Again, absolute bollocks.
Osama Bin Laden is Dead
- Thread starter SciWriter
- Start date
Again, absolute bollocks.
He should read up on the details.
Bin Laden was unarmed, and then apparently shot down. This is what the US is saying.
Is that not a crime?
Hell no.
Just ask yourself how many of the people that died in the twin towers got a chance to defend themselves and you'll have your answer.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
I have no problem with SEALS killing an unarmed Bin Laden. I'm sure he didn't put his hands in the air and beg for his life. Its seems more likely he would prefer death and 'martyrdom' to being locked in a US prison and tried by US law.
Talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel.
CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq
Report concludes no WMD in Iraq
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Ok watch the Frontline thing I posted. I think it may clarify some of the above issues. Anyway let me know what you think.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/insurgency/view/
And the only reason we can verify that now is because we invaded. These nuke parts were real and proves he had every intention of starting up a program as soon as our attention was focused elsewhere (Afghanistan perhaps?).
Don't mean to sound like a bastard, but that is irrelevant.
Every human has rights. Osama has never stood trial, he wasn't convicted of anything, he was just killed, while unarmed.
Mrs.Lucysnow said:
Extrajudicial killing is not permitted under any law. And that is exactly what it was.
I was listening to a briefing at the White House earlier and the guy (whatever his name was) said the aim was to take Bin Laden into custody - not to kill. Yet we now know he was unarmed, didn't fight back, yet for some reason he was shot and killed.
Why?
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Spidergoat: And the only reason we can verify that now is because we invaded. These nuke parts were real and proves he had every intention of starting up a program as soon as our attention was focused elsewhere (Afghanistan perhaps?).
But it says "U.S. officials emphasized this was not evidence Iraq had a nuclear weapon -- but it was evidence the Iraqis concealed plans to reconstitute their nuclear program as soon as the world was no longer looking." Weapons of mass destruction doesn't translate into 'eventually reconstitute a deconstructed nuke program'. The implication of WMD is that he had WMD's already prepared.
"During the lead-up to war in March 2003, Hans Blix had found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting "proactive" but not always the "immediate" Iraqi cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Potentially.
But my understanding is that the determination that he was unarmed was made after he was shot. Supposedly they operated under the assumption that he was wearing a suicide vest, and so shot to kill when he did not immediately surrender. As opposed to, say, apprehending him, determining that he was unarmed, and then shooting him execution-style.
That is a pretty silly thing to say don't you think?
I didn't say they had a nuclear weapon. I didn't even say he had WMDs. I don't need to argue that. That was Bush's problem. Saddam had a whole department headed by his son devoted to avoiding the inspection program.
No I do not.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Here's why:
In 2007, documents pertaining to the classified Rules of Engagement in Afghanistan entered the public domain, including a summary from 2004 that gave examples of authorized U.S. military incursions into Pakistan. For instance, the document stated, the “hot pursuit” of Al Qaeda militants into Pakistan was permitted, though the pursuit from one country to the other had to be “continuous and uninterrupted.” Also permitted was a direct action “against The Big 3,” a reference to bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar, the Taliban’s supreme leader. Finally, to add even greater flexibility, the document permitted cross-border incursions, apparently based on unforeseen circumstances, at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense. One caveat the document put upon these actions was “geographic limits.” It stated: “General Rule: penetrate no deeper than 10km.” Such limits, the language suggests, were not sacrosanct.
Had bin Laden been armed and shooting at the time of the raid, he would have very easily met the standard of a combat-based target, and could legally have been killed. But as Jay Carney, the White House spokesperson, said the other day, “Resistance does not require a firearm.” Bin Laden could have been legally killed if he were holding a weapon and not firing—or if he were holding no weapon at all. Any soldier seeing bin Laden and recognizing him could make a reasonable assumption that he had “hostile intent.” After all, Al Qaeda bodyguards were nearby, and they were shooting at the Navy SEALs to defend him.
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...en-the-rules-of-engagement.html#ixzz1LQra6SxO
We can only go by what the US is saying at the end of the day. There has been no hint that he was wearing a suicide vest, the US have confirmed that he was not armed, he did not fire at the SEALs, and they went with the intention of bringing him back alive. Something obviously didn't go to plan, or the US are just lying to us again.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
But he's allowed to have weapon parts.
That's very nearly a tautology, there.
But the laws of war do indeed allow the killing of enemies without "due process" in the sense of arrest, indictment, court trial, etc. There is still a legal sanction (the declaration of war), but none of this "due process" for individual combatants or their leadership.
So this was only an extrajudicial killing in the sense that the USA is not formally at war with Pakistan. Would you prefer that the US had declared war on Pakistan prior to this operation, thereby rendering it "legal?" Or is it perhaps better for everyone to kill Bin Laden "extrajudicially," and remain allies with Pakistan?
I'm also wondering if the various advocates of "due process" here have really thought through the implications of their position. Would this operation have been perfectly acceptable if, instead of killing OBL, the US government had arrested him, subjected him to a (presumably military) trial, and then executed him? Because that adds up to an endorsement of the USA as world policeman, with US law enshrined as supreme to that of any other nation - whither Pakistan's sovereignty?
That's been asked and answered repeatedly, both in this thread and in every relevant press briefing I've encountered.