FirmhandKY
Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
I am still waiting to see what court determined OBL guilty of anything LOL
No court required.
Really? Law of nations? Rules of war? nothing? Geneva? Nuremberg?
just shootem dead?
Wait US = God? got it!
He was an avowed enemy of the nation,
yes the nations avowed him to be the enemy
who declared war on us,
Lets see the declaration
and then attacked us,
Lets see the proof that HE attacked us, that must be in some court case somewhere? all that proof of what you claim?
murdering thousands.
I dont recall? How did HE murder thousands?
His "trial" was when the US Congress passed a resolution giving him what he wanted, and then treated him just the same as any other enemy combatant.
Wow kool, lets see the evidence presented before the court and findings in fact and law to support that claim
In war, failure to surrender when demanded means that you have chosen to remain hostile, and therefore deadly force is within the law.
What war? again lets see that documentation to support your claim.
that means BLACK INK ON WHITE PAPER not innuendo supposition propaganda and drama queen media hyperbole
He was asked to surrender. He declined. This made him a valid target for deadly force.
What jurisdiction did the US have over him or the nation he resided in? Lets see the treaty that gave the US jurisdiction and the COURT that ordered him to surrender or was this another one of those MOB WITH GUNS democratic moves?
A target which was then serviced properly and legally.
Not a man? Just a target? Legally? I keep asking for you to show me ALL THAT LEGALLY!
I have not seen anything LEGAL!
All I have seen is bullshit and the national Rah Rah team!
End of fucking legal theory. You are the great "legal researcher", go look it up yourself.
ZZZzzzzz
suppport your claims jumior, aint gonna get it both ways! You made the legal claims and put your dick on the chopping block now put it up.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
got it! we are americans murder is ok as long as its sanctioned
Legally, it's not murder when it's done in accordance with the law.
Firm
which law is that Firm? Who's law is that Firm?
You have so much BS in your post above, I can see that your vaunted "legal research" ability is apparent, not Real.
You are confusing "international law" and national jurisprudence. Not the same thing at all.
Try these links:
Osama bin Laden's declaration of war
Bin Laden's Fatwa
August 1996
The following text is a fatwa, or declaration of war, by Osama bin Laden first published in Al Quds Al Arabi, a London-based newspaper, in August, 1996. The fatwa is entitled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."
Osama bin Laden Claims Responsibility for 9/11
Bin Laden Admits 9/11 Responsibility, Warns of More Attacks
Oct. 29, 2004, 5:10 p.m. ET
A tape aired by Al-Jazeera television Friday showed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden admitting for the first time that he orchestrated the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and saying the United States could face more.
US Declaration of War Against Osama bin Laden et al
Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists
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" ... 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
OBL was a combatant, or well within the grey area, away from "noncombatant". The Law of Land Warfare says that he if he surrenders, he must be protected.
He was given the opportunity, and apparently declined. This made him a threat, and deadly force is an appropriate course of action.
Whether or not he was given very long to change his mind, or whether they tried "hard" to convince him, or whether or not he might have had weapons or the ability to cause harm to US soldiers is immaterial. As far as anyone knows (or knew), he had a trigger device for a Paki nuke in his hand.
You don't give an enemy the opportunity to kill your soldiers.
Combatant. Failure to surrender. Deadly force.
None of your "legal" bullshit has anything to do with what happened.
Firm
_____________________________
Some people are just idiots.
|
RE: Bin Laden was unarmed when killed, White House says - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread