Osama Bin Laden is Dead

[dre]

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!

Now you're just mad.

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?

I never said it hasnt been violated. Have your domestic laws against murder been violated and mocked many thousands of times before? Of course they have... that means what? That they arent effective?

Gee...you must live in Canada and believe all that crap they teach you about multilateralism as a way to justify war crimes!

If I posted that comment Id feel really stupid.

Now you're just mad.

Not at all. Didnt you read any of my posts? I think OBL was a scumbag and Im glad hes dead. Even if it WAS illegal, good riddance.

Just because I comment on your inability to understand the world around you doesnt mean Im angry

[bush_cheney2004]

I never said it hasnt been violated. Have your domestic laws against murder been violated and mocked many thousands of times before? Of course they have... that means what? That they arent effective?

They aren't effective in this context....people still murder each other.

If I posted that comment Id feel really stupid.

But you didn't...and I don't.

Not at all. Didnt you read any of my posts? I think OBL was a scumbag and Im glad hes dead. Even if it WAS illegal, good riddance.

Stop running from the larger issue....Osama's dead ass is not relevant to the larger point of past and continuing military actions that "violate international law".

Just because I comment on your inability to understand the world around you doesnt mean Im angry

Of course...yet you sit on your ass in Canada and wonder if my country can legally kill Osama Bin Laden. Priceless!

[dre]

They aren't effective in this context....people still murder each other.

But you didn't...and I don't.

Stop running from the larger issue....Osama's dead ass is not relevant to the larger point of past and continuing military actions that "violate international law".

Of course...yet you sit on your ass in Canada and wonder if my country can legally kill Osama Bin Laden. Priceless!

Of course...yet you sit on your ass in Canada and wonder if my country can legally kill Osama Bin Laden. Priceless!

Ya think? I didnt start a thread about the legality, nor did I express an opinion on it. The question was posed by others, and I simply said that I didnt know the answer, and didnt have enough information to say one way or another.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ya think? I didnt start a thread about the legality, nor did I express an opinion on it. The question was posed by others, and I simply said that I didnt know the answer, and didnt have enough information to say one way or another.

Right...you wonder either way. I already know the answer....it doesn't matter. Bin Laden has been executed by American forces after violating the sovereignty of another state. They have the means and will to do so.

[dre]

Right...you wonder either way. I already know the answer....it doesn't matter. Bin Laden has been executed by American forces after violating the sovereignty of another state. They have the means and will to do so.

Yup. People murder people and rape little kids even though its illegal too. The whole reason for having a rule in the first place is that it could get broken.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yup. People murder people and rape little kids even though its illegal too. The whole reason for having a rule in the first place is that it could get broken.

In matters such as these, the "rules" are purposely broken for objectives more important than the sanctity of "international law", which is subordinate by the very nature of the constituent sovereign nations that lobbied for the existence of such laws in the first place.

[dre]

In matters such as these, the "rules" are purposely broken for objectives more important than the sanctity of "international law", which is subordinate by the very nature of the constituent sovereign nations that lobbied for the existence of such laws in the first place.

There is no "sanctity of international law". Countries draft and sign agreements and contracts with each other that are as good their word. The degree to which signatories honor such contacts depends (normally) on the respect that governments have for their own laws, and the judicial branches ability to enforce them.

[Oleg Bach]

What pisses me off is that what was once a Christian nations sits back and allows Coptic Christians in Egypt to be persecuted and killed. It reminds me of Nazis destroying Jews. Islamo Facists are most definitely moblizing the stupified fanatic masses...how about a few drones over there to wack a few jerks that stir up hate against good people - I know some Coptics..they are wonderful folks. BUT as Americans danced in Times Square and celebrated the killing of a Villian - Muslim fanatics dance in the streets of Cairo celebrating the begining of a genocide against Christians. It's not hard to figure out where pre-emptive mafia style hits should take place - It's not the masses you have to worry about but the individuals to take advantage of the most base parts of human nature that should be removed - Not that I personally sanction the destruction of weasils - but if America is going to take this new approach they might as well go for it ----and as Pontius Pilate once said - "I wash my hands of this" - of course he allowed and facilitated the assassination of a great leader...and a good one.

[GostHacked]

In matters such as these, the "rules" are purposely broken for objectives more important than the sanctity of "international law", which is subordinate by the very nature of the constituent sovereign nations that lobbied for the existence of such laws in the first place.

American governance/policy is a two faced hypocrite then.

[Oleg Bach]

American governance/policy is a two faced hypocrite then.

Welcome to democratic captialism. Where a corporation will plunder resourses world wide - dirty up the natural environment - then give a big wack of money to sick kids hospital so history will view them as a nice person...One can not generate a huge pile of wealth without making the other guys pile smaller. Bush Cheney is a typical well informed American. He understands that his life style is totally dependant on the crimminal enterprise of his masters - so he submits...cos' he likes to eat and have a lawn that looks like astro turf.

[bush_cheney2004]

There is no "sanctity of international law". Countries draft and sign agreements and contracts with each other that are as good their word. The degree to which signatories honor such contacts depends (normally) on the respect that governments have for their own laws, and the judicial branches ability to enforce them.

This is why the very term "international law" is ludicrous in practice. Treaties are instruments of advantage that are honored when the cost of not doing so outweighs compliance, singularly or in consort with other policy objectives. For instance, Canada blew off the Kyoto Protocol with the minor ill effect of bad press from treehuggers, while saving billions. There was no "enforcement" by the courts.

[Guest American Woman]

American governance/policy is a two faced hypocrite then.

I hate to break it to you, but it isn't just American governance/policy, and if you think it is, you're either very naive or very ill informed.

----------------

All of this talk about the Geneva Convention rules regarding war when fighting an enemy that breaks all the rules makes me wonder at what point being the only one playing by the rules goes from being more moralistic to being more stupid. I think the terrorists, who don't give a damn about anything, know that the United States is expected to play by the rules and is, in effect, limited as such. Perhaps knowing that there were ultimately no qualms about going in and shooting bin Laden dead will help them realize that we will ultimately do what we have to do. I can't imagine anyone who sits in judgement continuing to play by the rules if they personally were up against an opponent who was going after them and their loved ones no holds barred.

Edited May 9, 2011 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

...I can't imagine anyone who sits in judgement continuing to play by the rules if they personally were up against an opponent who was going after them and their loved ones no holes barred.

America will not let its Constitution be used as a weapon against itself in such matters. This is why Obama reversed himself on 'Gitmo, and just put a bullet through Osama's skull. This harkens back to earlier threads in which some people cannot reconcile American policy and actions with their own lofty expectations gleaned from American media.

[msj]

All of this talk about the Geneva Convention rules regarding war when fighting an enemy that breaks all the rules makes me wonder at what point being the only one playing by the rules goes from being more moralistic to being more stupid. I think the terrorists, who don't give a damn about anything, know that the United States is expected to play by the rules and is, in effect, limited as such. Perhaps knowing that there were ultimately no qualms about going in and shooting bin Laden dead will help them realize that we will ultimately do what we have to do. I can't imagine anyone who sits in judgement continuing to play by the rules if they personally were up against an opponent who was going after them and their loved ones no holds barred.

So death by hanging is not as harsh on the terrorist than simply knocking on a door with a team of Navy Seals?

Well, then I think we should extend such courtesy to our police forces too!

They should be able to knock on the door and "execute" their duty accordingly.

OBL was a single piece of sh!t terrorist. Hardly worth throwing out our value systems for a guy like him.

Alas, that's exactly what people want: exceptions that start here and end ... well who knows.

[msj]

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

I would be happy with a US military tribunal of some sort. Do it all in Cuba if necessary.

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.

You missed what actually happened: OBL is killed by order while not resisting capture.

Guess what? If I'm a criminal and the police enter my home and I'm not resisting then they don't have a right to shoot me.

If I'm a soldier and I'm not resisting then the other sides troops aren't supposed to shoot me and are supposed to take me as a POW.

Now, I know that OBL fits somewhere between these two but it should be clear that any form of International Law would presume that if you have a chance to take someone alive then you take him alive.

As for the Muslim world protesting: yes, they are going to protest any which way it comes out.

I would rather have them protest due to us following some basic rules of law than give them the legitimacy to protest over an illegitimate execution.

[bush_cheney2004]

Guess what? If I'm a criminal and the police enter my home and I'm not resisting then they don't have a right to shoot me.

That depends on priors and perceived threat to their safety and others. They can certainly use non-lethal force, which may still result in your death. Oh well....

If I'm a soldier and I'm not resisting then the other sides troops aren't supposed to shoot me and are supposed to take me as a POW.

This is not true....as a combatant, you are fair game on the battlefield regardless of your intentions. You can also be shot dead as a civilian on any military installation where lethal force is authorized (e.g. restricted area).

Now, I know that OBL fits somewhere between these two but it should be clear that any form of International Law would presume that if you have a chance to take someone alive then you take him alive.

Such a presumption is not supported by current events. Hellfire missile strikes have been erasing people for quite some time with nary a peep save for human rights junkies.

[GostHacked]

America will not let its Constitution be used as a weapon against itself in such matters.

So what good is the constitution then?

[GostHacked]

I hate to break it to you, but it isn't just American governance/policy, and if you think it is, you're either very naive or very ill informed.

It happens all over the place, but because it does, does not make it right.

----------------

All of this talk about the Geneva Convention rules regarding war when fighting an enemy that breaks all the rules makes me wonder at what point being the only one playing by the rules goes from being more moralistic to being more stupid. I think the terrorists, who don't give a damn about anything, know that the United States is expected to play by the rules and is, in effect, limited as such. Perhaps knowing that there were ultimately no qualms about going in and shooting bin Laden dead will help them realize that we will ultimately do what we have to do. I can't imagine anyone who sits in judgement continuing to play by the rules if they personally were up against an opponent who was going after them and their loved ones no holds barred.

When you no longer hold yourself accountable to your own rules, then you fail in upholding your own rules or values. You become just like the terrorist .......Terrorists win.

When you always live in fear about terrorism, when you are more likely to die crossing the road (hit by a car), ......terrorists win.

When you tighten security across the board which does not actually protect you from terrorism, .......terrorists win.

When you give up your rights and freedoms because someone hates you for your rights and freedoms and wants to take them away from you ... ....terrorists win.

[jbg]

So what good is the constitution then?

But is a rational purpose of a Constitution to hang ourselves? Should people who basically want us dead by able to use the Constitution to wrap us in strings, Liliputian style?

[GostHacked]

But is a rational purpose of a Constitution to hang ourselves? Should people who basically want us dead by able to use the Constitution to wrap us in strings, Liliputian style?

The constitution applies to the USA and American citizens, correct? IF so, then it does not apply anywhere else. The notion of a foreigner hanging you with your constitution is laughable. The notion of an American hanging you with the American constitution is more or less holding your own to your own values. If you violate your own constitution, then yes, you might deserve a hanging, and can that be considered a form of treason?

[bud]

americans should give full trust to what their government is telling them. because cia has confirmed that it was osama through a dna test and obama has confirmed that it was osama because he watched it happen and he's seen the photos.

no point in re-hashing the fact that cia and the american president at the time, bushcheney, lied about and forged evidence that led the united states into a useless war.

[bush_cheney2004]

....no point in re-hashing the fact that cia and the american president at the time, bushcheney, lied about and forged evidence that led the united states into a useless war.

Useless for who...Canada? Don't worry, we did it without you!

[GostHacked]

Useless for who...Canada? Don't worry, we did it without you!

And you are STILL doing it without us.

[Shady]

The constitution applies to the USA and American citizens, correct? IF so, then it does not apply anywhere else.

Yes, but peoplel like Obama have lobbied for American constitutional rights to apply to non-Americans. To me, it still boils down to one basic premise. If somebody declards war on you, you should have the right to kill them. Regardless of whether they're carrying a weapon.

[GostHacked]

Yes, but peoplel like Obama have lobbied for American constitutional rights to apply to non-Americans. To me, it still boils down to one basic premise. If somebody declards war on you, you should have the right to kill them. Regardless of whether they're carrying a weapon.

Now see that might work in terms of a formal declaration of war with a known enemy in a known location (aka a country and it's military). What we have here is a war on terror, which has no boundries and is not really distinguished as a military or residing in a specific country. So now the USA is making attacks in soveriegn countries to kill these terrorists (which are now reported to be in Yemen, Libya, Syria, Egypt, Algeria, ect ect ect ... ) however to me this is a lost cause. You are going to be putting out fires all over the place, you put one out in Afghanistan, then you have Pakistan, put one out in Iraq (like there really was a threat from Iraq .. duped!!!), now you got Yemen and Libya. Look out over the battlefield, you don't know exactly who your enemy is. You don't exactly know where they exist. You cannot beat this enemy because it has no boundries.

This war on terror is 10 years old. Both WW1 and WW2, and most major conflicts in between did not last 10 years.

But as this is happening, freedoms and rights are being taken away by the countries wanting to defeat terrorism. You are NEVER going to eliminate terrorism (unless you put the cuffs on the CIA to prevent them from causing a ruckous world wide)