The Hand Wringing Over Osama’s Death from Fellow Progressives is Unwarranted

False moral equivalencies, cries of extra-judicial killing, all of this and more has been the reaction to the killing of Osama bin Laden by a particular segment of the Progressive left.

To understand whether any of these accusations have merit, let’s completely outline the situation that existed and exists between the United States and bin Laden and his group, Al Qaeda.

In August of 1996, Osama bin Laden issued the first of two declarations of war against the United States. He issued a written religious edict, called a Fatwa that was unambiguously titled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places." In this Fatwa, he called on all Muslims to join him in this war against America and Israel.

In February 1998, bin Laden issued a second Fatwa declaring war against the United States, it’s allies, and Israel. In this second declaration of war, bin Laden among other things said “The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it”

On August 7, 1998, i.e., a few months after the second declaration of war, the group led by bin Laden, Al Qaeda, bombed the US Embassies in the capitals of Kenya and Tanzania. Through those bombings, along with the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole and of course the September 11, 2001 attacks, bin Laden and Al Qaeda demonstrated the seriousness of the ideas and intentions expressed in those two declaration of war Fatwas.

Is it possible for an international law-recognized state of war to exist between a nation state and a non-nation state entity, or even two or more non-nation state entities? The answer is, “of course”, as an example, many civil wars fit this description.

My assertion is that according to applicable international law, a state of war existed and continues to exist between the United States and Al Qaeda and its affiliates. No cease fire or peace agreement has been signed between the US and Al Qaeda and acts of war continue between them.

International Law, as outlined in various United Nations documents and the Geneva Conventions has a number of things to say about terrorism, war and self defense.

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter says “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security….”

Al Qaeda is not a member of the United Nations and does not recognize the authority of the United Nations, its charter or its resolutions. Thus, the idea that the Security council can “take measures necessary to maintain international peace and security” in this situation via any kind of diplomatic actions or resolutions is moot, at least as things now stand.

On 12 September 2001, The UN Security Council adopted a resolution that condemned the September 11th terrorist attacks, expressed determination to combat terrorist acts by “all means”, re-affirmed the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense, and expressed its readiness “to take all necessary steps” to respond to the terrorist attacks.

The September 11th attacks resulted in the US and UK as well as Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand and Norway joining together in Afghanistan to wage war against Al Qaeda and their Taliban supporters. Most of those countries are hardly the sort that would be involved in unnecessary wars or unprovoked wars of aggression. We can go beyond those countries who participated directly and say that virtually the entire international community supported the United States in their efforts to bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice.

Indeed, in response to the killing of bin Laden, Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General of the United Nations said “Personally, I am very much relieved by the news that justice has been done to such a mastermind of international terrorism. I would like to commend the work and the determined and principled commitment of many people in the world who have been struggling to eradicate international terrorism.”

Linguistics Professor and political activist Noam Chomsky has compared and asked us to contrast the attack that killed bin Laden with a hypothetical attack by Iraqi commandos to kill George W. Bush or Dick Cheney. Chomsky suggests there is a moral equivalence between the two. Anti war activist and author David Swanson wrote an article that suggests that bin Laden was lynched.

As an aside, most Democrats were against the Iraq war, identified it as unnecessary and unprovoked, and we were proven correct. I have written several articles critical of the war and proving that the Bush administration knew several weeks before the war that their primary justification regarding the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was not true. Here is one such article http://www.opednews.com/articles/Iraq-War--Six-Year-Annive-by-Steven-Leser-090304-145.html . Those facts make the Iraq war an unprovoked war of aggression and those who ordered it are guilty of that war crime.

The easiest response to Chomsky’s suggestion is that currently no state of war exists between Iraq and the United States. Not only that, the government of Iraq signed Status of Forces Agreements in 2008 and 2009 that governs how many US troops can be in Iraq and for how long. So Chomsky is comparing a killing that occurred between two entities that are at war and a hypothetical one between two entities that are not only no longer at war, they have good relations.

International law and most countries’ criminal law statutes take those kind of distinctions very seriously.

It would be quite an odd argument to claim that bin Laden should get the protection of a non-war status and those who killed him should be prosecuted for an extra-judicial killing after he himself declared war twice and since then has continuously waged war directly through the organization he led.

A helpful second example that illustrates the inaccuracy of the Chomsky and Swanson analogies is the April 18, 1943 killing of Japanese Commander in Chief Isoroku Yamamoto by the US Army Air Corps. Military intelligence learned that Yamamoto would be conducting an inspection of Japanese installations in the Solomon Islands and they learned the flight path his aircraft would be taking, and they had US Fighter aircraft ambush and shoot down the plane.

The ambushing of Yamamoto was not a crime and no one then or since has considered it so. In wartime, the commanders of combatants are legitimate and legal targets. It’s not considered an extra-judicial killing or lynching to attack combatants and their commanders in wartime.

A high percentage of those who self identify as Democrats and/or Progressives also self identify as anti-war, and I include myself in that. There is a difference, however, between protesting unjust wars and preferring non-violent solutions to conflicts whenever possible versus twisting facts and using false equivalencies to demonize actions because you want to try to assert that all acts of violence, particularly those by one country or entity (in this case the US), are evil.

with progressives. In fact, there is a false equivalency in the other direction when questions of procedure are asked.

think that Usama's half-right.

Perhaps you perceive one thing for another?

Shame at US reaction vs. approval for Osama?

Very different things, unless you are half-blind.

quote what people here have said about OBL being even close to 'half right'.

everything else falls right into place. :)

It's the subtext to your listing of the coalition of the bought and coerced. It is the premise that permits our government to go into Pakistan and shoot bin Laden in the face.

argument to fit one that you think you can more easily attack. The very definition of a straw man argument.

Obama has no basis for entering Pakistan. Let alone for running a drone program that involves preventable civilian casualties. Just as he has no basis for dropping cluster bombs in Yemen or for targeting an American citizen for assassination there, etc.

it is possible to be at war with a group like the barbary pirates, for instance, that moved between a single nation state in Africa and two non-state territories.

Most of Al Qaeda is in the Af-Pak region. There are affiliates concentrated in Yemen and one or two other countries. Five countries in Asia Minor is not the entire globe. Being at war with Al Qaeda and their affilitates does not require one buy into a nebulous global war on terror.

so that's something of a stretch.

Obama cannot use the rationale "Al Qaida is there" when he goes into Pakistan and Yemen. He is using the permission inherited from BushCo aka, the GWOT. I'm not trying to twist your OP but rather, to show you the underpinning.

Obama has asked that his administration stop using the phrase "global war on terror", preferring "overseas contingency operation" or some such jumble. But changing the label doesn't change the M.O.

You yourself went to great trouble to describe a state of war between the United States and Al Qaida. My comments speak directly to the mechanics of that state of war.

false assumption (as Steve is doing) is not equivalent to accepting Bush's global war on terror theory.

If Pakistan is either explicitly or implicitly harboring terrorists, we will go after those terrorists. This has been the case before Bush -- Clinton himself ordered the assassination of OBL. He didn't need "permission" from the host country, or even to inform them.

On the other hand, if accepted your false assumption, and the only way to deal with Bin Laden was inform Pakistan, they would have likely helped him escape. THEN I would not be surprised at all if we entered a state of war with Pakistan. So not only is your theory incorrect as a matter of factual accuracy, but your theory has the side consequence of resulting in more war between states (not less).

the terrorist we are harboring in Florida? That is the question people want answered.

Not the many more Mooslim countries all over the globe?

Big Fat Fail.

There are military COMs that cover the entire planet plus outer space and cyberspace.

Otherwise a thoughtful piece of writing.

One could argue that treaties with Iraq have been obtained under duress.

It's A-OK for a President with a D after their name to preside over, escalate, & get into new war(s)!

Tsk, tsk

WHY do you have America and our Pres? :P

Well done.

KnR.

Great article.

Once you embrace the bin Laden Exception, how does it stay confined to him?

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/06/bin_laden

Der Spiegel, long established and respected German magazine, asks this trenchant question (loosely translated):

Under what 'law' was OBL assassinated without a trial ?

Along those lines, can you please cite the U.S. statute that governs here???? And would that same statute allow for similar hit jobs on others???? If so, where do you draw the line and say, "This far, and no further?"

As EFerrari trenchantly points out upthread, exactly what is the 'battlefield'? I think she's saying in a round-about way, "Are we dispensing with all boundaries?"

Edited for typos and clarity.

and the US is a signatory to the UN Charter and the various Geneva conventions.

The battlefield is generally Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Can you look at the following that I put in my OP and consider them in the context of Al Qaeda's actions right after the second declaration and tell me that we are not at war with them:

In August of 1996, Osama bin Laden issued the first of two declarations of war against the United States. He issued a written religious edict, called a Fatwa that was unambiguously titled "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places." In this Fatwa, he called on all Muslims to join him in this war against America and Israel.

In February 1998, bin Laden issued a second Fatwa declaring war against the United States, it’s allies, and Israel. In this second declaration of war, bin Laden among other things said “The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it”

to hardly bear mentioning) that only Congress shall have the power to declare war, according to the U.S. Constitution, aside from that little technicality, I could maybe accept your statement that it is not a bin Laden exception but a 'war exception'. If we took bin Laden's fatwas so seriously, then why did neither Bush nor Clinton ask Congress to declare war? Could it be because one declares war on nations, not on individuals?

I don't think you really want to get into what the Geneva Conventions mandate and the little Orwellian trick Bush and now an Obama spokesperson have used to justify our manifest violations of them, specifically here in justifying the hit job by referring to OBL an an 'enemy combatant.' If you do want to discuss complaince or lack thereof with Geneva, just say the word.

Later in the same paragraph, Greenwald asks another pertinent question:

"Isn't it necessarily the case that you're endorsing the right of the U.S. Government to treat any top-level Terrorists in similar fashion?" So where are you going to draw the line? should we just whack Khalid Sheik Mohammed using your logic? That seems a bit like poor sportsmanship, given that he has already been tortured while in captivity (see above re Geneva).

As for the battlefield being "generally" Afghanistan and Pakistan (your word), nice that you neglected Yemen and Somalia. Extra-judicial executions have taken place there as well. In fact, just yesterday, I saw reports that a drone strike just missed Awlaki in, I believe, Yemen.

You madcap! Where you going with that shotgun?

in Europe, Asia and other regions with functioning governments. The DOJ is collaborating with police forces around the world, as is the Treasury department. We are not blowing up terrorists in those countries.

There are places in the world where there are either no functioning governments to collaborate with or where the governments actively support terrorist groups. Those areas are appropriate for military solutions.

as so I've heard?

Heck, I bet a goodly percentage of U.S. bases said to be in so many other countries are merely figments of we Lefty/Liberal's imagination!

Wow. Good to know! :hi:

I would hope they are crawling all over those countries that are harboring terrorists and are unable or unwilling to work with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies.

that we're letting these foreign countries completely control and implement their anti-terror actions:

"in Europe, Asia and other regions with functioning governments. The DOJ is collaborating with police forces around the world, as is the Treasury department. We are not blowing up terrorists in those countries"

Even with "collaborating... police forces (governments)" we don't have our people in there?

Are you serious?


Nor do I think we should "be crawling all over those countries".
What I think is that we should definitely address the terrorists grievances -- most ARE quite legitimate and, if done to/within this country wouldn't be tolerated for one damn minute.
How many foreign bases are on U.S. soil?
--and that's not to mention that our "Freeing" (by bombing or invading) those countries only causes many more terrorists. It's like cutting off the head of the Hydra, yet we're most definitely not Hercules!
Nor could we ever be, by any stretch of the imagination.

We are NOT the Police force of the world, but we can control the damage we do not only to other peoples and our standing in the world but to ourselves.
Remember, for one, this entire OBL thing started because we, under Reagan wanted to have a nice long session of gloating & schadenfreude;
then we understood that Afghanistan was the graveyard of empires (although we wanted to hasten Russia's 'progress' towards that end). Now, we seem to have forgotten that lesson we knew such as short time ago.
On top of that, & for instance, once we gained a foothold into our "friends", the Saudi's country and once our mission to "save" Kuwait was over we never left! The only thing we 'left', permanently so it appeared, was our soldiers who violated their deeply held beliefs; those regarding alcohol, halal, "exposure" of women, proselytizing, etc.
I'm not saying their system is great, IMO it sux big time; but until the people change their own system of government because they want to I just don't think our insulting them time & time again, within their own country nor even without, is conducive to good will towards the U.S., its people or to the soldiers stationed under my example of Saudi Arabia.

Well, not until after the tragedies of 9/11 had occurred did we leave -- then even the idiot Dubya had enough sense to finally close our bases!


We are in so many countries that we have absolutely no contemporary reason to be in, other than our "national interests" whatever they may be, even when our interests are far from the actual host countries interests; but what do their interests regarding their own country matter?
(Why do we have any reason to be in Germany, for instance? The Cold War is long past!)

They should ALL have governments just like ours, & certainly not like those damn Socialist European countries, righty-right? What do 'their interests' *scoff* matter? We're "exceptional" and "morally superior" so we must "help" all those 'backwards countries' and forget about concern for their people -- we gladly intervene even at the expense of the welfare of our many U.S. citizens -- children and elderly alike!

See, it's OK for US to decide our own system of government (& don't forget we fought a revolution to achieve that) but for others, well, we can pick the system of government that's good for them. Perfectly fair! :eyes:

We engineered, trained & otherwise helped many dictators overthrow their democratically elected presidents because their "Democracies" were too "Communistic"!
--I'm talking about forcing upon others our beloved, good-for-everyone!!1! system of government: Capitalism, Yay!
Sure, the worst in recent past was was in South America but now we're virtually doing the same damn thing to those regions & continents half a world away (except China, our BFF, of course!) And it's passing strange how we're doing the same thing, or outright invading, to force them A-rab Mooslims to just love "Democracy", even if they're not ready for it!

It's just the latest --but so similar to be considered pretty much exact, we being a 'Christian nation' & all-- version of the millennium+ of war our European ancestors exacted to make other countries Christian!
'We want you to live just like us' has turned into, as the great poster says: "We're gonna Free the shit out of you!"

USA! USA!!!



Oh the hell with it, I've been working on this post way too long so I'm going to leave it, gaps & grammar be damned -- I've got things to do

and I have this nagging suspicion that nothing I say is going to make one bit of difference to those who are bound & determined to knock others, to wit: them Libruls (which they wish were out of 'their' party anyhow)

Yes, this entire episode has been VERY educational.

military aid and equipment to? Ditto for Pakistan.

Swing and a miss.

You are right about Yemen - we have the government's permission and assistance so it is legal.

The government of Pakistan has to approve of any US activity in the tribal area, no matter what their domestic arrangements are for law enforcement.

And both the actions in Pakistan and Yemen are extra legal per US law as Obama has no authorization to be in either venue. Or, they would be extra legal had we a functioning government and legal system. :)

but you forget my second caveat - the Pakistani government (or elements of the government) was actively protecting OBL. In that case, I see no obligation to respect their sovereignty at all. If you support groups that wage ware against another country, then you really can't hide behind international law.

just because we can't find the precise legal rule that fits the situation.

easily have authorization to be in BOTH areas -- he easily had the authority to kill OBL and other Al Queda members.

As for Pakistan, not only can we kill terrorists in tribal areas not controlled by their government, but we can kill terrorists in areas undisputedly controlled by their government (as we did) when their government is harboring terrorists. On top of that, the alternative was declaring war on the state of Pakistan itself, so Obama actually undertook a much narrower solution than what your solution would result in.

1. If the terrorist is in a country that is able and willing to arrest him, or to allow the FBI to come and arrest him, then it becomes a law enforcement issue.

2. If the terrorist is in a country that is unable or unwilling to arrest him then a military solution can be considered.

There are parts of the world with failed states that are basically lawless and ungovernable. There are also states that actively support terror groups. Pakistan falls into both groups - the idea that they would cooperate with us to arrest him is ridiculous. Thus the military solution.

America is not blowing up terrorists in Europe and Asia - American law enforcement is collaborating with foreign police and intelligence services on a constant basis.

that codifies that principle? Who decides what constitutes a 'failed state'? If Pakistan is one such 'failed state,' do you have any concerns about its nuclear arsenal?

How about I just throw Greenwald's essay at you one sentence at a time and watch you stretch ingenuity beyond its natural limits in trying to defend the indefensible?

Here's another sentence from Greenwald's essay:

"Then there's the strange indifference to finding out whether bin Laden was actually captured before executed."

Does it matter to you whether OBL was captured before being executed or do such distinctions no longer matter, provided the action takes place in what you deem a 'failed state'?

now while some legal experts take a restrictive view of preemptive attacks while others are more expansive, the concept of preemptively attacking groups and individuals planning attacks on you is certainly allowed under international law. Let's not forget that Pakistan had an obligation under international law not not harbor groups that are waging war on us.

OBL was living next to the Pakistani military academy in a army garrison town - it takes some extra-ordinary mental gymnastics to not consider that just maybe OBL was being helped and protected by the army or ISI. It shouldn't take much further thought to realize why asking the Pakistanis for help would not be wise.

A failed state is one with no functioning government - like Somalia, parts of Yemen, the tribal areas of Pakistan. There is no government there - not hard concept to understand.

There is no evidence that OBL was captured before being killed. If it did happen then it would be a crime. However, the SEALs are not obliged by the laws of war to provide him an opportunity to surrender - which is what I think what happened.

notion that went out with the Geneva Conventions, rule of law, etc. The FBI's Robert Mueller said there was not enough "evidence" of OBL's involvemnt in 9-11 to merit indicting OBL for it.

That kind of evidence?

There have been reports of at least one eye-witness to the events (OBL's 12-year-old daughter) who reportedly told Pakistani investigators that OBL was taken into custody and then executed after being in custody. I know, not evidence and people I still respect like Glenn Greenwald have reacted with some skepticism. But if that report doesn't at least give you pause, maybe you and I inhabit different moral universes.

enough of a reason, enough 'evidence' to summarily execute?

Wow. Just wow. Now I'm more than alarmed, I'm downright scared.

comes from a piece by Noam Chomsky:

"In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it “believed” that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany."

http://www.guernicamag.com/blog/2652/noam_chomsky_my_reaction_to_os/

Entire piece is worth a read, imho.

but I am always grateful when people prove their contentions by quoting their sources.

I'll definitely peruse the magazine later (I Have heard of it).

Much appreciated, & bookmarked! :hi:

:rofl:

But it actually a visceral disgust at seeing America's fist-bumping and shouting "USA, USA, USA" over it.

Besides being obnoxious in a sort of tasteless, tacky way, it brings up memories of other reactions of this type such as after "Shock and Awe" and many, many other events.

It brings up memories of tawdry little 1 dollar flags sticking out of windows, yellow ribbons tied around oak trees and chants at sporting events when someone from another country competes.

