BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 11 May 11 - 07:02 PM

700, GfS? I don't know whether congratulations or condolences are in order.

"DF, do you really not get it?"

Oh, I get it all right! I can recongnize a double standard when I see it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 12 May 11 - 12:48 AM

"Legitimacy does not come from the barrel of a gun.

On occasion it very much does, on others people believe that it does ask the Taliban and those who support the view that they were ever the "legitimate" rulers of Afghanistan.

It is our adherence to principle and law that makes us better than the terrorist.

Really? They (the terrorists) too adhere to their "principles" and their "laws" as they see them. Being involved in the legal profession you mistake law for justice, I can buy law to escape justice if I have enough money and the right connections (There have been numerous cases that demonstrate that the world over)

You seem to want to be a terrorist.

That differs from your stance on Ireland, does it not?

Most certainly not!!! I hold ALL terrorist organisations in equal low regard, they are ALL simply murdering self-serving scum in my book - You do not reason with a snake or scorpion, you do not try to change it's nature or behaviour - You kill it.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 11 - 01:07 AM

Teribus: "Most certainly not!!! I hold ALL terrorist organisations in equal low regard, they are ALL simply murdering self-serving scum in my book - You do not reason with a snake or scorpion, you do not try to change it's nature or behaviour - You kill it."


...unless you're a mega-global conglomerate corporation..then you make them your pet!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 11 - 01:10 AM

Richard, a policeman shoots an armed man after all the correct warnings etc.
It transpires the weapon was a harmless replica.

I remember a case when the gun turned out to be a chair leg in a bag.
As long as the officer acted in good faith, he is OK.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 11 - 01:21 AM

Or the Stockwell shooting.
In good faith, the police officers believed he was a combatant.
No crime.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 11 - 02:34 AM

"Well, you sure could've fooled me!"
And now you now are reduced to theatrically using your own dead to excuse a stunt that is quite likely to create more 9/11s and kill more innocents in America and elsewhere - shame on you Don.
Somebody's fooled you - I think it's you
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 11 - 02:59 AM

Jim, these children came to no harm.
The emotion and outrage you express for them contrasts starkly with the cold lack of concern that you showed in recent weeks for the hundreds of English children, who suffered brutal gang raping, pimping, and in at least one case being literally butchered.

Indeed, you ridiculed me when I expressed human compassion for them.

How do you account for that Jim?
Reverse racism?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 11 - 12:23 PM

"Jim, these children came to no harm."
The fact that the US was prepared to bomb the compound if bin Laden attempted to escape meant that they were prepared to carry out a pre-meditated massacre of non combatants (between 12 to 17 womwn and children)- the fact that you refuse to condemn or even address this means that you are prepared to support mass murder.
I've heard of people wrapping themselves in the flag to excuse the behaviour of their governments, but it's not often you come across somebody who wraps themself in another country's flag - well done that man!
"with the cold lack of concern that you showed..."
On the contrary, I was concerned that you did not use the abuse of children to peddle your 'Pakistani cultural depravity' line, and my contempt was for your gloating at having found even more examples to use for your racist message, followed closely by a disgusting amaturish hand-wringing display of crocodile tears when you were twigged.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 May 11 - 12:39 PM

Jim Carroll: "How do you account for that Jim?
Reverse racism?"

I think there is a difference between being 'racists' and not liking assholes who fly planes into buildings, killing over 3000 people! Nope, the race thing is far too worn out, and is a VERY LAME subject to even broach. Frankly, maybe it used to work, to some degree, but now, naw..it shows people who can't address anything of substance.
If someone, criticizes the President, for his dumb agendas, some clown inadvertently jumps up and announces "Racism!!"..Its the convenient way of saying, "Hey you're right, but I'm too stupid and brain-locked to offer an intelligent rebuttal!"

So, let's keep the discussion more intelligent, and informative, OK? ..because there is some good stuff on here, not to detour it into simplistic bullshit!

That being said, I think Jim has offered stimulating posts in this thread.

GfS


..and at that, I'm done, for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 11 - 01:19 PM

Jim,
" peddle your 'Pakistani cultural depravity' line"

As MtheGM (Michael) kept telling you in that thread, I never posted anything to justify that slur.
Neither did I express anything I did not feel.
I dare you to put up an example of my "crocodile tears."

On this thread you have expressed far more concern for the unharmed children in the compound than you did for actual child victims.
I find that odd.

I have only made factual observations about the legality of what was done and what you say was planned.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 11 - 02:03 PM

It is also odd that Jim and Richard have not been on the Libyan thread expressing outrage.

It would be illegal to assassinate Gaddafi, so NATO denies trying, but there is little doubt that they are trying to kill him.

2 days after ObL was killed Gaddafi's compound was bombed.
His son and three grandchildren under 12 were killed.

Why no outrage?
Because Gaddafi had long ceased to be an enemy of the West?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 11 - 02:34 PM

(Richard had been critical of NATO on there, but not since mid April.)

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 11 - 03:16 PM

"As MtheGM (Michael) kept telling you in that thread,"
And as most of the other contributors on that thread kept telling you, yes you did, and the fact that you keep raising the subject is an indication that you're quite proud of it.
"I dare you to put up an example of my "crocodile tears."
Oh - come on - you made Henry Irving sound like a method actor - anybody can read your disgusting display; just go to the point where you gloated over finding even more raped children and follow your nose. I certainly have no intention of re-opening that slimeball of a thread, but it's there for anybody with a strong stomach to do so - 'Muslim Prejudice', you can tell it by the smell.
"It is also odd that Jim and Richard have not been on the Libyan thread expressing outrage."
As I said, some of us have a life beyond the keyboard.
Gadaffi is facing a long overdue revolution, as are a number of African dictators. It was interesting that up to the point he started slaughtering non-combatants, the rebels insisted that there should be no outside interference. Gadaffi's son was killed as an outcome of the fighting, not a catch-all massacre, as the US had intended as their plan B.
"I have only made factual observations about the legality of what was done"
"We were only obeying orders - heil whoever!"
I have to admit, you are consistent from thread-to-thread - your distaste for Pakistanis on the previous one and your disregard for their sovereignty here; your willingness to use raped children to get your racist message across and your indifference to the possible slaughter of women and children here.
"Richard had been critical of NATO on there, but not since mid April."
Perhaps if you paid more attention to what you write rather than monitoring what others have to say, yoy wouldn't make yourself such a pillock.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 11 - 04:12 PM

I was right about you not daring to put up any of my "crocodile tears."
Sometimes I would prefer to be wrong!

You and Lox would not accept what Michael kept telling you, but you both also failed to produce any example as he kept requesting.
That is because it was and is a lie.

Obeying orders?
Under LOAC obeying unlawful orders is no defence.
And it is no offence to quote LOAC on here Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Donuel
Date: 12 May 11 - 04:30 PM

Considering all the torture techniques we have used in Abu Graib and secret cia prisons over the last 10 years I dare say that we have out done the Nazis. Much of what we did was not even for intelligence but to punish demean and destroy individuals.

I was a student of all the techinques used and most of them far exceeded the cruelty of our version of water torture now known as water boarding.

Shall we illuminate the uninitiated to the all the torture techniques we employed? Shall we list them here?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 11 - 04:31 PM

Too bad that Jim has descended to personal insults. His stuff on the music threads is pretty good. On the basis of that, I really thought better of him.

Just got this in my e-mail this morning. It's a bit long, but I think it's well worth reading and some people might actually learn something by doing so and thinking a bit about what it says. Nobody knows anywhere near as much as they think they do, and they're basing their attacks on their own prejudices rather than any actual knowledge.

So why don't you read it, then shut up until you actually KNOW something?

Was the Killing of Osama bin Laden Legal?

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet
Posted on May 11, 2011, Printed on May 12, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/story/150911/was_the_killing_of_osama_bin_laden_legal

A notably vitriolic debate has broken out in the wake of the killing of Osama bin Laden. Prominent progressives including Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky and Glenn Greenwald have all questioned whether the al Qaeda leader could have been taken alive, and, if the order was given to kill him, whether that would be a legal action. They have, in turn, been pilloried to varying degrees by most of the liberal establishment.

It's a debate that has generated lots of heat but yielded little light on the subject – an almost religious dispute between people who have formed unyielding views based largely on their own emotional responses to the raid.

The discussion has been marked by two fundamental flaws. First, we don't know precisely what occurred in the final moments of Osama bin Laden's life in that compound, and the details are crucially important – absolutely necessary, in fact – for determining the legality of the raid.

Second, there's been a lot of cross-talk because what we consider to be "legal" arises from various sources of law, and we've been treated to a mish-mash of assertions about the raid drawing on various aspects of that canon without much attention to how they overlap, and in some cases, conflict.

What Do We Actually Know?

