RE: Was Bin Laden's Killing Legal? Is this what justice looks like? Al-Qaida boss Osama bin Laden was k

RE: Was Bin Laden's Killing Legal? Is this what justice looks like? Al-Qaida boss Osama bin Laden was k (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Charnegui -> RE: Was Bin Laden's Killing Legal? Is this what justice looks like? Al-Qaida boss Osama bin Laden was k (5/4/2011 4:39:57 AM)
Normally I don't get involved in this kind of discussions, but I wanted to share a hot item from Holland, in this one!! Two dutchmen did file a complaint with the police yesterday, with a journalist as a witness. This complaint is noted, but the two are forwarded to the International Court in The Hague. One of them is a lawyer btw. According to the article they are considering at the moment.

rulemylife -> RE: Was Bin Laden's Killing Legal? Is this what justice looks like? Al-Qaida boss Osama bin Laden was k (5/4/2011 4:50:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: firmobeisance quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife It would seem to me that someone responsible for multiple terrorist actions does not deserve the rule of law as he ignored it repeatedly. It would seem to me that the people who represent the civilized world would want to endorse and demonstrate the moral value of due process and the veracity of the rule of law and not respond with nihilism at the first hint of barbarism. You do realize that there has never been any sort of a trial, correct? You do realize he chose not to surrender, correct?

pahunkboy -> RE: Was Bin Laden's Killing Legal? Is this what justice looks like? Al-Qaida boss Osama bin Laden was k (5/4/2011 5:18:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Here is my best guess. We had OBL at Tora Bora 12/01 and Bush deliberately let him pass. We needed him alive for 10 years and about $2 trillion for about a trillion in war profit$. Finally, we as likely told the Pakistanis that we cut off our $3 billion a year that is vital to sustain what little corrupt govt. they do have. Some say their whole damn economy rests on our yearly stipend. Much of it spent where ? In the US of course. To continue being on our welfare ticket they have to finally give up OBL. A Pakistani police officer got the license no. of the latest courier and his current car. They followed him directly to OBL's compound and soon after some planning...in come the seals. Kinkroids, this is not about OBL, or about Al-Qeada or 'getting' the Taliban. It is all about war profits and pipeline. The drawings have long since been completed. The Caspian Sea area is said to have larger reserves than Saudi. What more do we need to know ? And oh BTW. We went to Afghan. right away and to get OBL and remove the Taliban from power. After 10 very deadly and costly years, we have yet will remain until 2014. Why ? To negotiate a cover for the Taliban to be in on the cut (power at some level) provided they protect the pipeline. No doubt it is a psy op. ANYTHING for the no bid war machine- which is not making us safer it is making us more vulnerable. // FR, the military serves at the pleasure of the citizens, not the other way around.

rulemylife -> RE: Was Bin Laden's Killing Legal? Is this what justice looks like? Al-Qaida boss Osama bin Laden was k (5/4/2011 5:18:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy The kicker is- the blow back that is coming. Escalation of the Holy War- the jijad. Why be in rush for THAT? What's your point Pahunk? We should cower in the corner and try not to piss them off?

NorthernGent -> RE: Was Bin Laden's Killing Legal? Is this what justice looks like? Al-Qaida boss Osama bin Laden was k (5/4/2011 11:24:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent The question I would ask is exactly what values are being defended by the US and the West in general (in relation to the ongoing occupations and sortees into places such as Libya)? The rule of law? Would seem to me that defending the rule of law by undermining it (e.g. assassination), is a strange way of promoting US or Western values. It would seem to me that someone responsible for multiple terrorist actions does not deserve the rule of law as he ignored it repeatedly. If you're going to argue that justice is the most important thing here, i.e. the US version of justice, then that's honest. What you are saying, though, is that the rule of law comes complete with boundaries, which should set a few alarm bells ringing. If you're happy to fight fire with fire at the expense of the moral high ground, then that's fair enough. Which of course has implications for the validity (if there ever was such a thing) of US ventures in the middle east, and certainly makes a mockery of the 'spreading democracy' notion.

