bil Laden was killed

[pwagen]

CIA and whoever else was involved weren't absolutely sure bin Ladin was in the house until they went in, it seems. In the end, it was Obama who took the decision to go in, despite the risks.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/world/asia/03intel.html?_r=1&hp

[swansont]

Where did this quote come from, since I don't recall making the comment?

 

The media in general. Nothing after the first paragraph was in response to you.

 

If our Ops. weren't sure Bin was holed up in that compound these past few months,(or years?) they took one hell of a chance of compromising that Seal Team to what could have been a terrible fire fight. Since these guys don't work on whims, or an "I think" scenario, you can bet some cold hard facts were laid out before committing them to such an adventure; no matter how well trained they are. A bullet is just a bullet!

Whether the Pakis knew or didn't know isn't important, we did. And what that courier didn't know when he finally put a battery in his phone, is that he was being monitored by more than his intended receiver. I'd even bet they knew what Bin ate for lunch every day.

 

The reports I have seen peg the certainty at something like 50-80%. Where are you getting your information?

 

I suspect that's one reason (of several) for sending in a SEAL team instead of a missile or bomb, because backlash if he wasn't there (and it was just some eccentric recluse) would have been tremendous.

[rigney]

CIA and whoever else was involved weren't absolutely sure bin Ladin was in the house until they went in, it seems. In the end, it was Obama who took the decision to go in, despite the risks.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/world/asia/03intel.html?_r=1&hp

I don't doubt for a minute that's precisely what took place. I'm just wondering who it was that twisted Obamas arm into making the decision. Presidents aren't all that tough, just people. Biden was too busy with his prayer beads, and lord knows of the supplications going up from the office croud? "Don't get me wrong", it was Obamas decision "alone" to make. That's why we call him Mr. President. As president Harry Truman once stated so eloquently, "The buck stops here". Other than the I,I,Is, we should contemplate the entire ten years leading up to this win over evil.

 

The media in general. Nothing after the first paragraph was in response to you.

 

 

 

The reports I have seen peg the certainty at something like 50-80%. Where are you getting your information?

 

I suspect that's one reason (of several) for sending in a SEAL team instead of a missile or bomb, because backlash if he wasn't there (and it was just some eccentric recluse) would have been tremendous.

Yes!, and I'm thankful it played out that way. Maniacs kill kids. America, other than the two A-bombs dropped over Japan in 1945, has never been such a rogue nation. But then, life in this new world is just beginning. Edited May 8, 2011 by rigney

[john5746]

I would much have rather they had captured him instead, and had a nice chat with him. And since when do we rejoice in death? Doesn't large mobs of people rejoicing in someone's death bring anything to mind?

 

We rejoice in victory over our enemies all the time, I don't see any issue with that. The guy is dead. He will no longer be able to spread his hatred. The world is a little better without him. I am happy about that. I don't need to drag his body down the street or torture him or lock him up like a dog to feel justice has been done. Just remove him. Maybe a "chat" with him would be informative, I think it more likely would be a huge distraction.

 

 

What I would expect is that the more moderate people who back terrorism will begin to think twice about their opinion of 'westerners' as infidel scum who want to destroy them. If the terrorist factions lose general support amongst the population then they will have lower recruitment rates so less resources for conducting a large scale campaign.

 

sure there will still be attacks, there would still be a surge after Osama was hypothetically captured and tried but its a step in the right direction.

 

We're (US, UK EU etc. etc.) meant to be the good guys, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than everyone else. Sure, we will still make mistakes and so on but we should acknowledge those mistakes are infact mistakes and as soon as possible. We should be acting better than we are, We need to be acting better than we are.

 

I think everyone agrees to hold ourselves to a higher standard. I think we did hold ourselves to a higher standard in regards to this killing. We didn't bomb the city, block or even the house. The issue with islamic terrorism is deeper than just the west. They have issues within their own countries that serve as recruitment. They kill or cause the suffering of more muslims than any westerners. If we left the planet, they would still exist. I understand bombing children will cause hatred, but if killing a guy like this causes it, then so be it. I hold these moderates to a standard that would allow them to understand that this is a great thing.

