Breaking News: Osama Bin Laden Is Dead! - Part 4

Do you believe that Osama Bin Laden's killing was legal?

  • Yes

  • No

  • It honestly doesn't matter to me if it's legal or not. It's what needed to be done.


Results are only viewable after voting.
That is dependent upon whether you believe Osama Bin Laden was a 'military commander' or was in fact just the public face of Al-Qaeda, I happen to believe the latter and therefore do not believe that the assassination was legally justifiable.

You can believe that if you want, but it's wrong.

Bin Laden directed Al Qaeda from Compound

Key quotes:

"This compound in Abbottabad was an active command-and-control centre for Al Qaeda's top leader and it is clear... that he was not just a strategic thinker for the group," the official said.

...

"The materials reviewed over the past several days clearly show that bin Laden remained an active leader in Al Qaeda, providing strategic, operational and tactical instructions to the group," the official said.

"He was far from a figurehead. He was an active player, making the recent operation even more essential for our nation's security."
 
.Maybe the Pakistani government should want to root out the militants so they don't have the CIA breathing down their neck and, more importantly, they can keep their citizens safe?

Wait what's that?

PAKISTANI GENERAL BALKS AT US DEMANDS TO COOPERATE, PLANS TO DO JUST ENOUGH TO NOT LOSE FOREIGN AIDE
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/world/asia/13pakistan.html?_r=1&ref=world

Well I guess not. In which case they better be prepared for more drone strikes and possible SEAL teams if that intelligence (hopefully) leads to some important intel. If we can wipe out most of al-Qaeda's leadership in Pakistan in the next few months, there would be no reason to stay in Afghanistan I would think
 
That is dependent upon whether you believe Osama Bin Laden was a 'military commander' or was in fact just the public face of Al-Qaeda, I happen to believe the latter and therefore do not believe that the assassination was legally justifiable.



When you claim to be a nation that believes in democracy and the rule of law, sometimes you have to accept things that don't seem 'fair'.

and that what you are confusing....9/11 wasnt a crime...it was an act of war. This isnt an episode of Law and Order. Bin Laden would be alive right now if he raised his hand to give up. He didnt do that and paid the consequences.
 
.Maybe the Pakistani government should want to root out the militants so they don't have the CIA breathing down their neck and, more importantly, they can keep their citizens safe?

Wait what's that?

PAKISTANI GENERAL BALKS AT US DEMANDS TO COOPERATE, PLANS TO DO JUST ENOUGH TO NOT LOSE FOREIGN AIDE
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/world/asia/13pakistan.html?_r=1&ref=world

Well I guess not. In which case they better be prepared for more drone strikes and possible SEAL teams if that intelligence (hopefully) leads to some important intel. If we can wipe out most of al-Qaeda's leadership in Pakistan in the next few months, there would be no reason to stay in Afghanistan I would think

Well, then I would tell them to say adios to said foreign aide....
 
and that what you are confusing....9/11 wasnt a crime...it was an act of war. This isnt an episode of Law and Order. Bin Laden would be alive right now if he raised his hand to give up. He didnt do that and paid the consequences.

Remind me again which head of state declared war on the United States?

It was a criminal act.

Do not misunderstand me in the slightest, I did not shed a single tear when I heard of Osama Bin Laden's assassination but I believe that no country should be above the rule of international law.
 
When you claim to be a nation that believes in democracy and the rule of law, sometimes you have to accept things that don't seem 'fair'.

Please tell that to the families of 9/11 victims. Don't be surprised if you have to duck a few punches as soon as the words leave your mouth.

Your problem is that you look at this as a crime, and not what it was: an act of war. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization, who seeks harbor in many countries. The countries that harbor them willingly should be the ones under the microscope, not the country trying to fight them. Maybe the countries that harbor them should just accept that it's 'unfair' that the United States will come in, and conduct operations to get rid of Al Qaeda members rather than tell its own citizens to just accept the unfairness of it all.
 
Last edited:
Remind me again which head of state declared war on the United States?

It was a criminal act.

Do not misunderstand me in the slightest, I did not shed a single tear when I heard of Osama Bin Laden's assassination but I believe that no country should be above the rule of international law.

you dont need a head of state to declare war. What head of state declared war against Quadafi...just some rebels.
What head of state declared war against Lincoln to start the Civil War?
What head of state declared war against England to start the Revolutionary War?

What International Law was broken?
 
