“Paki” is considered an ethnic slur (albeit one you don’t hear very much in the U.S.), so it’s not appropriate on this site. In the future just take the time to type out “Pakistani.”
Not really. I just figured one rude-ass comment deserved another.
It was very simple to figure out. Read for intended meanings, not simply literal meanings.
As for whether the killing was lawful, what specific law do you think it violated? I would imagine it would have to be a treaty, and it’s possible there’s some treaty violated by this killing–but even then it’s a fairly weak case for illegality, IMO.
“White trash” is considered an ethnic slur. In the future please take the time to moderate that as well.
remember the rule “dont be a jerk” :mad:
If you want to be the umpteenth person to make this argument in ATMB, I’ll probably read the thread. Here it’s irrelevant and off-topic.
Maybe that’s how he meant it, as an intentional insult. Meaning that any Pakistani who would have done that might justifiably—as an intentional insult—be referred to by that derogatory term. As well as others.
If he was using it to just as as substitute for “Pakistani” then your admonishment makes sense.
:smack:
That is total news to me. I never encountered it before. I live in Dearborn and hear it used with some regularity.
It may be irrelevant in practice, if extradition would be difficult to achieve. There’s also the problem that Pakistan wants to remain friendly with the United States, and having criminal changes against US military for this event might make that more difficult. However, that doesn’t stop a discussion of the theoretical position under Pakistani law.
Possibly. Since it wasn’t clear from his post that he was being deliberately offensive, I am cutting him a break.
I think it’s more common in the U.K., but as you can see from the last couple of posts, it is considered offensive. It’s better if you avoid it.
Good responses. My general replies:
-
I don’t mind “who cares” type responses, those are actually very telling. They are much more meaningful the day after, then say when the question is asked 5 years later.
-
To me, this just cements the war against al qaeda; that the war can extend outside Afghanistan and there is still a war today.
-
I don’t think it violated a law. However, if you’re in the there is no “war” against al qaeda camp, then it’s a much more complicated thing to intentionally kill someone. I’m presuming that foreign citizens (here, a “suspected” terrorist, hard to say, but technically true) can’t be intentionally killed and intentionally killing them =/ legal justice. Again, I feel it was lawful and it was justice.
-
Even though I made an assumption of how the raid went, John Mace’s explanation is the only way to explain a non-war way to kill him. The personal self-defense of the Navy SEALS who had no intent or authority (outside self-defense) to kill OBL; they were only there to arrest him and OBL and co. escalated the situation. The question would hinge on whether the people in the compound ever had a real chance to surrender themselves to the SEALS. It would also be helpful to know how the US can legally detain someone in a foreign country to help determine if that was the SEALS intent (do you need a special warrant, do you need any kind of judicial approval? ect.) Or can the military just go get them. Surely they couldn’t detain the neighbors in the same way (say for another unrelated US crime, or by bad intel thinking OBL was there). This all seems obvious that it’s allowed because it’s OBL, but just thinking it through.
I don’t mean to cross post too much, but CNN cites a government source in saying the goal was to kill bin Laden. They perhaps would have taken him alive if given the opportunity, but they didn’t expect it to happen. According to ABC, he was asked to surrender and did not.
Keep in mind that we use drone attacks to kill specific people all the time. We do it in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and other places. Those are targeted killings of people who are not actively engaged in firing weapons at soldiers. What we did here w/ ObL is much more conventional.
Are you suggesting that such drone attacks are always lawful if the U.S. does it? Would they be lawful if Iran did it? Would they be lawful if Al Qaeda did it?
I strongly suspect the mission orders were to “capture” wink, wink, nudge, nudge or “KILL” Osama. And I don’t have a problem with that. Attempting a trial of the guy would be a royal pain in the ass. Better to shoot him in the head and be done with it.
So, the president has the legal authority to order the killing of any person he deems kill-worthy?
That’s clearly absurd. Take the easy case: the President (any president) cannot order the assassination of political opponents no matter how much he or she believes that their policies and rhetoric will undermine overall state security. Slice it again a bit closer to the bin Laden situation. Eventually you’ll enter a grayish area, then into another easy case.
The OP seems to be asking a legitimate question of where those lines are drawn and under what justifications.
Some of us like these types of academic questions.
War was declared:
“The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (Pub.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001), one of two resolutions commonly known as “AUMF” (the other being “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002”), was a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all “necessary and appropriate force” against those whom he determined “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001.”
*However, agents with Pakistan’s primary intelligence agency were quick to claim some of the credit. A source in the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, described the mission in Abbottabad, about 35 miles north of Islamabad, as a joint operation.
The source said the team stormed the compound where Bin Laden was staying shortly after midnight Monday, engaged in a firefight with Al Qaeda gunmen, and killed the Al Qaeda leader.
Some Pakistani officials say Bin Laden’s death is evidence that the two countries can cooperate despite the mistrust that has troubled their relationship*
Given that the USA is the country with the most powerful military in the world, the fact that (many of) you seem to think it’s ok for that military to kill anyone as long as they do it outside the US, and then shrug your shoulders at the legal loophole that lets them do this, is quite disturbing.
Not that I give a shit about OBL, but really, there are plenty of other instances like this where it might have been a good thing for your military to operate under some restraint, don’t you think?
The violation of Pakistani sovereignty is subject to debate, but from a standpoint of U.S. law the President was acting legally. The President was authorized by Congress to use any force he deemed necessary against unlawful combatants who participated in or planned the September 11th attacks in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists Act, or AUMF, passed on September 14, 2001.
“That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”