BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 11 - 12:31 AM

Ron Davies: "The SEALS wanted to make it a quick mission--in fact they had to since the Pakistani forces might well object.    Interesting that it never seems to enter your mind that they actually were capable of carrying out the mission successfully--that is, with a minimum of death and other violence."

Hold on!!..The SEALS 'might have wanted to..' is folly. What really is, is that the SEALS, especially on a mission like this, would have been following ORDERS! They do not have the liberty, to make up their own agendas!
If you knew anything about the SEALS, or if you know anything about the SEALS, you would, or should know that....Ok..now, reconsider your question, or think it all the way though..and going up the chain of command, you'd have to ask, according to WHO gave that particular order.
That being said, I'm not knocking anything you're asking, but do be advised, that your question is too hypothetical!

Now carry on, with all the 'what ifs'?...but I don't know why..I'd rather work with the 'What IS's'...and what REALLY happened, What Really is, and 'WHY?'

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 11 - 02:22 AM

"I could take you on point by point..."
Humour me and give it a try.
You people never do take us on point-by-point; you scurry into your "Anti-Americanism" bunker and never attempt to explain, defend or object to the behaviour of your governments on your behalf. Nobody here is anti-American, but some of us would happily be accused of anti-militarism when it comes to American international helicopter-diplomacy.
Please make time and read the links - I would welcome your input.
And Keith; please start reading what others have said, and if you disagree with their comments, debate them and stop ignoring them.
"What cost would you consider justified to stop someone intent on more mass murder?"
Not the needless deaths of 20-30-100 - or however many civilians in order to carry out the assassination of a terrorist who had no strategic importance, has been replaced already and whose death will not effect terrorist activity by one single casulty.
Make up your mind - you squeal like a stuck pig when you are accused of advocating the criminal behaviour of deliberately targeting non-combatants; now you are apparently advocating just that again.
Please be consistent with your prevarications; it's difficult to keep up.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 11 - 03:01 AM

" the needless deaths of 20-30-100 - or however many civilians in order to carry out the assassination of a terrorist who had no strategic importance, has been replaced already and whose death will not effect terrorist activity by one single casulty. "

It may be your opinion that he was of no significance, but that is highly contentious.
Do any governments say that?
Does his own organisation say that?

He was more than a criminal.
He was engaged in offensive military operations against us.
It was a military operation against him.

Not one innocent bystander was hurt. (All the adults in the compound were complicit.)
It has not caused a rift with Pakistan.
Success.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 11 - 03:09 AM

Don't you think it a little both pretentious and silly to argue points, about the details, when the only info you got to work from is 'news' releases or whatever the government is saying, happened..which seems to change from day to day..sometimes even several times a day??
Shit, and people are not even believing he's even dead?!?

Seems a little futile to me.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 11 - 03:12 AM

The name of the CIA station chief in Islamabad has just been leaked for the second time in 6 months.
You can see why OBL felt so safe, and why Pakistan security was kept out of the loop on this one.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 May 11 - 03:44 AM

Thank you Keith for conceding that the incursion was a violation of Pakistani sovereignty.

I must correct you on one point. I am not arguing whether the killing of ObL was morally wrong or otherwise. In my view it was an unlawful killing. It may or may not turn out to have been generally beneficial.

I am worried about the precedent it sets. If the US may (I know it can) violate the sovereignty of one of its allies, enter their territory, and kill an unarmed person there, what keeps the rest of us safe?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 11 - 04:01 AM

Technically a violation, but they are not objecting so why must you on their behalf.
They seem quite pleased with the outcome.
"proper justice"

It might be your opinion that it was unlawful, but you might be wrong.
Is international law your field?
I asked if you were better informed than all those legal experts who said it was legal.
You declined to answer.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 11 - 04:01 AM

"Do any governments say that?"
All we can give here is our own opinions based on what we read and see - the alternative appears to be the blind faith in governments and experts that you hide your arguments behind.
He could have been taken alive, tried and punished; there was no intention of doing so - he was executed on the spot - leaving behind a threat of reprisals which could be aimed at any of us anywhere.
Now answer the question - are you now advocating that it would have been acceptible to drop a bomb on the compound killing an unkown number of non- combatants - you shrieked liar before, now you appear to be defending the idea
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 11 - 04:18 AM

It was a lie that I had described people as 'expendable'

We give our opinions and debate the validity of them.
You often dismiss mine in threads because I am in a minority.
Your opinions only seem to be held by anti American fanatics.
It is quite legitimate for me to point out that they are extreme fringe opinions, not mainstream.

