Print

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

[Earthquake Damage]

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

Fixed.

I doubt this is the first extrajudicial killing ordered by a government in modern history, let alone the entire history of human civilization.

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

No, but while we've been developing international institutions over the past century that may one day form the basis of an international government, the current state of affairs is still anarchic and governed by realpolitik.  If some state(s) has the might to punish the offense, then justice, or perhaps vengeance, may be served.  Might makes right and all that.  You don't have to like it.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Well, in this case it seems pretty cut and dry. We didn't merely "label" him an extremist. Osama Bin Laden is on record for killing thousands of civilians in operations spanning the globe. He did not only declare war on the USA, but declared war on all infidels to radical Islam, including moderate Muslims that would not help Al Qaida.

Pakistan, with knowledge of the operation to kill Osama or not, previously has given the US WIDE and FAR REACHING operating power within Pakistan. This is nothing new and has been commented on for years, particularly by those hating on the US government and Obama's policies, which was to find and kill OBL.

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

Fixed.

I doubt this is the first extrajudicial killing ordered by a government in modern history, let alone the entire history of human civilization.

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

No, but while we've been developing international institutions over the past century that may one day form the basis of an international government, the current state of affairs is still anarchic and governed by realpolitik.  If some state(s) has the might to punish the offense, then justice, or perhaps vengeance, may be served.  Might makes right and all that.  You don't have to like it.

The judiciary called for Osama DEAD or alive. Whether you like the law of the US and various global Anti-terror agencies is a different matter, but that was the order.

[devek]

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.

It isn't even a Texas provision, by definition it isn't murder. The very fact the state authorized the action makes it lawful, hence not murder. For example, if I broke into Texas death row and personally killed someone there who wasn't yet up for execution I could be charged with murder even though they would have been killed anyway a few hours later. (Doesn't mean it is right, just legal. It used to be legal to own slaves for example.)

Pakistan, with knowledge of the operation to kill Osama or not, previously has given the US WIDE and FAR REACHING operating power within Pakistan. This is nothing new and has been commented on for years, particularly by those hating on the US government and Obama's policies, which was to find and kill OBL.

Exactly, we were authorized to act there.

[G-Flex]

The problems I have with his assasination are that it serves little practical purpose (insofar harming Al Quaeda is concerned)

He still had an active role in leading the organization, was a respected (by some) representative of them, and the compound in general contained a lot of potentially useful information for fighting Al Qaeda.

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

Were you there? We don't know the exact situation. The US was justified in taking him out, and although taking him alive would have been better, we don't know exactly what went down or whether or not the team involved felt at all threatened.

[KaelGotDwarves]

It can't even be argued that it goes against International Law.

You can argue on the morality and ethics behind the killing, but the International Law institutions were all quite clear on calling for Bin Laden's capture OR death. The UN certainly had no problem with it.

[Aqizzar]

The "gross violation of international law" part would have been the sending armed soldiers into a supposedly-allied sovereign country to assassinate a non-military target (not that that specifically matters) without a declaration of war, or even the consultation of the country in question.  Borders do have legal importance, especially for acts of war.

I would like to say that criticism is a fair one but based on something that just isn't known, which is the level of cooperation between the American and Pakistani governments.  The story has revolved around the idea that America said nothing and just went for it without Pakistani knowledge or approval to avoid compromising the lead (and indeed, I've perpetuated this), but a lot of details have turned out to be wrong.

[KaelGotDwarves]

The "gross violation of international law" part would have been the sending armed soldiers into a supposedly-allied sovereign country to assassinate a non-military target (not that that specifically matters).

Except as far as we know, the US was already authorised to do anything within it's power to find and kill Osama Bin Laden by the Pakistani Government. They have done this many times in the past with Al Qaida operatives, the only difference this time was it was a covert ops team and Bin Laden.

International Law brands terrorists as unlawful combatants by the way. Since they don't identify with any identifiable group or nationstate, the laws in the books have been rewritten since the advent of terrorism. This went on before 9/11.

[G-Flex]

The "gross violation of international law" part would have been the sending armed soldiers into a supposedly-allied sovereign country to assassinate a non-military target (not that that specifically matters) without a declaration of war, or even the consultation of the country in question.  Borders do have legal importance, especially for acts of war.

I would like to say that criticism is a fair one but based on something that just isn't known, which is the level of cooperation between the American and Pakistani governments.  The story has revolved around the idea that America said nothing and just went for it without Pakistani knowledge or approval to avoid compromising the lead (and indeed, I've perpetuated this), but a lot of details have turned out to be wrong.

There's also the possibility that Pakistan or its military/leadership were, on some level, complicit in Osama bin Laden hiding there. In that case, we didn't exactly need their approval.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There's also the possibility that Pakistan or its military/leadership were, on some level, complicit in Osama bin Laden hiding there. In that case, we didn't exactly need their approval.

I agree. The idea that he was hiding there without their explicit knowledge is...very unlikely, to say the least. This lead has been eight years in the making, and allowing the entierly possible scenario of letting it slip away by telling Pakistan about the operation wasn't a risk worth taking, international borders be damned.

[Leafsnail]

It isn't even a Texas provision, by definition it isn't murder. The very fact the state authorized the action makes it lawful, hence not murder. For example, if I broke into Texas death row and personally killed someone there who wasn't yet up for execution I could be charged with murder even though they would have been killed anyway a few hours later. (Doesn't mean it is right, just legal. It used to be legal to own slaves for example.)

It's clear that you aren't reading my posts - you've got an assumption in your head of what you think my viewpoint is, and you're arguing against that rather than what I'm actually saying.  I guess all I can do is say that this is completely irrelevant to my point.

Pakistan, with knowledge of the operation to kill Osama or not, previously has given the US WIDE and FAR REACHING operating power within Pakistan. This is nothing new and has been commented on for years, particularly by those hating on the US government and Obama's policies, which was to find and kill OBL.

Have they?  I mean, didn't they recently ask the US to halt its drone strikes?  Although as Aqizzar said, maybe they did anyway and the initial details of the story were wrong.

It can't even be argued that it goes against International Law.

I'm pretty sure it can be argued to violate Pakistan's sovereignity at the very least.

[Aqizzar]

There's also the possibility that Pakistan or its military/leadership were, on some level, complicit in Osama bin Laden hiding there. In that case, we didn't exactly need their approval.

The problem with that, and forcing it out into the open as an operational principle, is that its logical conclusion is that America is technically at war with the Pakistani military/intelligence as a complicit ally of the declared enemy.  Which, if diplomacy is war by other means (to turn a phrase), is kinda true.  But mucking around with that can of worms is the last thing the American apparatus wants, for entirely obvious reasons.

[KaelGotDwarves]

It's certainly not a violation of their sovereignty, because like it or not, a deal was made for the USA to be able to hunt down Al Qaida and other Islamic radicals in Pakistan while funneling billions of dollars in government aid from our country in their direction.

Many Pakistanis were angry over drone strikes, collateral damage, and US actions in their country, but all of our actions were "allowed" by the Pakistani government.

[G-Flex]

It's certainly not a violation of their sovereignty, because like it or not, a deal was made for the USA to be able to hunt down Al Qaida and other Islamic radicals in Pakistan while funneling billions of dollars in government aid from our country in their direction.

I think Aqizzar has made it clear by now that he isn't actually paying attention to the people who are pointing this out.

[Aqizzar]

If either of you can point me to this magical "deal", I'd love to see it.  The whole reason for the reliance on drone-strikes was that Pakistan pointedly would not allow conventional American forces to make combat missions into Pakistan.  If anything about the fact that Osama bin Laden was involved changes things, that'd be news to me, since you'd think that justification would have been used some time before now.

[Nadaka]

So, to lighten this thread up. When did CNN start using crap from 4chan?

I've seen at least 3 or 4 Osama related images that can be traced back to the chans including the "Sorry I took so long getting my birth certificate for you, I was just so busy killing Osama Bin Laden" poster.