Obama publicly supported execution of Gaddafi after capture without trial [Vanity]

Vanity | 10/22/2011 | Self

[PieterCasparzen]

The sitting U.S. President Obama, publicly supported the capture of Gaddafi which was soon followed by what appears to be his execution-style murder by his captors.

When U.S. soldiers captured Saddam Hussein during the Presidency of George W. Bush, he was taken prisoner, handed over to Iraqi authorities and eventually tried, convicted and executed by them.

President Bush has long been excoriated by liberals and leftists as a "war criminal", yet U.S. troops showed excellent restraint and control when arresting Saddam.

Now various groups around the world are calling for an investigation into what, according to video of the event, appears to be the murder of Gaddafi soon after his capture.

Here's a story about the public calls for an investigation...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-libya-un-gaddafitre79k4wa-20111021,0,2850238.story

And the sitting U.S. President Barak Hussein Obama, along with many other U.S. politicians, has not expressed one reservation about the fact that the video shows what can only be surmised to be Gaddafi's murder without trial and conviction, something that was accorded to NAZI war criminals. It's preposterous to think that Gaddafi was killed in "crossfire" or "trying to escape" as there was a large group that took him prisoner who had no visible threats around them as they pointed guns at Gaddafi. It's quite obvious what happened.

Here's a story relating President B.H.Obama's reaction:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/20/us-libya-gaddafi-whitehouse-idUSTRE79J6WJ20111020

When is the news media going to force this issue, when are they going to force the current President Obama to acknowledge what appears to be a murderous war crime and also call for an investigation ?

There is absolutely nothing legitimate about murdering a high-value prisoner of war.

If the President "leads from behind" on THIS issue he is most seriously damaging the reputation and legitimacy of the United States internationally.

[SoJoCo]

Obama did approve the execution of Osama bin Lauden.

So? Did you have a problem with that?

[shalom aleichem]

Absolutely right. Bambi, Biden and Hillary don’t need no steenking rules or laws!

[Soul of the South]

“Obama did approve the execution of Osama bin Lauden.

So? Did you have a problem with that?”

I found it to be extremely hypocritical of the Nobel Peace Prize winner who ran for office condemning the war policies of the Bush administration.

[Don_Ret_USAF]

During WW2, Benito Mussolini, the leader of Italy supported Hilter. He (Mussolini) was incarcerated when the allies began the invasion of Italy. He was rescued from prison by a German Special Forces. Benito Mussolini, then headed the Italian Social Republic in parts of Italy that were not occupied by Allied forces. With total defeat looming in late 1945. Benito Mussolini, attempted to escape to Switzerland. But was captured, killed on the spot without trail near Lake Como by Italian Partisans. His body was taken to Milian where it was hung upside down from a lamp post at a petrol station for viewing and to prove confirmation of his death. The pictures of this hanging was printed in newspapers world wide. From Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia.
Summary executions are practiced by the police, military, and paramilitary organizations and are associated with guerrilla warfare, counter-insurgency, terrorisms, and criminality.
History repeats its self. So Gaddafi is the latest name added to the list. Nor will Gaddafi be the last name on the list by worlds end.

[PieterCasparzen]

International relations are more than legal niceties. Vattel’s Law of Nations is a good work to learn about international law.

I certainly did not refer to the Hague.

I’m simply saying that Obama is Condoning the Murder Without Trial of a leader of a nation who was being overthrown.

Not saying anyone in America or Obama has any right to intervene, simply saying that NO American President has EVER condoned such an action - not even in the case of Adolph Hitler and his henchmen. If Hitler would not have committed suicide he would have stood trial with the others.

Western civilization has a history of thousands of years of state-inflicted death sentences requiring a trial and conviction, going back to the ancient Greeks and Romans.

If he brandished a weapon upon capture, that’s an entirely different situation. But he surrendered; he had no weapon in the video, he had been taken alive and completely subdued.

When I think of American GI’s who were executed as prisoners it makes me sick. Well, I can’t condone summary execution for anyone else then either.

I don’t consider trials admirable, but a necessity. It is a sad, sad day when the President of the United States does not as well, especially when he made it so abundantly clear that he thought that terrorist attackers should have civilian trials and NOT military tribunals, which is what they should have if they are part of an organized force whose purpose it is to destroy America and either kill or subjugate all Americans.

The operative point is really the kind of actions we are seeing in the “Arab spring” - barbarism, the rise of a group of nations united in blood lust on a par with the most evil empires of history, and many politicians in the United States not even bothering to publicly acknowledge it.

[PieterCasparzen]

But U.S. soldiers didn't capture Gaddafi, did they? He was captured by his own people who turned around and summarily executed him. I don't understand what Obama was supposed to do to prevent that.