DarkestDezirez -> RE: Was Bin Laden's Killing Legal? Is this what justice looks like? Al-Qaida boss Osama bin Laden was k (5/4/2011 11:45:24 AM)
I posted this on another board in reply to a question about whether bin Laden was armed when he was tapped but it pretty much deals with this question here: We're dealing with two issues here: 1) the one derived from knights in armour and vintage western movies where there's this whole "code" of honour/chivalry, white hats, don't kick a man when he's down, never shoot a guy in the back, blah, blah yadda, yadda ... and; 2) the real world in which combat is confused, noisy, messy, smelly, bloody, dirty, frightening and whole bunch of other things that don't come up when one is playing Halo 3. Issue two, the real world, is why soldiers train, over and over; why tactical commanders get mission briefs and objectives; why there are whole battalions of owlish guys who determine what are legal and legitimate targets and objectives; why everybody down to the least senior squaddie in the bunch gets a degree of grounding in the Laws of War, Rules of Engagement and a whole bunch of other stuff that is way too dull and boring to include in a two hour movie or an X-Box game -- this is especially so in the so-called special forces which most folks see only from the perspective of Rambo and Steven Seagal movies. I'd bet my lily-white arse that Usama's status as (I imagine) an "unprivileged belligerent" and a "valid target - person" in accordance with FM 27-10 and a whole bunch of other statutes and legal thingies, and what the SEALs' use of force guidelines and directives were, had all been covered six ways to Sunday. I'm also willing to bet that the SEALs acted precisely in accordance with the rules they were given. Such people aren't like the run of the mill lager louts out for a post-footie punch-up; they're professionals.

NewOCDaddy -> RE: Was Bin Laden's Killing Legal? Is this what justice looks like? Al-Qaida boss Osama bin Laden was k (5/4/2011 11:56:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy The kicker is- the blow back that is coming. Escalation of the Holy War- the jijad. Why be in rush for THAT? What's your point Pahunk? We should cower in the corner and try not to piss them off? That's this administration's answer to terrorism, PA is in good company.

mnottertail -> RE: Was Bin Laden's Killing Legal? Is this what justice looks like? Al-Qaida boss Osama bin Laden was k (5/4/2011 12:00:55 PM)
The uninformed and untutored speak in lies. Selah!!!!

FirmhandKY -> RE: Was Bin Laden's Killing Legal? Is this what justice looks like? Al-Qaida boss Osama bin Laden was k (5/10/2011 4:16:11 AM)
FR: Osama bin Laden mission agreed in secret 10 years ago by US and Pakistan Declan Walsh in Islamabad Monday 9 May 2011 19.06 BST US forces were given permission to conduct unilateral raid inside Pakistan if they knew where Bin Laden was hiding, officials say The US and Pakistan struck a secret deal almost a decade ago permitting a US operation against Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil similar to last week's raid that killed the al-Qaida leader, the Guardian has learned. The deal was struck between the military leader General Pervez Musharraf and President George Bush after Bin Laden escaped US forces in the mountains of Tora Bora in late 2001, according to serving and retired Pakistani and US officials. Under its terms, Pakistan would allow US forces to conduct a unilateral raid inside Pakistan in search of Bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the al-Qaida No3. Afterwards, both sides agreed, Pakistan would vociferously protest the incursion. "There was an agreement between Bush and Musharraf that if we knew where Osama was, we were going to come and get him," said a former senior US official with knowledge of counterterrorism operations. "The Pakistanis would put up a hue and cry, but they wouldn't stop us." ... A senior Pakistani official said it had been struck under Musharraf and renewed by the army during the "transition to democracy" – a six-month period from February 2008 when Musharraf was still president but a civilian government had been elected. Referring to the assault on Bin Laden's Abbottabad compound, the official added: "As far as our American friends are concerned, they have just implemented the agreement." The former US official said the Pakistani protests of the past week were the "public face" of the deal. "We knew they would deny this stuff." Firm

thompsonx -> RE: Was Bin Laden's Killing Legal? Is this what justice looks like? Al-Qaida boss Osama bin Laden was k (5/14/2011 1:54:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY FR: Osama bin Laden mission agreed in secret 10 years ago by US and Pakistan Declan Walsh in Islamabad Monday 9 May 2011 19.06 BST US forces were given permission to conduct unilateral raid inside Pakistan if they knew where Bin Laden was hiding, officials say The US and Pakistan struck a secret deal almost a decade ago permitting a US operation against Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil similar to last week's raid that killed the al-Qaida leader, the Guardian has learned. The deal was struck between the military leader General Pervez Musharraf and President George Bush after Bin Laden escaped US forces in the mountains of Tora Bora in late 2001, according to serving and retired Pakistani and US officials. Under its terms, Pakistan would allow US forces to conduct a unilateral raid inside Pakistan in search of Bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the al-Qaida No3. Afterwards, both sides agreed, Pakistan would vociferously protest the incursion. "There was an agreement between Bush and Musharraf that if we knew where Osama was, we were going to come and get him," said a former senior US official with knowledge of counterterrorism operations. "The Pakistanis would put up a hue and cry, but they wouldn't stop us." ... A senior Pakistani official said it had been struck under Musharraf and renewed by the army during the "transition to democracy" – a six-month period from February 2008 when Musharraf was still president but a civilian government had been elected. Referring to the assault on Bin Laden's Abbottabad compound, the official added: "As far as our American friends are concerned, they have just implemented the agreement." The former US official said the Pakistani protests of the past week were the "public face" of the deal. "We knew they would deny this stuff." Firm So the deal is that we had permission but it was a secret...we know this because there is a treaty that says so but we can't show it to you because it is a secret.[8\|]. I am sure that sort of logic works with four year olds but they are not allowed on this forum.

Real0ne -> RE: Was Bin Laden's Killing Legal? Is this what justice looks like? Al-Qaida boss Osama bin Laden was k (5/14/2011 8:41:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkestDezirez I'd bet my lily-white arse that Usama's status as (I imagine) an "unprivileged belligerent" and a "valid target - person" in accordance with FM 27-10 and a whole bunch of other statutes and legal thingies, and what the SEALs' use of force guidelines and directives were, had all been covered six ways to Sunday. I'm also willing to bet that the SEALs acted precisely in accordance with the rules they were given. Such people aren't like the run of the mill lager louts out for a post-footie punch-up; they're professionals. unprivileged is synonymous with unenfranchised or part of a "gang" or a state that will wage war against any contenders. belligerent can mean waging war if in a nation or state status and usu when dealing with an individual means litigant or legal contest. So the use of the words as usual are bullshit unless the war manual specifies the meaning of each differently than the conventional meanings. So if you are not part of a SANCTIONED GANG that has given you privileges as a gang member you are a valid target for snipers et al. That conforms perfectly with the feudal structure and law system designed to remove all rights of the individual and maintain feudal control over the population with the requirement of democrappy GANG or MOB requirements.

Real0ne -> RE: Was Bin Laden's Killing Legal? Is this what justice looks like? Al-Qaida boss Osama bin Laden was k (5/14/2011 8:53:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY FR: Osama bin Laden mission agreed in secret 10 years ago by US and Pakistan Declan Walsh in Islamabad Monday 9 May 2011 19.06 BST US forces were given permission to conduct unilateral raid inside Pakistan if they knew where Bin Laden was hiding, officials say The US and Pakistan struck a secret deal almost a decade ago permitting a US operation against Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil similar to last week's raid that killed the al-Qaida leader, the Guardian has learned. The deal was struck between the military leader General Pervez Musharraf and President George Bush after Bin Laden escaped US forces in the mountains of Tora Bora in late 2001, according to serving and retired Pakistani and US officials. Under its terms, Pakistan would allow US forces to conduct a unilateral raid inside Pakistan in search of Bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the al-Qaida No3. Afterwards, both sides agreed, Pakistan would vociferously protest the incursion. "There was an agreement between Bush and Musharraf that if we knew where Osama was, we were going to come and get him," said a former senior US official with knowledge of counterterrorism operations. "The Pakistanis would put up a hue and cry, but they wouldn't stop us." ... A senior Pakistani official said it had been struck under Musharraf and renewed by the army during the "transition to democracy" – a six-month period from February 2008 when Musharraf was still president but a civilian government had been elected. Referring to the assault on Bin Laden's Abbottabad compound, the official added: "As far as our American friends are concerned, they have just implemented the agreement." The former US official said the Pakistani protests of the past week were the "public face" of the deal. "We knew they would deny this stuff." Firm So the deal is that we had permission but it was a secret...we know this because there is a treaty that says so but we can't show it to you because it is a secret.[8\|]. I am sure that sort of logic works with four year olds but they are not allowed on this forum. intellectual dishonesty. Same with his claim the Paki interview was from an unreliable source. He found himself trapped there as well.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875