• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Osama Bin Laden is dead

Honesty? Where is that in anything this guy does? We haven't had a moment in the past two years of this administration that wasn't done under the guise of political expediency. Don't be hold us to standards you don't have any intention of holding yourself to. That is directly out of 'Rules for radicals' and we see that.


j-mac

Say you're rigth. Obama is the most dishonest person to have ever takena breath (hard for that to be true considering we all know Bush), how does that excuse anyone else of their dishonesty?

And j, I do try to be honest. And I can't help that you red silly **** and think it applies where it doesn't. you're responsible for your own poor reasoning. :coffeepap
 
Is OBL a world leader now?


j-mac

I'm not a world leader, but if he assassinated me, I would consider that illegal as well. So, what's your point?
 
Have you read what I said about this? If it was an assassination, I don't support it. If they were trying to capture him and he was killed in the firefight, **** happens. My preference would be that he stand trial. While I won't cry or moun his death, assassination is just as illegal as EIT.



Well the Obama administration has admitted it was a "kill operation", and that Bin Laden was unarmed, in fact only one person apparently was armed.


Do you not support the killing of OBL? yes or no.
 
Well the Obama administration has admitted it was a "kill operation", and that Bin Laden was unarmed, in fact only one person apparently was armed.


Do you not support the killing of OBL? yes or no.

The answer was a clear no concerning assassination. No is a pretty striaghtforward word. And yes, I did hear one person was armed, and shooting. That doesn't however mean that OBL wasn't killed in the cross fire.

Still, my answer is clear, no I don't support assassination.
 
The answer was a clear no concerning assassination. No is a pretty striaghtforward word. And yes, I did hear one person was armed, and shooting. That doesn't however mean that OBL wasn't killed in the cross fire.

he wasn't, the hostile was encountered outside of the area bin laden was.


Still, my answer is clear, no I don't support assassination.


should then Obama be held legally and criminally for this assassination?
 
Say you're rigth. Obama is the most dishonest person to have ever takena breath (hard for that to be true considering we all know Bush), how does that excuse anyone else of their dishonesty?


The same way that Obama supporters, and indeed the administration continues to deflect, and obfuscate every wrong turn they are responsible for by blaming Bush, or saying how Bush did it first. If its not correct to use in this instance here, then it isn't right for liberals to use at every turn to deflect taking responsibility to Obama's actions.

And j, I do try to be honest. And I can't help that you red silly **** and think it applies where it doesn't. you're responsible for your own poor reasoning.


this is debatable. See, if I agreed with you, you'd say that my reasoning must be sound, but since I don't you take every opprotunity to attack me, like a good radical would. With name calling, and childish crap. So, how about instead of throwing stones, you clean the glass on your own glass house Joe.

I'm not a world leader, but if he assassinated me, I would consider that illegal as well. So, what's your point?

The SEAL team took him out. He was unarmed, and they did exactly the right thing. The legallity of the action was entirely fine. OBL is not a world leader, or the leader of any soverign country. He was a terrorist scum bag that hid behind his wife like a little punk that he was.

Telling though that you think that Obama is a war criminal now though.


j-mac
 
he wasn't, the hostile was encountered outside of the area bin laden was.





should then Obama be held legally and criminally for this assassination?

The law applies to all. I have no problem trying both Bush and Obama. Set it up.
 
You may argue he's ineffective, maybe even too weak to force it

gitmo?

LOL!

there's no argument

he WAS too weak to force it

good thing

don't they tell you what's going on in sydney?

but there is no evidence that he's accepted Bush's position

detention, rendition, the patriot act, wiretapping...

you really don't know what's going on, do you

Again, it's about honesty.

LOL!

it sure is

and basic knowledge, too

do your other dept chairs cite links from new south wales?
 
The law applies to all. I have no problem trying both Bush and Obama. Set it up.

Who should try them? What law was violated? who should the jury be?