War is bad.
Combatants are required by law to minimise civilian casualties.
Success.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 May 11 - 04:48 AM

Keith, I have told you why I am worried. I don't trust the US government and military machine.

You have not set out the reasoning of the stated experts - of course we all know that experts engaged by governments say what the governments tell them to say - we have consistency in the USA about Guantanamo bay and the UK about the invasion of Iraq. I know not whether their reasoning might convince me: it has not been set out. I have, however set out my reasoning.

I have asked you to clarify the meaning of your words: -

"Richard, are you not aware that national self defence can justify an incursion without consent?
That is what you would have to argue against.
Some individuals do, but no country or organisation so far."

You have not done so but since you have conceded that the incursion was a violation of sovereignty the point is I now think moot.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 11 - 05:14 AM

Richard, I am not sure what you want.
My understanding is that an incursion (violation) can be justified on grounds of national self defence.
If so, the argument is about whether or not national self defence can be claimed in this case.

Some individuals have opined that it can not, e.g. you.
No government (not even Pakistan) and no organisation (not UN or even Al Qaeda) have given that opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 11 - 05:22 AM

"It was a lie that I had described people as 'expendable'"
You have indicated that it would be acceptible to drop a bomb on "only twenty" non combatants in order to carry out an assassination in the case of the targer fleeing.
You are refusing to confirm or deny that statemant therefore you are saying that those non combatanyts are expendible
Easy solution - confirm or deny what you have already said - you can't have it both ways.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 11 - 05:31 AM

"You have indicated that it would be acceptible to drop a bomb on "only twenty" non combatants in order to carry out an assassination in the case of the targer fleeing."

Assassination is not legal.
Killing a combatant is.
Doing it with a bomb is legally acceptable whether we like it or not Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 11 - 05:42 AM

The LOAC governs the conduct of aerial warfare. The principle of military necessity limits aerial attacks to lawful military targets. Military targets are those that by their own nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to an enemy's military capability and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization in the circumstances existing at the time of an attack enhance legitimate military objectives.

Noncombatants may not be made the object of direct attack. They may, however, suffer injury or death incident to a direct attack on a military objective without such an attack violating the LOAC, if such attack is on a lawful target by lawful means.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 May 11 - 06:48 AM

I should like to see the basis for a legal argument that an incursion into neutral or allied territory can be rendered lawful by the ground of national self defence. I cannot construct any analogue in private law. I can appreciate that an incursion into the territory of an enemy can be lawful on such ground.

Then there is the separate question of whether killing ObL was an act of national self defence. Certainly my impression at the time of the killing was that he was more figurehead than anything else - a politician rather than a combatant. If we get told the truth about the contents of his hard drives it may become clear whether he was a field commander in chief - which would justify his killing if all else was in order.

I remain concerned about the propriety of killing anyone based on information found from torture - and the US claims that what the rest of the world can see is torture but they call "enhanced interrogation" was essential to enabling the killing.

Unconditionally approving what the US government and military did here makes the US government and military more dangerous to the rest of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 11 - 07:36 AM

From The European Journal Of International Law.

Was the Killing of Osama bin Laden Lawful?
Author: Marko Milanovic Filed under: EJIL AnalysisMonday
May 2,2011
Yes. I wouldn't say beyond any doubt, but for practical purposes very nearly so. As I've argued before, there are three bodies of law (potentially) relevant for assessing the legality of a targeted killing: the jus ad bellum, IHL, and human rights law.

As for the jus ad bellum, it is unclear at this time whether the Pakistani government – parts of whose security apparatus undoubtedly harboured and protected OBL – consented to the use of force by the US on Pakistani soil. The Pakistani government has not yet publicly expressed its views on the matter; all things considered, however, it seems such consent was given. If it was not, then the US would have to argue self-defense in killing OBL, which is of course a complex question. At any rate, it is for Pakistan to raise a jus ad bellum issue, and it does not seem at all politically likely that they will now say, oh yes, we've been hiding OBL for years now, but the US had no right to violate our sovereignty.

As for IHL, the jus in bello, it either does not apply at all as the killing was not done as a part of any legally cognizable armed conflict (probably the better view), or OBL was a lawful target as a leader of an organized armed group taking part in a non-international armed conflict a la Hamdan.

