Bin Laden is dead

[TroutBum]

Wow, page after page of BeanClown being himself and lo, some of you are agreeing with him. I had to actually give DutchRudder pos rep because despite his stupidity and overall dumbass-itis, he has a lot of good points here.

Take the emotion out of it and use your heads a little bit. Taking him alive would've been spectacular on so many levels. I'm not too sure that he ISN'T still alive, actually, but that's for another topic/Duck.

 

[LogGrad98]

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.

It is funny that you act as if asking a question as to whether it may have been handled differently implies immediate impeachment of the military force in the engagement. We should all be very greatful that other groups have asked the "what-if" questions that lead to such pacts as the Geneva Convention. If they just said "we trust the military, no need to question anything" this world would be a more brutal place. It is in questioning right and wrong about a situation, and how it may have been handled differently, that we define ourselves as a society.

I trust the seals too. I think they did they best they could under the circumstance.

It sure does not absolve anyone of scrutiny to both see if it could have been handled differently (or should have even), and what can be done better in the future. What do you think a debriefing consists of? Not just a "tell us what you did" part but also a "what should you have done, what could you have done better, what would you have done if" part.

The questions are valid, and I would argue, necessary.

 

[SaltyDawg]

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.

As I said, you may not be aware that you are insinuating this, but you are.

Your entire argument seems to be that it was illegal under the Geneva Convention (or may not have been). However, it would have been totally legal to bomb the **** out of that compound and kill everyone inside (and probably several nearby civilians outside the complex).

So if you are not saying this, then please be more specific. There is a reason you have been asked repeatedly to clarify if bombing Tora Bora and killing him would have been okay- because that would have been legal and your entire argument seems to be based on the legalities.

 

[TroutBum]

As I said, you may not be aware that you are insinuating this, but you are.

Clearly.

 

[LogGrad98]

As I said, you may not be aware that you are insinuating this, but you are.

Your entire argument seems to be that it was illegal under the Geneva Convention (or may not have been). However, it would have been totally legal to bomb the **** out of that compound and kill everyone inside.

So if you are not saying this, then please be more specific. There is a reason you have been asked repeatedly to clarify if bombing Tora Bora and killing him would have been okay- because that would have been legal and your entire argument seems to be based on the legalities.

A bombing would have been viewed as an investigatable event under the GC, especially under the circumstances, possibly even as a war crime itself. We are not at war with pakistan, the possibility that it was a purely civilian compound and high probability of collateral damage, lack of firm intel...remember the invasion was not just to apprehend him because we knew for a fact he was there, but to verify our best guess that he was there and to apprehend him if possible, kill him if he fled or resisted, so bombing would have been the worst option. As was said before, we didn't even know we had killed him until they ID'd the body, so our best guess was he was there, but nothing was difinitive until we entered the compound.

As I said repeatedly, and you seem to decide to see what you want to see as "insinuated" regardless of what I have actually said. Go back to the post with great big letters. I said I believed it was handled the best way it could be, that I trusted the Seals, that I felt the story we had so far was correct.

What I don't get is why you are so unwilling to consider for even a second that maybe it could have been done differently. That maybe, just maybe, the official story is not quite right. I think it is important to know exactly what happened and why. Why do you get so vehemently angry that someone is willing to question what went down instead of taking it all blindly?

But I would love for you to quote the parts where I insinuated I wanted the whole compound bombed and all the women and children killed instead of a surgical strike. Questioning whether the way OBL was killed was legitimate per the GC is a far cry from hoping to see hundreds of people killed in collateral damage instead.

 

[One Brow]

Your entire argument seems to be that it was illegal under the Geneva Convention (or may not have been).

What, specifically, do you think that LogGrad98 and I are are saying would be illegal? The SEAL raid itself? You would be incorrect.

There is a reason you have been asked repeatedly to clarify if bombing Tora Bora and killing him would have been okay- because that would have been legal and your entire argument seems to be based on the legalities.

Bombing would have been an legal, apparently inferior alternative.

Rule of law matters. It's one of the cornerstones of civilization.

As for "okay", invasions and bombings can be necessary, important, and justified, but I don't know if that ever makes them "okay".

