Amnesty International: Osama bin Laden raid was illegal

**Double Edge** · 01 Jun 12,, 10:49

My take on terroist/insurgent...

Originally Posted by JAD_333

This raises the question, what is a terrorist? I had a PA role in the Contra movement and don't recall the Contras engaging in what we would today call terrorist acts. I suppose when you get right down to it, all insurgency activity is potentially subject to the terrorism label, and the Contras could be accused of it in spades.

I think the underlined bit is a mistake because it blurs the differences between the two. If you cannot diagnose what it is then how can you define a solution to deal with it. This to me appears to be the primary reason to get it right.

Terrorists have little support from the population 1-5%. Insurgents have much more upto 20% but not enough to win elections.

Terrorist acts are random, generally targeting the civilian population to get the state to bend to their will. Insurgents mainly target the state and its agents. Insurgents might resort to terrorist tactics from time to time but that does not make them terrorists.

Insurgents try to setup a parallel govt in the areas they control, their aim is to replace the present govt. Terrorists cannot do this.

Insurgency is a much harder problem to deal with due to the support the insurgents enjoy. A very brutal kind of war and harder to eradicate. Requires big budgets, manpower & political will. Terrorism in comparison is relatively easier. Take out the top leadership and chances are the movement is dealt a mortal blow. Not always but most of the time.

Now, would you still call the Contras terrorists or insurgents ?

**Mihais** · 01 Jun 12,, 13:10

JAD,since then it is lawful to kill women and children deliberately?Mind you,I'm not a hippie by far.I don't gasp in horror when something happens.It is war,there are mistakes,there is chaos etc... I'm perfectly at ease with the idea that at times a lot of people have to be killed in order to achieve a desired effect favourable to my side,even if it means the application of terror.It depends on the circumstances.I also have no problem with the idea of lying shamelessly my own people if it serves the bigger goal.What I won't do is deceive myself.

The enemy right now is not terrorism as a belief system,which in any case AQ does not believe in.It is islamism,if you insist on finding an 'ism''.The end goal of AQ is not creating a system that allows them to blow themselves up forever.It is peace and good.Their version of good,to be sure.They are not different in this sense than the rest of mankind,present or past.And as can be seen,AQ is not fixed on terrorist acts.They can fight a proper guerilla campaign,they can fight in conventional operations and they can even fight along NATO,as in Libya.I'm sure they'll be grateful for more airpower on their side in the next battles they'll face.That way they won't need to use suicide bombers.

**tankie** · 01 Jun 12,, 14:15

Capture or kill , the order was KILL , the soldiers who carried out the killing , carried out their orders to the letter , exit one twat who wont be giving any more orders to KILL , job well done says I ,salute to the guys who carried out their orders .

Off track a bit here , has anyone heard how the wealthy Richard Head has got on in his quest as Jack Cousteau to find bin dumped's remains ?

S2 · 01 Jun 12,, 15:19

"Yes to the underlined bit and I stand by them...!"

Incomprehensible.

"...I lived through 9-11 in NYC. A couple of people that worked in my company were on the plane from Boston that crashed. I would not be here today had i taken a job in the North block a year earlier.

I WAS THERE...!"

Then you should have no problem recognizing the extenuating circumstance involved. This was (and remains) a war. We'd no obligation to preserve OBL's miserable life...and didn't.

**Firestorm** · 01 Jun 12,, 17:59

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Headley obviously wasn't acting on behalf of the US government. My statement stands unless you can prove otherwise.

Never said Headley did it on behalf of the US govt. I think you misunderstood me. This is what you said:

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.

Headley was an American terrorist, even though he wasn't working for the US govt. And while he didn't pull the trigger so to speak, the Mumbai attack would have been impossible without the reconnoitering work that he did. The US did hunt him down, but refused to hand him over to trial in the country he helped attack.

He wasn't turned over to India because he was a walking repository of secret information the US didn't want revealed.

So there are caveats. The US govt. won't always do what you said they will.

**Firestorm** · 01 Jun 12,, 18:08

Originally Posted by Doktor

I don't quite follow your logic. Are you saying that OBL had Pakistani passport and was in fact working for the ISI?

My mistake I guess. Shouldn't have included the DEA part. No, that is not what I'm saying.

Wasn't aware that India and USA had signed a treaty to extradite their own citizens between each other.

There is an extradition treaty in place since 1999. I don't think the US forbids extradition of its own nationals.

Could be. But it also could be the agencies had no framework how to cooperate.

No, JAD's explanation is far more plausible.

Painful death needs time, something the team on spot haven't plenty.

But to make you feel better they shot him twice.

Not blaming the team. Only some wishful thinking. Just wanted him to suffer for all the pain he caused.

**Double Edge** · 01 Jun 12,, 18:14

Originally Posted by Firestorm

The US did hunt him down, but refused to hand him over to trial in the country he helped attack.

S2 had posted the ruling of his case here when the story broke, and in the plea bargain Headley asked not to be interviewed by the Indians. That was the deal the US made with him.

Originally Posted by Firestorm

So there are caveats. The US govt. won't always do what you said they will.

Their law comes first.

**Roosveltrepub** · 02 Jun 12,, 01:20

as with the aclu and the nazis and Ill. they stuck to their principles. Of course it was illegal we invaded anothe r country to kill him him and diodn't bother asking if we could. We also had no other choice to get him. It was the right thing to do but hardly legal. if we had asked he would of disapeared again. We did the right thing but, really is there an argument we didn't disregard pakistani sovereignty? I guess when you are a sovereign state and ignore the presence of a man who was responsible for the death of thousands of Americans and continued to call for the deaths of more you can't expect a nation not to act. Yeah we acted illegally in response to Pakistan's failure to act a a responsible nation state in the matter....oh F&cking well

As to Bush whatever..... is low on the totem pole of rights abuses. Let's worry about the Mugabe's rather than someone signing off on some renditions in response to a devestating attack. It's important t o keep the persective of what waterboarding et al were a reaction too. It doesn't make it right but it sure as hell is enough cover to skip the BS about war crimes

**JAD_333** · 02 Jun 12,, 02:28

Originally Posted by Firestorm

Never said Headley did it on behalf of the US govt. I think you misunderstood me. This is what you said:

Headley was an American terrorist, even though he wasn't working for the US govt. And while he didn't pull the trigger so to speak, the Mumbai attack would have been impossible without the reconnoitering work that he did. The US did hunt him down, but refused to hand him over to trial in the country he helped attack.

So there are caveats. The US govt. won't always do what you said they will.

Point well taken.

**JAD_333** · 03 Jun 12,, 18:18

Originally Posted by Mihais

JAD,since then it is lawful to kill women and children deliberately?

Mihais, if we were sitting across each other in a coffee shop, we would quickly settle the question of what you mean by lawful. There is nature's law, God's law and man's law. Which do you mean?

If nature induces war, or periodic mass exterminations, to keep earth's population in balance, would war and killing anyone one must kill to win be lawful? I think, yes. If mass exterminations were not in nature's interest, would it be lawful if man decided to make it legal? Yes, if all that matters is what man decides.

Personally, I believe deliberately killing non-combatant women and children in wartime is morally wrong. Yet, it may be lawful. It depends on what body of law we rely on.

Mind you,I'm not a hippie by far.I don't gasp in horror when something happens.It is war,there are mistakes,there is chaos etc... I'm perfectly at ease with the idea that at times a lot of people have to be killed in order to achieve a desired effect favourable to my side,even if it means the application of terror.It depends on the circumstances.I also have no problem with the idea of lying shamelessly my own people if it serves the bigger goal.What I won't do is deceive myself.

I have you down as a realist. As for lying to the people to serve a larger goal, I think it is better not to lie, but to be selective in the truth. For example, Bush's public pretext for taking out Saddam was WMD, which Bush believed was a true fact. The real reason for invading Iraq was never made public at the time, and to this day most people still think it was only about WMD.

The enemy right now is not terrorism as a belief system,which in any case AQ does not believe in.

Yes and no. Terrorism must always resisted by the state. Otherwise it wins.

As for AQ being a terrorist organization, it doesn't have to be 100% terrorist in its actions to qualify for the label. It's clear to anyone who follows events that AQ's success, for what it is worth, is based on premeditated terrorist acts. The only option open to the political or religious fanatic, without a state or a conventional military organization, is formal terrorism (see the definition I posted).

It is islamism,if you insist on finding an 'ism''.

Well, of course, terrorism for the sake of terrorism achieves no end. But it can serve a political and religious agenda. Thus, one ism promotes another ism: terrorism promoting radical Islamism.

The end goal of AQ is not creating a system that allows them to blow themselves up forever.It is peace and good.Their version of good,to be sure. They are not different in this sense than the rest of mankind,present or past.

Classic terrorism has an ultimate goal, which may be peace and order. But the first goal is power. Without power nothing can be done.

I agree AQ's movement is like all armed struggles for power throughout history, in that that it uses deadly force. But their use of classic terrorism is not typical of all struggles. You would be hard put to find a movement that succeeded using terrorism. Usually terrorism backfires, because the intended beneficiary rather dislikes also being the victim. But that is another topic.

...as can be seen,AQ is not fixed on terrorist acts.They can fight a proper guerilla campaign,they can fight in conventional operations and they can even fight along NATO,as in Libya.

They are still trying to blow our civilian airliners out of the sky.

I'm sure they'll be grateful for more airpower on their side in the next battles they'll face.That way they won't need to use suicide bombers.

Then you agree AQ uses terrorism, and will until it has air power and a proper military. Do you also believe they are justified in doing so?

**gunnut** · 14 Jun 12,, 23:53

Amnesty International considers the Bin Laden hit "illegal...."

Well, at least they are consistent. The libs in this country all of a sudden had no problem with a "Nobel Peace Prize" winner who orders a hit on an unsuspecting human being, inside another sovereign nation, who is not in the immediate act of harming anyone else.

The same "Nobel Peace Prize" winner ordered a hit of an American citizen inside yet another sovereign nation, executing him without due process while he was not in the act of harming anyone else.

The "Nobel Peace Prize" winner was from Chicago afterall.