Was killing bin Laden legal?

[Freeper]

steve2470 Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Tue May-03-11 08:28 AM
Original message
Was killing bin Laden legal?
   
http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0511/was_killin...

By MJ LEE | 05/02/11 9:18 PM Updated: 05/02/11 9:30 PM

As more details of the death of 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden surfaced Monday, some individuals suggested that the killing of the Al Qaeda leader by U.S. special forces may have violated international law.

However, human rights and civil liberties groups that have sharply criticized the Obama administration for its use of lethal force against terror suspects outside of war zones remained largely mum after the notorious bin Laden was shot by U.S. Navy SEALs in an operation that took place in Pakistan, where the U.S. is not involved in formally declared combat.

Tom Malinowski, the Washington director of Human Rights Watch, said his group wasn’t prepared to express an opinion “until we know more solid details about the facts of the operation.”

“There are certainly circumstances under which lethal force is justified even in a law enforcement situation far from the battlefield,” Malinowski said in an email. “But we'll have to know more about what actually happened before making a judgment.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1022296

If Bush was still in office when this happened the majority of the DUmpmokeys would be screeching "WAR CRIMES!!!!!!!11111".

OwnedByFerrets (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Tue May-03-11 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
1. Since WHEN does the US worry about legalities?

If you think this was illegal you want frogmarching and a trial at the Hague, right?

LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Tue May-03-11 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
19. In a nutshell here is your answer   Updated at 2:37 PM
   
Had Osama bin Laden been found and killed during the Bush years - NO

Had OSama bin Laden been found and killed during the Obama years - YES, and lay the ground work to question it because hell, we don't want to actually make Obama sound like a good guy in any way.

:eyes:

Funny I haven't seen any repukes calling for frogmarching and impeachment over this.
The reality is, the opposite is true. If the President had an R next to his name then it would be a war crime, since Obama has a D next to his, then it is fine.

Romulox (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Tue May-03-11 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
29. That's not how law works. What law was violated in the killing of bin Laden?
   
Edited on Tue May-03-11 01:22 PM by Romulox
The burden of proof: on the prosecutor. :hi:

Unless you are a Republican then it's guilt by default.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

What is this so-called international law?

There are over 190 countries in the world...depending on who you ask.

How many of them consistently make conscious efforts to adhere to international law?

If a village has 100 people in it but only 2 of them agree to the rules while 98 do whatever the **** they want is there really such a thing as "law"?

[Thor]

According to the Judge (Napolitano), what Obama did was illegal....

His remarks here w/ video

[JohnnyReb]

Do DUmmie minds always run in reverse?

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

According to the Judge (Napolitano), what Obama did was illegal....

His remarks here w/ video

I respectfully disagree with the good judge.

I think the president has a responsibility/obligation to use all power at his disposal to destroy any one who would use force to usurp the lawful functions of the US government. Obviously Beck and Limbaugh do not qualify and UBL isn't even a US citizen though I support the death warrant on Awalaki for the same reason.

The fact that UBL was a non-state actor is not a shield for his violence against the people of the United States and their duly constituted government.

Washington certainly had no qualms about riding out with federal troops to put down the Whiskey Rebels. They were citizens and mostly non-violent, traits UBL never possessed.

[Vagabond]

What is this so-called international law?

There are over 190 countries in the world...depending on who you ask.

How many of them consistently make conscious efforts to adhere to international law?

If a village has 100 people in it but only 2 of them agree to the rules while 98 do whatever the **** they want is there really such a thing as "law"?

The only international law that may have applied to OBL would be the Geneva Conventions regarding spies and saboteurs, and their rights have been well stablished.  Just ask Nathan Hale or John Andre.

[true_blood]

steve2470 Donating Member (1000+ posts)   Tue May-03-11 08:28 AM
Original message
Was killing bin Laden legal?
By MJ LEE | 05/02/11 9:18 PM Updated: 05/02/11 9:30 PM
As more details of the death of 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden surfaced Monday, some individuals suggested that the killing of the Al Qaeda leader by U.S. special forces may have violated international law.

Here's what I think about your question with breaking "international law",.......

[Thor]

I respectfully disagree with the good judge.

I think the president has a responsibility/obligation to use all power at his disposal to destroy any one who would use force to usurp the lawful functions of the US government. Obviously Beck and Limbaugh do not qualify and UBL isn't even a US citizen though I support the death warrant on Awalaki for the same reason.

The fact that UBL was a non-state actor is not a shield for his violence against the people of the United States and their duly constituted government.

Washington certainly had no qualms about riding out with federal troops to put down the Whiskey Rebels. They were citizens and mostly non-violent, traits UBL never possessed.

I don't know if you watched the video, but he explained his reasoning fairly well. Obama's actions were that of a King, NOT a President. (paraphrasing the good Judge.)  I'm glad that the news is out that he's gone, but I think he's been dead for a while. (OK, call me a "Deather"....... ) 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I don't know if you watched the video, but he explained his reasoning fairly well. Obama's actions were that of a King, NOT a President. (paraphrasing the good Judge.)  I'm glad that the news is out that he's gone, but I think he's been dead for a while. (OK, call me a "Deather"....... )  

The judge's complaints about any president acting as a king with regards to military matters also fails.

"The sword is in the hands of the British king; the purse is in the hands of the Parliament. It is so in America, as far as any analogy can exist."  --James Madison

Maybe we don't have a hereditary monarch for life but the military powers shared between their monarch and our president are pretty much the same. Federalist 23 reinforces my point.

And as Osama is essentially a pirate so his considerations under constitutional law are even less. No president--or even naval captain--needed a warrant or trial or declaration to hang pirates. Osama's sort of warfare was not unknown to the framers; any student of history, such as the framers, recognizes it as a human constant. Such types have always been dealt with through military arms.

[Odin's Hand]

Pardon me if I don't shed a tear for bin Laden...

[Rebel]

DU: The ONLY f'n insane place that would make me defend Obama.


**** UBL.

[Tucker]

I don't know if you watched the video, but he explained his reasoning fairly well. Obama's actions were that of a King, NOT a President. (paraphrasing the good Judge.)  I'm glad that the news is out that he's gone, but I think he's been dead for a while. (OK, call me a "Deather"....... ) 

Yeah. obama just hates that he couldn't have held off until Nov.  2012 to release the news. His favorable rating got a 10 point bump. Still not enough.

[JohnnyReb]

When you have no moral compass, you have no commonsense, you have no sense of right or wrong you have to rely on "what's legal" and what the meaning of "is" is...and that's what got us in this mess to start with.

[DumbAss Tanker]

For my $.02, when you are dealing with an international non-state terrorist organization, the war zone is wherever the ****ers are located at any given moment.   

[Tucker]

For my $.02, when you are dealing with an international non-state terrorist organization, the war zone is wherever the ****ers are located at any given moment.   

I don't care what Pakistan's official stance is, they knew obama osama was there.

[GOBUCKS]

I don't care what Pakistan's official stance is, they knew obama osama was there.

For the first time ever, I'm inclined to believe the Pawkistawnis. There is nothing on earth more incompetent and more corrupt than the government of a muzzie country. They make the Russian government look like a well-oiled machine. If they had known bin Laden was there for any length of time, it's inconceivable that a Pawk bureaucrat would not have dropped a dime on him to cash in.

On the other hand, it's very easy to believe the government is so dumb and incompetent they could have him under their noses and not known it.

Of course, you could say the Pawk government did know, and someone did drop a dime. If that happened, the U.S. would be forced to make up a story on how they found him, to protect the source.

[Airwolf]

For my $.02, when you are dealing with an international non-state terrorist organization, the war zone is wherever the ****ers are located at any given moment.   

I agree with you DAT.

[thundley4]

Of course, you could say the Pawk government did know, and someone did drop a dime. If that happened, the U.S. would be forced to make up a story on how they found him, to protect the source.

But, would the story have even given a remote chance of any credit going to President Bush and enhanced interrogation ?  I don't think so.  This administration would have fabricated a story giving BHO all the credit.

[Tucker]

For the first time ever, I'm inclined to believe the Pawkistawnis. There is nothing on earth more incompetent and more corrupt than the government of a muzzie country. They make the Russian government look like a well-oiled machine. If they had known bin Laden was there for any length of time, it's inconceivable that a Pawk bureaucrat would not have dropped a dime on him to cash in.

On the other hand, it's very easy to believe the government is so dumb and incompetent they could have him under their noses and not known it.

Of course, you could say the Pawk government did know, and someone did drop a dime. If that happened, the U.S. would be forced to make up a story on how they found him, to protect the source.

I heard today that he was there for five years. That's a long time. He cadre burned the garbage. All deliveries were met outside of the walls. If a soccer ball went over the wall, someone came out a paid for it, not give it back. A lot of suspicious activities and yet not enough to get a rise of curiosity from an outsider? All of this was to shield OBL from any media that happened to be in the area. I think the locals knew who was there.

All of the money in the world couldn't sway the muslim fanatic to drop a dime on him. They are united in the hatred of America and Christianity.

Sorry but I still believe that they knew.

[FreeBorn]

The Abbottabad operation was no freakin' traffic stop for cryin' out loud.

Let's call a spade a spade here, THIS WAS A HIT plain and simple. Done deal.

Did the 19 terrorists who perpetrated 9/11 have any concern for international law? **** no. They sneaked in like cowards and slaughtered women and children. Game on, bitches. They set the precedent. No laws. No rules. Last man standing wins. No trophies for second place.

Contrary to popular belief and "political correctness" the war on terror did not start with 9/11. It has been going on for nigh on a thousand years now, ever since Muslims began murdering Christians on pilgrimages to the holy land. Back in the day the Knights Templar had to road trip down there and kick much ass to put a stop to it.

Our armed forces of today are the modern equivalent of the Knights Templar. Make no mistake about it. The mission has not changed and the enemy is the same.

We are not fighting a uniformed enemy under any recognized flag. We are fighting an ideology, that of radical Islam. Our illustrious leaders don't have the balls to even identify who our enemy is for fear of "offending" someone.
Piss on 'em! I'll tell you who the enemy is- those filthy knuckle dragging wife beating child raping neanderthal followers of the pedophile prophet moo-hamed, that's who.

They started this shit. They set the rules. No quarter given and none sought. Last man standing wins. **** 'em!