It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

assainate a US president

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 11:43 AM
link   
was reading saddams trial and basicaly he orderd the exicution of all the people who tried to kill him when he was president.


now what would happen to someone if they tried to kill the US president and failed?

1. would they be put in a 4x4 cell for a few years
2. a 4x4 for life
3. exicuted




posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Hey you're right, he wasn't such a bad guy at all...



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
Hey you're right, he wasn't such a bad guy at all...


now did i say that or was i just reffering to the charges of him exicuting the people who attempted to kill him?

for the next smart as$ please read my first post first



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   
An assassination attempt on a head-of-state would be an act of Treason in any country. If this were to happen in the US, I would hazard a guess that you would face the death penalty



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taikonaut
An assassination attempt on a head-of-state would be an act of Treason in any country. If this were to happen in the US, I would hazard a guess that you would face the death penalty


And rightfully so!



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Hinckley tried to kill Reagan. He now has the option to leave the hospital to visit his family.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taikonaut
I would hazard a guess that you would face the death penalty


Well you would be wrong this has already happened in the US

John Hinckley actually shot President Ronald Reagan. Guess what no death penalty.

I havent followed the case in awhile but he was close to a conditional release not too long ago.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Yeah, but wasn't there over a hundred people he suspected of wanting to assassinate him? Among them an 11 year old boy? That was my understanding at least. I think the difference would be that (at this point anyway) here in the U.S., somebody would actually have to be attempting to assassinate the president, not just be a political dissenter to be imprisoned and/or executed....

[edit on 2-3-2006 by 27jd]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Reagan survived though. Would it have been different if he had died?



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Reagan survived though. Would it have been different if he had died?


Saddam was never even shot at....



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul
was reading saddams trial and basicaly he ordered the execution of all the people who tried to kill him when he was president.


His orders went well beyond ordering the execution of people who tried to kill him. In at least one instance he ordered an entire town, including women and children be killed after someone from that town attempted to kill him. He's a butcher at the least. I doubt you can show that a U.S. President would order an entire town to death on one person's actions. It's just absurd to even make this analogy.



Saddam says he alone ordered town massacre

The one-time president, who is standing trial on charges of crimes against humanity, said he ordered 148 residents of the Shiite town of Dujail to stand trial after an assassination attempt in 1982. The people, including children, were later tortured and executed.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by intrepid
Reagan survived though. Would it have been different if he had died?


Saddam was never even shot at....


Not getting your point. I was wondering if Reagan had died, would Hinckley's sentance been more severe.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Reagan survived though. Would it have been different if he had died?


Its hard to say what would or could have happened. We cant even use Lee Harvey Oswald as a example since he was never really officially charged with the assassination of President and was ofcourse murdered before any trial could take place.

Besides I think a US assassination attempt is much more relevant to any comparison in this thread since its dealing with a Saddam assassination attempt and nobody even got to shoot Saddam,

[edit on 2-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Actually, Zion nailed it. This post is a blatant attempt to show the irony of the charges against Saddam. But, the poster has turned a very complex situation and over simplified it to prove some sort of agenda they have.

The FACT of the matter is the prosecution against Saddam chose these charges, and only these charges, because they were the ones they could most likely get a conviction from. Saddams situation CLEARLY cannot be likened to an assassination attempt on the President of the USA. Saddam has actually been accused many more grievous charges, but the prosecution needs to go with the charges that have the highest chance of conviction.

The comparison or analogy that Bodrul is trying to make here is a blatant tool to further his anti USA agenda or at the very least a massive oversight into the complexities of Saddams charges and trial.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Not getting your point. I was wondering if Reagan had died, would Hinckley's sentance been more severe.


It wasn't really directed at you, just the premise of the thread. The author seems to be saying we would punish those suspected of trying to assassinate the president here, the same as Saddam punished them there. I was just pointing out that Saddam had never even been shot, yet he executed many people, Reagan was shot, but the attempted assassin wasn't executed. I'm sure the penalty would have been more severe had he died.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
I doubt you can show that a U.S. President would order an entire town to death on one person's actions. It's just absurd to even make this analogy.



what about the first few weeks of the in which thousends of Iraqis Died,lost limbs and lost loved ones,
the US president did autorise the war.


quote from the bbc




Saddam Hussein
"I razed them... we specified the farmland of those who were convicted and I signed," Saddam Hussein told the court.

He described seeing bullets pass before his eyes and argued ordering the seizure of the orchards was not a crime because the owners had tried to kill their head of state.




Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by intrepid
Reagan survived though. Would it have been different if he had died?


Saddam was never even shot at....


actuily he was

read above quote



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   
OK matey, you are taking your own thread off topic. Back to the topic.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Not getting your point. I was wondering if Reagan had died, would Hinckley's sentance been more severe.


No.

John Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity (mental defect, disease, or disability is the more accepted terminology now).

Here's some background:

www.law.umkc.edu...

Trial particulars:

www.law.umkc.edu...



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul

Originally posted by dbates
I doubt you can show that a U.S. President would order an entire town to death on one person's actions. It's just absurd to even make this analogy.



what about the first few weeks of the in which thousends of Iraqis Died,lost limbs and lost loved ones,
the US president did autorise the war.



Do you just throw darts (blind-folded) on a marked board to get random talking points? No one is trying Saddam for war against Iran, or Kuwait. That's a whole different story. The subject that you brought up was that of Saddam being tried for killing those he thought may be after him. As I pointed out he was a butcher and eliminated anyone in area. He went well beyond the justified retaliation against those that actually sought to kill him. Changing the subject doesn't help your cause out any but it is amusing to see you squirm.



posted on Mar, 2 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

Do you just throw darts (blind-folded) on a marked board to get random talking points? No one is trying Saddam for war against Iran, or Kuwait. That's a whole different story. The subject that you brought up was that of Saddam being tried for killing those he thought may be after him. As I pointed out he was a butcher and eliminated anyone in area. He went well beyond the justified retaliation against those that actually sought to kill him. Changing the subject doesn't help your cause out any but it is amusing to see you squirm.


find that really offencive (guess mods can be offencive

the reason i put that down is because you said the president of the US never order an entire town to death.
when he declared war he condemed thousends to death

that was the objective of the reply

ps if you fell like insulting dont reply



edit:
my org post was about what would happen to people who try and assisnate a head of state any chance of getting back to that?



[edit on 2-3-2006 by bodrul]




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join