 

 

I think the best thing Obama could do right now is to commission a report to be publically released detailing the particulars of what happened in Abbottabad. And I don't mean the usual heavily redacted trash, be open, publish more than you normally would (granted some info should remain confidential to prevent peoples lives being put at risk). Have a detailed breakdown of what decisions were made and why they were made.

 

The US has made many mistakes, IMO. Iraq being the largest of them. I don't think this is one of them and I see no need to spend any energy on it. I hope to see our military go more towards this type of action and stop invading countries.

[Marat]

At international law, the issue is one of interpretation of the precise facts of what happened when bin Laden's compound was attacked, so I agree that the U.S. should release the details -- though the problem would be that this would not be objective evidence, since the U.S. could always have censored or manipulated the data.

 

The international law position of the U.S. is that it was acting under a right to defend itself against an active enemy in a war under article 51 of the U.N. Charter, but unless it can be established that bin Laden was still an active enemy commander, actually waging war on the U.S., barging in his house and just executing him rather than arresting him for trial would be illegal. Arresting him and returning him for a fair trial, preferably before the International Criminal Court, would have been legally the safest option, since the entire factual setting ought to have been investigated by a neutral institution before any irreparable acts were undertaken.

 

The U.S. almost always violates international law, and even exempts its own citizens from the jurisdiction of international courts, since it knows it will be likely to continue violating international law in the future. It is unfortunate that in a democracy that prides itself on free speech, problems such as this simply never come to public discussion, and instead all we see is CNN acting like the State Department's Propaganda Ministry when it comes to foreign affairs.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The international law position of the U.S. is that it was acting under a right to defend itself against an active enemy in a war under article 51 of the U.N. Charter, but unless it can be established that bin Laden was still an active enemy commander, actually waging war on the U.S., barging in his house and just executing him rather than arresting him for trial would be illegal.

This is exactly what the government has been claiming upon reading through the documents discovered in his house, although of course they're not releasing those documents for public inspection.

[swansont]

Bin Laden is the one who declared war. If he didn't negotiate a peace, and attacks continued, one has to assume the state of war still existed. This was a military op, not a sheriff delivering an arrest warrant.

[rigney]

Bin Laden is the one who declared war. If he didn't negotiate a peace, and attacks continued, one has to assume the state of war still existed. This was a military op, not a sheriff delivering an arrest warrant.

 

By all means, "Touche"!

[Marat]

But the problem is that while the U.S. is NOW claiming that the evidence found in bin Laden's compound supports the theory that he was still actively making war on the U.S. and was thus legitimately killed as an enemy combatent who was not surrendering when encountered, the U.S. did not have that evidence when it ordered what is now admitted to have been a 'kill or capture' mission. It was then often suggested that bin Laden may at one time have been actively directing al-Quaida but was no longer doing so; that he was now just a figure-head but no longer a combatent, etc. So when the U.S. framed its intent to kill or capture bin Laden on the assumption that he was still actively making war on the U.S., the general consensus is that it was not clear that he was a legal target for killing under article 51 of the U.N. Charter. He could have been arrested under international law for a trial to determine -- by a neutral investigation of the facts by a disinterested adjudicator -- whether he still was an active combatent, and whether he was really guilty of crimes against humanity in the past, but he could not legally have been killed on the information available.

 

Since the U.S. had the mens rea to kill bin Laden knowing that it did not yet have sufficient information to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he was still an enemy combatent, yet it still committed the actus reus of killing bin Laden despite the absence of exculpatory knowledge, then the action was just murder and illegal at international law when committed -- even if after the fact it might be found to have been justifiable. But now that bin Laden will never be available to present his defense, the justification of the U.S. action can never be proven.

 

All the U.S. does by saying that it had article 51 justification for its action is to assert that according to America's theory of the situation, that was its justification. Whether the facts support that justification or not can only be established by the International Criminal Court, but now that investigation can never occur.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'm not sure I follow how an action which only by fortunate accident turns out to be legally justified is still illegal.

 

For example, if I pull out my gun and shoot a random person, it's murder -- unless, fortuitously, that person is in the act of threatening another person's life, in which case the cops will pat me on the back and let me go. My lack of foreknowledge does not change the legality of the action.

[imatfaal]

I realise that different jurisdictions have different laws - but in UK I think Captain Refs actions could well still be considered illegal. A defence to murder that the action was justified requires a reasonable subjective belief that these actions were necessary and proportionate - ie even if the man on the clapham omnibus thinks you were justified; if the accused admits to believing he used excessive force then the defence fails. And, of course, if you had admitted to shooting at random then you would have no claim to a reasonable belief. You would have the mens, the actus, no justification and no excuse. I would have to double check this - but that's the way I think it goes.

[swansont]

But the problem is that while the U.S. is NOW claiming that the evidence found in bin Laden's compound supports the theory that he was still actively making war on the U.S. and was thus legitimately killed as an enemy combatent who was not surrendering when encountered, the U.S. did not have that evidence when it ordered what is now admitted to have been a 'kill or capture' mission. It was then often suggested that bin Laden may at one time have been actively directing al-Quaida but was no longer doing so; that he was now just a figure-head but no longer a combatent, etc. So when the U.S. framed its intent to kill or capture bin Laden on the assumption that he was still actively making war on the U.S., the general consensus is that it was not clear that he was a legal target for killing under article 51 of the U.N. Charter. He could have been arrested under international law for a trial to determine -- by a neutral investigation of the facts by a disinterested adjudicator -- whether he still was an active combatent, and whether he was really guilty of crimes against humanity in the past, but he could not legally have been killed on the information available.

 

Since the U.S. had the mens rea to kill bin Laden knowing that it did not yet have sufficient information to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he was still an enemy combatent, yet it still committed the actus reus of killing bin Laden despite the absence of exculpatory knowledge, then the action was just murder and illegal at international law when committed -- even if after the fact it might be found to have been justifiable. But now that bin Laden will never be available to present his defense, the justification of the U.S. action can never be proven.

 

All the U.S. does by saying that it had article 51 justification for its action is to assert that according to America's theory of the situation, that was its justification. Whether the facts support that justification or not can only be established by the International Criminal Court, but now that investigation can never occur.

 

I don't think it matters whether bin Laden was actively planning or not. He declared war and the onus was upon him to negotiate a peace if he did not want to be pursued. But that would probably have required his surrender. The state of war did not cease, and would not even if he had no active plans, without an overt act on his part. It just makes it fortuitous that we possibly headed off another attack. Reasonable doubt doesn't enter into it, since this was not an action tied to criminal justice. IMO arguments about criminal justice are a distraction. This was on foreign soil, and is/was war, and wartime rules of engagement applied.

[Marat]

At international law only a country can declare war, not a band of hooligans. International law does recognize the existence of bands of criminals who can be seized and brought to trial wherever they are, called 'hostis humani generis,' the enemies of all mankind (originally intended as a legal designation for pirates), but these people have to be continuing to engage in what makes them enemies of all mankind to be killed, although they can be arrested at any time. A retired pirate has to be arrested, not killed on sight. He may be an enemy of mankind, but he cannot declare war on mankind, so his hostile status depends on what is now continuing to do, not on an implicit declaration of war effected by his initial misbehavior.

 

Criminal mens rea is determined at the moment of the act, not after later facts emerge to justify it. The criminal intention and the criminal act have to overlap temporally for the person to be guilty of a crime. Thus if I intend to murder a person who, unknown to me, is about to kill me, even though in fact I have a defense of necessity (self-defense) which allows me to kill him if necessary, I am nonetheless guilty of murder, since I acted with the intent to commit unlawful killing and did so, even though more knowledge could have given me an innocent intent.

 

An interesting complication of this is the case of transferred intention, where I intend to shoot person A but my aim is bad and I kill person B instead. Then transferred intent allows my criminal mental intention against A coupled with my intent to act to kill A to count as both the criminal intent and the criminal action of murder against B.

[swansont]

For that to be true civil wars/revolutions cannot be considered wars. That's a bunch of hooligans trying to overthrow a government, who could be seized and brought to trial.

[imatfaal]

For that to be true civil wars/revolutions cannot be considered wars. That's a bunch of hooligans trying to overthrow a government, who could be seized and brought to trial.

 

And if they fail, they almost certainly will be brought to trial (although possible not a very fair one - perhaps only a military tribunal in a deniable off-shore location).

[swansont]

And if they fail, they almost certainly will be brought to trial (although possible not a very fair one - perhaps only a military tribunal in a deniable off-shore location).

 

After they surrender. If hostilities have not ceased, though, they are generally not arrested.