35
   

What precedent does Bin Laden's killing set?

 
 
Eorl
 
  2  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 07:31 am
"A a prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials after World War II says Osama bin Laden should have been put on trial.

American lawyer Benjamin Ferencz, now 91, has written a letter to the New York Times, questioning whether the death of the terrorist leader was justifiable self-defence or premeditated illegal assassination"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/06/3210195.htm
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 08:27 am
@Eorl,
Quote:
He says the Nuremberg trials earned worldwide respect by giving Hitler's worst henchmen a fair trial so that truth would be revealed and justice under law would prevail.

And 65 years later he says the US should again have supported a trial of the world's most wanted international criminal bin Laden.

"It's a right that we give to every mass murderer and always have," he told the BBC.


Of course, there should have been a trial. Of course there should have been efforts to reveal the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

But history has shown that the US is not the least bit interested in the truth. They go to extraordinary lengths to hide the truth from everyone, most of all their own citizenry, who are among the most naive and/or deluded people on the planet.

++++++++++++++

"The United States is not nearly so concerned that its acts be kept secret
from its intended victims as it is that the American people not know of them.”

Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark


Quote:
"This is what distinguishes us from the tyrants."


Obviously not.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  4  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 09:26 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Both apply to the same type of conflict.

No, not really. Protocol II says:

Quote:
1. This Protocol ... shall apply to all armed conflicts which are not covered by Article 1 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) and which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol.

In short, as the underlined section above demonstrates, Protocol II applies to civil wars. One would be hard-pressed to describe the conflict between the US and AQ as a "civil war."

oralloy wrote:
My previous post proved that the war on terror is classified as a NON-international conflict, which is the sort of conflict that is covered by Protocol II.

It may not be an international conflict, but it's certainly not a civil war.

oralloy wrote:
Domestic politics is fine. The original question was whether this is a war. Domestic trappings of war are as helpful as international trappings of war for proving that point.

Maybe, maybe not. Walter pointed out earlier that the US has declared a war on drugs. Does that mean that heroin should be accorded rights under the Geneva Conventions?
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 09:29 am
@Irishk,
Irishk wrote:
Pakistan says the U.S. acted in accordance with the United Nations Security Council Resolution in entering and killing Osama.

No, Pakistan didn't say that. One member of the Pakistani cabinet apparently said that, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that she was speaking on behalf of the government.
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 09:53 am
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
The Pakistani foreign ministry has said the operation against bin Laden was conducted in accordance with U.S. declared policy that its forces would take a direct action against the most wanted terrorist wherever he was found in the world.

The minister said bin Laden was involved in attacks on Pakistan, so the U.S. operation against him was not a breach of Pakistan's sovereignty, APP reported.


It's hard to tell whether the foreign ministry in Pakistan speaks for the nation.
In the US either Carney or Clinton would make an official pronouncement that would convey our government's position.
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 10:46 am
@joefromchicago,
Well, I wondered about that, too. 'Minister'...sure sounds official, doesn't it?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 11:10 am
@joefromchicago,
More than that, the Pakistani Foreign Secretary is Mr. Salman Bashir. I would think that the Foreign Secretary would be the appropriate individual to issue such a statement.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 11:16 am
Well, i definitely smell a rat. Until earlier this year, Firdous Awan was Minister for Population Welfare, and has had the Information and Broadcasting portfolio for only a few months. I did find an article on her appointment, but i don't read Arabic. As i've already noted, it seems to me that such a statement would be issued by the Foreign Secretary.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 11:20 am
@panzade,
You got a link for that?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 11:29 am
@Setanta,
On Wednesday, Firewood Ashiq Awan said in her statement in the Senate, the upper house of Parliament, that Pakistan has serious reservations over the US operation in its territory, adding that Pakistan’s security and sovereignty was a sacred duty and could not be compromised.
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 11:35 am
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
You got a link for that?

Not a direct link; just some links to Salt TV and what have you.

http://www.salttvnet.com/articles/20110502/pakistan-says-us-attack-bin-laden-was-not-violation-countrys-sovereignty
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 11:44 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Curiouser and curiouser . . .
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 11:46 am
@panzade,
This is what the Pakistan Minister of Foreign Affairs really said.
Besides others (see link above):

Quote:
[...]That if it is in Pakistan's national interest we could go and bomb the territory of any other state. I think no sensible person anywhere in the world would endorse such a point of view. Can you think of a NATO member state bombing another NATO member country? So it has to be seen objectively.[...]
[...] I am not saying whether it is legal or illegal. It is for the jurists and the historians to judge and decide. There are many people within the US even who are now debating this issue.
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 12:01 pm
It would not be in the best interests of Pakistan to admit they helped the US get OBL. Which they could have done. Already retribution suicide bombs are killing Pakistanis.
When it comes to what really goes on in the Pakistani government and intelligence community..."Onward through the fog!"
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 12:12 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
. . . killing the enemies' leader is hardly illegal. It's not even immoral.

I'd like to emphasize this.

Given that America was Al Quaeda's enemy, would it have been "hardly illegal" and "not even immoral" of Al Quaeda to kill America's leader, George Bush? That's certainly an interesting moral theory of Cycloptichorns....
Irishk
 
  2  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 12:28 pm
The president will be interviewed by Steve Croft on 60 Minutes on Sunday. I've been wondering if Steve might ask him about the legality of this mission and also wondering if Mr. Obama might refer him to this document which clearly states:

Quote:
Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized 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.


Of course, Steve may not go there at all. Anyone think he will?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 12:31 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
We don't have all the facts yet, but I'm starting to agree with Thomas: this is beginning to look more and more like an execution than a killing. I'm not sure what sort of "resistance" OBL was putting up, but it now seems clear that he was unarmed. If the SEALs didn't have the means of restraining an unarmed 54-year old man who was putting up "resistance," then it's hard to avoid the conclusion that this wasn't a "kill-or-capture" mission, it was just a kill mission.

According to CNN, the latest version of the story is that Bin Laden shoved one of his wives towards the SEALs. They shot her in the leg but didn't kill her. Then they shot bin Laden in the head because, although unarmed, he was a few steps away from a machine pistol and a pistol. But if Bin Laden was a few steps away from those weapons, his wife was a few steps away from those weapons. So why didn't the SEALs shoot Mr. Bin Laden in the leg? Alternatively, if that wasn't safe enough, why did they fail to shoot his wife in the head?

As the officials keep changing their story, their language is unwavering in one way: it's carefully worded to make listeners believe the SEALs had no choice but to shoot Bin Laden, but to not actually say it. It doesn't mean it was an execution, but they're clearly hiding something.
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 12:36 pm
It was plain execution.

Quote:
Another security official said the wife was shot in the leg during the operation and did not witness her husband being killed. He also said one of bin Laden's eldest daughters had said she witnessed the Americans killing her father.

Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to give their names to the media.

Meanwhile, Pakistan's intelligence agency has concluded that bin Laden was "cash strapped" in his final days, according to a briefing given by two senior military officials. Disputes over money between the terror leader and his No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri, led al-Qaida to split into two factions five or six years ago, with the larger faction controlled by al-Zawahri, they said.

The officers spoke to a small group of Pakistani reporters late Thursday. Their comments were confirmed for The Associated Press by the same security official who spoke about the shooting of bin Laden's wife and who was present at Thursday's briefing.

The officer didn't provide details or elaborate on how his agency made the conclusions about bin Laden's financial situation or the split with his deputy, al-Zawahri. The al-Qaida chief apparently had lived without any guards at the Abbottabad compound or loyalists nearby to take up arms in his defence.

The image of Pakistan's intelligence agency has been battered at home and abroad in the wake of the raid that killed bin Laden. Portraying him as isolated and weak could be aimed at trying to create an impression that a failure to spot him was not so important.

Documents taken from the house by American commandos showed that bin Laden was planning to hit America, however, including a plan for derailing an American train on the upcoming 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The confiscated materials reveal the rail attack was planned as of February 2010.

Late Thursday, two Pakistani officials cited bin Laden's wives and children as saying he and his associates had not offered any "significant resistance" when the American commandos entered the compound, in part because the assailants had thrown "stun bombs" that disorientated them.

One official said Pakistani authorities found an AK-47 and a pistol in the house belonging to those inside, with evidence that one bullet had been fired from the rifle.

"That was the level of resistance" they put up, said the official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity.

His account is roughly consistent with the most recent one given by U.S. officials, who now say only one of the five people killed in the raid was armed and fired any shots, a striking departure from the intense and prolonged firefight described earlier by the White House and others in the administration.

U.S. officials say four men were killed alongside bin Laden, including one of his sons.

Reflecting the anger in Pakistan, hundreds of members of radical Islamic parties protested Friday in several Pakistan cities against the American raid and in favour of bin Laden. Many of the people chanted "Osama is alive" and blasted the U.S. for violating the country's sovereignty.

The largest rally took place in the town of Khuchlak in southwestern Baluchistan province, where about 500 people attended.

"America is celebrating Osama bin Laden's killing, but it will be a temporary celebration," said Abdullah Sittar Chishti, a member of the Jamiat Ulema Islam party who attended the rally in Khuchlak. "After the martyrdom of Osama, billions, trillions of Osamas will be born."


http://ca.news.yahoo.com/pakistani-army-humiliated-over-bin-laden-raid-warns-054727980.html
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 12:45 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Thomas wrote:

He hadn't engaged in a terrorist plot. The CIA had made a mistake.

Yes they did, but then they didn't compound it by killing the man.

The German government didn't intend to try the CIA agents for murder. It intended to try them for abduction and wrongful imprisonment. Why shouldn't the Germans try the agents for those crimes, given that they committed them? You yourself suggested this as a remedy for the kind of violations that agents commit.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Do you know whether or not the US government paid the man for his damages? I'm hoping they did.

Khalid El-Masri sued the US for damages in federal court, but border security barred him from entering the country to move his case along. (Border security hasn't removed him from the terror watch list to this day.) Moreover, the US government's lawyers asked the court to throw out the case on a national-security exception to the El-Masri's due-process rights, and the court eventually complied. Because El-Masri had no case, the US saw no reason for a settlement or a damage payment. Wikipedia has a decent summary of the events, with sources.
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 01:18 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
So why didn't the SEALs shoot Mr. Bin Laden in the leg?

I've read that for years there was rumored intel that Osama had said he would blow himself up rather than be captured. It could be that there was reason to believe he concealed some type of bomb on his body for this purpose and shooting the only visible part of his body was safest for those carrying out the mission.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/27/2021 at 02:18:44