OSAMA BIN LADEN DEAD

[PeZook]

The Phoenix program might've killed as much as 2000 people already. Bin Laden was just high profile.

And huh, telling people concerned about US actions to go fuck themselves. Yeah, I wonder why they're worried

OBL and Assange are hardly similar cases. It's not a black and white "we like him/we don't like him" switch.

You have the capability, all that's needed is political will. Seeing as you guys elected the freakin' tea party to your parliament, I daresay being worried is quite justified.

[Broomstick]

All the more reason to think that it is indeed of international concern and should definitely be questioned within a court of law.

Absolutely it should be questioned. The people saying it shouldn't be questioned are full of arrogant shit.

Whether or not that questioning will have an affect is a different question.

Clearly the US has the capacity to perform extra-judicial killings... but something like the bin Laden raid is an exception, not the rule. As improbable as it may seem, the US does have some concern for international opinion - you know, they want everyone to like them. International disapproval can't undo what's been done, but it can have an impact on how likely another such raid is.

[Sarevok]

You have the capability, all that's needed is political will. Seeing as you guys elected the freakin' tea party to your parliament, I daresay being worried is quite justified.

A lot of countries do have the capability and self interest in seeing Assange dead though. I don't think it is fair to single out USA. Given what Assange pulled he is being given a surprisingly lenient treatment. If he made Russian politicians as angry as US senate members he would be dead from Polonium poisoning by now. Right now Assange's focus on US mainly keeps him alive, if he were to take his idealistic crusade to other countries his life expectancy would be dramatically shorter.

The point is it is one thing to oppose a man and another to assassinate him. Possessing the capability does not mean the intent to exercise it. It took a lot to get to the stage where America went made it a priority to kill Bin Laden. People like Assange knows this and also knows as long as they don't negin committing mass acts of terror they are safe from retaliation. This why they pick on US only when releasing the best juiciest national secrets they can find. Because whereas in China or Russia the chances of being arrested, abducted or even being killed is a very real danger in US all they would get are harsh words and strongly worded letters of protest.

[Serafina]

As improbable as it may seem, the US does have some concern for international opinion - you know, they want everyone to like them. International disapproval can't undo what's been done, but it can have an impact on how likely another such raid is.

I beg to differ.
The current administration and a significant portion of the american public do care somewhat about the international opinion of the USA.
However, the last administration did not care about that at all, and so does a large part of the american public. Many current US-politicians do not care at all about international relationships (as in "relationship between equals", they prefer "do what we say").

In fact i find it questionable how much the current administration cares about that sort of international relationships. They are certainly capable enough to maintain a good appearance (well, somewhat), but that doesn't mean that they see other countries as equal in any way. Of course there is a lot of truth behind that (particularly in the military sector). but it
leaves a wide hole where the right-wings approach to international relations can slip trough.

At least that's the impression i am getting, feel free to correct me.

[Metahive]

Right now Assange's focus on US mainly keeps him alive, if he were to take his idealistic crusade to other countries his life expectancy would be dramatically shorter.

It's not necessary for him to carry his "idealistic crusade" to the likes of China and Russia because those nations make little pretense about what they are and what they do, unlike the US. Publishing documents about widespread govenmental abuse or somesuch in China, Russia or North Korea would not have much impact because that's what everyone perceives them to do regularly anyway. I mean you read that recent thread about the situation in political prison camps in North Korea, right? You can't say anyone was honestly surprised.

It is indeed fair to single out the US until they stop acting as if they have permanently occupied the molehill of morality and use that as a justification for everything they do including less savory things like illegally invading foreign countries.

ETA:
I also disapprove of letting thuggish nations set the standard when it comes to the treatment of dissenters. "At least I am not as bad as Kim Jongil" should not be counted as a badge of pride.

[K. A. Pital]

A lot of countries do have the capability and self interest in seeing Assange dead though.

Which?

I don't think it is fair to single out USA. Given what Assange pulled he is being given a surprisingly lenient treatment

He's not a US citizen, after all.

If he made Russian politicians as angry as US senate members he would be dead from Polonium poisoning by now. Right now Assange's focus on US mainly keeps him alive, if he were to take his idealistic crusade to other countries his life expectancy would be dramatically shorter.

There are anti-corruption activists in Russia who are trying to follow Assange's example. The biggest threat is not an exotic weapon such as polonium poisoning, but simply folks coming to your home and crushing your skull until you die. But Assange's files also revealed some information on corruption in Russia and Central Asia. In Russia the government wouldn't bother with arrests if it really wants someone gone. If it wants to arrest you, that means they want you to tell them something. If they just want you dead, you'll be dead, not arrested.

However, the US operations in the First World are much more limited in scope and nature. Abducting folks from Afghanistan and other Third World shitholes, catching them on some flights and killing people in the Third World as a rule is much easier for any nation (be it China, USA or Russia).

So Assange will have legitimate reasons to fear if he would end up being somewhere in the Third World, where the US feels at ease, easy enough to kidnap people and such.

[Simon_Jester]

All the more reason to think that it is indeed of international concern and should definitely be questioned within a court of law.

Then why is bin Laden the case of special interest?

Bin Laden is an idiotic choice of a test case if you want international institutions to come down against state-sponsored assassinations. Bin Laden has caused real, concrete harm to many nations, not just the US; there is nothing resembling reasonable doubt about his role in those actions. And unless we assume everything he ever said about martyrdom was a big joke he played on other people, he was very likely to respond to an arrest attempt by committing suicide-by-cop (or suicide-by-commando). Arresting him would have been difficult and risky, and you'd probably wind up with a bullet-riddled corpse in any case.

From any rational standpoint, if your ambition is to find an international-legal body willing to condemn the US for its policy of assassinating people associated with Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, you should be picking someone else. Someone more likely to get you a case that people outside your own circle of very concerned peoplewon't laugh at. Because many people, not just in the US, will inevitably think this notion (that assassinating Osama bin Laden was unjustified and thus a crime) is absurd, given that he's done so much to call down the hostile attention of several different countries (again, not just the US).


For crying out loud, he provoked a declaration of war on the country harboring him after 9/11, and entire armies went after the Taliban for sheltering him rather than choosing to give him up. No one objected at the time. Is it supposed to be legitimate to declare war on Country A and topple A's government for harboring him, but then he becomes sacrosanct as soon as he escapes into Country B? Is this supposed to make it literally safe for him to get away with murder if Country B won't arrest him for us?

What advocate of international law would choose this case as the precedent, given how incredibly likely it is to be ignored by any country that doesn't want to have to put up with large scale international terrorism? Bin Laden is a terrible test case, because of the scale of the provocation he offered multiple countries- enough to make almost any nation's trigger fingers itch, as demonstrated by the number of nations that participated in the invasion of Afghanistan in the first place.

You need a better test case.


So, why aren't the people filing these charges making an issue of al-Awlaki? Do they only care when the US kills someone (in)famous enough that it'll make international news if they say anything about it, because the man's name is itself enough to get press releases made?

[Metahive]

Simon, I vehemently disagree with the notion that there should be a way for nation states and private persons to be officially "at war", therefore your arguments are of not much convincing power. They do the opposite actually, if private persons can declare war upon nation states, isn't the reverse possible too? Can nation-states declare some person to be the enemy and then just gun him down at will? That just opens the floodgates for all sorts of handy abuse and in fact, declaring people to be enemies of the state and therefore outlaws is how many authoritarian regimes have and are handling the issue of undesirables. I see no reason to emulate this barbarism.

Bin Laden is an excellent testing case because he's so reviled and notorious. Is having accumulated lots of hatred a sufficient reason to do away with due cause, innocent until proven guilty, the rule of evidence and legality altogether? How'd that be any different from lynching?

[Broomstick]

As improbable as it may seem, the US does have some concern for international opinion - you know, they want everyone to like them. International disapproval can't undo what's been done, but it can have an impact on how likely another such raid is.

I beg to differ.
The current administration and a significant portion of the american public do care somewhat about the international opinion of the USA.
However, the last administration did not care about that at all, and so does a large part of the american public. Many current US-politicians do not care at all about international relationships (as in "relationship between equals", they prefer "do what we say").

In fact i find it questionable how much the current administration cares about that sort of international relationships. They are certainly capable enough to maintain a good appearance (well, somewhat), but that doesn't mean that they see other countries as equal in any way. Of course there is a lot of truth behind that (particularly in the military sector). but it
leaves a wide hole where the right-wings approach to international relations can slip trough.

At least that's the impression i am getting, feel free to correct me.

I concur that Bush and Co. didn't give a fuck what other countries thought about them, but even then the PotUS wasn't an absolute dictator. Obama is a different PotUS, and he does care somewhat though no one should expect him to be anything but an American President. I think that's part of the disillusionment about him - he really is an American President and puts American interests first, he was never going to be the paragon of international understanding and deeds people wanted him to be.

The point is, while no one country really has the capability to stop the US from doing something like that, there are still some in the government who give a damn, and more in this PotUS administration than the prior one. If you can't oppose directly it's still worth trying to us what influence you have. And certainly the more countries that express opposition the more likely it is to sway the US. Guaranteed? No. Not much in life it guaranteed anyway. Sometimes international opion can sway the balance. Because it's possible it's worth attempting.

Now, if Obama would just clean up the Gitmo mess... but I suspect Bush, Cheney, and others did such a job turning that into a fucking piece of shit no one would find it easy to clean up the problems coming from it. It created enemies we didn't have before, as Bush, etc. were warned it would do... but they were too fucking stupid and arrogant to listen. But that's getting off topic.

[Master of Ossus]

Simon, I vehemently disagree with the notion that there should be a way for nation states and private persons to be officially "at war", therefore your arguments are of not much convincing power. They do the opposite actually, if private persons can declare war upon nation states, isn't the reverse possible too? Can nation-states declare some person to be the enemy and then just gun him down at will? That just opens the floodgates for all sorts of handy abuse and in fact, declaring people to be enemies of the state and therefore outlaws is how many authoritarian regimes have and are handling the issue of undesirables. I see no reason to emulate this barbarism.

Bin Laden is an excellent testing case because he's so reviled and notorious. Is having accumulated lots of hatred a sufficient reason to do away with due cause, innocent until proven guilty, the rule of evidence and legality altogether? How'd that be any different from lynching?

Metahive, bin Laden HAD been declared guilty of perpetrating the September 11 attacks by the United Nations Security Council. Repeatedly, in fact. If you want to blame someone for the extrajudicial nature of bin Laden's death, blame the United Nations for establishing him as the guilty party without a trial.

As for your comments that an individual cannot declare themselves to be "at war" with another nation, that "bright line rule," applied everywhere, becomes really strained when dealing with terrorist organizations. What of Hamas, for example, which was an extremely well-organized non-state actor whose stated reason for existence was the destruction of Israel? What about after they won the elections and became the functioning head of government in the Gaza Strip? What of the Tamil Tigers? Was that a war?

In essence, you are permitting people to create powerful organizations that operate as states and who have all of the rights of a state but none of the responsibilities.

[Simon_Jester]

Simon, I vehemently disagree with the notion that there should be a way for nation states and private persons to be officially "at war", therefore your arguments are of not much convincing power.

This is a separate argument- whether bin Laden was personally at war with anyone or not, the sequence of events occurred as follows:

1) Bin Laden organized a terrorist attack that killed roughly 3000 innocent civilians.
2) After being asked to extradite bin Laden, the Afghan government refused to do so.
3) The US, with the support of numerous other nations including much of Europe, invaded Afghanistan, with one of their main objectives being to go looking for bin Laden.

Regardless of any question of whether bin Laden was personally "at war" with anyone, it is nonetheless the case that by his actions he triggered a war. If he had not taken it in his head to stage the 9/11 attacks, Afghanistan would not have been invaded. If the Taliban themselves had not taken it into their heads to shelter him from attempts to extradite him and his followers by the usual channels, Afghanistan would not have been invaded.

There is long precedent for the idea that when nation A provides safe harbor for renegades who strike in nation B and kill nation B's citizens, it is an act of war by nation A against nation B. The US did so; many national governments including those of Europe supported them in this.

So we have here a war which began, bluntly, as a manhunt for Osama bin Laden. There were other motives, but it was the response to the 9/11 attacks that created a pressing motive to fight a war- to employ military hardware on a large scale, to deploy tens of thousands of troops, to topple an entire national government, and so forth.

And now I am being told that because bin Laden escaped across the border into Pakistan, and successfully went into hiding in Pakistan, his person became sacrosanct?

They do the opposite actually, if private persons can declare war upon nation states, isn't the reverse possible too? Can nation-states declare some person to be the enemy and then just gun him down at will?

I would argue "no;" even if we accept the idea that private persons can declare war upon nation states, they must be private persons with resources, resources large enough to require a response on the scale of a national military.

Given the theory of how nation-states are supposed to work, we'd predict that every nation would be stronger than every private citizen, and any private citizen who committed grave crimes against a nation would be rounded up and extradited by other nations. In practice, this is not true, and there can be private individuals whose resources and allies are strong enough to make them practically immune to pursuit through legal channels. That's where we start having to break out the machinery of war; the justification does not extend to ordinary private citizens who lack such resources and can easily be arrested by the police at any time.

Bin Laden is an excellent testing case because he's so reviled and notorious. Is having accumulated lots of hatred a sufficient reason to do away with due cause, innocent until proven guilty, the rule of evidence and legality altogether? How'd that be any different from lynching?

The problem is that international law has always been strongly affected by practical concerns. The stakes are typically higher than in ordinary law- people die when you get things wrong. And nations don't want to limit their ability to respond to realistic provocations and threats.

As a practical concern, no nation would want to be in a position of being unable to respond if the next 9/11-equivalent attack is directed against them. What happens, exactly, if a mass murderer commits his murders on your soil, then flees to a nation that is unwilling or unable to extradite him to you? Are you supposed to shrug and ignore it? Can you send spies to apprehend this person? Can you send armed spies, who are authorized to fight and even kill him if he resists? Can you send armies to take down a government which is bound and determined not to allow you access to the man who has committed large crimes against your people?

What can you do, legally?

No nation will want to be found without recourse in a situation like this. Other than countries so secure in their own strategic irrelevance that they cannot imagine being the targets of international terrorism, I find it very hard to believe we'd see any kind of agreement of the kind you'd like on this issue. You might get a censure of the US out of it, but no one would pay any attention; it wouldn't just be ignored by the US, it'd be ignored by anyone with an intelligence agency and a set of international enemies.

[Metahive]

MoO, I don't recall the UNSC to be a judicial body capable of legally condemning any one person (what would be the point of the ICC otherwise?), so their judgement isn't really relevant on this issue.

As for your comments that an individual cannot declare themselves to be "at war" with another nation, that "bright line rule," applied everywhere, becomes really strained when dealing with terrorist organizations. What of Hamas, for example, which was an extremely well-organized non-state actor whose stated reason for existence was the destruction of Israel? What about after they won the elections and became the functioning head of government in the Gaza Strip? What of the Tamil Tigers? Was that a war?

Was Al-Quaeda a military threat to the national integrity of the US? If no then those comparisons don't really hold any water. BTW, that, Simon, is my yardstick for the question whether to go for law enforcement or the military when dealing with a criminal organization.

In essence, you are permitting people to create powerful organizations that operate as states and who have all of the rights of a state but none of the responsibilities.

I consider Al-Q closer in nature to an international crime syndicate than a paramilitary guerilla, at least as far as their actions in the west are concerned. I argued that such organizations should be dealt with by the powers of law enforcement instead of the military, I don't recall having said anywhere that they're completely hands-off.

And now I am being told that because bin Laden escaped across the border into Pakistan, and successfully went into hiding in Pakistan, his person became sacrosanct?

Simon, I never argued that and you know it.

I would argue "no;" even if we accept the idea that private persons can declare war upon nation states, they must be private persons with resources, resources large enough to require a response on the scale of a national military.

Where would you put the line? Does Erik Prince qualify? Does his command over a sizable army of heavily-armed mercenaries provide justification enough to strip him of any rights should he ever draw the ire of the government? You're creating dangerous precedents.

As a practical concern, no nation would want to be in a position of being unable to respond if the next 9/11-equivalent attack is directed against them. What happens, exactly, if a mass murderer commits his murders on your soil, then flees to a nation that is unwilling or unable to extradite him to you? Are you supposed to shrug and ignore it? Can you send spies to apprehend this person? Can you send armed spies, who are authorized to fight and even kill him if he resists? Can you send armies to take down a government which is bound and determined not to allow you access to the man who has committed large crimes against your people?

Why not let a court of law deal with such questions? You of all people should be interested in having experts on international law discuss this issue. What's there to be afraid of?

Since you and MoO are making similar arguments, I ask for the favor of only one of you two continuing this debate with me should he so wish. There's not much use to me repeating myself.

[Simon_Jester]

MoO, I don't recall the UNSC to be a judicial body capable of legally condemning any one person (what would be the point of the ICC otherwise?), so their judgement isn't really relevant on this issue.

The UN can't issue court verdicts, but they can authorize the use of force: under the international legal regime that evolved post-WWII, they're the ones who can declare war.

Which certainly entails the authorization of the use of force on people the war is being fought against, no?

In essence, you are permitting people to create powerful organizations that operate as states and who have all of the rights of a state but none of the responsibilities.

I consider Al-Q closer in nature to an international crime syndicate than a paramilitary guerilla, at least as far as their actions in the west are concerned. I argued that such organizations should be dealt with by the powers of law enforcement instead of the military, I don't recall having said anywhere that they're completely hands-off.

Fascinating.

Who enforces those laws? Don't just say that 'someone' should use law enforcement to arrest Al Qaeda. Tell me who, and how, and what they'll need to do it.

Metahive, you cannot have law without law enforcement. The idea is chimerical. If we're going to treat Al Qaeda like a crime syndicate, fine. But then we need a police force capable of arresting them when they're dug in in countries whose governments are unwilling or unable to apprehend them. Who are the police with the combination of jurisdiction and firepower to deal with something the size of Al Qaeda, in the locations where Al Qaeda bases itself? Who controls them? What laws do they enforce, and on whose authority? These questions are too important to be left unanswered.

If you don't have an answer for this question, then yes your policy boils down to "Osama bin Laden's person was sacrosanct," because all he had to do was escape from the reach of the police forces hunting for him and he was perfectly safe.

I would argue "no;" even if we accept the idea that private persons can declare war upon nation states, they must be private persons with resources, resources large enough to require a response on the scale of a national military.

Where would you put the line? Does Erik Prince qualify? Does his command over a sizable army of heavily-armed mercenaries provide justification enough to strip him of any rights should he ever draw the ire of the government? You're creating dangerous precedents.

If Erik Prince's mercenaries start trying to overthrow national governments, hell yes those governments have a right to shoot back. If he's willing to surrender, if it's feasible for them to arrest him, then fine, arrest him and hold a trial... but it can be damned hard, sometimes, to arrest an armed man without his consent.

Metahive, national governments cannot survive without the means to protect themselves and their citizens from rogues and adventurers. You cannot expect countries to abide by the notion that they are required to ignore attacks on their citizens simply because the murderer has fled beyond the jurisdiction of their law enforcement agency.

As a practical concern, no nation would want to be in a position of being unable to respond if the next 9/11-equivalent attack is directed against them. What happens, exactly, if a mass murderer commits his murders on your soil, then flees to a nation that is unwilling or unable to extradite him to you? Are you supposed to shrug and ignore it? Can you send spies to apprehend this person? Can you send armed spies, who are authorized to fight and even kill him if he resists? Can you send armies to take down a government which is bound and determined not to allow you access to the man who has committed large crimes against your people?

Why not let a court of law deal with such questions? You of all people should be interested in having experts on international law discuss this issue. What's there to be afraid of?

You don't understand.

It's not that I fear the consequences of this, it's that I expect them to be totally ignored by any nation that actually has anything at stake in the matter.

Perhaps you are familiar with the fable of the mice in council:

Once upon a time all the mice met together in council and discussed the best means of securing themselves against the attacks of the cat. After several suggestions had been debated, a mouse of some standing and experience got up and said, "I think I have hit upon a plan which will ensure our safety in the future, provided you approve and carry it out. It is that we should fasten a bell round the neck of our enemy the cat, which will by its tinkling warn us of her approach."

This proposal was warmly applauded, and it had been already decided to adopt it when an old mouse got upon his feet and said, "I agree with you all that the plan before us is an admirable one. But may I ask who is going to bell the cat?"

In this case, we have two cats in need of a bell. On the one hand, you're proposing that it's a bad thing for nation-states to assassinate individuals who provoke them by committing acts of extreme violence against their citizens. And that they should renounce such tactics in favor of sending the police to arrest those individuals.

Fine. Who makes them obey the verdict? It's not just the US we need to restrain here; it's countries like Russia who do the same damn thing, often with less provocation.

But most powerful countries do care what other countries think, and might conceivably agree to renounce assassination as a tool of foreign policy and mean it, if you put enough pressure on them.

So perhaps this cat will agree to be belled, for the sake of the mice. Wonderful.

Now what about the other cat? In convincing nations not to assassinate individual leaders of movements that oppose them, you have not removed the opposition. Now you have another problem: using the tools of law enforcement, the very restrained and careful tools of law enforcement, you must find these men and bring them to justice. You must arrest the leaders of Hamas for launching rocket attacks that blow random people in Israel up; you must arrest the leaders of Israel for dropping bombs that blow random people up. You must arrest the leaders of armed guerilla movements seeking to overthrow the governments of their respective nations... and you must arrest Osama bin Laden.

Fine. Who bells the cat? Whose police will make those arrests? What happens when someone refuses to let this police force into their country, or collaborates with the criminal against the police force, or shoots at the police force? Who will pay for the upkeep of this police force? Who will hold them accountable for their actions?

Can you answer these questions, or explain why they don't need answers?

Since you and MoO are making similar arguments, I ask for the favor of only one of you two continuing this debate with me should he so wish. There's not much use to me repeating myself.

I will treat your replies to Ossus as if they were replies to myself, except insofar as I dissent from his opinions. I'm sure he'll say something I disagree with soon enough.

Ossus, I'd take it as a favor if you don't repeat my criticisms of Metahive's position, though. You haven't so far; your last post made points separate from and additional to mine. So far, so good in that regard.

[Master of Ossus]

Simon, I'll let you handle it since you beat me to it unless I feel I have something clearly distinct to add or say.

I'd only add that warfare should not require that the opponent threaten "the national integrity of the" threatened state. IMO, the deliberate targeting of masses of civilians within the territory of another state by the military forces of another country, should be sufficient to constitute warfare.

[Metahive]

The UN can't issue court verdicts, but they can authorize the use of force: under the international legal regime that evolved post-WWII, they're the ones who can declare war.

Which certainly entails the authorization of the use of force on people the war is being fought against, no?

The UN did not authorize Operation Enduring Freedom, the invasion of Afghanistan. They authorized the ISAF to keep the peace and maintain security in Afghanistan. That this involves hitjobs in Pakistan is questionable.

Who enforces those laws? Don't just say that 'someone' should use law enforcement to arrest Al Qaeda. Tell me who, and how, and what they'll need to do it.

There's this route:
http://www.interpol.int/

Pakistan is a member. You can argue how effective or ineffective trying this way would have been, but the means where there.

If Erik Prince's mercenaries start trying to overthrow national governments, hell yes those governments have a right to shoot back.

See, you admit that having men under arms at one's disposal alone is not sufficient justification to strip people of their legal rights. Terror attacks don't constitute a substantial threat to the US.

It's not that I fear the consequences of this, it's that I expect them to be totally ignored by any nation that actually has anything at stake in the matter.

Is that an admission that you forfeit arguing for the legality of international hitjobs and simply claim Might Makes Right?

I'd only add that warfare should not require that the opponent threaten "the national integrity of the" threatened state. IMO, the deliberate targeting of masses of civilians within the territory of another state by the military forces of another country, should be sufficient to constitute warfare.

Simon can answer this one, but where should the line be? Tim McVeigh killed 150 people in one fell swoop and he was treated like any other criminal.

Could a mod please split these posts and put them in the "Legality of killing Bin Laden" thread where they belong, thank you.

[DudeGuyMan]

Haha, Interpol. So yeah, you're basically saying "Don't catch him at all."

Anyway, I hope your sort enjoys bitching about how everyone important enough to have enemies and powerful enough to do something about them are horrible barbarians who should be appealing to some powerless "international law" bureaucrat in some postage stamp of a country nobody cares about. Because you're going to be screaming it America/China/Russia/whoever for the next billion years.

[Metahive]

DudeGuyMan, if you can do nought but trolling I kindly ask you to fuck off and leave this discussion to the grown-ups, thank you.

[K. A. Pital]

If Interpol wasn't as toothless as it is, that would be an option. However, short of a world government, Interpol will not be efficient. Obvious reasons are the ease of closing borders to Interpol and prohibiting interpol actions with no repercursions other than... righteous indignation from the Interpol and the nation who requests an investigation? Yup.

[Metahive]

Well, I already divorced the question of Interpol's availability from their effectivity. Did the US even try to get OBL this way?

[Hawkwings]

Yes, in a perfect world where the police always win, that would work. You can't divorce that issue though, not in the real world. If Interpol is so laughably ineffective, then why should the US bother trying to utilize it? If the US notified Interpol and had them send out some people to go arrest Bin Laden, what do you think would have happened? They would have failed, probably got shot full of holes, and Bin Laden would have escaped into nowhere again, and it would be another 10+ years before we could track him down.

Yes yes, due process is well and good and should be followed in almost all cases. However, when that due process is horribly ineffective, and not only that but will also prevent any follow-up actions to occur (because the criminal runs away) then the obvious and course of action is to not do it. Legal? Questionable, and justifiably so. Effective? Moreso than utilizing a method that is sure to end in failure.

The reason domestic police forces are effective is because they have the strength of the local and national government to back them up. It's not that might makes right, it's that the body that defines right also has the power to enforce it. Within a nation, that nation is never outgunned, which if you think about it is a necessity for maintaining itself. Timothy McVeigh didn't have armed fighters and a sympathetic government to hide behind. OBL did.

[Metahive]

Yes, in a perfect world where the police always win, that would work. You can't divorce that issue though, not in the real world. If Interpol is so laughably ineffective, then why should the US bother trying to utilize it? If the US notified Interpol and had them send out some people to go arrest Bin Laden, what do you think would have happened? They would have failed, probably got shot full of holes, and Bin Laden would have escaped into nowhere again, and it would be another 10+ years before we could track him down.

I'm not in here for idle speculation and using the military isn't a guarantee for success either. They totally failed at extracting OBL from Tora Bora after all.

Yes yes, due process is well and good and should be followed in almost all cases. However, when that due process is horribly ineffective, and not only that but will also prevent any follow-up actions to occur (because the criminal runs away) then the obvious and course of action is to not do it. Legal? Questionable, and justifiably so. Effective? Moreso than utilizing a method that is sure to end in failure.

So the law should be obeyed except when it's inconvenient to do so. Isn't that how every criminal justifies his actions?

The reason domestic police forces are effective is because they have the strength of the local and national government to back them up. It's not that might makes right, it's that the body that defines right also has the power to enforce it. Within a nation, that nation is never outgunned, which if you think about it is a necessity for maintaining itself. Timothy McVeigh didn't have armed fighters and a sympathetic government to hide behind. OBL did.

How many people were guarding OBL, do you have any concrete numbers? The pakistan military academy was near yet they didn't lift one finger to support their "ward".

BTW, if people acknowledge this as a clandestine, extra-legal operation then my work here is finished since that's all I wanted to hear.

[K. A. Pital]

Well, "got shot full of holes" is not a problem. The problem is a lack of action and the ease, once again, to prohibit interpol activities in your nation.

Just how long has Russia been trying to extract some Chechen terrorists from Britain? Yeah, god knows how long. The train is still at the same point where it was.

So the law should be obeyed except when it's inconvenient to do so.

Considering even First World nations have no qualms about harboring terrorists (anyone heard the Interpol getting Luis Posada Carilles?), it is extremely hard to say that any nation in the world "follows the law" when it comes to international policing.

And when nobody follows the law, there is no law. International law, when it comes to searching criminals, exists only so as long as all nations agree this is a criminal who needs to be caught. If they start disagreeing on whether it is a criminal or whether he needs to be caught, the whole construct falls apart and there's only lawlessness left.

International law... is particularly crappy here, hence the more or less common use of assassination by major powers and even minor powers (Israel, duh).

[Metahive]

As I said at the end of my previous post, my main aim here is to get people to stop to act as if this was anything but an extra-legal assassination, I mentioned Interpol because Simon complained about the lack of international law enforcement. Well, they might have their deficiencies but they definitely exist.

Considering even First World nations have no qualms about harboring terrorists (anyone heard the Interpol getting Luis Posada Carilles?), it is extremely hard to say that any nation in the world "follows the law" when it comes to international policing.

No argument from me, it's extremely hypocritical when those nations then complain loudly that criminals they seek are withheld from them by other nations. Why should Pakistan be ashamed of anything when the US are doing the same for their slew of suspected war criminals?

[K. A. Pital]

If you treat this as a war operation against an enemy general who was hiding in another nation, it is technically legal (by laws of war, not laws of the criminal code). If you treat Osama as an ordinary criminal (which the US did not do with most "terrorists", real or imagined, that it shipped to Gitmo), then of course it is nothing but an extra-legal assassination.

I thought we went over this in the OBL murder legality thread...

[Metahive]

The US have treated captured AlQ neither as criminals nor POWs though. Are you sure that warring nations have the right to violate the territorial soverignty of a neutral nation to get at enemy personnel?