If you believe there is nothing illegal about going in to a country without permission...

and killing an unarmed individual because that individual is part of the never ending war on terror then I would assume you must also believe that going in to any country and killing any person you claim is also part of this war on terror must also be perfectly legal.

Or is the argument that you get to pick on choose what is legal and what is not legal based on how evil the guy you are after happens to be?

I am not losing any sleep over Bin Laden being dead. But I can't help feel uncomfortable about the fact that nobody seems to mind our government declaring any individual they want an enemy combatant then going in to any country that individual happens to be in and killing him or her without any kind of due process or even attempt at capture.

Anyone remember the Bush's executive assassination rings that Seymour Hersh talked about in 2009? I think it's against to rules to link to DU threads on the subject but I'm sure most people know of the outrage that caused back then around here and elsewhere. I was outraged about these kinds of killings back then, and with Obama in the white house I am still outraged at them today.

Osama bin Laden mission agreed in secret 10 years ago by US and Pakistan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4844954

And you didn't seem willing to address the "killing anyone we deem an enemy combatant" part. Is there any reason why you aren't willing to take that issue up? How did you feel about Bush's assassination ring?

You make it sound as if the US cut up the phonebook and drew a name at random and picked some innocent guy

Bin Laden declared war on the US and acted upon that declaration.

can you explain to me the difference between them and Bin Laden?

all of us. You, me, your mother EVERYONE. He didn't care about human life, so I don't understand why people are complaining he's dead. He's dead, its over, theres no going back.

Thousands if not millions of people around the world are at war with us according to the government. How are they different from Bin Laden?

We where at war with Bin Laden because he wanted it that way. I have not heard any of those other people go on TV month after month calling for the deaths of Americans and the destruction of America as a country. Plus those other people did not create and carry out a plan to fly planes into the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and where ever flight 93 was headed.

most of them don't get the media coverage Bin Laden got.

Yes, what Osama did was horrible. But is there a certain line you draw somewhere? What if he had only killed 1000 people, still no trial for him? What if it wasn't 1,000 but 100. Or not 100 but 10. Where do you draw that line and who gets to decide what that line is?

They had no idea if they had the building rigged with explosives, they had no idea who was in the next room with what weapons. I really doubt Obama said to kill him no matter what. They Seals probably had permission to use deadly force and they felt threatened so they used deadly force. Until you are but into the situation, you can not judge others for how they reacted. You seem to like to attack the government for what they do, why don't you attack the seals who actually killed him? Or the Pakistan government because its 99% guaranteed that people in their government knew Osama was there.

If the building was rigged with explosives the explosives probably would have gone off as according to what happened it took the SEALs 20 minutes to get to Osamas room. Why you are making up such wild theories in an effort to avoid the basic questions about due process I am asking is beyond me.

He killed 3000 people in attacks on the American homeland. Thats my answer to what makes him difference In the end we are arguing semantics. If he had been taken alive, he would have been brought to Gitmo, convicted in a military trial and executed. Either way, he would be dead. I don't know if the trail would make you feel better, but it still doesn't matter because he's dead, and he's not coming back.

And you don't in any way feel uncomfortable with a single person being able to make this decision about where the line is drawn?

this was not an assassination. This was a military operation, in which a leader of a group who is at war with the United States was killed. Obama did not order the death of Osama as I said before. The Seals where given permission to use deadly force if necessary and in the end they felt it was necessary. Hindsight is 20/20, after the fact you can say what ever you want, but the fact still stands, Osama Bin Laden is dead, there are now calls from prominent Democrats to pull out of Afghanistan, and even talk of closing Gitmo. All these things are not going to happen overnight but I believe they all will happen sooner rather than later.

Where did you get that information?

that Obama ordered the assassination of Osama Bin Laden?

I said based on the evidance it certainly seems this was a targeted killing which the white house doesn't deny.

You said this was a capture mission, what are you basing that on?

if it was a targeted killing. I'm basing my judgment off what I know about the military. You don't order any military group Seals not no to go in and kill someone. If they just wanted to kill Osama, they would have bombed the shit out of the house, the military has shown that they are not opposed to attacking building with bombing runs. The only reason to send in the Seals was to try and capture him alive, it didn't work out that was. Not all military operation turn out the way they where intended.

including political and intelligence. If Obama was gonna get Osama he wanted the world to know it, and I don't blame him for that in anyway.

But keeping him alive brought up all kinds of legal issues I believe this administration probably did not want to deal with. And given the fact Osama was unarmed and shot precisely twice right above the eye suggests this was a targeted killing. Do I know that for a fact? Again, no.

But I think claiming this was a capture mission is based on hope and not actual evidance.

is based on hope that Obama did something wrong and not actual evidence. I'M DONE. You can not be reasoned with.

Saying you're done doesn't make up for the fact you have no actual argument.

of one another that the SEALs were sent to kill, not capture, OBL.

Sorry to burst your little bubble, bub.

This was kind of an important event, and the administration should've really taken the time to make sure everyone was telling the same story. Something is fishy about it.

I don't "hope" that that's what happened. I am concerned that it may be the case. I'm concerned that Obama may have decided that killing bin Laden would be easier than putting him on trial, independent of the situation on the ground.

If the situation on the ground made it necessary to kill him, great, take him out, that's fine. But if the political situation made it inconvenient to capture him and that's why they killed him... that's weakness, and it hurts the cause of fighting the ideology that leads to terrorism.

'Reuters' and 'The Atlantic Monthly' have reported independtently of one another that the SEALs were sent to 'kill, not capture' OBL. That in so many words is an extra-judicial assassination (or execution).

And then we reloaded.

I'm not trying to be callous here, but this country has killed exponentially greater numbers of innocent people in its quest to avenge 9/11 than actually died on that horrible day. This isn't the only country on the planet that's suffered a tragedy of national proportions, and if every country abrogated for itself the "rights" we exercised last week, it wouldn't be long before it was our ox being gored again.

If appeals to ethics or morality don't appeal to you, how about plain old self-interest?

justifications to fall back on, along with 'Two Wrongs Make a Right" and "Do What I Say, Not What I Do" :)

But thanks for your common sense appeal. The folks who think OBL 'needed killing' probably would not have had any moral qualms about torturing him if he had been taken alive.

Oy vey

1,000? 100? 10?

I hear the military and the CIA have something like 6 more lists of people targeted for extra-judicial killing.

Is EVERY single person on those lists fair game now? How far does it go? Can those lists be expanded on a whim?

Give us a number that we can all agree on. THEN we can make international treaties and NOBODY can complain.

bin Laden or terrorism. How are we any better?

people of other nations in those towers. He also attacked one of our ships..the U.S.S. Cole..two acts of war. He wasn't a random "people around the world". He started it, we ended it.

That makes OBL very different from the "millions" of others that are simply being lead by the nose rings. OBL, is a direct threat. All those terrorist LEADERS, making and conducting verifiable direct threats, murders and destroying economies, live knowing that they are acting outside of the law. They cannot assume that those acting in response will be kowtowing to international rule of law.

That you can't see the difference between OBL and "millions" of others that bitch and moan about the USA is scary as shit.

placed in the same "kill anywhere as soon as possible" list that OBL was on, and that this bothers him. I don't see why that makes the poster a bad person who "bitches and moans" nor how their views are "scary as shit", as you put piquantly it.

Bin Laden is an edge case. This is clearly a sort of mass murder on a class far above that in which we place the "average" serial killer. None-the-less, in a well developed democracy such as ours it would not be difficult to assign a commission or court where this could be sorted out in a public manner according to the law...if we had the will to do it.

The idea that anyone can have absolute authority over life and death should give us pause, even in this case, perhaps especially in this case, because it will set the precedent.

I was responding to the continued meme he is spouting that OBl is the same as any other person who hates Americans.

There's is that moving goal post, I accused him of later down thread.

Every soldier out in the field has to make those choices.

And Al Qaeda

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2011/05/killing-osama-bin-laden-is-legal/

Matt Yglesias

Killing Osama Bin Laden Is Legal
May 5th, 2011 at 9:14 AM

I guess I initially thought this went without saying, but I guess it’s worth going on record with the view that sending US special operations forces to kill Osama bin Laden was a perfectly legal action. Personally, I would have enjoyed having him captured alive and put on trial, but what went down is fine in both international and domestic law.

In a domestic context, I think the 9/11 AUMF has been put to some questionable uses since its passage but if authorized anything surely it authorized military action against Bin Laden. Meanwhile, Bin Laden considered himself to be at war with the United States. In an international law context, the use of military force is plainly authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 1368 which uses the magic words “inherent right of individual or collective self-defence,” “threat to international peace and security,” and “all necessary steps.” That’s how the UN Charter says “bombs away.” And this has all been reaffirmed since Bin Laden’s death by the Security Council and the Secretary General of the United Nations.

There’s just nothing there on the other side.

