Judge Napolitano Asks 'Who Will Obama Illegally Kill Next

reply to post by Flatfish


yep could well be they were covering their own buts but I think it was political Obama is desperate obviously and his puppetmasters want the USA in a war with Pakistan imo. Also this sets the stage for another false flag and this time they take away what's left of your rights.

thx for the link btw a solid read even learnt a few new things. thinkprogress.org...

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

 

Just curious.

Your President, what would you have done in this case?

Better to leave the bodies, remove the kids and blow up the building.

Intellegence gained by taking the computers is more valuable if it is not known that we have gained the information.

Let his supporters dig out the bodies that way there is acknowledgement by the enemy that we have killed thier leader.

You know, after reading this thread and several others like it, i have noticed a trend. The loudest voices against OBL being killed, are not Americans. Yet you all claim to be experts on American policies, and politics, and experts on American law, and the constitution. Some of you even site your own Gov as sources for your information, or you countries MSM. Yet, i wonder, how much can you trust your OWN government? How much can you trust your OWN MSM?

As i remember it Tony Blair and Bush JR were pretty tight during their reigns. They both started the war on terror.

Do you really think your government tells you everything? do you really think they dont control the MSM?


Interesting....

reply to post by Mythos13


man I wish I trusted my gov their just a bit better at hiding their bs
I call them out every chance i get but being Canadian in Harper land I know whatever happens in the USA will happen here. Thats no small part of why I try so hard to bring you guys the facts. If Obama gets taken out for war crimes the fact is Canada will be out of Lybia faster than you can say Steven Harper is a corporate puppet.

Seems to me there was a "story" (not sure if factual) that the Bush administration admitted they had Osama in sight from a drone - - traveling on a horse (or donkey) through the mountains. But the decision to shoot either did not come or did not come in time.

Later Bush said it was a mistake not to shoot. That he regretted not killing Osama when he had the chance.

The sentiment from many was that Osama should be killed on sight.

So - because Osama is out in the open - and spotted by a drone - it is OK to kill him?

But a planned mission - invading a home - obviously protected by the Pakistan government is not?

Would Judge Napolitano say the same thing about Bush - - if Bush had ordered the kill of Osama when he was spotted in the mountains?

Its OK and legal to kill Osama if he is accidentally spotted out in the open - - - but illegal if a planned mission?

Originally posted by Mythos13
You know, after reading this thread and several others like it, i have noticed a trend. The loudest voices against OBL being killed, are not Americans. Yet you all claim to be experts on American policies, and politics, and experts on American law, and the constitution. Some of you even site your own Gov as sources for your information, or you countries MSM. Yet, i wonder, how much can you trust your OWN government? How much can you trust your OWN MSM?

As i remember it Tony Blair and Bush JR were pretty tight during their reigns. They both started the war on terror.

Do you really think your government tells you everything? do you really think they dont control the MSM?


Interesting....

What's your point? Are you suggesting that people outside US don't have the right to criticise the President or the US government? Try telling that to the Europeans who are being force fed fearmongering stories that Europe is now likely to be attacked as a result of Obama's alleged assassination of OBL.

I agree that other governments are corrupt and the MSM pretty much worldwide is a mouthpiece for the satanists, but I don't understand why that means people shouldn't criticise US. The US proudly boasts to be the most powerful country in the world, after all. Horrendous mess they are making of it in that case and criticism is deserved.

I applaud Judge Napolitano for this.

The CIA even stated some time ago that they had NO evidence linking Osama to 9/11.

Although I don't believe the OS and think it is BS, IMO the fact that Obama ordered an assassination should be considered an act of terrorism, based on the government's own (conveniently fluid) definition of that term.

To pursue the logic used by Obama on this - wouldn't it also be ok then for those people who believe Bush was responsible for 9/11 to assassinate him? I'm not inciting violence or murder here, just pursuing logic.

If the president can flout the law and all international treaties, why should anyone else be expected to respect them?

reply to post by wcitizen


Critizing is one thing, but going on about how unconstitutional it was is another. How many people from other countries are familiar with our laws and constitution? If your an expert on our laws and constitution, then argue away, by all means, but if you have never studied it or the laws, then its best you stick with the simple arguments.

