• 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!

Is Barack Obama a war criminal?

Did NATO's assassination of Ghadaffi's civilian grandchildren constitute war crimes?

  • Yes, here's why:

    Votes: 1 7.1%

  • Yes, who cares

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No, here's why:

    Votes: 13 92.9%
  • Total voters
    14
  • Poll closed .
F

friday

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
801
Reaction score
196
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
When Bush invaded Iraq based on massive amounts from intel from every credible agency saying that Saddam had a WMD program, Bush was declared to be an imperialist. When Bush took us to war with only an authorization for the use of force from Congress (same thing he had in Afghanistan), he was labeled a war criminal.

Over the past couple months, Barack Obama has led us into an undeclared war against Libya. Without getting even an authorization for the use of force from Congress, Obama has bombed military and civilian sites in Libya under the veil of NATO. A month after requesting an additional $1.7 billion in funds for Libya so that Ghadaffi could fight Al Qaida terrorists, Obama was firing missiles at Ghadaffi from a distance and funding Libyan rebels with unconfirmed ties to Al Qaida.

Then this past weekend, drowned out by the killing of Osama Bin Laden, NATO's missile strikes assassinated Ghadaffi's 29 year old son and three of his grandchildren at a peaceful family gathering. Despite Obama's claim that their mission is not to kill or remove Ghadaffi, just to save civilian lives by lobbing missiles at the country from a distance, Obama killed innocent civilian family members of Ghadaffi. That event took place later in the same day Ghadaffi called on a ceasefire and offered to negotiate a truce.

Obama is not the President of peace, hope, change, or negotiation. He is turning out to be more violent than his predecessor.

Ghadaffi is a head of a sovereign state that we are not at war with. He was seeking a ceasefire the day we assassinated his civilian grandchildren.

So here is the question, was this assassination a violation of international law and/or the War Crimes Act of 1996? Please provide proof and documentation where possible.
 
I'm not sure that those deaths can be categorized as an "assassination," unless it can be shown that they were intentionally targeted.
 
They fired a missile into his home where they were having a peaceful family gathering. I'm not sure you could argue there was any military value to the target.
 
I voted no, because Bush killed Uday and the other hussain boy and there was not heard a cry or fuss. This operation is also being conducted by NATO. As much as I don't agree with the Libyan Air Strikes and our involvement, I certainly don't think Obama is a war criminal.
 
On an international level no, on a U.S. level possibly.
 
friday said:
They fired a missile into his home where they were having a peaceful family gathering. I'm not sure you could argue there was any military value to the target.
Click to expand...

Well first I would need evidence that it was an American aircraft, doing it on orders/authorization from President Obama. If this can be shown, and if it can be shown that the house was intentionally targeted, then yes, it would be a war crime. So far, I don't think any of the above three are true.
 
Last edited:
friday said:
When Bush invaded Iraq based on massive amounts from intel from every credible agency saying that Saddam had a WMD program, Bush was declared to be an imperialist. When Bush took us to war with only an authorization for the use of force from Congress (same thing he had in Afghanistan), he was labeled a war criminal.

Over the past couple months, Barack Obama has led us into an undeclared war against Libya. Without getting even an authorization for the use of force from Congress, Obama has bombed military and civilian sites in Libya under the veil of NATO. A month after requesting an additional $1.7 billion in funds for Libya so that Ghadaffi could fight Al Qaida terrorists, Obama was firing missiles at Ghadaffi from a distance and funding Libyan rebels with unconfirmed ties to Al Qaida.

Then this past weekend, drowned out by the killing of Osama Bin Laden, NATO's missile strikes assassinated Ghadaffi's 29 year old son and three of his grandchildren at a peaceful family gathering. Despite Obama's claim that their mission is not to kill or remove Ghadaffi, just to save civilian lives by lobbing missiles at the country from a distance, Obama killed innocent civilian family members of Ghadaffi. That event took place later in the same day Ghadaffi called on a ceasefire and offered to negotiate a truce.

Obama is not the President of peace, hope, change, or negotiation. He is turning out to be more violent than his predecessor.

Ghadaffi is a head of a sovereign state that we are not at war with. He was seeking a ceasefire the day we assassinated his civilian grandchildren.

So here is the question, was this assassination a violation of international law and/or the War Crimes Act of 1996? Please provide proof and documentation where possible.
Click to expand...

I don't pretend to know much about the War Crimes Act or the Geneva Conventions, but a cursory look at the Act, which led me to the US Code, states the following regarding Murder:

(D) Murder.— The act of a person who intentionally kills, or conspires or attempts to kill, or kills whether intentionally or unintentionally in the course of committing any other offense under this subsection, one or more persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including those placed out of combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.
Click to expand...

