Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama publicly supported execution of Gaddafi after capture without trial [Vanity]
Vanity | 10/22/2011 | Self

Posted on 10/22/2011 10:53:40 AM PDT by PieterCasparzen

The sitting U.S. President Obama, publicly supported the capture of Gaddafi which was soon followed by what appears to be his execution-style murder by his captors.

When U.S. soldiers captured Saddam Hussein during the Presidency of George W. Bush, he was taken prisoner, handed over to Iraqi authorities and eventually tried, convicted and executed by them.

President Bush has long been excoriated by liberals and leftists as a "war criminal", yet U.S. troops showed excellent restraint and control when arresting Saddam.

Now various groups around the world are calling for an investigation into what, according to video of the event, appears to be the murder of Gaddafi soon after his capture.

Here's a story about the public calls for an investigation...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-libya-un-gaddafitre79k4wa-20111021,0,2850238.story

And the sitting U.S. President Barak Hussein Obama, along with many other U.S. politicians, has not expressed one reservation about the fact that the video shows what can only be surmised to be Gaddafi's murder without trial and conviction, something that was accorded to NAZI war criminals. It's preposterous to think that Gaddafi was killed in "crossfire" or "trying to escape" as there was a large group that took him prisoner who had no visible threats around them as they pointed guns at Gaddafi. It's quite obvious what happened.

Here's a story relating President B.H.Obama's reaction:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/20/us-libya-gaddafi-whitehouse-idUSTRE79J6WJ20111020

When is the news media going to force this issue, when are they going to force the current President Obama to acknowledge what appears to be a murderous war crime and also call for an investigation ?

There is absolutely nothing legitimate about murdering a high-value prisoner of war.

If the President "leads from behind" on THIS issue he is most seriously damaging the reputation and legitimacy of the United States internationally.


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: barackhussein; execution; gaddafi; ghadaffi; libya; nato; obama

1 posted on 10/22/2011 10:53:41 AM PDT by PieterCasparzen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

IT WOULD BE Well, to bear in mind, that the President of the USA was awarded the Nobel Prize for PEACE, I couldn’t imagine the Nobel Peace Prize winner would do something like murder.


2 posted on 10/22/2011 10:56:55 AM PDT by rovenstinez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rovenstinez

It is because he has the morality of a pragmatic thug!


3 posted on 10/22/2011 10:58:13 AM PDT by LiteKeeper ("Who is John Galt?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen
When U.S. soldiers captured Saddam Hussein during the Presidency of George W. Bush, he was taken prisoner, handed over to Iraqi authorities and eventually tried, convicted and executed by them.

But U.S. soldiers didn't capture Gaddafi, did they? He was captured by his own people who turned around and summarily executed him. I don't understand what Obama was supposed to do to prevent that.

4 posted on 10/22/2011 11:00:20 AM PDT by SoJoCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoJoCo

Obama did approve the execution of Osama bin Lauden.


5 posted on 10/22/2011 11:02:15 AM PDT by Soul of the South (When times are tough the tough get going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen
"If the President "leads from behind" on THIS issue he is most seriously damaging the reputation and legitimacy of the United States internationally."

Well, then, of course this will be Obama's decision. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6 posted on 10/22/2011 11:02:29 AM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

There’s a very good reason the Annointed One was relieved when he saw video of Qadhafi’s corpse on TV. Lest we forget, the Libyan dictator funneled millions to “Calypso” Louie Farrakhan, and there are ties between the Nation of Islam leader and Obama. Had he been put on trial, there’s no telling what Qadhafi might have divulged—information that might have been embarassing to the Zero in Chief.


7 posted on 10/22/2011 11:02:43 AM PDT by ExNewsExSpook (uoted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

But water boarding is absolutely out of the question.


8 posted on 10/22/2011 11:03:04 AM PDT by cruise_missile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

And he subdued 3 kings....


