responsible for your own poor reasoning.
I'm not a world leader, but if he assassinated me, I would consider that illegal as well. So, what's your point?
he wasn't, the hostile was encountered outside of the area bin laden was.
should then Obama be held legally and criminally for this assassination?
You may argue he's ineffective, maybe even too weak to force it
but there is no evidence that he's accepted Bush's position
Again, it's about honesty.
The law applies to all. I have no problem trying both Bush and Obama. Set it up.
The same way that Obama supporters, and indeed the administration continues to deflect, and obfuscate every wrong turn they are responsible for by blaming Bush, or saying how Bush did it first. If its not correct to use in this instance here, then it isn't right for liberals to use at every turn to deflect taking responsibility to Obama's actions.
this is debatable. See, if I agreed with you, you'd say that my reasoning must be sound, but since I don't you take every opprotunity to attack me, like a good radical would. With name calling, and childish crap. So, how about instead of throwing stones, you clean the glass on your own glass house Joe.
The SEAL team took him out. He was unarmed, and they did exactly the right thing. The legallity of the action was entirely fine. OBL is not a world leader, or the leader of any soverign country. He was a terrorist scum bag that hid behind his wife like a little punk that he was.
Telling though that you think that Obama is a war criminal now though.
j-mac
Who should try them? What law was violated? who should the jury be?
So you like Michael moore, and Rosie o'donnell, think that Obama's civil rights were violated, and we have become the "monsters"? yes or no.
But do they have his money?
They violated a lot of laws, including US law. I have no problem in a US court.
Haven't listened to either one, but if they speak to rule of law, I guess I would have to agree. Not so much civil rights, as the one that makes assassination illegal. A law that is only a law for some carries no meaning. I wouldn't use the words monsters, but I would suggest that one of the things that makes a people good is how well the obey and follow rule of law.
What US law did they violate? furthermore, if no us court is willing to prosecute, how far would you support international intervention?
Again, which laws?
On another note.....
Have you noticed that since this happened, it's like Japan's nuclear crisis never happened?
In three months, no one will care about bin Laden either.
People's attention spans are so short these days.
J, you're bad misinterpretation doesn't equal fact.
Bush is to blame for what Obama did.
Obama is never to balme for Obama did.
You can't excuse Bush ever, Obama took over his mess.
Obama is never responsible for his actions.
But he didn't invade Iraq, open GITMO, or say torture was OK.
Believe it or not, sound reasoning can be done regardless of position. Some people hear I disagree with do a fairl good job with reasoning. See Ejiah Gault, Whoven, Ikari (sp). You can excuse the way you want, but the fact is your reasoing is often not sound. I balme it on what your read, which are sources with very unsound reasoing.
I believe in rule of law. No matter what I think of OBL, rule of law is what we need to follow. I'm not sure why some who call themselves conservatives don't respect rule of law?
If he broke the law, he broke the law. Does the law only aplly to some or for all?
Assassination is murder. I'm pretty sure we're not allowed to kill folks. If you're looking for a law that outlaws political assassinations, start ehre:
In 1976, President Ford issued Executive Order 11905 to clarify U.S. foreign intelligence activities. The order was enacted in response to the post-Watergate revelations that the CIA had staged multiple attempts on the life of Cuban President Fidel Castro.
In a section of the order labeled "Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Ford outlawed political assassination: Section 5(g), entitled "Prohibition on Assassination," states: "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."
Since 1976, every U.S. president has upheld Ford's prohibition on assassinations. In 1978 President Carter issued an executive order with the chief purpose of reshaping the intelligence structure. In Section 2-305 of that order, Carter reaffirmed the U.S. prohibition on assassination.
U.S. policy on assassinations - CNN
This is what I thought j was refering to, assuming that if he wasn't a head of state, it couldn't be political. Not sure I would accept that. OBL was a political leader of a kind. If they didn't like my politics and assassinated me, as I told j, I woudl consider that illegal.
There is no category of people that law lets you just kill unarmed, as you please. Even in war, if you shoot a bunch of folks just sitting there, you're going to face charges if reported and known.
On another note.....
Have you noticed that since this happened, it's like Japan's nuclear crisis never happened?
In three months, no one will care about bin Laden either.
People's attention spans are so short these days.
That's too bad.
From your link:
"According to an October 21, 2001, Washington Post article, President Bush in September of last year signed an intelligence "finding" instructing the CIA to engage in "lethal covert operations" to destroy Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization.
White House and CIA lawyers believe that the intelligence "finding" is constitutional because the ban on political assassination does not apply to wartime. They also contend that the prohibition does not preclude the United States taking action against terrorists."
Also Clinton, reagan, dropped bombs on quadaffi, and afghan guerilla camps, Assasination attempts.
They too, held up on charges?
Wisconsin and Governor Walker. The tornadoes in the South. The Arizona Congresswoman shooting. California's bankruptcy. Obamacare repeal. Arizona's sovereignty to enforce immigation law. The earthquake in New Zealand. Libya. Egypt. Tunisia. Syria. Yemen.
Things blow by so quickly.
I did hear one person was armed, and shooting. That doesn't however mean that OBL wasn't killed in the cross fire.
Still, my answer is clear, no I don't support assassination.
You would consider dropping bombs on a compound as equal to shooting an unarmed man? You make leaps I'm not willing to make.
Neither does your opinion.
Fixed a couple of things for you in the interest of your much requested honesty.
Nope, you're right, he is just keeping in place all of Bush's policies regarding these things.
Well, that's your opinion, which you know what that means in real terms? Squat! Just because someone disagrees with your POV, doesn't mean that they have unsound reasoning, or that they are restricting themselves to an echo chamber of one sided ideas, that is more projection on your part I think. But, as it were, this would be no fun if we all agreed all the time would it? The difference is that when that disagreement comes you seem to feel the need to personally attack. That is what I see as the huge flaw in your reasoning Joe.
What law was broken? Please cite it, as well as what a possible prosecution would be in the event that it is even true that any law was broken.
Wait, you make a case just one quote up about the 'rule of law' arguing that you think it possible that Obama did break the law, now you hedge and say 'IF'.... I think this is the tactic that exposes your own dishonesty when debating. Ambiguity is less than genuine in these matters.
j-mac
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?