Was the Hit on Bin Laden Illegal?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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).

[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/Authori...nst_Terrorists

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]
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] 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] 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]



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]

• "Proportionality" is the principle stating that the "destruction of civilian property must be proportional to the military advantage gained."[2] Targeted killing uses the minimum level of force needed to carry out legitimate self-defense.[2] 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]

• "Distinction" requires combatants to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants.[2] When targeted killing works perfectly, the only ones killed are the perpetrators or backers of terrorism.[61] 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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targete...#Justification

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

[Bakkels]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

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]

Originally Posted by Jaguar

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]

[Jaguar]

Originally Posted by MH

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]

Originally Posted by Jaguar

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]

Originally Posted by Bakkels

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 ( ) 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.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by 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,

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.

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)