But my terrorist discount on these towels still applies, right?
Chesty Puller retired at 57.
And dammit, I’m 55! 
He sure does look like an old fart in the captured videos, though. 
Is there no contradiction here? If he was a legitimate target of war, then some state of war must exist, no? And if such a state exists, then the rules of war apply.
If no such state of war exists, even with a presidential declaration in all its splendor, then the rules of criminal apprehension apply. Our rules for such require speedy trial, nonbiased courts, and the right to confront ones accusers and the evidence. Oh, and of course, a presumption of innocence. Assassination is not supposed to have a place in such legal proceedings.
What you seem to be aiming for is a creature that is fifty percent chicken and fifty percent hamburger.
He’s a year younger than me, but looks about 20 years older.
elucidator: The fact of the matter is, we went in and shot him. We planned it, and we executed it. We* didn’t care about whether or not it was “legal”. We can rationalize all day about how it was OK to kill him, but we did something we claim we don’t condone because it was expedient for us to do so.
I think you and I can agree that it was wrong. Wrong regardless of what legal logic anyone wants to wrap around it. That’s one reason I don’t like all the celebrating I saw. We’re not supposed to support this type of vigilante justice. I can understand it, but I don’t condone it.
*By “we”, I mean our elected officials.
I don’t recall a state of war existing on September 11.
To quote Calvin and Hobbes, “They lie, I lie.”
And get the hell off my lawn!
A lot of people here believe what they’ve been told. As of today, John Q. Public doesn’t know the truth of anything. We were not there when it happen. We don’t know if bin Laden is dead. If dead, we don’t know the details. We’re pretty sure he likes to watch himself on TV in what looks like a cheap motel room. That’s about it.
Al Quida, however you spell it, says he’s dead. That’s good enough for me. 
We don’t know the details, and probably never will. But the guy is dead. If someone comes up with a video indicating otherwise, then I’ll stand corrected. Until then, the best conclusion we have is that he is dead.
Meh, I wasn’t there when Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul, Gerald Ford, Elvis or Michael Jackson died either. I still know they’re dead.
I encourage you to look at Article 3 again, in particular its explanation of whom it applies to:
“(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely…”
It is a blanket prohibition on all kinds of acts (including killing) directed at an enemy combatant who is not actively engaged in combat. An unarmed elderly man certainly fits this category.
Ha, nice try. What you’re forgetting is that the Geneva Conventions categorize all humans into two basic categories. If you’re going to deny that bin Laden was a member of an armed force or some analogue, then you’re going to have to label him a civilian. That’s fine by me, for then we can turn to Geneva Convention IV:
Article 32
The High Contracting Parties specifically agree that each of them is prohibited from taking any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.
And no matter how you label bin Laden, you cannot escape the reach of the catchall Common Article 3, which was included in each of the separate Geneva Conventions and thus applies to all people at all times.
I’m not sure how outliers are relevant here. Apparently, the life expectancy of males in Pakistan is 64.18 years. Cite: Pakistan Life expectancy at birth - Demographics In my opinion, someone who is a decade away from reaching his life expectancy point qualifies as “elderly.”
You must be joking. The supreme commander of Al Qaeda forces around the world was actively, directly and currently involved the launching of terrorist acts against us. Your interpretation of Article 3 stretches credulity like a three-fingered prostate exam.
Clearly, you are not familiar with life expectancy and how it is calculated. Afghanistan has the second highest infant mortality rate in the world, with fully one quarter of children dying before their fifth birthday, which really screws with the total life expectancy tables. A more meaningful statistic would be the actuarial projection for a 54 year male in Afghanistan. Get back to us when you find that.
Your argument is ridiculous. Article 3 is written in very clear language, and there is little if any room for ambiguity that you can hang your hat on therein. Read it again. The bottom line is that you may not treat non-threatening combatants the same way that you would be allowed to treat threatening combatants. Note that this is a minute-by-minute analysis. Even if we assume that bin Laden was a significant commander within the al Quida network, he did not pose a direct threat to the people that murdered him. Hence, said murder violated Common Article 3. I’m not sure why you’re having difficulty grasping this concept.
Two points:
(1) Pakistan. Not Afghanistan - Pakistan. In your attempt to score points against me, you apparently didn’t even bother to carefully read the post that you are currently objecting to. The infant death rate in Afghanistan has absolutely no relevance to the discussion.
(2) I want to hear your counter-proposal. My position is that a human being can reasonably be referred to as “old” or “elderly” beginning with his or her sixth decade of life. At what point would you allow such terminology? Seventh decade? Eighth? Upon setting a new world record for longevity? I request that you pick an alternative number and provide a justification for it.
It’s like reading something out of the Onion. “Harmless old man minding his own business in Pakistan murdered by The Empire in a grave war crime.”
'kay, but realistically, how many soldiers serve in combat beyond, say, 45? You’re not likely to be captured when you’re directing troops from an office building.
I think when you’ve directed attacks such as 9/11 and Al Qaeda’s other attacks- with your very own organization/gang no less- I believe it is acceptable for military forces to treat you as dangerous and shoot you. Regardless of whether or not you’ve grown old, but especially if you’re still directing attacks.
I could see a complaint if the dude had been hooked up to machines in a nursing home, but that wasn’t the case. He was bangin’ his young wives, hence not elderly.
In fairness, the AARP appears to agree with you. That said, I don’t.
I’ll go with “old” once one has passed the traditional three-score-and-ten. And, that said, this would be an interesting IMHO (or even GD if you can gussy it up enough) thread. Why don’t you start one? I’ll participate.
Ahem. You may be surprised at what the elderly are getting up to these days.
This has been floating around:
Agreed. Let’s not forget Silvio Berlusconi!