|
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.
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 |
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?
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? |
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 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. |
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. 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. |
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. 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 ... |
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by JamesM
(Post 9348082)
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. |
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by JamesM
(Post 9348052)
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. You dont think there is a danger that killing OBL might make the situation worse? After all, a western government taking unilateral action in a muslim state to kill a radical muslim pretty much backs up everything OBL said about the west, and is quite likely to create a whole bunch of other radical muslims hell bent on revenge for what they will see a martyr to the illegal high handed action of the infidel? Yes, some people are psychopaths, but last time I checked there was due legal process afforded to psychopaths before they got locked up to protect society, they are not just done away with cos its for the greater good. |
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by JamesM
(Post 9348009)
In essence you agree with Wikileaks. All of that top secret information belongs in the public domain...........
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 wear etc etc
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 9348066)
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? And as for this being out in the open. Yes, some things are required for operation secrecy etc, however the military takes it's orders from a civilian government. Somebody ok'd the operation to get him and what it would entail - this process and the decision made should be public. I don't get you people. It not only appears that you are willing to let the state perform extra-judicial killings, you are also happy for the military to conduct them in secret without the public ever being told about the aims or motives behind their operations. Does democracy mean nothing at all to you lot? |
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by JamesM
(Post 9348082)
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. They created the problem. Whether its communism or Islamism they need to demonize 'other' ideologies to justify their own. |
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by Alan2005
(Post 9348090)
Does not democracy mean nothing at all to you lot?
|
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by iaink
(Post 9348071)
In short, there should be accountability, thats the difference between the actions of a democracy, and the likes of OBL.
|
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 9348086)
Where does that title come from anyway? I have been a peacekeeper the world over, I never heard of it before I came here.
I do know back in the day Canada had the 4th largest army in the world......no doubt those were the days. |
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 9348085)
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 ... I notice "arrest" is in quote marks. It just beats me though what the legal grounds were. There was no state of war in existence to justify a military action, and no jurisdiction for the americans to make an arrest as far as I can tell. Unlike you though, I am not a lawyer. |
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by Oink
(Post 9348092)
They created the problem. Whether its communism or Islamism they need to demonize 'other' ideologies to justify their own.
|
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by Jingsamichty
(Post 9348093)
If you think you live in a democracy, it's you who's being the naive one, Alan.
|
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by Jingsamichty
(Post 9348093)
If you think you live in a democracy, it's you who's being the naive one, Alan.
|
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by Oink
(Post 9348106)
I don't think 'a democracy' exists as a one-best-system, its a process or a set of principles that simply means rule by the people/demos and not ruled by a single or even a few rich twats.
|
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by Jingsamichty
(Post 9348121)
I agree. And as somebody pointed out above, 'the people', it would appear, are pretty glad that Bin Laden has been dealt with.
|
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by Oink
(Post 9348135)
That’s why we write down the rules and regulations in documents to stop mobs running riot on whims, otherwise you’d have tyranny by the majority. Obama was simply taking revenge, that's not lawful or advisable.
|
Re: Bin Laden dead
Who should we be looking for the Americans kill next? Answers on a postcard to; President Murderous Bastard, A White House, America.
|
Re: Bin Laden dead
American cops probably kill dozens if not hundreds of their own unarmed people each year. As a nation, if they can live with that, I don't suppose they'll be too upset if a pyscopathic mass murderer got what was coming.
Despite my observations on here, I pretty much am a liberal, but there are some criminals who just aren't worth wringing your hands over. |
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by Jingsamichty
(Post 9348161)
American cops probably kill dozens if not hundreds of their own unarmed people each year. As a nation, if they can live with that, I don't suppose they'll be too upset if a pyscopathic mass murderer got what was coming.
Despite my observations on here, I pretty much am a liberal, but there are some criminals who just aren't worth wringing your hands over. |
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 9348086)
Where does that title come from anyway? I have been a peacekeeper the world over, I never heard of it before I came here.
|
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by Oink
(Post 9348176)
I also couldn't give a monkey's that the lanky tosser was shot in the head, I just feel uncomfortable with decisions our representatives have made in our defence against so-called terrorism. It seems a little troubling that people are so willing to simply give up liberty and quite frankly common decency for perceived security.
|
Re: Bin Laden dead
The quote, below, appears to be a general description of the international laws that they believe have deemed the actions "legal".
I suspect, if they've recovered any evidence from the house of "immediately threatened attacks" or an "urgent necessity for defensive action", it would be virtually impossible to successfully argue that the killing was illegal. Anticipatory Self-Defense. The right to anticipatory self-defense under customary law has never been unlimited. One generally recognized formulation dating from the mid-nineteenth century is that set forth in a letter from U.S. Secretary of State Daniel Webster to British Minister Lord Ashburton, that the necessity for action must be “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.†Since then, and especially since World War II, capabilities to launch devastating attacks with little advance warning have improved dramatically. Nonetheless, scholars have continued to affirm Webster’s restraints on legitimate self-defense, recognizing their value in inhibiting resort to war. A recent edition of a leading treatise states that self-defense may justify use of force under the following conditions: an attack is immediately threatened; there is an urgent necessity for defensive action; there is no practicable alternative, particularly when another state or authority that legally could stop or prevent the infringement does not or cannot do so; and the use of force is limited to what is needed to prevent the infringement. Oppenheim’s International Law, 9th ed., 412. http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/genera...=9780582302457 |
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by iaink
(Post 9348097)
All sounds highly plausible to me. :)
I notice "arrest" is in quote marks. It just beats me though what the legal grounds were. There was no state of war in existence to justify a military action, and no jurisdiction for the americans to make an arrest as far as I can tell. Unlike you though, I am not a lawyer. I don't know if a formal declaration of war is required to turn the act of combatants killing one another from "murder" to "justified killing". It seems to me that the result for the one killed is the same;) |
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by Oink
(Post 9348176)
I also couldn't give a monkey's that the lanky tosser was shot in the head, I just feel uncomfortable with decisions our representatives have made in our defence against so-called terrorism. It seems a little troubling that people are so willing to simply give up liberty and quite frankly common decency for perceived security.
Without getting into a debate once again about jurisdictional issues, I fail to see why combatants killing one another is an issue. Do you believe that it is inappropriate for a sniper of State A to shoot to deliberately kill a general of State B in combat when both nations have "declared" war against one another? If not, why not? If so, how does one declare war against those that are not members of a State but of an "organization" that wishes to kill and maim members of a State? Answers on a postcard please;) |
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by Jingsamichty
(Post 9348093)
If you think you live in a democracy, it's you who's being the naive one, Alan.
|
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 9348246)
If we were talking about two old ladies gunned down while shopping in Wal-Mart, I would agree with you.
Without getting into a debate once again about jurisdictional issues, I fail to see why combatants killing one another is an issue. Do you believe that it is inappropriate for a sniper of State A to shoot to deliberately kill a general of State B in combat when both nations have "declared" war against one another? If not, why not? If so, how does one declare war against those that are not members of a State but of an "organization" that wishes to kill and maim members of a State? Answers on a postcard please;) It's not the decision of one unaccountable person to order a hit squad to kill somebody. |
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by Alan2005
(Post 9348265)
You declare it by the government announcing to it's legislature (in this case congress) that it is it's intention to kill said person if they ever find out where they are. Congress then ok's it or not based on whether or not it is deemed unconstitutional, legal, moral or what have you.
It's not the decision of one unaccountable person to order a hit squad to kill somebody. |
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 9348279)
So its the declaration of war that's important then?:D
|
Re: Bin Laden dead
Frankly, I find it rather odd that we have a group of English people, living in Canada, telling the US how to handle terrorists who committed crimes in middle eastern countries against people of dozens of different nationalities.
I'll sleep happy knowing that if the US, or anyone else for that matters, stumbles across someone plotting to kill innocents, they'll act decisively and remove the threat, rather than ponder if Alan will be upset. The most annoying thing about this whole argument is that the legalities of the execution have already been posted on here. Alan, you continuously pick and chose which points to ignore and which points to argue with. It seems you wont be happy until it's confirmed the kill was in fact illegal. Unfortunately for you however, the Attorney General (ie/ the ultimate legal authority in the US) has confirmed it was legal. So why do you continue to beat the dead horse by calling it murder and all this other BS? |
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by jericho
(Post 9348377)
Frankly, I find it rather odd that we have a group of English people, living in Canada, telling the US how to handle terrorists who committed crimes in middle eastern countries against people of dozens of different nationalities.
I'll sleep happy knowing that if the US, or anyone else for that matters, stumbles across someone plotting to kill innocents, they'll act decisively and remove the threat, rather than ponder if Alan will be upset. The most annoying thing about this whole argument is that the legalities of the execution have already been posted on here. Alan, you continuously pick and chose which points to ignore and which points to argue with. It seems you wont be happy until it's confirmed the kill was in fact illegal. Unfortunately for you however, the Attorney General (ie/ the ultimate legal authority in the US) has confirmed it was legal. So why do you continue to beat the dead horse by calling it murder and all this other BS? |
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by Alan2005
(Post 9348381)
If you are happy with the trend towards totalitarianism then fair enough.
I'm a bit ambivalent on the issue at hand. There's no doubt that the killing was illegal, none at all. However, pragmatically speaking I actually think it was handled in the best available way (given the 10 years of incompetence since 2001). I'm a bit less sure that the net result in the medium term will allow anyone to look back on the event with lasting self satisfaction though. I've decided to buy a tin hat at the weekend. |
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by Alan2005
(Post 9348381)
If you are happy with the trend towards totalitarianism then fair enough.
|
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by Jingsamichty
(Post 9349041)
It's a case of picking your battles, Alan. Trying to convince most people in the western world that assassinating Osama bin Laden was a bad thing, or a wrong thing, is only going to be a complete waste of effort. Worse, it means that they will automatically write off the rest of your arguments as 'lefty-pinko-bleeding-heart claptrap'.
|
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by Alan2005
(Post 9349245)
I know. But you know how it is when arguing on the internet.
|
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by Jingsamichty
(Post 9349262)
ha ha!! Ain't that the truth?!
You can't handle the truth! http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-jimmy-stewart |
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by Novocastrian
(Post 9348397)
And ain't that the truth.
I'm a bit ambivalent on the issue at hand. There's no doubt that the killing was illegal, none at all. However, pragmatically speaking I actually think it was handled in the best available way (given the 10 years of incompetence since 2001). I'm a bit less sure that the net result in the medium term will allow anyone to look back on the event with lasting self satisfaction though. I've decided to buy a tin hat at the weekend. I figured you would already have a closet full of those. Maybe Allan can lend you one and save you the money. |
Re: Bin Laden dead
Originally Posted by Lord Vader
(Post 9351038)
I figured you would already have a closet full of those. Maybe Allan can lend you one and save you the money.
|
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 3:31 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.