Even after being called to task by Congress Obama is continuing his illegal slaughter of innocent civilians in Libya. As has been pointed out by many this is a completely illegal war of aggression with no defined goals and no exit strategy. It appears that the power hungry Obama is murdering civilians solely because he can. Perhaps he is giddy with glee over the thought of the mangled corpses he has created.
Our purpose for being in Libya is completely unclear. We all know that Libya did not attack us on 9/11/2001, Obama has allegedly already dispatched Osama bin Laden although literally no proof of this has ever been shown, so our mission is completely gratuitous and without merit.
Obama should be impeached for war crimes and crimes against humanity because of this outrageous abuse of Presidential powers.
In previous posts, I’ve gone into great detail about the various ways that the Obama Administration is violating the law, breaking promises made by candidate Obama, and ignoring prudential restraints on executive power. For now, I merely invite readers to ask themselves whether dropping ordinance on a country 132 times in three months constitutes war or hostilities – or neither, as Obama claims.
Yes, says a source who is no friend of George W. Bush:
Osama bin Laden wasn’t killed by a Navy SEAL team — he was straight up executed.
– Michael Moore in an exclusive interview with The Wrap, May 4, 2011
Given all of the conflicting narratives surrounding what actually happened during the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound it is not surprising that this claim is surfacing. I am surprised by the source, though. But maybe not. This is Michael Moore’s type of issue. You loved his Columbine. He wow’ed you with Fahrenheit 9/11. So why not this?
But before you go all kook nuttery on me, there is actually something to this. There are a lot of legal scholars debating whether this killing was actually legal, or not. Of course the Obama Administration claims they were completely legally justified, but other more independent voices are not so certain. Obviously the Obama Administration was concerned about the whole legality issue which is why they were initially claiming that Osama bin Laden was an active participant in a firefight with the Navy SEALS who ultimately killed him. They painted a picture of a fight straight out of a Hollywood script to insure that the official record could not be questioned.
But then another account came out in which only one person in the house was actually armed and they were killed on the first floor. Osama was killed on the third floor and he was apparantly unarmed at the time. This, of course, is now raising serious questions about whether the killing was justified. And of course the White House has now ceased releasing any details regarding how the incident actually went down. This is all very suspicious. As was the haste with which Osama was sent to sleep with the fishes.
Taking Obama at his word that Osama was actually dispatched from this world we need to have the details of the raid released so that the legality of the operation can be properly assessed. At a time when the Obama Administration is actively investigating the Bush era personnel who conducted the enhanced interrogations that pointed our intelligence community down the path of tracking Osama bin Laden down we need to also be mindful of excesses on the part of this administration. After all, there are active investigations into whether the enhanced interrogation of a handful of terrorists violated the Geneva Conventions, so too should there be an investigation into whether Obama has likewise violated the Geneva Conventions by summarily executing Osama bin Laden. Like it or not, if waterboarding is a violation of those conventions then an unlawful execution would certainly be a war crime.
I think we need to have an independent investigator look into whether Obama is guilty of a war crime here. Given the current stance of this administration vis a vis the enhanced interrogations they should be self-consistent and seek an investigation into their own activities surrounding this raid. The American people are owed the truth.
Now I have a lot more investigating to do on this subject. I have not reached a final conclusion as of yet since there are too many facts out there which are not yet in evidence. But the reading I have been doing thus far is not encouraging. See for yourself, though. I am attaching pointers to all of the material I have researched thus far for your continued consideration.
General Material About the raid:
- Michael Moore: ‘Bin Laden Was Executed’ | The Wrap Movies.
- Limbaugh And Obama Dead-Enders Lash Out After Bin Laden’s Death | Media Matters for America.
- Obama values: Kill, but don’t question bin Laden.
- Bin Laden Got the Death He Deserved — End of Discussion. – FoxNews.com.
- Osama Bin Laden lived in squalor in his Pakistan compound, new video shows.
Regarding the differing accounts of the raid:
- The Bin Laden Raid: Anatomy of a Sloppy Spin Job | The Wrap Media.
- Osama Bin Laden: Navy SEALS Operation Details of Raid That Killed 9/11 Al Qaeda Leader.
- Bin Laden unarmed during raid, White House says – USATODAY.com.
- NationalJournal.com – Updating the Narrative: Osama bin Laden’s Death – Thursday, May 5, 2011.
- White House goes silent on bin Laden raid – The Washington Post.
Regarding the kill order:
- NationalJournal.com – For Obama, Killing–Not Capturing–bin Laden Was Goal – Wednesday, May 4, 2011.
- ‘We aimed to kill, not capture, Osama bin Laden’ – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.
- New facts Navy Seal Team 6: ’On a mission to kill not capture Osama bin Laden’ – National Political Transcripts | Examiner.com.
- Special forces mission was Kill not capture Osama Bin Laden | The Economic Voice.
- Special Forces Ordered to Kill Bin Laden – Defense/Middle East – Israel News – Israel National News.
- Avoiding Double Standards on Osama Bin Laden – Defense/Middle East – Israel News – Israel National News.
Regarding the legality of the killing:
- Did the U.S. Violate Bin Ladens Rights? – FoxNews.com.
- Bin Laden Sons Say U.S. Violated International Law – NYTimes.com.
- The killing of bin Laden: Was it legal? – CNN.
- Gabor Rona: Was Killing Osama Bin Laden Legal?.
- Is Osama bin Laden killing legal? International Law experts divided.
- UN ‘experts’ call on U.S. to give details of Bin Laden killing.
- Analysis: Legal questions remain over bin Laden killing | Reuters.
- Concerns raised over shooting of unarmed bin Laden | Reuters.
- Was bin Laden’s killing and burial legal? – Features – Al Jazeera English.
- Osama Bin Laden Killing: Was It Legal Under International Law? – ABC News.
I have been following the news after the death of Osama bin Laden and there is a growing narrative questioning the legality of the Obama Administration’s actions in that incident. As part of my initial investigation into this topic I came across the following article by Owen Fiss in the Boston Review.
It is a well written article which deals mainly with the policies of the Obama Administration and how they are merely extensions of the Geroge W. Bush policies that were in place before he was elected. The author makes a very good case for how Obama doesn’t deserve any sympathy for where he finds himself with respect to the handling of Al Qaeda prisoners.
Here is a short list of quotes taken directly from the piece that I found particularly enlightening:
- “Obama proposed legislation to revise the evidentiary rules governing military commissions. The result was the Military Commissions Act of 2009, under which Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and [four other] Guantánamo prisoners will now be tried. In proposing this measure, Obama built upon similar initiatives by Bush, who had issued in November 2001 an executive order establishing military commissions for the trial of Guantánamo prisoners.”
- “The 2009 Act thus constitutes a further institutionalization of an irregular alternative that the government might use—for reasons we will never wholly know—to prosecute suspected terrorists whom the president determines are not protected by the Third Geneva Convention (Bush referred to them as unlawful enemy combatants; Obama calls them unprivileged enemy belligerents).”
- “In the past, military commissions have been used on the battlefield to try belligerents caught red-handed and accused of war crimes. In such circumstances they have been allowed as tribunals of necessity. The 2009 Act and Bush’s earlier measures transformed them into tribunals of convenience, for the statutory changes allowed military commissions to be used for trials at Guantánamo—far removed from any battlefield—for persons held years for on end, in some cases almost a decade.”
- “Given his National Archives speech and his sponsorship of the Military Commissions Act of 2009, Obama is in no position to complain of the threat that the use of military commissions in these circumstances poses to due process.”
- “In his National Archives speech, Obama not only defended the use of military commissions, but also endorsed Bush’s policy of imprisoning suspected terrorists without providing them with a trial of any type.”
- “Obama denies that habeas is available for the prisoners of Bagram, just as Bush denied it was available for the Guantánamo prisoners.“
- “Given his support for military commissions and indefinite detention without trial, Obama’s determination to close Guantánamo has become a gesture of doubtful significance.”
- “The June 2008 Supreme Court decision in Boumediene v. Bush relieved Obama from having to take any position on the availability of habeas corpus for Guantánamo prisoners, for in that case, the Court upheld the constitutional right of Guantánamo detainees to the writ. … In response to habeas petitions from prisoners held at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, Obama’s lawyers have argued in Al Maqaleh v. Gates that the Boumediene decision should be confined to Guantánamo and Guantánamo alone, and that the prison at Bagram—a facility maintained by the United States and one to which terrorism suspects from the four corners of the earth have been brought—lies beyond the reach of the Constitution. In taking this position, Obama has further deprived the act of closing Guantánamo of meaning.”
- “In February 2011 the district court, over the objection of Obama’s lawyers, permitted the prisoners to amend their habeas petition and thus proceed to an evidentiary hearing on their claim.”
- “Obama, rather than dismantling Bush’s counterterrorism apparatus, has in crucial respects perpetuated it. He has sought to deny habeas corpus to Bagram prisoners, endorsed the policy of imprisonment without trial, and, as vividly indicated by the turnaround with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, continued the use of military commissions. … With Obama’s sanction, Bush’s counterterrorism policies have become durable features of our legal order. They have shaped our understanding of what is acceptable, and may well serve as precedents for a less reluctant president.“
This last part is particularly poignant. For all of the bluster from the Democrats during the Bush Administration regarding Guantanamo Bay and the rights of the Al Qaeda terrorists what we now see is not only the perpetuation of the Bush Policies but in some cases their emulation and expansion.
Read the original in its entirety: