Was the Hit on Bin Laden Illegal?

[MH]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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...

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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?

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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....

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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

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

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by MH

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


.

Lol, are you new to this forum?

[AVGWarhawk]

Just walk away.....

[MH]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Lol, are you new to this forum?

LOL
Depends what is new by subsim standards...

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]

Originally Posted by Bakkels

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.

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?

[Wolfehunter]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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]

Originally Posted by Wolfehunter

What does this have to do with the question?

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

[Bakkels]

Originally Posted by Wolfehunter

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.

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?

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.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Bakkels

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.

Exactly.

[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.