# Osama bin Laden is Dead **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 2, 2011, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-bin-laden-is-dead/580437 "2011-05-02T02:46:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2011, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-bin-laden-is-dead/580437/381 "2011-05-11T16:34:06Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > People keep saying that, but I’m not sure it’s true, or to what extent it is true. We had this place under heavy surveillance, and maybe we could have flushed some of these alleged AQ sympathizers out. But mainly I hear that it is thought to be former government officials who are supposedly AQ sympathizers. Them, and about half of the ISI. ---
**Author:** ![Yeticus\_Rex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a698b9/32.png) [@Yeticus\_Rex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeticus_Rex)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2011, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-bin-laden-is-dead/580437/382 "2011-05-11T20:56:31Z")
> [@Commissar](#): > > I’m sure it will come as no surprise to you that my answer differ from yours: > (1) TRUE – because not combatant > (2) FALSE > (3) IRRELEVANT – doesn’t matter if he was wounded in the recent place > (4) TRUE – unless you view kidney failure as a trifling matter > (5) FALSE > > The problem is that you simply assume that bin Laden was participating in hostilities, and you do not wish to have this assumption scrutinized. That’s not a viable argument, since the truth value of the assumption determines the outcome of the analysis. > > Let’s see what the ICRC has to say on the matter; conveniently enough, you can find a PDF on the issue at [http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc\_002\_0990.pdf](http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0990.pdf) > > As far as “active participation is hostilities is concerned,” the Red Cross suggests the following test: “Measures preparatory to the execution of a specific act of direct participation in hostilities, as well as the deployment to and the return from the location of its execution, constitute an integral part of that act.” > > Well, that makes sense. But what happens if you don’t know that an individual is planning any future “hostilities?” Red Cross: “All feasible precautions must be taken in determining whether a person is a civilian and, if so, whether that civilian is directly participating in hostilities. In case of doubt, the person must be presumed to be protected against direct attack.” > > Oh, and then there’s this: “In addition to the restraints imposed by international humanitarian law on specific means and methods of warfare, and without prejudice to further restrictions that may arise under other applicable branches of international law, the kind and degree of force which is permissible against persons not entitled to protection against direct attack must not exceed what is actually necessary to accomplish a legitimate military purpose in the prevailing circumstances.” > > Seems like as good a test as any to me. Why don’t you attempt to satisfy it by proving that bin Laden was scheming up some hostilities when killed. And, after you do that, go ahead and prove that nothing short of murder was available in this case. Then, and only then, will you have a strong argument for your position. I’ll wait. Hope I didn’t make you wait too long…pages 70-73 of your link, subsections 2 & 3 of section 7 (Temporal scope of the loss of protection): > [@](#): > > **VII. Temporal scope of the loss of > protection** > > 1. Civilians > According to treaty and customary IHL applicable in > international and non-international armed conflict, civilians > enjoy protection against direct attack “unless and for such > time” as they take a direct part in hostilities.189 Civilians > directly participating in hostilities do not cease to be part of > the civilian population, but their protection against direct > attack is temporarily suspended. The phrase “unless and for > such time” clarifies that such suspension of protection lasts > exactly as long as the corresponding civilian engagement > in direct participation in hostilities.190 This necessarily entails > that civilians lose and regain protection against direct attack > in parallel with the intervals of their engagement in direct > participation in hostilities (so-called “revolving door” of > civilian protection). > The “revolving door” of civilian protection is an integral part, > not a malfunction, of IHL. It prevents attacks on civilians who > do not, at the time, represent a military threat. In contrast > to members of organized armed groups, whose continuous > function it is to conduct hostilities on behalf of a party to > the conflict, the behaviour of individual civilians depends > on a multitude of constantly changing circumstances and, > Civilians lose protection against direct attack > for the duration of each specific act amounting > to direct participation in hostilities, whereas > members of organized armed groups belonging > to a non-State