Skip to comments.Obama publicly supported execution of Gaddafi after capture without trial [Vanity]
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...
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:
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.
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.
It is because he has the morality of a pragmatic thug!
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.
Obama did approve the execution of Osama bin Lauden.
Well, then, of course this will be Obama's decision. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
But water boarding is absolutely out of the question.
And he subdued 3 kings....
So imprisoning people and executing their relatives and torturing/raping some will result in a dose of high-velocity lead?
Oh the humanity.
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!
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!
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?
Did you ever see anything as amazing as this?
I know I couldn’t believe she was that stupid.
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.
Obama was just afraid that the world would find out that Kadaffy Duck was yet another relative.
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.
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.
So? Did you have a problem with that?
Absolutely right. Bambi, Biden and Hillary don’t need no steenking rules or laws!
“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.
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.
Really! Tell me something I don't already know!!!!!
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.
Obama is an out of control celebrity president. Yes! Fact: Bush had the Iraqi people TRY Saddam.
Good first post. Welcome.
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?
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.