Was the Hit on Bin Laden Illegal?

[Feuer Frei!]

Yes yes, i know, we are covering old ground here perhaps, rehashing ideas or whatnot but i thought i'd link this because i think it raises some good points which i haven't seen raised on the forum here:


The May 2 raid that killed Osama bin Laden (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/%3Cstrong%3ESee%20Also:%3C/strong%3E%3Cbr/%3E%20%3Cul%3E%20%3Cli%3E%3Ca%20href=%22http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/what-did-pakistan-know-about-bin-laden/%22%3EWhat%20Did%20Pakistan%20Know%20About%20bin%2 0Laden?%3C/a%3E%3C/li%3E%20%3Cli%3E%3Ca%20href=%22http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/pakistan-when-you-think-about-it-we-killed-bin-laden/%3Futm_source%3Dfeedburner%26utm_medium%3Dfeed%26u tm_campaign%3DFeed%253A%2BWiredDangerRoom%2B%28Blo g%2B-%2BDanger%2BRoom%29%22%3EPakistan:%20When%20You%20 Think%20About%20It,%20We%20Killed%20bin%20Laden%3C/a%3E%3C/li%3E%20%3Cli%3E%3Ca%20href=%22http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/watch-osamas-blooper-reel-courtesy-of-the-navy-seals/%3Fpid%3D426%22%3EWatch:%20Osama---39;s%20Blooper%20Reel,%20Courtesy%20of%20the%20Nav y%20SEALs%3C/a%3E%3C/li%3E%20%3Cli%3E%3Ca%20href=%22http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/video-inside-bin-ladens-drone-proof-compound/3/%22%3EVideo:%20Inside%20bin%20Laden---39;s%20Drone-Proof%20Compound%3C/a%3E%3C/li%3E%20%3Cli%3E%3Ca%20href=%22http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/csi-bin-laden-commandos-use-thumb-eye-scans-to-track-terrorists/%22%3ECSI%20bin%20Laden:%20Commandos%20Use%20Thumb ,%20Eye%20Scans%20to%20Track%20Terrorists%20...%3C/a%3E%3C/li%3E%20%3Cli%3E%3Ca%20href=%22http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/aviation-geeks-scramble-to-i-d-osama-raids-mystery-copter/all/1%22%3EAviation%20Geeks%20Scramble%20to%20ID%20bin %20Laden%20Raid---39;s%20Mystery%20Copter%20...%3C/a%3E%3C/li%3E%20%3C/ul%3E) in his Abbottabad, Pakistan, compound was a combination of virtuoso intelligence-gathering (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/with-drones-and-satellites-u-s-zeroed-in-on-bin-laden/) and analysis (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/csi-bin-laden-commandos-use-thumb-eye-scans-to-track-terrorists/), impressive technological prowess and incredible bravery by the strike team; and their dog (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/no-navy-seal-dogs-dont-have-titanium-teeth/). But one thing it might not have been is legal.
Which is not to say it wasn't necessary, and even good. Clearly, bin Laden deserved to die; and the world is a safer place with him gone. But just because the man needed killing, doesn't mean the hit that took him out didn't bend or even break U.S. law.
The legality of the bin Laden hit is neither a pointless question nor a purely academic one. Our laws are meaningless if we don't respect them. In a complex and dangerous world, a solid foundation of law helps ensure the peaceful coexistence of nations with ample reason to fear each other. In short, if we broke our laws in order to kill bin Laden, we risk the kind of behavior typical of a rogue state. And we all know how the world feels (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/04/nato-bombs-gadhafi-cribs-but-not-to-kill-him-honest/) about rogue states.
In considering the legal case, some observers have focused on whether bin Laden was armed (http://www.slate.com/id/2293111/) and fought his Navy SEAL assailants. But that's confusing covert and military actions with cases of armed self-defense by cops and civilians here at home. The situations couldn't be more different.
No, the legal issue actually boils down to one central question: Was the attack on Osama bin Laden truly a CIA-dominated covert action, or was it a mostly military one? The distinction matters because different U.S. legal codes apply to each category. Covert operations fall under Title 50. Military ops, under Title 10. In either case, the killing of the Al Qaeda chief presents legal problems.

That's why the White House has carefully avoided both definitions, instead letting the raid fall into a fictional legal category that Jim Thomas, an expert in political-military relations from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, called Title 60. In other words, the sum of Titles 10 and 50.
The day after the raid, CIA Director Leon Panetta deftly described the attack both ways (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june11/panetta_05-03.html) to PBS. After referring to the attack as a Title 50 operation commanded by him personally, Panetta quickly backtracked. I have to tell you that the real commander was [Special Forces] Adm. [William] McRaven because he was on site, and he was actually in charge of the military operation that went in and got bin Laden.
Moreover, the raid's manpower was mostly or even entirely military, as were the secretive stealthy helicopters (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/aviation-geeks-scramble-to-i-d-osama-raids-mystery-copter/) that transported the attackers. Also, the strongest potential legal cover for the attack could come from Congress 2001 authorization of the use of force against Al Qaeda something that wouldn't necessarily apply to a covert action.
This muddling on Panetta's part is deliberate, according to Milt Bearden, a retired CIA station chief who headed agency operations in Pakistan in the 1980s. That's the ultimate duty of lawyering as you're looking at it and thinking about it, the box keeps turning itself inside out, Bearden said.
In the best case, the killing of bin Laden exists in legal limbo. If the raid was definitively Title 10, it violated a slew of restrictions on the use of military force in a country that is not a formal enemy of the United States, this despite the Congressional authorization for using force against Al Qaeda. If it was Title 50, it could possibly be characterized as a political assassination, which is illegal (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/05/killing-osama-was-it-legal.html) under a 1976 Executive Order.
As lawyers and academics mull the legal implications of the Abbottabad raid, one expert cautions against taking too legalistic an approach to the problem. You don't want to argue against getting bin Laden, said Karen Greenberg, executive director of the Center on Law and Security at New York University.
Instead, Greenberg said, we need to understand what laws we broke so that we can fix the laws. What does it mean to have a targeted-killing policy and what are the rules? she asked rhetorically. With updated codes perhaps including a real Title 60, we could pull off future high-profile hits on terrorist leaders without breaking our own laws.
The ramifications of this, Greenberg said, need to be for the next bin Laden.


SOURCE (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/was-the-hit-on-bin-laden-illegal/#more-46323)





(http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/was-the-hit-on-bin-laden-illegal/#more-46323)

(http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/was-the-hit-on-bin-laden-illegal/#more-46323)

[Gerald]

Edit the text better, :timeout:

[Feuer Frei!]

Edit the text better, :timeout:
Done.

[Gerald]

Done. Good.And for the title in question, so I think that there has been no fault, on the sweep against OBL, or former OBL.

[Feuer Frei!]

Good.And for the title in question, so I think that there has been no fault, on the sweep against OBL, or former OBL.
Indeed, and the article linked states so.
The article raises some interesting questions though, not on wether OBL should have been targeted in such a fashion from a moral stand point but, from more of a legal stand point.
The article does indeed not attempt to dissuade readers of the notion that it was wrong necessarily to kill him, morally speaking ofc.
I personally find this interesting because it asks questions which aren't based purely on the monotonous articles so far in circulation which ONLY deal with the moral aspect of the assassination.

[Tribesman]

If Raul Castro had sent some super commanderos to America on donkey powered stealth rafts and carried out an exrta judicial killing of Carriles for his role in blowing up planes and bombing hotels would it be called legal?

[mookiemookie]

Indeed, and the article linked states so.
The article raises some interesting questions though, not on wether OBL should have been targeted in such a fashion from a moral stand point but, from more of a legal stand point.
The article does indeed not attempt to dissuade readers of the notion that it was wrong necessarily to kill him, morally speaking ofc.
I personally find this interesting because it asks questions which aren't based purely on the monotonous articles so far in circulation which ONLY deal with the moral aspect of the assassination.

I enjoyed it for those reasons too. It does seem to fall through a legal crack here. Or maybe it'll be pushed down that legal crack by those in charge. :03: Regardless, I doubt anything will come of it. Nobody is going to go to jail for killing the world's most wanted man.

My favorite part:

Our laws are meaningless if we don't respect them. In a complex and dangerous world, a solid foundation of law helps ensure the peaceful coexistence of nations with ample reason to fear each other.

[Onkel Neal]

If Raul Castro had sent some super commanderos to America on donkey powered stealth rafts and carried out an exrta judicial killing of Carriles for his role in blowing up planes and bombing hotels would it be called legal?

Of course not, because they are Cuba. For the US, anything we want is legal. You can't stop us. :cool:

[Tribesman]

You can't stop us.
But we can ridicule you if you try to claim it was legal.

[STEED]

To be honest I don't give a s*** that turd is dead, legal or not.

Now let us go forward and get the rest of these pig dogs.

[AVGWarhawk]

But we can ridicule you if you try to claim it was legal.


But who is really listening? :hmmm:

[Onkel Neal]

But we can ridicule you if you try to claim it was legal.
And no one will laugh louder than me :haha:

[Randomizer]

I think that this question is on the same level as asking how many angels can swim in the head of a beer and so is unanswerable in terms of the political realities surrounding international terrorists.

That said I do not believe there is a military solution to terrorism under most conditions but the military does have parts to play. Rather, terrorists should be treated as criminals and police methods coupled with effective intelligence gathering and sharing should be sufficient to thwart that vast majority of terrorist outrages on home soil. Realistically you will probably never stop them all regardless of the methods or amounts of firepower used.

Terrorists and their organizations are not nation states and so I would submit that the legal ban on political assassination cannot apply to them since they are effectively criminal entities. Their nature also renders them extra-territorial, they move freely across international boundries and may receive covert or overt support from certain nation states that might have similar agendas. Historically projecting military power across international borders constitued an irrevocable act of war. The most extreme example of this was World War One where Austria-Hungary had solid evidence that the assassination of Franz Ferdinand was engineered by Serbian military intelligence. The only legal option after the failure of (half-hearted) diplomacy was a formal declaration of war and we all know how well that worked out. What would the world today look like had they sent a covert hit squad to Belgrade and executed the shadowy Colonel "Apis", the man behind the murder plot, in his bed? No doubt there would have been formal protests but probably no world war would have resulted.

Essentially America has put terrorist leaders around the world on notice: you cannot hid and your friends in high places cannot save you. Period. A 5.56mm double-tap awaits those who see themselves as leaders of their movements and terror applied to innocents will now be returned to sender. This is the role that the military is best suited to play in the fight against global terrorism. the controlled application of precision violence delivered up close and personal. This is how you deal with terrorists, not with airstrikes or drones (although they may have applications in some situations).

International relations have changed since 2001 and surgical strikes may be expected to cross borders under certain circumstances. Since it is inconcievable that members of the Pakistani government and or military had no knowledge of OBL's whereabouts regardless of what their PM says, those nations that nurture or ignore the terrorists in their midst can expect the sort of action seen on 1 May 2011.

Sometimes it will go wrong and the cost of failure will always need to be measured against the potential gain. However, if the fear of a bullet in the head while watching Iranian Idle causes future terrorist leaders to scatter and isolate themselves from their followers as their only defence, the US Special Forces will have won an important round for all of us.

Bravo Zulu gentlemen. We owe you.

Apologies for the wall of text.

[DarkFish]

If Raul Castro had sent some super commanderos to America on donkey powered stealth rafts and carried out an exrta judicial killing of Carriles for his role in blowing up planes and bombing hotels would it be called legal?This.

Just killing people without sentencing them first is always wrong IMO. This was just an assassination. They should have brought him to court, and then sentence him to death. But killing people without bringing them to justice? No. If we allow that to happen, where will it end? The next time, it's the US assassinating Raul Castro. The time after that its a US maffia boss. The time after that it's an opposition leader. Next the government assassinates anyone they don't like and you end up with a police state.

A state that doesn't obey its own laws is a state without laws.

[mookiemookie]

Apologies for the wall of text.

No apology needed. Great points, great post.

[Jaguar]

It´s somewhat similar to what Israel did to Eichmann isn´t it?

[Growler]

The notable reason for the OBL hit is this: There weren't too many nations that were going to sit down and have a chat with the man; AQ and derivatives were responsible for mayhem and murder on a mass scale around the world. The Western allies were uniform (publicly at least) on the stand against OBL.

Comparing Castro with the US is apples to oranges. One nation's sanctioning of a guy by itself is not the same as unilateral support from the global community.

Is it right? Each will interpret the morality of the action their own way. But the weight of world opinion about OBL supported the actions taken, be it by SEALs, SAS, or any other combat team.

[Skybird]

The police slamming in the door and shooting a suspect in his flat when he grabs for a weapon - legal or not? I promise you, by laws of all your countries you guys live in: absolutely legal.

WWII, the Allies waged war against a sovereign nation and finally enforced entry onto its territory. Isn'T this a violation of the sovereignity of said country that was minding just its own busioness and quarells with its immediate neighbours?

And bombing the cities of Dreseden an Ham,burg, was that really necessary? The russians cracking down on the 6th army in Stalingrad - why haven'T they just arrested them instead of shooting and killing them? If you were in the Germans' place - surrounded from all sides, constantly being shot at, and cut off all supplies, wouldn'T have you fought back then, too? No wonder that the Germans shot back at the Russians, what did the Russians expect when slamming in the door like they tried? The Russians wanted too much, really.

You cannot pay back violence for violence, by that you are not any better than the claimed aggressor is himself. Also, who is the aggressor really is a question of own position, I would say. One has to see things in relation a bit.

And then, has anyone ever thought what it meant for the soul and mind of the Uberfather of a whole nation, Adolf Hitler, to be bullied and forced to live under the earth? When nobody likes you and evades you, would you be able to nevertheless send a constant smile out into the world? For how long? Imagine you would need to live like he did in the end, in a dark ugly hole in the earth, wouldn't you say it was inhumane a treatement that he received? Obviously it left scars in the soul of this man, it made him committing suicide. Obviously an unbearable ammount of pressure has been brought upon him. One is wondering if this was really necessary. In the end, he still was a human being. By making him committing suicide, one has created a mártyr how encourag es people until today to adopt his teaching and live by his example. If Hitler would have been caught alive and brought to social therapy in a resocialisation program, we would not need to worry about Neonazis today.

Keep the ball low, guys. Tryx to feel a little bit more of humane understanding for the other guy. It would make the world a better place if you do. Violence never has solved anything.

[Jaguar]

Is it right? Each will interpret the morality of the action their own way. But the weight of world opinion about OBL supported the actions taken, be it by SEALs, SAS, or any other combat team.

Based in what a friend posted long time ago I guess that, morally speaking, the murder of human beings is wrong in almost every single case. But the violence that arises with terrorism conventionalizes this state of affairs and, morally relativistic as it sounds, there is no longer a clear-cut black and white state of moral right and wrong. There is merely the rationally, logically justifiable. One may consider OBL´s murder illegal or even immoral. It was also perfectly legitimate.

[Skybird]

Deutsche Oberlehrer und der erhobene Zeigefinger deutscher Riesenzwerge (http://freie.welt.de/2011/05/09/die-wut-uber-den-beweis-amerikanischer-macht/)

[Betonov]

I say Illegal, but ultimately neccesary.

When I heard he was dead, I made a grin the size of that cat from Alice in Wonderland. It's a jungle out there, and you cant talk your way out of a hungry panthers claws.
The rule of law is only as effective, as long as both sides obey it. The US goverment would never assasinate a Slovenian citizen, because Slovenia obeys international laws. OBL didn't. He abused them

[MH]

They should had asked Pakistani for extradition.:haha:

[Molon Labe]

To me the only issue is whether OBL surrendered to the SEAL team or not. The fact that seems to get lost in the lawfare is that the US and Al Qaeda are at war. All this talk about arrest and trial misses that point. In war, you have no obligation to arrest your enemy and bring him to court; you're expected simply to destroy him... unless, he surrenders. In that case he becomes a prisoner and is generally protected from legal proceedings, other than those for violation of the law of war.

I don't think OBL likely had a chance to surrender, as the SEALs probably shot him before they believed he could set off a suicide bomb. And the SEALs had no obligation to give him an opportunity to surrender, all that matter is whether he in fact did surrender.

[Jaguar]

To me the only issue is whether OBL surrendered to the SEAL team or not. The fact that seems to get lost in the lawfare is that the US and Al Qaeda are at war.

It´s highly debatable whether an organized State can wage war* against such an immaterial organization as Al-Qaeda.


* - a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties within a nation; todays asymmetric conflicts represents a portentous challenge to this definition.

[Randomizer]

WWII, the Allies waged war against a sovereign nation and finally enforced entry onto its territory. Isn'T this a violation of the sovereignity of said country that was minding just its own busioness and quarells with its immediate neighbours?
This might be true most times when dealing with a soveriegn nation state but it has zero applicability to extra-territorial terrorists. Terrorists bare no relation to countries however they do greatly resemble criminal organizations but instead of trading in illegal money, terrorists trade in violence.

Moral relativism aside sometimes violence is effective, might does make right and in any last-man-standing situation the resources of the focused and politically united nation state should be able to defeat terrorists with the application of law at home and controlled but appropraite firepower abroad.

Up to the adaption of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) by the UN in the wake of the Rwanda genocide, the norms of international relations dating from the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia affirmed (in a rather broad nutshell) what happened inside a nations borders was the responsibility of that nation alone. R2P allowed intervention across national boundries to save life so the question then becomes, how many lives need to be lost before a cross-border intervention can occur.

What is the substantive difference between:

- a SEAL team violating national soveriegnty to kill somebody responsible for several thousand death and planning to murder several thousand more; or
- A full scale military intervention under R2P?

Which constiutes the greater violation?

You cannot have it both ways, R2P allows for ignoring international borders to save life, even if people get killed in the process. What happened in Abbottabad hopefully represents the new way of doing business with terrorist leaders.

The WW2 example is anyway badly flawed and does nothing to reinforce your arguement since being nice would never have made Hitler go away.

You cannot pay back violence for violence, by that you are not any better than the claimed aggressor is himself. Also, who is the aggressor really is a question of own position, I would say. One has to see things in relation a bit.
This would be nice if it applied in all cases but it does not. The controlled application of precision violence as seen May Day could very well render international terrorism much less effective in the future. Lt General Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson is quoted as saying "Kill the officers and the cowards will run and take the brave men with them." Place the terrorist leadership and those nation states that shelter under notice; the new reality is that regardless where they might hide, they are the ones now living on a big bulls eye and nowhere is safe anymore. Eliminate the leaders in their presumed sanctuaries and over time the rest will become far less than effective.

[Armistead]

I see that christians and muslims are fighting and killing each other in Eygpt now. Seems the Muslim brotherhood will gain control. I have a feeling the entire Mid East is set to go radical bringing the world into crisis, course that's what the bible and Koran says, so I guess true or not both sides will make it happen.

Then heard Santorum in the GOP debate say "as a Catholic, for lack of a better word, we need a reformation against Islam." Yep, that's what we need after never ending wars with no end in sight.

I don't know if it's me, but seems the entire world is totally F'ed up, with religion and greed again the root problem.

[Jaguar]

I don't know if it's me, but seems the entire world is totally F'ed up, with religion and greed again the root problem.

The world is not more F'ed up than it used to be. Religion is just a veil behind which the real problems are: poverty, over exploitation, ignorance, extreme inequality, lack of freedom, the list goes on and on...

[Ducimus]

To be honest I don't give a s*** that turd is dead, legal or not.

Now let us go forward and get the rest of these pig dogs.

QFE.

[krashkart]

I don't really care about the legalities at this point. What I am most concerned about is what the eventual outcome will be.



Also,

The rule of law is only as effective, as long as both sides obey it. The US goverment would never assasinate a Slovenian citizen, because Slovenia obeys international laws. OBL didn't. He abused them

:sign_yeah:

[Molon Labe]

It´s highly debatable whether an organized State can wage war* against such an immaterial organization as Al-Qaeda.


* - a state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties within a nation; todays asymmetric conflicts represents a portentous challenge to this definition.

AQ is immaterial? I'd say the bombings in Africa, the USS Cole, the 9/11 attacks, as well as AQ/AQI's continued involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan are materially significant, wouldn't you?

Challenge to the definition is putting it lightly. Globalization and 5th generation warfare have permanently changed the way we think about armed conflict.

[Skybird]

This might be true most times when dealing with a soveriegn nation state but it has zero applicability to extra-territorial terrorists. Terrorists bare no relation to countries however they do greatly resemble criminal organizations but instead of trading in illegal money, terrorists trade in violence.

Moral relativism aside sometimes violence is effective, might does make right and in any last-man-standing situation the resources of the focused and politically united nation state should be able to defeat terrorists with the application of law at home and controlled but appropraite firepower abroad.

Up to the adaption of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) by the UN in the wake of the Rwanda genocide, the norms of international relations dating from the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia affirmed (in a rather broad nutshell) what happened inside a nations borders was the responsibility of that nation alone. R2P allowed intervention across national boundries to save life so the question then becomes, how many lives need to be lost before a cross-border intervention can occur.

What is the substantive difference between:

- a SEAL team violating national soveriegnty to kill somebody responsible for several thousand death and planning to murder several thousand more; or
- A full scale military intervention under R2P?

Which constiutes the greater violation?

You cannot have it both ways, R2P allows for ignoring international borders to save life, even if people get killed in the process. What happened in Abbottabad hopefully represents the new way of doing business with terrorist leaders.

The WW2 example is anyway badly flawed and does nothing to reinforce your arguement since being nice would never have made Hitler go away.


This would be nice if it applied in all cases but it does not. The controlled application of precision violence as seen May Day could very well render international terrorism much less effective in the future. Lt General Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson is quoted as saying "Kill the officers and the cowards will run and take the brave men with them." Place the terrorist leadership and those nation states that shelter under notice; the new reality is that regardless where they might hide, they are the ones now living on a big bulls eye and nowhere is safe anymore. Eliminate the leaders in their presumed sanctuaries and over time the rest will become far less than effective.

Ehem, Randomizer - it seems that somebody was not aware that... no, I let somebody else explain it. :D

Lazy pack, nobody's here when being needed.

People knowing me a bit would immediately realise that my posting you answer to impossibly could have been meant serious by me. ;) Thanks for biting. :O:

[Bilge_Rat]

As to the question, OBL and Al Qaida declared war on the US. As leader of the opposing army, he was a valid military target. The attack was perfectly legal within the rules of war.

The correct parallel is the shootdown of Admiral Yamamoto's plane over the Solomons in april 43, after allied codebreakers found out his schedule.

The only country that can complain is Pakistan. Since the US violated their sovereignty, they may choose to consider the operation an act of war and declare war on the US. However, considering the mood of the US public over the fact that Pakistan harbored OBL for years, I don't think that would be a wise move. Afghanistan was invaded for a lot less in 2001.... :ping:

There is really no issue.

------


The more interesting issue for me is the fact that the Republicans who raised a stink over Obama not getting prior congressional approval before bombing Libya did not raise a peep over Obama invading Pakistan to exterminate OBL.

Has the Constitution changed? :hmmm:

[Jaguar]

AQ is immaterial? I'd say the bombings in Africa, the USS Cole, the 9/11 attacks, as well as AQ/AQI's continued involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan are materially significant, wouldn't you?

AQ is immaterial as an organization. It is now, at best, an assortment of movements that have little connection with each other or, at worst, "a loose label for a movement that seems to target the West". How can war be waged against such a threat? (Rhetoric question). Is AQ involved in Iraq and Afghanistan? Of course! Is it the big player in said countries? Definitely not.

I´m not saying AQ and related groups/movements shouldn´t be fought relentlessly, but it´s not war, at least not war as we know it.

[Jimbuna]

As to the question, OBL and Al Qaida declared war on the US. As leader of the opposing army, he was a valid military target. The attack was perfectly legal within the rules of war.

The correct parallel is the shootdown of Admiral Yamamoto's plane over the Solomons in april 43, after allied codebreakers found out his schedule.

The only country that can complain is Pakistan. Since the US violated their sovereignty, they may choose to consider the operation an act of war and declare war on the US. However, considering the mood of the US public over the fact that Pakistan harbored OBL for years, I don't think that would be a wise move. :ping:

There is really no issue.



Agree 100%

[MH]

...... at least not war as we know it.

Its all matter of definition.
That's why people get confused so much and international law has no idea how to deal with it since well....its not designed to deal with such situations.

[Jaguar]

The correct parallel is the shootdown of Admiral Yamamoto's plane over the Solomons in april 43, after allied codebreakers found out his schedule.


Yamamoto was a military member of an soverign entity in state of war with another. OBL was just a terrorist. To see parallel between those two is like to compare Pearl Harbour with 9/11 and the II World War with the "War on Terror".

[Jimbuna]

Yamamoto was a military member of an soverign entity in state of war with another. OBL was just a terrorist. To see parallel between those two is like to compare Pearl Harbour with 9/11 and the II World War with the "War on Terror".

Actually they both had at least one fundamental point in common...they were both responsible for the deaths of a great many innocent people.

[Jaguar]

Its all matter of definition.
That's why people get confused so much and international law has no idea how to deal with it since well....its not designed to deal with such situations.

Yep, it´s like authorial rights after internet, something is wrong, we just can´t agree what...

[Bilge_Rat]

Yamamoto was a military member of an soverign entity in state of war with another. OBL was just a terrorist. To see parallel between those two is like to compare Pearl Harbour with 9/11 and the II World War with the "War on Terror".


Pearl harbour attack: 2,400 dead.
9/11 attack: 3,000 dead.

the parallel seems pretty clear to me.

[MH]

Yamamoto was a military member of an soverign entity in state of war with another. OBL was just a terrorist. To see parallel between those two is like to compare Pearl Harbour with 9/11 and the II World War with the "War on Terror".
War on terror is still a war.
People behind the war should be dealt as such.
Its not that US went to carpet bomb Pakistan or Afganistan.

[Jaguar]

Actually they both had at least one fundamental point in common...they were both responsible for the deaths of a great many innocent people.

Yes, but you can say the same about "Bomber" Harris and "Hap" Arnold for example. They also killed a great many innocent people but they did it in a context of pure military reasoning. "Total" wars tend to kill large numbers of people, and rarely make a serious distinction between civilian and combatant.

OBL simply doesn´t fit here. He was a terrorist who was legitimally put down by the state he offended.

[TLAM Strike]

Either OBL as a terrorist is Hostis humani generis much like a pirate and subject to universal jurisdiction or his is an enemy combatant found in an allied nation at war against the same group. Both ways its a legal kill and the only way it becomes illegal as my litigiously learned comrade pointed out would be if he attempted to surrender. Now I would have preferred if the guys from ST6 brought him back to stand trial but I can't fault them for pulling the trigger.

[Jaguar]

Pearl harbour attack: 2,400 dead.
9/11 attack: 3,000 dead.
the parallel seems pretty clear to me.

Take a look beyond the casualties and you see the parallel ends there. Pearl Harbour was a military target and casualties were mostly military personnel.

War on terror is still a war.
People behind the war should be dealt as such.
Its not that US went to carpet bomb Pakistan or Afganistan.

US didn´t carpet bomb Pakistan or Afganistan because it is not at war with these entities, it´s fighting a terrorist organization/movement in the soil of said countries. "War on Terror" is a nice label, like 'War on Drugs", but it helps nothing to the solution.


Mates, very interesting discussion, unfortunatelly I´ve got to go, which is fine because my despicable english skills are strained to the most :dead:.

[gimpy117]

Legal? Ehhh..iffy

anyone going to be charged for it? absolutely not.

[Bilge_Rat]

Yes, but you can say the same about "Bomber" Harris and "Hap" Arnold for example. They also killed a great many innocent people but they did it in a context of pure military reasoning. "Total" wars tend to kill large numbers of people, and rarely make a serious distinction between civilian and combatant.

OBL simply doesn´t fit here. He was a terrorist who was legitimally put down by the state he offended.

I dont disagree, but the distinction for me is whether OBL was a criminal entitled to due process or part of an opposing enemy force who could be attacked at any time.

If the Germans had attacked the base where they were and killed Harris or Arnold, it would have been just another act of war, not a war crime.

OBL could not expect to be exempt from attack simply because he was not part of a formally constituted state.

[Bilge_Rat]

Take a look beyond the casualties and you see the parallel ends there. Pearl Harbour was a military target and casualties were mostly military personnel.

does'nt that make the 9/11 attack even worse? PH could at least be justified for being a military target.

On 9/11, it was 3,000 innocent civilians who died.




Mates, very interesting discussion, unfortunatelly I´ve got to go, which is fine because my despicable english skills are strained to the most :dead:.

I would say your english skills are just fine. :)

[August]

We never gave Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrows a chance to surrender. John Dillinger either for that matter. Some people are just too dangerous to try and take alive.

[Molon Labe]

AQ is immaterial as an organization. It is now, at best, an assortment of movements that have little connection with each other or, at worst, "a loose label for a movement that seems to target the West". How can war be waged against such a threat? (Rhetoric question). Is AQ involved in Iraq and Afghanistan? Of course! Is it the big player in said countries? Definitely not.

I´m not saying AQ and related groups/movements shouldn´t be fought relentlessly, but it´s not war, at least not war as we know it.

The only reason AQ is in shambles is because of the war effort being mostly successful. The question doesn't make sense; a state brought to its knees by warfare is in the same position. War can be made against such an organization just as war can be waged against a state approaching defeat.

[Molon Labe]

Yamamoto was a military member of an soverign entity in state of war with another. OBL was just a terrorist. To see parallel between those two is like to compare Pearl Harbour with 9/11 and the II World War with the "War on Terror".

That isn't a bad comparison at all. The only difference is that the Japanese were a peer competitor to the US, and as such, the strategy and tactics used were different than AQ's today. 2nd and 3rd generation warfare instead of 4th generation.

It is commonly said that 9/11 is the "worst attack on the US since Pearl Harbor."

[tater]

It's a legitimate question. Myself, I don't care about Pakistani sovereignty in the least. they are culpable in terrorist activity themselves, specifically the Taliban (and hence AQ). In addition, in this particular case, Pakistan approved of it anyway—they gave blanket permission to the US during the Bush administration for raids that might be needed in the future.

So technically it was entirely legal regardless of what side you take assuming the had NOT given such approval before, at least from an international standpoint. From a US law standpoint, Obama even ordered a drone attack on the "American AQ" guy. He's a US citizen, so you'd presume he'd enjoy due process. Since he is a member of AQ, his citizenship should be revoked (as should that "american taliban" jerk (our passports say joining a foreign military can result in revoked citizenship).

All this is odd, since it would seem that the "hates Gitmo" camp that wants civilian trials (Obama claimed that, at least) should also be for mirandizing those we grab up, and should also be against killing these jerks without due process. Complaining about gitmo, and sanctioning drone strikes is like a devout Catholic being concerned about the morality of stealing money—when said money will be used to pay for an abortion that she has no problem with.

I'm for bumping these guys off wherever they happen to be. If the country "matters" then clearly we need to ask. If it is itself a pal to terrorists? Who cares? They should be thankful we don't simply area bomb. I'm also fine with locking up those we catch, and interrogating them in any way which is effective—subject to reciprocal agreements we have with the enemy (meaning if they follow the rules, then we should, and if they don't... all bets are off).

[Tribesman]

wow tater "hates gitmo" "complaining about gitmo"....yet you still havn't been able to come close to justifying that facility:rotfl2:
Remind me again of the hundred and one "reasons" you have for the facilty that don't apply to that facility at all

[Platapus]

As to the question, OBL and Al Qaida declared war on the US. As leader of the opposing army, he was a valid military target. The attack was perfectly legal within the rules of war.




Be careful about that. Remember our justification for Gitmo is based on our interpretation that AQ was NOT a military organization and therefore NOT covered by the version of the Geneva Convention the US uses.

According to our story, UBL did not declare war and was not a leader of an army. And we are sticking to that story. :)

If he was, then he and his minions would be afforded Geneva Convention protections and that is something that was inconvenient for us.

[Platapus]

wow tater "hates gitmo" "complaining about gitmo"....yet you still havn't been able to come close to justifying that facility:rotfl2:
Remind me again of the hundred and one "reasons" you have for the facilty that don't apply to that facility at all


The only way the concentration camp at Gitmo could be justified constitutionally is if we have trials there. Then it would be constitutional under Article 3 section 2.

[Sailor Steve]

We never gave Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrows a chance to surrender. John Dillinger either for that matter. Some people are just too dangerous to try and take alive.
BANG! "Halt!" BANG! BANG! "Or I'll shoot!" BANG!

[tater]

wow tater "hates gitmo" "complaining about gitmo"....yet you still havn't been able to come close to justifying that facility:rotfl2:
Remind me again of the hundred and one "reasons" you have for the facilty that don't apply to that facility at all

It is a POW camp for terrorists (trans-national combatants).

I've entirely justified it. You have to put such POWs someplace, after all. We could move it, and give it a new name, would that make you feel better? Regardless, we capture anyone we think is associated with AQ or her allies, and we should hold them until hostilities cease. Period. As far as I'm concerned they should not have a trial until after the war is over. Myself,I'm in favor of requiring unconditional surrender from them.

What, exactly is your problem with a facility for holding soldiers who work for a transnational military that explicitly violates all rules of warfare (no uniforms, mixes with civilians, intentionally attacks and murders civilians, etc)?

Should it not be in a US territory, but a State? Should they get ACLU lawyers even though the war is not over?

[tater]

The only way the concentration camp at Gitmo could be justified constitutionally is if we have trials there. Then it would be constitutional under Article 3 section 2.

It's not a concentration camp. You are aware of what a concentration camp is I assume? It is actually a word that dates to the British in South Africa. Gitmo has 225 or so inmates, it hardly qualifies even for that definition, much less the nazi camps with vastly more inmates who were worked to death or immediately murdered. It's as hyperbolic as the idiotic comparison to a gulag (with a similar death toll to the nazi camps).

We're talking about a vanishingly small % of people. Not enough to matter, frankly. They are POWs, and should be held until hostilities cease. At that point those guilty of war crimes can face trial.

The trouble is that "war" defines a condition between nations, not transnational entities, something that needs to change.


Regardless, if gitmo is wrong, then all drone attacks, and other extra-legal killing is similarly wrong. There is no defensible position to attack gitmo, and not the killing of bin laden. If you are glad we got bin laden, you have to "eat" gitmo.

That idiot, Chomsky is at least consistent in this regard.

[Molon Labe]

Be careful about that. Remember our justification for Gitmo is based on our interpretation that AQ was NOT a military organization and therefore NOT covered by the version of the Geneva Convention the US uses.

According to our story, UBL did not declare war and was not a leader of an army. And we are sticking to that story. :)

If he was, then he and his minions would be afforded Geneva Convention protections and that is something that was inconvenient for us.

that's just plain wrong. Because the AQ and the Taliban target civilians, don't wear uniforms, hide amongst civilians, and commit other war crimes, they are generally regarded as illegal combattants and therefore not protected by the Geneva Conventions. This is the same as the Nazi Sabateurs in WWII. It does not mean we are not in an armed conflict, it means AQ does not play by "the rules."

And no US official would ever say that AQ/Bin Laden did not declare war on the US.

On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:


The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God."


We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.

[August]

BANG! "Halt!" BANG! BANG! "Or I'll shoot!" BANG!


I forget if they played that game with Dillinger but with Bonnie and Clyde :o:

"Each of us six officers had a shotgun and an automatic rifle and pistols. We opened fire with the automatic rifles. They were emptied before the car got even with us. Then we used shotguns ... There was smoke coming from the car, and it looked like it was on fire. After shooting the shotguns, we emptied the pistols at the car, which had passed us and ran into a ditch about 50 yards on down the road. It almost turned over. We kept shooting at the car even after it stopped. We weren't taking any chances."

[Ducimus]

You know, the precept behind the existence of this thread, or simillar discussions, absolutely kills me, and defies belief.

So, if i have this straight...... The most wanted man in the US, if not the entire world, for over the last decade, the man who was responsible for thousands of deaths; has finally been brought to justice - and there are people who feel compelled to debate the legality of it? That's just crazy.

[Wolfehunter]

I'm curious about some things. Did this guy actually attack the US? He gave praises for those who did the assaults on the US people. But did he actually shoot any Americans? Where is the proof of this? Just because a leader doesn't like certain nation doesn't mean they're responsible for the attacks. Did I miss something or is this some kind of lynching going on.:hmmm:

If a nation follows the laws they should respect there laws. It doesn't mean they can bend the rules to suit there personal agendas. Ether your true to your laws or your legal criminals.

Like all news not all the truth is shown. So its hard to speculate what is real and what is manipulated.

[Stealhead]

We never gave Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrows a chance to surrender. John Dillinger either for that matter. Some people are just too dangerous to try and take alive.


From what I understand they where very skilled in a gun fight Bonnie could even handle a sawn down Browning Automatic Rifle not shabby for a very small woman.Also Clyde took his weapons very seriously and knew how to use them for example the BAR he liked that weapon because its rounds could easily penetrate car doors and the like most of his peers used the Thompson which lacked such fire power.They escaped being completely surrounded on more than one occasion.The same applies for Dillinger though I understand he was shot in the back of the head.Like you said some people have to just be put down.Not to mention that they killed several police officers in cold blood the Barrows at least.So I agree with you some people are just to dangerous to take alive.

Bin Laden got what he got it was fair I'll say that for sure like how the Israelis hunted down the guys involved in Munich 72 sometimes you just have to serve you nations justice hard Bin Laden was too much a risk to take alive I am glad that Bin Laden got double tapped to be honest.Honestly some people just dont deserve quarter.I say ask the SEAL that tapped him if he thinks it was legal I'll go with his answer.

@Wolf he was the mater mind and commander in chief of the ones that did attack us in a war which AQ clearly has long sense declared against all of us(unless you agree with AQs agenda)by that fact he is a legitimate target er I should say was.Hate to say but if you think by not agreeing that AQ is the enemy that you are not a possible target of AQ then you are sadly mistaken but whatever man yeah you missed something big time hope that you find it..... the truth that is.

[Feuer Frei!]

You know, the precept behind the existence of this thread, or simillar discussions, absolutely kills me, and defies belief.

So, if i have this straight...... The most wanted man in the US, if not the entire world, for over the last decade, the man who was responsible for thousands of deaths; has finally been brought to justice - and there are people who feel compelled to debate the legality of it? That's just crazy.
I posted this thread to invite discussion on just that. The legality of the assassination.
All that has been discussed on this forum and indeed all over the net for that matter is the MORAL views on the assassination of OBL.
I'm not really interested in the moral aspects of the assassination.
Why? Because we all know, unless you are a terroist yourself or have ties with al Qaeda, then you would agree that that was the 'right' thing to do, if you value other's lives and the safety of those lives.
Now, the legality side of things is another matter alltogether.
I find this side of the coin very interesting, and as has been pointed out in the article and by some of the members here, they find it rather interesting as well.
The questions posed by the article givge this another twist, if you will alltogether.
Not the usual diatribe about "oh yea ofc he should have been shot because he was evil" or "yep, totally vindicated was the decision to kill him because we had a MORAL responsibility to do that".
Fair enough, but, i like to think about topic matters from all sides not just one side.
I find that rather boring really.

I'm curious about some things. Did this guy actually attack the US? He gave praises for those who did the assaults on the US people. But did he actually shoot any Americans? Where is the proof of this? Just because a leader doesn't like certain nation doesn't mean they're responsible for the attacks. Did I miss something or is this some kind of lynching going on.:hmmm:

If a nation follows the laws they should respect there laws. It doesn't mean they can bend the rules to suit there personal agendas. Ether your true to your laws or your legal criminals.

Like all news not all the truth is shown. So its hard to speculate what is real and what is manipulated.

Very good points raised there :up:
We are fed only so much info that they (and when i say they i mean the government in question) want us to know.
There are ofc many many reasons for this. Some justified, others, well....

[Tribesman]

It is a POW camp for terrorists
Is it?
I shall ignore for now your mixing of issues there and go straight to.....
So your arguement for this facility that was created is that it is exactly the same as all the other detention facilities:rotfl2:
I've entirely justified it.
No, you have not even touched on the topic.
You have to put such POWs someplace
Ah, thats better. Which POWs is that?
We could move it, and give it a new name, would that make you feel better?
Errrrrr....then it wouldn't be that particular facility would it and your government would have to come up with all the justifications for the new facility which have already been shown to be false for the existing one.
Regardless, we capture anyone we think is associated with AQ or her allies, and we should hold them until hostilities cease. Period.
And what has that to do with the price of cheese?
What, exactly is your problem with a facility for holding soldiers who work for a transnational military that explicitly violates all rules of warfare
I have no problem at all with facilities that do that, but we are talking about the facility in Cuba.
Regardless, if gitmo is wrong, then all drone attacks, and other extra-legal killing is similarly wrong.
Not in the slightest, every issue is a different issue and each has its own set of facts to weigh. Only a simpleton would claim that all drone attacks are justified/unjustified.
There is no defensible position to attack gitmo, and not the killing of bin laden. If you are glad we got bin laden, you have to "eat" gitmo.


Yet you are completely unable to defend Gitmo. your only defences to date have been to specificly portray it as something that it isn't.
Either you don't know what you are defending or you are deliberately misrepresenting it.

@Ducimus
You know, the precept behind the existence of this thread, or simillar discussions, absolutely kills me, and defies belief.

Don't you find it interesting?
There really are so many diffent views and angles to consider.
August threw in one which has issues over jurisdiction and criminals exploiting those issues(though I think he was only on about the police shooting the criminals) Randomizer threw in one about criminal justice and extraterritorialism. Darkfish touched on the rule of law. Jaguar did a kidnap and complications of allegations of a show trial. Growler missed the point.:03: Kraskart made a simple fundamental error as the thing he doesn't care about is what affects the thing he cares about. Molon points out the problems of definition. Tater mixes every definition going. And Steelhead hits on a similary relevant period which ended up going very wrong and having such long running fallout that even Spielberg couldn't rewrite the history.

[MH]

Don't you find it interesting?
There really are so many diffent views and angles to consider.
August threw in one which has issues over jurisdiction and criminals exploiting those issues(though I think he was only on about the police shooting the criminals) Randomizer threw in one about criminal justice and extraterritorialism. Darkfish touched on the rule of law. Jaguar did a kidnap and complications of allegations of a show trial. Growler missed the point.:03: Kraskart made a simple fundamental error as the thing he doesn't care about is what affects the thing he cares about. Molon points out the problems of definition. Tater mixes every definition going. And Steelhead hits on a similary relevant period which ended up going very wrong and having such long running fallout that even Spielberg couldn't rewrite the history.

So...whats the problem.
its complicated issue that's why they have Gitmo and that's why they send SEALS to kill UBL.
If they didn't it still would be complicated issue if not more so.
If you want to argue about it theologically than maybe you are right but it doesn't change the reality we live and things that need to be done.
What is the purpose of your arguments to find out all possible ways that people justify themselves?

[Tribesman]

So...whats the problem.

what is the problem. I have no problem with it , Ducimus seems to think there is a problem with discussing it.
If they didn't it still would be complicated issue if not more so.

Would it? or would it be less complicated or equally complicated?

If you want to argue about it theologically than maybe you are right but it doesn't change the reality we live and things that need to be done.

Since the thoughts and reasons are the basis of reality we live and the things that need to be done they are intrumental to all that changes or doesn't change.
You are missing out all the key steps.
What is the purpose of your arguments to find out all possible ways that people justify themselves?
If you don't find out as many justifications as you can you cannot make a reasoned arguement on the justifications...that is one area you often trip yourself up on when you do the Israeli version of USAUSAUSA:rock:without even thinking.

[MH]

If you don't find out as many justifications as you can you cannot make a reasoned arguement on the justifications...
.
Can you make one or you are collector?


that is one area you often trip yourself up on when you do the Israeli version of USAUSAUSA:rock:without even thinking.

Israeli version of USAUSA?
I simply don't agree with you....
Should i go for this popular European front of anti everything USA.
Actually i haven't heard even once reasonable argument from you about nothing.
Just superficial populist anti this anti that.
So far USA is a country that is actually doing something about issues while EU gets lost in burocracy.

[Tribesman]

Israeli version of USAUSA?

Yes, often you will jump in to defend something and claim things are that which they are not before withdrawing to your default nonsense of its just anti-israeli/jewish/semitism.

Just superficial populist anti this anti that
:har::har::har::har::har::har:
If it was populist it would be much simpler more widely held views that are easy for flag waving sheep to swallow.


So far USA is a country that is actually doing something about issues while EU gets lost in burocracy.
A perfect example of not thinking. gitmo is such a screw up in one field as it tried to avoid the beaurocracy. Terrorists are walking free from courts because people tried to ignore the legalities.
It comes back nicely to your "complicated" piece, the short cuts to avoid the complications of the issues have had a tendancy to make the issues for more complicated in the long run.
There is little point "actually doing something " if all you are doing is ignoring the issue and pushing it into a bigger pile of problems down the line.

[MH]

Yes, often you will jump in to defend something and claim things are that which they are not before withdrawing to your default nonsense of its just anti-israeli/jewish/semitism.

OH my......you are worst than i thought.


:har::har::har::har::har::har:
If it was populist it would be much simpler more widely held views that are easy for flag waving sheep to swallow.
.
Face it.
ITs a matter of geography....in your case.


A perfect example of not thinking. gitmo is such a screw up in one field as it tried to avoid the beaurocracy. Terrorists are walking free from courts because people tried to ignore the legalities.

So far terrorist had been walking free in Europe in part because of enormous bureaucracy.
EU is more concern about politics than about doing somthing or solving problems.

It comes back nicely to your "complicated" piece, the short cuts to avoid the complications of the issues have had a tendancy to make the issues for more complicated in the long run.
There is little point "actually doing something " if all you are doing is ignoring the issue and pushing it into a bigger pile of problems down the line.

Bul----.
So far i haven't seen anything that can back this claim.

[Bakkels]

I'm curious about some things. Did this guy actually attack the US? He gave praises for those who did the assaults on the US people. But did he actually shoot any Americans? Where is the proof of this? Just because a leader doesn't like certain nation doesn't mean they're responsible for the attacks. Did I miss something or is this some kind of lynching going on.:hmmm:

Did he shoot any Americans? I say almost certainly not. But did Stalin actually kill anybody? Did Hitler personally kill someone? Probably not.
That's not really an argument. They are held responsible however.
Consider this; if the operation somehow was completely screwed up; they had their intelligence wrong and they killed four innocent Pakistani's in that house, than who would be responsible? The president of course. Did he fire a weapon? No of course not, but he gave the green light for the operation so he is responsible.

If a nation follows the laws they should respect there laws. It doesn't mean they can bend the rules to suit there personal agendas. Ether your true to your laws or your legal criminals.

Like all news not all the truth is shown. So its hard to speculate what is real and what is manipulated.

With this part I entirely agree.

[Penguin]

I think he was a legitimate military target.
However I think that the US missed a historic chance to define the rules of modern warfare against non-nation states.
Like the Nürnberg trials were an important step in defining the laws of war and making crimes against humanity a new aspect in international law, a trial against OBL could have been also a new step.
Of course you would give a criminal a platform to present himself, but he already did this over all the years. I think they still had the snafu trial against Milosevic in mind in the decision to waste him rather than capturing him alive.

[Torplexed]

As to the question, OBL and Al Qaida declared war on the US. As leader of the opposing army, he was a valid military target. The attack was perfectly legal within the rules of war.

The correct parallel is the shootdown of Admiral Yamamoto's plane over the Solomons in april 43, after allied codebreakers found out his schedule.




To me the closest parallel was the punitive expedition launched into Mexico in 1916 under General Pershing to capture or kill the Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa. With the critical difference being the expedition never caught up with Pancho Villa. Mexico wasn't terribly happy with having an American army marching deep into it's territory, but was in such a state of internal anarchy and turmoil that there wasn't much she could do about it.

[TLAM Strike]

But did Stalin actually kill anybody?
In his early years he might have. He was involved in quite a bit of nasty stuff as an enforcer for the Bolsheviks, including a bank robbery where several were killed.

[Bilge_Rat]

Be careful about that. Remember our justification for Gitmo is based on our interpretation that AQ was NOT a military organization and therefore NOT covered by the version of the Geneva Convention the US uses.

According to our story, UBL did not declare war and was not a leader of an army. And we are sticking to that story. :)

If he was, then he and his minions would be afforded Geneva Convention protections and that is something that was inconvenient for us.

True, but I see a shift in US policy in the case of OBL.

First, the operation was legal under US law as a validly authorized military operation. Let's break it down:

1. Under the Constitution, the President is the commander-in-chief and can order troops into action anywhere at any time;

2. Again pursuant to his oath of office, the president has a duty to protect the US from all enemies, foreign and domestic, which OBL obviously was;

3. Despite its shaky constitutional grounds, the action is also valid under the War Powers Act. Congress was informed and apparently does not object.

So the action is valid under US law as a validly authorized military operation. Notice the imporatant distinction here, the US is not trying to justify this as a police action, but as a military operation.

What is really interesting about this operation is not whether it is valid or not but what it says about the relationship between the US and Pakistan. If OBL had been discovered in say, Germany, the US would have notified the German government and the German police who would have taken him into custody and extradited him to the US.

Here, the US decided to invade Pakistan with ground troops, a clear act of war and a violation of Pakistan sovereignty. It is clear that the US does not trust Pakistan and based on the rhetoric coming out of Washington, that the Obama administration is ready to go to war with Pakistan over this issue.

Pakistan is in a real bind over this. The most wanted man in the US had been living in a house in a suburb of the capital for 6 years. It raises many, many questions: who knew? who helped him? why did they help him? What kind of support was Pakistan providing to OBL/AQ? How long had they been in contact? Did the contacts begin before 9/11? Did anyone in the Pakistan govt know about the 9/11 attcks before they occured, but did not warn the US?

wars have been started over a lot less.

[Tribesman]

OH my......you are worst than i thought.

It is you who constantly makes the silly accusations, you are not as bad as Dimitrius was but you are getting there.
Face it.
ITs a matter of geography....in your case.

Good point, problems with american policies are geographicly related to the people who make them in america.

So far terrorist had been walking free in Europe in part because of enormous bureaucracy.
No, some terrorists have walked free because some muppet decided to take a shortcut with evidence because they thought it was too complicated and ended up trashing the case.

Bul----.
So far i haven't seen anything that can back this claim.
That is because your simplistic view stops you from even looking.
Guantanamo would be a perfect example.

[mookiemookie]

I'm curious about some things. Did this guy actually attack the US? He gave praises for those who did the assaults on the US people. But did he actually shoot any Americans? Where is the proof of this? Just because a leader doesn't like certain nation doesn't mean they're responsible for the attacks. Did I miss something or is this some kind of lynching going on.:hmmm:

Godwinning imminent: How many Jews did Hitler personally kill? Or, if you prefer, how many people did Pol Pot personally kill? Stalin? Mao?

[MH]

It is you who constantly makes the silly accusations, you are not as bad as Dimitrius was but you are getting there.
.
LOL Thank You...:D
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQE4Pem3NA5mG4BeVkJIrXPx0XGFBSu4 MohAODq4q5o_80k4w_W



Good point, problems with american policies are geographicly related to the people who make them in america.
.
Is it a problem?
At least they have policies.


No, some terrorists have walked free because some muppet decided to take a shortcut with evidence because they thought it was too complicated and ended up trashing the case.
.
Did you just sucked this claim from your finger.


That is because your simplistic view stops you from even looking.
Guantanamo would be a perfect example.
The simple things sometimes work better in reality.
But yes the philosophical aspect can be discussed but be carfull not to get lost.

[Tribesman]

Did you just sucked this claim from your finger.

Unlike you I don't have to make stuff up.
If you are unaware of the terrorist trials and the problems you shouldn't make meaningless comments about them like you have.

Is it a problem?
At least they have policies.

Chavez has policies, it doesn't mean that Venezuelas policies are not dumb does it.

The simple things sometimes work better in reality.

When its foriegn and domestic policies linked with domestic foriegn and international law across multiple jurisdictions involving diplomacy with huge gray areas then "simple things" have no connection to reality unles you are a simpleton.

[MH]

Unlike you I don't have to make stuff up.
If you are unaware of the terrorist trials and the problems you shouldn't make meaningless comments about them like you have.

What problems?
Few exaples would be nice?
:up:


Chavez has policies, it doesn't mean that Venezuelas policies are not dumb does it.
.

Yes Yes hitler had policies too and so on so on....


When its foriegn and domestic policies linked with domestic foriegn and international law across multiple jurisdictions involving diplomacy with huge gray areas then "simple things" have no connection to reality unles you are a simpleton.

Good point...that's why you do what you have to do to terrorists and conduct diplomacy with whom you can conduct diplomacy.
There are too many groups that conduct terror as mean of diplomacy becuse current political climate and lack of will to deal with them.

[MH]

Israel's Military Justice System in Times of Terror / Judge Amnon Straschnov





March 30, 2011
Israel and the world must fight terrorism without any reservations and without any concessions, since terrorism endangers everyone. On the other hand, Israel has an obligation to guard the basic rights of the local population in the West Bank and Gaza.
Why should Israel keep the rules of engagement and follow international law while fighting terrorists when the terrorists do not adhere to the rules of engagement? Because Israel is a civilized state and the Israeli soldier is not the same as the Palestinian terrorist. We do not shoot at civilians or kill women and children, and we do not put bombs in buses.
Every inhabitant of the West Bank has the right to petition Israel's Supreme Court. This is unique and unprecedented in the rules of international law - that a resident of an administered area can turn to the High Court of the administering state to ask for a remedy based on justice. In many cases the Court has accepted these petitions.
Some human rights organizations have said that because terrorists are civilians, they should be protected under Article 51 of the Geneva Convention. However, Israel's Supreme Court has declared that once you harm civilians, then you are no longer entitled to be covered by this section.
International law does not say that collateral injury to civilians is forbidden. What is forbidden is if you purposely kill civilians, which is what Hamas does when it shoots at kibbutzim, towns and cities in Israel from Gaza.
Fighting Terror While Guarding Human Rights
Fighting against terrorism is not only Israel's responsibility but that of the entire world. The problem is that terrorism is not being fought as diligently and determinedly as it should be. Israel and the world must fight terrorism without any reservations and without any concessions, since terrorism endangers everyone. On the other hand, Israel has an obligation to guard the basic rights of the local population in the West Bank and Gaza.
Recently, two IDF soldiers were tried and court-martialed for asking a 9-year-old to check a bag which they suspected might contain explosives. The child obeyed their orders and nothing happened, as there were no explosives in the bag, but the soldiers' actions violated the rules of international humanitarian law because you are not allowed to use the local population in order to help you in the activities of war. Article 51 of the 4th Geneva Convention says: "Protected persons may not be compelled to undertake any work that would involve them in the obligation of taking part in military operations." Therefore, the Military Advocate General decided to prosecute those soldiers, though he was criticized for doing so. The mission of soldiers is to fight wars and they are not accustomed to performing policing missions or checking bags. This case illustrates the Israeli dilemma, to balance the needs of security and the human rights of the local population.
There is no convention that defines terrorism as a war crime. Most of the world sees people as terrorists when they act against a civilian population when they are not in a uniform, and they are also not entitled to the status of prisoners of war, according to the Geneva Conventions. While some countries will see them as freedom fighters, Hizbullah wants to control Lebanon and Hamas wants to control Israel.
In England and Spain, every citizen can turn to a court and ask for an arrest warrant for an Israeli general or politician. Therefore, there were certain times after the Gaza and Second Lebanon Wars when the chief-of-staff, certain generals, and members of the Israeli government could not go to Europe because they were being prosecuted for war crimes. At the same time, the terrorists can go wherever they want and usually nobody is going to stop them. While it seems that the world has turned upside down in its basic attitude toward terrorists, certain Israelis who are trying to catch those terrorists and minimize terrorism all over the world have to worry about being arrested in certain countries.
We try to adhere to the rules of international law in fighting terrorists and the Israeli government and army often face internal criticism for this. Why should Israel keep the rules of engagement and follow international law while fighting terrorists when the terrorists do not adhere to the rules of engagement? Because Israel is a civilized state and the Israeli soldier is not the same as the Palestinian terrorist. We do not stoop to their level of fighting. We do not shoot at civilians or kill women and children, and we do not put bombs in buses.
The Principles by Which Israel Fights Terrorism
There are four main principles by which Israel fights terrorism:
Military necessity - the obligation to use force only in a way that yields a direct military advantage.
Distinction - the obligation to distinguish between combatants and innocent civilians, who must be kept unharmed to the extent possible.
Humanity - the obligation to refrain from operations which cause unnecessary suffering.
Proportionality - the obligation to ensure that actions against legitimate targets do not affect protected persons and targets in a manner disproportionate to the military advantage expected from the attack.
The most important of these principles are distinction and proportionality. The first Palestinian uprising (intifada) between 1987 and 1991 (when I was the Military Advocate General) was basically civil unrest. There were demonstrations, ro-------s, and burning tires. It was not terror and we took measures such as bringing Palestinians to trial, administrative detention, and deportation. The difference is that now it is a situation of terrorism - a situation which is just short of war, and it is necessary to take other measures, one of which is targeted killing.
There must be proportionality between eliminating the terrorists wherever they are and keeping the civilian population as safe as possible. Sometimes there is collateral damage, when you shoot at a terrorist and some innocent civilians can be harmed, but you cannot do this intentionally. There is a case before the Supreme Court right now regarding proportionality when many people were killed in the bombing of one terrorist. In the war against terrorists, the State of Israel acts within the framework of the rules of humanitarian law.
Every inhabitant of the West Bank has the right to petition Israel's Supreme Court. This is unique and unprecedented in the rules of international law - that a resident of an administered area can turn to the High Court of the administering state to ask for a remedy based on justice. In many cases the Court has accepted these petitions. The settlement of Elon Moreh near Nablus (Shechem) was first established on land claimed to be private. The Supreme Court accepted the claim of the Arabs and Elon Moreh was moved to state land. Since then, Israel has established settlements only on state land.
Israel's Military Advocate General
The military justice system in the State of Israel is handled by the Military Advocate General and by legal professionals, not by military commanders. The American Military Advocate General only has the power to make recommendations, but he does not decide. In Israel, the power to prosecute soldiers, or Palestinians, in the military courts in the West Bank rests with the Military Advocate General. He can consult with the commanders, such as the chief-of-staff or other generals, but the final decision on whether to prosecute somebody is in the hands of the Military Advocate General.
When I was Military Advocate General during the first Arab uprising, we tried a few soldiers for acting in excess of the rules of engagement. The army did not like this, but they were tried for misbehavior or for acting beyond the scope of what the commanders ordered them to do. Even in times of war, the rule of law must prevail and we have to act according to humanitarian law and to basic norms of behavior. That was also the situation in the Second Intifada, which was not a civil uprising but a conflict which was defined as just short of war - a fight against terrorism. This was not about children throwing stones at soldiers or blocking roads. From October 2000 until 2005, more than a thousand Israeli citizens were killed, buses were blown up, and families were eliminated. Coffee shops became scenes of bloodshed and devastation. It was a real war, and we had to fight it determinedly and decisively, and that is what we did.
Not long ago, a battalion commander told a soldier, or that is what the soldier understood, to shoot next to the feet of a Palestinian in order to frighten him, and it worked. The case was initiated by a human rights organization and the soldier and the battalion commander, a lieutenant colonel, were court-martialed. The decision was highly criticized, but the Military Advocate General was persistent that such behavior is manifestly illegal and that you cannot agree to it in a civilized country like Israel.
Israel Supreme Court Oversight
We are all subject to the power of the Israel Supreme Court, which has made some landmark decisions. Once we used to destroy houses based on emergency regulations enacted by the British during the Mandate, by which we have the right to confiscate and demolish houses. The Supreme Court said that we have to give the owners the right to a hearing and check if the terrorist lived in the house for the last five years. The Supreme Court also decided to abolish the use of physical pressure on prisoners, except in the case of a ticking bomb.
In 1991 during the Gulf War, when the government decided to distribute gas masks only to the Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, the Palestinians turned to the Supreme Court, which said that we have an obligation to keep the civilians as safe as possible. Once there is a decision that Jewish towns might be endangered from Scud missiles, we are obligated to give gas masks to the Palestinian population as well.
The Public Committee against Torture in Israel and some other organizations said that because terrorists are civilians, they should be protected and have the right to not be touched. They based their argument on Article 51 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Convention which says: "Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities." Their claim was that the terrorists could not be touched if they were sitting in their homes, even if from time to time they went out to kill some Jews. The Supreme Court declared that once you harm civilians, then you are no longer entitled to be covered by this section.
In the case of targeted killings, if the army concludes that a terrorist is going to perform an act of terror, we are entitled to kill him as a preventive measure in order to defend ourselves. The Supreme Court set out four criteria which have to be considered in the use of targeted killing:
Information is needed before categorizing a civilian as falling into the category of a potential target. Verification is needed regarding the activities of the civilian who has allegedly taken a direct part in the hostilities, so we have to have good intelligence on him.
A civilian cannot be attacked if a less harmful means can be employed, such as bringing him to trial or administrative detention, which we can no longer do in those places that we have relinquished.
After an attack on civilians suspected of taking an active part in terrorism, a thorough investigation regarding the identification of the target and the circumstances of the attack upon him must be performed retroactively.
Every effort must be made to minimize harm to innocent civilians. Harm to innocent civilians, or collateral damage, during military attacks must be proportional.
Proportionality is the most important criterion. When I lecture soldiers, especially pilots, about collateral damage, the question comes up as to its legality. My answer is that it is legal because international law does not say that collateral injury to civilians is forbidden. What is forbidden is if you purposely kill civilians, which is what Hamas does when it shoots at kibbutzim, towns, and cities in Israel from Gaza. If we see a terrorist entering a school or a hospital, we stop, for then an attack would not be proportional.
The Supreme Court recently decided that it cannot be determined in advance that every targeted killing is prohibited according to customary international law, just as it cannot be determined in advance that every targeted killing is permissible according to customary international law. The law of targeted killing is set forth in customary international law and the legality of each individual act must be determined in light of it.
There used to be a practice of sending a neighbor into a building harboring terrorists to tell them to surrender. The Supreme Court said this is illegal and against the rules of international law. According to Article 51 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, one is not allowed to use a civilian's assistance during war activities. Article 31 of the Fourth Geneva Convention says that protected people should not be coerced to do things and should be separated from the military or war zone. Even if the civilian agreed to convey a warning to terrorists in a building, it was determined that perhaps his consent was given when he felt he did not have a choice.
As former Supreme Court Chief Justice Aharon Barak has said: "That is the fate of democracy in whose eyes not all means are permitted and to whom not all the methods used by its enemies are open. At times, democracy fights with one hand tied behind its back. Despite that, democracy has the upper hand since preserving the rule of law and recognition of individual liberties constitute an important component of its security. At the end of the day, they strengthen its spirit and allow it to overcome its difficulties."
* * *
Judge Brig.-Gen. (ret.) Amnon Strashnov has served in a variety of key positions in the IDF, managing and controlling Israel's military justice system. He served as Chief Military Prosecutor, President of the Military Courts in the West Bank, and most recently as the Military Advocate General (Chief Legal Officer) of the Israel Defense Forces. After retiring from the IDF in 1991, Brig.-Gen. Strashnov was appointed a district court judge in Tel Aviv, from which he retired in 2002.

Have fun

[MothBalls]

Was the Hit on Bin Laden Illegal?Good question. However, in the end you have to ask if anyone really shives a git.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

But we can ridicule you if you try to claim it was legal.

http://briefcase8.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/care-o-meter.gif

I guess your hatred of the United States must be pretty deep to take the part of Osama Bin Laden over us.

[Onkel Neal]

OH my......you are worst than i thought.


.


Lol, are you new to this forum? :O:

[AVGWarhawk]

:har:

Just walk away.....

http://brokentoys.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/humungus_speech.jpg

[MH]

Lol, are you new to this forum? :O:

LOL
Depends what is new by subsim standards...:DL

I like to use Tribesman....he is a prime example about whats screwed up about some many people.
Problem is they like to stick with whole lot to certain issues hiding their agendas behind some "noble philosophies".
While there are the "thinkers" that sort of follow them.

[Wolfehunter]

Did he shoot any Americans? I say almost certainly not. But did Stalin actually kill anybody? Did Hitler personally kill someone? Probably not.
That's not really an argument. They are held responsible however.
Consider this; if the operation somehow was completely screwed up; they had their intelligence wrong and they killed four innocent Pakistani's in that house, than who would be responsible? The president of course. Did he fire a weapon? No of course not, but he gave the green light for the operation so he is responsible.We can't compare the history to now. Those times laws, powers and mentality was different then than now. Let focus on the question. Was it legal to assassinate the dude? I believe Government are over stepping there boundaries. Even with us at our own home nation our governments are forcing there interests. Example G20 summit last summer.

Lets assume that Dead Bin is what media portrays. It still doesn't change that you can use murder to murder. If you follow your laws. If you don't why are the laws there? I know why so you don't have to answer it. Unless you feel you need to. :O:

It comes to power and control.. This is a political move. Not justice. ;) If anything you guys made it worse.

Maybe that's the goal to prolong the wars? :hmmm:

[Wolfehunter]

Godwinning imminent: How many Jews did Hitler personally kill? Or, if you prefer, how many people did Pol Pot personally kill? Stalin? Mao?What does this have to do with the question?

[mookiemookie]

What does this have to do with the question?

I quoted your post when I replied. You figure it out.

[Bakkels]

We can't compare the history to now. Those times laws, powers and mentality was different then than now. Let focus on the question. Was it legal to assassinate the dude? I believe Government are over stepping there boundaries. Even with us at our own home nation our governments are forcing there interests. Example G20 summit last summer.

Lets assume that Dead Bin is what media portrays. It still doesn't change that you can use murder to murder. If you follow your laws. If you don't why are the laws there? I know why so you don't have to answer it. Unless you feel you need to. :O:

It comes to power and control.. This is a political move. Not justice. ;) If anything you guys made it worse.

Maybe that's the goal to prolong the wars? :hmmm:

Again, I agree you've got to abide by your own laws and you can not let emotions be a justification for breaking them. But you asked if Bin Laden killed any Americans himself. You're making it sound as if he could only be guilty when he himself killed people. That's simply not true. Another example; maffia-bosses. A lot of them never personally killed anybody, but by ordering others to kill, they're automatically guilty.
Yes, you can debate the legality of this operation, but the argument you were using just isn't right. And my guess is Mookiemookiemookiemookie ( :D ) is trying to say the same thing.
Only he was using Hitler as an example. He never killed a Jew personally. But I think I can assume we all think he was nonetheless guilty of genocide.

[mookiemookie]

And my guess is Mookiemookiemookiemookie ( :D ) is trying to say the same thing.
Only he was using Hitler as an example. He never killed a Jew personally. But I think I can assume we all think he was nonetheless guilty of genocide.

Exactly. :yep:

[Ducimus]

Wow, just wow. You guys have way too much time on your hands. If you can sit here and debate the justification/legality/morality/whatever of killing the man who was responsible for the death of THOUSANDS, I swear, next thing you guy will be debating if the Holocaust was real or not. I say this, because the holocaust is very clear cut. As is Osama Bin laden. This thread, is a the poster child of bleeding heart liberal BS that conservatives in this country love to hate so much. May as well rename this thread,
"OH POOR OSAMA! " What a crock of BS. Maybe what this thread really is, more veiled hatred of the US. Seems critiqueing and criticising everything our country does seems to be en vogue.

[mookiemookie]

Wow, just wow. You guys have way too much time on your hands. If you can sit here and debate the justification/legality/morality/whatever of killing the man who was responsible for the death of THOUSANDS, I swear, next thing you guy will be debating if the Holocaust was real or not. I say this, because the holocaust is very clear cut. As is Osama Bin laden. This thread, is a the poster child of bleeding heart liberal BS that conservatives in this country love to hate so much. May as well rename this thread,
"OH POOR OSAMA! " What a crock of BS. Maybe what this thread really is, more veiled hatred of the US. Seems critiqueing and criticising everything our country does seems to be en vogue.

Well you have to look at it as a purely intellectual, academic exercise. I don't see it as a bleeding heart thing at all - no one is going to argue that it should not have been done, or poor poor bin Laden. If they do, they're a fool or as you say, they're looking to jump on any reason at all to criticize the US. But debating and exploring the legalities of how things went down is interesting from a purely detached and unemotional standpoint, which I think is how the OP meant it.

[Jaguar]

Wow, just wow. You guys have way too much time on your hands. If you can sit here and debate the justification/legality/morality/whatever of killing the man who was responsible for the death of THOUSANDS, I swear, next thing you guy will be debating if the Holocaust was real or not. I say this, because the holocaust is very clear cut. As is Osama Bin laden.
This thread, is a the poster child of bleeding heart liberal BS that conservatives in this country love to hate so much. May as well rename this thread,
"OH POOR OSAMA! " What a crock of BS. Maybe what this thread really is, more veiled hatred of the US. Seems critiqueing and criticising everything our country does seems to be en vogue.


I beg to disagree. Nobody is saying "OH POOR OSAMA!", what you just said is commonly known as the Straw Man fallacy, a misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

On this thread people is debating the legality/morality/whatever of killing a man in a generally sensible and thoughtfull way.

There´s is no US hatred or bashing whatsoever, just some criticism from some people who do not condone everything US/whatever does (see? by implying you do this I´m making another straw man:O:).

[Bilge_Rat]

regarding the legality of exterminating OBL, the legal authority is granted by a 2001 Congressional resolution:



Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists

(...)

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Te rrorists

Obama's view, from a 2007 debate:


"I don't believe in assassinations, but Osama bin Laden has declared war on us, killed 3,000 people, and under existing law, including international law, when you've got a military target like bin Laden, you take him out. And if you have 20 minutes, you do it swiftly and surely."


The legality of the action under international law:



As a general rule, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country.[11] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-nytimes3-10)
Most legal scholars consider targeted killing as legal under the international rules of war, because the terrorists are at war with the targeting state.[123] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-latimes2-122) Ilan Berman, of the Ameriacn Foreign Policy Council, said that: "Under international law, the use of targeted killings, while unusual, is entirely defensible. To be sure, this is an unconventional sort of conflict, but it is nonetheless a military one, in which the laws of war are applicable."[18] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-ahram2002-17) Similarly, Tamar Meisels says in "The Trouble With Terror: Liberty, Security, and the Response to Terrorism" (Cambridge University Press, 2008) that because terrorists use military or paramilitary tactics, terrorism may be seen as a form of warfare, which implies a state of war (though not as clear-cut as a war between states). Therefore, she opines, those fighting terrorism are engaged in a war with terrorist organizations, and methods used to fight wars may be used to combat terrorism.[131] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-130)



Others make a case that targeted killing adheres to the international law of armed conflict principles of proportionality and distinction, which are intended to limit collateral damage.[2] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-nytimes2-1)

"Proportionality" is the principle stating that the "destruction of civilian property must be proportional to the military advantage gained."[2] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-nytimes2-1) Targeted killing uses the minimum level of force needed to carry out legitimate self-defense.[2] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-nytimes2-1) Judge Sofaer similarly wrote that while targeted killing may result in collateral damage, and it is impossible to guarantee that targeted killings will be soundly planned and implemented, such damage "must be avoided to the extent possible consistent with the military objective, and it must not be unreasonable in the circumstances".[6] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-sfgate2004-5)


"Distinction" requires combatants to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants.[2] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-nytimes2-1) When targeted killing works perfectly, the only ones killed are the perpetrators or backers of terrorism.[61] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-google2679-60) When faced with alternatives of military invasion, carpet bombing, military sweeps, or artillery barrage, targeted killing---8212;while regrettable---8212;is deemed preferable.[61] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-google2679-60)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targeted_killing#Justification

so putting down OBL was justified under both US domestic and international law.

[Bakkels]

Wow, just wow. You guys have way too much time on your hands. If you can sit here and debate the justification/legality/morality/whatever of killing the man who was responsible for the death of THOUSANDS, I swear, next thing you guy will be debating if the Holocaust was real or not. I say this, because the holocaust is very clear cut. As is Osama Bin laden. This thread, is a the poster child of bleeding heart liberal BS that conservatives in this country love to hate so much. May as well rename this thread,
"OH POOR OSAMA! " What a crock of BS. Maybe what this thread really is, more veiled hatred of the US. Seems critiqueing and criticising everything our country does seems to be en vogue.

Nobody said 'Poor Osama'. Looking critically at the events that take place doesn't have anything to do with 'veiled hatred'. I have no hatred towards the US. I can only speak for myself however, and I don't know if you were addressing me.
But don't go telling me I can't have any critique about what's going on. Thousand innocents died in 2001, but since then in Afghanistan the same amount of civilians died. I was raised with the idea that no man's life is worth more then the next one's, so looking critically at what's going on in Afghanistan is not only justified imo, it's our duty.
Don't take it personally and don't make it personal.

[Jaguar]

regarding the legality of exterminating OBL, the legal authority is granted by a 2001 Congressional resolution:
Obama's view, from a 2007 debate:
The legality of the action under international law:
so putting down OBL was justified under both US domestic and international law.

Under UN resolutions there was at least two problems: (1) violation of Pakistan´s sovereignty and (2) the actual killing of OBL if he wasn´t in position to react.

Against (1) one may argue that since was probable that Pakistan officials would warn Osama about US intentions the secrecy was justifiable, which seems very sensible.

To (2) one may argue OBL was in position to react, so use of force was necessary. Even if it wasn´t, who in his right state of mind would want to capture, trial and condemn Osama? Too risky and too costly, a bullet being a lot cheaper.

[MH]

To (2) one may argue OBL was in position to react, so use of force was necessary. Even if it wasn´t, who in his right state of mind would want to capture, trial and condemn Osama? Too risky and too costly, a bullet being a lot cheaper.

Dropping a bomb from f-16 or drone would sort it out wouldn't it?
Nothing to argue since possibility of taking him alive is out of equation.
Funny how those little technicalities can change the whole perspective and morality issue.

[Blood_splat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVYp1hE4D0g

[Jaguar]

Dropping a bomb from f-16 or drone would sort it out wouldn't it?
Nothing to argue since possibility of taking him alive is out of equation.
Funny how those little technicalities can change the whole perspective and morality issue.

I guess it wouldn´t. You need confirmation of the killing and you don´t want to leave a body behind. So going down there was the only real solution. Besides only people directly involved were killed/harmed, which is a good PR side effect.

[MH]

I guess it wouldn´t. You need confirmation of the killing and you don´t want to leave a body behind. So going down there was the only real solution. Besides only people directly involved were killed/harmed, which is a good PR side effect.

Yes i agree to that.
My example was sort of hypothetical one for those who think that maybe because he had chance to surrender or there was possibility to take him alive it was immoral to put a bullet through his head.

[magic452]

Musharraf is now claiming no such deal was made. Maybe trying to cover his backside.

I kind of think that there was a deal given the time it was supposed to have been made. There was some pretty good co-operation between the two at that time.

Magic

[Wolfehunter]

Again, I agree you've got to abide by your own laws and you can not let emotions be a justification for breaking them. But you asked if Bin Laden killed any Americans himself. You're making it sound as if he could only be guilty when he himself killed people. That's simply not true. Another example; maffia-bosses. A lot of them never personally killed anybody, but by ordering others to kill, they're automatically guilty.
Yes, you can debate the legality of this operation, but the argument you were using just isn't right. And my guess is Mookiemookiemookiemookie ( :D ) is trying to say the same thing.
Only he was using Hitler as an example. He never killed a Jew personally. But I think I can assume we all think he was nonetheless guilty of genocide.Fair enough. What about bush and Obama's orders to kill people? Are they going to pay for there crimes? What about the innocents lost in wars? I'm going to assume that's different right.

To be honest I don't give a rats behind about politics or people following or breaking laws. But it amazes me how people can change views to suit there interest when its seem to look better for one group over the other. Even willing to break the laws so they can assume a greater good is being played. The way I see screw the laws.. Let anything go. Last man standing. I'll sit back and eating my popcorn watching the bomb fly. :up:

:D

[Platapus]

Wow, just wow. You guys have way too much time on your hands. If you can sit here and debate the justification/legality/morality/whatever of killing the man who was responsible for the death of THOUSANDS, I swear, next thing you guy will be debating if the Holocaust was real or not. I say this, because the holocaust is very clear cut. As is Osama Bin laden. This thread, is a the poster child of bleeding heart liberal BS that conservatives in this country love to hate so much. May as well rename this thread,

No one is forcing you to participate in this discussion. If you don't feel the topic is worth discussing, then you are free to go to other threads. There are some here who do wish to discuss it and you simply do not have any authority to dictate what can and can't be discussed here.

If you don't like this thread's topic, don't read it. :)

[Ducimus]

If you think i read 7 pages of this horse---- you are sadly mistaken. First page was enough for me. I could barely even read THAT much. Apparently 3000 lives isn't enough cause for some people here if your talking about legalities of killing the SOB who planned the whole thing.. What's the next discussions? How Osama's human rights were violated? Screw that noise, and ---- legalties. If you don't like my opinion, then don't read it.

----ing hippies.

[Tribesman]

I guess your hatred of the United States must be pretty deep to take the part of Osama Bin Laden over us.
So TVM when did you develop this mental problem?


"OH POOR OSAMA! " What a crock of BS.
So Ducimus is another one with problems.

While there are the "thinkers" that sort of follow them.
And MH just demonstates once again that he cannot think at all.

It isn't surprising that the ones who are having problems with this topic are the ones who are unable or unwilling to comprehend it at all and seem to view nearly everything on a purely nationalist point without regard for any details or any questions.

Edit to add, now it seem to make more sense regarding ducimus posts, he is making strange comments about what people are writing without even looking at what is written. That is truly taking wilful blindness to a whole new level

[Bakkels]

So Ducimus only bothered to read one page of this topic, saw a few posts he didn't like, and then decided to drop in and call all the people posting here names. Way to go!

(See? I managed to type all that without any curse words. Maybe when you grow up, you'll learn to do this too)

[Growler]

So assume, for the sake of argument, that global opinion turns and decides that the killing of Bin Laden was indeed a crime.

Now what?

[AVGWarhawk]

So assume, for the sake of argument, that global opinion turns and decides that the killing of Bin Laden was indeed a crime.

Now what?

I'm not sure we should say, "Now what?" Perhaps we should say, "What about it?":stare:

[Platapus]

Perhaps nothing. I don't think anyone is considering anything happening, this is just an interesting (to some) intellectual discussion.

[AVGWarhawk]

It certainly looks to be a assassination. That's because it was. However, it was not with wreckless accord(I'm sure Tribesman will beg to differ):88) . The call to do this action was intiated 9/11. But again, the deed is done so what about it? :stare:

[Feuer Frei!]

If you think i read 7 pages of this horse---- you are sadly mistaken. First page was enough for me. I could barely even read THAT much. Apparently 3000 lives isn't enough cause for some people here if your talking about legalities of killing the SOB who planned the whole thing.. What's the next discussions? How Osama's human rights were violated? Screw that noise, and ---- legalties. If you don't like my opinion, then don't read it.

----ing hippies.
Thanks for posting in my thread.
Like Platapus said:
If you don't like the topic matter, don't post in it.
Simple really.

[Rockstar]

It certainly looks to be a assassination. That's because it was. However, it was not with wreckless accord(I'm sure Tribesman will beg to differ):88) . The call to do this action was intiated 9/11. But again, the deed is done so what about it? :stare:

Well there is the mindless speculation, conjecture, opinion and finger pointing which must be carried out by the arm chair quarterbacks. All under the auspice of 'intellectual discussion' apparently us lower forms just are incapable of comprehending. With their intelligence and evidence gathered from internet media sources and no dead body to show for it either. I just can't wait to hear the difinitive answer from these mental giants to the original question! This has been going on for 8 pages now lets hear the answer to the 64 dollar question. Was it illegal or not? <drum roll>

[TorpX]

Good question. However, in the end you have to ask if anyone really shives a git.


This is the best post in the entire thread. :up:

[Tribesman]

So assume, for the sake of argument, that global opinion turns and decides that the killing of Bin Laden was indeed a crime.

Now what?

The only fallout would be problems in getting future agreements.

The call to do this action was intiated 9/11.
Oh dear, such a short memory you have AVG.

Well there is the mindless speculation, conjecture, opinion and finger pointing which must be carried out by the arm chair quarterbacks.
Don't put the cheerleaders down like that, they can't really help it.

I just can't wait to hear the difinitive answer from these mental giants to the original question!
There is not a definitive answer, that is the point.

[MH]

.


There is not a definitive answer, that is the point.

Oh you are really deep......tinker.

[Bilge_Rat]

This has been going on for 8 pages now lets hear the answer to the 64 dollar question. Was it illegal or not? <drum roll>

It was legal. See post #94

[Bilge_Rat]

So assume, for the sake of argument, that global opinion turns and decides that the killing of Bin Laden was indeed a crime.

Now what? The only fallout would be problems in getting future agreements.



So assume, for the sake of argument, that global opinion turns and decides that all irishmen are like Tribesman.

Now what? Quarantine? :arrgh!:

[TarJak]

The ramifications of this, Greenberg said, need to be for the next bin Laden.
And he may well be out there... http://www.smh.com.au/world/hunt-on-for-crown-prince-of-terror-20110511-1ehu7.html