Should Obama be put on trial for war crimes?

Posted on August 22nd, 2011 by admin1 in republican consulting

I’m not a republican, I’m a libertarian.
I’m curious why the far left continue to call for Bush to be put trial for war crimes when so far Obama has authorized bombings in 6 different countries all being Muslim. Now Obama has went as far to Authorize air strikes on Libya without consulting congress and it clearly goes against our constitution. So should Obama be arrested and held for trial on war crimes?

US is already violating resolution 1973 by arming the rebels through Egypt.

Killing Gaddafi would be a war crime because it clearly qualifies as an act of “treachery” under Article 23 of the Hague Convention IV of 1907. Even in times of declared war, assassinating a leader under false pretenses is illegal.

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and British Prime Minister David Cameron have all gone on record to state that Gaddafi “must go,” “needs to go,” and has “lost his legitimacy”. The targeted bomb strikes on his compound confirm this detail

Since the assault was launched under UN auspices with the presumed “legitimacy” of the international community, it directly violates the UN’s own charter in that the entire scope of the mission is about regime change, supporting one side in a civil war, and has nothing whatsoever to do with “protecting civilians”.

As Commander in Chief he is also responsible for the US Army ‘kill team’ in Afghanistan who posed for photos of murdered civilians for sport

War is Illegal

"All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

12 Comments on “Should Obama be put on trial for war crimes?”

  1. Muso dude :)

    Should Bush? Or Clinton?References :

  2. Lordpercy Wooster

    you need to read the constitution
    he is commander in chief no mention of requiring congress’ permission

    no but you should not ask questions until you do your Research

    Open QuestionShow me another »
    How has Obama acted illegally by attacking Libya without Congressional approval?
    The War Powers Resolution expressly states in chapter 33, section 1547:

    (d) Constitutional authorities or existing treaties unaffected; construction against grant of Presidential authority respecting use of United States Armed Forces
    Nothing in this chapter—
    (1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provisions of existing treaties; or
    (2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President with respect to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances which authority he would not have had in the absence of this chapter.

    Therefore President Obama can launch this attack without Congressional approval at all even after 90 days has expired pursuant to the UN Charter and UN Security Council Resolution 1973 since Congress has voluntarily abdicated their power to declare war here.
    14 minutes ago – 4 days left to answer. Report Abuse Additional Details
    source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc…
    14 minutes ago

    Here it is even more explicitly:

    (b) Joint headquarters operations of high-level military commands
    Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require any further specific statutory authorization to permit members of United States Armed Forces to participate jointly with members of the armed forces of one or more foreign countries in the headquarters operations of high-level military commands which were established prior to November 7, 1973, and pursuant to the United Nations Charter or any treaty ratified by the United States prior to such date.
    9 minutes agoReferences :

  3. Bleech

    obama – maybe.

    george bush and tony blair – DEFIANTLY!References :

  4. thegubmint

    No.

    Same answer I had for the same question about Bush and Clinton.References :

  5. Derail

    You have a good point. The media gives Obama a pass on things Bush was verbally beat up for. When Bush went golfing, the media really rode him for it. So Bush stopped golfing the rest of his term. During the Tsunamis in Japan, the Libya air strikes, and 10% unemployment, Obama is out on the course sometimes twice a week. And the media?…………(crickets chirping here.)References :

  6. AtS- Abraxas

    Obviously you know nothing about the United Nations Resolution 1973
    http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10200.doc.htmReferences :

  7. Akihito's Butt

    Obama should be put on trial for crimes against the USA.References :

  8. raggnaar

    Wake up, silly rabbit, only the LOSERS of war get tried for war crimes. The winners are squeaky clean do-gooders. Except for Lt. William Calley, and them guards that photographed that naked pyramid of towel-heads.References :

  9. Tuesday snow

    Perhaps you should listen to the news, or you would have know that the decision was the United nations, and its a humanitarian rescue.. Stop hating Obama, and grow up.. Prejudices serve no purpose(.Libertarian people have no consciences.) as anything goes for the libertarian…The underworld lives for the Libertarian..Economy so they say, with filth and corruption.References :

  10. herbie7754

    Obama has commited no war crimes.
    Gadaffi, on the other hand, is directly responsible for thousands of civilian deaths in his own country.
    The Libyan people want him outReferences :

  11. Jonathan Soh

    the UN has already given an official mandate that authorises the use of all means necessary to enforce a no fly zone in libya. so no, it is not a crime. and the air strikes were on strategic anti air defences and certain bases only. if every person who authorises use of force should be jailed, then the british prime minister cameron and french president should be jailed too, no?References :

  12. John Galt

    US is already violating resolution 1973 by arming the rebels through Egypt.

    Killing Gaddafi would be a war crime because it clearly qualifies as an act of “treachery” under Article 23 of the Hague Convention IV of 1907. Even in times of declared war, assassinating a leader under false pretenses is illegal.

    Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and British Prime Minister David Cameron have all gone on record to state that Gaddafi “must go,” “needs to go,” and has “lost his legitimacy”. The targeted bomb strikes on his compound confirm this detail

    Since the assault was launched under UN auspices with the presumed “legitimacy” of the international community, it directly violates the UN’s own charter in that the entire scope of the mission is about regime change, supporting one side in a civil war, and has nothing whatsoever to do with “protecting civilians”.

    As Commander in Chief he is also responsible for the US Army ‘kill team’ in Afghanistan who posed for photos of murdered civilians for sport

    War is Illegal

    "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

    "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."References : The Kellogg-Briand Pact and the United Nations Charter.

Leave a Reply

More News