British Expats

British Expats (https://britishexpats.com/forum/)
-   The Maple Leaf (https://britishexpats.com/forum/maple-leaf-98/)
-   -   Bin Laden dead (https://britishexpats.com/forum/maple-leaf-98/bin-laden-dead-715361/)

JamesM May 6th 2011 8:16 am

Re: Bin Laden dead
 

Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 9347904)
No. But as 9/11 occurred in the US it is appropriate that US law should apply.

What about 7/7 and the Spanish train bombings?

Oink May 6th 2011 8:18 am

Re: Bin Laden dead
 

Originally Posted by JamesM (Post 9348004)
What about 7/7 and the Spanish train bombings?

The UK and Spain?

JamesM May 6th 2011 8:19 am

Re: Bin Laden dead
 

Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 9347944)
This is the US governments position. If the US government doesn't have the first idea what they were sent to do then who the **** does? This isn't some operational secret - somebody gave the orders. Those orders should be known to the public as the military does actually have civilian oversight - or at least it bloody well should.

In essence you agree with Wikileaks. All of that top secret information belongs in the public domain...........

JamesM May 6th 2011 8:20 am

Re: Bin Laden dead
 

Originally Posted by Oink (Post 9348008)
The UK and Spain?

Yes.

ANd Bali too- weren't alot of Australians blown up in OBL's name.

Just trying to figure out whose democracy he should've been tried under.

Oink May 6th 2011 8:28 am

Re: Bin Laden dead
 

Originally Posted by JamesM (Post 9348004)
What about 7/7 and the Spanish train bombings?


Originally Posted by JamesM (Post 9348011)
Yes.

ANd Bali too- weren't alot of Australians blown up in OBL's name.

Just trying to figure out whose democracy he should've been tried under.

He could have be tried in all of them. What's your point?

jericho May 6th 2011 8:31 am

Re: Bin Laden dead
 

Originally Posted by Oink (Post 9348026)
He could have be tried in all of them. What's your point?

But, not wanting to repeat myself, who was going to arrest him?
The Pakistanis?

Greenhill May 6th 2011 8:31 am

Re: Bin Laden dead
 
I'm posting this as I don't recall anyone else mentioning it on this thread (apologies if it was already stated but I missed it). They're labeling the killing as "justified as an act of national self-defence".


U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said bin Laden was a legitimate military target and he had made no attempt to surrender to the American forces that stormed his fortified compound near Islamabad on Monday, and shot him in the head.

"It was justified as an act of national self-defence," Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee, citing bin Laden's admission of being involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

It was lawful to target bin Laden because he was the enemy commander in the field and the operation was conducted in a way that was consistent with U.S. laws and values, he said, adding that it was a "kill or capture mission."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13302479

http://africa.ibtimes.com/articles/1...lf-defence.htm

magnumpi May 6th 2011 8:44 am

Re: Bin Laden dead
 
Can just see the "fair trial of asama bin ladan now"

A jury who would be un bias. Not likley

All the hours of video shown showing him ranting on about killing the westerners and jeehad on all non muslims.

The be heading in thw name of osama you tube movies.

What would the defence say on his behalf? "he was a good little boy who was brain washed and missled by a book."

It would never have had a good outcome either way.

Good ridence to a very bad bastard. Years overdue, he had a longer life than all the poor soles he had a hand in killing.

iaink May 6th 2011 8:46 am

Re: Bin Laden dead
 

Originally Posted by jericho (Post 9347970)
He wasnt in the US. He was (maybe) in Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or any number of other countries. So whose law does he get tried under?

Now you're suggesting it's OK for a team of commandos to fly in to another sovereign country, kidnap one of it's residents, and fly them off to the US where he will WITHOUT doubt be subject to all kinds of "interrogation" before facing perhaps the most unfair trial ever seen, and then kill him anyway.
How is this any better/moral then simply executing him?

I suppose the short answer is "Because its in line with the law as laid down in the USA, where the actual deaths occured."

Of course, in practical terms its a non starter as it would raise immediate red flags regarding the legality of his arrest, the absence of extradition proceedings etc etc etc, so legally it would perhaps have resulted on an aquital on a legal technicality.

Ive no problem with his death, Ive no problem with it having been ordered by the president, but I do have a problem with the fact its all been dressed up as something its wasnt.

Im not at all convinced that what happened was actually legal. Its the rule of law that gives a government the moral high ground, the rules are laid out in advance for all to see. Surely it would have been possible to frame the conflict with AlQuada and its named representatives in such a way that this would have simply been, as A-C states, a shooting in combat?

JamesM May 6th 2011 8:49 am

Re: Bin Laden dead
 

Originally Posted by Oink (Post 9348026)
He could have be tried in all of them. What's your point?

All these people keep referring to the US constitution.

The guy was an enemy of democracy full stop- all the mothers, fathers, sons and daughters who he slaughtered whilst they were going about their daily lives were not just in the US.

