Quote :

"Former West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt told German TV the operation could have incalculable consequences in the Arab world at a time of unrest there. "It was quite clearly a violation of international law," . It was a view echoed by high-profile Australian human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson. "It's not justice. It's a perversion of the term. Justice means taking someone to court, finding them guilty upon evidence and sentencing them," Robertson told Australian Broadcasting Corp television from London. "This man has been subject to summary execution, and what is now appearing after a good deal of disinformation from the White House is it may well have been a cold-blooded assassination.""

My response to Grumpy:
Clearly we did not have to do one or the other. We could have left him alone if we weren't able to take him on the moral high ground. We've been leaving him alone for 10 years, hasn't really hurt anything. We can hardly condemn Osama as a killer if we are killers ourselves.

As I understand it, they killed women and children in the compound as well. 80 of the best soldiers in the world. Shameful.

United Nations probing the bin Laden assassination as a human rights violation.
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/human+rights+boss+questions+legality+Laden+killing/4721045/story.html

Law Professor Says Extrajudicial killing is clearly illegal
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/order-for-execution-was-illegal-20110504-1e8bp.html

Unrelated note that I found interesting: the bin Laden raid utilized new stealth helicopters, which is why they had to take extra care to blow one of them up when it was disabled.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/04/stealth_chopper_bin_laden_raid/
So they had plenty of time to stay on the ground to guard technical secrets, but conducting a proper arrest would have been "dangerous". I don't buy it.

==================================
Every Seal was wearing a helmet camera! These tapes will "probably be destroyed". Let them release the footage and we'll see just how much bin Laden "resisted".
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8111235
==================================

White House struggles to get story right on raid
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/05/03/national/w153253D30.DTL&feed=rss.news

[Edited on May 4, 2011 at 10:32 AM. Reason : .]

5/4/2011 10:12:22 AM

the vast majority of people dont give a shit, myself included.

5/4/2011 10:56:41 AM

Quote :

""The authority here was to kill Bin Laden," said Panetta. "And obviously, under the rules of engagement, if he had in fact thrown up his hands, surrendered and didn't appear to be representing any kind of threat, then they were to capture him.""

This seems a bit contradictory to me. If a criminal in the US doesn't put up his arms and is unarmed, do the police just shoot him?

Was the plan to kill him or capture him? It can't be both.

If the plan was to kill him, whether he put his arms up or not is irrelevant.

And if the plan was to capture him, again, whether he put his arms up or not is irrelevant, provided that he was not armed, and we know now that he wasn't, and nor was he some big muscly dude.

So, it is obvious the plan was to kill, even if he has thrown his arms up. Of course, shooting a man with his arms up would have proved to be a disaster for the US image, but when that man is OBL, it could easily have been explained away because he was such a bad person. Furthermore, I am sure the Americans knew that OBL's nature/character/resolve would prevent him from surrendering, and so were relieved when he in fact didn't, and thus the disaster was avoided.

5/4/2011 10:58:02 AM

Raid did, in fact, take prisoners.

Quote :

"As Navy SEALs swept through the compound early Monday, they handcuffed those they encountered with plastic zip ties and pressed on in pursuit of bin Laden. After killing the terror leader, his son and two others, they doubled back to move nine women and 23 children away from the compound, according to U.S. officials. "

They also took several male captives back with them on the helicopters, so it wasn't an issue of not being able to transport bin laden safely. It's safe to assume they'll be tortured. They had planned to take the women too, but the helicopter failure prevented that.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10723382

This was clearly an assassination.



[Edited on May 4, 2011 at 11:06 AM. Reason : .]

5/4/2011 10:58:45 AM

Quote :

"United Nations probing the bin Laden assassination as a human rights violation. "

Sanction me wit yo army . . . . Oh wait a minute, you don't got one, I guess you should just STFU then!! STFU!!



[Edited on May 4, 2011 at 11:07 AM. Reason : f]

5/4/2011 11:05:14 AM

Quote :

"Raid did, in fact, take prisoners."

[citation needed]

Quote :

"They also took several male captives back with them on the helicopters"

[citation needed]

Quote :

"They had planned to take the women too"

[citation needed]

Quote :

"they killed women and children in the compound as well"

[citation needed]

5/4/2011 11:10:24 AM

All of that was from a pakistani official, as mentioned in the nzherald article above, which you clearly didn't read.

As for the last point, the white house admitted they killed a woman and 18 year old boy.

I welcome the US Government to release the helmet camera footage so we can clear all this up.

[Edited on May 4, 2011 at 11:14 AM. Reason : .]

5/4/2011 11:11:52 AM

Guys, smc would have argued that assassinating Hitler would have been a violation of international law.

Why are you debating with this guy? You aren't going to convince him. He isnt going to convince you. Just be happy he is the slimmest of minorities in this country when it comes to the way we dispatched Osama from the earth.

