Osama Bin Laden is Dead

[Moonlight Graham]

The US seems content to violate international law and state sovereignty at its whim. Iraq, Pakistan drones, and now this raid. Making a nuke state continually po'd probably isn't the wisest idea.

OBL is dead, and the world is likely better off for it. Maybe. I guess we may see. The admin is already saying torture in gitmo helped lead them to OBL. Right out of the Bush propaganda playbook

Likely gets Obama a 2nd term, especially since he seems to be taking most of the credit. Hundred bucks says the WH doesn't release the name(s) of the ops who killed OBL, Obama wouldn't want the hero spotlight to be taken off of him!

[bush_cheney2004]

Well international law isnt normally enforced by any central international bodies. When you sign treaties those treaties become part of your own domestic laws and are enforcable by your own courts.

Then why does the ICC exist?

Your suggestion that these laws make no difference and nobody follows them anyways is simply not true. In WW2 both sides persecuted the war by punishing as many civilians as possible. Up until the geneva conventions targeting civilians, or executing and burying captured soldiers in mass graves was standard operating procedure. Countries that signed voluntary treaties like the geneva conventions may still break the rules sometimes, but in general they ALL behave better than they did before.

Except when they don't. How many Allied nations were prosecuted for so called "war crimes" during WW2, or for "crimes against the peace" since then.

If people think the killing of Bin Laden is illegal they should pursue it in a US court, and any resulting ruling would impact how the US government acts in the future.

Sure...the same way that Lt. Calley's My Lai trial didn't change things so much after all.

Personally I think the whole thing is ass backwards, just to be clear. Rules against assasinating officers and civilian leaders are only there becaause the leaders on both sides were able to EASILY agree that they should be spared real consequences of the wars they start. Its "civilized" to send armies of underprivileged grunts to kill each other but god forbid a high ranking officer or a politician break a nail.

Such rules are made to be broken.

Id rather ONLY have the politicians and high ranking officers get targeted. Thats how war should be fought. Id rather have THOSE guys dying than most of the people that end up dying now. It would make the world a better place if the decision makers were the ones that actually had to pay for the decisions.

Sure it would, as in Rwanda?

In any case.... Good fuckin riddance! Glad the guys dead. Buh-bye shit-head.

Ummm...OK...but he was illegally "assassinated"!

As for all the conspiracy theories... well just never really know. Theres no credible source of information. We simply dont know what happened, and probably never will.

Fine by me...those who need to know such details can share them in their memoirs.

[bush_cheney2004]

The US seems content to violate international law and state sovereignty at its whim. Iraq, Pakistan drones, and now this raid. Making a nuke state continually po'd probably isn't the wisest idea.

Well, it's not just the US. You can add France, UK, Canada, etc. to the list (e.g. Serbia, Libya). This operation is proof that having nuclear weapons is no guarantee of immunity from such actions.

OBL is dead, and the world is likely better off for it. Maybe. I guess we may see. The admin is already saying torture in gitmo helped lead them to OBL. Right out of the Bush propaganda playbook

Because it was....it's not like assassination is kinder and gentler than waterboarding.

Likely gets Obama a 2nd term, especially since he seems to be taking most of the credit. Hundred bucks says the WH doesn't release the name(s) of the ops who killed OBL, Obama wouldn't want the hero spotlight to be taken off of him!

Nor do the operations direct actors wish any such spotlight. It is the nature of their business.

Edited May 9, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Oleg Bach]

Well, it's not just the US. You can add France, UK, Canada, etc. to the list (e.g. Serbia, Libya). This operation is proof that having nuclear weapons is no guarantee of immunity from such actions.

Because it was....it's not like assassination is kinder and gentler than waterboarding.

Nor do the operations direct actors wish any such spotlight. It is the nature of their business.

So proud of the "nature of their buisness" - Nuclear power hugh. How the hell did this Pakistan ....manage to get a bomb when we all fret about Iran getting one? I would think that there are great similarities between two Muslim nations just mentioned.

