Bin Laden Sons Say U.S. Violated International Law

Source: The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The adult sons of Osama bin Laden have lashed out at President Obama over their father’s death, accusing the United States of violating its basic legal principles by killing an unarmed man, shooting his family members and disposing of his body in the sea.

The statement said the family was asking why the leader of Al Qaeda “was not arrested and tried in a court of law so that truth is revealed to the people of the world.” Citing the trials of Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic, the statement questioned “the propriety of such assassination where not only international law has been blatantly violated,” but the principles of presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial were ignored.

“We maintain that arbitrary killing is not a solution to political problems,” the statement said, adding that “justice must be seen to be done.”

The statement, prepared at the direction of Omar bin Laden, a son who had publicly denounced his father’s terrorism, was provided to The New York Times by Jean Sasson, an American author who helped the younger Bin Laden write a 2009 memoir, “Growing Up bin Laden.” A shorter, slightly different statement was posted on a jihadist Web site Tuesday.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/world/asia/11binladen.html

9/12 while all other civilian flights were grounded. Hell, GW would not even allow the FBI to talk with them.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp

It just gets repeated over and over in the hopes one day it will be true.

and I've heard around DU the claim that the bin Ladens were allowed to fly away while American airspace was closed. Some more resources for clarification:

http://www.factcheck.org/article294.html
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/fahrenheit-911-facts/what-fahrenheit-911-says-about-the-saudi-flights-out-of-the-country-after-september-11

But I came across this Democrats.com article linking to a 2001 http://www.tampatrib.com/MGA3F78EFSC.html">Tampa Tribune article claiming a phantom flight on 9/13/2001.

Airspace was opened at 11am on September 13.

There were two Saudi Arabian Airline planes that left from different part of the US, during the No Fly time period.
The truth doesn't change because something different gets repeated over and over again.

:eyes:

Yes, there were reports that some planes left when people were still stranded. Much hay has been made of such reports. People were stacked in airports all over the country, planes were in the wrong places, the whole system was jacked.

However, the no-fly period was lifted roughly 48 hours after the towers fell. Sure, it took about a week to get everything else moving again, but somebody could get on a flight as of 11 a.m. on September 13th.

However, you can flip the paradigm: While the Commission found no evidence it happened in certain specific ways, it also found no evidence it never happened, either.

One question may be, do you trust government commissions, like the Warren Commission and the 911 Commission to both get at truths others do not want known and to report all of it to the public?

Assuming you have sa llat of trust, the next question might be, would it be possible for,say,the CIA to have done this without the 911 Commission's ever finding out about it?

Not saying it happened. Just saying your link proves nothing, either way.

about Osama's being executed rather than arrested and brought to trail. What is your opinion about that?

edited for typo

The SEALs should break in and chase him around a house of which they're unfamiliar with the floorplan and wrestle him room by room. No, I don't think so. Per AQ's methods of operation, the whole place could have been wired to blow up with a remote control or whatever he had in the bedroom. They love IED's. I'm sure he would have loved to go out in a blaze of glory taking a couple of dozen evil American Military infidels with him in a large explosion of HIS choosing. No, I think not. Shoot to kill.

.

Maybe they should have mentioned that to the old man before he did his dark deeds.

The son should not be saddled with the sins of his father

Hey, I don't know that I'd turn in a close family member, but I don't think the son gets to have it every which way either.

Sometimes fugitives from justice get shot.

Don't there have to be actual legal proceedings and extradition orders for someone to be declared a "fugitive from justice"?

I gather OBL was on some kind of U.S government "wanted" list, but that alone would not make him a fugitive from justice, since U.S law does not extend outside the U.S. and there was no extradition order of which I am aware.

(To be clear, this is a question, not an opening gambit in an epic struggle.)

.

Yeah, I know, he's still dead either way, but I'm just interested in whether there is any merit claiming that OBL had some kind of legal obligation to turn himself in.

Even if he had been tried in absentia, as we have done with murderers, he would have no legal obligation to come to the U.S. (or an embassy abroad) and turn himself in.

The first international warrant for his arrest was issued in April 1998 following a request not by the Americans or the Europeans, but by Colonel Gaddafi of Libya.

On March 16, 1998, five months before the al Qaeda bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the Libyan Ministry of Justice named Bin Laden as the main suspect in a double murder that had taken place in the Libyan town of Sirte four years earlier.

The warrant was forwarded to Interpol in France, where it was formalised on April 15, 1998.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Bin-Laden-Gaddafi-Libyan-Leader-Issued-Arrest-Warrant-For-Bin-Laden-Well-Before-9-11/Article/201105115984158?f=rss

That answers that question.

Bin Laden took credit for a crime, then ran and hid away, avoiding capture. That makes him a fugitive. And I'd argue that he was a fugitive from justice -- because what happened to him was, to my mind, justice in action.

Fuck that asshole.

Tell that to the people in those towers.

Sometimes exceptions are justified. Screw the rules.

Either we are a nation that believes in laws or we aren't.

What if someone thinks harming you for advocating abandoning the rule of law, the very foundation of your country, is a good idea? Would you still support whatever exceptions someone decided were warranted?

Sorry, I know of no law that says your personal opinion is the highest law of the land and international law, which has grown up over 'exxperiences of millenia and fully contemplated Hitler, still the worst killer in all of human history.

Either we got this guy under the rule of law, as I think we did, or we were morally and legally wrong annd therefore ourselves criminals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Criminal_charges

The extradition orders were ignored, and US law does cover the murder of US citizens in other countries.

to have been "involved in" and "wanted in connection with" terrorist attacks.

I cannot explain that oddity.

Indicted folk are still entitled to a trial and retain the presumption of innocence and other Constitutional safeguards.

He said, on a videotapethat he seems to have made and delivered to Al Jazeera, that "we" never expected that the buildings would collapse entirely, only that some damage would be done. (Words to that effect.)

I don't think there is much doubt he was involved in at least 911 planning.

said, on a videotape that he seems to have known was being made and delivered to Al Jazeera, that "we" never expected that the buildings would collapse entirely, only that some damage would be done. (Words to that effect.)

I don't think there is much doubt he was involved in at least 911 planning.

Which one of them wants to be No. 1 now?


LOL

"Arbitrary killing isn't the solution to political problems", huh? What exactly was 9/11?

nt

How about chutzpah?

on 9/11? Or in the Kenya embassy bombing?

REALLY?

Those boys are tone deaf.

Under International Law a nation has the right of self defense so the bin Laden sons have no case.

referring?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_international_law

It would only be retaliation if Bin Laden were no longer at war with the U.S. or there was reason to believe that he was planning no further attacks. Furthermore, he had ample opportunity to surrender or sue for peace if his intent was to end hostilities.

He had not surrendered or sued for peace since declaring war against the U.S. in fatwas in 1996 and 1998. Therefore the U.S. was justified in attacking Bin Laden to prevent future attacks once they had identified his probable location. Had he tried to surrender to the Seals he still could have saved his life. But he chose to evade capture. An enemy combatant who evades capture is not protected from use of lethal force.

Your dad broke a lot more international laws then the US did.

The claim that OBL broke a lot more international laws than the US did isn't exactly a slam-dunk proposition.

In particular, the U.S has to take responsibility for the hundreds of thousands dead, crippled and wounded in the illegal Iraq war.

He had denounced his father's violations of law and is now denounnncing what he believes to be our violations of law vis a vis his father and his father's family members.


See, that's the thing about laws ---re: things like arrests and trials: They apply most often to those who, like Osama, have broken the law, as well as to those suspected a nd/or arrested in error.

Where the son errs is our killing of his father was not arbitrary. I guess Osama would say the same about his crimes, but he'xd be wrong.

Jesus! I'd die laughing if it weren't so idiotic

I'm not saying we were wrong. I think the son is wrong. However, saying he has no right to complain because his father was a lawbreaker misses the point. That's how the law of the jungle works, not how (and why) our system of laws works.

Talk to the thousands of family members from the WTC buildings about being tried in a court of law you ignorant scum.

Please also see replies 61, 64 and 65.

A civilized nation, based on the rule of law, and a world leader, would have arrested and tried him in a court of law. Perhaps a finding of guilt on many counts would be a slam dunk, but we've seen slam dunks turn into bunk.

The real concern is where does the President draw the line on who can be killed by Presidential decree. Can we have ballot initiatives in which we vote on who to kill people? Sounds like we now have a dictator or King.

But I seem to recall a basic principle in law that you can't press a claim for violation of a law that you yourself have violated, e.g., the thief cannot charge another with stealing property he himself stole. But maybe I'm misremembering that.

Property you stole can be stolen from you. People you've killed cannot be killed again. And, should other property be stolen, property you came by rightly, you can complain about theft.

Even Osama himself would have had the right to ask for a trial, had he been captured alive. His son killed no one and was not in Pakistan. The wife we shot killecd no one, either.

Yer daddy was a terrorist asshole and got what he deserved

double tapped

yup

yup

"Your call is important to us." :rofl: :spray:

:thumbsup:

:rofl:

But three do.

Should have told your dad that, dumbass.

live by violating international law, die by violating international law!"

Please see Replies 61,64 and 65. We either live by our laws or we live by the law of the jungle.

Oh well.

as a solution to political problems. Really. It's just too, too fucking rich.

I bow before your wisdom

:nopity: :-( :nopity:

Wonder how these assholes felt when his father killed thousands of innocent people for his perverted ways??!!!

asshat.

Sometimes you just have to accept it's God's will what will happen!

:sarcasm: intended!!!!!!!!

However, I am glad they are saying it, because it will neuter the American Right-wing from rolling with this meme.

grief and frustration.

The irony is that the "terrorists" have won. They have fashioned bad behaviors and exorbitant sums of non-productive money which weaken this country morally and financially.

Why lingering unemployment? Try looking a trillions spent for no productive purpose.