Bin Laden raid 'not assassination'

[pocketfullofshells]

Agreed, except that the photos can stay hidden for all I care. They wouldn't prove anything anyway.

from a few who have seen them, they are pretty brutal and said, these should not be released. after all the conspircy nuts will not care, and to sane people even Al Quida has said he is dead....

 

[Hobo1]

I could care less if the "truth" about Bin Laden's demise is EVER fully disclosed. It simply doesn't matter, except to those with political agendas and religious agendas.

Do you have any idea how many "unconstitutional" and "unsavory" and "secretive" and "classified" things went on during WW2 and the Korean War and the Vietnam War, and basically every war this country has ever been involved in, not to mention the propagandized and embellished news reporting and press releases and government statements?

Sometimes details don't matter, unless you're in the business of witchhunting and finger-pointing.

Be happy that Osama Bin Laden's carcass has been ripped apart by a variety of sea creatures, and hope that his 72 virgins are all fat, ugly men.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all (except certain people, who are so bad they don't deserve justice)".

Oh, yea, then we have the Geneva Convention:

Not all violations of the treaty are treated equally. The most serious crimes are termed grave breaches, and provide a legal definition of a war crime. Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed:

* willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments
* willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
* compelling someone to serve in the forces of a hostile power
* willfully depriving someone of the right to a fair trial

These are ideals that separate the actions of a civilized nation from those who act on base human instinct alone. Did you miss that in your civics class?

 

[Centrehalf]

My understanding of the obligations held by signatory nations of the Geneva Conventions is that they must abide by the treaties if they are engaged in hostilities with another signatory nation or with a nation or group that did not sign the treaties but generally abides by them.

Does bin Laden or al-Queda fit this description? If not, he had no right to a fair trial under International law.

 

[Hobo1]

Does bin Laden or al-Queda fit this description? If not, he had no right to a fair trial under International law.

I don't know if Osama, nor do I know if Obama can be tried under International Law. What I do know, as an American, is that it is against all the principles we stand for to shoot a man in cold blood. Those are the principles we want other parts of the world to abide by. Justice for all. An accused man is entitled to a fair and objective justice before he is punished. That is the foundation of our civilization.

All of the military services have even stronger codes of ethics than any international convention.

 

[PLC1]

I don't know if Osama, nor do I know if Obama can be tried under International Law. What I do know, as an American, is that it is against all the principles we stand for to shoot a man in cold blood. Those are the principles we want other parts of the world to abide by. Justice for all. An accused man is entitled to a fair and objective justice before he is punished. That is the foundation of our civilization.

All of the military services have even stronger codes of ethics than any international convention.

Is a soldier killing a combatant during war the same as "shooting a man in cold blood"?

Wasn't the killing of Bin Laden a military action against an enemy soldier?

 

[pocketfullofshells]

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all (except certain people, who are so bad they don't deserve justice)".

Oh, yea, then we have the Geneva Convention:

Not all violations of the treaty are treated equally. The most serious crimes are termed grave breaches, and provide a legal definition of a war crime. Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed:

* willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments
* willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
* compelling someone to serve in the forces of a hostile power
* willfully depriving someone of the right to a fair trial

These are ideals that separate the actions of a civilized nation from those who act on base human instinct alone. Did you miss that in your civics class?

you know what you have to do to have those rights? give up and surrender...all evidence we have shows he did not...thats how war works...if you want to give up you put your hands up or a white flag...don't hear any reports he did that...the seals then had a woman rush them and he made a move of some sort ...thats not surrendering...thus you get your ass shot ( or face)

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I don't know if Osama, nor do I know if Obama can be tried under International Law. What I do know, as an American, is that it is against all the principles we stand for to shoot a man in cold blood. Those are the principles we want other parts of the world to abide by. Justice for all. An accused man is entitled to a fair and objective justice before he is punished. That is the foundation of our civilization.

All of the military services have even stronger codes of ethics than any international convention.

again making statements about what happened with your magic crystal ball...and ignoreing evidence that we did in fact have the option to take him alive it possible...OBL has to make that choice though...nothing we have heard indacates who chose give up...

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Is a soldier killing a combatant during war the same as "shooting a man in cold blood"?

Wasn't the killing of Bin Laden a military action against an enemy soldier?

no he was just some guy who happened to have declared war on the US, killed thosands in the biggest attack on the US mainland since pearl harbor, stated he would never be taken alive, is in a group known to use suicide vests, known to blow themself or bombs in house to avoid being taken alive, living in a gaurded home who ran from the military men in the house and then had his wife try to attack them,,,then made some move that the Seals felt was threatning ......clearly they should have calmly waited for him to do what ever he was doing and maybe get of the first shot you know to be sporting...becuse the Geneva convention says you should right?

 

[Hobo1]

Is a soldier killing a combatant during war the same as "shooting a man in cold blood"?

Wasn't the killing of Bin Laden a military action against an enemy soldier?

Absolutely a world of difference between armed combat and first-degree murder. In combat a man has shown hostile intentions, and has the ready capacity and intent to do you harm.

That is completely different than entering a man's bedroom and killing him. The devils are in the details however. If he was appeared to be grabbing for a weapon, then he would be posing a threat. If he grabbed one of his wives to use as a hostage, that would be hostile action. If he had was wearing an explosive vest, or exhibited any behavior that the Seals though was aggressive behavior, then they could shoot him as an enemy combatant.