5/4/2011 11:17:19 AM

Quite the opposite, I'm very interested to know why assassinating foreign leaders and their families is acceptable.

5/4/2011 11:19:53 AM

Are we talking about Hitler or Osama? Osama was not a foreign leader.

5/4/2011 11:20:56 AM

That NZ article is interesting. Apparently we developed technology to defy the laws of physics for this operation, because there's no way in hell you're fitting 40 guys, one corpse, and a bunch of prisoners on a blackhawk helicopter otherwise. Or maybe when they turned the blackhawk into a stealth version, they also made it four times its original size, since the standard version carries all of 11 people.

5/4/2011 11:24:16 AM

79 commandos in four helicopters, which still seems an insufficient number considering they had to double up to escape, and the "mechanical problem" experienced is claimed to be insufficient lift due to air temperature at the landing site. If one chopper was overweight, why wouldn't the remaining three be with increased occupancy? It's fishy, I agree.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/79-commandos-in-four-choppers-killed-Osama-bin-Laden/Article1-692698.aspx

I find it very interesting that the Pakistani official, after interviewing witnesses, claims they took prisoners. It would seem the White House is covering up this part of the story to avoid the embarrassment of admitting they could have captured bin Laden alive. Or it could be a false account.

[Edited on May 4, 2011 at 11:43 AM. Reason : .]

5/4/2011 11:33:07 AM

Are we talking about Hitler or Osama? Osama was not a foreign leader.

5/4/2011 11:33:24 AM

Either he's the leader of a group we're at war with, in which case a military raid might be justified, or he's a simple criminal, in which case an arrest and trial is called for.

5/4/2011 11:39:12 AM

Last I checked, he wasnt a recognized foreign leader by the UN. Maybe what you meant to say is "confessed terrorist network leader".

So, to rewrite your phrase: I'm very interested to know why assassinating confessed terrorist network leader and their families is acceptable.

It just is. Apparently the U.S. wasnt in there to kill everyone and everything, which is why his daughter survived. So it invalidates the second part of your statement.

[Edited on May 4, 2011 at 11:48 AM. Reason : .]

5/4/2011 11:48:32 AM

Even if he was personally unarmed, if we were met with armed resistance that limits the kinds of assumptions you're going to make about everybody else on the premises. Also, is it unreasonable to assume that this might just be the kind of guy who would want to go out with a grenade or other explosion large enough to take out his would-be captors? So, after the fact it turned out that he didn't happen to have a gun. So what? I'm not sure you're going to storm his armed compound with SEALs and give everybody the benefit of the doubt.

[Edited on May 4, 2011 at 11:54 AM. Reason : .]

5/4/2011 11:53:47 AM

^^Perhaps. It appears they showed some restraint when dealing with the children. Although it might have been a different story if they could have transported all the prisoners they wanted to.

The military has the best nonlethal weapons in the world. They chose not to use them.

[Edited on May 4, 2011 at 11:55 AM. Reason : .]

5/4/2011 11:54:06 AM

Seems very obvious to me. Foreign man, of no citizenship to your country, directly funds efforts to kill thousands of your people. He succeeds in these efforts. He admits openly and often he is responsible for these efforts. He has accepted responsibility and waived any doubt. He openly supports and funds more efforts to kill lives. Why waste our tax payers dollars with a trial that will be assumed a sham, will find him guilty without any doubt, subject us to blackmail from people willing to do anything to get him out alive while he is on trial and risk more lives, to end up at the exact same spot. No brainer. Kill him on spot.

5/4/2011 11:55:30 AM

Because it's wrong.

5/4/2011 11:56:23 AM

Why?

5/4/2011 11:59:28 AM

It's slaughter for the sake of slaughter. Are we animals?

5/4/2011 12:00:19 PM

Aren't we?

5/4/2011 12:07:14 PM

If it were actually slaughter for the sake of slaughter, then they would just be killing random people. This was justice, or if you prefer, vengeance.

It is not wrong. justice is a necessary component of civilization.

5/4/2011 12:16:54 PM

Quote :

"This seems a bit contradictory to me. If a criminal in the US doesn't put up his arms and is unarmed, do the police just shoot him?"

Sometimes. The militarization of the police force has had some very nasty consequences.

Quote :

"So, it is obvious the plan was to kill, even if he has thrown his arms up."

I believe this was the case. I don't know if you remember, but Osama was tried in absentia (sic) in New York and sentenced to death, then the President issued a kill order, just as has been done for many enemies of the state, even some Americans. Usually, kill orders are carried out with missiles, which kill regardless of whether or not you wanted to give yourself up, but some guy with a gun is the same thing. So far, such kill orders have stood up in court, so they are legal, but that doesn't make them right.

Quote :

"killed a woman and 18 year old boy."

An 18 year old is not a boy. This isn't even close. An 18 year old is full grown man eligible for U.S. Military Service.

5/4/2011 12:21:26 PM

how did they fit 80+ people on a single helicopter?

Some of these stories are not holding water.

5/4/2011 12:33:59 PM

no doubt the military is withholding all operational details. DUH!

5/4/2011 12:35:08 PM

From the dozens of articles I have read on various news sites, at least one male prisoner was taken. Who he is, no one knows. OBL's wife was shot in the calf as she rushed the soldiers. She is alive. The wife of one of OBL's aides was killed in the gunfire, as was one of OBL's sons, although it is not clear if the son was involved in the gunfight or if he was just caught in the middle. Several other males were killed, of course.

As for taking him alive, there is no doubt the US could have done it, and the majority of the world would have preferred it, as we would have gotten to hear his side of the story.

Problem with taking him alive is that that would have lead to Westerners being taken hostage all over the world with threat to kill unless OBL was released.

So, he was shot even though he was unarmed.

5/4/2011 12:40:34 PM

Quote :

"I don't know if you remember, but Osama was tried in absentia (sic) in New York and sentenced to death"

I see evidence that he's been indicted for several things but none that he's ever been convicted in this country, let alone sentenced to death.

But anyway, this thread was beyond hope as soon as he responded to me. He's of the opinion that we should have just left the bastard alone, and there's an idea that'd gag a maggot.

5/4/2011 1:07:48 PM

"as we would have gotten to hear his side of the story."

Honestly? Arent the weekly audio tapes that have been released over the last 10 years not enough to know his side of the story?

5/4/2011 1:12:15 PM

Perhaps. Since CarZin wants to talk about hitler so much I suppose I'll mention that I would have liked to heard him interviewed extensively after he was no longer in power. I'd be curious how much of his rhetoric he believed and how much was just bravado to maintain control. Same with Osama.

I'm less concerned with the death of Osama than a lack of accountability in military operations for the past decade. How many accidents or murders were covered up because they were just some random arab or acceptable collateral damage. In this case we have a situation where the government is actually forced to release details of the killing and stand accountable for their decision. It's an opportunity the public should not ignore, and we should use whatever glimmer of truth we can grasp from it to hold our decision-makers accountable in the future to prevent more torture and inhumane treatment in the name of justice or freedom. In the execution of a hated figurehead we should be doubly concerned with standards and moral certainty.

5/4/2011 1:25:39 PM

No, it's really not enough. Have you seen Bin Laden? Have the sources of those videos been verified by any independent sources? This idea that we all knew for sure that Bin Laden was 1) Alive 2) Still running Al Qaeda 3) Personally responsible for 9-11 are all highly dubious claims. What's making me more suspicious now than ever before is the way this all went down. They stormed a mansion where there were no weapons, killed Bin Laden (possibly after his capture), did DNA/facial recognition, and dumped his body in the sea all within about 12 hours?

Something stinks, and the longer the administration allows all these questions to go unanswered, the more people are going to become suspicious. I don't claim to know much about what actually has transpired, but I don't think we're being given anywhere near the full scoop.

5/4/2011 1:26:42 PM

I find it both hilarious and sad that we are actually debating this.

5/4/2011 1:31:43 PM

Why? Have you not been paying attention to the coverage on this? The story has changed multiple times. Why are you so eager to establish a "consensus"?

5/4/2011 1:34:47 PM

So far, the details that have changed have been inconsequential and wholly attributable to the fog of war.

Maybe when the story changes from "Team of Navy Seals kills Bin Laden; no civillian casualties" to "Bin Laden survives Tomahawk missile; massive civillian casualties" I will disapprove.

5/4/2011 1:58:12 PM

^
Fog of war doesn't persist through captured video.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8490856/Osama-bin-Laden-dead-how-Barack-Obama-and-the-White-House-watched.html

5/4/2011 2:07:12 PM

This man is responsible for the death of thousands of people around the world, and inspired the deaths of many tens of thousands. The people living in that compound, except perhaps some young children, did so voluntarily, knew the risks, and were in any case supporting him. My only concern is for the children, supposing there were any. Beyond that, they could have bombed the place into oblivion and still easily have been in the right.

5/4/2011 2:16:41 PM

To be fair, Bush is responsible for many more civilian deaths than Osama ever was. Brown skilled civilians, though, so they're inherently less valuable.

5/4/2011 2:51:00 PM

Quote :

"To be fair, Bush is responsible for many more civilian deaths than Osama ever was. Brown skilled civilians, though, so they're inherently less valuable."

I said the same thing to lazarus the yesterday. He'll just come back with some rhetoric about how it was necessary for peace and not respond directly to the amount of civilian casualties we've caused.

Quote :

"Certainly tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans would still be alive if bin Ladenists and other extremist groups didn't insist on turning those countries into war zones. The US and its allies have been trying for nearly a decade to prop up stable, relatively democratic regimes that don't abuse human rights as a matter of doctrine, and leave. It's the Fascists like bin Laden who insist that the blood keep flowing. That we don't melt away and allow them to regain control, thus repeating the mistakes of 90s, is a good thing for both Muslims and the West. There is no peace, either for us or for Muslims, in a world in which these groups have a foothold."

5/4/2011 2:56:16 PM

It's now official: the world will not be given any proof of Bin Laden's death, because the blowback might be greater than any perceived benefit. If only that rationale could be applied to U.S. foreign policy.

5/4/2011 2:59:24 PM

Quote :

"Fog of war doesn't persist through captured video."

It can persist through first person experience. Do you want to get into this argument? Maybe the video clearly shows what was going on, maybe not. I've seen plenty of helmet-cams, and rarely do they show anything but a blur unless someone is standing still.

Besides what the government releases, there is very little concrete evidence available from which to form opinions. Arguing about petty details isn't doing any good.

^Its a shame. I think they'll change their mind eventually, once private media and political pundits whip up the drama.

[Edited on May 4, 2011 at 3:16 PM. Reason : .]

5/4/2011 3:13:43 PM

^^^ Clearly no difference between accidental and intentional civilian deaths. Nevermind placing the blame at the feet of the people using civilians as human shields.

5/4/2011 3:19:19 PM

Well mark me down for one of the guys saying 'Well done'


Motherfucker.

5/4/2011 3:23:53 PM

^^How do you think you would feel if a foreign military invaded your country and accidently killed your family? Would you care that their deaths were accidental while the invasion itself wasn't?

[Edited on May 4, 2011 at 3:45 PM. Reason : ]

5/4/2011 3:32:38 PM

Quote :

"It can persist through first person experience. Do you want to get into this argument? Maybe the video clearly shows what was going on, maybe not. I've seen plenty of helmet-cams, and rarely do they show anything but a blur unless someone is standing still. Besides what the government releases, there is very little concrete evidence available from which to form opinions. Arguing about petty details isn't doing any good."

Of course there is no concrete evidence, but for me, the details are fishy. The government has a broad history of lying to the public.

5/4/2011 3:42:06 PM

^^ I'd direct my hatred towards those responsible, which would be my own government.

And I'd feel differently about my family being accidently killed vs. being targeted.

[Edited on May 4, 2011 at 3:59 PM. Reason : .]

5/4/2011 3:57:00 PM

That's bullshit and you know it.

5/4/2011 4:08:58 PM

Quote :

"^^ I'd direct my hatred towards those responsible, which would be my own government."

A US Christian terrorist organization attacks Iran, killing 2000 people.

Iran retaliates by beginning an illegal war on Christian terrorists within the United States.

The civilian death toll gradually rises into the tens of thousands, with some estimates in the hundreds of thousands.

Your town is located nearby a suspected terrorist hideout. Iran scatters missiles, hitting its target, but also your town. You escape, but your entire family is killed, your home is destroyed, and you are blinded by shrapnel. No apology is issued. It was considered a necessary action to protect Iran and it's allies.

Who are you angry at?

5/4/2011 4:17:32 PM

Don't forget that Iran trained and equipped the US Christian terrorist organization.

Not that this isn't a stupid discussion

5/4/2011 4:56:34 PM

To even attempt at a response at that weak hypothetical, you'd have to throw in more bullshit to equate US government/leadership to Iraqi/Afghan (no clue which "illegal" war you're referring to) at the time. Which, as it stands, makes no sense nor does it address my original point.

Inadvertent civilian deaths != Intentional civilian deaths.

[Edited on May 4, 2011 at 4:59 PM. Reason : .]

5/4/2011 4:58:39 PM

Quote :

"Don't forget that Iran trained and equipped the US Christian terrorist organization."

Good call

Quote :

"To even attempt at a response at that weak hypothetical, you'd have to throw in more bullshit to equate US government/leadership to Iraqi/Afghan (no clue which "illegal" war you're referring to) at the time. Which, as it stands, makes no sense nor does it address my original point. "

Haha, how is it a weak hypothetical? It's exactly what happened to Afghanistan. I tried to dumb it down for you to understand, since you apparently are unable to put yourself in the shoes of an Afghan.

Quote :

"Inadvertent civilian deaths != Intentional civilian deaths."

They aren't inadvertent civilian deaths. They are a by-product of the war that is openly accepted by the US military, similar to how the deaths in the World Trade Center were a by-product of the terrorist attempt to cripple the US.

[Edited on May 4, 2011 at 5:06 PM. Reason : .]

5/4/2011 5:05:48 PM