What I do think is that this all highlights the desirability of revisiting the 9/11 AUMF which shouldn’t just linger on forever as the legal basis for anything and everything terrorism-related.

from late last night on one of the Chomsky threads:

Originally posted by SoDesuka:

"127. A Fatwa Is Not a Declaration of War

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 . . . .

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."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1063218#1067706

Absolutely friggin' brilliant. And your response????

although in my case it isn't really a little.

they deem an "enemy combatant" regardless of where they are on the planet. That means that American citizens could potentially get whacked in the future based solely on the word of the President. It is claimed that the Prez can do this without ever having to go through judicial review of any kind. Many here do not want to discuss this issue. They want to make it about OBL when the issue is about the claimed power to kill anyone without judicial review.

Bin laden declared war on the US and acted on that declaration.

It's more accurately McChrystal's JSOC program.

The thing is, as much as we might want Obama to be able to rub this in Rethug faces and as much as this feels like some kind of justice for the losses of September 11, there are legal issues that we will be dealing with as the GWOT continues. And while most people here might not think we need the law to protect us from a President Obama, I believe most would agree we want the law to be there when we have to deal with a President Palin or Trump or whatever idiot they put up.

How the fuck do you know that they made "no attempt to capture"???

And ... where the fuck do you get off suggesting that our government has decided to declare ANY "individual they want an enemy combatant then going in to any country that individual happens to be in and killing him or her without any kind of due process or even attempt at capture".

"ANY individual"????

Are you UNSURE about OBL? Is he just "ANY INDIVIDUAL"??????

Give FOX News a call for this nonsense, they will be thrilled to make it the main htopic tomorrow on FOx and Friends.

Yes, the government has deemed that they can legally kill ANY individual they declare an enemy combatant. That's exactly what they did here and that's exactly what they have been doing for some time now. Unless you happen to have some information that I don't.

When you say Osama isn't just ANY individual what standard are you using to define "ANY" and who is the person that gets to set that standard?

I don't know for a fact that they made no attempt at capture, all I know is what the evidance says. And the evidance seems to point to a kill mission. When asked yesterday on the CBS interview Obama didn't seem to deny this was a kill mission. And as the government itself said Osama was unarmed when he was found. I have a hard time believing that the best trained special forces team in the world wasn't able to figure out if Osama was a threat or not, you might doubt their capability which is fair enough.

And speaking of FOX news. Remember how they reacted to any criticism of the government after 9/11? Seems a bit familiar, doesn't it?

Why should we listen to any further "reasons" for anything from you?

Then why is it so hard for you to understand what happened?

the fact you feel the need to come up with bullshit strawmen arguments suggesting I'm a Bin Laden appologist is your own personal problem to figure out. I never suggested Bin Laden was not a terrorist, you made it up in your head.

It's you who issues the the strawmen and the suggestions that others here must have a definitive description of what a terrorist is... you're really grasping at straws now... and projecting too.

LOL

And that is where your failure starts. The guy has confessed. The fact that he has funded attacks is not speculated, it is known.

During WWII, did we need to bring Hitler to trial, if we hade the chance, we could we kill him, right?

OBL gets the same consideration.

You also admit that you do not know if the SEALs treid to capture OBL, and likewise, you have no idea is OBL tried to surrender.

But it is clear that you take his side. The reports indicate that he was unarmed when killed. They also indicate that there were weapons in the room. I guess you assume that he would not have used those weapons if given the chance, a luxury you have sitting at a keyboard critiquing events.

And it is YOU who question the SEALs, not me. I think once we drop SEALs via a helicopter into a place in which they might be killed, THEY get to decide what happens next ... you seem to disagree.

It is YOU who question their judgment.

who gets to decide what "ANY" individual is and what "any" individuals are. You say it is known Osama did all this and I'm not really gonna deny that. Our government also has prisoners in Gitmo that are confessed enemies who participated in terrorirst attacks. Do they deserve any due process or should we simply put 2 bullets in their head and be done with it? No? Why not? They are evil, they participated in killing many americans, and they happily confessed to it. Why not give them the Bin Laden treatment?

Like I told you, all I know about what the SEALs tried to do and didn't try to do is what the evidance shows they tried to do and didn't try to do. We know Bin Laden was unarmed. We know Obama didn't yesterday deny the suggestion this was a kill mission. And we know the government has so far refused to say this wasn't a kill mission. That's the evidance we have. I don't know or claim to know anything for a fact. If it turns out this was a kill mission would your position on it change in anyway?

it was a standing order to shoot to kill any German SS men they happened to see..not to take them prisoner. He was in Patton's Third Armored Division. So Bin Laden isn't the first to get that treatment.
If he had been taken prisoner the GOP would insist that he be put in Gitmo because it would be "too dangerous" to put him on trial here in the states..just like they did when Obama wanted to bring the Gitmo prisoners to the states for trial.
Soooo he would be in limbo just like the rest of them.
Nuff said.

Making young soldiers judge, jury, and executioner?

I had no problems with what he told me..I was just surprised is all cause I'd never heard of it before.

How were they so sure of this?

wow.

You know zero about history, the nazi's or the SS.

zero.

full time job. Ask the nurses at Malmedy, ask the people in the insane and tuberculosis asylums. Ask the people in the "work camps" like Dachau.
Read your histoy!! You are seriously lacking in education.

U.N. Resolution 1368, passed shortly after the 9/11 attacks, explicitly supports "all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001.

That's a rule I'm unfamiliar with.


And I don't have a good answer to your question. I am sick to death of these wars that don't end and the evil that emanates from them. We are diminished in every aspect of our national character by them. I do not weep for Osama. I feel less guilt over his death than the thousands, innocent and guilty alike, who have died as a result of our invasions. War is hell. There is no justification for feeling satisfaction that Bin Laden is dead. Still I am satisfied that he is dead.

not totally sure, didn't want to risk it.

who might've changed their position or anything like that. It would contribute to the discussion, I think.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

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 OBL 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.

and making public statements of their desires to kill more define themselves.

It doesn't matter what motivates them - we cannot permit groups to kill innocent Americans.

is the fact he made public statements about being a terrorist?

there are plenty of ways that terrorist make it clear that they are terrorists. Their actions, their announcements, the forensic evidence they leave behind, their traitors that rat them out.

OBL was clearly a terrorist. Anyone he collaborated with is clearly a terrorist.

that someone is fair game for targeted killing, correct? Or do you have some class system for what terrorists deserve this treatment and which ones don't that I'm not understanding?

if not, targeted killing can be considered.

There is no class system - any group or individual actively involved in plots to kill Americans voluntarily go to the head of the line.

how about the war on drugs?

I can't think of any country that is not helping US law enforcement stop drug trafficking - hard to see a military situation arising.

Or Columbia? The governments there are corrupt from top to bottom.

Do you think targetting drug cartel leaders for killing without a country's permission is legal?

for trial. Colombia asked our help to track down Pablo Escobar. History says that there has never been a need for a military solution for the war on drugs.

what's your point?

History and the present shows that drug cartels have bought politicians all throughout south america. And where they didn't buy them they have made threats that make these politicians scared for their life.

OBL is different not because he crows. He is different in that he trained, recruited, brainwashed, planned, organized, and financed the murder of thousands and the financial collaps of the Western World almost single handed....and THEN went a crowed about it.

Your moving goal posts, attempting to put everyone on the defensive for not agreeing with your illussioned OP is patently obvious. Your moving goal posts, do nothing else but support the conclusion that you are not in this for any grandious discussion. Not one iota. Your type of discussion serves nothing, but to attempt sideswipe at those that don't agree with your morbidity of Osama Bin Laden's lost freedom.

to us? Such as Iraqis eg? Do the same rules apply to Iraqis? 'Treat the Iraqis like dogs' ~ 'kill the ragheads' ~ 'turn their shithole into glass'!! Would you call those statements, some by our Generals btw, a threat to people who had never even threatened this country? Can Iraqis 'permit groups to kill innocent Americans'??

I am asking, as many people are, now that we have claimed the right to kill anyone, anywhere who we view as a threat to us, do the same rules apply when WE are the aggressors, especially since this country will not hold its own war criminals accountable??

Wait! It just dawned on me. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld are no longer war criminals??

Iraq, for example, has a functioning government and legal system. Terrorism there is a law enforcement issue.

My only point that there are countries where a law enforcement solution is not possible. Are you saying that we are powerless to stop terrorists in those regions from killing Americans? I don't think so.

country in the world has the same right. So what happens when someoen WE have harmed, and we have harmed so many people, decides that they can come here and take out the person or people they identify as a threat to their people? Will we claim it is not legal? What if they feel that if they were to tell us in advance, we might warn those people? So they just do it and leave?

and we do nothing, then yes they can come and kill him. If, however, they come to kill someone who committed his "crime" in the name of the US government, then it is an act of war and we should retaliate with all the force we can.

You do understand that OBL was not a government agent? He did not commit his acts in the name of a sovereign nation. Those little details mean a lot in international law.

invade a country, Afghanistan, rather than go after him the way countries generally go after terorists who do not represent any country? And since we did, why would that government not have the same right to attack those who planned that invasion here, as we claim we have against anyone who harms our country?

I would think this one is easy. The mastermind behind flying planes into the WTC, the Pentagon, et al, who killed 3000+ people and left thousands of victims living, is pretty much a terrorist.

Do you think that scenario describes anyone other than a terrorist?

Is that where you draw the line, that he must kill 3000+ people before we can go and kill him without trial?

What if he had killed 1,000 people? Or 500 people? Or what if it was 50? How about 10?

Where is that magical line you draw and who gets decide what that line is?

Such things are and should be taken on a case by case basis.

Do you have a problem with that? Or do you need concise black and white rules, regs, and laws?

such an action is apparently perfectly legal in your eye. If that is not your position then please by all means correct me.

That is not my position, and as I said, this would go case by case. And your hypothetical question is sadly lacking. And Obama didn't merely decide to kill OBL. Your really grasping now... pretty weak tea. It is nowhere near being anything even similar to the situation being discussed here.

atleast not in anyway that made any sense. Yes, if you think this is a case by case basis that the president decides on then what is that case by case basis done on?

If a guy kills 10 americans and that guy runs to to hide out in Columbia does the US government have free reign to go in to Columbia and kill him? If you say no then you are drawing some kind of magical line. I want to know what that line is.

There would need to be a lot more than just some guy that killed some guys and is now hiding out. That's ridiculous. When something is case by case, there are no hard and fast rules! That's why they call it case by case!

In this "case" there was a man who orchestrated the worst terrorist attack on US soil, applauded himself for it, and promised more of the same. There was evidence that "more of the same" was in the works. I'm not sure what more you need.

because if that's illegal and this isn't then there must be something in the law that has a specific number of americans you must kill before you can be targeted for killing. And no such number in the law exists.

OBL did that himself, Clinton agreed, Bush agreed, the world agreed... it was a slam dunk no matter how much you argue against it. OBL apologist or Obama bashing... sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.

every president since Nixon has agreed we are at war with drugs.

Same thing. And if you don't think we should take out the drug dealer that is killing Americans without any due process then you must be a drug cartel apologist.

When Bin Laden had less blood on his hands than he did 10 days ago.

I'd say the best time to eliminate a terrorist is early in their career, before they get the chance to kill even more people.

Not everyone who is accused of a crime is arrested. Or if they're arrested, they may not be charged. Or they may be offered a plea bargain.

Would it be legal, all else being equal, to do to a terrorist who had killed 10 people what was done to bin Laden, who killed many thousands?

Yes it would be, if that terrorist had declared war on the United States, had refused to surrender, was evading capture, and was still plotting and planning to kill even more people,

However, just as someone accused of a crime may not necessarily be arrested or charged, the president and military leaders would have to decide if the risk of conducting the operation was worth it to get a terrorist who killed 10 people vs one who killed thousands.

the president gets to decide that a certain person is a threat to the United States. That person might be a drug lord that killed 20 Americans and fled to Columbia. There is evidance this person will continue to smuggle drugs in and out of the US which could end up killing more Americans.

You think going and killing this person without trial is perfectly legal? Correct?

the president gets to decide that a certain person is a threat to the United States

No. A person is a threat or not a threat. A person has killed or hasn't killed. A person is either planning to attack the country again or isn't. The president doesn't decide that, the person making the threats and attacking the country does.

That person might be a drug lord that killed 20 Americans and fled to Columbia. There is evidance this person will continue to smuggle drugs in and out of the US which could end up killing more Americans.

Planning to smuggle drugs is not a direct, coordinated, targeted attack to murder civilians. Smuggling drugs is smuggling drugs.

If the person and their group have declared war on the United States and we have responded similarly, killing them in the course of that war is legal, yes.

No. A person is a threat or not a threat. A person has killed or hasn't killed. A person is either planning to attack the country again or isn't. The president doesn't decide that, the person making the threats and attacking the country does.

Threats have many definitions. We deal with threats every day. Some of those threats aren't really threats eventhough some people believe they are (gay marriage and abortion for example). A president might decide that drug lords are a threat, and he would be right, nobody would really be able to argue with that. You are saying the president has a legal right to kill without any due process in these cases.

Planning to smuggle drugs is not a direct, coordinated, targeted attack to murder civilians. Smuggling drugs is smuggling drugs.

If the person and their group have declared war on the United States and we have responded similarly, killing them in the course of that war is legal, yes.

Aren't you splitting hairs a bit by saying they must declare war? Remember, we already have a declared war on drugs. So if the FBI has wiretaps of a drug lord from Columbia where he says he is going to kill 10s or even 100s of drug dealers who are american citizens does the president have a legal right to kill that person without a trial?

You are saying the president has a legal right to kill without any due process in these cases

No. I am not, nor did I ever say that a president can kill people who oppose abortion or same-sex marriage or any "threat" under the sun. I don't know where in the hell you got that from, but it wasn't from any of my posts.

Aren't you splitting hairs a bit by saying they must declare war? Remember, we already have a declared war on drugs. So if the FBI has wiretaps of a drug lord from Columbia where he says he is going to kill 10s or even 100s of drug dealers who are american citizens does the president have a legal right to kill that person without a trial

No. Not splitting hairs. The rules are different in war, whether you like it or not. Soldiers may kill enemies on the battlefield. Civilian law enforcement may not kill people on the streets of a city (unless directly threatened with lethal force.)

why do you think targetting drug cartel leaders that sponsor these killings isn't legal? Abbottabad was a city, not a warzone.

and coordinated attacks against the United States intended to kill its civilians?

You really should start your own thread. This concise logic is lost on so many.

all the other threads on this in the last week?
Geeze, give it a rest.

There are too many people on the planet, and we've entered an era where killings like this will be routine and accepted. We are a murderous species, and we are about to see a global murder spree like nothing our species has ever experienced. The Dominionists of various flavors have their grubby fingers on the levers (triggers?) of power, and they damn well going to use that power. They're going to use that power to eliminate as many people from the planet as possible, so they can have the whole place to themselves. I knew when he stole the White House, and certainly when he allowed 9/11 to happen, that Bush was going to get the global murder spree rolling in earnest. I'm only surprised that he didn't kill many many more people.

Concepts like "legal" and "right" are quaint and you are naive if you think anybody is going to do anything about it. And, asking about this on an anonymous internet discussion forum is not going to help anything!



(BTW - I don't think it's legal, I don't believe it's right, and I think we are grossly inconsistent as a society. Sorry about the snark above, but I do believe, we need to get real. We are dealing with killers here...)

in office.

You just go on and make an ass out of u without me.

so the whole premise of your post is bull smelling like shit.

edit: change thing to think

then it's no wonder you leap to incorrect assumptions.

he was unarmed and they just, sniff, shot him without a trial! all he had was a squirt gun and boquet of flowers! this means obama will be coming for liberals next!11!

we have lost our souls. CRUSIE MISSELS11!!1!

:hi:

:rofl:

Oh!! How about a candlelight vigil? We can have OBL's weed flown over and burn one down while singing kumbaya!

:silly:

And Manning, of course.

permission.

Wartime rules are different.

Sorry, but you get an unrec from me for ignoring reality.

on America, be a commander of a terrorist organization that has declared war on America, or be actively plotting terrorist acts against America.

:shrug:

If you claim that it is somehow illegal to attack someone who has declared war on this country, is a commander of a terrorist organization that has declared war on this country, and was actively plotting terrorist acts against America, please point out the law and section that supports your point of view.

and wondering what the hell it's for.

The only logical reason is to piss off Pakistani fundamentalists and destabilize their government, possibly to justify a return to military rule (if they don't have it at the moment).

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

it's like throwing mud to see if it sticks.

patriotism. How are those freedom fries?

This is one mean slippery slope. Other countries are going to make vastly different judgments about who counts as a terrorist, and we're not going to like all of those calls. There are plenty of countries around the globe that would be at least as justified in designating one of our own federal officials a terrorist eligible for summary extraterritorial execution as this country was in unilaterally deciding Bin Laden belonged in that category.

The fact that these questions don't bother most people is, I think, a sign that our country is already gone. When even the purportedly "left" side of the aisle is willing to sign away any constraints preventing our nation from becoming completely lawless -- and is happy to do it -- I'm not sure what there is left to fight for.

and choose statement, well, it was Osama. Come back when it's someone else and then post.

The Seattle police officer who fatally shot murder suspect Maurice Clemmons was justified in using deadly force during the confrontation, according to state law.

State law authorizes police to use deadly force against a suspected felon who has caused or is likely to cause "serious physical harm" to the officer or other people.

"In a generic sense, if a police officer confronts a murder suspect and doesn't know definitively whether the suspect is armed, if the officer orders the suspect to stop and the suspect does not, the officer is justified in using deadly force to prevent the escape of the suspect, and prevent continuing risk to the community," said attorney Ted Buck, who represents Seattle police officers on use-of-force issues. He is also the lawyer for Officer Benjamin L. Kelly, who shot Clemmons.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/mobile/?type=story&id=2010400110

http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/adam_serwer_archive?month=05&year=2011&base_name=killing_obl_was_legal

"The United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's not a choice of the administration; that is the result of Congress passing the Authorization to Use Military Force in 2001. The AUMF's authority has been stretched beyond its original purpose many times, but if it does anything, anything at all, it sanctions the killing of Osama bin Laden in the context in which he was killed. It certainly matters how he was killed, but short of him being executed after surrendering or after being captured, his killing is still lawful. It doesn't matter whether he was armed or not -- this would make any kind of aerial bombing or surprise attack a war crime."

I guess you think nothing illegal about the Iraq war then?

international law.

I'm not talking about the Iraq war. I'm talking about killing bin Laden.

your message said that it was legal based on an act of congress. You didn't mention anything in your post about the article you linked to talking about why its legal under international law. I will have to read it later.

then open the borders and give full amnesty to everyone here.

Pick one or the other.

And I think that's the way it's going to be, too.

Remember, in the Federal Government we're talking about an institution that is controlled by REPUBLICANS roughly 50% of the time.

Remember this quote from The Man for All Seasons.

...

Roper: "So now you'd give the devil the benefit of law?"

More: "Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?"

Roper: "I'd cut down every law in England to do that."

More: "Oh, and when the last law was down, and the devil turned on you, where would you hide, Roper, all the laws being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, man's laws not God's, and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think that you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

"Yes, I'd give the devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake."

...

And remember that being a US citizen is no longer any sort of protection against being executed by the US government - see the Awlaki case.

To what defense will you resort if they decide being anti-war or anti-Big Business is now a threat to national security?

They put them in the same prison facilities with extremely limited communication with the outside world. Nothing would surprise me less than seeing them start to lump them together in other ways as well.

For better or worse.

I guess we've all been blowing smoke for years.

and "legal under the Constitution". International law isn't just a quaint little photo op, it's the law of the land under the Constitution. This is why Bush needs to be in prison.

But (not even talking about bin Laden here) you either put people on trial or let them go. Guantanamo should be closed, should have been closed a long time ago. The law applies to everyone.

Congress wouldn't fund it.

Treaties are considered the law of the land. But they have no supremacy over other laws. Essentially, an act of Congress can Constitutionally supersede action taken by treaty.

accordingly without repercussion. We don't have laws, we have suggestions occasionally backed up by violence. This is why Bush can brag about breaking the law without concern. The law isn't really law.

The poorer you are, the more seriously you should consider the suggested behavior.

Sorry, but something is rotten in the state of Pakistan.

Don't tell me that the Pakistani government and ISI didn't know what he was doing.

Pakistan had the chance to play ball with us, and showed us they couldn't be trusted. We had a deadly enemy snuggled under their wing, so we did what we had to do.

Pakistan's more than free to complain to the UN and other international organizations. If they're lucky, they'll sanction the U.S. by writing them a strongly worded letter.

They are angry with their government. They say had the government of Pakistan stood firm and assisted America, they would have been a hero nation in this. There is a cry for investigation their government and their military... I think the people are really embarrassed... I guess after 8 years of BushCo, we can commiserate!

snip...

The American discovery of the Abbottabad mansion from which Osama bin laden was directing his al-Qaeda operations for the past five-six years has brought Pakistan under the scanner in America's war against terror like never before. President Obama has assured an investigation to look into who was harboring Osama. The ruling politicians in Pakistan have taken it upon themselves to defend their country's role with an innocence that speaks of their total lack of knowledge about the inhabitants of the Abbottabad mansion. The idea is to reflect that they are in control but the fact is they have yet not been empowered to control the Pakistani Army and the ISI.


The Pakistani rulers are yet again looking towards America to provide them with the leash with which the Army and the ISI can be reigned in. Both these Pakistani institutions have worked in very close coordination with the US in the past and have drawn their power and influence to overrule the people's representatives from none other than America. The betrayal of the US by these two Pakistani institutions has opened a window of opportunity for the people of Pakistan to possibly reverse this power equation.


Imran Khan in a column in India Today hoped for an Egypt in Pakistan. His hopes can be answered if America gets to the root of who harbored Osama bin Laden all these years. The people of Pakistan deserve an answer more than anyone else. The rallying point can come form the shame that has been to brought to an entire nation.


The fringe elements in Pakistan that have carried Osama's portrait on their heads all these years can shout at max. Those who draw pleasure in flogging their women in public can by no means push back the silent majority if chooses to rise.

http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/hemendersharma/67/62399/people-of-pakistan-have-done-no-wrong.html

bin laden was in afghanistan to flee charges of planning the attacks on the kenya and tanzania embassies, and the attacks on the us cole -- he was known mass murderer and the mullah omar took MILLIONS to allow him to live in afghanistan

mullah omar, by the way, is STILL on the lam with his ill-gotten gains -- as far as i know

the country that took him in was going to know bin laden's wealth and that he was willing to pay to be allowed to stay in that country w.out being prosecuted...

bin laden supposedly had a $300 million fortune and he had a $1 million compound in pakistan, you do the math, that's a lot of payoffs

the gov't of pakistan needs to be removed for corruption, top to bottom, but obama is actually a careful and thoughtful leader, not a freakin' cowboy like i would be in the same situation!

let's just say, i don't complete dislike israel's history of assassinating shitheads and terrorists ... sometimes you have to cut to the chase

there are prob. a few more heads that need to roll in pakistan, they're getting off damn light if you ask me!

"combatant then going in to any country that individual happens to be in and killing him or her without any kind of due process or even attempt at capture." And then you go on in other comments to make the assumption there was an order to kill. You offer no proof, you just keep moving the goalposts. Here, I offer proof of your lying to make a point.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/05/10/bin_laden_assault_team_was_prepared_to_fight_pakistani_forces/

WASHINGTON — President Obama insisted that the assault force hunting down Osama bin Laden last week be large enough to fight its way out of Pakistan if confronted by hostile local police officers and troops, senior administration and military officials said yesterday.

In revealing additional details about planning for the mission, senior officials also said that two teams of specialists were on standby: one to bury bin Laden if he was killed, and a second composed of lawyers, interrogators, and translators in case he was captured alive. That team was set to meet aboard a Navy ship, most likely the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson in the North Arabian Sea.

by posting a news article that came out AFTER their OP.

We work with the information we have.

The op was making it up as he went along, doesn't matter when the prood finally showed up....I'ts completely appropriate and valied that the confirmation of the lies did finally show up and can be shown retroactively.

nt

...we are just going to have to disagree

we should have declared war on pakistan as soon as it became obvious that they were playing host to osama bin laden, which became clear not all that long after bush gave his good buddy bin laden the 3 week headstart so he could clear out of afganistan and take up house in
what proved to be a million dollar compound in pakistan -- but of course bush was "in on it" too

the gov't of pakistan has been in flagrant violation of the law against aiding and abeting mass murderers for almost a decade

i would not have lost a moment's sleep if they'd just bombed the place, but i salute obama's courage in giving the seals a chance to go in and take him alive, un-armed man my ass, i'm sure he had a bodyguard like everybody else who lives in a million dollar compound

next question?

it's illegal to smoke a joint and it's illegal to walk into a bank and blow people away for money, one crime is just a silly technocality, the other crime is pure evil...what pakistan did in housing this man for almost a decade was evil, what we did in trying to bring a murderer to justice may have some technical problems w. internat'l law but sometimes the law needs to be broken

martin luther king didn't say, oh well, there's nothing to be done when the laws were all against him, sometimes the only decent thing to do is to honor the higher good and break a wrong law

Because in doing so you gave me the opportunity to unrec it.

:hi:

Has been at zero since I unrec'd it yesterday! Clearly fewer people agree with the OP than agree.

:hi:

where you can rant all you want about "DLC Underground" and "Demogogic Underground"

Now, if only I could remember what it was called. Oh yeah, there it is, right in your sig.

www.leftundergound.com

:rofl:

Sid

A group of terorrists kidnap a busload of American tourists, kill a couple of them, and transport them to a location in Pakistan where they hold them, demanding $10 billion dollars and the resignation of the President of the United States. (Or if you want, make the hostage someone else, such as Sasha and Malia or Hillary Clinton or Dennis Kucinich). Intelligence gathering reveals that they are being held in Pakistan but there is a very high risk that if the Pakistan government is informed, the result will be that they hostages will be moved or killed.

What do you do? Leave them there? Go in and rescue them without Pakistan's persmission? Tell Pakistan and hope like hell the raid isn't compromised?

And when its determined that the best chance of a successful rescue involves a nighttime raid on a compound where it is known that there will be armed defenders and, in fact, that is true and shots are exchanged, and you encounter one of the terrorists who does not appear to be armed (although you can't tell for certain if he/she is booby trapped in some way) and that terrorist does not unambiguosly surrender but instead appears to be attempting to flee, do you let them flee or do you stop them before they can either escape or obtain a weapon or take some other action that poses a threat to the mission?


What do you do?