But if the man's name is Al Capone or Hitler, and he is just standing in front of you, you can't murder him. You can take control of the situation and hand-cuff him, and take him prisoner. If he makes any action that is life-threatening to you (like pulling a knife from his boot), then you can shoot him to protect yourself.

I was in the Navy, and I know the training. I would be really surprised if those Navy Seals shot OBL in cold blood. They are rigorously trained on how to handle every situation - and I really don't think any one of them could have simply shot OBL without cause. It is not in their blood.

Hey, did you see the latest notepad they found in bin Laden's house?

 

[PLC1]

Absolutely a world of difference between armed combat and first-degree murder. In combat a man has shown hostile intentions, and has the ready capacity and intent to do you harm.

That is completely different than entering a man's bedroom and killing him. The devils are in the details however. If he was appeared to be grabbing for a weapon, then he would be posing a threat. If he grabbed one of his wives to use as a hostage, that would be hostile action. If he had was wearing an explosive vest, or exhibited any behavior that the Seals though was aggressive behavior, then they could shoot him as an enemy combatant.

But if the man's name is Al Capone or Hitler, and he is just standing in front of you, you can't murder him. You can take control of the situation and hand-cuff him, and take him prisoner. If he makes any action that is life-threatening to you (like pulling a knife from his boot), then you can shoot him to protect yourself.

I was in the Navy, and I know the training. I would be really surprised if those Navy Seals shot OBL in cold blood. They are rigorously trained on how to handle every situation - and I really don't think any one of them could have simply shot OBL without cause. It is not in their blood.

Hey, did you see the latest notepad they found in bin Laden's house?

Beat you to it.

 

[TruthSeeker]

This is amazing, watching Hobo1 taking the position of the leftists, and PFOS taking the position of the conservatives, in this whole Bin Laden death thing.

I must have been transported into some sort of upside down universe.

We all know that PFOS is taking the "conservative" position because he is an Obama cheerleader, and if Bin Laden had met the same fate when Bush was President, PFOS would be screaming bloody murder right now, and using the exact same arguments that Hobo1 is using.

 

[Rick]

This is amazing, watching Hobo1 taking the position of the leftists, and PFOS taking the position of the conservatives, in this whole Bin Laden death thing.

I must have been transported into some sort of upside down universe.

We all know that PFOS is taking the "conservative" position because he is an Obama cheerleader, and if Bin Laden had met the same fate when Bush was President, PFOS would be screaming bloody murder right now, and using the exact same arguments that Hobo1 is using.

Likewise, they've lost their Bush-era protest hysteria re keeping the Gitmo prison open, "forcing our political system on other countries", attacking countries which aren't "an imminent threat", etc etc etc.

 

[Stalin]

All we have on that it is OBL, and that he has been found, and killed, and chucked overboard is the say-so of the US government and the man that most people on this forum were, until the day, labelling a liar and much worse.

Given that history had not shown this to be the most accurate of sources, those of us who do not swallow the official line chapter and verse can be forgiven for raising an eyebrow or to over the story and it's predictable twists and turns.

It is sad that a country that relentlessly boasts that it is the greatest military power ever is reduced to boasting that it has managed to kill a marginalise old man who is under house arrest in Pakistan

Of course it is an assasination. The US military kills civilians all the time.

Comrade Stalin

 

[PLC1]

The only thing "left' or "right" about killing Bin Laden is that we had a Democrat in the WH when he was finally found.

That, and the spectacle of "conservatives" wringing their hands about how he was "shot down in cold blood" while most of America is standing and cheering.

But, the "conservatives", not real ones,of course, but the self described ones who get their "news" from pundits, are looking for any reason to bash a Democrat for any reason, simply because he is a Democrat.

The din of voices of Monday morning quarterbacks are pretty amusing, but don't mean a whole lot.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

This is amazing, watching Hobo1 taking the position of the leftists, and PFOS taking the position of the conservatives, in this whole Bin Laden death thing.

I must have been transported into some sort of upside down universe.

We all know that PFOS is taking the "conservative" position because he is an Obama cheerleader, and if Bin Laden had met the same fate when Bush was President, PFOS would be screaming bloody murder right now, and using the exact same arguments that Hobo1 is using.

or it could be more likey that you just have no idea what your talking about?

anyone who has known my on this site for some time knows my views on this..I supported the SUrge in Iraq long pushed for more troops in Afganistan while the right has said we should pull out...I have supported Drone Strikes, and have been happy that Obama has used them even more and more effectivly in Pakistan and Yemen.

Unlike the Right, I have been saying for 10 years OBL and AL Quida should be our focus...while the right went off on a Snipe hunt for WMD that did not exist in a nation that did not attack us...while letting the Taliban regain a large part of Afganistan.

Sorry but not all liberals fit your little cookie cutter straw men ideas of a liberal...one does not have to be a hippie to say that thinks like torture is bad moraly, bad for intel, and bad for national security....and very bad for our troops...as we have basicly stated that all of what we have done...can be done to our troops now in war....It does not take a rocket scientist to know that we threw our bad policies have given Bin Laden and his people some of the best propaganda he could have wanted...and I unlike you know that this war is not going to be won win high powered bombs , predator drones, and special forces....those are just tools..but they will never and can't win this war.