All other considerations aside, if Osama bin Laden attempted to surrender and was shot down, then it is an open-and-shut case: even in war, protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions prohibits the killing of anyone who is hors de combat (out of the fight), attempting to surrender. Similarly, a strong argument can be made that the U.S. was acting within the law in apprehending the al Qaeda founder, and if bin Laden had resisted that assault force in any way, his killing would have been an equally clear case of self-defense.

According to the administration's account, the SEAL team encountered no resistance once inside the building where bin Laden was located. There, they encountered a 64-year-old suffering from renal failure, clad in pajamas, and killed him.

The administration says that bin Laden either lunged for a weapon or retreated into a bedroom. Bin Laden's daughter claims he was taken alive and then executed. Neither claim is backed by any hard evidence, and both the administration and survivors of the raid have a vested interest in portraying events in a certain light. In the end, a small number of Navy SEALs, bin Laden's youngest wife, now in Pakistani custody, and a handful of senior military and administration officials know precisely what transpired.

It is likely that historians, rather than journalists, will provide the information necessary to defintively judge this question. Classified information is eventually declassified, people retire and recount their exploits, and eventually, even the most sensitive state secrets are laid bare. But so far, accepting that a given narrative is indisputably true is an act of faith, not reason.

That hasn't stopped people from confidently drawing conclusions based on what they believe happened in Abbottabad. So, legal scholar Marjorie Cohn wrote of the "targeted assassination" of Osama bin Laden, based on the assumption that those SEALs were ordered to kill him on sight:

Targeted assassinations violate well-established principles of international law. Also called political assassinations, they are extrajudicial executions. These are unlawful and deliberate killings carried out by order of, or with the acquiescence of, a government, outside any judicial framework.

Cohn has no idea that bin Laden didn't go for a weapon when confronted by those special forces operators, but writes as if that is an established fact.

Similarly, the American Prospect's Adam Serwer penned a piece (responding to a post by Salon's Glenn Greenwald) titled, "Killing Osama bin Laden Was Legal," in which he cites international and domestic law to argue that it was a slam-dunk case. But his argument falls apart on one key sentence: "Killing bin Laden was legal based on what we know now." But we don't know anything now; a more accurate statement would be that it was legal "based on what we've been told."

What Do You Mean by Legal?

The other major problem with the debate is that people are throwing around assertions about what is and isn't legal without reference to the framework on which they're relying. Depending on which source of law one relies on, it's easy to come to dramatically different conclusions.

Natural Law

As an American and a New Yorker who grew up in the shadow of the World Trade Center, I am, despite some qualms, quite pleased that the U.S. was able to finally get bin Laden. That's the mainstream view; 80 percent of the American public has no problem with shooting bin Laden in the face.

Whether they know it or not, they are applying natural law to this question. Wikipedia defines it as "the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (meaning 'man-made law'....) of a given political community, society, or nation-state...."

Those who claim that killing bin Laden was indisputably legal would be better served relying on natural law to make their case. It is difficult to argue that it was not justified on those terms. Unless you believe Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with dastardly acts of terror – and that's not limited to those perpetrated on September 11, 2001 – then he clearly "had it coming." The righteousness of the killing perceived by the overwhelming number of Americans is not wrong, but it may not be justified by positive law – the laws of nation-states.

Domestic Law

As far as domestic laws go, the raid – and the possible assassination of bin Laden – also appear to be legal. But here again, it is not an open-and-shut case.

The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) gives the president wide authority to pursue terrorists associated with Al Qaeda to the far ends of the earth.

It gives the executive branch power to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

But AUMF doesn't end the debate. It authorizes "appropriate" force, and more importantly, the Supreme Court has pushed back, to a limited degree, on the blanket powers it confers. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the court denied the Bush administration's assertion that AUMF allowed the president to detain U.S. citizens without due process.

Whether it in fact allows the assassination of foreign nationals residing in allied territory hasn't been tested in a court of law. Executive order #12333, signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, states that "No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination," but doesn't define the term "assassination."

International Law

Noam Chomsky wrote that "it's increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition—except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged toward them. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial."

Adam Serwer took to Twitter to mock Chomsky, claiming the phrase, "'established norms of international law'... is word salad for 'I have no argument'." But that's a misunderstanding of international law. There is no global government passing a discrete, enforceable civil code – international law consists of commonly accepted norms of international behavior and a hodgepodge of treaties. There are limited institutions enforcing it, and then under limited circumstances.

Not all of those sources of international law carry the same weight. Serwer puts a lot of emphasis on "U.N. Resolution 1368, passed shortly after the 9/11 attacks, [which] explicitly supports 'all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001'," but UN resolutions do not in any way exempt a nation state from its treaty obligations. A UN security council resolution cannot be taken as an authorization to ignore the Geneva conventions, for example; clearly, "all necessary means" doesn't include genocide or crimes against humanity.

Ultimately, the nebulous nature of international law lends a lot of noise to the debate. Chomsky and Serwer are simply making arguments on very different terms.

Where International and Domestic Law Overlap

According to the United States Constitution, a treaty, once ratified by Congress, is second only to the Constitution itself in the hierarchy of the law. Congress can withdraw from a treaty, but failing that, it cannot pass simple legislation overriding our treaty commitments.

That's the law of the land, and it is an important point. In any instance where AUMF conflicts with those treaties – including the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions and the UN charter – our treaty commitments prevail.

As I mentioned above, protocol 1 of the Geneva convention prohibits the use of force against individuals who are "out of the fight," regardless of whether AUMF authorized such an action. The Hague Convention states that "the right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited," and makes it illegal for states "to declare that no quarter will be given," or to "kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered." Parties to the convention are also prohibited from declaring, "abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party."

Some have claimed that ordering bin Laden killed – again, a fact that hasn't been established – would be legal under Article 51 of the United Nations charter, which grants states broad leeway to act in self-defense. The problem with that assertion is that the UN Charter is a treaty governing the actions of nation-states, and al Qaeda is a non-state entity; the assault took place not in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan. Article 2 says that member states, "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

This is where things get shaky: Article 2, section 7, leaves some wiggle room, stating, "nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures" outlined in Article 51.

A common argument is that Pakistan proved unwilling or unable to apprehend bin Laden, having "sheltered" him for all these years. There are three problems with that claim. First, it hasn't been established as fact. It is widely assumed (by this writer as well) that the Pakistani government knew bin Laden was hiding in Abbottabad, but it is not uncommon for wanted fugitives to evade capture. Second, al Qaeda big-wigs including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi Binalshibh, Musaad Aruchi, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani and Abu Faraj al-Libi were all captured in Pakistan, by Pakistani forces, using intelligence and law enforcement developed in partnership with the U.S. Finally, the principle of state sovereignty outlined in the UN charter does not come with a caveat reading, "unless you don't trust a government."

The Laws of War

This is where things get especially murky, and notably subjective. It is obviously the case that the language of war has been used to frame the fight against international terrorism – it's been called a "war on terror" after all. And many commenters have drawn parallels between ordering bin Laden killed and the targeting of Japanese Admiral Yamamoto's plane during World War II.

But war is a conflict between nation-states, and there is significant debate about whether this war is a legal or rhetorical one. We have also declared a "war on drugs," and a "war on poverty," but nobody seriously maintains that those labels give the government the right to employ the laws of warfare in executing those campaigns.

Yamamoto was the commander of hostile forces, but it's unclear whether Osama bin Laden retained any operational control over al Qaeda fighters at the time of his death. It would not have been legal for the U.S. to kill Yamamoto after his retirement.

We don't necessarily need to be at war, however, for the killing to pass muster. In 1989, Defense Department lawyers issued a memo on the use of force against individuals, concluding that the "overt use of military force against legitimate targets in time of war, or against similar targets in time of peace where such individuals or groups pose an immediate threat to United States citizens or the national security of the United States, as determined by competent authority, does not constitute assassination or conspiracy to engage in assassination, and would not be prohibited by the proscription in EO 12333 or by international law."

But this assumes that bin Laden posed "an immediate threat" to the U.S., another fact that hasn't been established. It has long been believed that bin Laden, once in hiding, served as a figurehead rather than an active commander of hostile forces. Officials are now disputing that claim based on intelligence gathered at bin Laden's compound. Whether or not that's true is another important question.

So, what does this all mean? If the president did, in fact, order bin Laden killed, was it legal? According to natural law, yes. Otherwise, it's a question without a clear-cut answer – it requires a full and reliable set of facts. The devil is certainly in the details.

What's clear is that people on both sides of the debate have had an emotional reaction to bin Laden's death. They're embracing as fact whatever claims support their reactions, and selecting only those sources of law that lend credence to their previously held assumptions.

Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet. He is the author of The 15 Biggest Lies About the Economy (and Everything else the Right Doesn't Want You to Know About Taxes, Jobs and Corporate America). Drop him an email or follow him on Twitter.

© 2011 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/150911/

I wonder how many people actually got this far. Some folks can't wait for the facts to come out. Fed by their biases, they feel impelled to start popping off right away. All heat. No light.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 May 11 - 05:14 PM

Don, thank you for that post. I feel it rather echoes what I have seaid, although I have no interest in US domestic law which may not run outside its borders.

Keith, I am reasonably confident that I have nowhere on this thread confused law with justice. If I have I would wish to correct such an impression. Your view on UK law is flawed. It turns first on having lawful authority (a still slightly moot point here) and second reasonable cause (a very moot point here) and is not a matter of international law nor relevant when there is an issue as to the existence of a state of war or a combatant role or otherwise. Few people wish to defend the met's barber shop (doing Brazilians for nothing) and while I am not inclined to rush to judgement on that issue I am concerned at your continued advocacy of shoot on sight and to kill policies.

No, I have not been on the Libya thread. It is increasingly obvious that illegal regime change was the be-all and end-all of the US NATO and UK (etc) operation. The operation was excused by a false assertion as to what Gadaffi threatened. It was very arguably ultra vires NATO or the UN. The attack on CG's family was transparently in terrorem.

My concern is to make it plain that the fact that the US has at present the biggest guns does not give it the lawful right to rule the world, nor to kill people outwith its jurisdiction. As Bob Dylan said "If God's on our side, then we'll start the next war". Invade my country, USA, and I will be in the hills as long as my legs can carry me. You do not rule the world, and the rest of the world will oppose you.


By the way - Gaddafi and ObL were both nasty shits. But I'd rather they lived than that the USA might claim precedent to assert that it could invade the UK or without UK due process kill people in the UK.

Who else elects people like Schwarzenegger or Eastwood to office based on their fictitious persona for vigilante "justice"?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 11 - 08:36 PM

"Who else elects people like Schwarzenegger or Eastwood to office based on their fictitious persona for vigilante "justice"?"

You folks have a very warped opinion of the American people—warped in a very uncomplimentary way, which stems from—yes, your increasingly apparent prejudices.

Granted, there are a fair number of idiots with voter registration cards, but in that respect, we certainly don't outnumber the British.

Just because these two guys are fairly well-known actors does not automatically make them lightweights. Another bit of prejudice.

Eastwood was elected mayor of Carmel, California, where he was a resident, and he had some good ideas about what constituted the good of the community. The citizens of Carmel "made his day," not because of his firm jaw and cold eye, but because of his policies. Eastwood.

Conan the Barbarian got elected partly because he was a Republican in a state that is often kind to Republicans, but also because he is not stupid, despite what many people like to think, and he was (is) sufficiently "middle of the road" to appeal to some Democrats as well—AND the fact that he was strongly influenced by Maria Shriver, a member of the KENNEDY family (noting the latest, of course, that after 25 years, they are divorcing). Conan has actually been a fairly good governor. Far from ideal, but a lot better than some. Those are my impressions of him from several hundred miles north, but I will leave judgment to Californians, such as Amos. Schwarzenegger

In any interference in the internal affairs of places like Libya, we are not alone there, we were asked to join in, and are performing only a limited function. No "boots on the ground." The issue is human rights.

Look! Americans get shat on for interfering with countries that ride roughshod over their own populations. Americans also get shat on if some tin-pot dictator oppresses his own population and we DON'T interfere.

I don't think there are any plans afoot for the U. S. to invade the U. K. and set things right there. You're on your own.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 12 May 11 - 10:08 PM

Yes, I'm sure we can all agree what happened on September 11th, 2001 was a direct attack that 3k+ humans were murdered. But, there has been no mention in this thread (I don't think there was) about the 100K+ innocent lives that have been lost in the retaliation against OBL and his evil deeds. These lives also were a travesty in humanity madness , and yes, as Donuel mentioned the thousands who have been tortured in the process of seeking out the revenge of OBL.

I dunno,the hatred, distrust and revenge (from both sides) will continue as far as I'm concerned. No one can prove me wrong on this.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread once the celebrations of OBL's death subside, the questions regarding the legality of OBL's demise will surface evermore and the clouds of war will cover the truth and the current victors will write history in their own 'image'.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 11 - 12:20 AM

Do, thanks for your info.
A number of individual experts have given their own conflicting opinions now.

On whether the incursion was legal, I am obviously not qualified to have an opinion.
US government under the Attorney General will have planned it so that they at least had a good case. We will see if it is tested.

They claim that capture WAS an option and it was not predetermined to kill.
They would have to say that of course, and an order to kill will not be on the record if issued.

I know a bit more about the legality of a "fight"
An order to kill a prisoner is not legal and must not be obeyed.
The SEALS were on their own.
The legality depends on what happened and on what they had reasonable grounds to believe.
Your piece does not consider the possibility of a suicide vest or belt.
They would have to consider that he might have such a device.
Likewise his wife, who they gave the benefit of the doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 11 - 12:26 AM

"But, there has been no mention in this thread (I don't think there was) about the 100K+ innocent lives that have been lost in the retaliation against OBL and his evil deeds."

I would dearly love to know where this 100K+ innocent lives comes from. Even taking the highest estimated figures the total of civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Pakistan comes to less than half that and as various NGOs and the UN have reported from Afghanistan 75% of civilian casualties have been caused by the Taleban and their allies.

Strictly speaking in Afghanistan since May 2006 there have been no lives lost in retaliation against Osama bin Laden as by then in Afghanistan the US-OEF mission was replaced by ISAF (Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and the Taleban are not even mentioned in the ISAF Mission Statement - In the summer of 2006 it was the Taleban from acros the border in Pakistan who declared war on ISAF's reconstruction effort, nothing to do with OBL)

Only in Pakistan are US-OEF attacks carried out primarily by drones where even the Pakistani authorities say that they are effective.

Iraq of course had absolutely nothing to do with Osama bin Laden.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 11 - 03:36 AM

"Too bad that Jim has descended to personal insults."
Sorry Don, a bit rich from someone who has accused us of being racist towards Americans, supporting strange causes (presumably Muslim terrorism) and (me in particular) of inventing widely known and acknowledged international incidents to prop up our prejudices and causes.
Rather than admitting that the special rendition flights actually did happen, and possibly still are still taking place, you attempt to pass them off as out-of-date, and, at best, promise that the culprits will get their punishment in the sweet bye and bye - not good enough if we are to understand and put right the shit-hole that the world has become, with the assistance of your various governments and presidents.
The only anti-Americanism on this thread has come from those who would down-play and cover up America's role in this miserable and highly volatile holy war, thus allowing present and future administrations to 'carry on the good work'.   
"I was right about you not daring to put up any of my "crocodile tears."
THere for all to see, and can't be unwritten - sorry Keith
"Sometimes I would prefer to be wrong!"
Then you must go to bed each night a happy man.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 11 - 03:59 AM

"THere for all to see, and can't be unwritten "

It should be easy to show us then Jim.
Why don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 11 - 05:23 AM

"Why don't you?"
Because that would be thread drift - the reason you won't mention US use of torture?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 11 - 05:36 AM

Of course jim.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 11 - 05:40 AM

But wait a minute, you have already brought it into the thread, I am asking for clarification, so you can post it up with a clear conscience.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 11 - 06:53 AM

Do you a deal - I'll put up the reference to your whole disgusting exhibition - in all its gloriously full context - if you say why allowing the troops of a country with with a poor human rights record into your (Britain, Pakistan, anywhere's) territory in order to carry out an assassination, should not be a matter of deep concern to us all, especially when the massacre of civilians was also accepted as an option.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 11 - 06:58 AM

Why do I have to make a deal?
You REPEATEDLY make accusations against me of things I am supposed to have done in previous threads.
I have a RIGHT to demand you justify those accusations, because I deny them.

Now, please post an example of my "crocodile tears" or take back the accusation.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 13 May 11 - 07:32 AM

Terribus ... the revenge for 09/11 has not just been contained within the Afghani and Pakistan.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 11 - 07:43 AM

Viewpoint by Anatol Lieven
Professor of War Studies, King's College London

The death of Osama Bin Laden is a triumph for the United States, which may considerably reduce the terrorist threat to the US and the West.

the main significance of this US success lies in its potential impact on the war in Afghanistan.

the end to what is widely seen in the Muslim world - and especially Pakistan - as the illegal occupation of a Muslim country should diminish the appeal of militancy in Pakistan and the Pakistani diaspora, and reduce terrorist recruitment.

Operationally, these groups will be wholly unaffected by Bin Laden's death. On the one hand, they were not under his control. On the other, they were already dedicated to attacking the West, and any additional anger caused by his death will only be one more factor amidst a plethora of real or perceived reasons their supporters have to attack the West.

The killing of Bin Laden should reduce greatly the sting of talking with the Afghan Taliban, and the ability of the Republican opposition in the US to portray this as "weakness" or "treachery" on the part of the Obama administration.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13266128

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 11 - 09:53 AM

"Now, please post an example of my "crocodile tears" or take back the accusation. "
As I said - it's on file for anyone to open - I have no intention in turning this thread into another of our pointless duets on a subject which has nothing to do with this one.
Answer something that is relevant to this thread and I'll reply - brefly - to something that isn't - I'll even throw in where you described Pakistanis as culturally inclined to paedophelia, presented African immigrants as plague carriers and questioned whether they should be entitled to medical treatment and any of your other profound thoughts.
I have become thoroughly pissed off with your making statements, then either twisting them or denying you made them when challenged - and particularly of your lastest stunt of unilaterally declaring 'thread drift' to relevant questions you can't answer; debate honestly or piss off - I personally can't be arsed with your lying and conniving - debate with some integrity and consideration to other contributors or not at all.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 11 - 10:31 AM

"it's on file for anyone to open "
Over 2000 posts on that thread.
How could anyone find it?

If you were not lying you could provide a link or a date time.
But you can not.

Instead you throw in more lies .

YOU brought up these "crocodile tears" for cruelly abused children.
Justify it or take it back.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 11 - 10:49 AM

""How about the SLA? The Shining Path? The Tamil Tigers?""

If you wouldn't mind pointing out the precise number and dates of their attacks on your, or my, country Art, I may have to admit making a mistake.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 May 11 - 10:59 AM

There are a million people with ideas no worse than Eastwood or Schwarzenegger. They didn't get elected. Those two did because of their representations of vigilantes. It's an undesirable part of the mass US psyche. At lest they were better actors than Ronnie Raygun, possibly the most inept president the Screen Actors' Guild ever had.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 11 - 11:15 AM

""Jim accuses me of hiding behind experts, which I do not regard as a criticism.""

Not hiding behind experts Keith. Hiding behind those you perceive to be experts, based solely upon the fact of their agreeing with your well documented, hard wired prejudices.

""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.""

What evidence? Your interpretation of international law. I had no idea you were that well qualified.........and you're NOT, are you? In fact ignorance and prejudice is exactly what drives you to blindly accept, and then re-interpret, the words of your so-called experts. It's all there in your record of posts on a number of very contentious subjects (the only kind you take any interest in).

""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.""

Care to make a balanced statement about that, or do you really believe that they got their knickers in a twist spontaneously and for no reason? Your prejudice has control of your keyboard again, but what else is new?

""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.""

AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT? No further comment required.

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

Tommy did it first Miss!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 11 - 11:42 AM

"Justify it or take it back. "
I'll take that as a no then?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 11 - 11:46 AM

""It always never ceases to amaze me when terrorists, and their sympathisers, complain bitterly about receiving the treatment that they meet out to others as a matter of course, apparently "human rights" and "rules of evidence" should only apply to protect those who utterly despise them. The victim of the terrorist is always at fault in the eyes of the terrorist. In carping on about such treatment they only reveal themselves to be what they truly are cowards to a man.""

I wholeheartedly agree with every word of that Teribus. But I do have a different view of your second paragraph.

""Of course Osama bin Laden should not have been arrested, put on trial and sentenced, for the perfectly good reasons clearly explained in this thread by others. Osama bin Laden suffered the fate he deserved, shot down like a rabid dog and his remains cast beyond recovery in an unmarked spot to vanish without trace and without any prospect of any shrine or place or rememberance - the right to such places belongs to his victims and to them alone.""

Yes! He deserves every bit of that and probably worse, BUT that punishment must be the logical outcome of due legal process, not vigilantism.

If you load old Betsy, and go out and double tap your friendly neighbourhood dealer, he undoubtedly deserves it.

But you're still going to jail for life, convicted of murder.

Similarly, if you do what your government did to ObL, what makes you any better than him?

Due legal process would have done wonders for the reputation and good name of the United States.

As it is, you're going to find it more difficult getting on with the rest of the World now.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 11 - 12:03 PM

""Was he a comabatant?
He had been.
He posed as such.
He had never announced a change of role.
Why should anyone not believe, in good faith, that he was a comabatant.
If he was not, and wanted to be treated as a non combatant, he should have told someone.
The US acted in good faith, on the evidence available.""

Irrelevant if, as reported, he was unarmed. If so, he was effectively already a prisoner, and we don't shoot prisoners do we? We hanged several Waffen SS men for doing that.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 11 - 12:09 PM

"""Not every person in Great Britain is weeping tears over bin Laden. Most of them remember the World Trade Center massacre and the people murdered in the London Underground a few years later, and remember who was responsible for it."""

You smug, self satisfied bastard. You and Don Firth are going WAY too far with this insistence on ignoring what we are actually saying, in order to attribute entirely false motives to our concerns.

You Keith, are damn lucky that you haven't had the opportunity to say that to my face.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 11 - 12:15 PM

"You Keith, are damn lucky that you haven't had the opportunity to say that to my face."

Say what Don?

And, you do not have to wait for an enemy soldier to get his gun.
That does not make him a prisoner.
Only if he actually surrenders.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 11 - 12:41 PM

""Iraq of course had absolutely nothing to do with Osama bin Laden.""

Disingenuous T.

By the time Geedub invaded Iraq, he had made sure that half of the US populace believed it was about ObL and 9/11.

In fact, by the start of hostilities I think he believed it himself.

That's the kind of thing that happens when you elect an imbecile.

Don

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 11 - 01:01 PM

""Operationally, these groups will be wholly unaffected by Bin Laden's death. On the one hand, they were not under his control. On the other, they were already dedicated to attacking the West, and any additional anger caused by his death will only be one more factor amidst a plethora of real or perceived reasons their supporters have to attack the West.""

Thank you Keith, though I'm sure you won't enjoy it.

What you have posted here is effectively a counter to claims that ObL was a combatant, quite possibly rendering his killing illegal.

And before you and Don Firth get all knotted up again get THIS!

I'M FUCKING GLAD HE IS DEAD!!! Understand?

I am simply concerned with the legality, or otherwise, of the method.

Does US law no longer prescribe due process? Because if it does there should be a whole lot of US citizens asking the same questions.

Have we really more to fear from American boots trampling on our sovereignty than from Muslims blowing it up? Assuming of course that we don't end up with BOTH!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Teribus
Date: 13 May 11 - 01:21 PM

"BUT that punishment must be the logical outcome of due legal process, not vigilantism.- Don(Wyziwyg)T

The raid, or operation, that resulted in the shooting of Osama bin Laden was not a "police action", there was no over-riding duty to arrest, or capture alive. The operation came about as a result of Osama bin Laden declaring war on the United States of America and her allies (Refer to Fatwas issued by Osama bin Laden in 1996 and in 1998). The US Navy SEAL Team members were going into that compound to "get" their target (The self-declared head of the organisation that had been attacking and killing US citizens since 1993) dead or alive it did not matter one iota which. It was a straightforward military action against a self-declared enemy of the USA. There is no question of vigilantism about it.

Declare war and that crosses a line. From that point on it runs 24/7 until it has reached a conclusion one way or the other. It is entirely preposterous to say that Osama bin Laden is only the enemy and can only be shot when he is in a position to defend himself particularly inside an unfamiliar building where bin Laden had the advantage of intimate knowledge of his surroundings and where things might be. The SEAL who shot bin Laden had to make a split second decision and he made it the way he did. Not all that different from the decisions taken by the SAS Team that took out the PIRA ASU in Gibraltar in 1988 (Verdict - Lawful Killing on all three counts by a 9-2 Majority)

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 11 - 02:00 PM

Don T, even if he was not in complete control of Al Q, even if he had no status other than fighter, he could be engaged unless he surrendered.
And, what did I say that I am lucky not to have said to your face?
You would attack me if I said it?

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 May 11 - 02:31 PM

Whether or not I am unjustly accusing a couple of posters here of anti-American bias, I will simply say just read their posts and judge for yourself.

When people descend to the level of nastiness (even to physical threats) exhibited in recent posts, it is obvious that any thought of rational discussion has flown out the window and it will be nothing but bile and spleen from here on in.

I have neither the time nor the inclination for this. TTFN.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 11 - 02:37 PM

""And, what did I say that I am lucky not to have said to your face?""

That comment was in direct response to an exceedingly insulting misrepresentation, by you, of my motives.

I put that insulting comment of yours in quotes at the top of my post as always, and once again you have proved that you cannot be bothered to read what others say, merely picking out one line and having to ask what it means.

As a debater of issues you are a dead loss without insurance, and if you won't read, or respond to what I actually say, I would prefer that you not bother to respond at all.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 May 11 - 02:38 PM

Test this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHJoj9IqeKg&feature=related

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 May 11 - 02:40 PM

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHJoj9IqeKg&feature=related

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 May 11 - 02:41 PM

13th May 2011

First instalment of repayment for US action re Osama bin Laden drawn in Pakistan today.

80 lives on account.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: obit: Osama Bin Laden ???
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 11 - 02:41 PM

YOU need to read a lot more carefully Don T!
I never said it.

And you have driven Don F away with your violent, aggressive nastiness.