@BadUncle Bin Laden: never indicted for 9/11 (due to lack of evidence!); never tried or convicted in absentia for his other crimes. Arbitrary (adj.): subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent soley on one's discretion. So, um, yeah.
@DMcK the "individual will" of, uh, 70 Seal operators, the entire chain of command above them leading to the situation room, as well as the collective – albeit non-legislated – desire of the legislative branch? Yeah, sounds almost "capricious."
Here's one for you: "Pedantic Spermchewer" – (n) one who can blow me.
@Renate Apparently? “We want to remind the world that Omar bin Laden, the fourth-born son of our father, always disagreed with our father regarding any violence and always sent messages to our father, that he must change his ways and that no civilians should be attacked under any circumstances."
Arbitrary killing seems like one of the time tested solutions to political problems…
Also, got to disagree with anyone suggesting that the OBL assasination was arbitrary. No one worth taking seriously thinks that OBL did not orchestrate multiple high casulty terrorist attacks against the United States and it's allies. Extra-judicial killings happen in war and are regulated by international and domestic laws.
@Daniel.CLS Please advise when under international and domestic law is it legal to assassinate unarmed, non-resisting prisoners in cold blood. This is some groundbreaking shit.
@Lockheed Ventura Not sure about that scenario. But in regards to the recent OBL killing several government and military officials have said that it was impossible to take him alive.
Beyond that OBL was not protected by XO 12333 because he was a beligerant in the ongoing US war against Al Qaeda.
In terms of internationally accepted laws of war I can think of two reasons this killing was legal. 1. Precision strikes on beligerant leaders that take into account distinction and proportionality are legal. 2. Killings in self-defense are legal. The government has already released evidence that OBL was planning future attacks against the United States and its allies.
@Lockheed Ventura : sure. Right after you point to some evidence that he WAS non-resisting and assassinated. Right now, the only thing that even suggests that kind of a scenario was a single comment by an unnamed "administration official" who may or may not have had anything to do with the operation. This was contradicted by Panetta and others. And sure, that's what they WOULD say. But still, there's no evidence to the contrary at all, and it's quite plausible that the SEALs on the scene believed him to be resisting apprehension. And if you're OBL and get killed because they think you were resisting… well, that's an occupational hazard of being the world's most notorious terrorist. It's not evidence that there was a "kill order" in place.
Am I the only person who, as a non-leader, is hopeful for a new era where warfare involves more assassinations of leadership and less handing out assault rifles to as many 19-year-olds as possible (or worse)?
I disagree with Omar about the arbitrary nature of the killing, but if you look at the whole statement in context it's not that bad. Also, if A Lady on the Hairpin taught me anything today, it's that no matter what, a father is still a father and no matter what, a child's feelings about his or her father are going to be very complicated, even if that father was an abusive asshole or a terrorist.
The murder of Bin Laden was a cold blooded assassination of an unarmed human being who was not resisting arrest. It was an extrajudicial murder plain and simple, and a violation of international and domestic law. Not that it means anything to this rogue administration.
What would have been so horrible about a trial for the alleged criminal mastermind? If he is so evil, surely the US could have convicted him, especially in an American kangaroo military court in Afghanistan. Most importantly, wasn't Bin Laden the greatest intelligence asset of all time? Are people not the least bit curious about the intel this guy had in his head? Why not interrogate his ass before you nobly dump his body in the ocean out of our "deep respect" for Sharia Law?
@Lockheed Ventura : as the kids on Wikipedia say: "citation needed". Where is your evidence that he was, in fact, not resisting apprehension? The alternative is a lot more plausible: SEALs kicked in the door of his room, he made some kind of move (whether he meant to "resist" or not is almost beside the point for the purposes of the legality of the SEALs action), the SEALs feared for their safety, and they shot him. This all likely went down in about 3 seconds.
In the absence of any evidence whatsoever that they were ordered to kill him no matter what, this is just not an assassination. And vague statements by unnamed officials do not constitute evidence.
Sorry Omar, but sometimes a Superpower just needs to act like one, ya know?
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
@Tulletilsynet Right. Makes it sound like we ran into Bin Laden in a bar in Reno and shot him just to watch him die.
There's nothing that involves a SEAL team that can in any way be described as arbitrary.
I don't think there was anything "arbitrary" about it.
@BadUncle Bin Laden: never indicted for 9/11 (due to lack of evidence!); never tried or convicted in absentia for his other crimes. Arbitrary (adj.): subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent soley on one's discretion. So, um, yeah.
@DMcK He couldn't legally have been tried in absentia: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-6194.ZO.html">Crosby v. United States.
@DMcK the "individual will" of, uh, 70 Seal operators, the entire chain of command above them leading to the situation room, as well as the collective – albeit non-legislated – desire of the legislative branch? Yeah, sounds almost "capricious."
Here's one for you: "Pedantic Spermchewer" – (n) one who can blow me.
@DMcK I'ma let Hitch field this one.
@DMcK "lack of evidence". Are you serious? The guy claimed credit for it, openly, on numerous occasions.
Flying passenger planes into whatever targets you can hit, on the other hand…
Nah.. We pretty much leave the arbitrary killing to terrorists like your father and his whacky little club of suicide bombers.
Before I hovered to see where the link pointed, I was really hoping it was from Twitter.
#MISSUDAD, #TOTALLYUNFAIR, #MYMOMSLEGISDOINGBETTERTHANKSFORASKING
Did he ever make that point to his dad?
@Renate Apparently? “We want to remind the world that Omar bin Laden, the fourth-born son of our father, always disagreed with our father regarding any violence and always sent messages to our father, that he must change his ways and that no civilians should be attacked under any circumstances."
Arbitrary killing seems like one of the time tested solutions to political problems…
Also, got to disagree with anyone suggesting that the OBL assasination was arbitrary. No one worth taking seriously thinks that OBL did not orchestrate multiple high casulty terrorist attacks against the United States and it's allies. Extra-judicial killings happen in war and are regulated by international and domestic laws.
@Daniel.CLS Please advise when under international and domestic law is it legal to assassinate unarmed, non-resisting prisoners in cold blood. This is some groundbreaking shit.
@Lockheed Ventura Not sure about that scenario. But in regards to the recent OBL killing several government and military officials have said that it was impossible to take him alive.
Beyond that OBL was not protected by XO 12333 because he was a beligerant in the ongoing US war against Al Qaeda.
In terms of internationally accepted laws of war I can think of two reasons this killing was legal. 1. Precision strikes on beligerant leaders that take into account distinction and proportionality are legal. 2. Killings in self-defense are legal. The government has already released evidence that OBL was planning future attacks against the United States and its allies.
@Lockheed Ventura : sure. Right after you point to some evidence that he WAS non-resisting and assassinated. Right now, the only thing that even suggests that kind of a scenario was a single comment by an unnamed "administration official" who may or may not have had anything to do with the operation. This was contradicted by Panetta and others. And sure, that's what they WOULD say. But still, there's no evidence to the contrary at all, and it's quite plausible that the SEALs on the scene believed him to be resisting apprehension. And if you're OBL and get killed because they think you were resisting… well, that's an occupational hazard of being the world's most notorious terrorist. It's not evidence that there was a "kill order" in place.
Arbitrary or not, he's right about it not solving political problems. Except, of course, Obama's political (polling) problems.
Am I the only person who, as a non-leader, is hopeful for a new era where warfare involves more assassinations of leadership and less handing out assault rifles to as many 19-year-olds as possible (or worse)?
@josiah Agreed. Things would be much simpler if the United States had taken a covert ops rather than a conventional approach to Afghanistan.
I disagree with Omar about the arbitrary nature of the killing, but if you look at the whole statement in context it's not that bad. Also, if A Lady on the Hairpin taught me anything today, it's that no matter what, a father is still a father and no matter what, a child's feelings about his or her father are going to be very complicated, even if that father was an abusive asshole or a terrorist.
He declared Jihad on opposite day y'all.
The murder of Bin Laden was a cold blooded assassination of an unarmed human being who was not resisting arrest. It was an extrajudicial murder plain and simple, and a violation of international and domestic law. Not that it means anything to this rogue administration.
What would have been so horrible about a trial for the alleged criminal mastermind? If he is so evil, surely the US could have convicted him, especially in an American kangaroo military court in Afghanistan. Most importantly, wasn't Bin Laden the greatest intelligence asset of all time? Are people not the least bit curious about the intel this guy had in his head? Why not interrogate his ass before you nobly dump his body in the ocean out of our "deep respect" for Sharia Law?
@Lockheed Ventura : as the kids on Wikipedia say: "citation needed". Where is your evidence that he was, in fact, not resisting apprehension? The alternative is a lot more plausible: SEALs kicked in the door of his room, he made some kind of move (whether he meant to "resist" or not is almost beside the point for the purposes of the legality of the SEALs action), the SEALs feared for their safety, and they shot him. This all likely went down in about 3 seconds.
In the absence of any evidence whatsoever that they were ordered to kill him no matter what, this is just not an assassination. And vague statements by unnamed officials do not constitute evidence.
@SeanP I'm pretty sure they said he was unarmed. Sorry, don't have the citation.