As for IHRL, as readers are aware the US argues that the ICCPR does not apply extraterritorially, e.g. to a targeted killing in Pakistan. That position is in my view incorrect. No matter how despicable, OBL was a human being with human rights, and he was protected by the ICCPR – but his human rights were still not violated. IHRL does allow states to deliberately kill individuals if they have a sufficient justification. OBL was undoubtedly a highly dangerous individual, whose apprehension was needed to protect the lives of others. The US military operation at least contemplated the capture of OBL; the troops on the ground shot him in a firefight. There are no indications that he had tried to surrender before being shot. Under the same facts, his killing would have been equally as lawful had he been hiding somewhere in Alaska rather than in Abbottabad.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: bobad
Date: 10 May 11 - 07:43 AM

Bin Laden Killing: the Legal Basis
May 2, 2011
Author:         
John B. Bellinger III, Adjunct Senior Fellow for International and National Security Law

The U.S. killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan was lawful under both U.S. domestic law and international law. The U.S. government's legal rationale will be similar to arguments used by both the Bush and Obama administrations to justify drone strikes against other al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan and elsewhere. The Authorization to Use Military Force Act of September 18, 2001, authorizes the president to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against persons who authorized, planned, or committed the 9/11 attacks.

The killing is not prohibited by the longstanding assassination prohibition in Executive Order 12333 because the action was a military action in the ongoing U.S. armed conflict with al-Qaeda and it is not prohibited to kill specific leaders of an opposing force. The assassination prohibition also does not apply to killings in self-defense. The executive branch will also argue that the action was permissible under international law both as a permissible use of force in the U.S. armed conflict with al-Qaeda and as a legitimate action in self-defense, given that bin Laden was clearly planning additional attacks.

Some critics of the administration's legal theory that the United States is in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda might--if they were consistent with their past criticisms--argue that the United States did not have a right to use military force against bin Laden outside of Afghanistan, and that Washington should instead have sent an extradition request to Pakistan or asked the Pakistani government to arrest bin Laden. But such traditional critics may prefer to remain silent in this instance.

In addition, under the UN Charter, the United States would normally be prohibited from using force inside Pakistan without obtaining Pakistan's consent. It is not clear whether the Obama administration received the consent of the Pakistani government to use force inside Pakistan in this case, but the Pakistani government appears at least to have consented after the fact to this potential infringement of its sovereignty.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: bobad
Date: 10 May 11 - 07:47 AM

Was Bin Laden's Killing Legal? One Top UN Expert Says So.
Mark Leon Goldberg

May 4, 2011

Mark Leon Goldberg

Category: Rights

Topics: Bin Laden

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms Martin Scheinin believes the killing of Osama Bin Laden was legal.

    "The United States offered bin Laden the possibility to surrender, but he refused. Bin Laden would have avoided destruction if he had raised a white flag", Scheinin said on Tuesday.

    According to Scheinin, apprehending a dangerous criminal like Osama bin Laden means that one must be prepared to use force. He noted that killing is permissible under international law only if the person being apprehended resists, and if there are no other means available.

    Scheinin said that the United States was prepared for the possibility of catching bin Laden alive, noting that the operation involved a commando raid on his hiding place, and not a missile strike.

Scheinin is no American patsy. He previously served as special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism and has called Guantanamo a "legal black hole." He has been sharply critical of the America detention policies and the military commissions to try terror suspects.

Meanwhile, the top UN human rights official Navi Pillay also gives a wink and nod to the U.S. operation.

    "I note that the United States has clearly stated that their intention was to arrest bin Laden if they could, I fully understand that this was always likely to have been difficult," she added.

    "This was a complex operation and it would have been helpful if we knew the precise facts surrounding his killing," the High Commissioner for Human Rights said. All counter-terrorism operations had to respect international law, she added.

This all goes to show that the United States fumbled a little bit when Obama administration officials quickly changed their story surrounding the precise details of Bin Laden's death. First, they said, he raised a weapon to resist –so the shooting was clearly justified and legal. Now, they say, he was making other threatening gestures, which would also justify his killing. However, if he was shot while trying to surrender then the legality of his killing becomes less clear. That's why human rights officials like Pillay have to tread somewhat carefully here.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 11 - 07:52 AM

Richard all these are linked to here. http://news.lib.uchicago.edu/blog/2011/05/
Did American forces comply with applicable law when they killed Osama bin Laden? Yes, according to Law School Professor Aziz Huq. In a recent radio interview (Does the death of Osama bin Laden change the legal game?), Professor Huq states that the killing of bin Laden "falls within the domain of permissible force that can be used by the [U.S.] military[Rules of Engagement] and doesn't fall within the prohibition on assassinations that applies to civilian agencies [Executive Order]." Other commentators have also weighed in on the issue. Here are links to some selected legal analyses (see also the Lawfare national security blog for summaries of commentary on the legality of killing Osama bin Laden):

