Bin Laden is dead

[candrew]

But that is what I wanted to know. I was curious how people would feel about if it turned out they COULD have apprehended him but instead just executed him, like in his pajamas, completely unarmed. I for one think that would have been wrong if that happened. It would also be against the Geneva Convention and would be classified a grave war crime.

Which also begs the other question I posed earlier that no one tackled. How bad does it have to be, how mad do we have to get or how many people does someone have to kill before it becomes ok to toss our laws and ethics as a society out the window and just give in to the blood lust of revenge?

It makes no difference if he was armed or not. Bin Laden was classified as an enemy combatant - he does not have to be armed to be considered a grave threat. Short of throwing up his hands and saying "I surrender" the Navy Seals acted appropriately. Furthermore, The Navy Seals took on gunfire from the guest house next to Bin Laden's house upon entering the compound so any negative action that Bin Laden took (e.g. trying to flee, barricading himself in a room) should be considered a hostile action.

Having said that, apparently, a story that has been floating around Pakistan for the last week and hasn't really made headlines here is Bin Laden's wife (or daughter, I forget) claims the Navy Seals apprehended Bin Laden, questioned him briefly and then shot him in the head. If true, I would bet that kill order came directly from President Obama - that **** is ice cold. Although, quite frankly, I still won't lose any sleep.

 

[Beantown]

But if the Seals found him in his pajamas unarmed and forced him to kneel down while they shot him in the head, I also think that would be wrong. IF they could have, then they should have brought him back alive to stand trial.

Why are you arguing something that didn't even happen. The what if's game is pretty stupid.

 

[LogGrad98]

Why are you arguing something that didn't even happen. The what if's game is pretty stupid.

It is funny you do not know the difference between arguing and speculating. I find it interesting to challenge how I think about things. One way of doing that is by posing what-if questions and seeing how it would be answered, by myself and others, and challenging what I assume. Also, in this case, the official debrief and investigations have not happened or have not been released yet, so we still do not know for certain what did happen, so it is valid to discuss the possibilities.

I personally find it stupid to accept everything you are told at face value and never question anything. If that is the way you roll, more power to you.

 

[LogGrad98]

It makes no difference if he was armed or not. Bin Laden was classified as an enemy combatant - he does not have to be armed to be considered a grave threat. Short of throwing up his hands and saying "I surrender" the Navy Seals acted appropriately. Furthermore, The Navy Seals took on gunfire from the guest house next to Bin Laden's house upon entering the compound so any negative action that Bin Laden took (e.g. trying to flee, barricading himself in a room) should be considered a hostile action.

Having said that, apparently, a story that has been floating around Pakistan for the last week and hasn't really made headlines here is Bin Laden's wife (or daughter, I forget) claims the Navy Seals apprehended Bin Laden, questioned him briefly and then shot him in the head. If true, I would bet that kill order came directly from President Obama - that **** is ice cold. Although, quite frankly, I still won't lose any sleep.

That would not be just ice cold, but potentially a grave war crime per the Geneva Convention.

It really is interesting, to Dutch's point earlier, how little Americans know or care about those treaties that were largely forged by Americans after the second world war. We wrote them, for the most part, and we signed off on them, but piss us off enough and you can just chuck any agreement or law out the window. I think that is morally bankrupt and damaging to society as a whole.

 

[Beantown]

Then what if Bin Laden was shot by s sniper eating his breakfast?

 

[SaltyDawg]

That would not be just ice cold, but potentially a grave war crime per the Geneva Convention.

It really is interesting, to Dutch's point earlier, how little Americans know or care about those treaties that were largely forged by Americans after the second world war. We wrote them, for the most part, and we signed off on them, but piss us off enough and you can just chuck any agreement or law out the window. I think that is morally bankrupt and damaging to society as a whole.

Those laws were written a long time ago to enforce rules in wars that were nothing like what we are engaged in right now.

We tried to fight Bin Laden's army in a traditional war but he chose to do it this way. And this was a typical battlefield in this non traditional war.

It's pretty funny that clowns keep insinuating that killing a bunch of innocent women, children, and civilians would have been preferable to this.

And you may not realize that you are insinuating this, but you are. Follow me here...