 

[LogGrad98]

Again this whole discussion and the way the GC would be applied hinges entirely on whether this whole thing is viewed as a true war or international armed conflict between nations or not. That changes things. I am sure we will see some of that kind of debate out there as the details from the compound are released.

 

[SaltyDawg]

A bombing would have been viewed as an investigatable event under the GC, especially under the circumstances, possibly even as a war crime itself. We are not at war with pakistan, the possibility that it was a purely civilian compound and high probability of collateral damage, lack of firm intel...remember the invasion was not just to apprehend him because we knew for a fact he was there, but to verify our best guess that he was there and to apprehend him if possible, kill him if he fled or resisted, so bombing would have been the worst option. As was said before, we didn't even know we had killed him until they ID'd the body, so our best guess was he was there, but nothing was difinitive until we entered the compound.

As I said repeatedly, and you seem to decide to see what you want to see as "insinuated" regardless of what I have actually said. Go back to the post with great big letters. I said I believed it was handled the best way it could be, that I trusted the Seals, that I felt the story we had so far was correct.

What I don't get is why you are so unwilling to consider for even a second that maybe it could have been done differently. That maybe, just maybe, the official story is not quite right. I think it is important to know exactly what happened and why. Why do you get so vehemently angry that someone is willing to question what went down instead of taking it all blindly?

But I would love for you to quote the parts where I insinuated I wanted the whole compound bombed and all the women and children killed instead of a surgical strike. Questioning whether the way OBL was killed was legitimate per the GC is a far cry from hoping to see hundreds of people killed in collateral damage instead.

So you are saying the US did the correct thing, it was legal under the GC, and yet you are just arguing for the sake of arguing? Got it.

Again this whole discussion and the way the GC would be applied hinges entirely on whether this whole thing is viewed as a true war or international armed conflict between nations or not. That changes things. I am sure we will see some of that kind of debate out there as the details from the compound are released.

Yeah, like I said, this was a different type of war with different battlefields and a different army than what the GC was written to regulate.

 

[LogGrad98]

So you are saying the US did the correct thing, it was legal under the GC, and yet you are just arguing for the sake of arguing? Got it.

Yeah, like I said, this was a different type of war with different battlefields and a different army than what the GC was written to regulate.

Wow you really didn't read any of this did you. My first sentence of my first paragraph belies what you said here. I admit it is a complex issue that is hardly black and white, and maybe you just don't have the intellect to understand anything but absolutes. So I can let you out of the discussion gracefully. I can translate this for you nice and simply.

Osama dead. We killed him. We we we so excited. We so excited. Fun fun fun fun.

There now you can go back to not reading or thinking about what is being said and passing your judgements on it anyway.

 

[Scat]

I was under the impression that the GC had nothing to do with matters such as these? This wasn't a country fighting another country while at war.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Wow you really didn't read any of this did you. My first sentence of my first paragraph belies what you said here. I admit it is a complex issue that is hardly black and white, and maybe you just don't have the intellect to understand anything but absolutes. So I can let you out of the discussion gracefully. I can translate this for you nice and simply.

Osama dead. We killed him. We we we so excited. We so excited. Fun fun fun fun.

There now you can go back to not reading or thinking about what is being said and passing your judgements on it anyway.

So you're a clown who is trying to play both sides of the coin here. You are arguing that it may have been illegal and wrong, while quoting the GC. When pointed out that it would have been totally legal to blow that whole compound to smithereens, killing everyone inside, you resort to "I agree the USA did it right, I believe the version of events they described, and I am just arguing for the sake of arguing."

And now you resort to a bunch of personal attacks when someone calls you on it?

I'm sorry my intellect does not impress you, but my point remains valid. It would have been totally legal to bomb the whole compound and kill everyone inside. So if your entire argument is based on legalities, then you must be saying that would have been okay, and even preferred to the surgical strike that was carried out which you said might not have been okay.

And if your argument is not based on legalities, then please point out exactly what the heck you are saying. So far the only thing I am getting is you think you are smarter than you really are, you think everyone who disagrees with you is dumber than they really are, and you are arguing for the sake of arguing based on the GC.

 

[LogGrad98]

Ok to summarize so you don't have to be expected to read what was already said:

The primary discussion here has NOT been whether the raid itself was legal per the GC. The GC only has a few provisions as to the carrying out of war, most of the GC is for the treatment of prisoners of war and civilian non-participants and even participants who surrender. You brought into it whether the raid itself was legal and that is covered more under the treaties of the Hague Convention.

The primary discussion here has been whether killing OBL DURING THE RAID was legal per the GC. Since there are still so many unknowns, Dutch brought up the fact that if OBL had been summarily executed, that would be against the laws of the GC. Others misunderstood and thought he was talking about our own national laws which are somewhat different. I and One Brow sided with Dutch in that if we find out that OBL was executed, as in, the possibility that he surrendered or was otherwise incapable of defending himself or resisting, then that would be illegal. And I branched off into the ethics/morality of it all. That was the discussion.

Somehow you took all that and turned it into some bizarre interpretation that we wanted them instead to bomb the bejeezus out of the compound killing everyone there rather than raiding it and killing just OBL. No idea where you got that from. I asked you to provide the quotes, you did not. I answered your question about whether bombing the compound would have been legal and said by the GC it would be investagatable due to the impact to civilians. One Brow correctly applied the standards from the Hague Conventions laws of war that technically the bombing would be legal, but he again brought up the implication that legal does not always mean right, which is what we were getting at with the killing of OBL in the raid.

There are multiple issues at play in this thread, but what One Brow, Dutch, and I were mostly discussing with others was whether the way we killed OBL was legal per the GC. Not the distinction between bombing the compound or raiding it, but even in more detail, the conjecture that maybe he was captured then forced to "kneel down" (or whatever) while he was shot in the head (a clear breach of the GC) or if he were killed in the chaos of the initial raid or while actively defending himself or kneeling.

We have been skirting around the periphery of the GC (and now that you turned the direction, the Hague Convention and treaties), but we have not had a full treatise on those laws. Really the discussion, up until you got here, was whether there was a tipping point where it is ok to chuck the laws out the window in the interest of revenge, and if people felt it would be ok if we found out that OBL was executed when he could have been captured.

See that is where you spoke out of your ***. You did not read enough to understand the discussion. You mixed issues and built up a pretty crappy straw man to rail against, and tried to push it off on everyone else.

Even those who disagree with me, Brow, and Dutch could tell you that the focus was on the "what-if" factors surrounding OBL's actual capture/death and whether it would be right to go against the laws we all agreed to (in the GC) and simply shoot him in the head or if that would have been wrong. Some didn't want to discuss it in a what-if format, and that's cool. I still think it is valid until we get the official details from the debrief as we really at this point do not know exactly what went down. What we have now is various reports, some conflicting. Personally, I believe the reports from the Seals that killing him was a result of the raid and possible return-fire. But I still think it is valid that we open up the dialog regarding the implications if we find out in the end that they had him in custody and just shot him in the head. And the still more complex implications if it was actually ordered by Obama.

If I am way off-base with this summary I am sure someone will correct me.

There, now you don't have to actually read anything else that was said, which it was very obvious you did not do before you jumped in with both feet in your mouth.

 

[LogGrad98]

I was under the impression that the GC had nothing to do with matters such as these? This wasn't a country fighting another country while at war.

I think you will end up being right about this Marcus. It depends on how the "international armed conflict" part of it is interpreted and, more importantly, the final determination on the circumstances of OBL's death.

 

[Scat]

I think you will end up being right about this Marcus. It depends on how the "international armed conflict" part of it is interpreted and, more importantly, the final determination on the circumstances of OBL's death.

Of course the UN and the International Court of Justice may come into play...

 

[SaltyDawg]

Ok to summarize so you don't have to be expected to read what was already said:

The primary discussion here has NOT been whether the raid itself was legal per the GC. The GC only has a few provisions as to the carrying out of war, most of the GC is for the treatment of prisoners of war and civilian non-participants and even participants who surrender. You brought into it whether the raid itself was legal and that is covered more under the treaties of the Hague Convention.

You are the one who keeps bringing up the GC (before I even posted). Dutch was also clear that the USA may have violated some laws (which is what sparked the whole discussion anyway).