Definition of War:War is an openly declared state of organized conflict, typified by extreme aggression, societal disruption, and high mortality. As a behavior pattern, warlike tendencies are found in many primate species, including humans, and also found in many ant species. The set of techniques used by a group to carry out war is known as warfare. When there is an absence of war, it is called peace.
War generally involves two or more organized groups or parties (often, nations).
 
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/04/bin.laden.legal/index.html?eref=edition


"Attorney General Eric Holder told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that the U.S. raid on bin Laden's compound was lawful "as an act of national self-defense."
Bin Laden "was the head of al Qaeda, an organization that had conducted the attacks of September the 11th," Holder said. "It's lawful to target an enemy commander in the field."
The raid "was conducted in a manner fully consistent with the laws of war," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters. Carney declined to offer specifics, but said "there is simply no question that this operation was lawful. ... (Bin Laden) had continued to plot attacks against the United States."

"The authority (during the raid) was to kill bin Laden," CIA Director Leon Panetta said Tuesday during an interview with PBS. "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. But they had full authority to kill him."
 
Please tell that to the families of 9/11 victims. Don't be surprised if you have to duck a few punches as soon as the words leave your mouth.

Your problem is that you look at this as a crime, and not what it was: an act of war. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization, who seeks harbor in many countries. The countries that harbor them willingly should be the ones under the microscope, not the country trying to fight them. Maybe the countries that harbor them should just accept that it's 'unfair' that the United States will come in, and conduct operations to get rid of Al Qaeda members rather than tell its own citizens to just accept the unfairness of it all.

I would not hesitate to do so, I promise you that much.

No, your problem is that you believe that because a country does not at once present these terrorists to the United States tied up in a pretty red ribbon that somehow justifies a full scale invasion.

And who ends up paying the price for it? Innocent people, on both sides. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians have been killed during this War on Terror, further marginalizing the people in the Middle East; who are largely unsupportive of Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda in the first place.

Organisations like Al-Qaeda will never be beaten this way.

you dont need a head of state to declare war. What head of state declared war against Quadafi...just some rebels.
What head of state declared war against Lincoln to start the Civil War?
What head of state declared war against England to start the Revolutionary War?

What International Law was broken?

I casnnot profess to be an expert on either the Civil War or the Revolutionary War (we aren't taught about it on this side of the pond, for obvious reasons: we lost), but I'm a little confused as to why you would choose domestic struggles, civil wars, to attempt to illustrate your point?

Also, I believe the Hague Conventions (III) of 1907 touches upon when and where the declaration of war is deemed necessary in order for a warm to be considered legal; if I am not mistake within it, it's stated that declarations of war by terrorist organisations without any democratic mandate and therefore any further attacks are considered illegal.

It's been a long while since I've read up on it, so I could be wrong.

Definition of War:War is an openly declared state of organized conflict, typified by extreme aggression, societal disruption, and high mortality. As a behavior pattern, warlike tendencies are found in many primate species, including humans, and also found in many ant species. The set of techniques used by a group to carry out war is known as warfare. When there is an absence of war, it is called peace.
War generally involves two or more organized groups or parties (often, nations).

I am not saying that wars can not physically happen without expressed declaration from a head of state (or an elected chamber), I'm merely questioning the legality of war without it.

That's why I see 9/11 as a criminal act, not an act of war.
 
I think they should release Osama's porn collection. :woot:
 
Last edited:
You are convoluting the definition of "act of war", roach, with something else. An act of war is generally considered an act of aggression by one country against another who is considered to be at peace. Acts of war and declarations of war are done by countries. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization beholden to no single country. The attacks that occurred on 9/11 were more criminal acts than "acts of war". That being said, we (the United States) as a country declared war on a philosophy (terrorism) when it could have just as easily been handled as a police and we went after Osama Bin Laden as a combatant in that war, which made him fair game to kill if he did not surrender.
 
I think they should release Osama's porn collection. :woot:

Evidently, he had a fairly high tolerance for certain forms of "Western perversions." Or maybe he was doing research. ;)

I imagine, though, that most of what Osama liked are the things you find on the "Miscellaneous Interest" wall of your local porn merchant. :barf:
 
You are convoluting the definition of "act of war", roach, with something else. An act of war is generally considered an act of aggression by one country against another who is considered to be at peace. Acts of war and declarations of war are done by countries. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization beholden to no single country. The attacks that occurred on 9/11 were more criminal acts than "acts of war". That being said, we (the United States) as a country declared war on a philosophy (terrorism) when it could have just as easily been handled as a police and we went after Osama Bin Laden as a combatant in that war, which made him fair game to kill if he did not surrender.