You are saying that it would have been totally okay to drop a big *** bomb (or several) and destroy that whole compound, killing everyone in it. Even though there were several women and children there (who did not get killed with this surgical strike) and it would have probably killed some neighboring civilians. This would have been totally fine with you and totally legal under the Geneva Convention rules. Even though Bin Laden wouldn't have been shooting at the person who launched the missile, and may not have even been armed when the strike occurred, it would have been totally fine to kill him and everyone else with a missile strike.

You are saying that it may not have been okay to send in a team and just kill Bin Laden. Even though we know they were taking fire from at least some of the people there, killing Bin Laden may have been wrong because maybe he himself wasn't shooting.

I'm of the opinion that throwing a hand grenade in an enemy foxhole in the middle of a battle is okay. Even though there is a chance you will kill someone that isn't shooting at you, it's still okay.

This was a battle. This was not a World War 2 type of battle, and Al Queda was not a World War 2 type of army. But it was still a battle in a long war.

And to answer your question, I already said I would have preferred they capture Bin Laden and then put him on a nationwide parade with everyone getting a free shot. Short of that, I have no problem with them shooting him in the head and I would have loved to be the guy to do it.

 

[One Brow]

If they had bombed Osama would you "rule of law" people still be taking issue with what happened? Because technically they would be bombing someone who had no way of bombing them back...

As far as I know, assassination-byu-bombing is not a violation of the Geneva convention/international law.

 

[One Brow]

Those laws were written a long time ago to enforce rules in wars that were nothing like what we are engaged in right now.

Then we should withdraw from the treaty if we really believe that as a nation.

You are saying that it would have been totally okay to drop a big *** bomb (or several) and destroy that whole compound, killing everyone in it.

You seem to be confusing "legal" with "OK". I actually think sending in the SEAL team was the correct (and legal) call, but the bombing would also have been legal, just less ideal.

Even though Bin Laden wouldn't have been shooting at the person who launched the missile, and may not have even been armed when the strike occurred, it would have been totally fine to kill him and everyone else with a missile strike.

In wartime, a minority of bombs get aimed at targets firing at them directly, to my understanding.

You are saying that it may not have been okay to send in a team and just kill Bin Laden. Even though we know they were taking fire from at least some of the people there, killing Bin Laden may have been wrong because maybe he himself wasn't shooting.

Executions without trials are wrong. However, jsut because bin Landen did not have a gun does not mean he was executed.

I'm of the opinion that throwing a hand grenade in an enemy foxhole in the middle of a battle is okay. Even though there is a chance you will kill someone that isn't shooting at you, it's still okay.

I agree, but that is not relevant to the point.

 

[Beantown]

Does anyone know if throwing planes into a metropolis and killing 3000 people is against the Geneva convention?

 

[TheDude]

What we have been told is that when the chopper put them men in a fire fight broke out.... So the Seals were already in active combat. They go to the 3rd floor of this mansion (place looks like a ******* dump to me) and bust down the door... 1st thing that happens is that some woman is either thrown towards the Seals or charges them. I imagine the Seals broke the door down and neutralized the threats, including Osama whom I am sure wasn't on his chest with his hands behind his head.

Log (whom I respect a ton and Dutch- who is an idiot) are arguing based on pure "what if's" and speculation. I take the Seal's word on what happened.

Also, Beantown asked good question... If we had a sniper with a .50 cal half a mile away and he glimpses Osama fondling a young man in the courtyard, should he take the shot? Or is that unethical because he doesn't have an AK in his hand and a RPG strapped across his back?

 

[bordelais7]

As far as I know, assassination-byu-bombing is not a violation of the Geneva convention/international law.

This Jimmer hate is getting out of control.

 

[DutchJazzer]

What we have been told is that when the chopper put them men in a fire fight broke out.... So the Seals were already in active combat. They go to the 3rd floor of this mansion (place looks like a ******* dump to me) and bust down the door... 1st thing that happens is that some woman is either thrown towards the Seals or charges them. I imagine the Seals broke the door down and neutralized the threats, including Osama whom I am sure wasn't on his chest with his hands behind his head.

Log (whom I respect a ton and Dutch- who is an idiot) are arguing based on pure "what if's" and speculation. I take the Seal's word on what happened.

Also, Beantown asked good question... If we had a sniper with a .50 cal half a mile away and he glimpses Osama fondling a young man in the courtyard, should he take the shot? Or is that unethical because he doesn't have an AK in his hand and a RPG strapped across his back?

i'm not arguing on what ifs.

all we got his hearsay about what happened in the compound.

 

[TheDude]

Ummmm... all of your speculation is what if. What if he could have been taken alive? What if they double tapped him after cuffing him? What if what if what if....

I'll just trust the Seals.

 

[Beantown]

The seals didn't even know it was Osama until after he was dead, and even then it wasn't 100% until DNA confirmed it. Also I'm sure his wife would be getting it out that the seals shot him while handcuffed and begging for his life.

 

[TheDude]

take that

Neg rep from rudder... I guess:

 

[LogGrad98]

Those laws were written a long time ago to enforce rules in wars that were nothing like what we are engaged in right now.

We tried to fight Bin Laden's army in a traditional war but he chose to do it this way. And this was a typical battlefield in this non traditional war.

It's pretty funny that clowns keep insinuating that killing a bunch of innocent women, children, and civilians would have been preferable to this.

And you may not realize that you are insinuating this, but you are. Follow me here...

You are saying that it would have been totally okay to drop a big *** bomb (or several) and destroy that whole compound, killing everyone in it. Even though there were several women and children there (who did not get killed with this surgical strike) and it would have probably killed some neighboring civilians. This would have been totally fine with you and totally legal under the Geneva Convention rules. Even though Bin Laden wouldn't have been shooting at the person who launched the missile, and may not have even been armed when the strike occurred, it would have been totally fine to kill him and everyone else with a missile strike.

You are saying that it may not have been okay to send in a team and just kill Bin Laden. Even though we know they were taking fire from at least some of the people there, killing Bin Laden may have been wrong because maybe he himself wasn't shooting.

I'm of the opinion that throwing a hand grenade in an enemy foxhole in the middle of a battle is okay. Even though there is a chance you will kill someone that isn't shooting at you, it's still okay.

This was a battle. This was not a World War 2 type of battle, and Al Queda was not a World War 2 type of army. But it was still a battle in a long war.

And to answer your question, I already said I would have preferred they capture Bin Laden and then put him on a nationwide parade with everyone getting a free shot. Short of that, I have no problem with them shooting him in the head and I would have loved to be the guy to do it.

Care to point out where I said all that?

Also, how is being of the opinion that they should have taken OBL alive if they could rather than executing him, if the option were there, equivalent to wishing they had just bombed the **** out of the compound killing all the women and children there?

Wow you are not just delusional about Cell-phone Supercomputers.

I will not repeat what I have said ad nauseum about my support of the Seals and the choices they made. You go back and quote me where I said destroying the entire compound would have been preferable or prove any of the other words you just put in my mouth. Maybe you should also read for understanding, not just rebuttal.

Also, you strongly illustrate my point. Get us pissed enough and the laws we signed off on are chucked out the window. The constitution was written a long time ago too, you know, no need to follow that either I suppose if we are mad enough?

Also your comparison of types of battles war to war is ludicrous in the extreme and shows that 1) you do not know much about the warfare conducted during WWII and 2) you have no inkling of what is in the treaties of the Geneva Convention. They are more-encompassing than you are assuming they are. They are not just 3 lines saying "be nice when jumping from trench to trench since we all know that is the only way war will be fought forever". Those men were smarter and more forward-looking than you are giving them credit for, and much of what was included there was speifically aimed at small-scale engagements, urban warfare, and dealing with prisoner's of war, both taking prisoners and holding them, which applies directly to the attempt to apprehend OBL. There have been a few other treaties since then making what amounts to modifications to address specificities of more modern warfare, but they do not in any way supercede the treaties of the Geneva Convention.

[edit]

This is a rare occurrence wherein I agree completely with One Brow in his breakdown of this post above.

 

[LogGrad98]

Does anyone know if throwing planes into a metropolis and killing 3000 people is against the Geneva convention?

Actually it is. Pre-emeptive strikes against a purely civilian population with no military presence or military goal for the strike (infrastructure, for example) is against the geneva convention as I understand it. This was partly included to attempt to preclude nuclear strikes such as those in Japan, even though both Nagasaki and Hiroshima were industrial cities supporting the war effort in varying degrees, there was no real military presence there.

