"Freedom Watch" calls the President a criminal for killing Bin Laden

[TheBrain]

I'm willing to acknowledge that it wasn't US justice, but US vengeance. I can live with that. Fuck that asshole and fuck anyone else who has a problem with it.

 

[CRStar]

yeah, i know how rightwingnut trash like you hate individual liberty.

damn that 1st, 4th and 5th amendment, right, nutter?

nice rep for a dumb as toast loon like you.

ROTFLMFAO.....You are an ignorant old specimen, are you not. Get a life you lonely old tramp. Go join the ACLU...very fitting for you. Bye bye. Nut Job. I have a stalker, another one infatuated and obsessed with me...Sorry sweety, not flattered at all.

hit a nerve, did I?

what a loser you are.


YAWN..ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
You are a worthless troll....let me take you to the Flame Zone and show you NASTY....you are nothing for me...you are a pitiful loser with no life. Call yourself "princess"...LMAO....You just met the QUEEN...now run along and go play elsewhere....you are boring.....Bye bye idiot Your Queen just spoke.

 

[auditor0007]

Under many circumstances, I might agree that killing OBL was wrong. However, al Queda has repeatedly stated that they are at war with us. In wars, people are targeted to be killed. We are at war with al Queda. This was not a police action. End of story.

 

[BlindBoo]

The Executive Director of Human Rights Watch is criticizing the U.S. for killing Terrorist Leader Osama Bin Laden without Due Process. What do you think of this criticizm?

Human Rights Watch chief condemns bin Laden killing | The Daily Caller

????

The New York-based Human Rights Watch has been relatively mum on the Al Qaeda leader’s death, issuing a terse statement quoting Mr. Roth: “At a time when citizens around the world have engaged in peaceful demonstrations in the name of freedom and democracy, bin Laden’s death is a reminder of the thousands of innocents who suffer when terrorist groups seek political change through brutal means.”

UPDATE: In a press release Wednesday afternoon, Human Rights Watch clarified that the organization has taken no official position on the legality of bin Laden’s killing.

 

[CRStar]

Now back to the story on hand, sorry about the rude interruption from the uneducated and miserable old troll above.

It is only because America did the job. If anyone else had done it, they would be applauded and whoever initiated the attack would be given a Nobel Prize. But, because it's the USA, it is condemned, but maybe it's jealousy because I don't think anyone else has the same kind of equivalent and efficiency of our brave SEALS. Most countries have special forces, this I know, but can they go 1 on 1 with a SEAL, I doubt it.

 

[Valerie]

Now back to the story on hand, sorry about the rude interruption from the uneducated and miserable old troll above.

It is only because America did the job. If anyone else had done it, they would be applauded and whoever initiated the attack would be given a Nobel Prize. But, because it's the USA, it is condemned, but maybe it's jealousy because I don't think anyone else has the same kind of equivalent and efficiency of our brave SEALS. Most countries have special forces, this I know, but can they go 1 on 1 with a SEAL, I doubt it.

Did you miss the part where the headline was false and the man did not actually condemn anything, or would you rather continue with your delusional trolling?

 

[California Girl]

The Executive Director of Human Rights Watch is criticizing the U.S. for killing Terrorist Leader Osama Bin Laden without Due Process. What do you think of this criticizm?

Human Rights Watch chief condemns bin Laden killing | The Daily Caller

I think he has every right to criticize.

We have every right to kill terrorists that have plotted against the US.

Yep.

 

[theHawk]

Now back to the story on hand, sorry about the rude interruption from the uneducated and miserable old troll above.

It is only because America did the job. If anyone else had done it, they would be applauded and whoever initiated the attack would be given a Nobel Prize. But, because it's the USA, it is condemned, but maybe it's jealousy because I don't think anyone else has the same kind of equivalent and efficiency of our brave SEALS. Most countries have special forces, this I know, but can they go 1 on 1 with a SEAL, I doubt it.

But we DID get a Nobel Prize remember?

They gave it to him for what he was going to do. Guess that includes assassination.

 

[CRStar]

Now back to the story on hand, sorry about the rude interruption from the uneducated and miserable old troll above.

It is only because America did the job. If anyone else had done it, they would be applauded and whoever initiated the attack would be given a Nobel Prize. But, because it's the USA, it is condemned, but maybe it's jealousy because I don't think anyone else has the same kind of equivalent and efficiency of our brave SEALS. Most countries have special forces, this I know, but can they go 1 on 1 with a SEAL, I doubt it.

But we DID get a Nobel Prize remember?

They gave it to him for what he was going to do. Guess that includes assassination.

LMAO.....

 

[M14 Shooter]

You just can't be happy about this can you?
Good. I'm GLAD our President ruined it for you.

What a maroon.

I've said at least THREE times that I am glad OBL is dead.

If you do not have the capacity to undertand the point I've made, you need to go back to the kiddie pool and leave the adults to their conversations.

Some people are stupid bro. Like that Mr Shaman clown saying I am on the fence because I posted that I'm glad the guy's dead, and I don't care if it was done legally or not; but I could see how some people would call it illegal.

People. Sheesh.

 

[Sheldon]

That's okay. 3000+ of our fellows were killed on the illegal whim of Osama bin Laden.

Even if it is illegal under some interpretation of international law, I applaud the President for his actions against the SOB. I appaud everyone involved as well.

True enough.

I am unconvinced that is was illegal and if it was too bad. The rightwingloons and the Pakistanis can make their case to have Obama imprisoned.

I stopped reading the thread here, so maybe this has already been addressed but I'm just not capable of wading through all twenty pages of this shit.

Anyways Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have been making the case too, or at least questioning the legality. The US bans assassinations, but this has been classified as a targeted assassination, meaning it was in self-defense and therefore legal under US laws and he was on a list vetted by the UNSC. The argument for its illegality I think is based on the belief that ObL was unarmed and therefore should have been taken alive and tried before the ICC, and that it violated the International Covenant on Civil and Human Rights, Part III Article 14, and the Geneva Convention's ban on summary execution.

Personally I'm taking any claims of legality or illegality with a grain of salt because I think there's too many unknowns right now to form a solid fact-based opinion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's okay. 3000+ of our fellows were killed on the illegal whim of Osama bin Laden.

Even if it is illegal under some interpretation of international law, I applaud the President for his actions against the SOB. I appaud everyone involved as well.

True enough.

I am unconvinced that is was illegal and if it was too bad. The rightwingloons and the Pakistanis can make their case to have Obama imprisoned.

I stopped reading the thread here, so maybe this has already been addressed but I'm just not capable of wading through all twenty pages of this shit.

Anyways Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have been making the case too, or at least questioning the legality. The US bans assassinations, but this has been classified as a targeted assassination, meaning it was in self-defense and therefore legal under US laws and he was on a list vetted by the UNSC. The argument for its illegality I think is based on the belief that ObL was unarmed and therefore should have been taken alive and tried before the ICC...

Someone may make that argument, but it isn't sound.
OBL openly made war against the US. As such, he, himself, is a valid target in that war, and so there's no legal need to attempt an arrest or take him to trial.

 

[Ravi]

That's okay. 3000+ of our fellows were killed on the illegal whim of Osama bin Laden.

Even if it is illegal under some interpretation of international law, I applaud the President for his actions against the SOB. I appaud everyone involved as well.

True enough.

I am unconvinced that is was illegal and if it was too bad. The rightwingloons and the Pakistanis can make their case to have Obama imprisoned.

I stopped reading the thread here, so maybe this has already been addressed but I'm just not capable of wading through all twenty pages of this shit.

Anyways Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have been making the case too, or at least questioning the legality. The US bans assassinations, but this has been classified as a targeted assassination, meaning it was in self-defense and therefore legal under US laws and he was on a list vetted by the UNSC. The argument for its illegality I think is based on the belief that ObL was unarmed and therefore should have been taken alive and tried before the ICC, and that it violated the International Covenant on Civil and Human Rights, Part III Article 14, and the Geneva Convention's ban on summary execution.

Personally I'm taking any claims of legality or illegality with a grain of salt because I think there's too many unknowns right now to form a solid fact-based opinion.

If you are interested, here's a link to an article about legality. I think the guy makes some good points, including this:

Bin Laden could have been legally killed if he were holding a weapon and not firing—or if he were holding no weapon at all. Any soldier seeing bin Laden and recognizing him could make a reasonable assumption that he had “hostile intent.” After all, Al Qaeda bodyguards were nearby, and they were shooting at the Navy SEALs to defend him. “This is a guy who’s extremely dangerous,” John B. Bellinger III, legal counsel at the National Security Council and State Department in the Bush Administration, told the New York Times. “If he’s nodding at someone in the hall, or rushing to the bookcase or you think he’s wearing a suicide vest, you’re on solid ground to kill him.” Military law tends to recognize that soldiers must confront myriad, and potentially lethal, ambiguities amid the heat of battle.

News Desk: Bin Laden: The Rules of Engagement : The New Yorker

 

[TheBrain]

True enough.

I am unconvinced that is was illegal and if it was too bad. The rightwingloons and the Pakistanis can make their case to have Obama imprisoned.

I stopped reading the thread here, so maybe this has already been addressed but I'm just not capable of wading through all twenty pages of this shit.

Anyways Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have been making the case too, or at least questioning the legality. The US bans assassinations, but this has been classified as a targeted assassination, meaning it was in self-defense and therefore legal under US laws and he was on a list vetted by the UNSC. The argument for its illegality I think is based on the belief that ObL was unarmed and therefore should have been taken alive and tried before the ICC...

Someone may make that argument, but it isn't sound.
OBL openly made war against the US. As such, he, himself, is a valid target in that war, and so there's no legal need to attempt an arrest or take him to trial.

Eh it's tricky. I mean IF the US declared war on someone and they had a SF team break into the WHite House and shoot the President , we would consider that a crime, not just a part of war.

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't care what he thinks. I may not celebrate Bin Laden's death. But it was hardly an unjust action on our part.

The so called human rights are a joke anyway. Sad but true.

 

[Sheldon]

True enough.

I am unconvinced that is was illegal and if it was too bad. The rightwingloons and the Pakistanis can make their case to have Obama imprisoned.

I stopped reading the thread here, so maybe this has already been addressed but I'm just not capable of wading through all twenty pages of this shit.

Anyways Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have been making the case too, or at least questioning the legality. The US bans assassinations, but this has been classified as a targeted assassination, meaning it was in self-defense and therefore legal under US laws and he was on a list vetted by the UNSC. The argument for its illegality I think is based on the belief that ObL was unarmed and therefore should have been taken alive and tried before the ICC, and that it violated the International Covenant on Civil and Human Rights, Part III Article 14, and the Geneva Convention's ban on summary execution.

Personally I'm taking any claims of legality or illegality with a grain of salt because I think there's too many unknowns right now to form a solid fact-based opinion.

If you are interested, here's a link to an article about legality. I think the guy makes some good points, including this:

Bin Laden could have been legally killed if he were holding a weapon and not firing—or if he were holding no weapon at all. Any soldier seeing bin Laden and recognizing him could make a reasonable assumption that he had “hostile intent.” After all, Al Qaeda bodyguards were nearby, and they were shooting at the Navy SEALs to defend him. “This is a guy who’s extremely dangerous,” John B. Bellinger III, legal counsel at the National Security Council and State Department in the Bush Administration, told the New York Times. “If he’s nodding at someone in the hall, or rushing to the bookcase or you think he’s wearing a suicide vest, you’re on solid ground to kill him.” Military law tends to recognize that soldiers must confront myriad, and potentially lethal, ambiguities amid the heat of battle.

News Desk: Bin Laden: The Rules of Engagement : The New Yorker

That's where I'm at too. This is al-Qaeda's figurehead, so he's probably going to have a lot of security around. It can see there being a suicide button nearby for him to push and the whole compound goes up in smoke, or something like that. The argument that he could have been taken alive is unreasonable, imo--considering how quick I'm thinking the firefight went down, room to room, just a split second to make a decision.

If ObL did in fact surrender (doubtful, but maybe), I think that could change the scope of legality. International law is a pain in the ass so it's a good thing we're the big kid on the block.

 

[Sheldon]

True enough.

I am unconvinced that is was illegal and if it was too bad. The rightwingloons and the Pakistanis can make their case to have Obama imprisoned.

I stopped reading the thread here, so maybe this has already been addressed but I'm just not capable of wading through all twenty pages of this shit.

Anyways Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have been making the case too, or at least questioning the legality. The US bans assassinations, but this has been classified as a targeted assassination, meaning it was in self-defense and therefore legal under US laws and he was on a list vetted by the UNSC. The argument for its illegality I think is based on the belief that ObL was unarmed and therefore should have been taken alive and tried before the ICC...

Someone may make that argument, but it isn't sound.
OBL openly made war against the US. As such, he, himself, is a valid target in that war, and so there's no legal need to attempt an arrest or take him to trial.

Is that an opinion, or a legal fact that can be referenced?

 

[TheBrain]

I stopped reading the thread here, so maybe this has already been addressed but I'm just not capable of wading through all twenty pages of this shit.

Anyways Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have been making the case too, or at least questioning the legality. The US bans assassinations, but this has been classified as a targeted assassination, meaning it was in self-defense and therefore legal under US laws and he was on a list vetted by the UNSC. The argument for its illegality I think is based on the belief that ObL was unarmed and therefore should have been taken alive and tried before the ICC, and that it violated the International Covenant on Civil and Human Rights, Part III Article 14, and the Geneva Convention's ban on summary execution.

Personally I'm taking any claims of legality or illegality with a grain of salt because I think there's too many unknowns right now to form a solid fact-based opinion.

If you are interested, here's a link to an article about legality. I think the guy makes some good points, including this:

Bin Laden could have been legally killed if he were holding a weapon and not firing—or if he were holding no weapon at all. Any soldier seeing bin Laden and recognizing him could make a reasonable assumption that he had “hostile intent.” After all, Al Qaeda bodyguards were nearby, and they were shooting at the Navy SEALs to defend him. “This is a guy who’s extremely dangerous,” John B. Bellinger III, legal counsel at the National Security Council and State Department in the Bush Administration, told the New York Times. “If he’s nodding at someone in the hall, or rushing to the bookcase or you think he’s wearing a suicide vest, you’re on solid ground to kill him.” Military law tends to recognize that soldiers must confront myriad, and potentially lethal, ambiguities amid the heat of battle.

News Desk: Bin Laden: The Rules of Engagement : The New Yorker

That's where I'm at too. This is al-Qaeda's figurehead, so he's probably going to have a lot of security around. It can see there being a suicide button nearby for him to push and the whole compound goes up in smoke, or something like that. The argument that he could have been taken alive is unreasonable, imo--considering how quick I'm thinking the firefight went down, room to room, just a split second to make a decision.

If ObL did in fact surrender (doubtful, but maybe), I think that could change the scope of legality. International law is a pain in the ass so it's a good thing we're the big kid on the block.

Yep, might makes right, it's that kind of cowboy attitude that had the whole world so pissed off at Duby................ wait a minute.....................

 

[Sheldon]

Yep, might makes right, it's that kind of cowboy attitude that had the whole world so pissed off at Duby................ wait a minute.....................

I think it's just another example of how Obama is similar to Bush II when it comes to executive power and national security issues. Which is why I never really understood the right's criticism that he's soft on terror. Although I think the same groups that are raising legal questions now would be doing the same if this had happened in 2007.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I stopped reading the thread here, so maybe this has already been addressed but I'm just not capable of wading through all twenty pages of this shit.

Anyways Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have been making the case too, or at least questioning the legality. The US bans assassinations, but this has been classified as a targeted assassination, meaning it was in self-defense and therefore legal under US laws and he was on a list vetted by the UNSC. The argument for its illegality I think is based on the belief that ObL was unarmed and therefore should have been taken alive and tried before the ICC...

Someone may make that argument, but it isn't sound.
OBL openly made war against the US. As such, he, himself, is a valid target in that war, and so there's no legal need to attempt an arrest or take him to trial.

Is that an opinion, or a legal fact that can be referenced?

The only difference between OBL and, say Guderain, is that Guderian was an actor of the German state. Had an OSS team infiltrated his compound and killed him, it would be the same thing. Had Guderian tried to surrender and the OSS team killed him anyway, it would be exactly the same thing - no different than SS troops killing US soldiers who tried to surrender; a war crime.

The picture is not quite as clear in that OBL is not an actor of a state or a member of a state army - but the principles apply in exactly the same way.