What precedent does Bin Laden's killing set?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Those who run around claiming culpability for an event ought not to be surprised when they are held responsible for that event. I think that, if anything, the precedent set by this killing is that they will be held responsible.

As Thomas pointed out, OBL took responsibility for the 9/11 attacks but he never claimed that he was a terrorist.

That was our interpretation of events. We don't execute "freedom fighters" without due process of law. Hell, we don't even extradite them. So to say that we can kill terrorists with impunity merely begs the question. After all, who gets to decide who's a terrorist?

There is a good body of international law covering wars between a state and a non-state group. The 1977 Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions, for example:

Also, the US Congress gave approval for the war before it started:

And the self-defense nature of the war even makes it pass muster with the UN Charter.

holy ****, is that a unicorn in the garden

There's no meaningful distinction between the two.

We do, and so does anyone else. You may note that in my response to the original question - how would I feel if we refused to turn over a mass murderer to China, and they just came in and got them - I responded that I thought they would be justified in doing so, if our government was consciously refusing to turn that mass murderer over.

The real question of this thread is: how does the concept of 'rule of law' square with situations where the law is murky, or where the law doesn't adequately address the problem?

I doubt that we would hide or support anyone who admitted to being a mass murderer, whether we supported their cause or not.

One person's mass murderer is another's freedom fighter.

Quote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The real question of this thread is: how does the concept of 'rule of law' square with situations where the law is murky, or where the law doesn't adequately address the problem?

That's the question?

The Department of Defense has confirmed that it does not compile statistics about the total number of civilians that have been killed by its unmanned drone aircraft.
The DOD disclosed this information in a letter in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union demanding that the government disclose the legal basis for its use of unmanned drones to conduct targeted killings overseas.

Sure, but that doesn't disprove my position. We can make meaningful distinctions between a guy like Von Braun and a guy like bin Laden.

Unit 731

After Imperial Japan surrendered to the Allies in 1945, Douglas MacArthur became the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers, rebuilding Japan during the Allied occupation. MacArthur secretly granted immunity to the physicians of Unit 731 in exchange for providing America with their research on biological warfare.[7] American occupation authorities monitored the activities of former unit members, including reading and censoring their mail.[26] The U.S. believed that the research data was valuable. The U.S. did not want other nations, particularly the Soviet Union, to acquire data on biological weapons.[27]


The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal heard only one reference to Japanese experiments with "poisonous serums" on Chinese civilians. This took place in August 1946 and was instigated by David Sutton, assistant to the Chinese prosecutor. The Japanese defense counselor argued that the claim was vague and uncorroborated and it was dismissed by the tribunal president, Sir William Webb, for lack of evidence. The subject was not pursued further by Sutton, who was likely aware of Unit 731's activities. His reference to it at the trial is believed to have been accidental.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

The decision to kill Osama had to have been made in a split second, by the person that pulled the trigger.

The safety of the team is the first priority in a situation like that, and all of the armchair quarterbacking cant change that fact.

the USA did exactly what the world wanted.

Totally disagree with this assertion. It posits that no meaningful or objective judgment of people's actions can be made, and that all is relative. I can't agree to that.

I've got a question here. Why all the hand-wringing about OBL's assassination when over 1000 have perished from the unmanned drone program including approximately 300 civilians.

God, you do this **** all the time. Have you got a source for that? Oh yeah, i forgot . . . you're not my research assistant . . . you're "Zen."

Declassified military documents recently found in the US National Archives show clearly how US commanders repeatedly, and without ambiguity, ordered forces under their control to target and kill Korean refugees caught on the battlefield.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/coldwar/korea_usa_01.shtml

How many claim they are guilty, when they are in fact innocent - and there is a huge amount of evidence that they are guilty?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Totally disagree with this assertion. It posits that no meaningful or objective judgment of people's actions can be made, and that all is relative. I can't agree to that.

The point isn't that all are equal and relative but that a mechanism other than your ipse dixit is needed to differentiate them in order to have a scalable justice system.

It may just be obvious to you, but that doesn't mean a differentiating process codified in law is not needed.