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.