party to an armed conflict cease > to be civilians (see above II), and lose protection > against direct attack, for as long as they assume > their continuous combat function. > > 189 Arts 51 [3] AP I; 13 [3] AP II; Customary IHL, above N 7, Vol. I, Rule 6. The customary > nature of this rule was affirmed also in ICTY, Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95- > 14-A, Judgment of 29 July 2004, § 157, with references to earlier case law. For recent > domestic jurisprudence expressly accepting the customary nature of Art. 51 [3] AP I, > including the phrase “for such time as” see: Israel HCJ, PCATI v. Israel, above N 24, § 30. > 190 On the beginning and end of direct participation in hostilities see above Section VI. > DIRECT PARTICIPATION IN HOSTILITIES 71 > > therefore, is very difficult to anticipate. Even the fact that > a civilian has repeatedly taken a direct part in hostilities, > either voluntarily or under pressure, does not allow a reliable > prediction as to future conduct.191 As the concept of direct > participation in hostilities refers to specific hostile acts, IHL > restores the civilian’s protection against direct attack each > time his or her engagement in a hostile act ends.192 Until the > civilian in question again engages in a specific act of direct > participation in hostilities, the use of force against him or > her must comply with the standards of law enforcement or > individual self-defence. > Although the mechanism of the “revolving door” of protection > may make it more difficult for the opposing armed forces or > organized armed groups to respond effectively to the direct > participation of civilians in hostilities, it remains necessary to > protect the civilian population from erroneous or arbitrary > attack and must be acceptable for the operating forces or > groups as long as such participation occurs on a merely > spontaneous, unorganized or sporadic basis. > > \*\*2. Members of organized armed groups > > Members of organized armed groups belonging to a non- > State party to the conflict cease to be civilians for as long as > they remain members by virtue of their continuous combat > function.193 Formally, therefore, they no longer benefit from > the protection provided to civilians “unless and for such time” > as they take a direct part in hostilities. Indeed, the restriction > of loss of protection to the duration of specific hostile acts\*\* > > 191 Regarding the practical impossibility of reliably predicting the future conduct of a > civilian, see also Report DPH 2006, pp. 66 ff. > 192 According to Commentary AP (above N 10), § 4789: “If a civilian participates directly > in hostilities, it is clear that he will not enjoy any protection against attacks for as > long as his participation lasts. Thereafter, as he no longer presents any danger for the > adversary, he may not be attacked”. See also the description of direct participation in > hostilities as potentially “intermittent and discontinuous” in ICTY, Prosecutor v. Strugar, > Appeal, (above N 16), § 178. Although, during the expert meetings, the mechanism > of the revolving door of protection gave rise to some controversy, the prevailing view > was that, under the texts of Art. 3 [1] GC I-IV and the Additional Protocols, continuous > loss of civilian protection could not be based on recurrent acts by individual civilians, > but exclusively on the concept of membership in State armed forces or in an organized > armed group belonging to a non-State party to the conflict. See Report DPH 2004, pp. > 22 f.; Report DPH 2005, pp. 63 f.; Report DPH 2006, pp. 64-68; Report DPH 2008, pp. > 33-44. > 193 On the mutual exclusivity of the concepts of civilian and organized armed group, > see above Section II.1. On the concept of continuous combat function, see above > Section II.3.(b). > 72 DIRECT PARTICIPATION IN HOSTILITIES > > **was designed to respond to spontaneous, sporadic or > unorganized hostile acts by civilians and cannot be applied > to organized armed groups. It would provide members of > such groups with a significant operational advantage over > members of State armed forces, who can be attacked on a > continuous basis. This imbalance would encourage organized > armed groups to operate as farmers by day and fighters by > night. In the long run, the confidence of the disadvantaged > party in the capability of IHL to regulate the conduct of > hostilities satisfactorily would be undermined, with serious > consequences ranging from excessively liberal interpretations > of IHL to outright disrespect for the protections it affords.194 > Instead, where individuals go beyond spontaneous, sporadic, > or unorganized direct participation in hostilities and become > members of an organized armed group belonging to a party > to the conflict, IHL deprives them of protection against > direct attack for as long as they remain members of that > group.195 In other words, the “revolving door” of protection > starts to operate based on membership.196 As stated earlier, > membership in an organized armed group begins in the > moment when a civilian starts de facto to assume a continuous > combat function for the group, and lasts until he or she > ceases to assume such function.197 Disengagement from an > organized armed group need not be openly declared; it can > also be expressed through conclusive behaviour, such as a > lasting physical distancing from the group and reintegration > into civilian life or the permanent resumption of an exclusively > non-combat function (e.g., political or administrative > activities). In practice, assumption of, or disengagement > from, a continuous combat function depends on criteria that > may vary with the political, cultural, and military context.198** > > 194 Report DPH 2005, p. 49; Report DPH 2006, p. 65. > 195 According to Commentary AP (above N 10), § 4789: “Those who belong to armed > forces or armed groups may be attacked at any time”. See also Expert Paper DPH 2004 > (Prof. M. Bothe). Protection against direct attack is restored where members of armed > groups fall hors de combat as a result of capture, surrender, wounds or any other cause > (Art. 3 [1] GC I-IV. See also Art. 41 AP I.). > 196 During the expert meetings, this widely supported compromise was described as > a “functional membership approach”. For an overview of the discussions, see Report > DPH 2003, p. 7; Background Doc. DPH 2004, pp. 34 ff.; Report DPH 2004, pp. 22 f.; > Report DPH 2005, pp. 49, 59-65; 82 ff.; Report DPH 2006, pp. 29 ff., 65 f. > 197 See above Section II.3. See also Report DPH 2005, p. 59. > 198 See also above Section II.3. During the expert meetings, it was emphasized that the > question of whether affirmative disengagement had taken place must be determined > DIRECT PARTICIPATION IN HOSTILITIES 73 > > **That determination must therefore be made in good faith > and based on a reasonable assessment of the prevailing > circumstances, presuming entitlement to civilian protection in > case of doubt.199** > \*\*3. Conclusion > > Under customary and treaty IHL, civilians directly participating > in hostilities, as well as persons assuming a continuous > combat function for an organized armed group belonging > to a party to the conflict, lose their entitlement to protection > against direct attack. As far as the temporal scope of the loss > of protection is concerned, a clear distinction must be made > between civilians and organized armed actors. While civilians > lose their protection for the duration of each specific act > amounting to direct participation in hostilities, members of > organized armed groups belonging to a party to the conflict > are no longer civilians and, therefore, lose protection against > direct attack for the duration of their membership, that is > to say, for as long as they assume their continuous combat > function.\*\* > > based on the concrete circumstances (Report DPH 2005, p. 63). On the precautions > and presumptions to be observed in situations of doubt, see below Section VIII. > 199 During the expert meetings, it was repeatedly pointed out that, while the > “revolving door” of protection was part of the rule on civilian direct participation > in hostilities expressed in Arts 51 [3] AP I and 13 [3] AP II, the practical distinction > between members of organized armed groups and civilians was very difficult. During > reactive operations carried out in response to an attack, the operating forces often > lacked sufficient intelligence and had to rely on assumptions that were made based > on individual conduct. Therefore, such operations would generally be restricted to the > duration of the concrete hostile acts to which they responded. Conversely, proactive > operations initiated by the armed forces based on solid intelligence regarding the > function of a person within an organized armed group could also be carried out at a > moment when the targeted persons were not directly participating in hostilities (see > Report DPH 2006, pp. 56 f.) Nope, not a civilian as you claimed. Now, the proof is up to you **Commisar** , that ObL was not a “member of an organized armed group”. I have laid out in previous posts that ObL at the time he was attacked, had not signalled a truce, rescinded his fatwa, nor surrendered to any authorities. He still was using couriers to communicate with others in HIS OWN ORGANIZED ARMED GROUP which was to carry out orders to his officers and cells…that was ObL’s “Combat function”. He also had armed security forces to protect him, because he was the leader of an ORGANIZED ARMED GROUP. Not a civilian. I want you to read those sections well and let it sink in before you respond…I really don’t have much more time dealing with your antics or moving goalposts. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-bin-laden-is-dead/580437/383 "2011-05-12T14:05:50Z")
I wanted to ask: How can a guy whose weapon of choice is suicide bombers ever be considered to be ‘unarmed’? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-bin-laden-is-dead/580437/384 "2011-05-12T14:43:39Z")
I mention this because this is pretty much the sole remaining bin Laden thread, but the administration has now shared the photos of bin Laden’s body with some Senators and House members. When I heard that was happening I figured this would be the source of the inevitable leak, but maybe not. I’m guessing the administration has made it clear internally that heads will roll if the photos get out, and at the risk of speaking too soon, the legislators maybe taking the issue seriously. Sen. Inhofe has described the photos in some detail. I’m not sure all of them are as bad as what he described, but what he did describe is extremely gory even relative to what I was expecting. Anything goes on the internet, but I don’t think this is something you’d put on TV or in a newspaper. Inhofe is actually in favor of releasing some photos, but with the public acknowledgements of bin Laden’s death and the release of the videos, the demand has really died down anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Commissar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c68b51/32.png) [@Commissar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Commissar)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-bin-laden-is-dead/580437/385 "2011-05-12T15:58:45Z")
> [@Yeticus\_Rex](#): > > Now, the proof is up to you **Commisar** , that ObL was not a “member of an organized armed group”. I disagree; a person is not considered guilty until proven innocent under the Geneva Conventions. You have the burden of proof in showing that bin Laden was (1) a combatant; and (2) that it was impossible to use less lethal measures against him. > [@](#): > > I have laid out in previous posts that ObL at the time he was attacked, had not signalled a truce, rescinded his fatwa, nor surrendered to any authorities. That’s your own personal definition. The Geneva Conventions do not require that a combatant surrenders or publicly denounces his previous beliefs in order to qualify as a civilian. Simply ceasing to engage in hostilities is enough. > [@](#): > > He still was using couriers to communicate with others in HIS OWN ORGANIZED ARMED GROUP which was to carry out orders to his officers and cells…that was ObL’s “Combat function”. He also had armed security forces to protect him, because he was the leader of an ORGANIZED ARMED GROUP. Once again, you try to slip in your own assumptions as factual conclusions. Not so fast there, sparky. How do you know whom bin Laden was communicating with? How do you know what the content of said communications was? Are you privy to top secret materials that the rest of us plebes must do without? Also, I like how you equate having armed guards with being the leader of an “organized armed group.” My local Ross has armed guards; who knew that this made the department store a nefarious armed group? :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > I want you to read those sections well and let it sink in before you respond…I really don’t have much more time dealing with your antics or moving goalposts. Ha. I appreciate the irony. Why don’t you first read the sections yourself? The bolded materials boil down to what I already told you: the distinction between combatant and civilian is one of participation in hostilities. Somehow, you’re trying to leap from that to “See, bin Laden is a combatant!” Um, no, not until you show your work in establishing his ongoing participation in hostilities. I am unwilling to stipulate to that assumption, so it’s on you to prove it. Also, my “goalposts” remain unchanged: (1) Bin Laden was not a combatant under the Geneva Conventions (2) Even if he was a combatant, it was unlawful to kill him when it was clearly possible to detain him instead. You also keep ignoring that second point above. Remember: under the Geneva Conventions, you cannot simply slaughter combatants at will. You may kill them in direct combat, or when it is otherwise impossible to remove them from participation in hostilities, but not when they pose no direct risk to you and can be detained as easily as killed. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-bin-laden-is-dead/580437/386 "2011-05-12T16:40:02Z")
> [@Commissar](#): > > The Geneva Conventions do not require that a combatant surrenders or publicly denounces his previous beliefs in order to qualify as a civilian. Simply ceasing to engage in hostilities is enough. Does that mean that the guards at Auschwitz could have just dropped their rifles at the arrival of Allied forces and said, “Whoa, pal, we’re civilians!” ? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-bin-laden-is-dead/580437/387 "2011-05-12T16:42:59Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I mention this because this is pretty much the sole remaining bin Laden thread, but the administration has now shared the photos of bin Laden’s body with some Senators and House members. When I heard that was happening I figured this would be the source of the inevitable leak, but maybe not. **I’m guessing the administration has made it clear internally that heads will roll if the photos get out** , [Emphasis Added] and at the risk of speaking too soon, the legislators maybe taking the issue seriously. Sen. Inhofe has described the photos in some detail… Nice to see that one branch of Government feels free to order a co-equal branch of Government around…this is an observation against both Team Red and Blue, incidentally. It’s a public document. If the picture doesn’t implicate operational methods, tactics, or intelligence sources, then I don’t see the national security implications in classifying the picture, and so, prohibiting the public or members of Congress from publishing it or even seeing it. With the [“Kill Team”](http://www.rollingstone.com/kill-team) photos in _Rolling Stone_, and assorted [photos of war dead](http://www.owensarchive.com/censored-image-of-dead-american-soldiers-8377) available since, [well since the beginning of photography, really](http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/brady-photos/), I don’t see the unprecedented horror in making available photos of bin Laden’s exploded head. Quit being coy, and either release the photos or shred them; I don’t give a shit which at this point. I can see not wanting to publish them on the front page of the New York Times, but if media wants to make them available to the public, via a two-click rule or what have you, I don’t see a problem with it. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-bin-laden-is-dead/580437/388 "2011-05-12T17:15:21Z")
> [@Gray\_Ghost](#): > > Nice to see that one branch of Government feels free to order a co-equal branch of Government around… I think you misread me. I said “internally,” meaning _within the administration_. I was also just guessing at what’s been said. If someone within the White House or the CIA leaked it, I think Obama would be furious. I was not saying I think he is trying to intimidate Congress. > [@](#): > > Quit being coy, and either release the photos or shred them; I don’t give a shit which at this point. I don’t think they’re being coy. They said they’re not releasing the photos, period. Why they’re showing them to some legislators, I don’t know. Maybe because Congress is a coequal branch of the federal government. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-bin-laden-is-dead/580437/389 "2011-05-12T17:19:32Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > I wanted to ask: How can a guy whose weapon of choice is suicide bombers ever be considered to be ‘unarmed’? Was there a suicide bomber present in the room at the time? If not, then your point is moot. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-bin-laden-is-dead/580437/390 "2011-05-12T17:28:24Z")
The implication was that bin Laden might have chosen to blow himself up rather than be taken alive (or just take his enemies with him). It’s something the Seals would have had to consider as a real possibility, although it’s hard to imagine bin Laden doing it himself. However he was classy enough to suggest that his children should think about becoming suicide bombers at one point. ---
**Author:** ![Yeticus\_Rex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a698b9/32.png) [@Yeticus\_Rex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeticus_Rex)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-bin-laden-is-dead/580437/391 "2011-05-12T20:10:47Z")
> [@Commissar](#): > > I disagree; a person is not considered guilty until proven innocent under the Geneva Conventions. You have the burden of proof in showing that bin Laden was (1) a combatant; and (2) that it was impossible to use less lethal measures against him. (1). Already did. (2). Show me where the situation has to be “impossible” in order to use lethal measures. Wait for 1 SEAL to die? 5? 10? 20? All but one? > [@](#): > > That’s your own personal definition. The Geneva Conventions do not require that a combatant surrenders or publicly denounces his previous beliefs in order to qualify as a civilian. Simply ceasing to engage in hostilities is enough. Re-read the conclusion, because that’s where my “definition” came from… > [@](#): > > 1. Conclusion > > Under customary and treaty IHL, civilians directly participating > in hostilities, as well as persons assuming a continuous > combat function for an organized armed group belonging > to a party to the conflict, lose their entitlement to protection > against direct attack. As far as the temporal scope of the loss > of protection is concerned, a clear distinction must be made > between civilians and organized armed actors. While civilians > lose their protection for the duration of each specific act > amounting to direct participation in hostilities, **members of > organized armed groups belonging to a party to the conflict > are no longer civilians and, therefore, lose protection against > direct attack for the duration of their membership, that is > to say, for as long as they assume their continuous combat > function.** > [@](#): > > Once again, you try to slip in your own assumptions as factual conclusions. Not so fast there, sparky. How do you know whom bin Laden was communicating with? How do you know what the content of said communications was? Are you privy to top secret materials that the rest of us plebes must do without? Also, I like how you equate having armed guards with being the leader of an “organized armed group.” My local Ross has armed guards; who knew that this made the department store a nefarious armed group? :rolleyes: False equivalence. Ross never had an terrorist group who killed thousands over the last 10+ years. That would be a horrible business model. Try harder. :rolleyes::rolleyes: [It has been reported that ObL’s journal has been found with future planned attacks listed in it for July 4th, the 10th Anniversary of 9/11, and Christmas.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/11/bin-laden-journal-seized-us-raid_n_860662.html) He never ceased his planning and plotting to use his group to kill more people. This fulfills the requirement for continuous combat function. Oh, unless he had to go make a bologna sandwich, that would make him a civilian…then all bets are off.:rolleyes: > [@](#): > > Ha. I appreciate the irony. Why don’t you first read the sections yourself? The bolded materials boil down to what I already told you: the distinction between combatant and civilian is one of participation in hostilities. Somehow, you’re trying to leap from that to “See, bin Laden is a combatant!” Um, no, not until you show your work in establishing his ongoing participation in hostilities. I am unwilling to stipulate to that assumption, so it’s on you to prove it. Now matter how “unwilling” you are, ObL was still not a civilian per the link you gave. No leap of logic was needed. > [@](#): > > Also, my “goalposts” remain unchanged: (1) Bin Laden was not a combatant under the Geneva Conventions (2) Even if he was a combatant, it was unlawful to kill him when it was clearly possible to detain him instead. Now you are making assumptions from your own preconceived notions. Where you there? Did you watch the videos? Do you have inside information? > [@](#): > > You also keep ignoring that second point above. Remember: under the Geneva Conventions, you cannot simply slaughter combatants at will. You may kill them in direct combat, or when it is otherwise impossible to remove them from participation in hostilities, but not when they pose no direct risk to you and can be detained as easily as killed. An armed organised group can be attacked. That’s exactly what happened on May 1st/2nd. It wasn’t a bunch of civilians that the U.S. thought were just a group of part-time troublemakers that were on hiatus. Part of me wished that they didn’t kill ObL so they could collect even more information from him, but like you, I wasn’t there to appraise the situation of the dangers involved. The SEALs were shot at even before they reached ObL, and it was reasonable of them to assume that ObL had a weapon with him as well. Attacking at night certainly makes it harder to distinguish who is armed and who isn’t, and the SEALs were definitely not taking chances of waiting for someone to shoot first at them to find out if they are armed. They were already shot at; they didn’t need to wait for more shots to be fired at them…they were already encountering a direct attack from the group. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-bin-laden-is-dead/580437/392 "2011-05-12T20:36:49Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Actually there were religious folks on both sides of the abolition debate. Just wanted to let that fact be clarified. > You can resume hating on religion now, if you’d like. Agreed. Also there were plenty of secularists(for lack of a better word) and believers in the Enlightenment who believed in slavery. Jefferson, to give just one example, wrote long essays scientifically “proving” that blacks were inferior, though he came to oppose slavery, and Eugenics and otherforms of scientific racism were invented and adopted by also sorts of non-believers. Furthermore, the most prominent critics of Eugenics were Billy Sunday and William Jennings Bryan. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-bin-laden-is-dead/580437/393 "2011-05-12T20:54:38Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I mention this because this is pretty much the sole remaining bin Laden thread, but the administration has now shared the photos of bin Laden’s body with some Senators and House members. When I heard that was happening I figured this would be the source of the inevitable leak, but maybe not. I’m guessing the administration has made it clear internally that heads will roll if the photos get out, and at the risk of speaking too soon, the legislators maybe taking the issue seriously. The photos cannot get out, because the committee members were never in possession of them. They had to go to CIA headquarters to view them, and they could not take them with them. Seems the President trusts them about as much as he trusted the Pakistani government. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-bin-laden-is-dead/580437/394 "2011-05-12T21:32:54Z")
I don’t really feel like dipping my oar in the water of whether or not the killing of Bin Laden was legal, but those who claim that being unarmed and not a threat(arguably) made it illegal to kill him even if he were deemed a combatant are wrong. It is perfectly legal under the Geneva convention to walk up to a sleeping soldier and blow his head off or to shoot an unarmed officer from hundreds of yards away(snipers do it all the time). Until a combatant formally surrenders, or at least attempts to surrender, they’re fair game at least from a legal standpoint. From my perspective, Bin Laden claimed he was a soldier, acted like one and as a result deserved to be treated like one. He lived the life of a Mujahid and died a Mujahid. Perhaps he was also a war criminal but soldiers can be war criminals as well. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-bin-laden-is-dead/580437/395 "2011-05-12T22:01:39Z")
I am curious if those who believe it to have been illegal also believe that the killing of [General Yamamoto](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoroku_Yamamoto#Death) during the Second World War was legal. Do both countries in conflict have to subscribe to the Geneva Convention for either side to be bound by it? ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-bin-laden-is-dead/580437/396 "2011-05-12T22:15:00Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > I am curious if those who believe it to have been illegal also believe that the killing of [General Yamamoto](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoroku_Yamamoto#Death) during the Second World War was legal. That came to my mind too. What also came to my mind (although **Commissar** appears to have in his subsequent posts tap-danced around the goalposts enough to–maybe–remove this) is what about attacking troop movements? His original thesis would eliminate the ability of a belligerent to attack the trains, ships, or trucks carrying currently not-in-combat enemy troops to the front. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2011, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-bin-laden-is-dead/580437/397 "2011-05-13T03:48:09Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Was there a suicide bomber present in the room at the time? If not, then your point is moot. I don’t think so. The guy’s calling card was novel, unexpected attacks. And he certainly wasn’t alone at the time of the raid. Anybody could’ve been a suicide bomber, including him, and you might not be able to perceive it. He could’ve had a bomb trigger in the big toe of his fuzzy bunny slippers. ---
**Author:** ![Commissar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c68b51/32.png) [@Commissar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Commissar)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2011, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-bin-laden-is-dead/580437/398 "2011-05-13T07:16:41Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > Does that mean that the guards at Auschwitz could have just dropped their rifles at the arrival of Allied forces and said, “Whoa, pal, we’re civilians!” ? 🙂 Sure, why not? This would not change their Geneva Conventions status, but it would obligate the Allies to detain them rather than shoot them in the head. > [@Frank](#): > > That came to my mind too. What also came to my mind (although **Commissar** appears to have in his subsequent posts tap-danced around the goalposts enough to–maybe–remove this) is what about attacking troop movements? His original thesis would eliminate the ability of a belligerent to attack the trains, ships, or trucks carrying currently not-in-combat enemy troops to the front. See above. The Geneva Conventions ultimately boil down to forcing enemy states to use the least barbaric methods of warfare available against each other’s forces. Lethal force is only to be used when no other method of accomplishing your goals is realistically available. What does this mean? Basically: if you can detain an enemy as easily as you can kill him, then you have a legal prohibition against killing him. Back to your hypothetical. Can one detain an enemy train? No? Then lethal force may be used. What if you have a team of killers that fights its way into the train, takes everyone captive, and then says “Fuck it all” and shoots every enemy in the head? Then you have a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Not really all that difficult, eh? ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-bin-laden-is-dead/580437/399 "2011-05-14T00:24:23Z")
Looks like [pornography was found at the Bin Laden compound](http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-world/20110513/INTERNATIONAL-US-BINLADEN-PORN/) after all. I’m afraid this will irrevocably tarnish Mr. Bin Laden’s reputation. ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-bin-laden-is-dead/580437/400 "2011-05-15T02:53:24Z")
Amanpour in 2008: “Bin Laden is in villa in Pakistan” [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/h0MZhNQ5iaw/hqdefault.jpg "Christiane Amanpour predicts OBL's whereabouts in 2008!") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0MZhNQ5iaw) Question - how hard would it be to call Amanpour and ask to follow on the lead? Why wait 3 years? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-bin-laden-is-dead/580437.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/osama-bin-laden-is-dead/580437.md?page=21)