Still it goes to show you how foolish we are and ridden with white guilt of some sort. Canada has brought in more people from Pakistan than any other nation - and we send tons of money to them so they can feed Bin Laden - keep him secure while he plans tgo screw us? Jeeezzzuz Jumpin Christ...why are we not street wise?

[bush_cheney2004]

So proud of the "nature of their buisness" - Nuclear power hugh. How the hell did this Pakistan ....manage to get a bomb when we all fret about Iran getting one? I would think that there are great similarities between two Muslim nations just mentioned.

Dr. Khan and Canadian uranium...that was the difference.

[Oleg Bach]

Dr. Khan and Canadian uranium...that was the difference.

So with this knowledge that makes both of us men with out a nation. We do like to cuddle up to our abusers and be close so they don't have the room to take a swing at you.

There is no mistake, what I see is a man with a moral mind who agrees with a system that supplies you with food and shelter. We all do what you do! That's the tragedy of it all - we sell our souls for a piece of bread and a drink of milk...and sometimes they give us a spoon of honey. Is it me BC or are our elected officals from such privledged back grounds that they can't tell who the good guys or bad guys are? They really can't be that full of duplicity and be sane...or can they?

[bush_cheney2004]

.... They really can't be that full of duplicity and be sane...or can they?

They are as good or bad as we demand them to be.

[Oleg Bach]

They are as good or bad as we demand them to be.

To late to demand goodness out of them. Should have mentioned that to your leaders earlier before they blundered thinking they were playing a video game ................. The guy should have been spirited out of the country and examined over a period of time..but no - America contacts Pakistan - and they both agree that it is better that he is dead. Can't have Bin Laden embarrassing both sides - that would never do.

[bush_cheney2004]

... America contacts Pakistan - and they both agree that it is better that he is dead. Can't have Bin Laden embarrassing both sides - that would never do.

Pakistan wasn't told anything....otherwise he wouldn't be dead. Guilt and embarrassment are for naive rubes.

[Oleg Bach]

Yes B C - the whole thing stunk of treachery. Having said that it is time to walk the dogs - I will think of the great American John Wayne as I stoop and scoop. At least you understand the power of being a citizen - that a citizen has as much power as his elected offical - in fact MORE. Everyone bows down and worships their public servants..They have it backwards..a nation of idol kissers. Getting back to the John Wayne syndrome...marching west ward and pushing people out of the way is the American way --- but the eastern way is to submit - let them come deep into your territory then engulf them...just because a man is in retreat does not me he is losing...You folks just don't understand eastern thinking - Pakistan will suck you in...and there will be no route of escape left open. They are NOT our friends. Besides - every corner store owner from Paksitan has sent back millions of reports of prejudice hate and racism --- so maybe it's pay back time - I hate dogs....oh well.

[jbg]

I doubt people in the Pentagon are unarmed and I don't see how that's relevant. A minor quibble.

Yes, his compound was a legitimate target.

If his death came about during a "firefight" then it would be a legitimate death.

It didn't so it isn't.

Are you saying that we had no right to kill someone who both directed murders and was actually successful in carrying them out?

Even in war there is something called the Geneva Convention.

I know it isn't convenient to follow it at times, though.

And surely there is some technicality that will allow this execution be exempted.

But my point has to do more-so with politics than with following some convention.

And in this day of asymetrical warfare I happen to think that at least some parts of the Geneva convention have far outlived their usefulness. Basically they are forcing us to battle "fighters" who combat us out of uniform and aim primarily at civilians and soft targets.

If "we" (as in the West) want to be seen as valuing the rule of law then we should follow the rule of law (and expect others to do the same.

Yes, like the Islamists who reject all of the West (except its money) are going to obey some "rules of war"?

This is not just about revenge against one man/symbol: it's about victory for western values such as freedom of religion (and from religion for us Canadians), liberty, and equality.

No, what you're positing is a suicide pact.

[msj]

Are you saying that we had no right to kill someone who both directed murders and was actually successful in carrying them out?

I'm saying that where possible the Geneva convention should be followed.

Especially for something as high profile as this.

Oh, and as for your "right" to kill OBL?

What DO YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHEN I WRITE TO PUT HIM ON TRIAL AND HANG HIM? (Pardon the shouting, please, but it really is warranted here).

And in this day of asymetrical warfare I happen to think that at least some parts of the Geneva convention have far outlived their usefulness. Basically they are forcing us to battle "fighters" who combat us out of uniform and aim primarily at civilians and soft targets.

Yeah, it ain't easy being the good guys - putting our soldiers in front of their civilians to protect them while they use their own people as human shields.

Yep, we should just give up on any pretense at civility during warfare because it just ain't fair.

I suppose if we want to make it "fair" then we should come up with our own suicide bombers rather than

use drones.

Yes, like the Islamists who reject all of the West (except its money) are going to obey some "rules of war"?

We in the west can't control all the bad stuff the bad guys are going to do.

We, however, do have a say in what we do.

We either are above them or we are with them.

You, and many on this forum, are with them; for which I agree to disagree.

[bush_cheney2004]

We in the west can't control all the bad stuff the bad guys are going to do.

We, however, do have a say in what we do.

We either are above them or we are with them.

You, and many on this forum, are with them; for which I agree to disagree.

You take great liberties with the all inclusive "west" and "we"....this is simplistic and assumes that "they" reside in countries without similar goals and ideals that cannot be realized. American policy and actions are American.

[Shady]

Will you ever win?

The Third Geneva Convention: Article 3, section 1, subsection a (banning "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture"), subsection d ( prohibiting "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples"), and Article 13 in its entirety.

Will you?

None of what you cited applies. The Geneva Convention protects people not taking part in hostilites. It also protects uniformed soldiers of an actual army. It doesn't apply to terrorists, or terrorist masterminds. And citing all of Article 13? So Bin Laden was a prisoner of war? How so? They had every right to bomb his compound from the air, or raid his compound from the ground. They chose the latter.

But what's clearly evident from this whole situation, is that so-called international laws regarding conflicts do not supercede a countries own rights to defend themselves and killed the leaders of groups that have declared war on them. Justice was served.

[dre]

Then why does the ICC exist?

Except when they don't. How many Allied nations were prosecuted for so called "war crimes" during WW2, or for "crimes against the peace" since then.

Sure...the same way that Lt. Calley's My Lai trial didn't change things so much after all.

Such rules are made to be broken.

Sure it would, as in Rwanda?

Ummm...OK...but he was illegally "assassinated"!

Fine by me...those who need to know such details can share them in their memoirs.

Ummm...OK...but he was illegally "assassinated"!

Ya dont know that until theres a legal ruling to that effect. You would need a legal ruling on Bin Ladens status as well as a real finding of fact regarding the events that took place.

But as I said... I could care less if he was illegaly assasinated. I couldnt care less if officers and politicians are targeted in war or not. In fact I think they should be the PRINCIPLE targets.

I never made a judgement as to whether or not he was killed legally or not. Cant do that without real information. If he was actively trying to surrender then Its illegal, if he wasnt then it wasnt. Id need real data to even have an opinion.

Then why does the ICC exist?

The ICC didnt exist until almost 50 years after the Geneva Conventions were signed. It is not necessary in order to have treaties between nations. The treaties that the US has signed are US Law, and its own courts can enforce them.

Edited May 9, 2011 by dre

[dre]

Are you saying that we had no right to kill someone who both directed murders and was actually successful in carrying them out?

That entirely depends on how it went down. If he was in the act of surrendering then no. Under pretty much any other circumstances, yes. Like I said, none of us really know.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ya dont know that until theres a legal ruling to that effect. You would need a legal ruling on Bin Ladens status as well as a real finding of fact regarding the events that took place.

..and it still wouldn't matter. The United States has never ratified the Rome Statute.

But as I said... I could care less if he was illegaly assasinated. I couldnt care less if officers and politicians are targeted in war or not. In fact I think they should be the PRINCIPLE targets.

Different topic...but they have been so targeted many times in history.

I never made a judgement as to whether or not he was killed legally or not. Cant do that without real information. If he was actively trying to surrender then Its illegal, if he wasnt then it wasnt. Id need real data to even have an opinion.

The mission was to kill him, not accept a surrender which may or may not have been forthcoming. Any additional data would just fill out the story for the day Osama died, just like John Dillinger.

The US can and has acted with impunity on such matters, and will continue to do so. There is nothing that can stop it from doing so.

Edited May 9, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[dre]

..and it still wouldn't matter. The United States has never ratified the Rome Statute.

Different topic...but they have been so targeted many times in history.

The mission was to kill him, not accept a surrender which may or may not have been forthcoming. Any additional data would just fill out the story for the day Osama died, just like John Dillinger.

The mission was to kill him, not accept a surrender which may or may not have been forthcoming. Any additional data would just fill out the story for the day Osama died, just like John Dillinger.

Thats heresay. You have absolutely no idea if thats true or not, or what the mission was.

..and it still wouldn't matter. The United States has never ratified the Rome Statute.

The US has signed and ratified quite a few international treaties and the reality is that you have never read a single one of them. Youre opinion on the legality is quite frankly besides the point and devoid of any relevance what-so-ever. Unless a case is brought before US courts and theres a ruling, none us knows if this was a violation of international law or not. You have a guess... rufus the stunt-bum has a guess... my uncle Pete has a guess...

The US can and has acted with impunity on such matters, and will continue to do so. There is nothing that can stop it from doing so.

Sure there is. Read up on your own legal system and how power is separated between the various branches of government. Nobody acts with impunity.

Edited May 9, 2011 by dre

[jbg]

That entirely depends on how it went down. If he was in the act of surrendering then no. Under pretty much any other circumstances, yes. Like I said, none of us really know.

With someone like him, or Hitler, I don't thint it matters. A live capture would have put many other peoples' lives at risk.

[bush_cheney2004]

Thats heresay. You have absolutely no idea if thats true or not, or what the mission was.

You may want it to be hearsay, but it has been confirmed by others in the Obama administration and Congress. The mission was conducted within an existing national security framework that kills/executes based on "actionable" cause. Drone strikes are now routine. What makes Osama so special? Why not question previous operations that have killed many other people?

[bush_cheney2004]

The US has signed and ratified quite a few international treaties and the reality is that you have never read a single one of them. Youre opinion on the legality is quite frankly besides the point and devoid of any relevance what-so-ever. Unless a case is brought before US courts and theres a ruling, none us knows if this was a violation of international law or not. You have a guess... rufus the stunt-bum has a guess... my uncle Pete has a guess...

And in this case those treaties mean dick squat. And in many other instances too. The very term "International Law" is an oxymoron.

[dre]

With someone like him, or Hitler, I don't thint it matters. A live capture would have put many other peoples' lives at risk.

Sweet. A bad comparison followed up with a wild guess. Nice job.

[TimG]

What DO YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHEN I WRITE TO PUT HIM ON TRIAL AND HANG HIM? (Pardon the shouting, please, but it really is warranted here).

Why would this be any fairer since I assume you expect he will by tried by a US jury?

There are really only two possibilities here:

1) OBL is killed by US troops while resisting capture; The Muslim world protests.

2) OBL is killed after going through a farce of a trial with a predetermined outcome in the US; The Muslim world protests.

Neither process would endear the Americans to Muslims. The latter would simply drag the process out and increase, rather than decrease friction.

[dre]

And in this case those treaties mean dick squat. And in many other instances too. The very term "International Law" is an oxymoron.

And in this case those treaties mean dick squat.

Thats a wild guess about something you know nothing about.

The very term "International Law" is an oxymoron.

Another meaningless opinion on a subject about which you appear to know squat.

[bush_cheney2004]

Thats a wild guess about something you know nothing about.

So now you are claiming that "international law" has not been "violated" before? That it has not been mocked many times to suit the international purpose and objectives? Gee...you must live in Canada and believe all that crap they teach you about multilateralism as a way to justify war crimes!

Another meaningless opinion on a subject about which you appear to know squat.

Now you're just mad.

Edited May 9, 2011 by bush_cheney2004