If the us was harboring a free Tibet terrorist who was responsible for hundreds of civilian deaths if the Chinese took him it would be without a doubt justice. The Obama situation is not analogous.

The capture of Anas al-Liby by US commandos on Saturday is an appalling violation of international law, not to mention an insult to the new Libyan government who are supposed to be allies of the US, and a clear indication that the US does not recognise the sovereignty of other countries.

Santa the China example was to get you started. The Pakistan example was to really challenge the concept. Obama is as responsible for Pakistani civilian deaths as the Libyan was for terrorist attacks.

Let 'em try in your two example scenarios. They will fail miserably, especially in the *second* scenario. The most heavily protected man in the free world is not going to be captured by any armed commandos from any nation. Killed is another story. Anybody can be assassinated especially if the assassin is on a suicide mission. But kidnapped, not likely. That requires getting in, grabbing him without killing him *and* getting back out.

Draug - we're talking philosopher here not strategy

The point, I think, is whether the US commando raids at the weekend - in particular the raid which captured Anas al-Liby - were justified. If a foreign government sent commandos into the US to capture someone on *their* "wanted list" I'm sure US citizens would be outraged.

There is such a thing as proper channels, and I have seen no indication that the US government approached the Libyan government to seek al-Liby's extradition, nor to request assistance in bringing about his capture. They just sent their commandos into a sovereign nation and kidnapped one of that nation's citizens without so much as a nod or a wink to due process.

@Draug - regardless of whether or not they would fail, would it be right? The fact that they would fail means the the US would not allow foreign military operatives to take people off our streets...and yet we feel we have to right to do so whenever, wherever, without even notifying the government of those countries we operate in...even when we are (marginally) "allied" with them. Incredibly dangerous precendent...and the arrogance of it is simply astounding, especially from Barrack "Apoligist Tour - the US Sucks" Obama

Thank you Krellin - I think this is one of those times when we're completely in agreement. It does send a very dangerous message that the US government doesn't give a shit about international law, international norms, or the sovereignty of other nations.

I know. Philosophically, the first is acceptable and no different than what we did. The second not so much. We haven't kidnapped the ruler of a country we were allies with and the only one we captured was a country we had previously declared war on. So if Iran declared war on us then wanted to try and grab Obama, let them try. But to try it without declaring war first would be an act of war any how. If we tried to grab the Ayatollah, it would be an act of war.

Any attack on a civilian population, military base, ship, unit, or leader is an act of war, be it somebody else against us or us against them.

But grabbing a single person who isn't a member of that country and is just hiding out there is *not* an act of war, just a diplomatic nightmare.

So he was a citizen? Even more outrageous. I do agree that these were immoral if not outright illegal acts. Perhaps the final nail in the coffin to impeach Obama?

What you did is *not* acceptable. He is a Libyan citizen and the Libyan government has publicly stated that it wanted to put him on trial *in Libya*

I have seen signs that there was definite cooperation between Libya and the us in the operation. The men that captured him according to witnesses were accompanied by Libyans and original leaked reports said that Libyans had been contacted. The Libyan government, however, cannot politically admit they assisted, much like they politically couldn't capture liby or put the Benghazi assailants on trial. The us is fine taking flak for it if it means no destabilization in libya. The Libyan government Is a collection of militias, one of which liby had connections to.

OK, so everyone on this forum agrees Obama fucked up and broke international law. We (the US) are responsible for Obama's illegal order and the execution of that order.

Impeach Obama!

The Libyan government has a peculiar way of putting people on trial for the murder of hundreds of people then…

Yes, we all agree he fucked up and should be held liable. Good luck getting an impeachment through the Democratic Senate though.

By the way Jamie, I didn't do anything. The President I didn't elect ordered the military I am no longer a member of to commit a crime. But I didn't do it. My country did. so please, next tame say "What your government/president/country did is *not* acceptable and don't put the onus on the individuals who may or may not have even voted for the idiot in the White House.

@Draug - if it were just a matter of walkign up to someone, puttign the 'cuffs on and escorting him out of the country, that would be one thing. The fact is, we are sending in Special Forces...and, you know, there tends to be a little collateral damage when the military gets involved. We send drones with hellfire missiles to take out a terrorist suspect and the next thing you know 25 people in a convoy are dead, or a village is burning and children are dead...but hey, we got one single target! And to think that special ops guys are magical and never get in a firefight and produce collateral damage is silly.

Thus, every incursion of this sort - regardless of the target - is basically an act of war by the US. that is how WE woudl view it were teh situation reversed, *esecially* if there were collateral damage to structures or civilians.

We have become no better than those nations/organziations we claim to fight against. The only difference is scale and capability.

I already agreed, krellin. don't you know how to read? Fuck man! I'm one of the first to defend your views yet you don't even read what I wrote! The President broke international law! He should be held accountable!

As far as it being an act of war, that depends on the target. Civilian casualties as collateral damage do not make it an act of war. Civilian casualties as the point of the attack make it a war. But I do agree that all these drone strikes being military in nature now make them acts of war. When they were much more limited and done by the CIA, they were on par with covert ops, but not anymore. Obama has become a fucking war monger worse than the Shrub ever was.

If any of you actually think that the Libyan government had the capability of capturing this guy alone you are kidding yourself. The capture WAS against international law. But those of you (Jamiet) who want to pretend that putting Liby on trial in Libya (for a crime Libya has no connection to I might add) you are fooling yourself and doing so quite purposefully.

"The Libyan government has a peculiar way of putting people on trial for the murder of hundreds of people then"

As discussed Obama is responsible for the murder of hundreds of people as well. Yet he's not going on trial either.

Draug, this guy WAS a civilian. Any more than if China came and bombed a house that the Unabomber was staying in, he's not a combatant he's a criminal for God's sake. Criminals need to be held accountable through the law, not through warfare.

I'm pretty sure the US didn't use any drone strikes here, but correct me if I'm wrong. It seems they are getting away from that a little bit lately.

Has Pakistan even requested such a trial?

Come on Santa, I admire your devil's advocacy but look at it this way - what if Syria bombs Tel-Aviv to kill well known Israeli cabinet officials for their part in the murder of Palestinians? Clearly justice cannot be enacted on a whim with a missile.

I would be hard pressed to call military strikes murder. Collateral deaths are not murder as murder requires intent. And the death of the intended target is a military action with cause. That said, the entire fucking middle east should be at war with us right now. They just don't have the forces to do it and none of our allies have the balls to call us out for it and back the middle east militarily.

If Britain, Russia, or China decided enough was enough, we would have our hands full with a third world war where we took on the role of aggressor and probably eventually got our ass kicked - that or we would end up owning the world. I'd actually rather the former than the later as our government seems to be under the impression it is invincible and needs to be brought down a notch.

ad if this post puts me on some CIA/NSA watch list. So be it. Fuck the US imperialistic ways!

@Draug - sorry, I wrote that reply without refreshign the screen and seeing further posts. My bad.

Draug, as much as the NSA would love to stalk you, blankmind is taking up all of their resources on this site.

"Come on Santa, I admire your devil's advocacy but look at it this way - what if Syria bombs Tel-Aviv to kill well known Israeli cabinet officials for their part in the murder of Palestinians? Clearly justice cannot be enacted on a whim with a missile."

Um, they do, through Hezbollah who shells israel from the Lebanese border, but they target civilians instead of cabinet officials who are harder to hit…