35
   

What precedent does Bin Laden's killing set?

 
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 02:34 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
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.


Not necessarily, but I'll agree that it limits it to wars taking place within a single country.

But I can point to other rules covering NON-international armed conflict, that do not have such limitations.

For instance, most of these rules apply to NON-international armed conflict:

http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul




joefromchicago wrote:
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.


Correct. Not a civil war. Just a NON-international armed conflict.




joefromchicago wrote:
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.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 02:50 pm
@oralloy,
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 ...
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 02:51 pm
@Thomas,
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....


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. It's EXPECTED for each side to attack the other one.

Cycloptichorn
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 03:05 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.


If my understanding is correct, they would have let him surrender if he was openly and clearly proclaiming his surrender. But absent an instant surrender from him, they were supposed to kill him on sight.

That isn't quite the same as an execution, in that had he had his hands in the air and been proclaiming his surrender they would not have killed him. He had to be "resisting" to trigger the kill.

If it were an execution they would have killed him even if he was giving up.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 03:08 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
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?


With each other, no.

With al-Qa'ida, yes.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 03:11 pm
@Thomas,
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.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 03:17 pm
@oralloy,
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)
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 03:17 pm
@oralloy,
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
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 03:20 pm
I won't shilly shally, I'll take it as tantamount to assassination/execution. I remain ok with it. It's possible I'll change, as I get the arguments against my view and could argue them myself.
Not presently though. And not from my just liking Obama, as he has been as much an aggravation as a pleasure for me to read about - not entirely but I'm not all gaga.

I remain hating the drones, new hit by one today. I think they create hatred.
I get that our recent action does too.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 03:20 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
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?


Because it wasn't a crime. We're at war. We have the right to capture enemy fighters and detain them until the end of the war.

And....

If anyone ever succeeds in depriving us of our right to capture and detain enemy fighters, that will also remove any obligation we have to capture them if we can instead of killing them.

Then you'll see real kill missions.



Now this guy, being innocent, deserves similar compensation that an innocent person wrongly convicted would receive. But that doesn't mean we committed a crime for capturing someone who we believed to be an enemy fighter.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 03:28 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
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".


It doesn't sound like a good ruling. If a war declaration isn't necessary, what's the point of war declarations?



Walter Hinteler wrote:
The Overseas Contingency Operations were coined by Bush as War on Terror ...


Whatever they are called, they still had a war declaration from Congress.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 03:36 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
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)


That doesn't mean that one side can't be committing a crime for simply participating in combat.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 03:37 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
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


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.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 03:45 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
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.

Dude, way to overplay your intellectual hand. Even Hitler, who wasn't sqeamish about going to war and killing people, never sought to kill Churchill, or Stalin, or Roosevelt. So even to the worst warmonger of the 20th century, killing the enemy's leaders was not the point of war. You're just making stuff up as you go along now.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 03:54 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


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.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 03:55 pm
@Thomas,
Jack Higgins wrote a novel about a team of German soldiers on a mission to assassinate Churchill. It was called "The Eagle Has Landed".
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 04:02 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
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.


No, it is legal for us to fight a just war of self-defense.




JTT wrote:
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.


I'm sympathetic to the notion that Khadr as a child soldier should not have been prosecuted. But the military tribunals are anything but kangaroo courts.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 04:31 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
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.

EDIT: I consider Oralloy's remark absurd, too.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 04:39 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

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.


Woah there. I never claimed we were the one who initiated hostilities against their group, or that they were minding their own business. But before our change in posture after 9/11, they were essentially considered criminals; not someone you even COULD declare war against. The change in attitude on our part afterward - taking a militaristic approach to hunting them down, as opposed to a legal one - provided more legitimacy to the idea that they WERE someone to be taken seriously, than anything they had actually done.

If bush had continued to refer to them as criminals, and hunted them down under that frame, I believe that you would see more outrage over the killing of bin Laden. But, we 'declared war' against them, gave our troops shoot-to-kill orders for Bin Laden (which have been there for years) and then started wars in that region with various countries, giving him an opportunity to actually SEND TROOPS up against ours. We elevated the guy's status to 'leader of our national enemy.' That has a different connotation in people's minds than 'criminal.'

Cycloptichorn
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 04:58 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Well, you did say that we had given them the right when we declared war on them. I find your quibble about criminals unconvincing.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/14/2020 at 12:30:11