Amnesty International: Osama bin Laden raid was illegal

**JAD_333** · 30 May 12,, 13:34

Originally Posted by bonehead

I don't mind the final outcome but I would rather OBL had been captured and sentenced to 100 years hard labor...on an Iowa pig farm. Unfortunately, some tool would have cried out that would have been cruel and unusual punishment even though that pales compared to what he did to all those innocent people on 9/11. I do like the message we sent. "If you declare war against us there is no place you can run to and hide that we can not reach you and sent you to the next world"

I admit I was a little disturbed that he was summarily shot when he could have been taken alive. No doubt he would have been an enormous problem alive and in captivity. He would have used the courtroom as a political platform. We would have had to endure the technical shenanigans of defense lawyers who would put the US on trial. We avoided all that with a clean kill. But did we miss an opportunity to show the world that everyone is entitled to his day in court? Or, did we only do what is accepted in war?

**astralis** · 30 May 12,, 14:03

AI, like a lot of lefty groups, tend to conflate "violence" with "crime".

terrorism is not a crime. it's an act of war-- "politics by other means". and it should be treated as such.

**Officer of Engineers** · 30 May 12,, 14:42

Originally Posted by JAD_333

But did we miss an opportunity to show the world that everyone is entitled to his day in court? Or, did we only do what is accepted in war?

It was a good kill. I am not losing sleep over this.

**Chogy** · 30 May 12,, 14:45

Originally Posted by AdityaMookerjee

The Saud Monarchy might feel, that the United States benefits from Saudi Arabia, but doesn't benefit Saudi Arabia in return. Anyone can buy Saudi oil, not just the U. S.

Are you claiming the only thing the KSA gets from the USA is petrodollars? How about other forms of trade? Intellectual exchange? Security from hostile neighbors? All the things that come from an alliance...

bin Laden's angst vis the USA has its roots in Desert Storm. The presence of filthy infidel boots in the Holy Land was a personal affront he simply could not deal with, among other perceived slights.

As for the dead or alive question - him being quite dead forestalls attempts to leverage him out of U.S. hands with a rash of hostage-taking around the world. It also prevents the inevitable circus that would revolve around his trial. I think instant death was the best option.

**dave lukins** · 30 May 12,, 14:58

Originally Posted by AdityaMookerjee

What if Osama bin Laden felt that the U S was working against the interests of Saudi Arabia, and that nation was not acting in national interest by being the U S 's ally? You are completely right to feel that he is a terrorist, what about what he felt, before he masterminded the regrettable attacks? Why is the U S meddling in the duties of other nations, and also taking care of her own duties? Is this not a valid thought?

There was nothing regrettable about the attacks in the USA or elsewhere. He masterminded mass murder without any regret or consciencence.

**JAD_333** · 30 May 12,, 16:07

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

It was a good kill. I am not losing sleep over this.

Agree. Haven't lost a minute of sleep over it either. I just tend to look out into the future to visualize where today's actions will lead.

**~~AdityaMookerjee~~** · 30 May 12,, 16:44

You know, I haven't been politically correct lately. What I want to say is, that the perception of the Arab people matter to themselves, and perhaps, in the world, the people who are the least bedazzled by the United States is the Arab world. And the non-Arabs are even less so, in the Muslim world. Afghanistan is not an Arab state, nor is Iran, I don't know if Bangladesh is even in the thoughts of the U. S., and Pakistan would rather not be in the perception of U. S., and the feeling is mutual, to a great extent. Is the U. S. important to the Muslims and Arabs, because of her democracy, her free speech, etc.? Why? Not because democracy is a bad concept, nor is free speech. Because there is so much 'free speech' because it is valued highly, people just want to hear themselves speak, and this includes Obama.
And, another thing. Is it ethical for the U. S. President to continue in office, when the people are speaking against his policies, in derision? I mean, does he really care for the same people, who feel he is acting against the interests of the U. S.? Why should any man tar his good name, by becoming U S President?

**Double Edge** · 30 May 12,, 17:24

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Or, did we only do what is accepted in war?

This is the only valid reason i can think of for explaining it, but i find it lacking.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

I admit I was a little disturbed that he was summarily shot when he could have been taken alive.

Good, i certainly was. Start doing this with foreigners and its only a matter of time before it happens to your own.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

No doubt he would have been an enormous problem alive and in captivity. He would have used the courtroom as a political platform. We would have had to endure the technical shenanigans of defense lawyers who would put the US on trial. We avoided all that with a clean kill. But did we miss an opportunity to show the world that everyone is entitled to his day in court?

Then what will you do with the following..

Ramzi Yousef
KSM
Ramzi bin al-Shibh

You have a quite a few others at gitmo, alive. OBL was just their boss.

What makes OBL so special that he could not have been transferred over to Gitmo. The resources were there and there were no legal or other barriers in the way. Pakistan was not going to fight you over it.

The man gets hyped up into mythic proportions that the mere fact that he continues to be alive constitutes a serious threat to the US. All the excuses offered over trying him etc are inadequate and somewhat spurious. I cannot believe your justice system could not cope with it, that is if India could try successfully the last remaining perp from the mumbai attack.

**Mihais** · 30 May 12,, 21:15

Ohh come on,states have been killing their foreign enemies since Sumer.States killing their subjects happens far less and states killing their citizens happens even more rarely.Yes, it may happen but I doubt it will have much to do with OBL,AL Awlaki etc...

Does anyone on this planet gives a fuss about what AI,HRW or other like these spout from time to time?

**Double Edge** · 30 May 12,, 22:42

Originally Posted by Mihais

Ohh come on,states have been killing their foreign enemies since Sumer.States killing their subjects happens far less and states killing their citizens happens even more rarely.Yes, it may happen but I doubt it will have much to do with OBL,AL Awlaki etc...

Awlaki was an interesting case, Awlaki's dad had a case running in US court contesting the US should not kill him but the judge ruled against him. The father tried to save his son through the legal process but was unable to. Awlaki's case is very different to OBL in this regard.

In the end a country creates principles that define it, its expected that they be upheld. yeah, there are extenuating circumstances, war, emergency etc.

Originally Posted by Mihais

Does anyone on this planet gives a fuss about what AI,HRW or other like these spout from time to time?

Well, i'm not saying its illegal. It isn't.

Just that i do not understand the decision behind it as they did not always do this with others.

S2 · 31 May 12,, 03:27

"...In the end a country creates principles that define it, its expected that they be upheld. yeah, there are extenuating circumstances, war, emergency etc."

What part of two sky-scrapers dropped and 3,000 dead in the space of one hour along with a simultaneous attack on the Pentagon and a thwarted attack upon the White House followed by ten years of combat and over 1,000 dead U.S. servicemen eludes your "...extenuating circumstances..."?

In the end, on this board, your words define YOU. Those were your words and I find it heinous that the above described conditions somehow fail to fit your definition of "...war, emergency, etc...".

That ungodly fcuk, OBL, deserved death as violently and abruptly as he foisted upon those innocents that horrible Sept. 11th morning.

Here's a principle of which you can be assured-commit wanton slaughter upon our people and we'll hunt your mangy azz into the darkest, dankest corners of this miserable earth.

Those aren't empty words uttered by some salon solicitor.

**JAD_333** · 31 May 12,, 04:41

Originally Posted by Double Edge

This is the only valid reason i can think of for explaining it, but i find it lacking.

How can a valid reason be lacking?

Good, i certainly was.

I wanted him to face the people he murdered.

Start doing this with foreigners and its only a matter of time before it happens to your own.

Look at it another way. If an American terrorist had blown up office buildings in some foreign city with thousands of innocent dead, I am 100% certain that the US would have hunted him down, arrested him and bound him over to trial in the country he attacked. We cannot do to others what we cannot permit be done to us.

Then what will you do with the following..

Ramzi Yousef
KSM
Ramzi bin al-Shibh

You have a quite a few others at gitmo, alive. OBL was just their boss.

Yes, and we know how how that defense flies. Remember all those hapless underlings of Hitler at the Nuremberg trials pleading they were just following orders.

**Officer of Engineers** · 31 May 12,, 04:48

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Look at it another way. If an American terrorist had blown up office buildings in some foreign city with thousands of innocent dead, I am 100% certain that the US would have hunted him down, arrested him and bound him over to trial in the country he attacked. We cannot do to others what we cannot permit be done to us.

Military Professional Resources Inc provided the training and the planning for the Croats to ethnic cleanse Krajina.

**JAD_333** · 31 May 12,, 05:10

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Military Professional Resources Inc provided the training and the planning for the Croats to ethnic cleanse Krajina.

This is your area of expertise. I wasn't aware the Croats engaged in ethnic cleansing per se. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Krajina territory the Serbs had taken from the Croats earlier and which the Croats got back in a short war, and didn't Serbs in Kragina flee the Croats? Is that the ethnic cleansing you're referring to? Military Professional Resources, according to Wiki, trained Croat officers along with a French Foreign Legion outfit

**Doktor** · 31 May 12,, 05:19

Originally Posted by JAD_333

This is your area of expertise. I wasn't aware the Croats engaged in ethnic cleansing per se. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Krajina territory the Serbs had taken from the Croats earlier and which the Croats got back in a short war, and didn't Serbs in Kragina flee the Croats? Is that the ethnic cleansing you're referring to? Military Professional Resources, according to Wiki, trained Croat officers along with a French Foreign Legion outfit

Krajina was not taken by the Serbs, but was given to them.

A-H Empire settled Serbs in that region as a barrier from the Ottomans.

However it was considered Croatian territory, same as Kosovo was Serbian one.