Originally posted by Mythos13
reply to post by wcitizen

 

Critizing is one thing, but going on about how unconstitutional it was is another. How many people from other countries are familiar with our laws and constitution? If your an expert on our laws and constitution, then argue away, by all means, but if you have never studied it or the laws, then its best you stick with the simple arguments.

Well sad to say I probably know more about the constitution than most Americans.
Besides he's just repeating what the judge basically said and I do trust his opinion. Has anyone ever caught him lying or being biased? Can anyone argue here that they know the laws better than he does? Not that they dont try but face it not a one of them can back it up.

Originally posted by Mythos13
reply to post by wcitizen

 

Critizing is one thing, but going on about how unconstitutional it was is another. How many people from other countries are familiar with our laws and constitution? If your an expert on our laws and constitution, then argue away, by all means, but if you have never studied it or the laws, then its best you stick with the simple arguments.

I wasn't arguing about your constitution, I was commenting on what Judge Napolitano said.

As it happens, I'm not an expert on your consitution, but I have learned much about it. However, it has also become very obvious to me that many Americans are also not experts on your constitution.

So - you seem to be suggesting that no-one can comment on this unless they are experts in the US constitution. Not only does this exlude the majority of ordinary Americans - it's basically a ridiculous argument.

It doesn't take an expert in the constitution to understand that a president who unilaterally orders cold blooded assassinations is breaking the law.

I believe the same applies to those politicians who called for the execution of Ghaddafi - they were also breaking the law ... it was an incitement to murder. I think Cameron may have been one of them.

Since you disagree and since you seem to consider yourself an expert, please show me where, in your constitution, it says that the president has this right.


OH, AND

Please show me where I 'went on about it being unconstitutional'.....in fact, please show me where I mentioned the constitution at all.

reply to post by wcitizen


Uh.. to my knowledge i did not name ANY names with my comments. I do not know why you took it as a personal attack, when it was not. If my comment does not apply to you, then dont take it personal. If i did have a comment directed targeted to you, i would use your name, and then i would quote what i disagreed with in your statement.

relax...switch to decaf...

Originally posted by Mythos13
reply to post by wcitizen

 

Uh.. to my knowledge i did not name ANY names with my comments. I do not know why you took it as a personal attack, when it was not. If my comment does not apply to you, then dont take it personal. If i did have a comment directed targeted to you, i would use your name, and then i would quote what i disagreed with in your statement.

relax...switch to decaf...

Actually, I didn't take it as a personal attack.....I disagreed with you. Then in a reply to me you mentioned 'going on about the constitution' or some such nonsense .. which I hadn't done. But you know all that already. So feel free to continue spouting hot air if it makes you feel better.

reply to post by wcitizen


My first reply to you, i was answering your question "Whats your point" I was not saying you said anything about the constitution.

Originally posted by Mythos13
reply to post by wcitizen

 

My first reply to you, i was answering your question "Whats your point" I was not saying you said anything about the constitution.

Ok, that's settled then!

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
Other than that, he doesn't have a clue, he gave an order, and watched it on a monitor, seen pictures and videos later... I'm sure it was all very convincing.

I love ATS so much. This is the only place where Obama can be both an incompetent boob and a super secret Kenyan Usurper.

Originally posted by wcitizen
The CIA even stated some time ago that they had NO evidence linking Osama to 9/11.

But he was already a wanted man.
That part seems to be slipping people's minds.

Reply to post by Mythos13

Sweet. Neither I or Napalatano are Americans.

I know that I wish Texas would secede, but did not think it happened already.

Oh well. We still have the judge.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Again, i did not say any names, I think a great many people here read post, and for some reason just see what they want to see, not what people are actually typing.

Maybe we need a translator program...or therapy.....

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by wcitizen
The CIA even stated some time ago that they had NO evidence linking Osama to 9/11.

But he was already a wanted man.
That part seems to be slipping people's minds.

Yes, he was wanted - that means he needed to be questioned, charged and go through a proper legal process.
To say that someone is 'wanted' isn't a warrant to murder them - otherwise everyone on the FBI wanted list could simply be executed in the same way. This is what people keep forgetting, and yet this is a very important point, and it's a very dangerous precedent to support.

reply to post by Dave51495


hes broken many laws and is commiting treason as of now....