Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

This should be fun. I'd be interested to know how your government feels about taking out Osama, Leafsnail. Because you seem to be of the opinion he shouldn't have been touched, other than through some totally impossible diplomatic arrangement.

I don't think I said anything remotely along those lines.  Or even made any kind of implication like that.

I was just responding to a specific point questioning what laws were broken by the assassination.  Followed by a clarification when the person who made that point decided to be pedantic.

The US government killed a man in another state's territory.  This was a sanctioned military operation.  This is international territory (i.e. the actors are states).  Pakistan's civil code doesn't seem applicable.

Hmm... was it sanctioned?  Last I heard, Pakistan had no idea about the mission until after it had happened.

[Willfor]

Wow, wow, wow, I'm not siding with Ben Laden. I'd rather have him death than free, but I'm pissed than the American administration have chosen the Illegal way once again, rather than capturing him when it has the choice.

Which law was broken? I am also curious what the fine, punishment, or redress is for said law.

2.   Punishment of offences committed within Pakistan.
Every person shall be liable to punishment under this Code and not otherwise for every act or omission contrary to the provisions thereof, of which he shall be guilty within Pakistan.

[...]

300.   Qatl-e-Amd:
Whoever, with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing bodily injury to a person, by doing an act which in the ordinary course of nature is likely to cause death, or with-the knowledge that his act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, causes the death of such person, is said to commit qatl-e-amd.
[...]

302.   Punishment of qatl-i-amd:
Whoever commits qatl-e-amd shall, subject to the provisions of this Chapter be:
(a)    punished with death as qisas;
(b)    punished with death or imprisonment for life as ta'zir having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, if the proof in either of the forms specified in Section 304 is not available; or
(c)    punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to twenty-five years, where according to the injunctions of Islam the punishment of qisas is not applicable

Seems rather open and shut, legally. Not that I support these laws being enforced at the moment.

[ChairmanPoo]

So now we're going to debate the legality of surgically removing the world's #1 terrorist?

We have been doing that for a while, dude, did you even check the thread?

This should be fun. I'd be interested to know how your government feels about taking out Osama, Leafsnail.

What does that have to do with anything?

The US government killed a man in another state's territory.  This was a sanctioned military operation.  This is international territory (i.e. the actors are states).  Pakistan's civil code doesn't seem applicable.

It can be seen as a vulneration of Pakistan's sovereignity.


By the way, to all you bunch saying that murder is totally a-ok by international law... did you even bother to check?

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1950a.htm

Principle VI

The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

(b) War crimes:

Violations of the laws or customs of war include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.

[Earthquake Damage]

Hmm... was it sanctioned?  Last I heard, Pakistan had no idea about the mission until after it had happened.

I'm pretty sure you know what I meant, but to clarify:  A US military action in accordance with US government orders makes this a state action.

It can be seen as a vulneration of Pakistan's sovereignity.

This is more an addition to what I said than a refutation.

[G-Flex]

I don't think it counts as "murder" to kill someone who's actively waged war on your country and engaged in attacks against it.

[devek]

By the way, to all you bunch saying that murder is totally a-ok by international law... did you even bother to check?

I never said murder was a-ok by international law, I said killing was.

No one has made a legal case for murder, shrug. They can't even get the legal terms right :/

[ChairmanPoo]

I don't think it counts as "murder" to kill someone who's actively waged war on your country and engaged in attacks against it.

It can, if you explicitly send a SEAL team to kill him, and is shot in the head while unarmed. That he engaged in attacks against your country, or broke international law (or any other law, for that matter) does not sanction that person's extrajudicial execution.

[SalmonGod]

I think people should take a moment to reflect on the nature of law itself, as a construct of powerful people with enforcement subject to the influence of powerful people.

Consider also for a moment the claim of Osama as the world's #1 terrorist... and then read this

United States and State Terrorism

What's the difference?  All I can see is that one entity is many times more massive and slightly more abstract with much more experience, precedent, resources, and a claim to legal authority on their side.

You have government & mega business, which can manipulate the definition and enforcement of legality, who works to expand their power... and you have people on the receiving end of that... who have little... and are mostly just desperate.

The former is condemned, but the condemnation amounts to nothing.  The latter is condemned, and actively eradicated and their eradication celebrated.

And yes, I know that Osama doesn't really fall under the desperate victim label, and I don't sympathize with him... but he is also a rather unique figure.  I don't have a problem with his assassination.  I just wish less people would openly display their bloodthirst in relation to the event.

And I really hate attempts to simplify the issue into matters of legality or black & white morality where X is wrong and should be punished by law, when there are multiple sides participating in X from vastly different contexts.

[devek]

I don't think it counts as "murder" to kill someone who's actively waged war on your country and engaged in attacks against it.

It can, if you explicitly send a SEAL team to kill him, and is shot in the head while unarmed. That he engaged in attacks against your country, or broke international law (or any other law, for that matter) does not sanction that person's extrajudicial execution.

The problem is that your opinion, really isn't relevant.

Imagine your opinion was that Texas executing the death penalty was murder. There isn't a local, state, national, or international court that won't laugh at you for making the claim.

The law isn't based off opinions.

You can say it is your opinion that it isn't right, just don't say it is illegal without a legal basis for why.

[ChairmanPoo]

The problems I have with his assasination are that it serves little practical purpose (insofar harming Al Quaeda is concerned), and that it's a gross violation of international law that sets a dangerous precedent. I don't feel any pity for the man. I just thing the whole thing was handled very badly, and might yet end up causing further damage down the line.

[devek]

and that it's a gross violation of international law that sets a dangerous precedent.

... and yet you keep saying it. Well, whatever.

[ChairmanPoo]

The problem is that your opinion, really isn't relevant.

Gee, thanks. Neither is yours, you know. Or are you under the delusion that what we post here affects in some manner big international issues?

Imagine your opinion was that Texas executing the death penalty was murder. There isn't a local, state, national, or international court that won't laugh at you for making the claim.

What does that have to do with anything?

The law isn't based off opinions.

It pretty much is.

You can say it is your opinion that it isn't right, just don't say it is illegal without a legal basis for why.

Do you even read what people have written in this thread?

[Leafsnail]

Uh, yeah, I guess all this discussion about legality is a bit besides the point since obviously noone will attempt to convict for crimes committed (and rightly so, I guess).  I was just making a small point about legality, nothing more.

My real issue with this is the wide celebration following the killing, I suppose.

I'm pretty sure you know what I meant, but to clarify:  A US military action in accordance with US government orders makes this a state action.

Does this prevent it from being a murder?  Leaders have been found guilty for state acts of murder in the past (see: Karadzic).

The problem is that your opinion, really isn't relevant.

Imagine your opinion was that Texas executing the death penalty was murder. There isn't a local, state, national, or international court that won't laugh at you for making the claim.

The law isn't based off opinions.

You can say it is your opinion that it isn't right, just don't say it is illegal without a legal basis for why.

Well, no, it's not an opinion.  He never said anything about right or wrong.  This is all from a purely legal perspective.

In the example you mention, I presume Texas law has provisions that make execution not murder, while I don't think Pakistani law has any such provisions for hits made by foreign powers.

[Servant Corps]

Uh, yeah, I guess all this discussion about legality is a bit besides the point since obviously noone will attempt to convict for crimes committed (and rightly so, I guess).

It's still a little problematic because it does mean that any State can decide if someone is a extremist, who they can then murder, even if other States tend to disagree. And while we can argue over the innocence and guilt of certain people, I do not feel comfortable letting these state-sanctioned killers walk freely.

[ChairmanPoo]

I was about to cite that example