Bin Laden, Gitmo, International Law

[Denny Crane]

International Law prohibits all forms of extrajudicial executions. Yet people seem to be fine with taking out Bin Laden (wanted dead or alive). If it was against the law, then why is it right?

Bin Laden wasn't the head of state of a country, just like the unlawful combatants captured on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan didn't wear the soldier's uniform of some country.

See where this is going? How can you be in favor of killing Bin Laden and be against Gitmo?

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

9/11

That's the response to your point.

 

[julius]

International Law prohibits all forms of extrajudicial executions. Yet people seem to be fine with taking out Bin Laden (wanted dead or alive). If it was against the law, then why is it right?

Bin Laden wasn't the head of state of a country, just like the unlawful combatants captured on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan didn't wear the soldier's uniform of some country.

See where this is going? How can you be in favor of killing Bin Laden and be against Gitmo?

I'm personally not against Gitmo.

 

[Natebishop3]

it alllll depends on who is in office at the time. People have selective memory, especially when its about someone they admire. Lots of people love FDR and say he's one of the best Presidents ever... remind me of how many Presidents in the history of the United States have had internment camps set up under their watch to hold American citizens? Not too many.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

It's good to be the biggest bad ass on the planet!

 

[maxiep]

http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/03/t...on-squad-to-obmas-super-awesome-cleanup-crew/

 

[Sug]

Well considering that every person killed in the wars post 9/11 were a result of OBL, wouldn't that make everyone killed part of the same whole?

 

[barfo]

it alllll depends on who is in office at the time. People have selective memory, especially when its about someone they admire. Lots of people love FDR and say he's one of the best Presidents ever... remind me of how many Presidents in the history of the United States have had internment camps set up under their watch to hold American citizens? Not too many.

Not too many that we know about, you mean. But you can't trust the government, right? Any of us could be whisked away by Obama's jack-booted thugs tonight and never seen again. Could happen to you at any moment, even while you are posti

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I am against Gitmo AND the killing of Osama. He should have been captured and put on trial for the world to see. There's nothing he could say that he hadn't already said and published. He represented a lot of very difficult but important ideas to Western society. It would have been nice to have some of those ideas on the table so we could explore and move forward. Instead, we got our revenge, the kids in the street can chant "USA! USA!" for a night, extremist Islam gets another high-profile martyr, and nothing changes.

 

[maxiep]

I am against Gitmo AND the killing of Osama. He should have been captured and put on trial for the world to see. There's nothing he could say that he hadn't already said and published. He represented a lot of very difficult but important ideas to Western society. It would have been nice to have some of those ideas on the table so we could explore and move forward. Instead, we got our revenge, the kids in the street can chant "USA! USA!" for a night, extremist Islam gets another high-profile martyr, and nothing changes.

And this is what happens when moral relativism runs amok. You clearly see so much gray you can't see where white ends and black begins.

He was a mass murderer. Sorry, but those "difficult but important ideas" he tried to promote are crushed under the weight of his illegitimate methods.

 

[Haakzilla]

9/11

That's the response to your point.

...and this is a response to yours:

How many Americans will have the wits to wonder why the "terror mastermind" – who defeated not merely the CIA and the FBI, but all 16 US intelligence agencies along with Israel’s Mossad and the intelligence services of NATO, who defeated NORAD, the National Security Council, the Pentagon and Joint Chiefs of Staff, the US Air Force, and Air Traffic Control, who caused security procedures to fail four times in US airports in one hour on the same day, who caused the state-of-the-art Pentagon air defenses to fail, and who managed to fly three airliners into three buildings with pilots who did not know how to fly – has not pulled off any other attack in almost ten years? Do Americans really believe that a government’s security system that can so totally fail when confronted with a few Saudi Arabians with box cutters can renew itself to perfection overnight?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts303.html

 

[Minstrel]

He was a mass murderer. Sorry, but those "difficult but important ideas" he tried to promote are crushed under the weight of his illegitimate methods.

That doesn't make sense. They may be "crushed under the weight of his illegitimate methods" in terms of regard for him and consequences for him, but that in no way means that we can't learn from him. And by learn from him, I don't mean from his wisdom. I mean, learn from what caused him, why he was (at least temporarily) successful and how we can better prevent the same types of things in the future.

