Was the Hit on Bin Laden Illegal?

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

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. 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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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. 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?

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 USAUSAUSAwithout even thinking.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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?

Originally Posted by Tribesman

that is one area you often trip yourself up on when you do the Israeli version of USAUSAUSAwithout 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.

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

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by MH

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


.

Lol, are you new to this forum?