■John B. Bellinger III, Bin Laden Killing: The Legal Basis (Council on Foreign Relations, May 2, 2011)
■bin Laden Slaying: Was It Legal? (Rebecca Baker reporting on Pace international law symposium, May 6, 2011)
■Thomas Darnstädt, Justice, American Style: Was Bin Laden's Killing Legal? (SPIEGEL ONLINE, May 3, 2011)
■Ashley S. Deeks, Pakistan's Sovereignty and the Killing of Osama Bin Laden (ASIL Insights, May 5, 2011)
■Kevin Jon Heller, Quick Thoughts on UBL's Killing, and a Response to Lewis (Opinio Juris, May 4, 2011)(legal under international humanitarian law (IHL))
■In bin Laden killing, legal clarity (National Law Journal, May 9, 2011; quotes U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, Jr.)(available via LexisNexis)
■Raffi Khatchadourian, Bin Laden: The Rules of Engagement (The New Yorker, May 4, 2011) (includes links to related magazine and newspaper articles)
■Fiona de Londras, Killing Osama bin Laden; Doing Justice? (IntlawGrrls, May 4, 2011)
■Marko Milanovic, When to Kill and When to Capture, (EJIL: Talk!, May 6, 2011)
■Marko Milanovic, Was the Killing of Osama bin Laden Lawful? (EJIL: Talk!, May 2, 2011)
■Mary Ellen O'Connell, The bin Laden aftermath: Abbottabad and international law (Foreign Policy, May 4, 2011)
■Mary Ellen O'Connell, The Death of bin Laden As a Turning Point (Opinio Juris, May 3, 2011)
■Geoffrey Robertson, Why it's absurd to claim that justice has been done (The Independent, May 3, 2011)
■Ben Saul, Delivered from evil…to a minefield of law and consequence (The Drum Opinion, ABC, May 4, 2011)
■Jeffrey Toobin, Killing Osama: Was It Legal? (The New Yorker, May 2, 2011)
■Beth Van Schaack, Assassination under International & Domestic Law (IntLawGrrls, May 2, 2011) (includes links to some relevant documents)
■Debra Cassens Weiss, Disclosure that Bin Laden Was Unarmed Has Critics Claiming a Violation of International Law (ABA Journal, May 4, 2011)
■What Was the Legal Basis for the Bin Laden Strike? (BLT, Blog of the Legal Times, May 2, 2011

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 11 - 08:11 AM

NY Times says they have been told that,
Two specialist teams were on standby, probably on the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson in the Arabian Sea: one to bury Bin Laden if he was killed, and a second team of lawyers, interrogators and translators if he was taken alive

The Guardian says they have been told that,
a deal struck between former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and former US President George W Bush in 2001, paved the way for the US to conduct a unilateral raid inside Pakistan if they knew of Bin Laden's whereabouts.

The paper quotes serving and retired Pakistani and US officials as saying that under the terms of the arrangement Pakistan would "vociferously protest the incursion" after it took place.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 11 - 10:27 AM

To anyone concerned: Legal?? That is your basis for right and wrong???
Smoking Pot??? Seems like some of you pick and choose about your 'moral judgments'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 May 11 - 10:34 AM

Never smoked pot. Neither do I want to.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 10 May 11 - 11:39 AM

Prediction: starting very soon, books will be written and videos produced that argue that the SEAL raid was illegal, immoral, and part of the 9/11 coverup.

The case will be made through insinuation, lots of rhetorical questions, dubious claims and ambiguous evidence, and the suppression of inconvenient facts.

Conspiracy buffs and generally naive people everywhere will be convinced.

Just part of the trend to make "alternative history" more than just a kind of fantasy fiction. And to make money too, and gain a following.