 

[Beantown]

Actually it is. Pre-emeptive strikes against a purely civilian population with no military presence or military goal for the strike (infrastructure, for example) is against the geneva convention as I understand it. This was partly included to attempt to preclude nuclear strikes such as those in Japan, even though both Nagasaki and Hiroshima were industrial cities supporting the war effort in varying degrees, there was no real military presence there.

Yea I was being sarcastic.

 

[Bronco70]

This discussion aroused my curiosity about specifics of the Geneva Conventions, so I read up a bit and am now less sure about their application in this instance.

I am certainly nowhere as smart as One Brow or LogGrad, so there is probably quite a bit lacking in my interpretation, and to be honest, the four conventions and their accompanying protocols make for a lengthy and somewhat dry read. I found the following summary in wikipedia (take that for what it's worth, but wikipedia was not my primary source. I accessed the GC here: https://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/CONVPRES?OpenView).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

Common Article 2 relating to International Armed Conflicts
This article states that the Geneva Conventions apply to all cases of international conflict, where at least one of the warring nations have ratified the Conventions. Primarily:
The Conventions apply to all cases of declared war between signatory nations. This is the original sense of applicability, which predates the 1949 version.
The Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict between two or more signatory nations, even in the absence of a declaration of war. This language was added in 1949 to accommodate situations that have all the characteristics of war without the existence of a formal declaration of war, such as a police action.
The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions.
Article 1 of Protocol I further clarifies that armed conflict against colonial domination and foreign occupation also qualifies as an international conflict.
When the criteria of international conflict have been met, the full protections of the Conventions are considered to apply.

The questions this raises with me are, does the "war" on Al Qaeda qualify as an international armed conflict? Al Qaeda can hardly be considered a "nation". If it isn't, do the Geneva Conventions apply? If they do, is mutual compliance necessary?

I am asking this as a complete aside from any moral question that may arise from the action on OBL. And if someone feels they can enlighten me, they have my attention. I am more than willing to learn where I can. So forgive my ignorance, please.

 

[LogGrad98]

This discussion aroused my curiosity about specifics of the Geneva Conventions, so I read up a bit and am now less sure about their application in this instance.

I am certainly nowhere as smart as One Brow or LogGrad, so there is probably quite a bit lacking in my interpretation, and to be honest, the four conventions and their accompanying protocols make for a lengthy and somewhat dry read. I found the following summary in wikipedia (take that for what it's worth, but wikipedia was not my primary source. I accessed the GC here: https://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/CONVPRES?OpenView).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions



The questions this raises with me are, does the "war" on Al Qaeda qualify as an international armed conflict? Al Qaeda can hardly be considered a "nation". If it isn't, do the Geneva Conventions apply? If they do, is mutual compliance necessary?

I am asking this as a complete aside from any moral question that may arise from the action on OBL. And if someone feels they can enlighten me, they have my attention. I am more than willing to learn where I can. So forgive my ignorance, please.

You actually got into the caveat on one of my very first posts on this topic in this thread. I figured the biggest debate as far as the GC was concerned would be whether this actually qualified as a "war" or inernational armed conflict. If we take it as a given that OBL officially declared war on America, and that we responded in kind (usually meeting a declaration of war against your nation through an aggressive response toward the enemy constitutes a tacit declaration on the part of the besieged nation) then we could be construed to have declared war on Al Qaeda. Again the issue arises, is Al Qaeda truly to be viewed as a "nation"? From the standpoint of their own declaration that they declared war on us in behalf of the "Nation of Islam" then maybe, but wow is it ever splitting hairs.

The thing that makes it tough for me is the idea that we are at war with an individual or a group that is not represented by any one geographical and political nation. That has made it hard to conduct the war on our part, since we would have to openly go to war with Afghanistan or Pakistan in order to carry the war to Al Qaeda, since they are entrenched there but not necessarily officially recognizd as part of either state. In Afghanistan we took the approach to declare war against them and the Taliban, their leaders. Pakistan is a little more vague and again open for interpretation and discussion.

My discussion points up to now have been under the assumption that this is recognized as a true international conflict (i.e. war). But I think that is a highly debateable point, for, as you state, Al Qaeda is not really a "nation" in and of itself. And there are different provisions and statutes for assassinations and international efforts to apprehend an international criminal, which is really what OBL was.

I find the whole thing immensely interesting. As well as the discussion of where the laws or our personal ethics break down, as in what is that limit for everyone where it is ok to disregard them.