If you'll notice, I did not say anything about preventing it. After all, it's not within our borders and Congress has not passed a Declaration of War, so our military should not be there. /dripping sarc

President Obama made a public statement expressing his approval of the event. No doubt he is thinking back to President Bush numerous times making public statements acknowledging military success and in Obama's heart he thinks that is a good thing to do politically for himself so he can look like he's wearing the big-boy pants.

Since he was publicly speaking, he had the opportunity to express some kind of concern, or perhaps call for an inquiry, regarding the fact that the video shows Gaddafi alive and subdued, then moments later shot. It was with what President Obama did not say wherein the problem lies.

Instead, other people around the world have said these things, beating dear leader to the punch. Now, in terms of the moral high ground, all dear leader can do is doggedly drag his skinny backside up there to utter some better-late-than-never copycat statement, bringing up the rear. Leading through his behind yet again.

Wouldn't it be nice if he was on the right side, morally, just once, and he came out with it without copying off someone else or reading from TOTUS ? Such a fine example he is - just do exactly the opposite of what he would do, and you'll be doing the right thing. IMHO...

[Jerrybob]

>If the President "leads from behind" on THIS issue he is most seriously damaging the reputation and legitimacy of the United States internationally.<

Really! Tell me something I don't already know!!!!!

[chuckee]

As a practical matter, although the US military would probably not have summarily executed him if they captured him, keep in mind this is a third world country and third world rebels killing a third world dictator should come as no surprise. If you are going to overthrow the king, you better make sure the king is dead.

[PieterCasparzen]

Benito Mussolini, then headed the Italian Social Republic in parts of Italy that were not occupied by Allied forces. With total defeat looming in late 1945. Benito Mussolini, attempted to escape to Switzerland. But was captured, killed on the spot without trail near Lake Como by Italian Partisans.

Yes, but I can't use a summary execution from the past to justify it now and make it right, it's still wrong.

As you imply, they most certainly can be expected in cases where leaders are widely hated by the citizens of their nation. There is a verse in the Bible that says exactly that. Tryants are often overthrown, and often it ain't pretty. I doggedly advocate that nations under the grip of despotic tyrants should overthrow them as opposed to citizens from other nations being "do-gooders" and coming along and providing the necessities for the downtrodden. Doing that provides an enormous help to the tyrant and removes all motivation for the downtrodden to overthrow their tyrant, as accepting the aid is much less personally dangerous than attempting an overthrow. But I get flak for that view a lot.

Of course, revolt and forced removal of the leader of a nation usually does not involve an attempt at arrest, but only assassination. In this particular case, however, there was no reason why the leader could not be jailed and held over for trial. Saddam Hussein's whole process only took a little over a month, IIRC, and I believe he had a lot more dedicated followers than Gaddafi did.

Where execution without trials runs rampant there is anarchy and chaos which creates misery for the citizenry; it's wrong.

That's why even though we realize that violent overthrow happens and depending on the situation can in fact be a righteous act, summary execution without even an attempt at a trial is never condoned by a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Until now.

And Lord willing, not again.

IMHO.

[PieterCasparzen]

As a practical matter, although the US military would probably not have summarily executed him if they captured him, keep in mind this is a third world country and third world rebels killing a third world dictator should come as no surprise. If you are going to overthrow the king, you better make sure the king is dead.

I should like to think the US military would follow all legal orders according to their most excellent and proud tradition. While we have an awesome deadly force, we have a military with duty, honor and a chain of command.

I agree, this type of killing absolutely fits the pattern of mob rule in islamic nations, where prisoners are routinely mutilated and displayed after they are subdued at the whim of their captors.

The pattern that does not fit is the first 43 U.S. Presidents that never publicly condoned the arrest or live capture - followed by deliberate summary execution - of the leader of another nation and the 44th who failed to express any concern about the rule of law not being respected when he made his public statement of support for the actions.

He made this mistake - and many Americans are completely confused - probably because there has been so much talk over the past few years about high-value targets with a standing U.S. order to capture or kill them. But we forget the nature of the capture or kill order - it does not mean that if we capture someone alive and they are subdued and are not a threat to hurt anyone or escape then we can kill them at our leisure because the order said "capture or kill". The kill part is only in effect they are acquired but they can't be captured and have to be killed due to the circumstances. The killing is not optional, to be effected if the captors "are really angry" or "whipped up in a frenzy".

Every other world leader - all politicians - would certainly want a trial if they were apprehended. The shoe would be horribly uncomfortable if it were on the other foot.

[copland1980]

Obama is an out of control celebrity president. Yes! Fact: Bush had the Iraqi people TRY Saddam.

[tioga]

Good first post. Welcome.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I think the point is that he praised them for it. He could have put in at least a perfunctory comment about the rule of law.

We didn’t capture Gaddafi because rather than risk our own troops, we lent our air force to a bunch of thugs who had no respect for the Geneva convention or the rules of war.

I wonder if we could get charged with war crimes for providing air support to war criminals?