See if it doesn't happen.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 11 - 12:04 PM

Well, some of us don't..but what I was merely pointing out, is that some people love to moralize about the 'legality' of various things, then pick and choose what is OK for them to do, and wrong for others to do. Maybe the pot thing was 'less than a good example'..so let's try this one...Illegal aliens have been crossing our borders, and even killing ranchers, on our side. Now the 'uber-left', seems to justify that, and make excuses, but then turn around and condemn the killing of OBL, based on the same illegality, of crossing a border, to take some one out!
Two things: We are either 'relieved' or 'glad' OBL was snuffed, or we are opposed to it, and that should be consistent with other border crossings to commit murder, including those killings of innocent citizens, sorta like 911 as well, or we oppose all of it..not just those whose policies we agree with! Secondly: For all those who are standing on using the legality of their interpretation of international law, you can spout off all your interpretations, to defend this action, which seems understandable, but those who you are defending, would just as soon put a bullet in YOUR head, because they don't recognize international law, and because you are not of their particular sect of Islam..no matter how much you vehemently, side with them!!! Not only that, they wish to replace your international law, with Sharia law, which justifies a lot more death sentences, for things your/our cultures take for granted, every day.
That being said, personally I abhor, not only war, but what our government has been doing throughout the world, on the behalf of other 'special interests', and then cloaking it all with hypocritical rhetoric, for the public, back home. This has been going on through both types of administrations, left or right,(doesn't matter), and we here at home, are left with a tragically divided public, which division itself, keeps the main problems from being addressed! Rarely, does it seem, that when a new policy is acted upon, it is NOT in the interests of the public at large, but rather to facilitate whatever 'special interest' from making a profit, from its implementation!
The OBL killing(?), was done for political expediency, more than protection of the West, but because it was also beneficial(we think) for us as well, we'll see these arguments take place.
So, if you want Sharia law to replace international law, or, if you want to see Sharia law, become international law, consider this as well. The law you are defending would make it 'legal' to kill you instantly, for not swearing allegiance to 'Allah'..but if you did that, to their INTERPRETATION of Sharia law, that most accurately fits THEIR radical views. You might say it is a battle of the 'laws'.
Sometime it will occur to some of you, that, as I said before, WAR is the breakdown of ALL laws!....and this particular war that is going on, is going to get a LOT nastier, and crueler and chaotic, that anyone can imagine!
Does that justify any of what is going on? Right now, or at least for the moment, we have gathered lots of intel from the raid...perhaps that can stall more bloodshed....while we use that time to 'rip-off, illegally, and hypocritically others in the world community...not for peace, not for order, but for the profiteers, and control freaks, to keep the peace at home, long enough to force the public, to become dependent, buy and use the resources that keep them in power!
There is another law, yet still, but the uber-left, the far right, and Sharia law ALL hate...and that is, "Love God above all THINGS" and Love your neighbor as yourself"......but that's to lame for all you 'progressives'...(rolls eyes)....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 May 11 - 12:31 PM

...he was making other threatening gestures, which would also justify his killing.

Uh, no, Bobad, not by any standard of law can you use lehal force in that instance.

Why don't you kill the next person that gives you the finger & see what happens to you, if you try the "he was making threatening gestures" defense.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 10 May 11 - 12:54 PM

"I note with interest that Mr. Walkabout has managed to come up with precisely zero quotes and sources." (Ron)..."Mr. Walkabout" doesn't know what was happening as Hillary Clinton's hand went to her mouth (Bin Laden's hands may have been on a weapon or raised above his head in surrender for all I know)...but, as I say, a small group of U.S. leaders/officials, plus the SEALS, probably know quite well, and I presume the footage from the SEALS cameras has been kept...

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: bobad
Date: 10 May 11 - 12:55 PM

"Uh, no, Bobad, not by any standard of law can you use lehal force in that instance."

I think you got the wrong guy there, I didn't say that.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 11 - 12:59 PM

Greg, oh dear Greg, How do you KNOW he was 'making threatening gestures'?...the 'news'?....given by who??? Same with ALL these 'reports'.
Oh, and being flipped the finger, really doesn't much fall into threatening category....maybe he was just picking the finger he liked the best!

I think that, knowing from what I already know, about such stuff, they carried out their primary orders...neutralize or terminate the target, and gather ALL intelligence possible, within a certain time frame. The rest of the storied 'reports' was to make it palatable for public consumption! If you want to attack the actions of the SEALS, then you'd have to focus on who gave that order, and/or why?...but then, you'd have to view Obama as a war criminal. If you want to go that way, well then YOU would have to re-examine your enthusiastic support of him, or join in on the guilt, for voting for him...after all, that's how our enemies look at it, don't they?

GfS

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 11 - 01:39 PM

Here, this is what it's about! Read it, then consider what I posted about a war of 'laws'. Interesting read, for everyone, who thinks they know more than they really do!

You tell me!...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 May 11 - 03:02 PM

Guest Insanity, read Post by bobad Date: 10 May 11 - 07:47 AM, final paragraph.

Bobad, hard to tell if the final paragraph in your post cited above was you, or Mr Goldberg.

Walkabouts, the self-styled "Simple Seeker After Truth" (a.k.a. Ron Davies) has a positively anal fixation with "quotes ans sources" which he requires for everyone but himself. Ignore him.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 11 - 03:26 PM

Ok..I re-read it, as per requested, by you.
Let me call your attention to one particular part..(Note my inserted caps):
"This all goes to show that the United States fumbled a little bit when Obama administration officials quickly CHANGED their story surrounding the precise details of Bin Laden's death. First, they said, he raised a weapon to resist –so the shooting was clearly justified and legal. NOW, THEY SAY, he was making other threatening gestures, which would also justify his killing. However, IF he was shot while trying to surrender then the legality of his killing becomes less clear."

Again, let me re-iterate,"...How do you KNOW he was 'making threatening gestures'?...the 'news'?....given by who??? Same with ALL these 'reports'."

You will notice through my posts regarding this, that when using the words 'news' and 'reports' I always put them in quotation marks, because, frankly, to believe any of these sources, as truth, is nonsense! The only TRUTH that comes from the White House, the administration-S, is usually only by co-incidence!..not accuracy in 'reporting'....and if you've noticed, even on the press briefings, the 'explanations' are usually left 'open-ended', just in case they need to be embellished!..Which they often do!
Personally, I think trusting EVERYTHING that they utter, is just that, UTTER NONSENSE!

Thanks for the heads up, though.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 10 May 11 - 03:40 PM

""Mr. Walkabout" doesn't know what was happening as Hillary Clinton's hand went to her mouth"

Supposing that she wasn't in the process of witnessing something somewhat shocking involving the execution of an elderly man then Ms. Clinton's hand was no doubt either caught in the act of suppressing either a loud belch, or a guffaw, or maybe more sinisterly she was repressing her sudden embarrassment over discovering that a tiny fart which she had she had stealthily released (on the foolish assumption that it would be innocuously airy) possessed far greater noxious powers than she had formerly anticipated.. We may suppose from the expressions on the faces of her companions, that the latter may well have been the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: bobad
Date: 10 May 11 - 04:06 PM

"....the execution of an elderly man ...."

Who incidentally happens to have been a mass murderer, an innocent oversight on your part I presume.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 May 11 - 04:39 PM

GROSS IMAGE ALERT It is, of course, entirely possible that was the instant when a bullet went into his forehead and the side of his head was blown off.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 May 11 - 05:48 PM

More interestingly (although I should thank you for the links, Keith et al, although I might want to disagree with some of the views shortly expressed or indeed see the full argument rather than short assertions) it now (and rather belatedly) appears that Pakistan expressly consented some 10 years ago to the USA making an incursion.

The US law argument is of course a red herring. The US does not have the power to decide the law of other jurisdictions. That would be wholly colonialist.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 10 May 11 - 06:15 PM

"The US law argument is of course a red herring. The US does not have the power to decide the law of other jurisdictions. That would be wholly colonialist."

Without wishing to incorrectly suppose myself either an expert on international law or on international farting, I had considered that this might very well be the case myself..

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 May 11 - 07:20 PM

""Richard, I am not sure what you want.
My understanding is that an incursion (violation) can be justified on grounds of national self defence.
If so, the argument is about whether or not national self defence can be claimed in this case.""

Keith, since you have set yourself up as the definitive expert upon military matters both procedural and legal, perhaps you would explain to me what likelihood you see, of any judge allowing a self defense claim from the aggressor in a fight.

you wouldn't get that concept past any primary school teacher.

Tommy claims Billy punched him on the nose.
Billy says it was in self defense.
Tommy retorts that Billy threw the only punch in the incident.

Billy says "I did it in self defense Miss, I hit him back before he could hit me"!

Who thinks that the claim of self defense has any merit?.....And it is even more unlikely to succeed if Billy had to knock Tommy's front door down to do it.

I think that dog is seriously unlikely to hunt.

As for protesting on behalf of Pakistan Keith, nothing so altruistic I'm sorry to say.

I don't give a flying fuck about the human rights or the death of ObL.

I care almost as little for the plight of a Pakistani government which couldn't apparently find its collective arse without a road map.

What I do care about is having my own and my family's safety compromised by the cavalier actions of a nation which is supposed to be an ally, and having my intelligence insulted by the leaders of that nation claiming to have made me and the rest of the World safer.

SAFER FROM WHOM? After all, we've just seen what that nation does to its "allies" whenever it feels inclined.

Which of you is going to stand up and say that your governments are worthy of OUR trust?

And you had better have some damn convincing argument, because I'm feeling nostalgic about the Cold War, when two bullies wouldn't fight because neither could be sure of winning.

Consider this....It's only since the USSR collapsed, leaving the US as supreme military power that we, or you, have had this trouble with terrorists.

And before you dive in Keith, Northern Ireland was a separate issue, and last time I looked, not Muslim.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 May 11 - 07:42 PM

"It's only since the USSR collapsed, leaving the US as supreme military power that we, or you, have had this trouble with terrorists."

Excuse me, Don...dare I mention the IRA? Oh, I didn't notice that Ireland doesn't count. How about the SLA? The Shining Path? The Tamil Tigers?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 May 11 - 07:58 PM

Checked your links, Jim.

Link 1 – June, 2008 – during the Bush administration.

Link 2 – Amnesty International "SUSPECTS." But no proof. Amnesty International is a generally good organization and one that I support, but they are often given to erring on the side of suspicion. Not a bad characteristic in such an organization. But you've got to do better than "suspect," JIM. You can't convict on "suspicion." And people "suspect" a lot of things. Conspiracy theories and baseless accusations are built on "suspicions."

LINK 3 – Unable to open. Link incomplete.

Link 4 – I read that some time back. Two things:   The map does not indicate flights going through Shannon;.   The dates indicate that this was also information from during the Bush administration.

Obama indicated that he was going to put an end to such practices.

Now, I cannot verify that it's not still going on. Nor can you prove that it is. But "enhanced interrogation" is not the ONLY way the intelligence services have of getting the information they seek, nor is it necessarily all that reliable. I have already mentioned in previous posts the imaging capabilities of satellites—and of drones. The drones are used far more for reconnaissance than they are as attack weapons. And a compound like the one bin Laden occupied would obviously draw attention to itself as a place to watch very carefully.

And I would also suggest, as others here have done, that you acquaint yourself with the laws and agreements between countries having to do with various kinds of hostile situations.

Don Firth

P. S. By the way:   60 Minutes interview with Barack Obama this past Sunday evening regarding the Osama bin Laden operation. Well worth watching if you wish to be well informed as to the decisions and planning behind it, and WHY certain choices were made.

P. P. S.   "Take your head out of your arse Don. . . ."

Really, Jim! In addition to being pointless, that's unworthy of you!

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 10 May 11 - 08:08 PM

Beware of any argument that includes "of course," unless you already know something to be a fact.

"Of course" is often a simple debating trick.

International law sets the standard, and law always requires interpetation because its principles are general. How is that "wholly colonialist"? What does "wholly colonialist" mean here anyway? Pakistan is not a colony of the United States, NATO, or anyone else.

Pakistan, moreover, is allowing the US to interrogate the three of Bin Laden's wives now in custody. That doesn't sound to me as though Islamabad thinks the raid was unlawful or that it believes it's being treated in a "colonialist" manner.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Charley Noble
Date: 10 May 11 - 08:57 PM

Not that anyone will be interested in this update but "the firefight" has now been reduced to a single shot fired at the SEALS by one of Bin Laden's couriers, one of the 3 or 4 others shot in the raid.

I'm still pleased that Bin Laden was shot dead, even if the action did evidently violate international law.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Wesley S
Date: 10 May 11 - 09:44 PM

"even if the action did evidently violate international law."

Well pilgrim - sometimes a mans gotta do what a mans gotta do. Presidents too.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 11 - 10:00 PM

artbrooks: "GROSS IMAGE ALERT It is, of course, entirely possible that was the instant when a bullet went into his forehead and the side of his head was blown off."

Ironic, how we can watch any time we want, JFK's head being blown off, but the photos of our enemy gettin' snuffed, are to 'much for us to take'(?)

Maybe the radicals need to see it!

As to the speculation on what the group in the situation room was thinking, especially Clinton, I originally took it as watching in suspense, as the deal unfolded, probably with, maybe, a little more suspense than watching the judging on 'Dancing With the Stars' or 'American Idol'. That was my original impression, and pretty much still is....but, like I said before, it is only speculation...Who knows??....and does it really matter??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 11 - 11:50 PM

Bin Laden, inspiration to the 'believers'.............