Somehow you took all that and turned it into some bizarre interpretation that we wanted them instead to bomb the bejeezus out of the compound killing everyone there rather than raiding it and killing just OBL. No idea where you got that from. I asked you to provide the quotes, you did not. I answered your question about whether bombing the compound would have been legal and said by the GC it would be investagatable due to the impact to civilians. One Brow correctly applied the standards from the Hague Conventions laws of war that technically the bombing would be legal, but he again brought up the implication that legal does not always mean right, which is what we were getting at with the killing of OBL in the raid.

I explained it in pretty good detail. Dutch's issue was that this may not have been legal. You later agreed and even posted some of the GC. I pointed out that bombing the compound would have been totally legal and therefore erased any of those legality questions. So if your only disagreement with this is based on the legality (which is still the only reason I have seen given for any possible disagreement) then you would have obviously preferred the legal method- bombing the compound and killing everyone in it.

There are multiple issues at play in this thread, but what One Brow, Dutch, and I were mostly discussing with others was whether the way we killed OBL was legal per the GC. Not the distinction between bombing the compound or raiding it, but even in more detail, the conjecture that maybe he was captured then forced to "kneel down" (or whatever) while he was shot in the head (a clear breach of the GC) or if he were killed in the chaos of the initial raid or while actively defending himself or kneeling.

Man you're all over the place. So you WERE discussing the legality of it after all. So then how are you not seeing my point? Your whole issue is that raiding the compound and then killing Bin Laden may have been illegal. My point is that blowing that whole thing to smithereens and killing everyone inside would have been totally legal. Again, if your issue was the legality of the way he was killed, which you just said that was the issue you were discussing, then the method he was killed (executed, bombed, whatever) is very much relevant to the discussion.

We have been skirting around the periphery of the GC (and now that you turned the direction, the Hague Convention and treaties), but we have not had a full treatise on those laws. Really the discussion, up until you got here, was whether there was a tipping point where it is ok to chuck the laws out the window in the interest of revenge, and if people felt it would be ok if we found out that OBL was executed when he could have been captured.

Wait a minute, you just said "what One Brow, Dutch, and I were mostly discussing with others was whether the way we killed OBL was legal per the GC." Like I said, you're all over the place.

See that is where you spoke out of your ***. You did not read enough to understand the discussion. You mixed issues and built up a pretty crappy straw man to rail against, and tried to push it off on everyone else.

No man, I understood the discussion just fine. Your first post where you brought up the GC was 10 minutes before my post disagreeing with dutch. It's not like you had a hundred posts before I got in. I am following along just fine. It's just you are all over the place.

Even those who disagree with me, Brow, and Dutch could tell you that the focus was on the "what-if" factors surrounding OBL's actual capture/death and whether it would be right to go against the laws we all agreed to (in the GC) and simply shoot him in the head or if that would have been wrong. Some didn't want to discuss it in a what-if format, and that's cool. I still think it is valid until we get the official details from the debrief as we really at this point do not know exactly what went down. What we have now is various reports, some conflicting. Personally, I believe the reports from the Seals that killing him was a result of the raid and possible return-fire. But I still think it is valid that we open up the dialog regarding the implications if we find out in the end that they had him in custody and just shot him in the head. And the still more complex implications if it was actually ordered by Obama.

Well as long as we're playing the what if's, lol. What if they had bombed the compound and killed everyone inside and a few civilians outside? It would have been totally legal, killed lots of unarmed people, nobody inside would have been posing a direct threat to the person firing the missile, and Obama would have been the one to order it. Would you prefer that to the surgical strike that was carried out, even if they made him kneel down and shot him in the head?

If I am way off-base with this summary I am sure someone will correct me.

There, now you don't have to actually read anything else that was said, which it was very obvious you did not do before you jumped in with both feet in your mouth.

I didn't read the whole thread, but I read enough to know what was being discussed. I disagreed with Dutch, responded in kind, which you happened to post your agreement with dutch while I was making my post. So for all intents and purposes, I have been here from the start of the discussion. You got involved at virtually the same time I did. And just like you keep saying you don;t think I understand what is being said, I am pretty sure you keep missing my point as well (as I said in a few posts now, when I tried to make it simple to follow).

