Posted on 03/27/2011 9:29:11 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations—and possible GOP candidate in 2012—tells Lloyd Grove of his decidedly undiplomatic solution to the crisis in Libya: Assassinate the dictator. Plus, Babak Dehghanpisheh reports from Libya on the rebels' key victory in Ajdabiya. Former ambassador John Bolton, President Bush's decidedly undiplomatic envoy to the United Nations who is considering running for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, has a decidedly undiplomatic solution to the crisis in Libya: The United States should terminate Muammar Gaddafi with extreme prejudice. Speaking Saturday afternoon in Des Moines, Iowa, at Republican Rep. Steve King's Conservative Principles Conference—a cattle call for presidential prospects in the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses—Bolton said: "Our military has a wonderful euphemism called 'national command authority.' It's a legitimate military target. In Libya, Muammar Gaddafi is the national command authority. I think that's the answer right there." The red-meat applause line produced for Bolton, the longest of long-shots in the presidential contest, a rousing ovation from about 600 conservative activists filling up the grand ballroom at the Des Moines Marriott. "I think he's a legitimate target," the white-mustachioed Bolton told me after his speech. "That's what Reagan did in 1986"—when U.S. jets bombed Gaddafi's residence in Tripoli, killing his young daughter, in response to a lethal terrorist bombing in Germany—"and that would end the regime right there. He has murdered innocent American civilians. He has never faced responsibility for it. So I don't have any hesitation in saying that."
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
You have indeed followed my line of reasoning. The events I related actually happened and are a matter of historical record. I substituted “Qadafi” and “Qadafi’s forces” for the names of General James H. Lane and General William Tucumseh Sherman. They are related in The Conduct of Federal Troops, commissioned by Louisiana Governor Henry Allen during the Civil War.
Those heinous actions and more were carried out by the two Generals on the orders of The President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln against citizens of the States that attempted to rebel against the government.
Lincoln was assassinated. We have condoned the assassination of Qadafi for same while branding Lincoln’s assasination a murder.
I don’t maintain that Qadafi shouldn’t pay for his crimes. But to stoop to assassination would be tantamount to bringing ourselves to his level. If we believe in fair trials and the rule of law and order, we can’t make exceptions. By doing so, we would make all our posturing about “justice” a farce. I maintain that Qadafi’s assassination would be no less a crime than was that of Lincoln. No one, Obama included, has the right to try and convict anyone without representation.
I said you had a good argument if limited to your facts, essentially outsiders not responding to a government's despicable conduct within the borders of its nation.
I then argued the reasoning should be quite different if the leader of one nation kills civilians of another nation.
For instance, your view does not address what action is warranted in the event the U.S. is attacked by another nation. I argue a hit on Qadafi is warranted not because of what he is doing within his borders, but rather because of clear evidence he was directly involved in the murder of many Americans. There is no statute of limitations for such crime.
“For instance, your view does not address what action is warranted in the event the U.S. is attacked by another nation.”
The underwear bomber, and the Lockerbee bomber were accorded fair trials and convicted of their crimes. Why shouldn’t Qadafi be accorded the same rights? Again, we shouldn’t stoop to assassination and allow Obama to be the judge and jury. That’s to preserve our own integrity as much as to preserve our stance on human rights.
On another note; it will be a slippery slope indeed if we allow the UN to set this precedent and be judge and jury for the whole world. They will then be able to decide which ruler, president, monarch, emperor, etc. is acceptable to rule and which are worthy of death, The New World Order.
I don’t care to live under such concepts myself. I’m an American. Besides, just a few short months ago, Qadafi was accepted, given aid and comfort, along with lots of money, despite his past actions. That he has suddenly been marked for death by the Obama Administration stinks to high heaven! Something is rotten in Denmark for sure! We might find, with time, that Qadafi isn’t the only criminal in this scenario.
If a judge and jury are expendable for murderers, we should be able to cut down on our prison population and close Gitmo in short order.
Because brutal tyrants are typically unreachable at the time for the purpose of criminal prosecution, and Q perhaps remains unreachable.
More importantly, criminal prosecution is not the indicated remedy while the leader of a nation is killing citizens of another nation. Whether based on a declaration of war or, if undeclared, credible evidence of direct involvement, the remedy is summary execution as practiced in warfare on warriors that continue to fight. Think of it as a homicide which is justified if it occurs during the interruption of the felonious taking of another life.
You probably know that one of the reasons the U.S. did not assassinate Hitler when it developed the assets to do so, was because by that time he was a dopehead CinC that was better left in place.
With that, you get the last word.
My only comments on the unrelated side issues you raise are
a) to agree the UN has no place in any determination of what is in our nation’s best interest; and,
b) IMO, the Obama admin entered the Libya affair only after receiving the green light from its controllers; which, as the evidence suggests, views Q’s fall to be helpful to the efforts by Al Qaeda and the larger moslem world to reshape the ME - the other Western nations involved certainly have different goals.
You can have it your way, but if I could have pulled trigger way back in 1936 Hitler would not have killed millions of innocent people who never got a trial. Same goes for Stalin.
How do you know that Himmler wouldn't have simply replaced Hitler and done the same thing?
Bumping this to remind everyone why Bolton is not suited to work in a Trump administration. Bolton is a hardcore interventionist who’s beliefs are totally out of step with the platform Trump ran on.
He is a blowhard who makes extreme “tough talk” statements while advocating an insane foreign policy virtually identical to what Hillary Clinton would want.
Bolton has attempted to rebrand himself as some kind of anti-Muslim tough guy since the Libya fiasco. Don’t be fooled.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.