The Islamic "shock troops" are already here. Most people don't recognize them as shock troops, because they don't behave like shock troops, and also because for the most part, people don't understand Islam and "hijra" (conquest by immigration). With an Islamic invasion, shock troops are opposite to the normal understanding of the term. They due things that are normally forbidden in Islamic countries, they smile at, and befriend infidels, they offer charitable assistance to infidels, they profess tolerance and respect for all other religions (Mohammed did the same thing in his early period, when he was outnumbered in Mecca, he later came back with an army and wasn't so "nice" then), they, in other words, make nice.

Here are a few other things they have been up to in countries that were not always, or are still not, Islamic states.

Coming soon to your neighborhood:

2011.05.09 (Laghman, Afghanistan) - Three children are among five civilians torn to shreds by a Shah-id suicide bomber.

2011.05.09 (Ghazni, Afghanistan) - The Taliban machine-gun a half-dozen policemen at point-blank range.

2011.05.08 (Imbada, Egypt) - Salafists shoot the 16-year-old nephew of a Catholic bishop in the head.

2011.05.08 (Makhachkala, Dagestan) - A journalist is among two people slain by Jihadi gunmen in separate attacks.

2011.05.08 (Pattani, Thailand) - Islamists gun down two Buddhists in front of a mosque.

2011.05.07 (Cairo, Egypt) - Fundamentalists assault two churches with firebombs and gunfire, killing five Copt defenders and seven more in an ensuing rampage.

Not making nice with infidels in these places, are they?

i guess this is 'legal'..for some folks.....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 May 11 - 11:53 PM

Lighter, Bobad cites Bellinger on US law. US law is irrelevant for the reasons I stated.

If it be correct that there was an earlier express agreement between a former Pakistan administration and a former US administration permitting US incursion, then there would remain the question of whether that agreement was still effective about 10 years later as between different regimes. In terms of Don Thompson's argument that is about knocking down Fred's door, not Tommy's. It is not wholly clear cut but it would make the US's argument much easier.

The other argument concerns whether ObL was a political or religious leader on the one hand (assassination a no-no, but arrest by competent authority or its agent lawful, including the use of REASONABLE force against resistance) or a military commander (assassination permissible in most cases except clear surrender).

If we can trust what later comes to be said about the contents of ObL's computers, then they will probably tell us which role ObL remained discharging. The issue of whether the US forces represented a lawful authority at that time in that place probably goes back to the validity of that agreement.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 May 11 - 12:47 AM

"execution of an elderly man"

Open mouth, insert foot.

"execution"--drivel, as detailed already on the thread

"elderly"---born 10 Mar 1957

Let's see, that makes him an elderly 54-year-old man.

Younger than most Mudcatters, I suspect--including possibly the illustrious poster quoted.

That would make said poster a decrepit, doddering old fool.   Hey, that might not be too far off.

"man"--In all likelihood Osama was a man. So congratulations to the poster--he actually got something right.   Osama had several wives. But who knows, perhaps that's just circumstantial evidence.

Perhaps said poster would like to consider the possibility of doing some actual research---rather than absurd blather.    Just a suggestion.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 May 11 - 01:39 AM

Jim accuses me of hiding behind experts, which I do not regard as a criticism.
Don T accuses me of setting myself up as an expert.
Not true. I just like to back up my posts with evidence.
I think it better than relying on prejudice and ignorance.

Don, Al Q launched a number of bomb attacks against US targets abroad and in New York that resulted in heavy loss of US lives.
These attacks culminated in the devastating attacks of 2001.

As I understand it, USA is entitled to strike back at Al Q, even on the soil of another country if they appear not to be taking effective action.

Clinton made strikes against them in other countries using cruise missiles even before 2001.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,lively
Date: 11 May 11 - 03:01 AM

I have done my research!!

It seems that I was in fact incorrect about the supposed farting incident.
According to her own testimony, Hilary was not expressing shock at witnessing anything at all (least of all the execution of any doddering old fools either present in bin Laden's compound or posting on Mudcat) merely repressing a "spring cough".

Hope that helps.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: bobad
Date: 11 May 11 - 07:02 AM

Richard Bridge:

"Lighter, Bobad cites Bellinger on US law. US law is irrelevant for the reasons I stated."

What my citation actually states:

"The U.S. killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan was lawful under both U.S. domestic law and international law."

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 May 11 - 07:28 AM

Yes. The bit about US law is irrelevant - unless you are planning on sending a gunboat and establishing a colony.