Bin Laden is dead

[LogGrad98]

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'.

I agree that whatever the outcome of this from an international law standpoint will hinge on how the military action is viewed. Whether it is judged to be a "war" as defined by the GC. I think that will be a point of debate we will see in the media stemming from this at some point.

 

[SaltyDawg]

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.

Okay, I admit I did not read 90% of this one.

Are you seriously posting all of these long *** posts arguing semantics?

Whether the raid itself was illegal, or the killing of Bin Laden during the raid was illegal, it doesn't change a damn thing about my point.

Again, bombing that compound, and killing everyone inside of it would have been totally legal. Is that what you would have preferred?

 

[SaltyDawg]

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?

No, I am saying what they did was totally legal. Log said he also believes it was totally legal, but he is arguing what ifs. So what if they had bombed the **** out of it and killed everyone? It would have been totally legal. Would that have been preferred?

 

[LogGrad98]

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?

That's easy. The raid was by far the better choice. I think most people have been in agreement with that in this thread. I also believe the official reports so far that the Seals acted within the legal realm of the GC in the killing of OBL. I certainly hope (and am confident) that the investigation will bear that out.

I just hope that IF it turns out that we did go against the GC in how all this was handled that we don't just sweep it under the rug. If we just start tossing our agreements and laws out the window because we are really mad, I think that is wrong and dangerous for our society.

For me, if we find out they executed him after he surrendered and we had him securely in custoder, whether on their own accord or acting under orders, I think that would be wrong and would need to be dealt with as a war crime, regardless of what OBL did in the first place.

 

[LogGrad98]

Okay, I admit I did not read 90% of this one.

Are you seriously posting all of these long *** posts arguing semantics?

Whether the raid itself was illegal, or the killing of Bin Laden during the raid was illegal, it doesn't change a damn thing about my point.

Again, bombing that compound, and killing everyone inside of it would have been totally legal. Is that what you would have preferred?

You posted a long enough post of your own arguing semantics.

And when these semantics have the potential to affect people's lives, I think it is important to understand what is being talked about. I know our little discussion here in this forum is just for fun, and we might learn a thing or 2 from them, or maybe even change our opinion, and in the grand scheme of things really doesn't matter much. But, if and when the same discussions start at a level that could affect the lives of our citizenry, I sure hope time is made to fully understand the definitions and ramifications of what is being said.

But that's just me.

 

[TroutBum]

Gods, I love Salty.

Dude, you need to post more. I'm being serious.

 

[SaltyDawg]

You posted a long enough post of your own arguing semantics.

And when these semantics have the potential to affect people's lives, I think it is important to understand what is being talked about. I know our little discussion here in this forum is just for fun, and we might learn a thing or 2 from them, or maybe even change our opinion, and in the grand scheme of things really doesn't matter much. But, if and when the same discussions start at a level that could affect the lives of our citizenry, I sure hope time is made to fully understand the definitions and ramifications of what is being said.

But that's just me.

If you really thought it was worth several long *** posts arguing because I said "the raid," instead of "the killing of Bin Laden during the raid that was launched to kill Bin Laden," then what can I tell you.

 

[One Brow]

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.

If it isn't a war (or general war-type thing), then Osama was not an enemy combatent, but a civilian criminal, and was entitled to due process when being arrested by the American military. I could be wrong, but I don't think there is a third category here.

 

[One Brow]

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

No, it wan't. The issue is that the specific act of shooting bin Laden, who was not armed, may have been illegal, even though for now we are trusting the word of the SEALs that he was actively resisting (without a weapon) or someone else in the room had a weapon (which would make the shooting justified, as I understand it).

However, if we shot an unarmed person who was not resisting, that was illegal (even if it happens every day in the US).

 

[One Brow]

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?

I prefer the legal raid without illegally killing Osama. Perhaps that's just weird.

 

[SaltyDawg]

I prefer the legal raid without illegally killing Osama. Perhaps that's just weird.

Oh, I see, so you just don't want anybody to die at all then. Lets all hold hands and sing while we sniff pretty flowers.

This is a war. People are going to die. The alternative to this was bombing the compound and killing everyone. That much has already been said many times by the people involved.

 

[DutchJazzer]

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.

even then murdering an unarmed man or executing one(if that might have happened. not saying it did since we have to trust the words of seals and politicians, i dont know about seals. but one thing politicians are good at is lying) would be morally and ethically wrong. so wheter its under the geneva convention, american consitution or whatever american laws or just morals and ethics.

murdering/executing someone when he could have easily been taken alive is wrong.

and i'm not an idiot as some claim. maybe some of you should try and argue in a language which is not your own

 

[LogGrad98]

If you really thought it was worth several long *** posts arguing because I said "the raid," instead of "the killing of Bin Laden during the raid that was launched to kill Bin Laden," then what can I tell you.

Considering you used those semantics to attack me outright I do not think it was that far-fetched to defend myself against your uninformed denigrations and false accusations.

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.

Yeah, so we have proven that we already showed that we did not find it preferable to kill everyone in the compound, as you asserted. We also showed that we did not find it preferable to kill a bunch of women and children. I guess you expected to be able to make unfounded inflamatory statements and have everyone just bow before you for some reason. Speaking out of your *** can come back to bite you.

I also find it telling that you apparently viewed the raid as having the sole purpose of killing OBL. Do you think Obama ordered his assassination outright, or do you think he sent them in to apprehend him, using deadly force where necessary? If fact if you think the raid was to kill him outright, you are dead wrong. Here is what Obama said himself about the raid:

“Finally, last week I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action and authorised an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice,” the US President explained, and continued: “Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.”