Mostly it is bad taste, it is cheap and it is juvenile.

Call me a snob, but it is not how I think a "leader of the world" should act.

Oh, and also I probably don't need to add that it is scary on some level because I think we all know that there is a slippery slope involved and that extreme shouts of "patriotism" can often preface dangerous actions.

When we demonize someone, we can never really be sure what it will lead to.

Need I remind you that the US torturers at Abu Ghraib also thought that their prisoners deserved it because of their actions.

I am not saying in this case you are wrong. I am not saying OBL wasn't a monster. But the question is--what is the US? The US has killed hundreds of thousands in the last decade -if not more- and where is their shame and self-reflection for THAT?

did, however, act in a serious, somber, respectful (& I don't mean respectful as towards OBL), statesmanlike way.

--what some of these people are doing are taking any criticism of the public, hypocritical displays of wild jubilation in the streets which we decry others doing as barbaric, even subhuman
as a rebuke against our President! Go figure. :shrug: You would think that sub-set would declaim the frat-party atmosphere and suggest perhaps people should follow Obama's lead! Oh, but no...


Others, so I believe, are being critical because they themselves reacted that way.


And personally, IMO the "Deather" slander used against DU'ers here is pathetic and patently untrue. Nowhere have I seen any doubt that OBL is indeed dead.
What I have seen is the desire for the U.S. to follow the Rule of Law, to practice what they preach so to speak; along with the huge benefit of being able to actually interview/interrogate bin Laden
--no, he wouldn't give up any future operations but we've got all those hard drives anyhow; still, he would brag, IMO, (and that bragging could or could not be released to the country & the world at the government's discretion)

We'd learn much in that way.
Very much!

Seriously, what are his wives (that we're 'so eager to interview') or children going to tell us? I don't think for a New York second that OBL shared operations with his wives. Their duty, y'know, is to bear children, keep up the household and to bring honor to him (or die!). He'd probably figure their poor female brains couldn't possibly comprehend! Why on earth would we think that his wives, and now we know even his children (as he stipulated in his will that none of his children were to join Al Qaeda) would be 'in on' any details regarding his evil schemes?

...the entire thing is just outright ridiculous.

criminal act.

You can't just ignore a crimnal case by slipping in and invading two countries for purposes of extracting known earth resources and extablishing bases using 9-11 to get the money, soldiers, support and billions in contracts for friends.

Congress didn't declare it.

Taking out bin Laden was not part of an act of war. It was/is rhetorical war.

The belief system that each person follows depends on who they believe was responsible for 9-11. The division starts there and has everything to do with why it will be rhetorical war for about half the people.

Even if its solved - it doesn't change the fact that Congress did not declare war. They were wishy washy representatives who took the money of the war lobbyists and thought long and hard how to pretend that they were approving.

This was step up in in the ruling elite plan. They don't give a damn whether it is/was legal.

I hope my cynical reply isn't the first. You did give your plea/accusation a great try.

Once you take that part out of your argument, the rest falls down.

have been no invasion if European countries hadn't helped out by a vague name of coalition partners. Some gave men, some allowed fuel stops for the CIA rendition jets. Some gave supplies, some gave torture prisons. Britain sold us an island group and shipped the natives out - probably for a pittance - Diego Garcia.

This has been a sick operation and if you can't or won't look at motives you won't understand my position and the position of many others.

Our Senators and Representatives cunningly betrayed us.

Why don't you provide the written law in priority sequence.

Why not ask Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schirmer et al how they came up with their 'work around' that made it look like it was official war?

I recommend that you write official war instead of just war. There are all kinds of wars. Official as already on the books.

Again, I appreciate your efforts, but not one proof put forward for you claim that it was official.

OUR RESPONSE IS!
For Goddess' sake, do we follow International Law over our own Constitution?! :banghead:


Sorry, but dammit that deserved to be 'yelled'.




edit: syntax

And you're still chewing that old bone.


Imagine, my nagging suspicion was right! Huh. :eyes:

:shrug:

Your argument(s) are worthless.

I'm not surprised your & my reality is different.
& after reading what I've seen of your posts, in fact I'm thankful for it.

edit: I reject this based on, in part: that Joint Resolution was done after the 9/11 attacks.
Just coincidence? Why didn't they change the Constitution after Pearl Harbor then?
IIRC, Democrats were all up in arms about Bush unilaterally declaring war -- weren't you? (Edit: This refers to, obviously, Libya).
Or is that OK now because it's a Democratic president?

Secondly, and logically from above: F*ck this Joint Resolution -- change the Constitution, then I'll abide by 'the law of the land', even though I may not 100% agree with it.

position in any way? Are you serious?

Our declaration of war on Japan happened... after the Pearl Harbor attacks. That tends to be when they happen -- after we get attacked. No change of Constitution required. We are attacked, and Congress acted, just like the Constitution required. Now sure, you might be really really mad that Congress acted, but that doesn't mean that Congress somehow didn't act. Reality doesn't change just because you deny it.

Capturing someone who is determined to kill as many of your citizens as possible is preferable but not always feasible.

We are at war with Chavez and Morales - also - accompanied by intrusion in their sovereignty with our schemes and continual negative campaigns. Same thing - it is a matter of degree in pointing soldiers and weapons. There turn is probably coming as soon as resources are freed up. Both rich in gas and oil, plus other minerals.

Countries without resources get off easy. The motives of the ruling elite SHOUTS IT ALL OUT!

War on terror, war on AQ, war on Taliban, war on radicals, war on Mullas, war on Islam, war on Hamas, war on Hexbollay. Quite a list. In the meantime one of the campaigns associated with this declaration is that we lost tons of rights.

Why aren't any of you crying out about Obama and Habeas Corpus. Maybe some of you are.

Iran and Israel are at war with each other - they don't have a legal right to attack each other.

Call it what it is ======== pipelines and bases - EVERYTHING required to remove and transfer and ship out safely - on a permanent basis. (Oil - supposedly off the coast of Gaza.Israel)

Call it a corporate war. Call it a ruling elite war. That's what it is. We ARE the invaders because the ruling elite are panting for $$$$$$$$ and while getting the $$$, they want permanent control of people - everywhere.

At what point do we use hundreds and hundreds of the most advanced weapons in the world against people who have bombs, guns, and shoulder held missile launchers (purchased from whom through what channels?). Which country is it that grabbed innocent able bodied men from the streets in several countries including our own and put them away in secret prisons while they experimented with old ways to phish for intelligence - which is more about the safety of the pipelines and safe passage of their gold - than us.

