BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???

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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 05:14 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 04:01 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 03:01 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: 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: 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: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 11 - 12:18 AM

600!! yippee!

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 May 11 - 12:04 AM

"Do you guys ever look...?"

I'm sure you'd be much happier with a pitched battle and many deaths.   So sorry to disappoint you.   I'll have to advise them that in their next mission they need to up the death toll, since a Mudcatter requires it.

I have read and heard reports which indicated there were heavily armed supporters of Osama in the house.    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.

If you have read or reports that there were not heavily armed supporters of Osama in the house, let's have exact sources and quotes.    I note with interest that Mr. Walkabout has managed to come up with precisely zero quotes and sources.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: number 6
Date: 10 May 11 - 12:04 AM

Collateral damage ... a very clinical, cold expression .... a term that relinquishes the perpetrator from any prosecution

from an earlier post of mine in this thread.

"I also raise question if the other 3 victims were also armed .... if not, then it would be murder (would it not) or ... were they just collateral damage."

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: artbrooks
Date: 10 May 11 - 12:01 AM

Possible, but not too likely...at least since it has a specific meaning that is taught in officers' training - or at least it was when I was teaching junior officers. It is more likely, IMHO, that it got to the media by way of the civilian side of the military...DOD staffers and the like.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: michaelr
Date: 09 May 11 - 11:19 PM

Thanks, Art. It sure has assumed a different meaning in common usage... I wonder how that happened. Are you sure it didn't begin with some commander describing civilian deaths as collateral damage?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 May 11 - 10:58 PM

It is damage caused by bombs or artillery fire (including nuclear artillery) that isn't part of the intended mission - for example, firing on a fortification whose destruction blocks a road that the friendly forces had planned to use, or unintentionally starting a forest fire that prevents movement into or through an area. It is the equivalent of accidentally shooting yourself in the foot...doing something that you hadn't planned on that may have adverse consequences on something else you had intended.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: michaelr
Date: 09 May 11 - 09:40 PM

Oh? So what does the military mean by it, Art?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 May 11 - 09:19 PM

Media reports that there was a backup plan to drop a one-ton bomb on the compound. Did anybody real say that, or is the media making it up? Someone also referred to "collateral damage"? I hope that you realize that this is a term that the media uses for unplanned and tragic injuries and deaths of innocent civilians, and the US military uses it for something entirely different. Unplanned and tragic injuries and deaths of innocent civilians are normally referred to as...unplanned and tragic injuries and deaths of innocent civilians.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 May 11 - 09:17 PM

Greg, whenever someone takes only what they want...

OK then, Don - enlighten me.

What precisely is Jim's "particular bias" that you refer to?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 May 11 - 08:33 PM

""All reports which have addressed the issue of "taking alive" agree that he had armed assistance in the house and was not eager to surrender.   If you think this is incorrect, we need sources and exact quotes""

Do you guys ever look at the situation?

He had about twenty people in that house, some of whom were women and children, and that doesn't leave much of an armed assistance.

Also, none of those supposed "armed assistants" managed to get off a single shot, and hardly anybody was killed, on either side.

It seems Al Qaeda is recruiting the wrong people, unless they were just civilians.

So, if the Seals captured all of those "armed assistants" without killing them, how come they made an exception for ObL, wounding his wife in the process?

Doesn't seem very plausible.

And for Keith, to save him the trouble of talking about having to make split second decisions, that is precisely what they train for.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 May 11 - 08:21 PM

""The "big picture" is of course more important and will certainly be debated for years.""

Or at least until the first bombs go off in London or Paris, and our gallant US allies say "Well, thank God it wasn't us".

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: michaelr
Date: 09 May 11 - 08:11 PM

Henry Kissinger masterminded the murder of countless thousands of innocent Cambodians (many times the number Bin Laden' minions did) and thousands if innocent Chileans, & etc. & etc

Yeah, but those weren't white people, much less Americans!

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 May 11 - 08:10 PM

""What can you do when fighters surround themselves with civilians including children.
The SEALS did well to spare all the children and most of the adults (who all knew their host).""

All I can say is this. If many of our fighting men have the same utterly callous and immoral attitude to the "collateral" deaths of twenty bystanders, God Help the UK.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 May 11 - 08:05 PM

""In 1941, the British Special Operations Executive (SOE) was authorised by Winston Churchill to assassinate high-ranking Nazis wherever they could be found.""

Apples and housebricks Keith.

The British were at war (a declared war) with Germany, and the territory in which such assassinations were approved was either the territory of an enemy power, or territory occupied and/or controlled by that enemy power.

Pakistan is not an enemy of the US, nor was it (by any stretch of the imagination) under the occupation or control of ObL or Al Qaeda.

Do you, I wonder, really understand what is meant by rational discussion?

Somehow, I doubt it!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 09 May 11 - 07:53 PM

""Richard, national self defence could justify an incursion such as this one, but not random acts of terror against a civilian population as practiced by Hamas.""

What about the "collateral" damage then?

""Don T, was I wrong volunteer to stand with the British Army alongside our US allies, against the might of the Warsaw Pact's armoured divisions?""


My brother and two cousins did exactly the same, but they don't consider themselves military or legal experts.

You apparently are much more arrogant, unless of course you are telling the truth when you claim to be merely reporting others' words, in which case you are a Parrot, and we've all heard the term "bird brain".

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: andrew e
Date: 09 May 11 - 06:29 PM

http://www.prisonplanet.com/10-facts-that-prove-the-bin-laden-fable-is-a-contrived-hoax.html

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 May 11 - 05:29 PM

Greg, whenever someone takes only what they want from something someone else posted, twists the intent, and then uses their twisted version to attack the poster, from that point on, I know what their posts are worth.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 May 11 - 05:10 PM

Yeah, Jim, its a helluva thing to be biased in favor of due process and the rule of law. Shame on you!

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 May 11 - 04:58 PM

State my reasons? I did, Jim. And you can blow them off if you wish, but they're still there.

I've heard all this kind of thing before from people with your particular bias, and although I could take you on point by point, I know it won't get through to you, so why should I waste my time? Make of it what you will, which of course you would do anyway, even if I wrote a couple of books worth of refutation.

I leave it to others on this thread to make their own assessment.

I have a great deal of respect for your scholarship when it comes to folk music, but as of now, that does not extend to your grasp of what's going on in the world at large.

Okay, sock it to me!

Don Firth

P. S. I will read the links you have posted when I have time.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 May 11 - 04:53 PM

You are conveniently whistling by the fact that this man masterminded the murder of thousands of Americans, and at least 52 British citizens, men, women, and children, in the London Underground, and God knows how many other people.

As mentioned previously, Henry Kissinger masterminded the murder of countless thousands of innocent Cambodians (many times the number Bin Laden' minions did) and thousands if innocent Chileans, & etc. & etc.

About time the Gummint put a SEAL team on him & put a bullet in HIS head, no?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 11 - 04:32 PM

Don;
Plenty more where these came from:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0624/rendition.html
http://www.shannonwatch.org/story/lack-progress-suspect-rendition-flights-through-shannon-yet-another-irish-government-failure
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1217/breaking42.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0319/1224292610221.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States
"Not one person must be hurt even if that condemns another thousand to die?"
Read what has been said Keith
For or against?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 11 - 04:28 PM

You say you are glad he is dead Jim.
What cost would you consider justified to stop someone intent on more mass murder?
Not one person must be hurt even if that condemns another thousand to die?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 11 - 04:00 PM

"No, it was a bit more, Jim. It was an act of justice."
No Don, justice would have been having him captured, tried and sentenced - as was Saddam Hussain - and as is being pointed out over here - Adolph Eichmann.
I am not sypathetic to Muslim - or any religious fanatics; I am concerned that the US quest for oil has left the world on a knife-edge, and ham-fisted assassinations play right into their hands.
Nor am I anti-American; I know enough Americans who share my view on what has happened, recently and in the past. You have had a number of shit governments doing enough shit things to have dragged the name of your country into the - well - shit.
"I think I have good reason to believe that they are products of your imagination."
Then produce your reasons.
You haven't been following what is happening here - arguments about neutrality in the Dail, demonstrations lasting years, planes damaged in protest - read it up; it's all well documented.
It's dead easy for you to hide behind the "anti - American" defence and pretend that waterboarding is a new form of bathing, or napalm was just a harmless defolient, or Linndy England was really a religious instructor - America's record on human rights is crap, and until the man-in-the-street does something about it, it will stay that way -
Even some of your own politicians have come clean about your use of torture - have they got reason to make it up - Dick Cheyney calling for the continued use of torture - even Gun-Totin' Sarah commended Dubya for giving the nod to allowing torture to be used to trace the wherebouts of bin Laden - or has she got they own agendas.
Take your head out of your arse Don - it's all happening.
"evil triumphs when good people look the other way."
"I think he could say goodbye to any idea of a second term"
We wre assures a few postings go that the assassination has confirmed his second term.
"30 000 Pakistani civilians and 5000 of their miltary killed already."
By terrorists - are you saying that it's ok to do it if they do it?
You've already said that it was ok because only twenty civilians would be killed by a bomb - make yourself clear Keith - for or against killing by pragmatism?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 May 11 - 03:16 PM

"This was no more than an act of vengeance."

No, it was a bit more, Jim. It was an act of justice. You are conveniently whistling by the fact that this man masterminded the murder of thousands of Americans, and at least 52 British citizens, men, women, and children, in the London Underground, and God knows how many other people. And it also acts as a warning to anyone who might wish to step into his shoes that he is painting a bull's eye on his forehead. "It may take awhile, but sooner or later, we'll get you! So think about it!"

Jim, your biases are patently clear and your sympathies lie in strange places indeed!

The American people are satisfied that Osama bin Laden is dead. That is understandable to any sane person. Some had the bad taste to go out in public and celebrate raucously—and much of the media, in its equally bad taste, love to focus on this sort of thing, and this, of course, is what you see on television and feel impelled to comment on. But—the vast majority of Americans felt a grim satisfaction that bin Laden has been dealt with and will not be engineering any more mass murders. They didn't, however, go out, wave a flag, and cheer about it. One does not generally celebrate the execution of a mad dog.

Those who get their jollies by thinking the worst of Americans will, of course, continue to think that the whole population was cheering and flag-waving. By this means, they demonstrate their own prejudices.

As to the matter of vast armadas of American aircraft transporting detainees to countries where torture is legal going through Shannon airport—or Heathrow, or Orly, or any other commercial airport is concerned—simply does not make sense. Think about it! If a suspected terrorist were to be captured here in Seattle and he were deemed by the CIA to be withholding important information, he would not be flown out of the Seattle-Tacoma International airport—or O'Hare, or JFK, or Logan, or LaGuardia—over the pole to Shannon, Ireland, and then to some country where "enhanced interrogation" is practiced. He would be put on a military aircraft and flown out of McChord Air Force Base near Fort Lewis south of Tacoma. Or some other military airfield. And if landing to refuel were necessary, the plane would not land at commercial airports, it would land at military airbases, which the same "Yank-bashers" are giggly to point out, are located all over the world, and are "yet another example of U.S. imperialism and exploitation."

So all those "extraordinary rendition" flights going through Shannon airport that you like to harp on about? I think I have good reason to believe that they are products of your imagination. Or of somebody's imagination, and you, in your biases, are predisposed to believe them.

Bloody nonsense!!

Now, Barack Obama said early on that he would end such things as "extraordinary rendition" and "enhanced interrogation," which the vast majority of Americans found (and continue to find) totally unacceptable. As they find many of the practices of intelligence agencies in general. Whether Obama did end the practice may be open to question, but if it were to be discovered or revealed that he didn't, I think he could say goodbye to any idea of a second term.

There are not enough bulls in the galaxy to produce the amount of manure that's floating around here in sympathy for the sudden and much deserved demise of a mass murder! And animosity directed at those who had the dangerous and unenviable job of taking out the garbage.

Don Firth

P. S. Pat Condell had the right of it.

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

Keith A of Hertford: "The presence of civilians does not always make military action illegal."

In addition to that....

CIVILIANS make up most of the terrorist's targets!..so should someone send the COPS to show up and 'arrest' the terrorists????..with a lawyer, and read them their Miranda rights, first??..I mean, you DO want to make it all clean and legal, don't you???
About as practical as a 12 pound yo-yo!

This ideological debate is not only STUPID, it IS the distraction AWAY from the real issue...and that's exactly what it is designed to do!
Regardless, that being said, OBL(whose name, if I never heard again, would be too soon), needed to be taken out! The distraction is 'why' and who's interest was REALLY served, and WHY NOW?? (remember my post about the musical notes, and the whole tune?)...You, had you'd been following a lot of my posts, would have already told you, who is really calling the shots...come on, now, think and remember, real hard....who did GfS tell us who was telling Bush where to send our military?..,HINT: It has to do with their interests, more than our 'self defense'.
When you get done figuring that one out, why now?
Who is more desperate to NOT have a Muslim uprising, in their country??
Let's see what all fits into place!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 11 - 02:49 PM

Pragmatism Jim.
If he was not stopped, how many more deaths?
30 000 Pakistani civilians and 5000 of their miltary killed already.

The presence of civilians does not always make military action illegal.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 09 May 11 - 02:17 PM

"Walkabout--I have read and listened to quite a bit of reporting on this.    All reports which have addressed the issue of "taking alive" agree that he had armed assistance in the house and was not eager to surrender.   If you think this is incorrect, we need sources and exact quotes." (Ron)...I don't, but the point I made, above, is that it's probably not just God who knows for sure - there's the SEALS themselves and the group of U.S. leaders who watched live footage (which I have seen a pic of on our news) via cameras on the SEALS.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 May 11 - 02:06 PM

So, do you blame the SEALS for 'just obeying orders' OR do you blame President Obama for 'just obeying his?'

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 11 - 01:47 PM

"What can you do when fighters surround themselves with civilians including children.
The SEALS did well to spare all the children and most of the adults (who all knew their host)."
Clearly implies that you go ahead with military action and if civilians are injured it is down to the hostage takers. You even praised the troops for not killing the children
Had they used bombs they would all have been killed - you didn't think the fact that they were prepared, had bin Laden tried to escape to worthy of comment - never mind condemnation.
Your approach was similar to the wounded Palestinians in Gaza.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 11 - 12:46 PM

I never did nor would say that people were expendable.
Your post gave the impression that I did.
I find that dishonest.
I just stated facts.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 11 - 12:08 PM

"Lie Jim, made worse by putting it in quotes."
What you said amounts to the same thin bot here and there
"this is in quotes"
'this is emphasised'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 11 - 11:38 AM

Jim,
"This is not the first time that you have relagated hostages to the role of being 'expendable' - you did so on one of the Israeli atrocity discussions."

Lie Jim, made worse by putting it in quotes.
I merely explained that there was no breach of the Law Of Armed Conflict.

" I would not suggest in a million years that his capture was worth countless numbers of civilian lives, all slaughtered in an assassination attempt."

Then you should be very happy.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 May 11 - 11:19 AM

"You would prefer he escaped again Jim? "
No I would not but, unlike you, I would not suggest in a million years that his capture was worth countless numbers of civilian lives, all slaughtered in an assassination attempt.
There was no reason at all that he should have escaped and, as I pointed out, the US would have gained a huge moral and tactical victory had he been taken and tried. Press comments here are pointing out that even Adolph Eichmann got a trial.
This was no more than an act of vengeance.
This is not the first time that you have relagated hostages to the role of being 'expendable' - you did so on one of the Israeli atrocity discussions.
The killing of civilians in wartime is sometimes unavoidable, but to have dropped a bomb on a compound full of men, women and children non-combatants, not to mention those living close by (which you have attempted to deny were there) in order to carry out an assassination would have been simple murder - a war crime, no less. The Americans were prepared to do it and you would, of course, have argued in their defence, had they done so.
This is what you are supporting, which is in line with what was considered by those who sent the troops in, and also in line with your 'support-by-silence' of the technique of torture as a method of extracting information - making you an armchair promoter of military atrocities.
Jim Carroll