Bin Laden Sons Say U.S. Broke International Law

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

The statement, provided to The New York Times on Tuesday, said the family was asking why Bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda, “was not arrested and tried in a court of law so that truth is revealed to the people of the world.”

Citing the trials of Saddam Hussein, the former Iraqi leader, and Slobodan Milosevic, the former Serbian leader, the statement questioned “the propriety of such assassination where not only international law has been blatantly violated,” but the principles of presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial were ignored.

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

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

funny how that works

When did he say that?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1027625

The first few minutes of his show were more delusional than I have ever heard him. He cited the Pres. Ford decree against assassinating "foreign leaders", he said "Obama invade a sovereign nation", Obama ignored Pakistan's sovereignty (see Bush years and "Clinton should have got him"), Obama court martialed a Navy Seal "for giving a known terrorist a fat lip". He was beside himself and then......this:

Limbaugh now claimed Obama, the Democratic Party, and the “American Left” all owe the country an apology. Why? Well, they kept us from getting Bin Laden sooner, of course.
His reasoning was that the Obama administration had not embraced the Bush policies that helped capture the terrorist leader and, in fact, ran on the promise of stopping them. Therefore, instead of taking any of the credit for the mission, the White House should be apologizing.

“Ladies and gentlemen, virtually every tool, every apparatus, every technique, every policy used to affect a successful mission to kill Osama bin Laden was employed by this current administration and they campaigned on undermining and destroying and ending all of it. And now they claim credit for being gutsy and courageous when none of this would have been available to them if they had their druthers?”


OOOh and I found this
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=58639.5;wap2

I thought his angle was just that Obama was taking credit for something that should go to Bush - that this success is all thanks to "enhanced interrogation" techniques.

if there is a truth to be revealed to the people of the world, have at it. Sounds like you might have some interesting insights you can share...want to tell us the truth that we don't know? I'm all ears.

Because, otherwise, this: “We maintain that arbitrary killing is not a solution to political problems,” rings a little hollow.

Like killing 3,000+ innocent people is entirely consistent with international law??

I'm fairly certain that hijacking civilian commercial airliners and ramming them into buildings (of which 2 out of 3 were civilian buildings) is not permissible under international rules of warfare.

hiding behind those wonderful international laws that he had no respect for himself? :eyes:

:sarcasm:

Obama can now join Bush and Nixon and Kissinger and the like as International Outlaws.

The story is burying the lede... the real issue of the story is that International Law only applies when there's someone to enforce it (kind of like Intranational Laws, when you think about it... erhhhm—warrantless wiretapping).

Let's everyone just get it through our heads, shall we? 1—Nixon was right, if the president does it, it's not illegal. 2—It's only a nation of laws when that suits the interests of the powerful. 3—International law only applies when global powers are looking for a rationalization to "go Victorian" on someone or someplace.

But the sentence for murder of one person isn't usually so much lighter than murder of lots of persons... it's just not the way the legal system works—well, not if you aren't connected anyway.

Which is kind of my point.

If I go murder Charles Manson... I'll still go to jail, no matter how hated he might be. If Obama were to kill Manson... I'll bet they'd soft shoe the investigation and I'd be willing to bet a tall stack of bills that he'd never go to jail himself. ;)

Poor bin Laden. So misunderstood in his terrorism. All he ever did was attack Americans. That's not a crime, nor did it make him an outlaw. In fact, he's a hero. The U.S. should compensate them for killing him.

Maybe the bin Ladens can get BushCo lawyers to represent them?

Will Greenwald and Chomsky start a bin Laden defense fund?

He was a terrorist who killed thousands here and abroad and admitted it in numerous video and audiotapes. Our Navy Seals were walking into a precarious situation where a suicide bomb/ied was very possible. Forget about guns!

If someone would have shot Hitler or one of the assasination attempts had succeeded, many lives would have been saved... soldiers and the jewish race!

I'm sure you are also against drone strikes... Ok, what would you rather do? Let those that want to kill Americans/Brits/EU citizens continue to plot and attempt to carry out attacks? Well, lets see, Yemen won't give up the former American who is now a member of al queda... you know, the one that sent the underwear bommber... should we let him roam the streets? Lets see...should we send in our men and women to go and ARREST him on Yemini soil? Do you think that might cause an even greater international incident and potentially cost the lives of US/EU soldiers? And what about the fact that Yemen really hasn't complained about the drone strikes... for that matter, neither has the government of Pakistan until the got caught with osama bin laden within a stone's throw of their version of West Point. I really don't understand people like you. Think of how many lives would have been saved in WWII if drones/small teams of special forces were used instead of soldiers to round up the Nazis.

Well, I suppose we should have just had a frank exchange of ideas, then.

And actually Omar is well known to have always opposed his father's methods. So he's just sticking to his principles.

I'd probably bet on the fact that Bin Laden was not armed and was shot anyway. However, it'd be disingenuous for me to say I care enough to understand where his son is coming from; I don't. Osama wasn't my dad and, either way, he was an evil motherfucker, directing people to kill others and commit suicide while hiding and watching himself on TV. I can't feel enough sympathy for him to be anymore than indifferent. Still, I respect Omar for standing up for his principles.

their mouths.

He got a trial (of sorts).

by Osama Bin Laden to the victims in the Towers: Burn alive! Jump! Or die as the buildings implode and crash around you!