So you like Michael moore, and Rosie o'donnell, think that Obama's civil rights were violated, and we have become the "monsters"? yes or no.
 
The same way that Obama supporters, and indeed the administration continues to deflect, and obfuscate every wrong turn they are responsible for by blaming Bush, or saying how Bush did it first. If its not correct to use in this instance here, then it isn't right for liberals to use at every turn to deflect taking responsibility to Obama's actions.

J, you're bad misinterpretation doesn't equal fact. Bush is to blame for what Bush did. Obama is to balme for Obama did. You can't excuse Bush just because Obama took over his mess. Obama is responsible for his actions. But he didn't invade Iraq, open GITMO, or say torture was OK.

this is debatable. See, if I agreed with you, you'd say that my reasoning must be sound, but since I don't you take every opprotunity to attack me, like a good radical would. With name calling, and childish crap. So, how about instead of throwing stones, you clean the glass on your own glass house Joe.

Believe it or not, sound reasoning can be done regardless of position. Some people hear I disagree with do a fairl good job with reasoning. See Ejiah Gault, Whoven, Ikari (sp). You can excuse the way you want, but the fact is your reasoing is often not sound. I balme it on what your read, which are sources with very unsound reasoing.


The SEAL team took him out. He was unarmed, and they did exactly the right thing. The legallity of the action was entirely fine. OBL is not a world leader, or the leader of any soverign country. He was a terrorist scum bag that hid behind his wife like a little punk that he was.

I believe in rule of law. No matter what I think of OBL, rule of law is what we need to follow. I'm not sure why some who call themselves conservatives don't respect rule of law?

Telling though that you think that Obama is a war criminal now though.


j-mac

If he broke the law, he broke the law. Does the law only aplly to some or for all?
 
Who should try them? What law was violated? who should the jury be?


So you like Michael moore, and Rosie o'donnell, think that Obama's civil rights were violated, and we have become the "monsters"? yes or no.

They violated a lot of laws, including US law. I have no problem in a US court.

Haven't listened to either one, but if they speak to rule of law, I guess I would have to agree. Not so much civil rights, as the one that makes assassination illegal. A law that is only a law for some carries no meaning. I wouldn't use the words monsters, but I would suggest that one of the things that makes a people good is how well the obey and follow rule of law.
 
They violated a lot of laws, including US law. I have no problem in a US court.

What US law did they violate? furthermore, if no us court is willing to prosecute, how far would you support international intervention?


Haven't listened to either one, but if they speak to rule of law, I guess I would have to agree. Not so much civil rights, as the one that makes assassination illegal. A law that is only a law for some carries no meaning. I wouldn't use the words monsters, but I would suggest that one of the things that makes a people good is how well the obey and follow rule of law.


Again, which laws?
 
On another note.....

Have you noticed that since this happened, it's like Japan's nuclear crisis never happened?

In three months, no one will care about bin Laden either.

People's attention spans are so short these days.
 
What US law did they violate? furthermore, if no us court is willing to prosecute, how far would you support international intervention?





Again, which laws?

Assassination is murder. I'm pretty sure we're not allowed to kill folks. If you're looking for a law that outlaws political assassinations, start ehre:

In 1976, President Ford issued Executive Order 11905 to clarify U.S. foreign intelligence activities. The order was enacted in response to the post-Watergate revelations that the CIA had staged multiple attempts on the life of Cuban President Fidel Castro.

In a section of the order labeled "Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Ford outlawed political assassination: Section 5(g), entitled "Prohibition on Assassination," states: "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."

Since 1976, every U.S. president has upheld Ford's prohibition on assassinations. In 1978 President Carter issued an executive order with the chief purpose of reshaping the intelligence structure. In Section 2-305 of that order, Carter reaffirmed the U.S. prohibition on assassination.

U.S. policy on assassinations - CNN

This is what I thought j was refering to, assuming that if he wasn't a head of state, it couldn't be political. Not sure I would accept that. OBL was a political leader of a kind. If they didn't like my politics and assassinated me, as I told j, I woudl consider that illegal.

There is no category of people that law lets you just kill unarmed, as you please. Even in war, if you shoot a bunch of folks just sitting there, you're going to face charges if reported and known.
 
On another note.....

Have you noticed that since this happened, it's like Japan's nuclear crisis never happened?

In three months, no one will care about bin Laden either.

People's attention spans are so short these days.

That's too bad.
 
J, you're bad misinterpretation doesn't equal fact.


Neither does your opinion.

Bush is to blame for what Obama did.

Obama is never to balme for Obama did.

You can't excuse Bush ever, Obama took over his mess.

Obama is never responsible for his actions.

Fixed a couple of things for you in the interest of your much requested honesty.

But he didn't invade Iraq, open GITMO, or say torture was OK.

Nope, you're right, he is just keeping in place all of Bush's policies regarding these things.

Believe it or not, sound reasoning can be done regardless of position. Some people hear I disagree with do a fairl good job with reasoning. See Ejiah Gault, Whoven, Ikari (sp). You can excuse the way you want, but the fact is your reasoing is often not sound. I balme it on what your read, which are sources with very unsound reasoing.

Well, that's your opinion, which you know what that means in real terms? Squat! Just because someone disagrees with your POV, doesn't mean that they have unsound reasoning, or that they are restricting themselves to an echo chamber of one sided ideas, that is more projection on your part I think. But, as it were, this would be no fun if we all agreed all the time would it? The difference is that when that disagreement comes you seem to feel the need to personally attack. That is what I see as the huge flaw in your reasoning Joe.

I believe in rule of law. No matter what I think of OBL, rule of law is what we need to follow. I'm not sure why some who call themselves conservatives don't respect rule of law?

What law was broken? Please cite it, as well as what a possible prosecution would be in the event that it is even true that any law was broken.

If he broke the law, he broke the law. Does the law only aplly to some or for all?

Wait, you make a case just one quote up about the 'rule of law' arguing that you think it possible that Obama did break the law, now you hedge and say 'IF'.... I think this is the tactic that exposes your own dishonesty when debating. Ambiguity is less than genuine in these matters.

j-mac
 
Assassination is murder. I'm pretty sure we're not allowed to kill folks. If you're looking for a law that outlaws political assassinations, start ehre:

In 1976, President Ford issued Executive Order 11905 to clarify U.S. foreign intelligence activities. The order was enacted in response to the post-Watergate revelations that the CIA had staged multiple attempts on the life of Cuban President Fidel Castro.

In a section of the order labeled "Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Ford outlawed political assassination: Section 5(g), entitled "Prohibition on Assassination," states: "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."

Since 1976, every U.S. president has upheld Ford's prohibition on assassinations. In 1978 President Carter issued an executive order with the chief purpose of reshaping the intelligence structure. In Section 2-305 of that order, Carter reaffirmed the U.S. prohibition on assassination.

U.S. policy on assassinations - CNN

This is what I thought j was refering to, assuming that if he wasn't a head of state, it couldn't be political. Not sure I would accept that. OBL was a political leader of a kind. If they didn't like my politics and assassinated me, as I told j, I woudl consider that illegal.

There is no category of people that law lets you just kill unarmed, as you please. Even in war, if you shoot a bunch of folks just sitting there, you're going to face charges if reported and known.



From your link:


"According to an October 21, 2001, Washington Post article, President Bush in September of last year signed an intelligence "finding" instructing the CIA to engage in "lethal covert operations" to destroy Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization.

White House and CIA lawyers believe that the intelligence "finding" is constitutional because the ban on political assassination does not apply to wartime. They also contend that the prohibition does not preclude the United States taking action against terrorists."



Also Clinton, reagan, dropped bombs on quadaffi, and afghan guerilla camps, Assasination attempts.

They too, held up on charges?
 
On another note.....

Have you noticed that since this happened, it's like Japan's nuclear crisis never happened?