9 posted on 10/22/2011 11:04:40 AM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

So imprisoning people and executing their relatives and torturing/raping some will result in a dose of high-velocity lead?

Oh the humanity.


10 posted on 10/22/2011 11:06:06 AM PDT by Del Rapier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rovenstinez

BHO is an idiot...and will soon be ejected from office. I can see November 2012 from my front porch. A Conservative sweep will mean the restoration of American Exceptionalism. There are great days ahead!


11 posted on 10/22/2011 11:06:41 AM PDT by re_nortex (DP...that's what I like about Texas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rovenstinez

The rebels were just saving some money! If they let him survive then he would have lawyer-ed up taken this to trial pleaded not guilty. Long drawn out trial the appeals! They saved Libya a whole lot of money!


12 posted on 10/22/2011 11:19:11 AM PDT by tallyhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Are You A Whining FReeper?

Got A Gripe So You Won't Donate?


Click The Pic

Isn't That Like Setting Fire To Your Own Home?

When FR Is Gone, Where Will You Go Then?

13 posted on 10/22/2011 11:23:05 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (America! The wolves are here! What will you do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

The long lasting impact on the USA is horrible. We wage undeclared wars, without consent of Congress, in violation of the “war powers act”, declare a head of state a proper subject for “kill or capture” and then then they are captured, they are savaged to death by a mob. At least USA made sure some semblance of order was put in place after Japan, Germany, Balkan war, through Marshall plan, UN, NATO or KFOR but recently, in Egypt, Libya, Uganda? etc. it is “Let the chips fall where they may”. We do a turn-key coup d e’tat over to a murky mob of Islamists and think we helped make the world safe for democracy? Is that it?


14 posted on 10/22/2011 11:29:35 AM PDT by shalom aleichem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

Did you ever see anything as amazing as this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hbENCmVMc0

I know I couldn’t believe she was that stupid.


15 posted on 10/22/2011 11:36:27 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoJoCo
But U.S. soldiers didn't capture Gaddafi, did they? He was captured by his own people who turned around and summarily executed him. I don't understand what Obama was supposed to do to prevent that.

Prevention would have come in the form of leaving that country the hell alone and staying out of it. US Drones aided the Muslim Brotherhood Rebels, US Advisors supported the Muslim Brotherhood Rebels, US money and weapons stores 'evened' the odds....we had no business interfering, especially to allow a bunch of Muslim fanatics to secure another sovereign nation from which to continue their Jihad against infidels.

16 posted on 10/22/2011 11:46:13 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

Obama was just afraid that the world would find out that Kadaffy Duck was yet another relative.


17 posted on 10/22/2011 11:52:37 AM PDT by IbJensen (Ron Paul For President! Or anyone other that Romney!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

Your point, that Bush was careful to observe all the legal niceties, is true.

Nevertheless, I am not a fan of the idea that the International Court in the Hague had any jurisdiction in this case. The calls for an “investigation” of Khadaffi’s killing are hypocrites. Where were they during his reign of terror? They were silent. And had they spoken, they had no power to enforce their view of “international law” in any case, that required men with guns.

Their war was not with any particular country, their war was with a specific individual. Capturing him was not enough; he would be a threat as long as he was alive. Summary execution was necessary to prevent any chance of rescue, or any chance that his supporters would go on fighting. He’s gone, he isn’t coming back, and thats the end of it.

War is not the extension of peacetime law, war is the state of affairs you find yourself in when peacetime rule of law no longer functions. War is the means by which you redesign the facts on the ground in order to allow a return to rule of law. It is the space between the collapse of the rule of law on the one hand, and the reestablishment of rule of law having pulled the weeds that needed pulling.

The way we treated Saddam was admirable, but had there been any chance that he might have been found innocent in that court we would have been fools to allow such a trial. And a trial with a foregone conclusion is not a proper trial under peace-time rules, though it is proper as a war-trial where you simply document the reasons you are going to hang the man. And then you hang him.