Whether war was officially declared or not (And I remember Bush declaring war on terror in a speech) this man was at war with all of us.

His actions of war and his own declarations of war as far as I am concerned are in line with the Law of Contract where if someone behaves like there is a contract then there is one.

He knew he was wanted dead or alive and he had 9 years to surrender but instead kept ordering his own kill missions with no regard for anyone.

In the end he himself was killed swifly and with little regard- he died by the sword he lived by. It is rediculous to assume that the most wanted man in the world was unarmed or would not have gone for a weapon had they not shot him.

The world is a better place now he is dead and I am grateful that a message has been sent to his brothers of Jihad (or what ever they call themselves) that they are marked men.

The man was guilty with no remorse and every intention to keep killing- there is a point where even the most politically correct do gooder needs to understand that some people are just psycopathic.

greentea3 May 6th 2011 8:50 am

Re: Bin Laden dead
 

Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 9347944)
This is the US governments position. If the US government doesn't have the first idea what they were sent to do then who the **** does? This isn't some operational secret - somebody gave the orders. Those orders should be known to the public as the military does actually have civilian oversight - or at least it bloody well should.

:rolleyes:

Here we go again.

So it's kind of back to the Assange thing again. You're demanding the right to know what the millitary does but let me guess, you wouldn't be happy for the public to know what you do and the choices you make and your income and what kegs you wear etc etc

Almost Canadian May 6th 2011 8:52 am

Re: Bin Laden dead
 

Originally Posted by Alan2005 (Post 9347939)
You telling me that the us crack commando's couldn't even attempt to take him alive?

They aren't Teletubbies, they are soldiers; specifically, they are soldiers trained for operations that are perceived to be too difficult for regulars.

I suspect that, if you asked them, they would say that they did what they had to. Maybe, you would prefer it if one of them had "bought it" to justify their action. They will be sleeping in their beds without regret.

The whole thing is analogous to the Rock of Gibraltar incident involving the Regiment.

Unfortunately and rarely, such action is required. If those bent on mass murder would paint themselves with a big red target, refuse to hide among civilians, put down their weapons when requested to do so and operate within the law that they expect to be applied to themselves, such action would not be required.

Here is a question for the hand wringers amonst us: Would it have been OK to shoot OBL had he been armed? Why?

iaink May 6th 2011 8:56 am

Re: Bin Laden dead
 

Originally Posted by greentea3 (Post 9348056)
:rolleyes:

Here we go again.

So it's kind of back to the Assange thing again. You're demanding the right to know what the millitary does but let me guess, you wouldn't be happy for the public to know what you do and the choices you make and your income and what kegs you were etc etc

If the democratically elected leader decided it was in the nations interest to go after OBL in the light of intelligence gathered, and he was acting within the law of the nation, what justification is there for not spelling that out?

If he ordered his death, then he should say so, and explain the legal justification if its in question. He should in short be accountable

If he didnt order his death, then there should be accountability for what happened.

I dont care about the nitty gritty classified details of the operation, but the actual orders given and the justification for them should be clear at least.

In short, there should be accountability, thats the difference between the actions of a democracy, and the likes of OBL.

JamesM May 6th 2011 9:01 am

Re: Bin Laden dead
 

Originally Posted by iaink (Post 9348071)
If the democratically elected leader decided it was in the nations interest to go after OBL in the light of intelligence gathered, and he was acting within the law of the nation, what justification is there for not spelling that out?

If he ordered his death, then he should say so, and explain the legal justification if its in question. He should in short be accountable

If he didnt order his death, then there should be accountability for what happened.

In short, there should be accountability, thats the difference between the actions of a democracy, and the likes of OBL.

Let's be honest Iain when have the United States ever been held accountable for anything????

But then it's easy to sit up here in Canada "The World's Peacekeeper" and be critical when it's known that big brother down south really deals with the problems.

Too many people on this forum have been hanging out with cradles too long.

Almost Canadian May 6th 2011 9:02 am

Re: Bin Laden dead
 

Originally Posted by iaink (Post 9348071)
If he ordered his death, then he should say so, and explain the legal justification if its in question. He should in short be accountable

If he didnt order his death, then there should be accountability for what happened.

I dont care about the nitty gritty details of the operation, but the actual orders given and the justification for them should be clear at least.

Here's a thought: Maybe intelligence came to the powers that be indicating where OBL was. The top levels of Government decided to task their armed forces to try and "arrest" him. The top brass called in their specialist unit and tasked them to do so. The senior people in specialist unit tasked a number of individuals to attempt the mission, leaving decisions as to how to do so to the team. The team on the ground reacted to what happened.

Some people, that had no real idea as to what happened, then start stating that this and that happened, all the while, the people that know aren't even questioned.

Bored people on internet fora come up with lots of flowery theories about what happened and get into petty arguments about who is correct ...


All times are GMT -12. The time now is 8:26 pm.

Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.