BIN LADEN IS DEAD

wolfamongwolves

US responds to questions about killing's legality
Doubts remain over manner in which al-Qaida figurehead died but US officials defend Barack Obama's action

Owen Bowcott
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 3 May 2011 16.53 BST

The chorus of official applause from international leaders over the death of Osama bin Laden has failed to silence doubts about the killing's legality.

Despite widespread backing for the raid, there is a growing demand for the precise legal basis of the US operation to be explained, particularly given the absence of prior debate in the UN security council.

Prof Nick Grief, an international lawyer at Kent University, said the attack had the appearance of an "extrajudicial killing without due process of the law".

Cautioning that not all the circumstances were known, he added: "It may not have been possible to take him alive ... but no one should be outside the protection of the law." Even after the end of the second world war, Nazi war criminals had been given a "fair trial".

The prominent defence lawyer Michael Mansfield QC expressed similar doubts about whether sufficient efforts had been made to capture Bin Laden. "The serious risk is that in the absence of an authoritative narrative of events played out in Abbottabad, vengeance will become synonymised with justice, and that revenge will supplant 'due process'.

"Assuming the mission was … intended to detain and not to assassinate, it is therefore imperative that a properly documented and verifiable narrative of exactly what happened is made public. Whatever feelings of elation and relief may dominate the airwaves," he said, "they must not be allowed to submerge core questions about the legality of the exercise, nor to permit vengeance or summary execution to become substitutes for justice."

The human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC argued that the killing risked undermining the rule of law. "The security council could have set up an ad hoc tribunal in The Hague, with international judges (including Muslim jurists), to provide a fair trial and a reasoned verdict," he wrote in the Independent. "This would have been the best way of demystifying this man, debunking his cause and de-brainwashing his followers."

The immediate justification for the killing was that the head of al-Qaida had long ago declared war on the US and other nations. "In war you are allowed to attack your enemy," a US embassy spokesman in London said.

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, echoed Barack Obama's assertion, stating: "Osama bin Laden is dead and justice has been done."

A more thorough explanation of the legal basis was given last year by Harold Hongju Koh, legal adviser at the US state department. He told a meeting of the American Society of International Law: "Some have argued that the use of lethal force against specific individuals fails to provide adequate process and thus constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing. But a state that is engaged in an armed conflict or in legitimate self-defence is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force.

"The principles of distinction and proportionality that the US applies are …implemented rigorously throughout the planning and execution of lethal operations to ensure that such operations are conducted in accordance with all applicable law."

He added: "Some have argued that our targeting practices violate domestic law, in particular, the longstanding domestic ban on assassinations. But under domestic law, the use of lawful weapons systems - consistent with the applicable laws of war - for precision targeting of specific high-level belligerent leaders when acting in self-defence or during an armed conflict is not unlawful, and hence does not constitute 'assassination'."

John Bellinger III, who served as the state department's senior lawyer during George Bush's second term as president, also insisted the strike was legitimate.

"The killing is not prohibited by the long-standing assassination prohibition in executive order 12333 [signed in 1981] because the action was a military action in the ongoing US armed conflict with al-Qaida and it is not prohibited to kill specific leaders of an opposing force," he wrote.

"The assassination prohibition also does not apply to killings in self-defence. The executive branch will also argue that the action was permissible under international law both as a permissible use of force in the US armed conflict with al-Qaida and as a legitimate action in self-defence, given that Bin Laden was clearly planning additional attacks."

Many human rights groups have reacted with caution. "Osama bin Laden took credit for and supported acts around the world which amounted to crimes against humanity," said Claudio Cordone, senior director at Amnesty International.

"He also inspired others to commit grave human rights abuses. His death will put an end to his role in organising or inspiring such criminal acts. We do not know the full circumstances of his killing and the others with him and we are looking into that." Amnesty is writing to the US and Pakistani governments for "greater clarification about the events that led to the death of Osama bin Laden".

One area of anxiety is the suggestion that the intelligence needed to locate Bin Laden's refuge might have been obtained through torture of suspects detained at Guantánamo Bay or other secret holding centres.

Whether or not the Pakistan government authorised the assault on its territory might technically affect the legality of the operation under international law. But the enthusiastic support of the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, for the killing is likely to silence any critical voices in the security council.

"The death of Osama bin Laden … is a watershed moment in our common global fight against terrorism," Ban said. "Personally, I am very much relieved by the news that justice has been done."

Jeanwah

wolfamongwolves wrote:

Earlier, we were told that if they could have captured bin Laden rather than kill him, they would have.
Now they tell us he was unarmed.

That's a pretty disturbing revelation, if you ask me.

Nice, more conflicting reports.

I've been gone since yesterday, so I wonder how that proof is coming that he really is dead. Or let me guess...we're all going to take the government's word for it! Great. I feel oh so much better.

Jeanwah

MrAbraham wrote:

This Matrix of a world we live in dislikes two things, People who speak their minds and people who seek the truth, when you put those two traits together, you have an enemy/weapon against the state/Machine/Matrix.....You you put those two traits together you have a Free Mind, and no bigger threat exists to America than a mind that is no longer in the darkness of ignorance.

Ain't that the truth.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

elevation622 wrote:

The guy's name is "metsfan", probably from the NY area, and people are going get on him for being happy about Bin Laden being killed? Seriously? This has to be explained?
Why is it so hard for you people to understand that people like myself and metsfan are happy that the self confessed mass murderer/terrorist/scumbag is dead? Yeah there's still going to be terrorism, we get that. But there's one less "mastermind' behind it. This animal that hurt so many innocent lives won't kill anybody ever again. This is bad to you? This is a moral victory. A morale booster. And we'll celebrate. So if this annoys you, that sucks for you.
I love peace as much as the next guy, but seriously, all you people that are calling us out for being happy about it are hypocrites. I'd like to see you guys go hug a suicide bomber and see where that love gets you.

I found this quote on Time pretty cool: "Bin Laden had religious zeal that we don't have; America has a national spirit, and we don't have that either."
* A CHINESE ONLINE COMMENTATOR,
* writing on Weibo, China's most popular microblogging site, while watching Americans celebrate the death of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden

Maybe you're lacking national spirit? We're not.

where did I "get on him" for being happy about osama being killed? He gave a thumbs down and "makes me sick" smiley to a beautiful quote by MLK, and I was questioning how he could do that.

your rant was so over the top inflammatory and made so many assumptions based on one question I asked I had trouble comprehending it.

earlier on in the thread I said "I have no issue with how he was killed". read before you judge.

Gary Carter

and THAT mlk quote was proved to be fake

hahahahahhaa

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... on/238257/

Gary Carter

Paul David wrote:

metsfan wrote:

catefrances wrote:

‎"I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."

-MLK

:roll: :thumbdown:

how can you POSSIBLY give an "eyeroll", "sick" and "thumbsdown" to this???? WTF???

cause it's called freedom of speech. ever hear of that?????????????????? WTF???????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????

Idris

CNN is about to give us a tour of the Mansion. I guess it's like 'Cribs...Bin Laden' .

Gary Carter

elevation622 wrote:

The guy's name is "metsfan", probably from the NY area, and people are going get on him for being happy about Bin Laden being killed? Seriously? This has to be explained?
Why is it so hard for you people to understand that people like myself and metsfan are happy that the self confessed mass murderer/terrorist/scumbag is dead? Yeah there's still going to be terrorism, we get that. But there's one less "mastermind' behind it. This animal that hurt so many innocent lives won't kill anybody ever again. This is bad to you? This is a moral victory. A morale booster. And we'll celebrate. So if this annoys you, that sucks for you.
I love peace as much as the next guy, but seriously, all you people that are calling us out for being happy about it are hypocrites. I'd like to see you guys go hug a suicide bomber and see where that love gets you.

I found this quote on Time pretty cool: "Bin Laden had religious zeal that we don't have; America has a national spirit, and we don't have that either."
* A CHINESE ONLINE COMMENTATOR,
* writing on Weibo, China's most popular microblogging site, while watching Americans celebrate the death of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden

Maybe you're lacking national spirit? We're not.

:thumbup:

btw- i was born and raised and live in ny and will die a ny'er

Hugh Freaking Dillon

metsfan wrote:

cause it's called freedom of speech. ever hear of that?????????????????? WTF???????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????

calm down. of course it's called "free speech". :roll:

so you don't like that quote, even if it is in a different context (not about Osama)?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

metsfan wrote:

btw- i was born and raised and live in ny and will die a ny'er

btw I was born and raised and live in the Peg and I will die in the Peg. (so what?)

Gary Carter

Paul David wrote:

metsfan wrote:

cause it's called freedom of speech. ever hear of that?????????????????? WTF???????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????

calm down. of course it's called "free speech". :roll:

so you don't like that quote, even if it is in a different context (not about Osama)?

quote was proving to be fake. how can i like a fake quote no matter what context it's used?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

metsfan wrote:

Paul David wrote:

metsfan wrote:

cause it's called freedom of speech. ever hear of that?????????????????? WTF???????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????

calm down. of course it's called "free speech". :roll:

so you don't like that quote, even if it is in a different context (not about Osama)?

quote was proving to be fake. how can i like a fake quote no matter what context it's used?

who cares who said it? why does that make a difference? I don't give a shit if it was MLK or if it was Joe Blow on the street.

Gary Carter

Paul David wrote:

metsfan wrote:

btw- i was born and raised and live in ny and will die a ny'er

btw I was born and raised and live in the Peg and I will die in the Peg. (so what?)

i wasn't responding to you, was i?

Gary Carter

Paul David wrote:

who cares who said it? why does that make a difference? I don't give a shit if it was MLK or if it was Joe Blow on the street.

so you don't care if a quote is fake? wow just wow

smitz001

_ wrote:

Just heard commentary that this ends the war on terrorism. I wish it did. I wonder if this will make us more or less safe. :?

i doubt it will make us more safe, what would make us more safe is to quit favoring one group over another over there, i mean favoring one group (Jews) over the other group (Muslims) is really the cause of all our foreign policy problems over there. Its really just favoring one group of murders over the other.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

metsfan wrote:

Paul David wrote:

metsfan wrote:

btw- i was born and raised and live in ny and will die a ny'er

btw I was born and raised and live in the Peg and I will die in the Peg. (so what?)

i wasn't responding to you, was i?

ah, good ol' grade 5.

rival.

chickweed wrote:

navy seals are the SHIT

COMING TO LIGHT A FIRE UNDER YOUR ASS

Hugh Freaking Dillon

metsfan wrote:

Paul David wrote:

who cares who said it? why does that make a difference? I don't give a shit if it was MLK or if it was Joe Blow on the street.

so you don't care if a quote is fake? wow just wow

I don't care if THIS quote wasn't said by MLK, no, I don't. it's beautiful no matter who said it.

yeah, that's a real "wow just wow" moment, drama queen. :roll:

butterjam

metsfan wrote:

Paul David wrote:

who cares who said it? why does that make a difference? I don't give a shit if it was MLK or if it was Joe Blow on the street.

so you don't care if a quote is fake? wow just wow

"Inaccurately attributed quotes are the bane of the internet" ~ Abraham Lincoln

Gary Carter

Paul David wrote:

ah, good ol' grade 5.

lol not good ol' grade 5 at all, just a question to you is all. so again was i responding to you or not?