America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last time I recall, Idi Amin Jr. was claiming that terrorists were criminals, and needed to be apprehended, and tried.

Yet here is Mr. Nobel Peace Prize winner claiming that he alone ordered Bin Laden killed. If a cop does that, he's tried for murder.

You can't have it both ways. They aren't bound by criminal law and the laws of warfare at the same time. So which is it? Was Osama a criminal, or a military target to be assassinated?

And isn't there an executive order or something that prohibits the President of the United States from ordering assassinations? If bin Laden was unarmed, and Idi Amin Jr. gave the order to have him killed, that's outright assassination.

I thought liberals believed that we were "better than this?"

Is this the liberal ideal at play? Claim we are a humane people who need to live by the ideals the espouse, except when it benefits the little demi-god-in-training in the Oval Office? Or simply dump your strongly-held beliefs because it'll give you or your master a five-point bump in the polls?

Liberals are a strange breed indeed (and not a very smart one either).

2 things:

1. I am very glad Osama is dead.
2. Illiberal lefties are hypocrites, yes.

Potts, we already hashed this out of the "Bin Laden Unarmed" thread. Fuzz admitted that he has an inconsistent position on this.

Let me clear it up for you then.

The trials were for those already held by the United States in a sort of judicial limbo for 8 years or so at places like Gitmo. It was a legal mess created outside of any jurisdiction with no real plans as to what to do with them.

The killing of bin Laden was, first of all great, and secondly something Obama said he would do.

'We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaida. That has to be our biggest national security priority.' Obama

I hope that helps you, but I'm sure it won't.

Yeah, but I won't let this stop me to start another pile-on.

I think we just learned not to take anyone into legal custody.... or at least not to admit it.

Agreed. Progress.

I always knew pottsie enjoyed having a group of men pile on him.

No, your logic is flawed here.

One is out in the world out of our control and presumed dangerous.

The other is under our control, in our custody and our responsibility because of those condiditions.

TW has a point. If we are not willing to abide by the law, don't take them into legal custody.

Potts can no longer respond. I agreed with him and he is having a seisure

I think he's pretending to work so his wife doesn't think he's been laid off for months, like the guy in the movie Falling Down.

I'm being contrarian.

C'mon man...stick to the routine...

Continuing to ignore your insults, for now, I will respond.

As to your a) Yes they were, were being the operative word. If they were not in military custody and found in the battlefield, in a town or anywhere else and were a high value target and resisted or otherwise put our personel in danger, boom goes the terrorist.

Much of the trouble lies in the fact that there are people at gitmo who are not high value terrorists and because of the legal limbo they are in are not able to prove their innocence. This is anti-American.

Once they are under our control, we must abide by the law. The supreme court itself has decided that habeous corpus extends to the prisoners at gitmo and torture is against US law.

Not a supporter OR a hater of Obama. Bin Laden is dead....who gives a shizz about the: who,what,where, why and how? Really. Any one here losing sleep over it....or sleeping better? Once again, Bin Laden is dead(HOORAY right?).....Obama is the Prez when it happened(so what), so conservatives are raising a series of questions(liberals will be liberals..nothing you can do there.) Betcha if Bush was in office instead of Obama....no one would say anything EXCEPT calling him A Hero(and again liberals will be liberals). It shouldn't matter if it was Bush, Obama, Clinton,Daddy Bush. What matters is, that SERIOUS Threat to America And its People, to our way of life , liberty,democracy and Freedom was eliminated. Good riddance, I say. In honor of this country and our troops, I'm going to light a stogie pour a drink, raise it in toast and say God Bless America!

Not "high-value terrorists?"

As if there is such a thing as a "low-value terrorist?"

Puh-lease. And you wonder why I call you an idiot?

Secondly, value of a detainee is subjective. Secondly - and it'd be nice if you'd actually crack a history book once in a while - Lincoln did the exact same thing to the Confederates during the Civil War. They were considered, at the very least, POWs. At the worst, "detainees" were spies, and typically hung without a trial.

What you claim is anti-American has been wholly "pro-American" for over 100 years.

We abide by "the law" you frickin' doorknob. We give those detainees more rights then they have historically gotten under past presidents.

Of course, your statement assumes that we keep people at Gitmo for no good reason. As if we just randomly pick up people to fill up cells in a detention center because the military has nothing better to do. Oh, and we keep them around because they have no information that is valuable to our cause. Yep, Fuzz, you're a genius!

So, once more: you're a fraud. You are reveling in the death of a man, they means by which you claim to oppose, and then get all bent out of shape when someone calls you on your startling hypocrisy.

Save it for the kiddies. The rest of us know better.

I will say this, Fuzz, you distinguish yourself from the likes of Michael Moore. He at least is consistent in his stance, no matter how uninformed and loony it may be. You, on the other hand, only stand up for the thing you claim to believe only when it makes you appear to be popular.

So, if you're wondering why many people here get the impression that you're spineless, mealy-mouthed weasel...