That doesn't require a trial, but a "he was a mass murderer and now he's dead and no more thought required" attitude (not that that is necessarily your attitude, but it seems to be the attitude of many) doesn't help anyone, least of all us.

 

[maxiep]

That doesn't make sense. They may be "crushed under the weight of his illegitimate methods" in terms of regard for him and consequences for him, but that in no way means that we can't learn from him. And by learn from him, I don't mean from his wisdom. I mean, learn from what caused him, why he was (at least temporarily) successful and how we can better prevent the same types of things in the future.

That doesn't require a trial, but a "he was a mass murderer and now he's dead and no more thought required" attitude (not that that is necessarily your attitude, but it seems to be the attitude of many) doesn't help anyone, least of all us.

Thank you for trying to explain my position, but you clearly didn't understand it. Perhaps you'd be better off just explaining your own.

 

[Minstrel]

Thank you for trying to explain my position, but you clearly didn't understand it. Perhaps you'd be better off just explaining your own.

All of that was my position. None of it was yours. Don't try to steal my position now that you've seen how superior it is, thanks.

 

[Denny Crane]

I think Gitmo was a necessary evil, but for lack of anything else that makes sense. Alberto Gonzalez was vilified by people for providing the legal opinions on why Gitmo was legit and for why it was OK to put a bounty on the head of Bin Laden. Now that Obama's killed Osama, Alberto's legal reasoning is given validity by those same people who vilified him.

The whole "war on terror" thing isn't at all covered by International Law, which is the Law's problem. When faced with having to prosecute the war, both Bush and Obama chose similar reasoning to justify the actions that were needed.

The alternative would be to try and arrest suicide bombers after the fact, and put them on trial.

As a White House counsel, Gonzales signed a controversial memorandum in January 2002 to the president which argued that the limitations on the questioning of prisoners under the Geneva Conventions were "obsolete" when it deals with terrorism.[153][154]

The memo also states this new paradigm of non-nation states who fight in violation of the laws of war places a premium on getting information and “this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions requiring that captured enemy be afforded such things as commissary privileges, script (i.e. advances of monthly pay, athletic uniforms, and scientific instruments).” [155]

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

...and this is a response to yours:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts303.html

9........



11.

[video=youtube;jUTIPQxo21c]

 

[maxiep]

All of that was my position. None of it was yours. Don't try to steal my position now that you've seen how superior it is, thanks.

Find a new schtick. This one is tired.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I am against Gitmo AND the killing of Osama. He should have been captured and put on trial for the world to see. There's nothing he could say that he hadn't already said and published. He represented a lot of very difficult but important ideas to Western society. It would have been nice to have some of those ideas on the table so we could explore and move forward. Instead, we got our revenge, the kids in the street can chant "USA! USA!" for a night, extremist Islam gets another high-profile martyr, and nothing changes.

+1 but I support Gitmo.

 

[PapaG]

The SEALS were trying to apprehend arguably the most wanted man since Adolph Hitler. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for putting a bullet in his head during a secret raid in the middle of the night.

The armchair SEALS who bemoan that he wasn't captured could always join the Navy themselves, to show the current SEALS how they should have operated during that mission.

 

[maxiep]

The SEALS were trying to apprehend arguably the most wanted man since Adolph Hitler. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for putting a bullet in his head during a secret raid in the middle of the night.

The armchair SEALS who bemoan that he wasn't captured could always join the Navy themselves, to show the current SEALS how they should have operated during that mission.

It's my personal belief (although I have nothing with which to back it up) that this was a kill mission. JSOC did its job, and did it beautifully. The raid was an amazing accomplishment.

 

[PapaG]

It's my personal belief (although I have nothing with which to back it up) that this was a kill mission. JSOC did its job, and did it beautifully. The raid was an amazing accomplishment.

The SEALS has no idea what they were going to encounter inside that compound. Accomplishing the mission without losing a single member of the team is near incredible, and such a credit to those who put their lives on the line so we can debate what they should have or should not have done on that mission.

Thing is, unlike criticizing an NBA coach (which is easy, since no regular poster on a forum will ever be an NBA coach), most every healthy US citizen has the option during their life to put on the uniform of the USA and serve their country. I never made the choice to do so, so I don't think it's wise of me to pretend that I know how a soldier should react in any situation, let alone while raiding OBL's secret compound.

 

[maxiep]

The SEALS has no idea what they were going to encounter inside that compound. Accomplishing the mission without losing a single member of the team is near incredible, and such a credit to those who put their lives on the line so we can debate what they should have or should not have done on that mission.

Thing is, unlike criticizing an NBA coach (which is easy, since no regular poster on a forum will ever be an NBA coach), most every healthy US citizen has the option during their life to put on the uniform of the USA and serve their country. I never made the choice to do so, so I don't think it's wise of me to pretend that I know how a soldier should react in any situation, let alone while raiding OBL's secret compound.

My post had nothing to do with the soldiers, but rather with their commanders. I am simply of the opinion that the Administration (rightly) thought UBL was better dead than alive and gave the orders to end him. It makes me happy, because the mission was risky enough and having to take him alive would have put these operators at even more risk.

 

[PapaG]

My post had nothing to do with the soldiers, but rather with their commanders. I am simply of the opinion that the Administration (rightly) thought UBL was better dead than alive and gave the orders to end him. It makes me happy, because the mission was risky enough and having to take him alive would have put these operators at even more risk.

I agree. I guess I was posting to you, but also addressing those in the thread who seems to know better than the SEALs and their commanders.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

It's my personal belief (although I have nothing with which to back it up) that this was a kill mission. JSOC did its job, and did it beautifully. The raid was an amazing accomplishment.

Maxi, you are correct. There was statement on fox and cnn that this was indeed a mission not to capture. These guys were to go in and kill Osama, period.

The last thing we wanted to do was to have some trial before the world stage. There would be far too many left wing libs crying for "fair treatment" too many Muslim brothers calling for him to be freed, protests etc.

 

[PapaG]

Maxi, you are correct. There was statement on fox and cnn that this was indeed a mission not to capture. These guys were to go in and kill Osama, period.

The last thing we wanted to do was to have some trial before the world stage. There would be far too many left wing libs crying for "fair treatment" too many Muslim brothers calling for him to be freed, protests etc.

The "We need to show the Muslim world how civilized that we are" line of attack on Bush had an expiration date of 1/20/09.

 

[Minstrel]

Find a new schtick. This one is tired.

Your standard "I can't compete so this is my attempt to escape" line. Sometimes you also go with "I get your game" or "I know what you're trying to do." In the olden days of the Internet, people trying to escape when unable to defend their position would say things like "I don't have time for this, I have a life!"

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

And this is what happens when moral relativism runs amok. You clearly see so much gray you can't see where white ends and black begins.

No, it's trying to find the nuance and finer points of life that make our understanding that much greater, not "moral relativism run amok." What's the value of anything if we don't take it apart, put it back together and learn from it?

He was a mass murderer. Sorry, but those "difficult but important ideas" he tried to promote are crushed under the weight of his illegitimate methods.

Maybe you misread what I wrote, so I won't accuse you of putting words in my mouth. I said he represented difficult ideas that the Western world must come to terms with instead of just ignoring. And the fact that people are willing to follow his illegitimate methods is something worth exploring, wouldn't you think? What Minstrel said is pretty much what I was getting at.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Your standard "I can't compete so this is my attempt to escape" line. Sometimes you also go with "I get your game" or "I know what you're trying to do." In the olden days of the Internet, people trying to escape when unable to defend their position would say things like "I don't have time for this, I have a life!"

Don't forget "agree to disagree!" Which to me means, "I have become physically tired from ignoring your arguments so I am going to get up and get a sandwich."

 

[BrianFromWA]

I don't know that this answer has been given yet (sorry if it has), but it brings up a big question for me


All the talk of "torture", "illegal interrogation techniques", etc. doesn't really matter to me b/c I think it's legal to begin with. But that's not the point. For those who DO think things like (a) Gitmo shouldn't be around, (b) we should either try these people with our rights (like the right to plead the 5th, etc) (c) that no one should be subject to "advanced interrogation techniques"....if it's proven that any actionable intel came sole-source from this, does it change your mind at all about the legality/necessity/etc. of it? Why or why not?

 

[Ed O]

I find very little legitimacy in international law. In my opinion, international law comes down to power. The capability to harm other countries and the will to do so.

Even when there are signatories to an international accord, there has to be steel underneath the glove if one side defects.

I don't BLAME countries and non-state actors from chafing under the existing world order, but I don't need to blame something to hope that it is crushed.

Ed O.