I only mean I Agreed to the body of your post,
this:

Capturing someone who is determined to kill as many of your citizens as possible is preferable but not always feasible.

Now comes the rec/unrec war. Facts, logic, the law and common sense vs. emotional self-righteousness.

Why, do you think, the Israelis put Eichmann on trial?

The war between the US and Germany was over and we had captured those people at the end of it. Had the war been ongoing and there was an attempt by the US to kill those people to hinder Germany's war effort, it would have been completely legal. Just like the killing of Yamamoto and just like the killing of bin Laden.

recognize another nation's right to conduct a "war" on an individual within our borders. Nor is Pakistan a "battlefield" between the U.S. and Al Qaeda.

Nor are the questions these facts raise any form of "handwringing."

This was an extra-judicial killing carried out in the midst of an illegal incursion into the territory of a claimed ally.

The argument you are making, that the U.S. has unlimited authority to track down and kill a criminal, is Bush Doctrine.

The question before us is whether this is good policy. Whom else is the U.S. entitled to track and kill?

How will we respond when another nation decides it is "at war" with an American, and launches its military to kill?

Does this new policy of extra-juducial, borderless global warfare help us, or does it provide new ammunition for those who claim the U.S. Is no better, no more just, and no more dedicated to lawful conduct than those we claim to oppose?

trying to defend the indefensible.

There are no U.S. statutes that permit agents of the U.S. government to execute individuals without trying to apprehend them first. There are many U.S. statutes that prohibit such behavior in one form or another, starting with U.S. laws against murder and moving up to Executive Order 11905, signed by President Ford and modified but retained by Ronald Reagan.

Defenders of this hit job want to have it both ways when it comes to EO 11905. On the one hand, they argue that 11905 prohibits assassinations of heads of state but does not apply here b/c OLB was not a 'head of state.' However, AND IT"S a BIG HOWEVER, we are 'at war' with al Quaida and its leadership. OBL was the head of al Quaida. True, not a 'head of state,' but that begs the question of whether you can be at war with anything other than a state.

You summed it up perfectly, sir!
:patriot:

Unrecing the OP for the attempt to marginalize legitimate Constitutional concerns by labeling them as "Hand Wringing".
The OP more suitably represents the description of "Hand Wringing".

the rules of war do not obligate soldiers to give an enemy the opportunity to surrender. They just can't kill him after he has surrendered. And in an age of suicide bombers, "unarmed" is not as easy to determine as it once was.

We can track down and kill any one who is actively plotting to kill Americans only when the country they are in is unable or unwilling to arrest them. It is impossible to argue that Pakistan would be willing to help us arrest OBL - either the Army or the ISI was actively helping him.

The message to the rest of the world is a simple one - if you don't knowingly harbor terrorists bent on killing Americans, you won't have any problems.

to track down and kill anyone who is actively plotting to kill Americans when a government is unable or unwilling to arrest them? Thanks.

that it is illegal, then it is your responsibility to come up with the section of the law that asserts that it is illegal (not the other way around). For example, if someone were to assert that riding a bike is illegal, I don't need to prove that it is legal -- you need to prove that it is illegal.

country claims the same right? We already know: we'd condemn it.

That's the policy problem here. We don't want other nations asserting the right to conduct a "war" on individuals, with no regard to borders. Even less do we want to recognize anyone else's right to assassinate a criminal, even a terrible one.

The problem is that the "war" analogy doesn't fit here. Bush's interpretation -- that we're in a ceaseless, borderless war with anyone the U.S. declares an enemy -- is a nonstarter, or should be.

what legal authority allows Pakistan to harbor a known international terrorist that is actively plotting to kill Americans? Are you saying that international law allows this? What happens when we find a gray area that international law doesn't fit? What's wrong with saying the country harboring terrorists is in the wrong?

Pakistan is in the wrong but they are within their sovereign rights as well. The legal remedy is for the U.S. to sue them, not to go in there with guns blazing.

who are actively planning to kill Americans? Really?

If the Pakistani government is a willing supporter of terrorist organizations, why do you think they will respect any court's decision? Kind of hard to reconcile respect for law and international terrorism, don't you think?

We have the sovereign right to defend our citizens - preemptive attacks are not illegal.

And you are walking off a cliff while you're at it. Our observance of the rule of law has to be vigorous enough to protect us from a President Cheney or Palin. It's not something you allow to erode simply because Obama is in office. Because there will be another Bush or Reagan, you can count on it.

the right to harbor and support international terrorists with impunity. You really do believe even if it meant the further deaths of Americans, we were helpless to do something.

The law is not a suicide pact. If it cannot permit a reasonable response to real threat, it needs to be changed.

Are you saying that they bear no responsibility at all for OBL's actions? If they were aware of OBL's activities, seems to me that they are waging war via proxy.

for Pakistan to be held responsible for their actions as a sovereign nation. You think that OBL can live in Pakistan and plan to kill Americans with impunity - that even though Pakistan is supporting him, their rights as a sovereign nation prevent us from doing anything about it.

It is an absurd position to argue. We have the right to defend our citizens. Pakistan has an obligation to not support international terrorism.

Got it yet?
Both killed defenseless civilians but Bin Laden was directing bombs to cafes and organizing new strikes on American targets.
Additionally -
His followers would have kidnapped Americans, sawed off heads then posted the videos on Internet demanding Obama's release.
It would be cute to think his jihad followers would simply stand by and allow the judicial process to go through.
Cute.
In reality they would kidnap every American within reach overseas, begin sawing heads with dull blades.
Obama did exactly what he knew had to be done to save lives.
Take Bin Ladens.

they didn't summarily execute him. They could have, and I'm sure did, interrogate him to the Nth degree.
This 'smoke him out of his hole', 'Wanted: Dead or Alive -- nm, Dead!, 'shoot-on-sight' is BS and our country should take the high road.
Well, IMO anyways, but then looks like I'm among the minority who treasure Principle over Vigilantism.

I already addressed this urgent desire to interview OBL's wives in this thread, so I won't belabor the point(s) of how useless they will be in terms of 'fighting the War on Terra';
but I will say again because it's worth saying: we could have learned VERY much from bin Asshole, but we Jack Ruby'd him.

Eichmann was not protected by the government of Argentina and hiding in a min-fortress with guards.