18 posted on 10/22/2011 11:54:58 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen
Imam Obama totally supported what the Muslim mob did to Gadaffi (sp?) because this is what he wanted from the very beginning because Obama supports the Muslim Brotherhood and their goals.

For the latest in a never-ending litany of historic examples provided by the so-called "faithful" adherents of Islam as to why in fact Islam is to be rejected in total; all one has to do is look at how the Islamic, Muslim animals treated Gadaffi (sp?) once they had him in their clutches. They beat and kicked Gadaffi to a bloody pulp, then after they publically humilated and tortured him, they shot him in the head and then slit his throat... all the while screeching "Allah akbar" = their bloody ("god is great"), at the top of their lungs. No "democracy", no trial, no "justice", just a bloody awful gruesome death carried out by a maniacal Muslim mob of murderers! They didn't kill him, they BUTCHERED HIM!

Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying Gadaffi didn't get everything he deserved, but what we see taking place in Egypt, Libya etc is not an "Arab Spring" or a revolution for democracy... it is a demonic revolution for Islam, Shariah Law and for the establishment of a unified Caliphate. Gadaffi was not afforded a trial, a judge or a jury. "Justice" was not carried out, only the bloody desires of the Muslim mob and THIS is another example of exactly what they want to bring to the rest of the entire world

Tragically for the people of Libya; these are the same Muslim animals who will now rule in Libya and who will set up another Islamic state and run the country under Satanic, bloody-awful, Shariah "Law". The people thought Gadaffi was bad... wait until the so-called "Muslim Brotherhood" takes over. More blood than Gadaffi ever spilt will freely run in the streets, and the people will experience more misery than they ever did under Gadaffi... all in the name of "allah" and Islam! Which is EXACTLY what Obama wanted to happen.

If anyone needs another reason as to why Islam is to be rejected in total; all you have to do is wait one day and read tomorrows news! I have every confidence that somewhere in the world "the faithful" adherents of Islam, will provide us all with another historic example... all we have to do is wait a day and read or watch the news, then wait for the next day and read the news, and the next day and read the news... Sadly, Imam Obama supports what is taking place, hence, no condemnation on his part of the butchery of Gadaffi.

19 posted on 10/22/2011 12:06:48 PM PDT by Jmouse007 (Lord deliver us from evil and from those perpetuating it, in Jesus name, amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shalom aleichem
"Rule of Law" isn't really an operative principle for the Obama Regime. In fact, I don't think the concept of "law" or "rules" are really important in the least little bit to the Obama regime. Well, I think maybe "rule" is well thought of, at least in the mind of the "ruler."

Mark

20 posted on 10/22/2011 12:20:42 PM PDT by MarkL (Do I really look like a guy with a plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Soul of the South
Obama did approve the execution of Osama bin Lauden.

So? Did you have a problem with that?

21 posted on 10/22/2011 12:32:24 PM PDT by SoJoCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MarkL

Absolutely right. Bambi, Biden and Hillary don’t need no steenking rules or laws!


22 posted on 10/22/2011 12:48:22 PM PDT by shalom aleichem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SoJoCo

“Obama did approve the execution of Osama bin Lauden.

So? Did you have a problem with that?”

I found it to be extremely hypocritical of the Nobel Peace Prize winner who ran for office condemning the war policies of the Bush administration.


23 posted on 10/22/2011 1:03:40 PM PDT by Soul of the South (When times are tough the tough get going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen
During WW2, Benito Mussolini, the leader of Italy supported Hilter. He (Mussolini) was incarcerated when the allies began the invasion of Italy. He was rescued from prison by a German Special Forces. Benito Mussolini, then headed the Italian Social Republic in parts of Italy that were not occupied by Allied forces. With total defeat looming in late 1945. Benito Mussolini, attempted to escape to Switzerland. But was captured, killed on the spot without trail near Lake Como by Italian Partisans. His body was taken to Milian where it was hung upside down from a lamp post at a petrol station for viewing and to prove confirmation of his death. The pictures of this hanging was printed in newspapers world wide. From Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia.
Summary executions are practiced by the police, military, and paramilitary organizations and are associated with guerrilla warfare, counter-insurgency, terrorisms, and criminality.
History repeats its self. So Gaddafi is the latest name added to the list. Nor will Gaddafi be the last name on the list by worlds end.
24 posted on 10/22/2011 1:07:44 PM PDT by Don_Ret_USAF ( "Smile Before Bed, You'll Sleep Better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marron

International relations are more than legal niceties. Vattel’s Law of Nations is a good work to learn about international law.

I certainly did not refer to the Hague.

I’m simply saying that Obama is Condoning the Murder Without Trial of a leader of a nation who was being overthrown.

Not saying anyone in America or Obama has any right to intervene, simply saying that NO American President has EVER condoned such an action - not even in the case of Adolph Hitler and his henchmen. If Hitler would not have committed suicide he would have stood trial with the others.

Western civilization has a history of thousands of years of state-inflicted death sentences requiring a trial and conviction, going back to the ancient Greeks and Romans.

If he brandished a weapon upon capture, that’s an entirely different situation. But he surrendered; he had no weapon in the video, he had been taken alive and completely subdued.

When I think of American GI’s who were executed as prisoners it makes me sick. Well, I can’t condone summary execution for anyone else then either.

I don’t consider trials admirable, but a necessity. It is a sad, sad day when the President of the United States does not as well, especially when he made it so abundantly clear that he thought that terrorist attackers should have civilian trials and NOT military tribunals, which is what they should have if they are part of an organized force whose purpose it is to destroy America and either kill or subjugate all Americans.

The operative point is really the kind of actions we are seeing in the “Arab spring” - barbarism, the rise of a group of nations united in blood lust on a par with the most evil empires of history, and many politicians in the United States not even bothering to publicly acknowledge it.


25 posted on 10/22/2011 1:22:04 PM PDT by PieterCasparzen (We need to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SoJoCo
But U.S. soldiers didn't capture Gaddafi, did they? He was captured by his own people who turned around and summarily executed him. I don't understand what Obama was supposed to do to prevent that.

If you'll notice, I did not say anything about preventing it. After all, it's not within our borders and Congress has not passed a Declaration of War, so our military should not be there. /dripping sarc

President Obama made a public statement expressing his approval of the event. No doubt he is thinking back to President Bush numerous times making public statements acknowledging military success and in Obama's heart he thinks that is a good thing to do politically for himself so he can look like he's wearing the big-boy pants.

Since he was publicly speaking, he had the opportunity to express some kind of concern, or perhaps call for an inquiry, regarding the fact that the video shows Gaddafi alive and subdued, then moments later shot. It was with what President Obama did not say wherein the problem lies.

Instead, other people around the world have said these things, beating dear leader to the punch. Now, in terms of the moral high ground, all dear leader can do is doggedly drag his skinny backside up there to utter some better-late-than-never copycat statement, bringing up the rear. Leading through his behind yet again.

Wouldn't it be nice if he was on the right side, morally, just once, and he came out with it without copying off someone else or reading from TOTUS ? Such a fine example he is - just do exactly the opposite of what he would do, and you'll be doing the right thing. IMHO...
26 posted on 10/22/2011 1:42:35 PM PDT by PieterCasparzen (We need to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen
>If the President "leads from behind" on THIS issue he is most seriously damaging the reputation and legitimacy of the United States internationally.<

Really! Tell me something I don't already know!!!!!

27 posted on 10/22/2011 1:53:01 PM PDT by Jerrybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

As a practical matter, although the US military would probably not have summarily executed him if they captured him, keep in mind this is a third world country and third world rebels killing a third world dictator should come as no surprise. If you are going to overthrow the king, you better make sure the king is dead.


28 posted on 10/22/2011 2:01:41 PM PDT by chuckee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don_Ret_USAF
Benito Mussolini, then headed the Italian Social Republic in parts of Italy that were not occupied by Allied forces. With total defeat looming in late 1945. Benito Mussolini, attempted to escape to Switzerland. But was captured, killed on the spot without trail near Lake Como by Italian Partisans.

Yes, but I can't use a summary execution from the past to justify it now and make it right, it's still wrong.

As you imply, they most certainly can be expected in cases where leaders are widely hated by the citizens of their nation. There is a verse in the Bible that says exactly that. Tryants are often overthrown, and often it ain't pretty. I doggedly advocate that nations under the grip of despotic tyrants should overthrow them as opposed to citizens from other nations being "do-gooders" and coming along and providing the necessities for the downtrodden. Doing that provides an enormous help to the tyrant and removes all motivation for the downtrodden to overthrow their tyrant, as accepting the aid is much less personally dangerous than attempting an overthrow. But I get flak for that view a lot.

Of course, revolt and forced removal of the leader of a nation usually does not involve an attempt at arrest, but only assassination. In this particular case, however, there was no reason why the leader could not be jailed and held over for trial. Saddam Hussein's whole process only took a little over a month, IIRC, and I believe he had a lot more dedicated followers than Gaddafi did.

Where execution without trials runs rampant there is anarchy and chaos which creates misery for the citizenry; it's wrong.

That's why even though we realize that violent overthrow happens and depending on the situation can in fact be a righteous act, summary execution without even an attempt at a trial is never condoned by a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Until now.

And Lord willing, not again.

IMHO.
29 posted on 10/22/2011 2:09:10 PM PDT by PieterCasparzen (We need to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: chuckee; All
As a practical matter, although the US military would probably not have summarily executed him if they captured him, keep in mind this is a third world country and third world rebels killing a third world dictator should come as no surprise. If you are going to overthrow the king, you better make sure the king is dead.

I should like to think the US military would follow all legal orders according to their most excellent and proud tradition. While we have an awesome deadly force, we have a military with duty, honor and a chain of command.

I agree, this type of killing absolutely fits the pattern of mob rule in islamic nations, where prisoners are routinely mutilated and displayed after they are subdued at the whim of their captors.

The pattern that does not fit is the first 43 U.S. Presidents that never publicly condoned the arrest or live capture - followed by deliberate summary execution - of the leader of another nation and the 44th who failed to express any concern about the rule of law not being respected when he made his public statement of support for the actions.

He made this mistake - and many Americans are completely confused - probably because there has been so much talk over the past few years about high-value targets with a standing U.S. order to capture or kill them. But we forget the nature of the capture or kill order - it does not mean that if we capture someone alive and they are subdued and are not a threat to hurt anyone or escape then we can kill them at our leisure because the order said "capture or kill". The kill part is only in effect they are acquired but they can't be captured and have to be killed due to the circumstances. The killing is not optional, to be effected if the captors "are really angry" or "whipped up in a frenzy".

Every other world leader - all politicians - would certainly want a trial if they were apprehended. The shoe would be horribly uncomfortable if it were on the other foot.
30 posted on 10/22/2011 2:35:22 PM PDT by PieterCasparzen (We need to fix things ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

Obama is an out of control celebrity president. Yes! Fact: Bush had the Iraqi people TRY Saddam.


31 posted on 10/22/2011 3:36:11 PM PDT by copland1980
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: copland1980

Good first post. Welcome.


32 posted on 10/22/2011 4:31:18 PM PDT by tioga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SoJoCo

I think the point is that he praised them for it. He could have put in at least a perfunctory comment about the rule of law.

We didn’t capture Gaddafi because rather than risk our own troops, we lent our air force to a bunch of thugs who had no respect for the Geneva convention or the rules of war.

I wonder if we could get charged with war crimes for providing air support to war criminals?


33 posted on 10/23/2011 9:32:30 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson