Was the Hit on Bin Laden Illegal?

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by 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.

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!]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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
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....

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.

[Bakkels]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Wolfehunter

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Bakkels

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]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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