In three months, no one will care about bin Laden either.

People's attention spans are so short these days.

the public is fickle. That's why the American public is so easily manipulated. Those of us who join political forums and regularly show interest in these issues are likely in the minority. Most people prefer to be a-mused (no thinking). Explains a lot, I think.
 
That's too bad.

Wisconsin and Governor Walker. The tornadoes in the South. The Arizona Congresswoman shooting. California's bankruptcy. Obamacare repeal. Arizona's sovereignty to enforce immigation law. The earthquake in New Zealand. Libya. Egypt. Tunisia. Syria. Yemen.

Things blow by so quickly.
 
Last edited:
From your link:


"According to an October 21, 2001, Washington Post article, President Bush in September of last year signed an intelligence "finding" instructing the CIA to engage in "lethal covert operations" to destroy Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization.

White House and CIA lawyers believe that the intelligence "finding" is constitutional because the ban on political assassination does not apply to wartime. They also contend that the prohibition does not preclude the United States taking action against terrorists."



Also Clinton, reagan, dropped bombs on quadaffi, and afghan guerilla camps, Assasination attempts.

They too, held up on charges?

You would consider dropping bombs on a compound as equal to shooting an unarmed man? You make leaps I'm not willing to make.
 
Wisconsin and Governor Walker. The tornadoes in the South. The Arizona Congresswoman shooting. California's bankruptcy. Obamacare repeal. Arizona's sovereignty to enforce immigation law. The earthquake in New Zealand. Libya. Egypt. Tunisia. Syria. Yemen.

Things blow by so quickly.

Last I heard of Representative Giffords, she was doing OK. She was at the Endeavour's aborted launch a few weeks ago. Her husband is the mission commander.
 
I did hear one person was armed, and shooting. That doesn't however mean that OBL wasn't killed in the cross fire.

you don't know what went down in that compound in abbottabad on sunday?

LOL!

that's astonishing

Still, my answer is clear, no I don't support assassination.

few care what people who don't even know what happened do or don't support
 
You would consider dropping bombs on a compound as equal to shooting an unarmed man? You make leaps I'm not willing to make.



yes, as one who has done just that, I can tell you, sometimes, you are dropping bombs on a lot of unarmed folks.


they targeted the leaders, the fact that one is a couple 5.56, and the other a couple 500lb jdams, really makes it different for you? :lamo
 
Neither does your opinion.

J, I have never said any of the things you quote. Do try to address what I say.






Fixed a couple of things for you in the interest of your much requested honesty.

See above. Being dishonest in your "fixing" isn't what I asked for.


Nope, you're right, he is just keeping in place all of Bush's policies regarding these things.

Again, be honest. Not being able to change it is not equal to keepig in place. He did deounce and stop use of torture. He has tried to close Gitmo. These are facts.


Well, that's your opinion, which you know what that means in real terms? Squat! Just because someone disagrees with your POV, doesn't mean that they have unsound reasoning, or that they are restricting themselves to an echo chamber of one sided ideas, that is more projection on your part I think. But, as it were, this would be no fun if we all agreed all the time would it? The difference is that when that disagreement comes you seem to feel the need to personally attack. That is what I see as the huge flaw in your reasoning Joe.

I don't expect agreement j. As I noted, there is a difference between logical disagreement and utter garbage.

What law was broken? Please cite it, as well as what a possible prosecution would be in the event that it is even true that any law was broken.

See above. If it is not politcal, it wouldn't be an assassination. That would make it murder.

Wait, you make a case just one quote up about the 'rule of law' arguing that you think it possible that Obama did break the law, now you hedge and say 'IF'.... I think this is the tactic that exposes your own dishonesty when debating. Ambiguity is less than genuine in these matters.

j-mac

J, notice the words think and possible. They are consistent with if. Not being sure where you're not 100% sure is not dishonest. It would be dishonest to pretend there is no other possibility.
 
Back
Top Bottom