Osama Bin Laden is Dead

Mrs.Lucysnow said:
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
Click to expand...

Then how was he resisting exactly?

How does a 50+ year old with dodgy kidneys resist heavily armed SEALs? how does that work exactly?
 
Ghost_007 said:
We can only go by what the US is saying at the end of the day.
Click to expand...

More or less, yeah. Pakistan is also saying a few things.

Ghost_007 said:
There has been no hint that he was wearing a suicide vest,
Click to expand...

But there was a reasonable presumption that he would be, going in, no?

Ghost_007 said:
the US have confirmed that he was not armed,
Click to expand...

But only made said confirmation after having already shot him dead, as I understand it. No?

Ghost_007 said:
he did not fire at the SEALs,
Click to expand...

Right, there seems to be no indications that he had a firearm.

Ghost_007 said:
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.
Click to expand...

For about the fourth time in this thread: standard operating procedure for the case of apprehending someone with a stated desire to die a martyr, who is the leader of a militant organization whose marquis tactic is suicide bombing, in the midst of a firefightand is to assume that they have a suicide vest or other booby-trap system. And the way you deal with that is apparently to keep a certain distance and order him to lie down and surrender. If he does not comply right away, you shoot to kill. Otherwise, you have to assume that he's going to detonate the expected suicide vest/booby trap and likely injure/kill you and himself. There's no expectation that you must risk your life to determine whether he has a booby trap or not. The onus is on the suicide terrorist mastermind to demonstrate that he isn't a threat, or offering any resistance. Shit does not magically turn into a routine traffic stop by a policeman once you set foot in Osama's bedroom or whatever.

That is what is claimed to have happened, in press conferences and briefings. Address that if you like - might be interesting to hear how you'd go about apprehending someone under the presumption that they are wearing a suicide vest - but please stop with the implication that this issue hasn't been officially aknowledged and addressed.
 
Last edited:
Ghost_007 said:
Then how was he resisting exactly?

How does a 50+ year old with dodgy kidneys resist heavily armed SEALs? how does that work exactly?
Click to expand...

He didn't have to have himself physically resisted. Its states 'Any soldier seeing bin Laden and recognizing him could make a reasonable assumption that he had “hostile intent.” Bin Laden's men were engaged in a firefight with the SEAL's, that alone gives them no reason to stand-down, after all we they didn't know what he had available and what he did not.
 
adoucette said:
“Originally Posted by S.A.M.
Moreover any Americans executed and waterboarded by their own government without due process will find themselves coming against the glass wall of national security and legal precedent against threats to the same.”
Click to expand...
I can see that discussing anything with you is just kind of pointless since your world view is colored by your hatred of the US.
Click to expand...
(Emphasis mine)

No! Say it ain't so...

SAM is ever unwavering in her absolutely fair and balanced assessment of American imperialism bullying the rest of the world into submission. What sacrilege you are trying to promulgate! Do not upset the New World Order!

(Actually, I just wanted to put in an appearance in this most momentous of threads... ;))
 
quadraphonics said:
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.
Click to expand...

War was declared on the man himself. Therefore no matter where he was he was an enemy combatant. Resisting or not doesn't play into the equation.
 
spidergoat said:
That must be why Saddam had them buried in the backyard of their nuclear scientist and told him his family would die if he told the inspectors.
Click to expand...

Oh please. Saddam was always threatening to kill people and their family, ha! Its like Stalin's paranoia, it wasn't a good day if someone wasn't threatened with death for sneezing or serving his soup a tad bit cold. Having parts is not the same as having WMD which is what was claimed.
 
spidergoat said:
Maybe he looked at them funny, who gives a shit?
Click to expand...

Indeed. I prefer a dead Bin Laden to a live one. No trial. Nothing. Just dead and dumped in the sea. I grudgingly admit that there was no harm in giving him a proper Islamic funeral ceremony. Dead is dead.

~String
 
quadraphonics said:
For about the fourth time in this thread: standard operating procedure for the case of apprehending someone with a stated desire to die a martyr, and whom you can reasonably suspect will be wearing a suicide vest, is apparently that you keep a certain distance and order him to lie down and surrender. If he does not comply right away, you shoot to kill. Otherwise, you have to assume that he's going to detonate the expected suicide vest and likely injure/kill you.
Click to expand...

What many fail to realize is that if for example a man or woman (even if accompanied by a child) walks within a few meters of the Green Zone entry point in Iraq and does not stop when asked will be blown away. No conversation, no arrest, no hearing. Military folk are a skittish lot when out on operation, one wrong move and it all ends in tears.
 
Osama was gunned down to prevent something like the Beslan school hostage crisis from happening (where Muslim separatists killed nearly 400 preschool children in an attempt to force the release of various separatist leaders). As it is, five Muslims were caught filming around a nuclear plant in England the day of the announcement.

So, they opted to kill him. As it was on orders of the Commander in Chief, during war, I don't think it would be illegal.
 
Mrs.Lucysnow said:
What many fail to realize is that if for example a man or woman (even if accompanied by a child) walks within a few meters of the Green Zone entry point in Iraq and does not stop when asked will be blown away. No conversation, no arrest, no hearing. Military folk are a skittish lot when out on operation, one wrong move and it all ends in tears.
Click to expand...
Do you suggest a different modus operandi?

Doesn't today's protocol revolve around "take the shot"? Oh, sorry, you have a hostage, so take two shots?

It's an old moral dilemma: Should I save a thousand by killing one?
 
spidergoat said:
That is one aspect, yes. Saddma might have given weapons to Al Quida. We know there are ties between the Baathists and Al Quida, I don't believe that just started with our invasion.
Click to expand...

Hell Libya gives weapons to Al Qaeda, so does Iran, why did we not invade those countries? Invading Iraq was not worth the trillion dollars (and anyone that says otherwise should no longer have a right to complain about US debt) or the lives simply because Iraq like just about every other arab countries has some kind of tie to Al Qaeda.
 
Michael said:
Osama was gunned down to prevent something like the Beslan school hostage crisis from happening (where Muslim separatists killed nearly 400 preschool children in an attempt to force the release of various separatist leaders). As it is, five Muslims were caught filming around a nuclear plant in England the day of the announcement.

So, they opted to kill him. As it was on orders of the Commander in Chief, during war, I don't think it would be illegal.
Click to expand...

People forget how heavy that whole incident really was. Here's a documentary on that event, its not for the weak of heart, all original footage and pretty disturbing:

Children of Beslan: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/children-beslan/
 
Randwolf said:
Do you suggest a different modus operandi?

Doesn't today's protocol revolve around "take the shot"? Oh, sorry, you have a hostage, so take two shots?

It's an old moral dilemma: Should I save a thousand by killing one?
Click to expand...

No I would not suggest a different MO.

The protocol depends on the circumstances and at that point Iraq was pretty hairy, just as it was in Vietnam. You err on the side of caution and let everyone know that if they don't approach with caution and if they don't take exact orders, yeah, they will most likely be shot.

In these instances most soldiers are really interested in saving their own ass never mind the 'thousands'. Many acts of 'heroism', like jumping on a grenade for example are a direct result of training not thinking or even choice, an automatic reaction to intense training. You watch your back and the guy next to you and you make split-second decisions. I'm sure a SEAL isn't thinking 'Oh my god I have to shoot him now or he will most likely cause the death of thousands of innocence!' No, I doubt it. They don't have time to think all of that.
 
Mrs.Lucysnow said:
No I would not suggest a different MO.

The protocol depends on the circumstances and at that point Iraq was pretty hairy, just as it was in Vietnam. You err on the side of caution and let everyone know that if they don't approach with caution and if they don't take exact orders, yeah, they will most likely be shot.

In these instances most soldiers are really interested in saving their own ass never mind the 'thousands'. Many acts of 'heroism', like jumping on a grenade for example are a direct result of training not thinking or even choice, an automatic reaction to intense training. You watch your back and the guy next to you and you make split-second decisions. I'm sure a SEAL isn't thinking 'Oh my god I have to shoot him now or he will most likely cause the death of thousands of innocence!' No, I doubt it. They don't have time to think all of that.
Click to expand...
Lucy, I totally agree with you. Just got here tonight and am trying to "stir things up a bit". I can see the point of most of your posts, and usually sympathize with the philosophy espoused therein.

Just in case you were wondering... :cool:
 
Randwolf said:
(Emphasis mine)

No! Say it ain't so...

SAM is ever unwavering in her absolutely fair and balanced assessment of American imperialism bullying the rest of the world into submission. What sacrilege you are trying to promulgate! Do not upset the New World Order!

(Actually, I just wanted to put in an appearance in this most momentous of threads... ;))
Click to expand...

SAM is the balance. American CNN and the average Sciforums opinion are distorted and conform to the moderate form of consensus Western disinformation. SAM may be distorted with an opposing viewpoint but she is not more distorted than the median centermost opinion at Sciforums or American CNN.

Interestingly International CNN is much more balance and more intellectual than Amercan CNN.

Fox and Sciforums members with opinions somewhat in line with the Fox audience are considerably less Fair and Balanced than SAM is but they don't how unbalanced they are because they live within a fairytale.

Bullying the world into submission was exactly what many of the PNAC signers believed was the intelligent thing for the USA to do while the USA had the short window of opportunity to do so with the fall of the Soviet Union but still before China or some other nation replaced the Soviet Union. It was the Unipolar moment when the world normally is politically bipolar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top