Osama bin Laden: Dead

[Svartalf]

What seth says is that it was an act of war against a designated target.

How legal the war (taking out a guy on foreign soil without asking permission... last time you wanted to shoot him, you at least invaded Afghanistan honestly on grounds that protecting him was condoning his actions), and how legal the order... I mean, if they are an actual UCMJ bound team rather than CIA spooks who all retired from the SEALs a reasonable time ago, that still was far too close to an attack on civilian personnel (how many non combatant victims for every armed man taken out?) for my taste, still remains a heavy question.

But we all know that history is written by the winners, so lincoln was a great president and Obama is a hero who got things done.

[Seth]

Was it an unlawful killing, though?

U.S. forces enter another country without permission or even prior notice, guns-a-blazin', and kill an unarmed man, along with several other civilians.

Wasn't he entitled to due process and a trial?

Nope. First, he's not a U.S. citizen, second, he was not within the borders of the United States, third, he was a terrorist, fourth he was an unlawful combatant, fifth he was levying war on the United States, sixth, our military is under no obligation to ask the enemy to surrender before killing them, although they did, and he refused, so he has no rights under our Constitution at all, except the right to high velocity delivery of copper-jacketed lead to his skull.

Well, just because he's not a US citizen doesn't mean it's open season.

Yes, actually, it does. There was a "dead or alive" reward out for him for a decade.

There are Pakistani domestic laws,

Fuck Pakistani laws, and fuck Pakistan. If they wanted to arrest and try him, all they had to do was have some soldiers walk 500 yards and knock his door. They didn't. Fuck 'em.

and also international law which prohibits killing people - even soldiers - absent appropriate circumstances.

War is an "appropriate circumstance." We were at war with Osama, he was at war with us. He said as much. Our soldiers spent 20 minutes fighting their way to his room, engaging and killing people all the way up. They got there, demanded surrender, he refused, they shot him. Perfectly appropriate circumstances.

Not being within the borders of the US doesn't mean he can just be killed willy-nilly.

He wasn't killed "willy-nilly," he was killed after nearly 10 years of hard work and careful consideration and because he refused to instantly surrender.

He was an ALLEGED terrorist.

He was a SELF-ADMITTED terrorist.

He was an ALLEGED unlawful combatant.

He declared war on us, we declared war on him, he's not a member of any nation's army, he was not in uniform and was not operating under the control of military authority. That's the definition of an "unlawful combatant."

He was ALLEGEDLY levying war against the US.

He told us he was levying war on us. That's good enough for me.

Our military is under an obligation to not kill unarmed people who aren't posing a threat. Even in combat, if someone drops their weapons, it's murder to shot them.

What's one Al Quaeda's most prolifically used weapons: The suicide vest-bomb. Do you think the shooters from Seal Team Six had time to strip him down to make sure he wasn't about to detonate such a bomb, which would kill American soldiers? If you do, you're a military moron.

They demanded surrender, he did not instantly surrender and evidently made moves that caused them to believe that he was a threat, so they shot him. I'd have done the same thing. They are not required to wait for him to pick up a rifle, a mere suspicion he might resist is sufficient justification under the UCMJ.

Someone SAID they did ask him, and he refused - but, so far, 1/2 of what was reported about how the incident went down was wrong.

Oh well. Fog of war, faulty recorder, memory lapses. Sucks to be you I guess, because you'll never know exactly what happened. Get used to it.

Supposedly he had a weapon and used a woman as a human shield. Apparently that was false.

Darn! Our bad. We'll try to do better next time, okay?

Did the U.S. have a lawful right to invade Pakistan, destroy its property, kill its citizens, without asking first?

Sure.

We have asserted that right - under George Bush the US said that in pursuit of terrorists we would not agree to respect international borders and we will pursue them wherever they go - but, as I recall, there was fierce resistance to that concept by many of the same folks who now applaud Obama for doing exactly that....

Oh well. That was then, this is now. Don't fuck with the U.S. and then go hide somewhere, because we'll track you down and take you out wherever on earth we might find you, and fuck anyone who doesn't like it. If it takes the Pax Americana to protect our nation, our citizens and our strategic interests, so be it.

[Seth]

What seth says is that it was an act of war against a designated target.

How legal the war (taking out a guy on foreign soil without asking permission... last time you wanted to shoot him, you at least invaded Afghanistan honestly on grounds that protecting him was condoning his actions), and how legal the order... I mean, if they are an actual UCMJ bound team rather than CIA spooks who all retired from the SEALs a reasonable time ago, that still was far too close to an attack on civilian personnel (how many non combatant victims for every armed man taken out?) for my taste, still remains a heavy question.

But we all know that history is written by the winners, so lincoln was a great president and Obama is a hero who got things done.

Evidently the collateral damage count was quite low, approaching zero. A truly remarkable LACK of collateral damage, given what a JDAM would have done. BTW, women and and children are not inherently non-combatants in that theater. I watched Frontline last night, and they had film from an Afghan filmmaker who spent considerable time with Al Quaeda in Afghanistan filming them. One of the important things he filmed was a village Madrassas school in the mountains north of Kabul where children were being taught weapons-handling, operation, service and marksmanship.

[Tigger]

What's the discussion? Dead terrorist is dead. As I read on a facebook status: "Move over Achmed, you've got competition."

[Svartalf]

You gonna bitch about a country where everybody is taught how to use what the second amendment says you can own and bear?
Man, There are things in high school that I would have exchanged for firearm education any day of the year, and twice on 7/4

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Been Laden, now Fishfood.

[Svartalf]

I do hope that bag was really solid, or I'm complaining to the WWF and green piss about your toxic dumps and trying to poison the food chain.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I do hope that bag was really solid, or I'm complaining to the WWF and green piss about your toxic dumps and trying to poison the food chain.

What bag? He was wrapped in clothes and dumped. Standard Navy practice, we don't have morgues on most ships, and nobody wants a corpse in a food reefer.

[Svartalf]

I heard he was put in a shroud, then stuff in a bag weighed down so it wouldn't float... now, maybe the navy just lied about that.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I heard he was put in a shroud, then stuff in a bag weighed down so it wouldn't float... now, maybe the navy just lied about that.

Dude, a shroud is cloth. A body bag is plastic.

[Coito ergo sum]

Was it an unlawful killing, though?

U.S. forces enter another country without permission or even prior notice, guns-a-blazin', and kill an unarmed man, along with several other civilians.

Wasn't he entitled to due process and a trial?

Nope. First, he's not a U.S. citizen, second, he was not within the borders of the United States, third, he was a terrorist, fourth he was an unlawful combatant, fifth he was levying war on the United States, sixth, our military is under no obligation to ask the enemy to surrender before killing them, although they did, and he refused, so he has no rights under our Constitution at all, except the right to high velocity delivery of copper-jacketed lead to his skull.

Well, just because he's not a US citizen doesn't mean it's open season.

Yes, actually, it does. There was a "dead or alive" reward out for him for a decade.

It doesn't. It is not the case that simply not being a US citizen means one can be killed by the US government at any time. If it did, then the rule of international law would simply be anarchy - any country would have the right to kill citizens of any other country anytime. That's not the case. The US is subject to international law which makes it not the case, and has voluntarily undertaken to adhere to those rules. And, some rules are jus cogens.

There are Pakistani domestic laws,

Fuck Pakistani laws, and fuck Pakistan. If they wanted to arrest and try him, all they had to do was have some soldiers walk 500 yards and knock his door. They didn't. Fuck 'em.

You may approve of a lawless act. That doesn't make it lawful.

and also international law which prohibits killing people - even soldiers - absent appropriate circumstances.

War is an "appropriate circumstance." We were at war with Osama, he was at war with us. He said as much. Our soldiers spent 20 minutes fighting their way to his room, engaging and killing people all the way up. They got there, demanded surrender, he refused, they shot him. Perfectly appropriate circumstances.

Combat is an appropriate circumstance, but shooting unarmed persons who have been detained is not.

We don't know if the soldiers spent 20 minutes fighting their way there. We know that 1/2 of what has been said about the raid has proven to be wrong. We don't know if they demanded surrender, or that he refused.

Not being within the borders of the US doesn't mean he can just be killed willy-nilly.

He wasn't killed "willy-nilly," he was killed after nearly 10 years of hard work and careful consideration and because he refused to instantly surrender.

We don't know that he refused to instantly surrender. We do know that Pakistan did not know about the raid, and that our forces engaged in a military invasion of a sovereign nation's territory, killed its citizens, and destroyed its property.

He was an ALLEGED terrorist.

He was a SELF-ADMITTED terrorist.

He never admitted to being a terrorist.

He was an ALLEGED unlawful combatant.

He declared war on us, we declared war on him, he's not a member of any nation's army, he was not in uniform and was not operating under the control of military authority. That's the definition of an "unlawful combatant."

He was in a house having breakfast, not combatting anyone. He hadn't been heard from in years. Maybe he ended hostilities. For his past crimes, he ought to have been tried in federal court in NYC, like Kalid Sheikh Mohammed. The days of cowboy diplomacy are over, Seth, and in this new day, smart folks like Obama and Eric Holder are quite sure that a federal court could handle the prosecution. Summary executions are not what this nation was founded upon. It's also a war crime.

He was ALLEGEDLY levying war against the US.

He told us he was levying war on us. That's good enough for me.

He was a criminal and should have been afforded due process rights and jury of his peers.

Our military is under an obligation to not kill unarmed people who aren't posing a threat. Even in combat, if someone drops their weapons, it's murder to shot them.

What's one Al Quaeda's most prolifically used weapons: The suicide vest-bomb. Do you think the shooters from Seal Team Six had time to strip him down to make sure he wasn't about to detonate such a bomb, which would kill American soldiers? If you do, you're a military moron.

They had him under surveillance for almost 24 hours before the raid. Obama "slept on it" for 16 hours before he okayed the mission. They knew whether he was wearing a vest.

They demanded surrender,

How do you know that?

he did not instantly surrender and evidently made moves that caused them to believe that he was a threat, so they shot him.

That's right - now I remember. He took a woman and used her as a human shield as he fired at the SEALs with an automatic weapon...not sure if he was yelling Hasta La Vista Baby or not, but he might have been.

I'd have done the same thing. They are not required to wait for him to pick up a rifle, a mere suspicion he might resist is sufficient justification under the UCMJ.

What provision?

Someone SAID they did ask him, and he refused - but, so far, 1/2 of what was reported about how the incident went down was wrong.

Oh well. Fog of war, faulty recorder, memory lapses. Sucks to be you I guess, because you'll never know exactly what happened. Get used to it.

Doesn't suck to be me. It's just a reality that you are talking out of your posterior when you claim to know what happened.

Supposedly he had a weapon and used a woman as a human shield. Apparently that was false.

Darn! Our bad. We'll try to do better next time, okay?

O.k. Don't use the word "we" like you were there. We know you think of yourself as some kind of bad-ass, but you weren't there.

Did the U.S. have a lawful right to invade Pakistan, destroy its property, kill its citizens, without asking first?

Sure.

On what basis? No Congressional authority? No UN authority?

[Seth]

I heard he was put in a shroud, then stuff in a bag weighed down so it wouldn't float... now, maybe the navy just lied about that.

Dude, a shroud is cloth. A body bag is plastic.

Generally, sea-burial bags are heavy-duty canvas with lead weights sewn in, to prevent the body from floating to the surface before it's decomposed completely. The bag takes much longer to rot than the body does to decay and fill with gas. They don't use plastic because it's not biodegradable and they don't allow water absorption and gas escape.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I heard he was put in a shroud, then stuff in a bag weighed down so it wouldn't float... now, maybe the navy just lied about that.

Dude, a shroud is cloth. A body bag is plastic.

Generally, sea-burial bags are heavy-duty canvas with lead weights sewn in, to prevent the body from floating to the surface before it's decomposed completely. The bag takes much longer to rot than the body does to decay and fill with gas. They don't use plastic because it's not biodegradable and they don't allow water absorption and gas escape.

We're not allowed to toss plastic trash bags over these days.

And they used to use a cannon ball for the weights. During WWII it was a 5" shell, where available.

[Seth]

Was it an unlawful killing, though?

U.S. forces enter another country without permission or even prior notice, guns-a-blazin', and kill an unarmed man, along with several other civilians.

Wasn't he entitled to due process and a trial?

Nope. First, he's not a U.S. citizen, second, he was not within the borders of the United States, third, he was a terrorist, fourth he was an unlawful combatant, fifth he was levying war on the United States, sixth, our military is under no obligation to ask the enemy to surrender before killing them, although they did, and he refused, so he has no rights under our Constitution at all, except the right to high velocity delivery of copper-jacketed lead to his skull.

Well, just because he's not a US citizen doesn't mean it's open season.

Yes, actually, it does. There was a "dead or alive" reward out for him for a decade.

It doesn't. It is not the case that simply not being a US citizen means one can be killed by the US government at any time.

It does if you're an enemy unlawful combatant we're at war with.

If it did, then the rule of international law would simply be anarchy - any country would have the right to kill citizens of any other country anytime. That's not the case. The US is subject to international law which makes it not the case, and has voluntarily undertaken to adhere to those rules. And, some rules are jus cogens.

The international laws of war dispense with such pettifoggery.

There are Pakistani domestic laws,

Fuck Pakistani laws, and fuck Pakistan. If they wanted to arrest and try him, all they had to do was have some soldiers walk 500 yards and knock his door. They didn't. Fuck 'em.

You may approve of a lawless act. That doesn't make it lawful.

Doesn't make it unlawful. We're not bound by Pakistani law when we're at war and they are harboring the leader of the group we're at war with.

and also international law which prohibits killing people - even soldiers - absent appropriate circumstances.

War is an "appropriate circumstance." We were at war with Osama, he was at war with us. He said as much. Our soldiers spent 20 minutes fighting their way to his room, engaging and killing people all the way up. They got there, demanded surrender, he refused, they shot him. Perfectly appropriate circumstances.

Combat is an appropriate circumstance, but shooting unarmed persons who have been detained is not.

How do you know he was unarmed? Were you there?

We don't know if the soldiers spent 20 minutes fighting their way there. We know that 1/2 of what has been said about the raid has proven to be wrong. We don't know if they demanded surrender, or that he refused.

You'll never know. You have no right to know. The government is under no obligation to let you know anything. Sucks to be you I guess. You have no standing in this matter to either sue for information or demand to be informed.

Not being within the borders of the US doesn't mean he can just be killed willy-nilly.

He wasn't killed "willy-nilly," he was killed after nearly 10 years of hard work and careful consideration and because he refused to instantly surrender.

We don't know that he refused to instantly surrender.

So? Who cares what you don't know? I trust the SEALS more than I care whether you know anything.

We do know that Pakistan did not know about the raid,

You don't know jack shit. Ever wonder why there wasn't a massive police/military response from the military academy 500 yards away at the instigation of a helicopter assault and firefight that was alarming enough to be tweeted to the world by a civilian living in the area?

You just think that Pakistan didn't know. Your ignorance poses no obligation on the part of the government to dispel it.
and that our forces engaged in a military invasion of a sovereign nation's territory, killed its citizens, and destroyed its property.

He was an ALLEGED terrorist.

He was a SELF-ADMITTED terrorist.

He never admitted to being a terrorist.

Sure he did, he just used slightly different words.

He was an ALLEGED unlawful combatant.

He declared war on us, we declared war on him, he's not a member of any nation's army, he was not in uniform and was not operating under the control of military authority. That's the definition of an "unlawful combatant."

He was in a house having breakfast, not combatting anyone.

Sucks to be him. War doesn't take mornings off for tea and crumpets. Once you're a legitimate military target, you remain so, 24/7 till you're dead or captured.

He hadn't been heard from in years.

You mean YOU hadn't heard from him. We should base our military actions on YOUR ignorance? I think not.

Maybe he ended hostilities.

I'm guessing the CIA didn't think so, nor did the President.

For his past crimes, he ought to have been tried in federal court in NYC, like Kalid Sheikh Mohammed.

If he'd surrendered instantly and unconditionally, perhaps he would be. Oh well.

The days of cowboy diplomacy are over, Seth, and in this new day, smart folks like Obama and Eric Holder are quite sure that a federal court could handle the prosecution.

Smart folk? They're fucking idiots, Holder prime among fucking idiots when it comes to prosecuting terrorists. The last thing we need is a decade-long show-trial that gives Osama a platform for exhorting his minions and provides ongoing jihadist outrage, much less the billion dollars it would cost. Thank you Osama for blinking, or whatever you did, that caused the SEALS to put your lights out.

Summary executions are not what this nation was founded upon. It's also a war crime.

Actually, it's not. Particularly with spies, who are generally defined as soldiers not in the uniform of their nation engaged in warlike acts.

But this was not a summary execution, it was a military operation wherein the target failed to surrender and was killed, all within the laws of war and the UCMJ.

He was ALLEGEDLY levying war against the US.

He told us he was levying war on us. That's good enough for me.

He was a criminal and should have been afforded due process rights and jury of his peers.

He should have thought of that before he claimed leadership of a terrorist organization that waged war on the U.S. Once he did that, his criminal status took second chair to his status as a legitimate military target.

Our military is under an obligation to not kill unarmed people who aren't posing a threat. Even in combat, if someone drops their weapons, it's murder to shot them.

What's one Al Quaeda's most prolifically used weapons: The suicide vest-bomb. Do you think the shooters from Seal Team Six had time to strip him down to make sure he wasn't about to detonate such a bomb, which would kill American soldiers? If you do, you're a military moron.

They had him under surveillance for almost 24 hours before the raid.

No, they didn't. They had not laid eyes on him personally, and calculated that there was only a 60 percent chance he was there at all, or ever had been.

Obama "slept on it" for 16 hours before he okayed the mission.

So?

They knew whether he was wearing a vest.

What's your top-secret confidential source for this bit of information that even NBC and Fox News doesn't have? Your ass?

They demanded surrender,

How do you know that?

They said so.

he did not instantly surrender and evidently made moves that caused them to believe that he was a threat, so they shot him.

That's right - now I remember. He took a woman and used her as a human shield as he fired at the SEALs with an automatic weapon...not sure if he was yelling Hasta La Vista Baby or not, but he might have been.

You were there?

I'd have done the same thing. They are not required to wait for him to pick up a rifle, a mere suspicion he might resist is sufficient justification under the UCMJ.

What provision?

All of them that apply.

Someone SAID they did ask him, and he refused - but, so far, 1/2 of what was reported about how the incident went down was wrong.

Oh well. Fog of war, faulty recorder, memory lapses. Sucks to be you I guess, because you'll never know exactly what happened. Get used to it.

Doesn't suck to be me. It's just a reality that you are talking out of your posterior when you claim to know what happened.

I trust my sources.

Supposedly he had a weapon and used a woman as a human shield. Apparently that was false.

Darn! Our bad. We'll try to do better next time, okay?

O.k. Don't use the word "we" like you were there. We know you think of yourself as some kind of bad-ass, but you weren't there.

That's the "We, the People" we.

Did the U.S. have a lawful right to invade Pakistan, destroy its property, kill its citizens, without asking first?

Sure.

On what basis? No Congressional authority? No UN authority?

Presidential authority, and, I suspect, an agreement with the Pakistani government that they don't care to tell you about.

[Seth]

You gonna bitch about a country where everybody is taught how to use what the second amendment says you can own and bear?
Man, There are things in high school that I would have exchanged for firearm education any day of the year, and twice on 7/4

I'm not bitching about the education of children in marksmanship and weapons handing, I'm bitching about WHO is doing the educating and WHY.