Do you think Israel would have hesitated to kill him if they felt it was their only reasonable option?

and they didn't notice -- good on our forces!

Even so, we 'neutralized' his defense, his bodyguards. If we could have dragged his corpse out of there we certainly could have loaded him in the helicopter
probably much quicker than dragging out his body.


Your excuses aren't 'reasonable'.

combatant (declared or otherwise) against Israel.

Bin Laden, on the other hand, was a declared combatant against the United States, continuing to plan attacks on the United States and continuing to command an organization who is at war with the United States.

Two entirely different sets of law apply. The Geneva Conventions relating to kill vs. capture clearly only protect those who have either never taken part in direct hostilities (such as civilians) or have ceased taking part in direct hostilities (such as former soldiers turned civilians). That's the language of the Geneva conventions itself.

:rofl:

Read the posts regarding not enough evidence to indict OBL, so truly, how was he then, in any possible logic,
considered a "combatant"?

Yet seemingly this was allll enough to start multiple, preemptive wars against countries (of course not Saudi Arabia, of which OBL was a citizen, right along with the vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers)
--and--
extra-judicially execute him for the very same crimes.

The crimes they couldn't indict on!


& I'm confused?!! LOLOL

satirical confusion designed to lure defenders of the indefensible into revealing their hands. In other words, you are doing what Bush channeling Yosemite Sam promised to do with OBL and Mullah Omar: 'smoke 'em out' And I love it :)

On the other hand, you may be genuinely confused, but only because defenders of the indefensible must stretch ingenuity beyond its natural limits to make their case. Thus, OBL is endowed by them with super-human powers while at the same time requiring a 'human shield'. He is an 'enemy combatant' when they wish to deny him the protections of Geneva, but a soldier ('Field General' is how one DUer favoring the hit squad referred to him) when they wish to apply the laws of war to the situation. In short, their constant wishing to have their cake and eat it too results in twisting themselves into a Moebius strip of logic, an Ouroboros that ultimately devours itself.

They are hoping you will not bring your manifest analytical talents to their stock phrases and cliches. Don't let them get away with it.

was not unambiguously correct and legal to kill Osama Bin Laden in his compound in Pakistan. Geneva does not prevent the killing of an unarmed combatant (enemy or soldier) in the absence of a clear surrender.

People who claim otherwise have to pretend that not taking a "direct part in the hostilities" is the same as taking direct part in the hostilities. It is entertaining to watch them twist themselves into a pretzel trying to justify the unjustifiable, but it has no bearing on actual reality.

wish I could be clever enough for the first :/

It also could be at least in part that I can no longer separate all our little wars: All in the M.E., all against Muslim states, all which have resources that are in "our interests". They're all lumped together for me, & you know what? I don't care. It's all BS and propaganda and hypocrisy IMO.
Add to that things that were bitched about --to high heaven about-- when Bush did it, these same things now taken up by a Democratic President is Okey-Dokey! Alll good, now! makes me want to heave. *Append the last sentence of previous paragraph here*

I think OBL was evil and I'm glad he's dead, but I wish it was done via our Rule of Law. Try him, convict him, *then* execute him (Yeah I know, sounds rather like:
'I'll be
judge, I'll
be jury,'
Said cunning
old Fury:
'I'll try
the whole
cause, and
condemn
you
to
death."
-- Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)

But hey, I thought Bundy was guilty before they tried him. Same with Gacy. And Dahmer. But I'm not an official, nor am I anyone important (& I'm so glad!)
So sue me.
They all of course got trials of course, not summary execution because we're a nation of laws. 'Oh, but OBL was an exception' some say... no, it's not about bin Laden! Our laws should not change per person. Either they're universal or they're not worth legislating in the first place.



I'm glad you mentioned this "human shield" though, I didn't see much of anything here discussing that.
First time I heard that I scoffed -- I knew that was a fabrication, a way overused and trite slander which I've only heard used against Muslims. Shameful.

Why try to make an already thoroughly evil man even moar evil? May as well draw a curly, evil mustache on his Wanted poster photo too!

When you embellish something like that to a narrative, you run the risk
--actually it's pretty much a certainty--
of drawing suspicion towards and devaluing whatever truths presented previously, or after;
to one degree or another.

But anyhow, the White House sat on the 'OBL is dead' story what? 3 days?
And they didn't, couldn't get their story straight by that time?

Lax, at best. Downright alarming they had such slip-shod Message Control.
Nor was the "human shield" the only fallacy we first heard from John Brennan (and others in the administration), in a changing 'official' story. IIRC there were more than a few "mistakes".

IMO this definitely helped "Deathers" and helped raise suspicion in the rest of the world.

Have we ever heard where Brennan et. al. got this info, or why they felt compelled to go beyond the truth to demonize OBL even further?
They could have just stuck with the initial story too -- what made them change their mind and *then* "tell us the truth"? :eyes:
See? It's a natural reaction.
Do they enjoy the pain when they shoot themselves in the foot? :shrug:

This time, the confusion is that you think just because people can make posts on an Internet message board about there not being enough evidence to indict OBL somehow means there wasn't enough evidence to indict OBL.

When you correct for your false assumption, it makes much more sense. See how that works?

why is it reasonable to assume that he was unarmed?

:thumbsup:

That's why those who oppose the High Church of Redemptive Violence must be dealt with harshly if not summarily. Violence WILL drive out Violence, and War WILL end War. So mote it be, in the name of the Missile, the Bomb and the Sacred Rifle.

It's too bad. I really liked the Constitution and its guarantee of rights for everyone, even the persons that everyone said were really, really bad. Sort of set the United States apart in some ways. But now we've joined the rest of the folks, sending our armed thugs star-spangled fightin' heroes all over the planet, makin' the world safe for exploitation, uh freedom.

I don't consider it my fault that you don't see it.

I see some on anonymous web sites. But that is the extent of it.

And this is explainable. Got to keep in mind that about half a million rocket scientists voted for Nader over Obama last election. Lot of those goof balls post on line. And in these peoples minds they are very invested in seeing Obama fail. So they can say told ya so. They are fucking idiots.

Don

They will approve everything but they had to make a gesture since they are entrusted with mediating questions of international law and human rights.

There are doubtless people who do wish Obama ill and want him to fail. But there are also legitimate questions that are raised in this situation which are not the province of internet goof balls in any way. And since Obama seems to be embracing the same rationale that Bush did, this will be a recurring situation because the same people who were against it when Bush was in office will continue to oppose it.

Which casts doubt on the UNs credibility.

lol

Nor do I think there are many, if any, true Democrats posting such on these 'anonymous sites' -- either a few are outright insane, or they're posting as RW paid trolls.

As for "rocket scientists": well, I've never voted for anyone but a Democrat. Ever. Nor have I gotten the impression that these many (again, if any) of damn Libruls who post here have either.
Nor, as claimed, have they 'sat out' elections; to wit: the 2010 election! Chalk that up to Independents, all coddled & sucked up to but who still didn't give enough bowel movements to bother voting!
The people who spread that fallacy around should be careful playing with such fire -- they themselves are far from fireproof.

But I am seriously rethinking mindlessly voting straight party-line because they're the lesser of two evils.
Evil is evil, to whatever degree; and I don't think I'm not falling for it anymore. Karma works, and the lathe of heaven turns, however slowly...

I'm carefully watching what's going on in Canada right now... if the New Democratic Party can force their backsliding version of our Democrats, the "Liberal Party" :puke: to slide back where they ought to be: IMO that's a very good thing.
It may well turn out, to use the expression, both: Teaching --and-- Learning Moments.

Much appreciated.

Me, as 'Librul' as I am (& I'm mostly of the 'bleeding heart' variety), I AM for the Death Penalty for certain outstanding cases.
Serial Killers & officers-of-the-law/cop killers are what I mainly mean -- but only if the evidence is foolproof: Clear video, positive DNA from an unimpeachable lab that has no agenda;
certainly not based solely on 'eye-witness' or 'stool pigeon' testimony.


I wouldn't have lost a moment of sleep if Bin Laden was found guilty (with my above listed criteria met, of course) and sentenced to death.
And executed.

Not one bit.

But even then I wouldn't have cheered.
I have grave-danced a couple of times in the past, I'll sheepishly admit -- but felt badly about it immediately afterwards (I still think the sign "Hey Bundy! It's FRY-day" is funny; but then I'm a Monty Python fan so pls forgive : )

All in all I hope I learned my lesson.

read critical commentary by Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore and Glenn Greenwald, all 3 of whom I conisder leading lights in the progressive movement.

As for myself and my wife, we feel like Obama has abandoned us. We do not want him to fail but, I mean really, when he took investigations of the Bush Junta off the table in the interests of looking 'forward,' I'm not sure how to interpret that but as a failure in the larger metaphysical sense. I know I did not vote for giving the Bush Junta carte blanche. And this extra-judicial execution of OBL has thus left a taste of ash in my wife's and my mouths.

Nothing else.

I have no idea if Osama surrendered. The case of the Japanese officer doesn't really apply as he was flying a warplane and did not attempt to surrender.

Being concerned that we may have murdered someone who was willing to submit to capture is not hand-wringing. The hand-wringing, if any, comes from those liberals that heretofore had been adamant in their insistence upon due process.

What exactly is your background in international law?

And also dare tell me who has the power to declare war? Can any individual declare against a state? And if so what is historical precedent is there for a nation waging a formal war against an individual or an group? And if we are at war why has there been no declaration of war by Congress or authorization by the UN Security Council?

And are you really arguing there is no war in Iraq right now?

Just like we went to war against the Barbary Pirates.

Taking out Bin Laden is essentially like taking out Yamamoto - we killed an enemy general, and enemy leaders are valid targets. We had no obligation to be the least bit nice about it.

Stop telling us what to fucking think about this anyway.

We managed to try mobsters without everyone shitting their pants.

But it isn't really about bin Laden. He is and has been for years largely irrelevant. But the targeted assassination stuff is something to worry about. There will be other, perhaps less justified killings. These things are done with no thought for due process. This Administration has a list of Americans targeted for extra-judicial killing. If you cannot see how wrong that is, you are just pathetic.

Few times in history has killing a person been more beneficial to society at large.

That isn't an argument for shooting them in the face instead of trying them.

what resistance they would face, or if the Pakistan military would show up, they murdered OBL.

That your position?

I mean, you can't just claim they "followed orders" ... right?

This might be a good time for you to start a 3rd party on this line. The Democratic Party won't be joining you on this path.

but it's forbidden to call it by its name.

Those people were not there to serve a warrant.

LOL

the absence of an active attempt to surrender.

No one has yet posted what law says otherwise. Too many people are equating what they WISH the law were with what the law actually is.

stating so eloquently what many of us have been attempting to say. OBL was an enemy combatant, and a confessed international criminal who was killed while resisting capture.

Declare victory already and bring the troops home.

We have 5 wars going on right now.. and they want to steal Social Security to pay for them.

Even George Orwell wouldn't believe this.

The hunt for bin Laden and al Qaeda was more of a police matter, not a military one. But of course, the use only has the one hammer in its tool box, so every problem looks like a nail.

Our involvement in Afghanistan has been counterproductive. Yes, we have driven al Qaeda out of Afghanistan(into Yemen, the Sudan and elsewhere, are we going to invade them?), and we've killed bin Laden. But in the process we have killed thousands of innocents, laid waste to a country, and made far more enemies by these actions than we had before. Enemies that are now willing to work with al Qaeda and other such groups to strike back at the one who killed their sons, wives, daughters, namely the US.

As far as the reaction to bin Laden's death, I find the whole two minute hate aspect of it to be a sad commentary on our society. I do not celebrate death, not even the death of an enemy, and to display in such ongoing displays I find to be beyond distasteful, verging in to disgusting.

But now that we've officially gotten our man, and driven out al Qaeda, ie, accomplishing our original goals in going to war, let's bring the troops home, now. That might be the only thing that could make this display worthwhile.

But I doubt that's going to happen, after all, the MIC needs to be fed.

Calling a fatwa a declaration of war is a silly argument. An organization of civilians is not a state; the most they can be is a gang. You're reaching for a way to justify the use of a hit squad, as if commandos were necessarily warriors because they are members of the military.

Only a state can declare war. Osama bin Laden is the lead criminal in a gang of criminals, not a head of state. If you want to proceed lawfully against bin Laden, you can't change his status to that of a soldier; you have to respect the fact that regardless of his own statements he remains a civilian.

The Bush administration made it plain that they were not going to be constrained by legality except if they chose to do so. For example, waterboarding is illegal; has always been illegal; and it can't be made legal because of novel theories. Similarly, novel theories can't change what is and what is not a war.

Neither Obama nor Bush has the right to decide which laws they'll obey depending on whether they can get somebody like John Yoo to develop a novel theory to support what they're planning. I hope you can see how dangerous it is to allow executives to make it up as they go along. Bush was notorious for that; and now, unfortunately, Obama is following his bad example.

We can't have government just winging it; there have to be constraints. In another post I compared Obama to Nixon, who also believed in winging it. Hit squads operate outside the law; and there's no accountability. Nixon started the "plumbers" unit to plug leaks of government secrets; but that led to his use of this gang to commit ordinary felonies. Nixon later claimed that whatever the president does is legal.

Do we really want to go down that road - allowing the executive to get away with whatever he feels like so long as his lawyers come up with some novel theory? It's not about whether Osama bin Laden deserves capital punishment; it's about whether the president has the authority to order commandos to kill criminals on his say-so alone. No, he doesn't.

turning it (or some semblance of it) into a thread of its own.

Supporters of the 'hit' on OBL fail for the most part to understand the grave slippery slope upon which they have embarked.

melts away.

Of course, you might dearly wish that only a state could declare war, but your wish is not equivalent to reality.

The only "silly arguments" here come from your post (the false statement about who can declare war, the false statement that the President doesn't easily have the right to order military action against a non-state actor, the bogus false equivalencies between Obama and Nixon, etc).

The "novel theory" here appears to be that the law is somehow equivalent to what you wish the law were, rather than what the law actually is.

Not unless you believe OBL was in charge of Pakistan.

The other was a non-state actor killed during a time of peace (with that country) without sanction or warrant by said country. Maybe you need to assume what you want to believe, but that doesn't change the facts. It has nothing to do with false assumptions. Those are the facts.

The distinction you bring up is just as irrelevant as the distinction between the head of Germany and Japan. Of course you are correct that Bin Laden was a non-state actor, and that is a factual distinction (non-state actor vs. head of state). But you are incorrect (as a legal and factual matter) if you claim that distinction is somehow relevant in any way to the legality of going after Bin Laden.

Your assumptions are strange and irrelevant. You can believe whatever you want to, the facts speak for themselves. It is all relevant in the way we conduct business legally or illegally with other nations. Keep trying...

You are the one claiming that there is a distinction between state and non-state actors that is relevant in the resolution of the legal question, not me. It is up to you to prove that statement (which you can't, because it isn't factually accurate). Likewise, if I were to claim riding a bike is illegal, it would be up to me to prove the statement.

If you have a section of domestic or international law that says that we cannot use military force against a non-state actor who is a declared combatant (in a time of peace with the country of residence), I would love to see it.

There is a huge difference between state and non-state actors when it comes to the legal question of what we can and cannot do to other nations. Maybe someone will sit down and explain it to you. The fact that this goes over your head is not my fault.

you would like to be taken seriously by people interested in facts.

Of course, you have the first amendment right to say basically whatever you want, but your inability to identify support for your legal argument is most certainly your fault (not mine). If what you are saying is true, and the fact that Bin Laden is a non-state actor makes his killing illegal, you would of course be able to identify a law and a section of that law that says so. Yet you continue to avoid doing this. I wonder why.

cases...the fact that you cannot understand the reason why is due to your lack of understanding. Not my fault it goes right over your head.

distinction you are making.

I don't have to...most people with a basic understanding of just about anything know there is a distinction. Are you saying you don't?

EDIT - you don't know how legally the head of the military during a time of war is distinctly different than a civilian that lives in a country in a time of peace as pertains to what we can and cannot do when it comes to killing someone?

That is what you are actually saying?

If so I find you to be ignorant or incredulous. I really don't care which.

distinction is relevant to the legal question of whether we can kill Bin Laden vs. whether we can kill Yamamoto. The answer to that question is no.

If you disagree with this, and believe the answer to the above question is yes, surely you would be able to come up with a law and a section that says we can't kill a non-state actor with military force in peacetime with the host country, but we can kill the commander of an army of a state in a time of war with that state. Yet you continue to avoid the question, a question for which if you were correct you should surely be able to answer.

I see this is a waste of time.

attempting to justify my statement a waste of time (particularly after being asked 4 times for a single law to justify it). After all, there would be no law, so there would be nothing I would be able to say to justify it.

It's becoming nothing but agitation.

It's dIvisive

and best written defense of our government's actions. I didn't agree with it, but I still thought you did a good job.

I smell a pissing contest.
I can go to I/P for that.
Ugh.

BTW I've posted several times on the topic you belabor.
I'm ready to move on.

I'm getting tired of this bullshit of calling out "Progressives"
when you could insert any of these in your diatribe:

"Bleeding Heart Liberal"
"Wild-Eyed Liberal"
"Latte Liberal"
"Peace-nick"
"Hippies"

The Progressive Caucus in the House is our largest caucus.
I don't see any of our Progressive Representatives
"hand wringing".

I identify as a Progressive, and I'M NOT hand wringing.
Neither are the majority of Progressives that I see posting
on this board.

Discussions are GOING to occur.

Some "hand wringers" are progressive, some are conservatives!

They have a right to "wring", and their opinions in this matter
are just a valid as anyone's.

A post like this is FLAME-BAIT.

"False moral equivalencies, cries of extra-judicial killing, all of this and more has been the reaction to the killing of Osama bin Laden by a particular segment of the Progressive left."

A PARTICULAR SEGMENT of the Progressive left. Not all, not most, a PARTICULAR SEGMENT.

Generally, I define progressivism the way Wikipedia does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism_in_the_United_States

A day or so ago the argument took the form of OBL apparently having some "special status" as a commander. Alternately it was that he was "unarmed and offering no resistance". When it was pointed out that lots of other commanders have been killed without trial or any notable due process in this conflict, and just as surely many have been killed who were "unarmed and offering no resistance" as cruise missles have no capacity to accept a surrender, the argument has now moved on to "but Pakistan is not a war zone".

It is clear and well documented that we have been engaged in predator strikes and other lethal actions in Pakistan against "terrorist leadership targets" since sometime during the mid Bush Administration. So my question must now seek the subtle semantic distinction between a "war zone" and other places where we using overt military power to kill people. There is apparently some imagined difference philosophically, although I am sure the bullets and bombs seem pretty much the same to the folks on the receiving end. This should require some rather interesting mental gymnastics.

:popcorn: