Osama bin Laden is Dead

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

No, let’s.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

Sorry.

[gonzomax]

It is possible to think Bin Laden is not dead. It would require thinking Obama lied. It would require believing the government brewed up a conspiracy that includes his whole staff and the military. You would have to think Al Qeada was in on it too, because they aired his death announcement. I suppose you could explain away the animosity between the US and Pakistan now too. You could believe it, but you would really , really have to want to.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Not necessarily. Obama might have been duped by the SEALs, or something.

[carnivorousplant]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

'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.

He was 52 at the Battle of Chosin Reservoir.

[gonzomax]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Not necessarily. Obama might have been duped by the SEALs, or something.

They had cameras on their helmets and the dog had a camera.They had audio. It is really hard to believe Bin Laden is not dead.

[carnivorousplant]

The DOG had a camera? What if he decides to take snapshots of some hot bitch instead of doing his job?
Jeez Louise!

[Naxos]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

It is not murder. It is justice for murder.

Play all you want with language.

The Christian book says “don’t kill”, it doesn’t put conditions based on political expedience.

They’re all hypocrites, by definition.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Naxos

Play all you want with language.

The Christian book says “don’t kill”, it doesn’t put conditions based on political expedience.

They’re all hypocrites, by definition.

No it says don’t murder and the Bible also says that the government wields a sword for punishment.

[gonzomax]

@Naxos

Play all you want with language.

The Christian book says “don’t kill”, it doesn’t put conditions based on political expedience.

They’re all hypocrites, by definition.

QIN qualifies. he talks religion while loving war and executions. Kill “bad guys” That is ok. For some reason you are not a killer. He is at peace with the proper deaths and his ability to distinguish.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@gonzomax

QIN qualifies. he talks religion while loving war and executions. Kill “bad guys” That is ok. For some reason you are not a killer. He is at peace with the proper deaths and his ability to distinguish.

So we shouldn’t defend ourselves, our loved ones, our nation, humanity from terrorists, murderers, and dictators? The vast majority of Americans and human beings is able to distinguish this.

[Naxos]

@gonzomax

QIN qualifies. he talks religion while loving war and executions. Kill “bad guys” That is ok. For some reason you are not a killer. He is at peace with the proper deaths and his ability to distinguish.

I’m fine with killing bad guys too, if we have a dependable and trusty way of determining who the bud guys are, which is another matter altogether.

The hypocrisy of the religionists is what’s getting on my nerves. They know what they proclaim is false, but they keep on doing it for ego-gratification reasons.

That’s what justified the Catholic Churche’s blessing of slavery for 1,500 years. Only secular thinking, reason and philosophy changed the barbaric blind ways of the religionists that ruled the Western societies for the past 2,000 and still do in a considerable magnitude.

It’s so sad the sickness of religion is still with us.

[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.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Naxos

I’m fine with killing bad guys too, if we have a dependable and trusty way of determining who the bud guys are, which is another matter altogether.

The hypocrisy of the religionists is what’s getting on my nerves. They know what they proclaim is false, but they keep on doing it for ego-gratification reasons.

That’s what justified the Catholic Churche’s blessing of slavery for 1,500 years. Only secular thinking, reason and philosophy changed the barbaric blind ways of the religionists that ruled the Western societies for the past 2,000 and still do in a considerable magnitude.

It’s so sad the sickness of religion is still with us.

See William Wilberforce or John Wesley or even John Brown.

And by any definition Bin Laden was evil.

[Yeticus_Rex]

@elucidator

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.

State of war was declared by ObL in a signed fatwa on February 23, 1998, where he backed up that declaration with acts of terrorism. ObL was an unlawful combatant (not a representative or under direction of a state); although ObL declared war on the U.S., the U.S. cannot just declare war on a country that the terrorist lives in, but an executive order can and did make him a target.

@Commissar

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.

Uh, no. ObL was not subject to the Geneva Conventions since he was not operating under any given country. In this regard, he is a civilian who became a combatant once he directed attacks through AQ. ObL remained a combatant by definition from the above link:

There is no universally agreed-upon definition of targeted killing. Nils Melzer, an author and an International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) legal adviser, defines targeted killing as: “the use of lethal force attributable to a subject of international law with the intent, premeditation, and deliberation to kill individually selected persons who are not in the physical custody of those targeting them”.[10] Another definition, by Syracuse Law Professor William Banks and George Washington University Law School Professor Peter Raven-Hansen, is: “Premeditated killing of an individual by a government or its agents.”[1]

Georgetown Law Professor Gary Solis, in his 2010 book entitled The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War, defines it as:

the intentional killing of a specific civilian or unlawful combatant who cannot reasonably be apprehended, who is taking a direct part in hostilities, the targeting done at the direction of the state, in the context of an international or non-international armed conflict.[1]

Solis stresses that it is not considered a targeted killing unless:

An armed conflict is in progress (as otherwise it would be considered a homicide, and a domestic crime; it is the armed conflict that affords a combatant the right to kill an enemy);
The target must be a specific individual, who is targeted because of his activities in relation to the armed conflict (under the Third Geneva Convention the civilian loses his immunity from being targeted when he takes part in such activities, which would include for example delivering ammunition, or gathering military intelligence in enemy territory);
Though not in any law, human rights concerns suggest that the person should be one who cannot be easily arrested;
A senior official must authorize the targeted killing, taking into consideration the difficult issue of collateral damage. A targeted killing could be authorized in the U.S. by the President (or his designee, or two-star generals and above in the combat zone), and in Israel by the Prime Minister (or his designee); and
**The targeted individual is directly participating in hostilities, whether in a combat function or otherwise. The applicable ICRC interpretive guidance indicates that civilians who lead terrorist organizations, for example, by virtue of their position never literally pick up arms themselves, but by the same token they never lay them down, and are therefore legitimate targeted killing targets.[1]** In accord, the Judge Advocate General of the Canadian Armed Forces, Kenneth Watkin says: "It is not just the fighters with weapons in their hands who pose a threat".[1] In such case, under Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions, even civilians, women, and children are not immune from attack.[1]

You can argue all you want about ObL not having a weapon in his hand at the time of the killing, he was STILL an active combatant as the head of AQ. His armed guards that provided armed resistance that the SEALs encountered was sufficient reason that he was not going to surrender to the SEALs (or anyone else for that matter).

Drumming out the Geneva Conventions would be a great tool if we started killing detainees in Gitmo; I would be on your side on that one…but with ObL as a fugitive terrorist still operating AQ…he did not have the protection of the GC.

[Naxos]

@Qin_Shi_Huangdi

And by any definition Bin Laden was evil.

“Evil” is a religious term, therefore meaningless and irrelevant.

It has social connotations, as in: our group hates who we label as ‘evil’, that much is evident.

But in a religious, and by definition false and irrational context, Bin Laden may go to Christian Heaven when his killer(s) may go to Christian Hell.

And that’s all in the Christian book.

[Commissar]

@Yeticus_Rex

Uh, no. ObL was not subject to the Geneva Conventions since he was not operating under any given country. In this regard, he is a civilian who became a combatant once he directed attacks through AQ. ObL remained a combatant by definition from the above link:

You can argue all you want about ObL not having a weapon in his hand at the time of the killing, he was STILL an active combatant as the head of AQ. His armed guards that provided armed resistance that the SEALs encountered was sufficient reason that he was not going to surrender to the SEALs (or anyone else for that matter).

Drumming out the Geneva Conventions would be a great tool if we started killing detainees in Gitmo; I would be on your side on that one…but with ObL as a fugitive terrorist still operating AQ…he did not have the protection of the GC.

There’s a couple glaring flaws in your argument.

(1) The Geneva Conventions, in their totality, cover everyone. That’s kind of the whole point: in order to prevent war crimes, you split all people into several categories and then determine what protections they’re entitled to based on the category. By design, you cannot have a situation in which an individual fits no category and thus gets no protection. This was the main reason for the international outcry when Little Bush attempted to create a category of “unlawful combatants” that somehow magically escape Geneva Conventions coverage. The rest of the world was having none of it, and the argument hasn’t become any more valid in the subsequent years.

(2) Your own cite undermines your argument. According to your chosen authority, a lawful assassination is “the intentional killing of a specific civilian or unlawful combatant who cannot reasonably be apprehended, who is taking a direct part in hostilities, the targeting done at the direction of the state, in the context of an international or non-international armed conflict.” I fully endorse this theory, personally, and note that it is completely inapplicable in this specific case. I draw your attention to the following requirement: “…who cannot reasonably be apprehended…” Obviously, there was nothing preventing an armed-to-the-teeth team of elite killers from subduing and detaining an unarmed, physically frail, disabled old man whom they had cornered in a room. Thus, this element is not met, and hence the murder remains unjustified.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@Commissar

There’s a couple glaring flaws in your argument.

(1) The Geneva Conventions, in their totality, cover everyone. That’s kind of the whole point: in order to prevent war crimes, you split all people into several categories and then determine what protections they’re entitled to based on the category. By design, you cannot have a situation in which an individual fits no category and thus gets no protection. This was the main reason for the international outcry when Little Bush attempted to create a category of “unlawful combatants” that somehow magically escape Geneva Conventions coverage. The rest of the world was having none of it, and the argument hasn’t become any more valid in the subsequent years.

(2) Your own cite undermines your argument. According to your chosen authority, a lawful assassination is “the intentional killing of a specific civilian or unlawful combatant who cannot reasonably be apprehended, who is taking a direct part in hostilities, the targeting done at the direction of the state, in the context of an international or non-international armed conflict.” I fully endorse this theory, personally, and note that it is completely inapplicable in this specific case. I draw your attention to the following requirement: “…who cannot reasonably be apprehended…” Obviously, there was nothing preventing an armed-to-the-teeth team of elite killers from subduing and detaining an unarmed, physically frail, disabled old man whom they had cornered in a room. Thus, this element is not met, and hence the murder remains unjustified.

Yah well he’s dead, we killed him and what are you going to do about it now?

I think America respects the Geneva conventions. I think OBL is a special case- the unique national focus of a decade of attention. In a personal confrontation, his assailants have no idea what to expect- maybe they have 10 seconds before a jetliner crashes into their positions. Maybe some fanatics are preparing to blow up a motorboat. The perp is a highest-ranking arch-religio-terrorist figurehead of practically legendary status. People had killed themselves en masse at his instruction in the past- to terrifying effect. Who knows what could happen in his house?

Shoot the fucker. You landed a SEAL team in his backyard, didn’t you? If someone doesn’t like it, they can lump it.

[Yeticus_Rex]

@Commissar

(1) The Geneva Conventions, in their totality, cover everyone. That’s kind of the whole point: in order to prevent war crimes, you split all people into several categories and then determine what protections they’re entitled to based on the category. By design, you cannot have a situation in which an individual fits no category and thus gets no protection. This was the main reason for the international outcry when Little Bush attempted to create a category of “unlawful combatants” that somehow magically escape Geneva Conventions coverage. The rest of the world was having none of it, and the argument hasn’t become any more valid in the subsequent years.

Strawman. You can have a situation where supporting ongoing hostilities through terrorism (especially if you are the mastermind behind it) strips you of protections from the GC. He could of had GC protection had he done something to signal the end of hostilities such as calling a truce, publically rescind his fatwa, or surrender peacefully to authorities, but he did no such thing. Again, I will point out that ObL was not a detainee, nor was he sick or wounded when his compound was attacked. He had full control of his security team who were ordered to protect him from external attacks…meaning that he himself was a combatant who had no intention of surrendering to any authority.

(2) Your own cite undermines your argument. According to your chosen authority, a lawful assassination is “the intentional killing of a specific civilian or unlawful combatant who cannot reasonably be apprehended, who is taking a direct part in hostilities, the targeting done at the direction of the state, in the context of an international or non-international armed conflict.” I fully endorse this theory, personally, and note that it is completely inapplicable in this specific case. I draw your attention to the following requirement: “…who cannot reasonably be apprehended…” Obviously, there was nothing preventing an armed-to-the-teeth team of elite killers from subduing and detaining an unarmed, physically frail, disabled old man whom they had cornered in a room. Thus, this element is not met, and hence the murder remains unjustified.

Strawman. Frail? Disabled? Too frail to order another attack? Too disabled to make videos of himself to whip up fervor among his followers? To be an unlawful combatant, it doesn’t mean that you just pick up a weapon and start shooting at people. If you control thousands of followers that will do your bidding through acts of terrorism around the world, then you are also an unlawful combatant. ObL was NOT too frail and NOT too disabled to carry out his role, therefore he was treated as an unlawful combatant. Just having couriers live at the same compound and help him give orders and information to his followers also showed he was still a relevant force in this world.

Your focus on a single, “frail and disabled” old man is a disingenuous attempt to hide his true capabilities as a leader of a terrorist organization who wielded great power as a civilian that turned into an unlawful combatant back in 1998. He made no attempt to return to civilian status by truce, renouncement or surrender.

Justified.

[tomndebb]

Naxos, take your anti-religion diatribe hijack to a different thread.

[ /Moderating ]