So the colonies were a country when we went to war against England??

You are holding to an outdated definition of war that didnt take into account terror organizations.

this is the definition of and act of war taken from the US Code:Title 18, Part 1,Ch113B, § 2331
4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of—
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
(C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin
 
Last edited:
Rules on the use of deadly force for military:

1. DEFINITIONS

a. Deadly Force. Force that a person uses causing, or that a person knows or should know would create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily harm.

b. Serious Bodily Harm. Does not include minor injuries, such as a black eye or a bloody nose, but does include fractured or dislocated bones, deep cuts, torn members of the body, serious damage to the internal organs, and other life-threatening injuries. Serious bodily harm can be applied to a person in several stages of the ladder of force. Specifically, unarmed self-defense, impact weapons and small arms fire may result in serious bodily harm.

c. Force. The amount of verbal persuasion and/or physical gestures/contact needed to gain control over a person or to direct an individual.

2. JUSTIFICATION. Deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity and as a last resort when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. Deadly force is justified under one or more of the following circumstances:

a. Self Defense and Defense of Others When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect law enforcement or security personnel who reasonably believe themselves or others to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

b. Assets Involving National Security. When deadly force reasonably appears necessary to prevent the actual theft or sabotage of assets vital to national security. DoD assets shall be specifically designated as "vital to national security" only when their loss, damage, or compromise would seriously jeopardize the fulfillment of a national defense mission. Examples include nuclear weapons; nuclear command, control, and communications facilities; and designated restricted areas containing strategic operational assets, sensitive codes, or special access programs.

c. Assets Not Involving National Security but Inherently Dangerous to Others. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the actual theft or sabotage of resources, such as operable weapons or ammunition, that are inherently dangerous to others; i.e., assets that, in the hands of an unauthorized individual, present a substantial potential danger of death or serious bodily harm to others. Examples include high-risk portable and lethal missiles, rockets, arms, ammunition, explosives, chemical agents, and special nuclear material.

d. Serious Offenses Against Persons. When deadly force reasonably appears necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense involving violence and threatening death or serious bodily harm. Examples include murder, armed robbery, and aggravated assault.

e. Arrest or Apprehension. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to arrest, apprehend, or prevent the escape of a person who, there is probable cause to believe they have committed an offense of the nature specified in subsections 2a through 2d above.

f. Escapes. When deadly force has been specifically authorized by the Heads of the DoD Components and reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the escape of a prisoner, provided law enforcement or security personnel have probable cause to believe that the escaping prisoner poses a threat of serious bodily harm either to security personnel or others.

3. DEADLY FORCE PRE-CONDITIONS. Before using deadly force against another individual to prevent serous bodily harm of death to yourself or others, all of the following pre-conditions must be met. Without all of the pre-conditions satisfied, you are applying excessive force and are subject to punishment under the UCMJ. Presence of these pre-conditions authorizes the use of deadly force:

a. OPPORTUNITY: In order for a person to have the ability to inflict damage or serious bodily harm, he or she must be present or in place.

b. CAPABILITY: Capability would be present if the individual possesses the actual ability to inflict serious bodily injury/death.

c. INTENT: A hostile or dangerous person must clearly indicate the INTENT to cause damage to protected resources, or bodily harm to others. Are they actually aiming a weapon or other dangerous object in a fashion that is capable of, and is obviously being used with the intention of, inflicting damage or serious bodily harm to persons.
 
Last edited:
There's nothing more reasonable that taking your anger out at the United States by killing your own people. :dry:

if they keep it up they may kill more terrorists not hiding in their country
 
How about we ask the people that have fought and died for the right to a fair trial over the last century whether it should be taken away and see what they have to say?

I have......this was justified.....
 
There's nothing more reasonable than taking your anger out at the United States by killing your own people. :dry:

I'll fill you in on something.....


The US isn't the only country Al-Qaida targets.
 
I'll fill you in on something.....


The US isn't the only country Al-Qaida targets.

And I'll fill you in on something.....

Bin Laden's mission was to destroy the United States and the Western World. The suicide bombing today does not fall into either of those categories.
 
And I'll fill you in on something.....

Bin Laden's mission was to destroy the United States and the Western World. The suicide bombing today does not fall into either of those categories.


They hate "western influence". You should know that.
 
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"