OSAMA IS DEAD, DEAD, DEAD!!!!

Message boards : Politics : OSAMA IS DEAD, DEAD, DEAD!!!!
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Jim_S
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 00
Posts: 4699
Credit: 56,090,811
RAC: 19,906
United States
Message 1103967 - Posted: 6 May 2011, 21:08:56 UTC

It seems to be time to "REMIND FOLKS" even in the "Politics" Thread to "Play Nice".

I Desire Peace and Justice, Jim Scott (Mod-Ret.)
ID: 1103967 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2345
Credit: 13,482,624
RAC: 10,792
Canada
Message 1103979 - Posted: 6 May 2011, 21:34:55 UTC

Agreed, let's get back to the Bin Man...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-media-consortium/weekly-diaspora-what-home_b_858368.html
I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.
ID: 1103979 · Report as offensive
keith

Send message
Joined: 18 Dec 10
Posts: 454
Credit: 9,054
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1104023 - Posted: 7 May 2011, 3:19:34 UTC - in response to Message 1102619.  
Last modified: 7 May 2011, 3:20:37 UTC

Waiting on the president to give a statement, but it is being reported that Osama bin Laden is dead by an US military assest. And we have the body.!!!


Oh dear. The UN has announced it's displeasure at the legality of the killing. Michael Moore is upset also. Whatever will we do?
ID: 1104023 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 23617
Credit: 40,169,982
RAC: 26,019
United States
Message 1104034 - Posted: 7 May 2011, 3:46:41 UTC - in response to Message 1104023.  

Oh dear. The UN has announced it's displeasure at the legality of the killing. Michael Moore is upset also. Whatever will we do?

Drag them to The Hague and find out once and for all if targeted assassination is legal.

ID: 1104034 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10872
Credit: 350,274
RAC: 64
Canada
Message 1104042 - Posted: 7 May 2011, 5:03:27 UTC - in response to Message 1104034.  

Oh dear. The UN has announced it's displeasure at the legality of the killing. Michael Moore is upset also. Whatever will we do?

Drag them to The Hague and find out once and for all if targeted assassination is legal.

I suppose it's ok as long as you're not the one being targeted.

Of course that is what due process is about. To stop governments deciding arbitrarily who needs to be removed. I hope questions are asked about the legality.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1104042 · Report as offensive
Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2932
Credit: 14,651,389
RAC: 5,903
United States
Message 1104054 - Posted: 7 May 2011, 7:27:16 UTC - in response to Message 1104042.  
Last modified: 7 May 2011, 7:31:23 UTC

Oh dear. The UN has announced it's displeasure at the legality of the killing. Michael Moore is upset also. Whatever will we do?

Drag them to The Hague and find out once and for all if targeted assassination is legal.

I suppose it's ok as long as you're not the one being targeted.

Of course that is what due process is about. To stop governments deciding arbitrarily who needs to be removed. I hope questions are asked about the legality.

This isn't a due process analysis. Certain Constitutional rights, like the right to counsel, the right against self incrimination, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure and due process are terms of art that are applied by courts of law. Taking out Bin Laden breaks all kinds of civil and criminal laws, but as it was a military operation, due process and the other rights I mentioned are not directly applicable.

A different question is whether we had the right to invade another country's borders, as we did in Cuba (Bay of Pigs), Panama (capture of Noriega), Libya (cruise missiles for Qaddafi), Afghanistan (cruise missiles for Bin Laden)*, etc. I lean to the view that we were justified in going into Pakistan for this purpose, but the legality is not clear cut. Discussion anyone?

*[Edit]: I left the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan off the above list as those wars were approved by Congress.
ID: 1104054 · Report as offensive
Profile Jim_S
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 00
Posts: 4699
Credit: 56,090,811
RAC: 19,906
United States
Message 1104448 - Posted: 8 May 2011, 18:27:36 UTC

Keep This To An ON TOPIC DEBATE!

I Desire Peace and Justice, Jim Scott (Mod-Ret.)
ID: 1104448 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10872
Credit: 350,274
RAC: 64
Canada
Message 1104474 - Posted: 8 May 2011, 19:29:33 UTC - in response to Message 1104054.  

Oh dear. The UN has announced it's displeasure at the legality of the killing. Michael Moore is upset also. Whatever will we do?

Drag them to The Hague and find out once and for all if targeted assassination is legal.

I suppose it's ok as long as you're not the one being targeted.

Of course that is what due process is about. To stop governments deciding arbitrarily who needs to be removed. I hope questions are asked about the legality.

This isn't a due process analysis. Certain Constitutional rights, like the right to counsel, the right against self incrimination, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure and due process are terms of art that are applied by courts of law. Taking out Bin Laden breaks all kinds of civil and criminal laws, but as it was a military operation, due process and the other rights I mentioned are not directly applicable.

A different question is whether we had the right to invade another country's borders, as we did in Cuba (Bay of Pigs), Panama (capture of Noriega), Libya (cruise missiles for Qaddafi), Afghanistan (cruise missiles for Bin Laden)*, etc. I lean to the view that we were justified in going into Pakistan for this purpose, but the legality is not clear cut. Discussion anyone?

*[Edit]: I left the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan off the above list as those wars were approved by Congress.

and what about international law or the sovereign law of Pakistan? As you pointed out, the US isn't at war with Pakistan. I am sure that the US would object if other countries crossed the US border to assassinate people that they didn't like, however justified.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1104474 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 23617
Credit: 40,169,982
RAC: 26,019
United States
Message 1104499 - Posted: 8 May 2011, 21:15:58 UTC - in response to Message 1104054.  

There seem to be several issues here about the legality:

1) The sovereignty of Pakistan

2) Is the USA at war with al Queda, do rules of war apply

3) Going after a specific person in war

4) After you are in someone's bedroom and he is unarmed, can you just shoot or do you have a moral duty to ask him to surrender first

4A) Does this change if you are standing on neutral soil

4B) Does this change after you have shot his wife, a civilian

5) If you have an arrest warrant for a specific individual, is that inferior or superior to war status

6) Did the seal in the bedroom even speak the same language as bin Laden


ID: 1104499 · Report as offensive
Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2932
Credit: 14,651,389
RAC: 5,903
United States
Message 1104617 - Posted: 9 May 2011, 8:26:14 UTC - in response to Message 1104474.  

This isn't a due process analysis. Certain Constitutional rights, like the right to counsel, the right against self incrimination, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure and due process are terms of art that are applied by courts of law. Taking out Bin Laden breaks all kinds of civil and criminal laws, but as it was a military operation, due process and the other rights I mentioned are not directly applicable.

A different question is whether we had the right to invade another country's borders, as we did in Cuba (Bay of Pigs), Panama (capture of Noriega), Libya (cruise missiles for Qaddafi), Afghanistan (cruise missiles for Bin Laden)*, etc. I lean to the view that we were justified in going into Pakistan for this purpose, but the legality is not clear cut. Discussion anyone?

*[Edit]: I left the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan off the above list as those wars were approved by Congress.

and what about international law or the sovereign law of Pakistan? As you pointed out, the US isn't at war with Pakistan. I am sure that the US would object if other countries crossed the US border to assassinate people that they didn't like, however justified.

I agree; and the US did object to such an attack in 2001. Though not a country, Al Qaeda sent their teams into the US to commandeer four aircraft and murder American citizens without any declaration of war on us or by us. Our response was to declare war on terrorists and countries whose official policy was to harbor such terrorists. I hope President Obama took into consideration that Pakistan might break off relations with us and declare war on us as a result of our raid into Abbottabad.

But this case is somewhat different from the 9/11/2001 attacks. Pakistan is our "ally"; we give them billions in military/economic aid to prosecute the war on terror; a mutual enemy (Bin Laden) went uncaptured in Pakistan for years, perhaps with some local Pakistani support; and we have the resources to conduct the investigation and raid that led to Bin Laden's demise. To some extent, these differences justify our action, but they also make a declaration of war by Pakistan unlikely.
ID: 1104617 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,436,947
RAC: 0
Burma
Message 1104631 - Posted: 9 May 2011, 12:27:59 UTC - in response to Message 1104617.  

my problem with the nation of Pakistan is that the areas that the Taliban fighters train and hang out is the tribal area which has little if no gov't presence. To say those areas are Pakistan is to say silly. they are ungoverned areas. Osama was killed in an city that should have known something was wrong when the mansion he was living in was built.

The US has had a problem with enemies running across internation borders since the Korean war. fighters and combatants should be pursued to their death. Heck most people recall that the Vietcong were using Laos as a spring board and safe haven to transport its warring materials south without having to be bombed by the US planes. In Korea we had divisions of Korean soldiers and fighter planes hiding behind the chinese border. I think its time we said enough and just go after the bad guys.
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1104631 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 23617
Credit: 40,169,982
RAC: 26,019
United States
Message 1104643 - Posted: 9 May 2011, 13:58:16 UTC - in response to Message 1104631.  

my problem with the nation of Pakistan is that the areas that the Taliban fighters train and hang out is the tribal area which has little if no gov't presence. To say those areas are Pakistan is to say silly. they are ungoverned areas. Osama was killed in an city that should have known something was wrong when the mansion he was living in was built.

Are you saying that there are no local Bill Gates types in Pakistan who could legitimately want such a residence? The tip off was what wasn't there, not what was there. No landline phones or internet. Who checks for that?


ID: 1104643 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,436,947
RAC: 0
Burma
Message 1104653 - Posted: 9 May 2011, 15:09:07 UTC - in response to Message 1104643.  

my problem with the nation of Pakistan is that the areas that the Taliban fighters train and hang out is the tribal area which has little if no gov't presence. To say those areas are Pakistan is to say silly. they are ungoverned areas. Osama was killed in an city that should have known something was wrong when the mansion he was living in was built.

Are you saying that there are no local Bill Gates types in Pakistan who could legitimately want such a residence? The tip off was what wasn't there, not what was there. No landline phones or internet. Who checks for that?


Lets see. hmmm No electricity, sewer, water, telephone or internet access to the mansion. I doubt Bill gates would want it. Someone looking to be anonymous and hide would. Hmm Who would want to hide in that area.. Oh yeah Osama
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1104653 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10872
Credit: 350,274
RAC: 64
Canada
Message 1104655 - Posted: 9 May 2011, 15:12:52 UTC - in response to Message 1104617.  

This isn't a due process analysis. Certain Constitutional rights, like the right to counsel, the right against self incrimination, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure and due process are terms of art that are applied by courts of law. Taking out Bin Laden breaks all kinds of civil and criminal laws, but as it was a military operation, due process and the other rights I mentioned are not directly applicable.

A different question is whether we had the right to invade another country's borders, as we did in Cuba (Bay of Pigs), Panama (capture of Noriega), Libya (cruise missiles for Qaddafi), Afghanistan (cruise missiles for Bin Laden)*, etc. I lean to the view that we were justified in going into Pakistan for this purpose, but the legality is not clear cut. Discussion anyone?

*[Edit]: I left the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan off the above list as those wars were approved by Congress.

and what about international law or the sovereign law of Pakistan? As you pointed out, the US isn't at war with Pakistan. I am sure that the US would object if other countries crossed the US border to assassinate people that they didn't like, however justified.

I agree; and the US did object to such an attack in 2001. Though not a country, Al Qaeda sent their teams into the US to commandeer four aircraft and murder American citizens without any declaration of war on us or by us. Our response was to declare war on terrorists and countries whose official policy was to harbor such terrorists. I hope President Obama took into consideration that Pakistan might break off relations with us and declare war on us as a result of our raid into Abbottabad.

But this case is somewhat different from the 9/11/2001 attacks. Pakistan is our "ally"; we give them billions in military/economic aid to prosecute the war on terror; a mutual enemy (Bin Laden) went uncaptured in Pakistan for years, perhaps with some local Pakistani support; and we have the resources to conduct the investigation and raid that led to Bin Laden's demise. To some extent, these differences justify our action, but they also make a declaration of war by Pakistan unlikely.

Right. Exactly similar to way the US did not declare war on Saudi Arabia even though that is where the terrorists came from.

Perhaps likewise Pakistan will use the raids by the US to justify a war in a totally different country.

Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1104655 · Report as offensive
Profile Chris S Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 40777
Credit: 41,422,439
RAC: 1,236
United Kingdom
Message 1104657 - Posted: 9 May 2011, 15:13:17 UTC

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Pakistan Special forces or their secret service were pretty much aware he was in Pakistan, even if the Government were deliberately kept in the dark.

If they had known, and tipped off the Americans they could have been facing Al Qaeda reprisals. They might also face international condemnation if it turned out they did know but did nothing. Hence the robust denials of any knowlege.

We could see this again if Gaddaffi is declared a war criminal and goes into hiding in another country. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
ID: 1104657 · Report as offensive
Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2932
Credit: 14,651,389
RAC: 5,903
United States
Message 1104702 - Posted: 9 May 2011, 18:44:14 UTC - in response to Message 1104655.  
Last modified: 9 May 2011, 18:59:28 UTC

I agree; and the US did object to such an attack in 2001. Though not a country, Al Qaeda sent their teams into the US to commandeer four aircraft and murder American citizens without any declaration of war on us or by us. Our response was to declare war on terrorists and countries whose official policy was to harbor such terrorists. I hope President Obama took into consideration that Pakistan might break off relations with us and declare war on us as a result of our raid into Abbottabad.

But this case is somewhat different from the 9/11/2001 attacks. Pakistan is our "ally"; we give them billions in military/economic aid to prosecute the war on terror; a mutual enemy (Bin Laden) went uncaptured in Pakistan for years, perhaps with some local Pakistani support; and we have the resources to conduct the investigation and raid that led to Bin Laden's demise. To some extent, these differences justify our action, but they also make a declaration of war by Pakistan unlikely.

Right. Exactly similar to way the US did not declare war on Saudi Arabia even though that is where the terrorists came from.

Perhaps likewise Pakistan will use the raids by the US to justify a war in a totally different country.

They very well might, and depending on the countries involved reactions will result that should be considered before deciding to make such a raid. My point is that, in spite of "International Law", the UN and world opinion, countries have been doing these cross-border raids since the beginning of history. I cited a few examples of US actions and others have noted some, but just about every president has ordered such raids to be carried out overtly or covertly.

The political costs of these raids show up in decisions by the affected countries to modify their relations with the US, take retaliatory actions and/or in political costs to the president who orders the action. Would we have mounted such a raid into Germany or China? Probably not since the consequences of doing so would be unacceptable. President Obama should have been aware of the consequences of the Pakistan raid and probably took them into consideration before ordering the raid on Bin Laden's compound. Was it legal? I don't know, but I think it was justified (and apparently most agree with me, for now).
ID: 1104702 · Report as offensive
Profile Aristoteles Doukas
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Apr 08
Posts: 1091
Credit: 2,140,913
RAC: 0
Finland
Message 1114727 - Posted: 8 Jun 2011, 18:09:29 UTC

ouch, you never get to the fake photos then?
shame on you.
ID: 1114727 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,436,947
RAC: 0
Burma
Message 1114771 - Posted: 8 Jun 2011, 19:19:53 UTC - in response to Message 1104702.  

I agree; and the US did object to such an attack in 2001. Though not a country, Al Qaeda sent their teams into the US to commandeer four aircraft and murder American citizens without any declaration of war on us or by us. Our response was to declare war on terrorists and countries whose official policy was to harbor such terrorists. I hope President Obama took into consideration that Pakistan might break off relations with us and declare war on us as a result of our raid into Abbottabad.

But this case is somewhat different from the 9/11/2001 attacks. Pakistan is our "ally"; we give them billions in military/economic aid to prosecute the war on terror; a mutual enemy (Bin Laden) went uncaptured in Pakistan for years, perhaps with some local Pakistani support; and we have the resources to conduct the investigation and raid that led to Bin Laden's demise. To some extent, these differences justify our action, but they also make a declaration of war by Pakistan unlikely.

Right. Exactly similar to way the US did not declare war on Saudi Arabia even though that is where the terrorists came from.

Perhaps likewise Pakistan will use the raids by the US to justify a war in a totally different country.

They very well might, and depending on the countries involved reactions will result that should be considered before deciding to make such a raid. My point is that, in spite of "International Law", the UN and world opinion, countries have been doing these cross-border raids since the beginning of history. I cited a few examples of US actions and others have noted some, but just about every president has ordered such raids to be carried out overtly or covertly.

The political costs of these raids show up in decisions by the affected countries to modify their relations with the US, take retaliatory actions and/or in political costs to the president who orders the action. Would we have mounted such a raid into Germany or China? Probably not since the consequences of doing so would be unacceptable. President Obama should have been aware of the consequences of the Pakistan raid and probably took them into consideration before ordering the raid on Bin Laden's compound. Was it legal? I don't know, but I think it was justified (and apparently most agree with me, for now).

We are also dealing with a country that cannot actively enforce its power over its own people. The tribal lands are just that. Tribal. To say its Pakistan is to assume they can collect taxes and hold elections in those areas. I don't think China or Germany have this problem. Now you could say there are areas of the US where the Gov't can't go but not china or germany
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1114771 · Report as offensive
Profile Aristoteles Doukas
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Apr 08
Posts: 1091
Credit: 2,140,913
RAC: 0
Finland
Message 1115137 - Posted: 9 Jun 2011, 17:47:47 UTC
Last modified: 9 Jun 2011, 17:54:39 UTC

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ME04Ak01.html

valid points here.
i still can´t understand why usa started war with iraq after iraq was usa´s best friend in -80 in middle-east, and had nothing to do with 9/11.
ID: 1115137 · Report as offensive
Profile Robert Waite
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 07
Posts: 2345
Credit: 13,482,624
RAC: 10,792
Canada
Message 1115220 - Posted: 9 Jun 2011, 21:19:06 UTC

If your country possesses resources in any abundance, your country is on the list of targets.
Does anyone truly believe there isn't an invasion plan for Canada in some vault in the pentagon?
I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.
ID: 1115220 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · Next

Message boards : Politics : OSAMA IS DEAD, DEAD, DEAD!!!!


 
©2018 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.