I’m all for military tribunals.
Get er done.
Correct. He had nothing to do with it: Responsibility for the September 11 attacks - Wikipedia
Nick is not a big fan of ethical conduct.
In the absence of a specific court conviction and a completed appeals process, Osama bin Laden has met 100% of all of Nick’s ethical standards.
In sharp contrast… Obama DID have something to do with sending murderers into a sovereign country and killing a suspect and his family without trial.
But President Obama wasn’t convicted in a court for it, thus it was perfectly legal and therefore, by your standards, it was even ethical to do so. What is your point?
Jim, I’m in favor of not punishing someone who hasn’t had a fair trial… be that Osama bin Laden, 13-year old captives in the Guantanamo concentration camp, or an industry vendor.
That link takes you to what I posted.
It does not help your case.
You already agreed with the ESOP on the matter.
You can’t have it both ways this late in the game.
Noting that your defense of Osama bin Laden and certain industry vendors are equal in fervor … I think that what you miss in both cases is how unethical and undesirable conduct can and should be addressed for the public good … with or without a court conviction of a crime.
In both cases, the lack of a documented criminal court conviction is not necessarily a character reference for either, IMO, but your endorsement for both is well noted.
Also noted is your judgment of finding of the President’s guilt for “murder” — with the same absence of a criminal conviction from which you have judged the innocence of other vermin, simply because of their similar lack of a criminal conviction for their crimes, as well. Your bias seems to have taken over your logic.
Why does the absence of a criminal conviction make bin Laden, et al innocent and the same absence of a criminal conviction make the President of the United States guilty of “murder”?
That’s like saying Obama had nothing to do with the IRS targeting of conservative groups.
While it’s likely that neither gave the “direct order,” it was their (Osama’s & Obama’s) faithful followers who knew this is what their “commander’s” would want and approve of.
Do you think there’s any record of Hitler actually commanding to round up and kill the Jews and Christians? When you know what your commander wants, there’s no reason to wait for the order.
I wish the Marines at Guantanamo who have yet to release innocent captives their own commander in chief wants released… find your post. I agree with it.
You twist worse than Nathan Thornberry :roll:
Obama has miserably failed at closing GITMO.
Frankly I have no problem with GITMO except:
Military tribunals should be carried out for each prisoner but Obama is against that.
I think I’m consistent in my stance that everyone deserves a fair trial. Osama bin Laden did, the innocent men and boys that the Marines kept in captivity for so many years did, industry vendors do, and Kahn in the Star Trek movie does.
Punishing people without even letting them have their day court is dishonorable.
Are you trying to claim that a automatic kill order was on bin laden’s head?
Try proving that Nick.
None of us were at his compound when it was taken.
So if Pakistan sends a special ops force to Montana to capture Dick Cheney and they end up killing his whole family… you’re OK with that, provided I can’t prove a kill order was issued?
I think I’m consistent in my stance that everyone deserves a fair trial. Osama bin Laden did, the innocent men and boys that the Marines kept in captivity for so many years did, industry vendors do, Kahn in the Star Trek movie does, and Dick Cheney and his wife in my hypothetical do.
Punishing people without even letting them have their day court is dishonorable.
I’m sure the families of the victims of 9/11 would take issue with your statement.
Spoiler Alert.
Kirk dies.
Again?
“The needs of the many… outweigh the needs of the few… or the one.”