Posted on 05/14/2011 3:32:09 AM PDT by markomalley
I like it, therefore it is legal.
Stuff happens. Get over it. Don't start a war.
Death to Bin Laden and his running dog lackeys!
Wrong. You are posting from a position of abject ignorance. Tell us again how the Geneva Conventions apply towards non-uniformed combatants engaged in lethal activity and get back to me.
So, Osama bin Ladin, a Saudi in Pakistan, a terrorist who killed 3,000 Americans in an act of war and has been indicted by a U.S. court and is an illegal combatant under the Geneva Convention, has all of the rights you have as a US citizen?
Is that what you're saying?
What is this, an episode of Hogan’s Heroes?
I said nothing about the Geneva Conventions. Bin Laden was not a uniformed combatant of a signatory country at a time of war, so they have absolutely nothing to do with this.
International law is a joke. We can do whatever we like, wherever we like it, as long as nobody can stop us. That is the only international law that matters.
The question is, what do we want to do? Because once we decide that is what we want to do, nothing will stop us. For instance, this week, it looks a heck of a lot like we’re trying to kill Khadafy, who is established leader of his own country, without any authority other than it seems like a good idea at the time.
So, if this is that way it is going to be, that is how it will be. But keep in mind, we won’t be on the top of the pyramid forever. So when roving Chinese hit-squads are roaming DC taking out the American politicians that they don’t like, let’s all remember when we started down this road.
There is a big difference between having all the rights of an American Citizen and having somebody put two bullets in your head as you stand naked in your own bedroom. So, no. I am not saying that bin Laden had all the rights of a US citizen.
We all like it that this POS is dead. I get that. But that does not mean that I endorse the policy that the US can kill whomever it wants, whenever and wherever it wants.
But the Libya action isn't the point you were making initially anyway, was it? You were claiming some kind of new unilateral domestic policy because of the bin Laden. Which is bunk.
And that statement is pure hyperbole I'd expect to hear from a liberal. The action against bin Laden is the culmination of nearly a decade of response to 9-11 - executive, congressional, military and intelligence. You act like Obama decided a couple of weeks ago to cap some random dude living in Pakistan who had no prior history of action as an illegal combatant against this country - let alone the leader of a terrorist organization that killed thousands of civilians.
Somehow, despite his liberal idiot mindset that eerily echoes yours, Obama found it in him to order bin Laden to get capped. Maybe you could write him a tear-stained letter about how upset you are that he violated the liberal policies that he has espoused in the past and you are espousing here.
Quite agree. But a terrorist (illegal combatant) is quite a different matter. "Shoot on sight" is a legitimate order.
Khadaffi now...? Last I saw, he was in uniform. And nobody had accused him of being a terrorist.
At least, not lately...
Two weeks ago, we capped bin Laden when he was defenseless in his underwear. But at least we were carrying out our policy, such as it is.
This week, we are violating our stated policy and our agreements with our allies to try to kill Khadafy as he sleeps, hundreds of miles from the battle zone.
If you don't want to connect the dots, I can't do anything about that.
Now, you may say that Khadafy is a bad guy who needs killing. After PanAm 103, you won't get a lot of argument from me on that point. But if we have a stated policy and agreements with our allies that we are going to follow a certain policy, we should follow that policy instead of making it up as we go along.
Because if killing foreign leaders, such as Khadafy, who we find to be problematic is going to be our new national doctrine, we are going to have to bomb a whole lot of Presidential Palaces around the World.
I never expected this coming out of Indiana.
Thanks.
“lol. i am sure they are really not concerned about what you or I think.”
It doesn’t matter what they are concerned or not concerned about really.
Can you even read? I said I had issues with what we are doing in Libya. But that isn't what you raised initially, is it?
And maybe you have an issue with Reagan - he bombed Libya as well. However, he did it in direct response to an action of Libyans against American interests. However, I don't see you making such a qualification.
Such are the consequences of knee-jerk emoting.
Actually, I thought Reagan’s bombing of Libya was I’ll-advised, as well. I don’t think the FR archives go back that far.
Gotcha.
If you want to live in a world where blowing up foreign leaders is a legitimate policy, I don’t want to hear your whining when the White House is turned into a smoking crater.
You really are a nitwit. The best deterrent to keeping someone from blowing up the White House is to retailate when they attack the United States. Reagan understood that. You apparently don’t.
Oh, and Clinton failed to take retailiation seriously after the Africa bombings and the Cole incident. We got 9-11 as a result.
IOW, Jefferson was right.
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.