Should Obama be arrested for breaking international laws

[Bob Hubbard]

I'm still stuck on how you can define Osama as an "unarmed civilian" in all of this.

I don't.
I question the legality of a nations strike team entering another nations territory, undisclosed for covert ops. The specific situation here (US team takes out public enemy #1) is irrelevant. It could be a Mexican strike team coming after the US BP who shot and killed that kid a while back. Doesn't matter the specifics as much as it does the action.

 

[billc]

You have me mistaken for someone else. I am with luckyboxer on this. I supported Afghanistan and I whole heartedly supported this hit on bin laden. I think it is great that we showed the terrorists, you will not get away, we will find you and kill you. I am pointing out that there are those who condemn me because I support the mildest form of physical interrogation, waterboarding, where no one is killed or made to suffer extreme pain or physical maiming, on three men responsible for the deaths of well over 3000 people in america alone, not to mention all the other poor victims they tortured and killed. 3 terrorists who came up with the plans and executed them. And Yet, they make me out to be the worst sort of person, at the same time they say it was okay to go in and kill osama using the intelligence gathered in the way they condemn me for supporting.
No waterboarding in black sites, or harsh interrogation techniques at gitmo and no dead bin laden, no "Got Him" bumper stickers.

One poster even said that any technique including waterboarding, was like rape, it was never acceptable under any circumstances. to compare the C.I.A. waterboarding technique to rape is absurd all by itself, he really needs to read "Courting Disaster," to know what he is actually talking about, but then to support the killing of bin laden is hypocrtical. that's all. I am sure they are nice people though.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Illegal is illegal.
The POTUS is not above the law (as GW Bush insisted he was).
Waterboarding is torture, defined as such by BOTH US and International law.
A US President, ordering torture, is violating the law, therefore -legally- his orders do not have to be obeyed. Ordering/authorizing illegal acts undermines the office of President, as well as damages the reputation and integrity of the nation he or she represents.
I do not condone illegal acts, regardless.
A cop can get an illegal wiretap (hurts no one right?) but we have laws against that sort of thing.
GW Bush authorized the illegal acts of torture, an -ineffective- means of obtaining information. A means that undermined and hurt intellegence efforts.
For that action, he and Cheney and other members of his administration are wanted by members of the international community, to be tried for war crimes.
I support this.

If it is apparent that Obama violated the law by ordering the violation of a sovereign nation for this mission, he should be held accountable for his actions. The argument of legality here is at a level higher than we can access, involves 'top secret need to know' treaties, etc etc.


The question was a simple one. "Should Obama be arrested for breaking international laws?"
Yes. If he did so. No if he did not.

Right has nothing to do with legal. Those are 2 distinctly different things.
My support for the enforcement of the law does not negate my belief that right or wrong, it was the right call and right thing to do.
2 different things.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Illegal is illegal.
The POTUS is not above the law (as GW Bush insisted he was).
Waterboarding is torture, defined as such by BOTH US and International law.
A US President, ordering torture, is violating the law, therefore -legally- his orders do not have to be obeyed. Ordering/authorizing illegal acts undermines the office of President, as well as damages the reputation and integrity of the nation he or she represents.
I do not condone illegal acts, regardless.
A cop can get an illegal wiretap (hurts no one right?) but we have laws against that sort of thing.
GW Bush authorized the illegal acts of torture, an -ineffective- means of obtaining information. A means that undermined and hurt intellegence efforts.
For that action, he and Cheney and other members of his administration are wanted by members of the international community, to be tried for war crimes.
I support this.

If it is apparent that Obama violated the law by ordering the violation of a sovereign nation for this mission, he should be held accountable for his actions. The argument of legality here is at a level higher than we can access, involves 'top secret need to know' treaties, etc etc.


The question was a simple one. "Should Obama be arrested for breaking international laws?"
Yes. If he did so. No if he did not.

Right has nothing to do with legal. Those are 2 distinctly different things.
My support for the enforcement of the law does not negate my belief that right or wrong, it was the right call and right thing to do.
2 different things.

I guess my point is I see no reason for the United States to allow other countries to have authority over us. We have allies that are strong, we have gone above and beyond to cater to the international community, to the absurd, and we get flack for everything we do. I say go tell the rest of the world to go to hell if they dont like it. We caught and killed out public enemy number 1 from a country that was harboring him, and in such a way that it is reasonable to have assumptions that they enabled him to do so. I say tell them they are lucky we didnt drop kick them back to the middle ages while we were at it to prove a point.
besides if you think that even our greatest allies do not have spies gathering information on our inner workings, and inner most secrets your naive as hell. Pakistan is not an ally like the Brits are, they are not a friendly associate like the Canadians are, they are not even a grumpy a neighbor like say the french are.. they are a fairly anti american country that has its hands out to take our money and then out of the other side of their head are constantly anti american in the actions, comments, and thoughts. no I really do not think we should allow other countries any delusions of power over us.

 

[granfire]

I guess my point is I see no reason for the United States to allow other countries to have authority over us. We have allies that are strong, we have gone above and beyond to cater to the international community, to the absurd, and we get flack for everything we do. I say go tell the rest of the world to go to hell if they dont like it. We caught and killed out public enemy number 1 from a country that was harboring him, and in such a way that it is reasonable to have assumptions that they enabled him to do so. I say tell them they are lucky we didnt drop kick them back to the middle ages while we were at it to prove a point.
besides if you think that even our greatest allies do not have spies gathering information on our inner workings, and inner most secrets your naive as hell. Pakistan is not an ally like the Brits are, they are not a friendly associate like the Canadians are, they are not even a grumpy a neighbor like say the french are.. they are a fairly anti american country that has its hands out to take our money and then out of the other side of their head are constantly anti american in the actions, comments, and thoughts. no I really do not think we should allow other countries any delusions of power over us.

Well, you are missing the point:
Take out US and Pakistan out of the equation and replace it with Country X vs Country B.
You do not want to give a foreign nation power over the US. Good. That is called sovereignty.
Now turn that statement around: Should another sovereign nation allow the US to hold power over them? (and remember, the US is all but broke, so don't go the $$ route)

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Well, you are missing the point:
Take out US and Pakistan out of the equation and replace it with Country X vs Country B.
You do not want to give a foreign nation power over the US. Good. That is called sovereignty.
Now turn that statement around: Should another sovereign nation allow the US to hold power over them? (and remember, the US is all but broke, so don't go the $$ route)

I am not missing the point. I do not consider all countries equal. I see all countries as having the same opportunities, but they have to make changes to be equal to us. I see all human beings as being born with certain rights, but I see American Citizens as having more rights..inside our borders... I would not expect to have the same rights as Mexican Citizens in Mexico... oh and I don't... or the same rights as any other countries citizens in their country, and in the vast majority of those cases I wouldn't either.
I am a big believe in strength, I have no interest in the United States bullying other countries, but I also have no problems with going into another country to take care of a person like Osama whenever it becomes necessary to protect our way of life.
If some other country wants to be us, they can join us, under our rules and authority. If not then they take it on themselves. I am not interested in conforming to meet the worlds expectations or desires. I make no apologies for what I consider to the greatest nation ever formed. I make no qualms that I feel out rights as Americans, are reserved for Americans. Those that want them can create it on their own, or join us under our rules.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Wasn't 1 of the reasons for going after Sadamn that whole 'ignored international law, thumbed his nose at things' etc?
Isn't that 'You can't tell us what to do, we'll do whatever we want' attitude why we're so worried about North Korea and Iran?
Do we really want the US lumped in with those guys?

My take is, if the rule of law means anything, if the US's word means anything, it should conform to international laws, especially in regards to treaties it is a party to.
Just as we expect other nations to do.

We just can't be Cartman.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

Wasn't 1 of the reasons for going after Sadamn that whole 'ignored international law, thumbed his nose at things' etc?
Isn't that 'You can't tell us what to do, we'll do whatever we want' attitude why we're so worried about North Korea and Iran?
Do we really want the US lumped in with those guys?

My take is, if the rule of law means anything, if the US's word means anything, it should conform to international laws, especially in regards to treaties it is a party to.
Just as we expect other nations to do.

We just can't be Cartman.

ya I can see this... problem is very few countries actually live up to the treaties they sign. I would rather we drop out of the majority of this nonsense, and just state how we are going to behave. I have no interest in our country becoming the global police, or a global warlord. I do think we need to reassert ourselves as a country that takes **** from noone, and will lay a smackdown on anyone who messes with us though.
Treaties are pretty much worthless, I am sure there are cases, but I think the majority of treaties the United States has entered have been to the benefit of other coutnries and people to a huge extent and with little if anything in regards to our people.
I would like to see us remove ourselves from those things.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Can't argue with that, I feel much the same way.

 

[OKenpo942]

I, for the record, cannot stand Obama. That said, however, I don't think he should be arrested in this case. What was done to Bin Laden needed to be done. I would gladly have given my life to end his. Besides, let's not give Obama any credit here. He just happens to be the guy at the top right now. This is no Obama victory. This is a victory for the world. Thank god for those SEALs who got the job done.

God bless the men and women of the US military. At least someone has the balls to accomplish the mission no matter what.

Respectfully,

James

 

[granfire]

I, for the record, cannot stand Obama. That said, however, I don't think he should be arrested in this case. What was done to Bin Laden needed to be done. I would gladly have given my life to end his. Besides, let's not give Obama any credit here. He just happens to be the guy at the top right now. This is no Obama victory. This is a victory for the world. Thank god for those SEALs who got the job done.

God bless the men and women of the US military. At least someone has the balls to accomplish the mission no matter what.

Respectfully,

James

well, the guy at the top in the past did not give the go-ahead nod...I am sure he had his reasons...but credit where credit is due...

 

[billc]

Actually, as things are leaking out, Panetta sort of had to coax Obama to give the "go" order, and they used a team on the ground because of the location of the house. Obama dithered again but he eventually made the right call. He gets credit for that.

 

[elder999]

60 days since the intervention in Libya began. Will Obama comply with the War Powers Act?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

60 days since the intervention in Libya began. Will Obama comply with the War Powers Act?

Nope.

 

[billc]

Bob is correct, and now on to the daily double:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...means-no-need-to-get-congressional-autho.html

From the article:

In an effort to satisfy those arguing he needs to seek congressional authorization to continue US military activity in accordance with the War Powers Resolution, President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval