Lawmakers divided on whether to assassinate Qadafi

Source: Fox News

Ah, Sunday morning in America, where our leaders openly discuss the pros and cons of murder.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/01/graham-turn-predator-drones-qaddafi/

(...)

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., speaking on "Fox News Sunday," suggested Qaddafi himself is fair game for an attack by the Predator drones President Obama has authorized for use in the country.

"He is not a foreign leader. In my view, he's a murderer," Graham said. "He's the source of the problem. He is not the legitimate leader of Libya. He should be brought to justice or killed."

Other officials, though, suggested the coalition should stop short of an outright assassination attempt, expressing concern about the difficulty of such an operation and its implications. Though the military mission has stretched into its seventh week, raising anxiety about the possibility of a stalemate, some warned that putting Qaddafi on a hit list could create more problems than it solves.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who is often aligned with Graham, said assassinating world leaders is "not as easy as you think." He urged the Obama administration to instead deploy top U.S. military aircraft back into the fight while lending more support to the rebels.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/01/graham-turn-predator-drones-qaddafi/#ixzz1L7QPEiQ1


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/01/graham-turn-predator-drones-qaddafi/

Oh sorry, I keep thinking back to a time when things like that mattered.

that international leaders should never be targeted.

Rather, it was right and proper to bomb their countries to rubble and kill every citizen in them wearing anything resembling a uniform, and then finally send the leader and his family off to a comfortable retirement, for a quiet life of golf and dinner parties.

but also consider this. The decision not to target foreign heads of state in war is an ancient concept. The idea was to avoid violent power struggles and endless civil strife, which is what happens when killing the head of state legitimizes the new head of state.

but no worries, this former JAG lawyer comes back with a solid :sarcasm: legal case that it's legal:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0511/Graham_supports_taking_down_Qadhafi.html

(...)

Asked whether such a move would be illegal — international law prohibits the assassination of national leaders — Graham said plainly and clearly he believed Qadhafi has forfeited that title and therefore, that immunity.

"In my view, he's not a foreign leader, he's a murderer," Graham said.


touche! :toast: :sarcasm:

Or their children and grandchildren becoming targets of the foreign enemies created by invading other countries?

Fucking assholes.

The crime is conspiracy to violate the War Crimes Act of 1996.

http://www.kentlaw.edu/perritt/courses/seminar/jerry-bekkerman-seminar%20paper%20%28final%29.htm

He ought to be charged and brought to trail for saying what he just said.

police running wild that should be curtailed.

K-Daffy is a legit C2 target.

Seriously, had the world governments come together and voted to focus their efforts on eliminating Hitler, would not the world have been better off?

i just want to know, before I answer, if you really mean that...

By all means explain the folly of my point.

Is that less wacky members od the German high command might have taken over the war effort and prosecuted the war more efficiently and successfully. If they had managed to invade and occupy England, we might be looking at a completely different Europe today. You can't really predict how things would have played out.

He is planning to take over the world? What countries has he invaded lately, or even planned to invade?

Should we also assassinate Syria's leader, Bahrain's, Yemen's all of whom are slaughtering UNARMED rebels in their countries?

Should WE become 'Hitler' and take over the WHOLE world since we are so good at creating 'democracies' everywhere??

As a matter of fact, if we're going to make comparisons to Hitler, the US and its allies are viewed by most of the world as the most serious threat to World Peace.

It's so strange to see the same arguments for yet another war being made, this time from many on the 'left' who were not so easily fooled when Bush was president. We laughed at the claims from the right, that our intervention in Iraq was for 'humanitarian purposes' after the WMD claims fell apart. And rightly so. That country has been destroyed and may never recover from our humanitarian bombs.

I remember also when we on the 'left' villified the Bush administration for even suggesting they assassinate leaders of foreign countries, because it is AGAINST THE LAW for one thing, and IT IS IMMORAL. Do we know what the Libyan people want? Apparently a majority of them do not support the rebellion, or he would have been gone by now. So, we are to take it upon ourselves to make that decision for people of other countries? How arrogant and Imperial of us. I thought it was this kind of attitude we wanted to change when we elected Democrats.

The problem is when world capital decides to eliminate someone for their profit and sell him as the new Hitler to a gullible public.

they're going to do it, can they at least be better shots? Qathafi is the target. Not his son and grandchildren.

Getting involved in foreign wars can get out of hand, and so can assassination as foreign policy. It's lawless and lawlessness feeds on itself.