What precedent does Bin Laden's killing set?

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.

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?

I am not aware of Congress passing a war declaration for the war on drugs.

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....

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.

wandeljw wrote:

Seriously, though, does due process apply to actions taken in war, joefromchicago and Walter?

Are the USA and Pakistan in a state of war?

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....

Our war against al-Qa'ida is legal, in that it is a just war of self defense.

al-Qa'ida does not have the right to wage war. Therefore their war against us is illegal.

1 : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between political units (as states or nations)
2 : a state of hostility, conflict, opposition, or antagonism between mental, physical, social, or other forces

Thomas wrote:

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....

Our war against al-Qa'ida is legal, in that it is a just war of self defense.

al-Qa'ida does not have the right to wage war. Therefore their war against us is illegal.

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?

oralloy wrote:

I am not aware of Congress passing a war declaration for the war on drugs.

As far as I have looked it up, the Constitution - at least according to the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals (in Doe vs. Bush, No. 03-126, March 13, 2003) - doesn't require a formal Congressional "Declaration of War".

The Overseas Contingency Operations were coined by Bush as War on Terror ...

oralloy wrote:

Our war against al-Qa'ida is legal, in that it is a just war of self defense.

al-Qa'ida does not have the right to wage war. Therefore their war against us is illegal.

I'd though that a "war" is always between two, like

Quote:

1 : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between political units (as states or nations)
2 : a state of hostility, conflict, opposition, or antagonism between mental, physical, social, or other forces

(Source: Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002)

oralloy wrote:

Thomas wrote:

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....

Our war against al-Qa'ida is legal, in that it is a just war of self defense.

al-Qa'ida does not have the right to wage war. Therefore their war against us is illegal.

We gave them the right when the declared war on them. Legitimizing the enemy allows them to claim equivalence in action.

Which is why it was a stupid thing to do.

Cycloptichorn

That's correct. In a time of war, it's not illegal or immoral to try and kill the enemies' leadership. That's the POINT of war.

Declaring war on them did not give them any legitimacy. They can "claim" anything they want, but if any unlawful combatant kills a US soldier in fair combat, that's first degree murder and they can be tried and executed for it.

That's why that Canadian kid Khadr was prosecuted for allegedly killing a Special Forces medic with a grenade.

The only reason they didn't go for the death penalty is because Khadr was underage at the time.

Oralloy wrote:

Declaring war on them did not give them any legitimacy. They can "claim" anything they want, but if any unlawful combatant kills a US soldier in fair combat, that's first degree murder and they can be tried and executed for it.

Declaring war is something that requires rules. The US never followed any rules, they simply made them up as they went along. The result, they engaged in two wars of aggression, the ultimate war crime.

The US hasn't prosecuted anyone for anything. A kangaroo court is not a prosecution. You know exactly what it is. After you have committed the ultimate war crime, everything that flows from that is a war crime.

The US got what it got in the same fashion as a gangster gets what he wants, through fear and intimidation. To call these things "prosecutions" is to make a mockery of the law.

oralloy wrote:

Thomas wrote:

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....

Our war against al-Qa'ida is legal, in that it is a just war of self defense.

al-Qa'ida does not have the right to wage war. Therefore their war against us is illegal.

We gave them the right when the declared war on them. Legitimizing the enemy allows them to claim equivalence in action.

Which is why it was a stupid thing to do.

Cycloptichorn

This is false. Bin Laden made war on the United States because there were American troops in Saudi Arabia, not because we had attacked them. In fact, until late 1991, bin Laden considered America to be his friend. After all, we had financed Al Qaeda (which means "the base,' and was literally a logistical base for Afghan jihadis), and we had trained his people. It is absurd to suggest that we declared war on Al Qaeda and then attacked them, as though they had previously been innocently minding their own business. They attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, they attacked the American embassies in Africa in 1998, they attacked U.S.S. Cole in 2000. You really do your credibility a disservice by shooting from the hip like that.