35
   

What precedent does Bin Laden's killing set?

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 05:02 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Well, you did say that we had given them the right when we declared war on them. I find your quibble about criminals unconvincing.


Only the right to engage war back against us; we generally don't accuse soldiers of 'murder' when they kill other soldiers. I think this stemmed from whether or not it would be appropriate for them to target Obama himself for killing, to which I responded that it would be appropriate for an enemy at war with us to do so. The question is only whether or not AQ is a group who can validly have a war declared against them.

Cycloptichorn
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 05:05 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
In the same way we have made war against pirates, it seems we have that and perhaps other precedents.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 06:44 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
we generally don't accuse soldiers of 'murder' when they kill other soldiers.


We do when they are unlawful combatants. Even simply engaging in combat without killing someone can be prosecuted as attempted murder.

When an unlawful combatant engages in combat against other soldiers, legally it is no different from some whacko shooting up a mall.

Look at the prosecution of Omar Khadr. Like I mentioned before, it was questionable of us to prosecute a child soldier. But the principle of prosecuting unlawful combatants for murder when they kill our soldiers -- that's legally sound.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 07:42 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I addressed that issue in my post #4596573, on page 8. I also refered to the principle of hostem humani generis, which while applied to pirates, can also be applied to terrorists, as EB has noted.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 10:39 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

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.


I don't recall suggesting that the Germans should try for the CIA agents for whatever crime they believed them to be guilty, but obviously it was a possibility open to them.

Of course, once the agents left German soil all the German government could do was either seek to extradite them or kidnap them and return them to Germany to stand trial.

Clearly the US was not prepared to turn them over to the Germans, and attempting to kidnap, let alone actually seizing them, would have resulted in a diplomatic crisis of which Germany wanted no part.

There is no international court that has jurisdiction over the US government unless the US government voluntarily submits to it. Appealing to the UN would have been useless. There case against the agents depended entirely on what the US government was willing to do, or what the German government could force it to do. In terms of the latter there was nothing the Germans could do.

Now, you have to ask the German government why, if they thought justice was not being served and their citizen so terribly wronged (which apparently he was) why it didn't at least take a symbolic stand and sever ties with the US.

The answer is obvious. Seeking justice for their citizen was not worth the likely consequences of taking a stand for the right thing.

If leaders of nations that are at war do not order the assassination of one another, it’s not for any reason of law, honor, or morality; it is because they prefer that the violence of war be absorbed by their soldiers and their citizens. We don't know for certain whether or not Hitler ever sent a hit squad against Churchill or Roosevelt, or if he ever contemplated doing so, but if he did not, it certainly wasn't because he considered it a violation of the laws of war or, heaven forbid, immoral. It was because he didn't want to open a Pandora's box of leader assassination which might sweep him away as well.

The Navy Seals who attacked Bin Laden's stronghold, did just that...attacked. They are warriors, not police and the notion that they should only have killed Bin Laden in self-defense is absurd.

Apparently, nothing stopped Bin Laden from launching an attack that resulted in the destruction of two NY skyscrapers and 3,000 innocent civilians. Perhaps his being hunted for ten years and ultimately executed by Navy SEALs will be something that might stop the next madman who thinks he can defeat the US.

Hopefully this is the precedent that is set by the killing of Osama bin Laden.


0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2011 09:22 am
@edgarblythe,
Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't a lot of those heavily armed pirates been taken alive. It would have been so easy for these huge warships to just obliterate them and their vessels.
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2011 09:23 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
We do when they are unlawful combatants.


You know this to be a lie and yet you advance it.

BLACKWATER
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 03:05 am
@JTT,
Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't a lot of those heavily armed pirates been taken alive. It would have been so easy for these huge warships to just obliterate them and their vessels.
OMG ! The sicko is talking about a NOT war crime !!! Quick ! Someone call an ambulance !
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/22/2019 at 03:01:13