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.
Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by UcDat
I don't find myself disagreeing with the judge that often. But I certainly don't agree with him here.
Osama was an enemy of the US and a military target.
Military targets get 3 things:
bullets
bombs
military tribunals
Obama chose to give the a-hole a bullet, and I won't shed a tear over it.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Pakistan's Washington lobbyists have launched an intense campaign on Capitol Hill to counter accusations that Islamabad was complicit in giving refuge to Osama bin Laden.
Alarmed by lawmakers' demands to cut off billions of dollars of U.S. aid after bin Laden was found living in a Pakistani safe house for six years, President Asif Ali Zardari has ordered a full-court press to quell mounting accusations that it helped the al Qaeda leader avoid capture.
Mark Siegel, a partner in the Washington lobbying firm of Locke Lord Strategies -- which is paid $75,000 a month by the Pakistani government -- told Reuters on Thursday he had spoken twice to Zardari since U.S. special forces killed bin Laden on Sunday, and "countless" times to the Pakistani ambassador in Washington.
Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by UcDat
You don't try military targets in court.
You kill and destroy them.
Yeah! lets accuse me of being a fascist because I don't agree with your stupid interpretations of what a military target is!edit on 4-5-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)
You don't try military targets in court.
Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by ~Lucidity
That right there is a legitimate argument.
If he was unarmed it would explain why the administration is fumbling with the version of events.
Shooting an unarmed enemy combatant is, in fact, illegal.
Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Ha...ghost.
It's sounding worse and worse. Have you seen this? www.abovetopsecret.com...
Originally posted by wcitizen
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.edit on 5-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)
We killed plenty of people during those, even by proxy. Remember Saddam?
Originally posted by debris765nju
This guy, he just outed obama, bush for all the misfortunes of AmericaBACKGROUND
Stephen Pieczenik is
Originally posted by backinblack
Wasn't he captured "alive" and put on trial??
Ya know, the LEGAL way.....
Originally posted by Sinnthia
Originally posted by wcitizen
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.edit on 5-5-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)
He openly declared war upon the US and engaged in acts of war agains the US and it's interests. There is a big difference between being wanted for murder and being wanted as a military adversary, is there not? You know how many people have been killed in the two wars in the Middle East? Are you worried about all their trials or just Osama?
Interesting how you completely skipped over "lots of people" and centered on Saddam. You guys know we have been killing people in the Middle East for a long time now right? I guess I just did not realize what a hero Osama was to so many Americans.