 

[Gameface]

Wouldn't have been legal if he surrendered and then they executed him. No one is really arguing if the raid itself was legal, other than you.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Wouldn't have been legal if he surrendered and then they executed him. No one is really arguing if the raid itself was legal, other than you.

Man, it's frustrating posting here. I'm not sure if you guys are really not getting this (after I clearly explained this, many times now), or if you are all just messing with me...

I know the raid was legal. I know nobody is discussing that. I know the killing of Bin Laden himself is what is being discussed.

Now that we have that out of the way...

If they had bombed the compound and killed everyone inside and possibly a few civilians out side the compound, that would have also been totally legal.

Which would you have preferred- the supposedly possibly illegal raid (excuse me, legal raid but illegal killing of Bin Laden) that surgically took out Bin Laden and left all the innocents unharmed (even it it means they made him kneel down and shot him in the head) or the totally legal bombing of the compound which killed everyone inside and a few civilians outside of the compound?

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

I myself brought up the GC a few days ago but is it even relevant here? The little I just read about it makes me think not. Also, is this a "war" anyway? Did we ever officially declare war on some country? Just sayin'.

 

[LogGrad98]

The primary discussion here has NOT been whether the raid itself was legal per the GC. The primary discussion here has been whether killing OBL DURING THE RAID was legal per the GC.

Your whole issue is that raiding the compound and then killing Bin Laden may have been illegal.

There you go. Drop the first part of your sentence and you are right. They are not part and parcel. It was possible to raid the compound and NOT kill OBL at all. It was also possible to raid the compound, and kill OBL in a manner that would be considered legal by international law. It was also possible to raid the compound and THEN kill OBL in a manner that would be ILLLEGAL by international law. See the legality of HOW he was killed during the raid is not dependent upon the legality of the raid itself, since those 2 issues are governed by different laws.

But every time I tried to point that out, you just went right back to equating it to raiding the compound AND killing OBL as if there were only the 2 options: raid and kill, or bomb and kill. I made it pretty clear in the quote above, but you still put them right back together again.

The reason you think it has been "all over the place" is that you will not, or cannot, make that distinction. It is entirely possible for the raid itself to be legal, but the result of the raid (killing of OBL) to be illegal. Not sure why you cannot see that, even after I clearly made that distinction. That shows you have not been following along very well. Even One Brow made the same distinction, but you do not seem to be able to separate the 2 things.

That is enough to explain why you cannot understand the rest of the post(s). It all hinges on understanding that concept. Since you can't, or won't accept that, then you can't understand the rest of it either.

The issue was not when you joined the conversation, but rather whether you understood what was being said. Obviously you did not.

Also, to confuse levels of complexity with being "all over the place" just shows your inability to follow the thought process. The raid itself could possibly have been illegal by international law (see the Hague Treaties). The way OBL was killed during that raid could possibly have been illegal by international law (see the GC). Then you combine the 2 possibilities and the issue grows in complexity. I suppose by pointing out some of the points of those laws it made it even more complex to you. That does not make it less accurate, just shows you are having a harder time understanding as it grows more complex.

But no matter how well you personally are capable of understanding the complexity of the issue, no one up to this point was arguing the legality of the raid itself, possibly with the exception of Dutch, although I didn't understand it that way from him either. So I have no idea where you got that from. The discussion I have been part of from the beginning was around whether the way he was killed was legal, not the raid itself.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Man, it's frustrating posting here. I'm not sure if you guys are really not getting this (after I clearly explained this, many times now), or if you are all just messing with me...

I know the raid was legal. I know nobody is discussing that. I know the killing of Bin Laden himself is what is being discussed.

Now that we have that out of the way...

If they had bombed the compound and killed everyone inside and possibly a few civilians out side the compound, that would have also been totally legal.

Which would you have preferred- the supposedly possibly illegal raid (excuse me, legal raid but illegal killing of Bin Laden) that surgically took out Bin Laden and left all the innocents unharmed (even it it means they made him kneel down and shot him in the head) or the totally legal bombing of the compound which killed everyone inside and a few civilians outside of the compound?

So basically you're saying, ignore the laws or rules in place here. We did what we did and chose the lesser of two evils which makes it A-okay. Sound about right?