You assumed the raid was specifically to do nothing but kill OBL (which Obama said was not the case), then you assumed that was simply common knowledge, instead of reading to understand the opinions already provided. So then you feel the need to call them out as "clowns" and such since they are ignoring the OBVIOUS FACT (obvious and fact to you only, not to everyone else involved, including Obama) that they were there to kill him to begin with, so obviously we are all stupid for wanting to blow up babies instead of just simply murder OBL. Your assumptions cause you to make an *** of yourself. Try reading to understand first, then post.

 

[DutchJazzer]

also is it that hard to believe that a soldie(rSeal marine infantry whatever) might act emotionally and just shoot OBL. is it really that far fetched?
after all wasn't OBL wanted dead or alive. because their soldiers they automatically are the most trust worthy people ever?

if the idea that some soldiers might have acted emotionally and just shot bin laden is far fetched. then i need to rethink my views on humanity.
also is it hard to believe that the militaryleaders and or politican gave the kill order? is that also far fetched?

i have been reading a lot on nazi hunters/bringing nazi's to justice. so I might have put those views on this situation.

 

[LogGrad98]

Oh, I see, so you just don't want anybody to die at all then. Lets all hold hands and sing while we sniff pretty flowers.

This is a war. People are going to die. The alternative to this was bombing the compound and killing everyone. That much has already been said many times by the people involved.

Again you limit the possible options. Wow you really do think in black and white. I would hate to be your kid.

One Brow is completely correct. It was preferrable to bring OBL to justice, try him for his crimes, and do it all within the international laws we agreed to adhere to. You jump straight to the extremes. Osama had to die in this raid no matter what or how...or...no one should ever be killed at all no matter what.

I believe One Brow and I share the opinion that we feel the Seals did just what they were supposed to. I believe they worked within the law. We do not know for certain and will not until the debriefing and investaigations are complete, but we certainly hope that holds up to scrutiny.

That has been the big difference in this argument. We find it necessary that we do things the right way, by rule of law, and within the framework of the agreements our country has co-authored and signed. Others feel it is ok to toss those laws and agreements out the window because "this is war" and "he deserved to die" and "people are going to die". That is just horrible reasoning for throwing away the laws and ethics that make for a civilized society, imo.

 

[One Brow]

Oh, I see, so you just don't want anybody to die at all then. Lets all hold hands and sing while we sniff pretty flowers.

I prefer that when we execute people, we do it according to the law, definately. If i need to sniff flowers to make that happen, I'm willing.

This is a war. People are going to die.

Not in dispute nor relavent.

The alternative to this was bombing the compound and killing everyone.

How about the alternative of live capture. If Osama is capured alive, why not try him?

 

[SaltyDawg]

Considering you used those semantics to attack me outright I do not think it was that far-fetched to defend myself against your uninformed denigrations and false accusations.

It was not uninformed nor was it false. It was you all over the place, trying tt hide behind semantics. My point didn't change one bit with your semantics.

Yeah, so we have proven that we already showed that we did not find it preferable to kill everyone in the compound, as you asserted. We also showed that we did not find it preferable to kill a bunch of women and children. I guess you expected to be able to make unfounded inflamatory statements and have everyone just bow before you for some reason. Speaking out of your *** can come back to bite you.

You're all over the place again. If you found it preferable to raid the place, even if it meant kneeling him down and putting a bullet in his head, then there is no further discussion. Because whatever happened in that compound, the only alternative was to bomb the place.

I also find it telling that you apparently viewed the raid as having the sole purpose of killing OBL. Do you think Obama ordered his assassination outright, or do you think he sent them in to apprehend him, using deadly force where necessary? If fact if you think the raid was to kill him outright, you are dead wrong. Here is what Obama said himself about the raid:

The whole purpose of the raid was to kill or capture Bin Laden. That has been the mission since W. If it comes out that Obama (who ordered the mission) ordered the killing of Bin Laden, then that would mean the purpose of the mission was to kill him- whether anyone else knew it or not. I'm not saying Obama told them to kill him outright, but I doubt Obama told them to bring him in alive at all costs either. These were not police officers, they were the best killers the nation has to offer.

You assumed the raid was specifically to do nothing but kill OBL (which Obama said was not the case), then you assumed that was simply common knowledge, instead of reading to understand the opinions already provided. So then you feel the need to call them out as "clowns" and such since they are ignoring the OBVIOUS FACT (obvious and fact to you only, not to everyone else involved, including Obama) that they were there to kill him to begin with, so obviously we are all stupid for wanting to blow up babies instead of just simply murder OBL. Your assumptions cause you to make an *** of yourself. Try reading to understand first, then post.

Um, yeah, Obama sent in the best killers the nation has to offer with the full intention of NOT killing America's biggest threat and biggest enemy. Hell yeah you're a clown if you actually believe that.

 

[Boondocksaint27]

 

[SaltyDawg]

Again you limit the possible options. Wow you really do think in black and white. I would hate to be your kid.

One Brow is completely correct. It was preferrable to bring OBL to justice, try him for his crimes, and do it all within the international laws we agreed to adhere to. You jump straight to the extremes. Osama had to die in this raid no matter what or how...or...no one should ever be killed at all no matter what.

I believe One Brow and I share the opinion that we feel the Seals did just what they were supposed to. I believe they worked within the law. We do not know for certain and will not until the debriefing and investaigations are complete, but we certainly hope that holds up to scrutiny.

That has been the big difference in this argument. We find it necessary that we do things the right way, by rule of law, and within the framework of the agreements our country has co-authored and signed. Others feel it is ok to toss those laws and agreements out the window because "this is war" and "he deserved to die" and "people are going to die". That is just horrible reasoning for throwing away the laws and ethics that make for a civilized society, imo.

Nobody is throwing away any laws or ethics. Killing Bin Laden was totally justified, and totally legal.

 

[Gameface]

SEALs

Seals

Sorry, it's just been bugging me.