Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Aleya2Fairlie

Once again you make a good argument, within the context of the facts you present.

Certainly Qadafi has the right to employ whatever means are necessary to protect his nation’s government. Arguably, other nations should not be involved in judging those means. Here, of course, we think of the U.S.’s war between the states; the intentional and wide-spread destruction and pillaging of private property and the brutal treatment and murder of southern civilians.

On the other hand, in the face of credible evidence that Qadafi was responsible for the deaths of many Americans in several bombings, and there was such evidence, then our government had an obligation to exact justice. The families of the killed Americans could have been privately and fully briefed by the highest levels of our government, and other leaders who might be similarly inclined could be provided with details sufficient to persuade them from future similar action.

Sending high-tech ordnance through his tent, while not very subtle, certainly captured the attention of other leaders. It was also an exercise that depended in a large measure on luck. Unless it was deemed in our national interest to leave him in power, we could have done better at less cost.


40 posted on 03/27/2011 8:14:17 PM PDT by frog in a pot (We need a working definition of "domestic enemies" if the oath of office is to have meaning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]


To: frog in a pot

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.


41 posted on 03/27/2011 8:38:31 PM PDT by Aleya2Fairlie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson