OSAMA BIN LADEN DEAD

[K. A. Pital]

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?

Maybe not. Although I think it has been done too many times in history, that we consider in normal. From a legal standpoint, no, they don't have such a right unless they declare war on Pakistan.

[Metahive]

Thought so. Nevertheless I don't think this debate will go anywhere. If Simon and MoO are so inclined I offer an "Agree to Disagree" and end this tangent. It's not like either outcome of this debate would cause OBL to resurrect or something.

[Simon_Jester]

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.

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

You cannot do this. A fake solution, a stupid solution, a predictably useless solution, to a problem is not a solution.

A means which is comically unlikely to work is not a means. A rusty butter knife is not a means of stopping an oncoming train, a thimble of water is not a means of stopping a forest fire, and Interpol is not a means of apprehending Osama bin Laden.

Please do not abuse our patience by replying to serious questions with bad jokes. I know you want to distract attention from the folly of your position and withdraw from it quietly, and I'm willing to play along... as long as you recognize just how ridiculous your statements have gotten.

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.

Three thousand dead is a substantial threat, and enough provocation to break out the tools of modern warfare. Plenty of nations throughout history would have responded to such a provocation that way, regardless of whether the attack was launched by theoretically-private citizens or by the uniformed forces of a nation state.

Do you seriously expect the reaction of a heavily armed nation which watches three thousand innocent people get murdered by terrorists to be "sit on our asses and wait for the killers to die of old age, while listening to them laugh at the stupidity of trying to sic Interpol on them?"

I cannot imagine how you can take yourself seriously when you're throwing stuff like this out there.

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?

Metahive, international affairs are not now and have not ever been governed by a legal system.

People have written laws governing international affairs. Many people have done this, going back to the days of Grotius if not earlier. There are enough draft editions of what international law "should" look like to provide us with enough laws to govern a thousand worlds.

But laws without enforcement are meaningless babble. And what is lacking, and has always been lacking, in international law is enforcement.

What you do not appear to grasp is that in the absence of law enforcement, individual entities must have a right to see to their own defense- otherwise they are hopelessly vulnerable to predatory renegades. It is one thing to forbid vigilante justice when there is an active, vigilant, and well equipped police force on the job and punishing criminals. It is another matter entirely to forbid vigilante justice when the alternative is no justice at all.

Some international laws are enforced by collective agreement- nuclear nonproliferation agreements have proven fairly effective at limiting the spread of those very dangerous weapons; accords on chemical and bioweapons have been if anything more effective.

But other international laws are not enforced de facto, and thus we are faced with the choice between punishing certain crimes by vigilantism or not punishing them at all. In this case, Osama bin Laden's acts of terrorism were not, de facto, punished by the international legal community. His security arrangements were such that the idea of his being arrested by any police force with jurisdiction to do so is a bad joke. No one had the tools to arrest him if he did not want to be arrested.

At which point we are faced, I repeat, with the choice of vigilante justice or no justice of any kind.

And when no one but vigilantes has the ability to do anything about an act of mass murder, it's ridiculous for prating fools to proclaim from their comfortable armchairs that acts of mass murder should go unpunished because legal channels were not followed. There are no legal channels capable of doing the job, and people are not obliged to let their enemies get away with murder in the absence of effective law enforcement.
____________

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.

The underlined passage is a blatant lie. You are here to tell us that the US should have sicced Interpol on Osama bin Laden. You present this as a serious proposal, one which should have been employed before, and to the exclusion of, military force.

Since that is an utterly stupid plan, one with zero chance of success and only the faintest hint of contact with reality, I must conclude that you are here for nothing but idle speculation. Nothing could be more speculative, or more idle, than "they should have relied on Interpol to go catch Osama bin Laden!"

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 law should be obeyed when the law serves a useful function.

When the law is unjust, it should be subjected to civil disobedience. When the law is so poorly thought out that it is unenforceable, or when no one is willing to put up the resources needed to enforce it consistently, it should be ignored as necessary- as necessary for the basic goals of self-defense and deterring aggression.

And considering how ambitious international law can be, and just how much human suffering it has the theoretical potential to avert... shockingly little effort goes into enforcing it. Even countries with very little to do in foreign affairs but enforce international law, countries with plenty of wealth and resources, countries which pride themselves on adherence to international law and despise those who break it, put very little effort into enforcing it.

If the international community were collectively willing to enforce its own laws, the assassination of Osama bin Laden would never have been necessary in the first place, because there would be enough people willing to devote enough resources to finding him without any one nation having to go vigilante to bring him down.

But the law is not enforced, which means renegades and terrorists are free to violate it at will. At which point the only thing to do consistent with the collective security of nations is to ignore the unenforced law and fall back on force of arms. Not because "might makes right," but because in the world as we know it, the right side cannot appeal to its righteousness as a way of getting protection from attackers. There is simply no option for punishing wrongdoers like Al Qaeda on the international stage other than the appeal to force.

If you don't like that, you should be agitating for the creation of effective enforcement arms for international law. Maybe the European Union could scale up its collective defense spending a percentage point or two to supply such an enforcement arm?

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.

I would argue that it was no more extra-legal than anything else people do under conditions of anarchy, because anarchy reigns in international affairs. And it's ridiculous of you to condemn the non-legality of actions taken in a lawless environment, where crimes are not punished at all unless they are punished by nations taking matters into their own hands.

[Broomstick]

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 International Criminal Court only came into being in July of 2002. It can not prosecute crimes prior to that time. Therefore, the September 11, 2001 events are not under its jurisdiction. Or did you not know that? Neither bin Laden nor any other member of Al Qaeda involved in 9/11 could legally be brought before that court for that crime.

Nor does every one recognize the authority of the ICC. Among them are big players like China and yes, the US. Why in the hell would a country bring an individual to a court whose authority it does not recognize? And who is going to force a country like the US or China to do so against its will?

Or did you fancy that the ICC has some genuine authority over the entire world? It has only that authority which nations give it, and some nations aren't giving.

Granted, these sorts of problems is a fantastic reason to try to set up an international court system. One of the problem here, though, is that even if the US was a full partner in the ICC it wouldn't matter - the 9/11 stuff predates its jurisdiction.

Was Al-Quaeda a military threat to the national integrity of the US? If no then those comparisons don't really hold any water.

Did you notice the damage they did to the Pentagon? Granted it's an office building, but it conducts business important to the US military. Isn't disrupting that business an attack on the US?

They certainly could have dropped that airplane on the White House or Congress that day - that wouldn't qualify as an attack on the US, somehow?

What is this "national integrity" you refer to? You mean, the US isn't allowed to attack someone unless they can pose a threat to the physical existence of the US? In that case, the US should never have fought against the Nazis at all, as they certainly did not pose a physical threat to the US.

If someone is stupid enough to attack a nation with far greater resources, manpower, and money they're fucking stupid to whine when that nation goes after them. Otherwise, you're advocating a situation where it would be OK for Al Qaeda to kill Americans (or any other nationality) by the hundreds or by the thousands indefinitely but no one would be allowed to go after them and put a stop to that - which, by the way, would easily be seen as a nation defending its citizens.

Now, if you want to discuss the legality of the methods used to pursue bin Laden that's a valid subject for debate, but you're full of shit if you say the US had no right to pursue someone who not only instigated the 9/11 attacks but was also involved in other attacks that killed its citizens. One of the duties of government is defense.

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.

That is a valid opinion, sir, however, when the country that held him - Taliban-controlled Afghanistan - was asked to extradite him politely they said "no". Please name one other country that, after having a major military holding rammed by an airliner, not to mention nearly 3,000 people killed in one morning by said criminal's organization, is going to meekly accept that? The only way I could see that situation occurring is if the harboring nation was vastly more powerful than the asking nation... which was NOT the case here.

That may not be the most moral course of action - but it is the most likely and realistic one.

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.

Allowing someone to destroy 16 acres of a major city, kill thousands of people, and severely damage a military holding and walk away unscathed is also setting a dangerous precedent.

Fact is, most criminals - even criminal overlords with private armies - are never going to be worth expending as much blood and treasure to capture as bin Laden. I know it can be fashionable to imagine the US as some leering, evil, super powered villain but it isn't. It is an extraordinarily powerful nation (for now - that may or may not continue long term) but even the US can't afford to spend as much on every criminal power as it did on bin Laden. Of course, most criminals aren't bombing the Pentagon or knocking down skyscrapers, either. And that's just what he did in the US, it's not like Al Qaeda hasn't killed thousands of people elsewhere as well.

Pro-tip: If you don't want the Navy SEAL's climbing over your backyard fence and gunning you down like a rabid dog don't hijack four airplanes, kill a lot of people, and fuck up one side of the Pentagon.

It's not just that he killed Americans - he did plenty of that prior, he already had a couple hundred notches on his scorecard from dead Americans - but that he attacked Americans on home soil and could have severely fucked with the government if, say, the plane had rammed the Capitol and taken out Congress.

You can kill Americans without incurring that level of ire - I don't know how many Americans are kidnapped or killed abroad each year without triggering wars or raids of this nature but it's a constant low-level nibble. The US hasn't gone after the pirates off the horn of Africa in any systematic way, it hasn't invaded the Philippines or Indonesia despite Americans being kidnapped and killed there every year by one extremist group or another... I guess bin Laden figured out that you can kill Americans outside the US without triggering a war, even US military personnel, and "get away with it". That's probably why he brought the fight to US soil He wanted a war. Well, he got one, and it did take years of provocation and thousands of lives to get it going.

Now understand, most criminals, even those with private armies, aren't going to spend decades sniping away at the US. They're too busy selling drugs or guns or something else. And because they aren't trying to knock down skyscrapers or fuck with the military or government the military won't be sent after them.

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?

There is no court with jurisdiction over the 9/11 attacks. Without such a court it is pointless to even talk about it.

Granted, such things are a fantastic reason to set up an international court system, but even if the US was a full partner to the ICC it wouldn't matter – the 9/11 stuff happened prior to its creation, and the ICC doesn't hear cases pertaining to crimes that occurred prior to its creation.

[Broomstick]

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.

You're referring to Erik Prince of Blackwater, yes? Then again, Prince is not attacking the Pentagon. Allegedly, the work his company has engaged in is legal security work (I realize there is some debate around that, but lets not get distracted) which would require the bearing of arms as part of that work. Assuming that is the case, the only exceptions we should see would be (hopefully) rare incidents of individual misconduct by employees, which any company is at risk for.

If the “men at arms” are mostly shooting people in the drug trade, or some other form of crime, and aren't engaged in slaughtering thousands of uninvolved, innocent civilians they're considered a problem and a threat, but not in the same manner someone randomly bombing skyscrapers would be. It's not worth starting a war over that.

Terror attacks don't constitute a substantial threat to the US.

The ones on 9/11 not only killed 2900+ people, they shut down the entire US airspace. Canada also shut down their airspace. This played merry hell with the transportation system, and was not only one giant pain in the ass inconvenience but also cost a fuckton of money, from business disruption to people spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars out of their own pocket for alternative transportation. The US can tolerate that on rare occasions but not as a regular and repeating event.

Yes, it was a threat to the US because:
1) It killed nearly 3k people
2) It reduced 16 acres in Manhattan to rubble, resulting in the loss of several buildings with a high value due to their location.
3) It knocked down part of a military holding (the Pentagon)
4) It shut down the North American airspace
5) The consequences just from the above cost a shitload of money.

Is it in the same league with, say, what London went through in the Blitz? No – but then, the US has an obligation to avoid letting things get to that point, if the US is able to prevent such circumstances.

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?

Without making a judgement of morality here, it is well to remember that on an international level that Might Often Makes Right. Big, powerful nations don't stomp on little ones to quite the extent they used to, but even in today's world power still counts.

Whether it's SEAL's riding stealth helicopters or agents sprinkling radioactive Polonium on someone's sushi, governments still do this shit. It is not limited to the US. There is probably less of it than at some times in history because we have the UN and Interpol and other means of cooperation between nations but we are far from international matters truly being run by law rather than raw power and alliances. I suspect all of us here would be in favor of more law and less might but that's not our currently reality however much we would prefer it.

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.

Actually, 168 people, a significant number of them children, and knocked down a Federal government building (well, damaged it so much what was still standing had to be knocked down.)

Another point about Interpol is that they do make arrests themselves – they are more facilitators than actual police officers. Interpol only works when the police in the involved nations are cooperative with Interpol.

Anyhow, a VERY IMPORTANT POINT which seems to escape you was that there was no a police force with the authority to find and capture him, at least, not one willing to do so. There is no US police force that has jurisdiction in Afghanistan. There is Interpol, yes, and both Afghanistan and the US are members – which might be why the US asked Afghanistan to turn over bin Laden before the invasion, and most likely would have been happy to work through Interpol IF Afghanistan had agreed to play, too. But the Taliban in control of Afghanistan basically said “fuck you” to the US. On practical level, this may not have been their best decision. Also, Interpol doesn't get involed with politcal, military, or religious issues and the business of 9/11 definitly fell under one of those, likely two, and possibly all three. Basically, Interpol deals with people all parties agree are criminals (or under suspicion of being such)

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

Perhaps you are not old enough to remember the year 2001. The US most certainly did ask the Taliban to hand over bin Laden. Interpol would have been happy to facilitate, and it's quite likely that the US would agree to that if it got them bin Laden quickly and cheaply. IF that had happened it might even have been possible to try bin Laden as a criminal in the State of New York (though a venue change would probably be asked for due to bias in the potential jury pool). When it became a matter of having to go to war to extract bin Laden it all became much more serious for everyone. The Taliban helped escalate this by choosing to shelter bin Laden rather than hand him over. It was, of course, their choice to make.

In addition, the FBI was involved in investigating the 9/11 attacks, which is about as good as police investigating gets in the US. Initially in many ways this was treated as a criminal act. It involved over half the FBI's agents. See here for the wiki, if anyone wants to know more you can start there.

If the US really didn't give a fuck it could have bombed Afghanistan on September 12 – but it didn't. They waited until October 7. What do you think the US government was doing in the meanwhile, picking its nose?

Mind you, some of the people in Afghanistan were smart enough to figure out what was going to happen and tried to flee the country. It did NOT help that Pakistan closed its Afghanistan border on September 17, trapping many civilians inside a country that was pretty certain to come under US bombardment in the near future. Granted, Pakistan had reasons beyond just being mean to do that.

Also, let me direct you to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1368, passed unanimously on September 12, 2001 by UN SCR members China, France, Russia, UK, US (of course), Bangladesh, Columbia, Republic of Ireland, Jamacia, Mali, Mauritus, Norway, Singapore, Tunisia, and Ukraine. The important points are as follows:

- The Security Council condemned the attacks on the US on September 11.
- Expressed sympathy for the victims, their families, and the US government (which would seem to indicate the Security Council viewed this as an attack on the US government).
- The resolution called on ALL countries to co-operate in bringing the perpetrators, organisers and sponsors of the attacks to justice and that those responsible for supporting or harbouring the perpetrators, organisers and sponsors would be held accountable.
- Referred to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1269, a prior resolution on terrorism

I mean, fucking hell, CUBA offered sympathy to the US and said they'd lend assistance if asked. CUBA. It's not like Castro likes the US or anything, you know? Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah of Hezbollah condemned the attacks. Apparently, Metahive, even if this looked like an ordinary crime to you a LOT of world governments and organizations, including those with no reason to like or side with the US or who had been the declared enemies of the US for decades, felt otherwise.

[Metahive]

I'm going to cut this short since this is getting somewhat too drawn-out for my taste. If you remember, I originally expressed concern about the US using this case as legal precedent to justify offing undesirables whenever and wherever they want hence my approval of a courtly investigation. Therefore I will solely concentrate on the points pertaining to it. For the sake of conciseness you can treat any argument except what comes below as conceded.

But the law is not enforced, which means renegades and terrorists are free to violate it at will. At which point the only thing to do consistent with the collective security of nations is to ignore the unenforced law and fall back on force of arms. Not because "might makes right," but because in the world as we know it, the right side cannot appeal to its righteousness as a way of getting protection from attackers. There is simply no option for punishing wrongdoers like Al Qaeda on the international stage other than the appeal to force.

Who gets to decide who's a wrong-doer and a terrorist? Who gets to decide what the "obvious" wrongs in need of violent correction are? You? The POTUS? With what justification? Well, despite your claims to the contary, "because he can" seems to be the answer here.

I would argue that it was no more extra-legal than anything else people do under conditions of anarchy, because anarchy reigns in international affairs. And it's ridiculous of you to condemn the non-legality of actions taken in a lawless environment, where crimes are not punished at all unless they are punished by nations taking matters into their own hands.

One advantage of the courts is that they have to work with facts and evidence, not overwhelming emotions and angry demands for violent retribution, the latter two being the most grating disadvantages of vigilante "justice", wouldn't you agree? Can you guarantee that US vigilante justice will only ever go down upon bad guys like Bin Laden who most will say really deserved it?

If you go back a few pages you'll find that I congratulated the US on getting Bin Laden. I'd have preferred it if they had made a token attempt to take him alive but o well, spilled milk and all that. My argument here is, and as I explained countless times by now, that this hitjob and similar cases stay exceptions and ought to not become now also some sort of legally accepted priviledge for the Mighty. The Mighty need to acknowledge that they're engaging in dirty business, that what they're doing represents extreme measures not to be taken lightly. As long as it stays that way there'll always be a nagging, subconscious reluctance to engange in such acts gratuitously.

Other than that a dead Bin Laden is acceptable to me.

-------------
Broomstick, same deal as Simon, I'll concentrate on what I consider important, I'll give you a concession on the rest.

Without making a judgement of morality here, it is well to remember that on an international level that Might Often Makes Right. Big, powerful nations don't stomp on little ones to quite the extent they used to, but even in today's world power still counts.

Whether it's SEAL's riding stealth helicopters or agents sprinkling radioactive Polonium on someone's sushi, governments still do this shit. It is not limited to the US. There is probably less of it than at some times in history because we have the UN and Interpol and other means of cooperation between nations but we are far from international matters truly being run by law rather than raw power and alliances. I suspect all of us here would be in favor of more law and less might but that's not our currently reality however much we would prefer it.

As long as such actions stay the exception rather than the rule I'm as content as I could be about such a regrettable state of affairs.

[Broomstick]

I think the sheer cost of such an effort - has anyone figured out how much it cost to find and kill bin Laden? - will tend to limit the number of actions, even if nothing else does. It's just too damn expensive, even for the wealthiest nations, to do such a thing very often.

[Metahive]

Well, that's because BIn Laden ended up in a different place from where people suspected him to be for the longest time (Waziristan) and that Bush was somewhat apathetic about getting him, even admitting so on TV. Fruitless snipe hunts involving high tech military tend to be expensive. If not anything else, Obama can applauded on actually setting the issue straight for once.

According to this clip from TYT, there was a high chance to snag OBL at Tora Bora, but some government bigwig ruined it.

[Broomstick]

I think you're skipping over the notion that a terrorist mastermind with half a brain isn't going to stay put after a major attack - of course bin Laden didn't stay in Afghanistan. The man was not an idiot. Anyone like him is going to be hard to catch.

[Metahive]

He stayed put for long enough that there was a real chance to nab him at Tora Bora. Unfortunately the attempt was botched by the incompetence of the Bush administration who afterwards didn't even once consider to extend the search to Pakistan. As late as 2008 the Republicans argued vehemently against such a notion and then we find out he was there, in a fixed place since at least 2005.
That he could hide as long as he did owes as much to political apathy as his skills at subterfuge.

[Broomstick]

It wouldn't surprise me to know that bin Laden was aware of the Bush Admin reluctance to look in Pakistan, and that affected his choice to go there.

[Metahive]

Pakistan represents kind of a natural choice, it's not far away meaning minimal resources have to be spent on traveling there leaving less of a followable trail, its intelligence service and big parts of its population are sympathetic to his cause and the country is a vital US ally in the region meaning they can't be pissed off too much for fear of complicating the logistical situation in Afghanistan*. Also, with a face as known and hated as his, the choice of suitable hiding places is limited anyway. To most countries knowingly or unknowingly harboring him would represent a massive liability with very limited pay-off after all.

*which led me to the suspicion that some backdoor deal was involved in OBL's demise.

[Master of Ossus]

Metahive, your entire argument is prefaced on the assumption that the US did not utilize Interpol or other legal resources to arrest bin Laden. This is a lie. Interpol released an arrest warrant for bin Laden way back in 1998--well before the 2001 attacks. Interpol issued warrants for key members of Al Qaeda within days of the attacks on New York and the Pentagon. They've continually re-upped the arrest warrants ever since. It was clear that Interpol was not effective in nabbing bin Laden.

The issue was that Pakistan, like Sudan and Afghanistan, failed utterly in their international obligations to bring an international terrorist to justice. The Taliban, in fact, officially protected him from arrest, even at the expense of sanctions imposed by the UNSC that were specifically intended to get them to surrender bin Laden and other key members of Al Qaeda to the United Nations. Further, had bin Laden intended to surrender, he had more than sufficient opportunity to do so--he was "hiding" a few hundred meters from Pakistan's premier military academy.

It's also total bullshit for you to sit there and pretend that the US is the country that's declaring bin Laden to be a terrorist--the UNSC has repeatedly done so. It's not the President or even Congress declaring him an outlaw.

It's total bullshit for you to sit there and pretend that Interpol was a reasonable alternative--he had sat in Pakistan for years without the Pakistanis (your precious Interpol members) doing anything, and certainly with a significant support network derived from Pakistan and (at least according to unofficial reports) which was capable of tipping him off to operations of which the Pakistanis were informed in an effort to protect him.

I'm trying to let Simon handle this, but I can't sit back and let you make statements like this:

He stayed put for long enough that there was a real chance to nab him at Tora Bora. Unfortunately the attempt was botched by the incompetence of the Bush administration who afterwards didn't even once consider to extend the search to Pakistan. As late as 2008 the Republicans argued vehemently against such a notion and then we find out he was there, in a fixed place since at least 2005.
That he could hide as long as he did owes as much to political apathy as his skills at subterfuge.

This is UTTER BULLSHIT.

Your schizophrenia about when international law should be respected is just astounding. We can't go into another country to try and capture or kill someone, but it's unconscionable that we didn't "extend the search to" that same country in an effort to... CAPTURE OR KILL THAT SAME PERSON!?!?!

[K. A. Pital]

To be fair, the UNSC is just a mouthpiece of developed nations. Third World nations have no veto rights in the UNSC.

[Lonestar]

To be fair, the UNSC is just a mouthpiece of developed nations. Third World nations have no veto rights in the UNSC.

Why, do Third World Nations have tge ability to exert global military influence like the Big 5?

[FSTargetDrone]

Text from Obama's interview CBS' from 60 Minutes from Sunday night. The video is here. Can't find video to inline yet.

Edit: Corrected video link.

[K. A. Pital]

To be fair, the UNSC is just a mouthpiece of developed nations. Third World nations have no veto rights in the UNSC.

Why, do Third World Nations have tge ability to exert global military influence like the Big 5?

Yeah, "the ability to exert military influence" is certainly the deciding right to be on the UNSC. I mean, what could possibly be wrong with that concept of might makes right ubernations and unternations?

[Master of Ossus]

To be fair, the UNSC is just a mouthpiece of developed nations. Third World nations have no veto rights in the UNSC.

It's not like a veto power is necessary to have a voice in something. Moreover, regardless of your views of the UNSC, they do have the power to issue resolutions which are binding upon member states. Thus, to the extent that the UNSC does give power to developed countries (certain specific developed countries, I might add--even if you count Russia and China as such, the exclusions of Germany and Japan are pretty incongruous), it's not unwarranted--UN member nations have agreed to respect the UNSC's judgment when it issues resolutions that bind them as member states.

Metahive was looking for some justification for declaring bin Laden to be a terrorist (or, rather, asking who had the authority to do so), and a binding UNSC resolution strikes me as being sufficient authority for that sort of a judgment.

[K. A. Pital]

It's not like a veto power is necessary to have a voice in something.

"I'd like to veto the bombings of my nation". "No, you can't". A powerless voice amounts to nothing.

Moreover, regardless of your views of the UNSC, they do have the power to issue resolutions which are binding upon member states. Thus, to the extent that the UNSC does give power to developed countries (certain specific developed countries, I might add--even if you count Russia and China as such, the exclusions of Germany and Japan are pretty incongruous), it's not unwarranted--UN member nations have agreed to respect the UNSC's judgment when it issues resolutions that bind them as member states.

I know. I just think that appealing to the authority of the UNSC is a questionable method of proving legality. Besides, Russia and China are global nuclear powers, meaning they are industrialized enough to actualy field a relevant nuclear deterrent that can be used against any nation in the world (most other nuclear powers with global reach, I think, are also on the UNSC). Germany and Japan aren't nuclear powers with a global deterrent. They have no nukes to begin with.

Metahive was looking for some justification for declaring bin Laden to be a terrorist (or, rather, asking who had the authority to do so), and a binding UNSC resolution strikes me as being sufficient authority for that sort of a judgment.

In this case it's true, UNSC resolutions are binding for members. However, I thought the question was the legality of Bin Laden's terrorist status. If international law is unenforceable (as most have argued in this thread), which leads to assassinations, then "legality" of Bin Laden's accusation as terrorist is likewise a non-existing thing.

[Lonestar]

Yeah, "the ability to exert military influence" is certainly the deciding right to be on the UNSC. I mean, what could possibly be wrong with that concept of might makes right ubernations and unternations?

I guess having a circle jerk of 3rd world nations that cannot exert military influence holding vetoes makes more sense.

(FWIW I would gladly add Japan or India as a permanent member of the UNSC)

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, "the ability to exert military influence" is certainly the deciding right to be on the UNSC. I mean, what could possibly be wrong with that concept of might makes right ubernations and unternations?

I guess having a circle jerk of 3rd world nations that cannot exert military influence holding vetoes makes more sense.

See above. Since when does exertion of military power become a virtue? Since when do the more than questionable members of the UNSC have a stainless history of altruistic selfless puppy pinky interventions that lead to pink unicorns and tasty donuts?

(FWIW I would gladly add Japan or India as a permanent member of the UNSC)

See, Japan is anti-militaristic and has no nuclear deterrent. So a bad candidate. As for India... that would make sense (from the point of view I described above, anyone with a powerful nuclear deterrent is a good candidate). When India can annihilate nations on the other side of the world by pressing AGNI launch buttons, I am sure it might ascend to the UNSC even with veto rights.

[Lonestar]

See above. Since when does exertion of military power become a virtue? Since when do the more than questionable members of the UNSC have a stainless history of altruistic selfless puppy pinky interventions that lead to pink unicorns and tasty donuts?

So if you're someone like, say, Thailand, why should you get Veto power on the Council? Because you're the little guy? The Big Boys table is for those who can materially enforce UNSC resolutions, not East Bumfuckistan.

See, Japan is anti-militaristic and has no nuclear deterrent. So a bad candidate. As for India... that would make sense (from the point of view I described above, anyone with a powerful nuclear deterrent is a good candidate). When India can annihilate nations on the other side of the world by pressing AGNI launch buttons, I am sure it might ascend to the UNSC even with veto rights.

Japan has enough of a navy that they can, and do, materially contribute to international operations. I saw a lot more Japanese vessels in the Northern Arabian Sea during my deployments then I saw Russian vessels(none), for example. I mentioned Japan because it's a large Asian nation and there are precisely one Asian members at the Big Boys table. For the sake of balance I'll say Brazil should sit at the Big Boys table as well.

[Mr. Coffee]

Wait, so you don't like the idea of might makes right, but you're saying that lack of nuclear weapons and anti-militarism makes Japan a bad candidate for the UNSC. I'm confused, man. Which is it, might doesn't make right or only mighty, war like nations should hold position on an influential political body?

[K. A. Pital]

So if you're someone like, say, Thailand, why should you get Veto power on the Council? Because you're the little guy? The Big Boys table is for those who can materially enforce UNSC resolutions, not East Bumfuckistan.

Clearly a Commitee of Bullies is going to be able to enforce it's own "resolutions", I just reserve the right to question the concept.

Japan has enough of a navy that they can, and do, materially contribute to international operations. I saw a lot more Japanese vessels in the Northern Arabian Sea during my deployments then I saw Russian vessels(none), for example. I mentioned Japan because it's a large Asian nation and there are precisely one Asian members at the Big Boys table. For the sake of balance I'll say Brazil should sit at the Big Boys table as well.

Heh, well, at least you included Brazil and India. Those are firmly Third World and it is right to include them.

Wait, so you don't like the idea of might makes right, but you're saying that lack of nuclear weapons and anti-militarism makes Japan a bad candidate for the UNSC. I'm confused, man. Which is it, might doesn't make right or only mighty, war like nations should hold position on an influential political body?

I was explaining why Japan and India are not on the UNSC right now and won't be in the immediate future, not whether it is good or bad.

[Broomstick]

In this case it's true, UNSC resolutions are binding for members. However, I thought the question was the legality of Bin Laden's terrorist status. If international law is unenforceable (as most have argued in this thread), which leads to assassinations, then "legality" of Bin Laden's accusation as terrorist is likewise a non-existing thing.

I'd say international law is poorly enforced - it's not non-existent, but it is weak. The concept that nations should collectively obey rules is a fairly new one on the world stage, it's hardly surprisingly such international bodies that do exist have only weak authority.

On the other hand, it is a start and better than nothing. As flawed and as imperfect as something such as the United Nations is, what is there to replace it? Should we discard things such as Interpol (imperfect as it is) which do serve some good and return to earlier, more chaotic times?