Source.

Based on the wording above, I would argue that to prosecute Obama for Murder of the civilians, you would need to prove intent. Did he intend to murder these people? Based on that, I doubt you could make a case. NATO has maintained that the attack was not intended as an assasination, and we can believe them or not, but pursuing prosecution would be an up hill battle, IMO.
 
ADG said:
I don't pretend to know much about the War Crimes Act or the Geneva Conventions, but a cursory look at the Act, which led me to the US Code, states the following regarding Murder:



Source.

Based on the wording above, I would argue that to prosecute Obama for Murder of the civilians, you would need to prove intent. Did he intend to murder these people? Based on that, I doubt you could make a case. NATO has maintained that the attack was not intended as an assasination, and we can believe them or not, but pursuing prosecution would be an up hill battle, IMO.
Click to expand...

Not to mention, NATO =/= Obama.
 
I won't bother with the why. I felt the same with Bush, and I feel the same way with Obama. Talk of either being a war criminal is false.
 
Since NATO done it and the residence where Ghadaffi's grandchildren were residing was located on a military base and military bases have always been classified as "high-value targets" and the fact that neither Lybia nor the U.S. have declared war on each other (semantics, I know...), I don't think you can charge Pres. Obama with war crimes.

So, my answer is no.
 
So a US President can do whatever he wants as long as it is an official NATO action?
 
Fiddytree said:
I won't bother with the why. I felt the same with Bush, and I feel the same way with Obama. Talk of either being a war criminal is false.
Click to expand...

I don't equate the two, but I would say that this campaign in Libya and the bombing of a military base does not expose Obama to war crimes.

Bush I am up in the air with, for the WMD's, and the premise of Iraq.

I don't know if Bush is a war criminal, but I don't feel the same about both of them.
 
friday said:
So a US President can do whatever he wants as long as it is an official NATO action?
Click to expand...

President Obama isn't commanding the operation. That's the thing. This is not an American-led operation.
 
friday said:
So a US President can do whatever he wants as long as it is an official NATO action?
Click to expand...

No, but when you choose to have a family dinner on a military base when your country is at war, you're asking for trouble.
 
StillBallin75 said:
President Obama isn't commanding the operation. That's the thing. This is not an American-led operation.
Click to expand...

This is good, I think we are making progress. Now, Bush got a lot of flack for how Afghanistan was operated. A lot of people said he took his eye off the ball and wasn't as focused on it and so on. But Afghanistan was also turned over to NATO. So should we have cut Bush more slack on Afghanistan?
 
friday said:
This is good, I think we are making progress. Now, Bush got a lot of flack for how Afghanistan was operated. A lot of people said he took his eye off the ball and wasn't as focused on it and so on. But Afghanistan was also turned over to NATO. So should we have cut Bush more slack on Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

I didn't view Afghanistan as a war crime, but the difference between that operation and Libya is that Americans are most certainly in the lead. Whereas in Libya, although we are increasing the use of drones, we've pretty much pulled out all of our strike aircraft out of there. The US has relinquished leadership of the operation to NATO, whereas in Afghanistan we pretty much ARE NATO.

My beef regarding Afghanistan was that it wasn't handled well (at least not between 2002 and 2009), not that it was illegal or a criminal act.
 
Last edited:
friday said:
This is good, I think we are making progress. Now, Bush got a lot of flack for how Afghanistan was operated. A lot of people said he took his eye off the ball and wasn't as focused on it and so on. But Afghanistan was also turned over to NATO. So should we have cut Bush more slack on Afghanistan?
Click to expand...

The key here is that Bush abandoned Afghanistan to invade Iraq, and the pretext of that war was based on lies.
 
No he is not-the only time someone is prosecuted as a war criminal is when they lose a war. ie we strung up Japanese generals for the Bataan Death march and shot Nazis for running death camps but Stalin was not executed for similar atrocities
 
danarhea said:
The key here is that Bush abandoned Afghanistan to invade Iraq, and the pretext of that war was based on lies.
Click to expand...

wrong

you would have to prove that Bush KNEW that there was no legitimate basis to invade Iraq. which would mean that he knew that there were no WMD in Iraq

and if he knew that why would he send in hundredK people to look for stuff and prove him wrong?
 
StillBallin75 said:
I'm not sure I get your reasoning Bigfoot.
Click to expand...

The U.N. decided to do all of this so we are fine internationally. I am not sure Libya was "in our vital interest" so he probably should have gotten permission fro Congress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom