Lawyer says Obama's declarations are "absurd", OBL related

Re: Lawyer says Obama's declarations are "absurd", OBL related

• Dreamsicle23 member

  May 2011

  I think the miserable bastard got what he deserved.  International terrorists who plot and murder thousands of people don't deserve a trial...they deserve to get their face owned by Navy SEALS.  I lean more conservative and have been a huge critic of Obama in the past, but I want to give him a high five for this.
  

  

  Bar tab = $156,000, Bus to Foxwoods = $0, Puking in the Stanley Cup = Priceless

  Report0 Reply
• Loading the player...
• Tula007 member

  May 2011

  Dreamsicle23:

  I think the miserable bastard got what he deserved.  International terrorists who plot and murder thousands of people don't deserve a trial...they deserve to get their face owned by Navy SEALS.  I lean more conservative and have been a huge critic of Obama in the past, but I want to give him a high five for this.
  

  THis!!! 

  

  Report0 Reply
• ali_bl-nov05 member

  May 2011

  Tula007:

  Dreamsicle23:

  I think the miserable bastard got what he deserved.  International terrorists who plot and murder thousands of people don't deserve a trial...they deserve to get their face owned by Navy SEALS.  I lean more conservative and have been a huge critic of Obama in the past, but I want to give him a high five for this.
  

  THis!!! 

  I get your points, and I can't even imagine what people in the States must have felt during 9/11 (here everybody was sad, people were shocked and even depressed, but I'm sure you had it so much worst) again, when somebody is purposelly denied due process and a trial, it becomes a huge flaw on the system and everybody's guarantee's are at stake. Is like the goverment get to choose when to respect the law and international human rights principles, YKWIM?

  Again, for me this issue comes down to what the original order was and what happened during the operation.

   EDITED, not steak, stake. I must be hungry.

  There are no blurred lines, only jail time

  
  

  
   
  
   
  
  

  
  

  my blog: Inspirationseeker.blogspot.com

  Report0 Reply
• greengirl0909 member

  May 2011

  ali_bl-nov05:

  linky

  I think that Obama was refering to justice as an ideal and not to due process and such, but I can agree that he was denied the basic premises of a fair trial IF the order was to take him down from the start. If they were ordered to capture him and he used deadly force to resist, that's another thing.

  I believe that there's a lot that still need to be clarified.

  Thoughs?

  I agree.  I thought I was alone in this one.

  Report0 Reply
• yankeebaby2 member

  May 2011

  I think we need more sources.  I like this quote that better explains it.

  A more thorough explanation of the legal basis was given last year by Harold Hongju Koh, legal adviser at the US state department. He told a meeting of the American Society of International Law: "Some have argued that the use of lethal force against specific individuals fails to provide adequate process and thus constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing. But a state that is engaged in an armed conflict or in legitimate self-defence is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force.
  

  https://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28020.htm

   

  Warning No formatter is installed for the format bbhtml

  Report0 Reply
• ashnoelle

  May 2011

  yankeebaby2:

  I think we need more sources.  I like this quote that better explains it.

  A more thorough explanation of the legal basis was given last year by Harold Hongju Koh, legal adviser at the US state department. He told a meeting of the American Society of International Law: "Some have argued that the use of lethal force against specific individuals fails to provide adequate process and thus constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing. But a state that is engaged in an armed conflict or in legitimate self-defence is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force.
  

  https://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28020.htm

   

  I like your source.

  

  Report0 Reply
• ali_bl-nov05 member

  May 2011

  yankeebaby2:

  I think we need more sources.  I like this quote that better explains it.

  A more thorough explanation of the legal basis was given last year by Harold Hongju Koh, legal adviser at the US state department. He told a meeting of the American Society of International Law: "Some have argued that the use of lethal force against specific individuals fails to provide adequate process and thus constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing. But a state that is engaged in an armed conflict or in legitimate self-defence is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force.
  

  https://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28020.htm

  I swear I'm not trying to be snarky or anything, is just that this person is a legal advisor for the US, so I have a hard time taking his opinion as an objective, law abiding one.

  But if I were to agree with this, still, self-defense is protecting one self from present, actual danger (with the same means and intensity one is being threatened) and unless we could prove that Osama had actual plans for a particular attack, I don't see how this could apply, it just seems like an excuse to me.

  If we abide to this argument, one could say that conuntries under attack by the US, like Pakistan when being bombarded, would have more grounds to do the same than the US.

  Please don't get me wrong, OBL had whatever he received coming, I'm just questioning the way things seem to have happen.

  There are no blurred lines, only jail time

  
  

  
   
  
   
  
  

  
  

  my blog: Inspirationseeker.blogspot.com

  Report0 Reply