Bin Laden Found Dead?

[Freetrader]

Yes, dreadnought, I agree. A difficult situation I grant, and all in all, the correct decision. Just a shame the USA didn't say it how it really is - a satisfying revenge attack for killing our people.

Oh, it's that too. But wasn't revenge America was after. It was a reckoning.

YouTube - The Reckoning

[Dreadnought]

...It should have been handled in a similar way Saddam was handled. Same way some of the Nazis were handled. With some amount of restraint with a smidgen of law and due process.

Capture the guy, put him in front of a judge and jury in any jurisdiction where he comited crimes and then get the guy executed, legally with due process.

BTW: I would be mildly interested in your opinion as to why Saddam was not executed (like OBL) on the spot.

HC

F.A.O. HowardCoombs:

From what I understand, Saddam was captured on home soil, tried for crimes committed against his own people, found guilty and executed.

It would not have made the slightest bit of sense to extradite bin Laden to Saudi Arabia, where not only is he not a wanted person to begin with, the Saudis simply don't want to have anything to do with him. Neither was he a wanted person in pre-invasion Afghanistan where he mingled with the ruling Taleban.

I guess that means trial in the USA or face US military trial in Guantanamo Bay, a la Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. We will just have to wait until we find out precisely whether this was indeed a kill operation or a kill-or-capture operation. If it were the former, then there are moral grounds on which one can say that this was wrong (not that I agree), but if it were the latter, then you have no argument.

[HKITperson]

It's true that the US didn't tell the Pakistanis exactly where or when they would go in, for obvious reasons. But they had informed the Pakistani government beforehand (and I remember this) that if they had intelligence that indicated that OBL was in Pakistan, they would go get him. They were, at a minimum, acquiesent in the raid.

I don't want to get any of the simple-minded folk out there confused: but let's try this as a thought exercise. Assume that the Pakistani's denied that OBL was in Pakistan, and refused to allow the US in to take him out? Would the subsequent US action be legal? Maybe. In that case the Pakistanis would be harboring a known terrorist and criminal and lying about it and the US by would have the right to protect itself by taking action. Arguably, simply having Bin Laden in your protection would constitute an act of war. This, essentially, was the argument used to take down the Taliban in Afghanistan. So, I think either way the US had a some pretty good arguments on their side.

This really shows how simple minded you really are and it's straight out from George Bush's mouth... in fact you can act as his puppet and the two of you can go on a roadshow of stupidity.
How many terrorists has the US been harbouring all these years? Why is it still supporting regimes like Saudi Arabia who is supporting terrorism? How many people have been killed simply in revenge.... remember the shot down Iran Airliner with over 200 innocents?
What about all those kids murdered by cluster or smart bombs? Cambodia, Vietnam, Iraq, Panama, Afghanistan in pursuit of revenge....?
What about the support of odious regimes like Suharto, Chiang Kei Shek, Park, Noriaga, Pinochet, Saddam, Marcos...?
For all we know everything that was reported is just a pack of lies... Your military lies, the US Government lies... and you are too stupid to see through it.

OBL was murdered... simple.. period! We may say its a good thing but the law is the law. Was it is justifiable homicide? This is not for some simple minded and stupid flag waving redneck like you to decide but determined through an International court of law.

[luckycat]

Oh, it's that too. But wasn't revenge America was after. It was a reckoning.

YouTube - The Reckoning

Legendary clip, however, we are back to semantics again :-)

[Football16]

Well, possibly if those were the facts. But the actual facts were that this it was a government organized and approved (by both the US and Pakistan) assault on a known para-military criminal and terrorist who was armed to the teeth. Spot the difference?

To be clear.. I have no issue with what the US did including shooting him on sight. This mission would have been a disaster if the Pakistan military arrived before they got out. This is not something a nation should do regularly.

Freetrader - evades the issues when caught out. Extrajudicial... another laughable term. Big words does not make something legal.

Pakistan did not approve this... hello FT... do all facts escape you? You should be in the ministry of propaganda - you'd do them proud.

Note that the US helicopters in this story had to retreat quickly before being engaged by Pakistan air forces which the story says were put in the air. No doubt this led to them entering quickly, shooting the place up and getting out fast rather than a take down that might have taken too long.

There is clearly a case the US can make to say they had the lawful right to enter Pakistan to save people from this heinous criminal. If you do it you are not about to go to in and take too much time there as it sounds as if the US got back across the border just in time to prevent engagement with the Pakistan air force.


CIA feared Pakistan would alert Bin Laden - Central & South Asia - Al Jazeera English


"CIA feared Pakistan would alert Bin Laden
CIA director says agency ruled out working with Pakistan on bin Laden raid as it feared Islamabad "might alert targets"....

"Pakistan on Tuesday denied any prior knowledge of the US raid that killed bin Laden, but said it had been sharing information about the targeted compound with the CIA since 2009."


"Neither any base nor facility inside Pakistan was used by the US forces, nor the Pakistan Army provided any operational or logistic assistance to these operations conducted by the US forces," the ministry said in a lengthy statement.

"This event of unauthorised unilateral action cannot be taken as a rule."

The statement said US helicopters entered Pakistani airspace by making use of "blind spots" in the radar coverage caused by the hilly terrain surrounding Abbottabad.

The foreign ministry said the Pakistani air force scrambled its planes within minutes of being informed of the US operation, but there was no engagement with the US forces as they had already left Pakistani airspace."

[Mat]

Lastest reports suggest we do not know squat yet about what really happen and the story will keep changing day by day.

The only thing almost certain is that many ppl in the West see Bin Laden death as good and that the US acted unlawfully (sorry FT but so far none of your posts contain any hint that this was done lawfully and if it were, please provide the relevant texts) but they will get away with it since it was for "the greater good" (which again most in the West will agree with).

We can debate if this was morally correct or not but it seems to appear that it clearly wasn't legal, which was my only query here since I was suprised the US could launch such action without Pakistani and/or international backing on a foreign soil.

Bin Laden was a "slut" he got what he "deserved", that being said, we can't say, as Obama said: justice has been done. Justice would have been to put him in trial.....but again this would have been way too complicated for the US and the West in general.

On a related topic, I am still waiting, Obama's decision to put in front of the justice Bush, Rum and Cheney for having lied/launch a war in Iraq on false premises. They too deserve some time in front of the justice.

You can't have double standards.

[luckycat]

Osama was a slut?

Other than that Mat, I agree with what you say.

[TheBrit]

The only thing almost certain is that many ppl in the West see Bin Laden death as good and that the US acted unlawfully (sorry FT but so far none of your posts contain any hint that this was done lawfully and if it were, please provide the relevant texts) but they will get away with it since it was for "the greater good" (which again most in the West will agree with).

You can think it is clearly illegal, but it is nothing of the sort. Legal experts are split, and it is clearly an extremely complicated issue with multiple jurisdictions and layers of statute. It is asinine to assert this as clearly legal or clearly legal when the reality is that this is a very grey area.

[TheBrit]

Here is a good piece summarizing some of the issues involved

The Associated Press: Bin Laden death prompts questions about legality

[Mat]

You can think it is clearly illegal, but it is nothing of the sort. Legal experts are split, and it is clearly an extremely complicated issue with multiple jurisdictions and layers of statue. It is asinine to assert this as clearly legal or clearly legal when the reality is that this is a very grey area.

That I agree with fully - my post was more directed at FT who claims since the beginning it is lawful. I may have phrase my answer a bit too fast.

If you read my posts thru this thread the only thing I am asking is " was it or not lawful". FT claims it was. I am only asking him/anyone else to prove it (not by some moral replies).