OSAMA BIN LADEN DEAD

[DudeGuyMan]

Imperialism = Not caring about someone's precious little opinion?

Listen, when it really comes down to brass tacks, nobody actually gives that much a damn about Europe's self-appointed position as the worldwide arbiters of justice. Not America, not Russia, not China, not anyone who believes they might be called upon to make some hard decisions when shit goes down internationally. I know it really pisses Europe off whenever they're reminded of this fact, but oh well.

And really, I should point out that the other forum I hang out on is largely populated by working-class Brits who all seem to think that everyone whining about "international law" should STFU as well. Other than a few internet blowhards and international concern trolls, I haven't seen much indication that anyone in the West really minds the idea of Osama getting his brains blown out while still in his pajamas. So really I shouldn't say "Europe" as much as "a certain type of European".

[Thanas]

Why not? Did you run out of useless desert?

Do you comprehend the outrage that would have ensued if we buried Osama Bin Laden, America's biggest enemy in modern times, on American soil? What could your reasoning possibly be for such an idiotic action? Please explain.

Plenty of enemies, even Nazis, are buried in American soil. Where is the outrage about that?

He is saying that people are predictably pissed off because we buried him in the ocean and not on dry land. There is no truth to debate on that because he is simply stating a fact. The point he is implying is that we should not have taken these actions because they would make muslims angry. My rebuttal is: there was no better option available, and people would have been angry anyways.

I am tired of going round and round with you on this. Just because he is stating a fact does not mean that he is also required to propose a better alternative. What would you prefer? That he did not write about an unpleasant fact?

We have taken actions in the area that were meant to benefit ourselves, such as rooting out terrorists and terrorist support networks to prevent future attacks on the US. I'm not aware of us attempting to dominate other nations, either military, politically, or economically, as empire-builders tend to do.

Are you kidding me?

The United States has hundreds of military bases spread across over a hundred countries. It uses the guise of free market economy to enter foreign markets while using protectionist strategies to defend its own economic interests. Over the last half century, it has repeatedly rigged elections or supported coup-d'états. It supports dictatorial regimes in Africa and the Middle East, on the provision that said dictators are sympathetic to U.S. interests. It regularly engages in warfare unilaterally, without U.N. support. Since the 1950s, the United States have intervened militarily in Korea, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Lebanon, Panama, Somalia, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afhanistan and Libya. How else can you interpret this conglomerate, if not as imperialism?

What the heck was Iraq then?

And why would this have anything to do with a hypothetical trial of Bin Laden?

Yes, I cannot imagine what examples of highly successful international trials of war criminals and mass murders would have to do with this.....no, nothing at all.

As I'm sure you know, public perception is both notoriously unreliable and slow to change. Along with the fact that it's useless. It's not the perception from the public that the US cares about, it's perception from foreign leaders. And such perception is again not swayed by single actions.

If the foreign leaders are elected by the public, then yes, the perception matters. After all, why do you think Germany did stay out of the Iraq war? Because the populace was opposed to it and reelected a chancellor who was against going into Iraq.

[Thanas]

The legality of Bin Laden's death.

[Metahive]

Listen, when it really comes down to brass tacks, nobody actually gives that much a damn about Europe's self-appointed position as the worldwide arbiters of justice. Not America, not Russia, not China, not anyone who believes they might be called upon to make some hard decisions when shit goes down internationally. I know it really pisses Europe off whenever they're reminded of this fact, but oh well.

"We do whatever we want, suck it up lol"

And in your first sentence you feign incredulity that people might call you out on your imperialistic attitude, classy.

And really, I should point out that the other forum I hang out on is largely populated by working-class Brits who all seem to think that everyone whining about "international law" should STFU as well. Other than a few internet blowhards and international concern trolls, I haven't seen much indication that anyone in the West really minds the idea of Osama getting his brains blown out while still in his pajamas. So really I shouldn't say "Europe" as much as "a certain type of European".

What people mind is that the US president dishes out death sentences all by his lonesome against up to including his own citizens, but I guess real men with real Moral Clarity(TM) don't mind, they watch American Idol and spam jingoist rhetoric on webboards instead.

[Edi]

Imperialism = Not caring about someone's precious little opinion?

Listen, when it really comes down to brass tacks, nobody actually gives that much a damn about Europe's self-appointed position as the worldwide arbiters of justice. Not America, not Russia, not China, not anyone who believes they might be called upon to make some hard decisions when shit goes down internationally. I know it really pisses Europe off whenever they're reminded of this fact, but oh well.

And really, I should point out that the other forum I hang out on is largely populated by working-class Brits who all seem to think that everyone whining about "international law" should STFU as well. Other than a few internet blowhards and international concern trolls, I haven't seen much indication that anyone in the West really minds the idea of Osama getting his brains blown out while still in his pajamas. So really I shouldn't say "Europe" as much as "a certain type of European".

Do you have anything to add but trolling? And are you really going to try to trot out the appeal to the popularity of working class slope-browed troglodytes you hang out with in this debate? Because that shit won't fly for even a fraction of a second.

If you want to act all self-righteous and tough and do something in the name of expediency that goes against certain kind of principles, go right ahead, but don't expect to get any slack in terms of those principles. You can expect to have the failure on those grounds pointed out to you and if that hurts your precious little feelings and imagination about being in all cases a Champion of the Good Guys, too fucking bad.

The problem with going against a lot of generally accepted principles is that if that becomes too prevalent, it will turn things onto a might makes right basis. This is not good as a general state of affairs for very obvious reasons. Nobody gives a shit that Osama bin Laden got his brains blown out, because he as an individual deserved what was coming to him, but that is completely irrelevant to the matter of the principles involved.

[Master of Ossus]

The legality of Bin Laden's death.

And a much better one. You know... written by a lawyer for lawyers.

[Zinegata]

Actually, I have to agree. Nobody really does give a shit about Europe's self-appointed position as the worldwide arbiters of justice. And those who support the view that Europe is somehow a shining beacon of due process for the rest of the world are nuts.

I mean, really, the continent that enslaved much of the world under imperialist systems now wants to claim that it has the moral authority to prosecute heinous crimes all over the world? So why don't they start say, with their own citizens, like that recent case in Libya wherein NATO troops left 60+ people to die in a boat? Or how about when NATO mistakenly bombs Libyan rebels?

Moreover, the fact is, if you want to prosecute crimes, then you have to be willing to use force. Those who perpetrated the Yugoslavian war crimes didn't surrender willingly. Troops to have to be sent to enforce the laws. It's not "might makes right". It's "Might makes it possible to do what is right."

So unless you can present some actual evidence (which you never actually did) on how killing Bin Laden makes it more likely that the US will start shooting poor innocent civilians any more than they currently do, you're the actual troglodyte and troll here.

It's one thing to claim that killing Bin Laden leads to the slippery slope of the loss of civil liberties or lowered morality. It's entirely another to prove it. You have utterly failed to prove it, so instead you make false claims about "Might makes right!" to confuse the situation.

[Broomstick]

So why don't they start say, with their own citizens, like that recent case in Libya wherein NATO troops left 60+ people to die in a boat?

An investigation has been started into the matter. However, a thorough and competent investigation does not yield instant results, thus, no one should expect anything to come of it for awhile. Until that comes to an end it's not a good example for your purposes.

Or how about when NATO mistakenly bombs Libyan rebels?

Mistakes happen. A genuine mistake - which happens in all wars - is not a moral failing, it's a mistake. Usually connected to either lack of information or bad information. Again, not a good example for your purpose.

[Zinegata]

While there is an investigation, I'm not exactly holding my breath. As noted in the other thread, a lot of people are expecting NATO to simply stonewall the investigation.

Moreover, if you wish other examples...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_NATO_ ... e_campaign

On April 29, 1999, Yugoslavia filed a complaint at the International Court of Justice at The Hague against ten NATO member countries (Belgium, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the United States). The Court did not decide upon the case because it ruled that Yugoslavia was not a member of the UN during the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy ... Yugoslavia

In 1999, a Canadian law professor, Michael Mandel, filed a formal complaint of NATO war crimes with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia charging 67 NATO leaders with war crimes. These complaints were dismissed by the tribunal who claimed they had no jurisdiction over NATO

The Council of State, the Supreme Court of Greece, found NATO guilty of war crimes for its 1999 bombing.

Why is it when NATO/European countries are charged with war crimes, The Hague seems to want to just dimiss them outright and claim they have no jurisdiction? It seems a rather blatant double standard here. Certainly, it seems little different (or even worse) than how America handles cases where its own troops commit atrocities.

[PeZook]

Zinegata, that's a massive tu quoque argument. You should know better than that.

[DudeGuyMan]

OBL wasn't buried on American soil because nobody wants his ass here. Also because six months later there would be 5,000 videos on Youtube of people shitting on his grave. They'd have to bury him under a twenty-ton concrete slab just to keep someone from digging his ass up and selling bits of it on Ebay.

"We do whatever we want, suck it up lol"

All I can say is that if someone had killed a few thousand people in France, and the French had caught him somewhere in Africa and blown his head off without saying boo first, most Americans would probably love that too. Even prior to 9/11.

The fact is, unless you're at cross-purposes with us, most Americans are probably perfectly happy seeing you do whatever you like as well, and don't realistically expect you to give a shit about our opinion just because we say so. Russia loves wiping it's ass on our opinion whenever the opportunity presents, and I've long noted an odd streak of admiration for that among my countrymen.

[Shroom Man 777]

Russia loves wiping it's ass on our opinion whenever the opportunity presents, and I've long noted an odd streak of admiration for that among my countrymen.

It's something with the Russians. Everyone just loves them no matter what horrible thing they did. They didn't even kill those Somali pirates before they left them in the sea to die, that's even worse than what happened to OBL (who gives a shit where he's buried anyway), but everyone just laughed.

[PeZook]

Murrica spent fifty years making them into the evil empire ; People are just glad they no longer threaten the world with their communism.

It's a matter of relative levels of jackassery.

Same reason why people expect Murrica to behave better than it does.

[Samuel]

Zinegata, that's a massive tu quoque argument. You should know better than that.

It isn't a tu quoque if the argument is Europe is hypocrites.

[Thanas]

The legality of Bin Laden's death.

And a much better one. You know... written by a lawyer for lawyers.

Yes, because the Spiegel is internationally known for not consulting with legal experts or having numerous lawyers on their staff.

So why don't they start say, with their own citizens, like that recent case in Libya wherein NATO troops left 60+ people to die in a boat?

Investigation is started, heads will roll if things can be proven.

Also, tu quoque. When the EU starts assassinating people who preach against it, you have a point.

[PeZook]

It isn't a tu quoque if the argument is Europe is hypocrites.

Except it isn't, the argument is "Europe has no right to judge America".

[Master of Ossus]

Yes, because the Spiegel is internationally known for not consulting with legal experts or having numerous lawyers on their staff.

Alright, Thanas. It was pretty fucking easy to take apart your earlier article, and this one is even worse. Let's see about this more seriously, since you obviously treat it as being serious.

Fundamentally, the article (and by "the article," I mean "Kress," since he is the only source that the article ever bothers to cite) makes three points:

1. According to the article, the US is no longer involved in an ongoing armed conflict with Al Qaeda. That is BULLSHIT.

On the basis of the analysis set out above, the ICRC proposes the following definitions,
which reflect the strong prevailing legal opinion:

[...]

Non-international armed conflicts are protracted armed confrontations occurring
between governmental armed forces and the forces of one or more armed groups, or
between such groups arising on the territory of a State [party to the Geneva
Conventions]. The armed confrontation must reach a minimum level of intensity and
the parties involved in the conflict must show a minimum of organisation.

Al Qaeda obviously meets these criteria. The conflict with them is protracted, and armed, taking place between elements of the US military (and other militaries) and Al Qaeda, as well as numerous Al Qaeda-affiliates and the Taliban. It has obviously reached "a minimum level of intensity" because of the scale of atrocities that Al Qaeda have committed, and the many thousands of people who have been killed during the conflict. Finally, the parties involved obviously "show a minimum of organization." Al Qaeda has multiple levels of operatives, commanders, and many groups and sub-groups that demonstrate this. It also has people who fill specialized roles--everything from command and control to construction and use of weapons to financing, espionage, counter-intelligence, and communications, to name but a few. In fact, the article concedes (without actually explaining the self-contradiction) that "Al-Qaida has obviously had a network structure for some time." This demonstrates conclusively that it had a minimum level of organization.

2. The article claims that bin Laden might not have been "giving orders," and that if he "was no longer a leader, it would no longer be permissible to treat him as an enemy combatant or kill him." This is BULLSHIT. First of all, international law permits the targeting of people other than "leaders." For instance, direct combatants. Even ignoring this obvious oversight, a lawful target must take steps to identify themselves as no longer being a lawful target in order to escape their status. For instance, retired soldiers must remove their uniforms. Surrendering forces must complete their surrenders. Bin Laden did not do this.

According to the LOAC,

Military targets are those that by their own nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to an enemy’s military capability and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization in the circumstances existing at the time of an attack enhance legitimate military objectives.

With bin Laden, this condition is obviously satisfied. Bin Laden, as the symbolic and spiritual head of al Qaeda, effectively contributed to al Qaeda's military capabilities. His destruction, capture, or neutralization was a legitimate military objective.

3. Der Spiegel (again, code for "Kress") argues that the conflict violated Pakistani sovereignty. It does this by falsely arguing that "the commanders of the war on terror consider the entire world to be a battlefield. The US would seek to justify a military operation like the one that took place Sunday anywhere it believes the enemy is hiding--regardless whether it be in Europe or Islamabad." This is TOTALLY false for reasons I will describe infra.

And what business did the United States even have acting within the territory of Pakistan, a foreign power? A military strike that crosses national borders, barring acts of self-defense, is generally viewed as an infringement on sovereignty -- unless Pakistan's government requested help from the Americans.

However, the invitation of a host nation is not the only circumstance in which one state can enter another in order to engage a military target. Ashley Deeks lays out the proper test--the "unwilling or unable" one.

Based on the facts that have come to light to date, the United States appears to have strong arguments that Pakistan was unwilling or unable to strike against Bin Laden. Most importantly, the United States has a reasonable argument that asking the Government of Pakistan to act against Bin Laden could have undermined the mission. The size and location of the compound and its proximity to Pakistani military installations has cast strong doubt on Pakistan’s commitment to defeat al Qaeda. The United States seems to have suspected that certain officials within the Pakistani government were aware of Bin Laden’s presence and might have tipped him off to the imminent U.S. action if they had known about it in advance.[11] Further, it would have been reasonable for the United States to question Pakistan’s capacity to successfully raid Bin Laden’s compound, given that he was known to be a highly sophisticated and likely well-protected enemy.

Pakistan might argue that it would have been able to stage an effective mission against the compound, or that the United States at least should have constructed the mission as a joint operation, given that the two countries work closely together in other intelligence and military contexts. It also could point to the fact that it conducted searches for al Qaeda leaders in Abbottabad in 2003 and in subsequent years, and that it passed on information about the 2003 search to U.S. officials.[12] On balance, however, Pakistan’s defense of its sovereignty in this case, while understandable from a political perspective, seems weak as a matter of international law.

In short: the article consistently misstates international law. One also wonders who these unnamed "vast majority of other experts on the law of armed conflict."

Every legal blog with which I am familiar is essentially entirely of the opinion that the killing was completely lawful. For example,

To my knowledge, hardly any serious commentators claim that the targeted killing of enemy military commanders such as Yamamoto and Heydrich is either illegal or immoral. [...]

Even people who ARGUE WITH SOMIN acknowledge that:

I have no doubt that killing UBL was legal. To begin with, I think the applicable legal regime is international humanitarian law (IHL), not international human-rights law (IHRL) — a conclusion that can be reached in a number of different ways. The best rationale is that UBL was a member of an organized armed group (”original” al Qaeda) taking part in the armed conflict in Afghanistan. In the alternative, I think we can say (although it is a closer call) that the hostilities in Pakistan rise to the level of armed conflict and that UBL was a member of an organized armed group (original al Qaeda or al Qaeda Pakistan, if the two are distinct entities) taking part in that conflict. Either way, UBL was legitimately targetable with lethal force at any time, subject only to the principles of distinction and proportionality.

Justice Stevens agrees, as does Opinio Juris, as does New Yorker. None other than Orin Kerr took the opportunity to compare a complaint about the lack of an arrest and trial to an Onion article! And as for scholarly opinion on the matter? It seems pretty well settled that the US is correct in its views (I posted this article earlier, but it's worth looking at this in more detail, again, with respect to OBL: absolutely all of the issues he argues are ambiguous are... anything but in the case of OBL, and I already thought that the article strongly suggested that the US was correct in its views). Such infamously conservative scholars as Harold Koh have actually gone out of their way to lay out the US case for these types of activities.

SO WHERE IS THIS "VAST MAJORITY?" Der Spiegel does not say. How does Der Spiegel get the definition of such an unimportant term as "armed conflict" wrong, according to the strong prevailing opinion adopted by the ICRC? It's unclear. What is clear is that Der Spiegel's article doesn't accurately state international law, and goes to absolutely no effort to examine the range of opinions on the issue. Had it done so, it would have concluded that Kress is a lunatic who seems to be entirely alone in his views on the legality of the operation.

[K. A. Pital]

I must say that as far as legality goes, the killing of OBL is more than legal (the Pakistan bit can be spinned, as MoO notes, but there can be counter-arguments to Pakistan's ability to get OBL, and those would be valid). OBL never renouced his position as a commander of Al-Quaeda, and if you're a field commander of a military/paramilitary organization, you're a legal target. There can be no ambiguity here, unlike in the Awlaki case, where the best America could produce is him "calling for killing Americans" and "meeting with AlQ members who kill Americans" (both facts aren't indicating that Awlaki holds any positions in the Al-Q power structure, that Awlaki is an acting officer of this organization or that he contributes to Al-Q's military effort any more than any other radical cleric calling for Jihad against America).

There.

[DudeGuyMan]

It's something with the Russians. Everyone just loves them no matter what horrible thing they did. They didn't even kill those Somali pirates before they left them in the sea to die, that's even worse than what happened to OBL (who gives a shit where he's buried anyway), but everyone just laughed.

I think that on a certain level America enjoys not giving a shit what people think, and wishes it were as good at it as Russia. Sure we'll waste a dude, but we'll talk about how they were a bad dude who had it coming and there was no other way. Russia will just tell everyone they're releasing some pirates, then "release" them into the fucking sea to die, Schwarzenegger-style.

[Shroom Man 777]

In other news, turns out Bin Laden liked his WHORES WHORES WHORES.

[Broomstick]

What? Three wives weren't enough to keep the man happy? (Actually, I think he had five altogether, but only three were with him at the compound)

The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, would not say whether there was evidence that bin Laden or the other men living in the house had acquired or viewed the material.

Hey, are there guys present? Is there porn? Someone was looking at it, m'kay?

A White House spokesman confirmed that US interrogators had questioned bin Laden's three wives for the first time on Thursday, 10 days after they were taken from the compound by Pakistani security forces. He declined to give more details, saying, ''I can't characterise the interaction.''

Although it wouldn't surprise me if some unprintable words were exchanged...

[Mr. Coffee]

Stas put it about as succinctly as possible. Osama was by his own admission an enemy commander, which in turn made his little ass a combatant, which in turn made it perfectly legal for us to go and put 77grns of "eat shit and die" in his grape. That we had to violate Pakistani airspace to do so is a completely different matter, but I'm sure if the Pakistanis really want to go there then we can always ask them how it was that Osama was living in their country just a few blocks down the road from their version of West Point and they never bothered to mention it to us. I mean, I could have swore that we had stated pretty goddamned clearly that we take a pretty dim view of people harboring and aiding terrorists, and them hiding the single most wanted terrorist in the world really makes me think if they protest to much we should yank our foreign aid from them and punctuate it with a few thousand tons of JDAMs on every last Pakistani military installation we can find.

In short, the Pakistanis can take their protesting and cram it directly up their asses. They should be very quiet right now and pray to God we conveniently forget that those duplicitous sons of bitches were hiding Osama from us this whole time.

[Simon_Jester]

With the Pakistani government being as fucked up as it is, saying "they" were hiding Osama bin Laden from us means we have to ask "who the fuck are 'they,' anyway?" It's pretty obvious someone in Pakistan, beyond the immediate circle of bin Laden loyalist al Qaeda types, knew he was there and was hiding them. But was it a handful of fundies and lunatics in their intelligence agency? Or was it a conspiracy at the top level of their government?

I don't know. And it would be kind of ridiculous to bomb the shit out of a whole country because of some dickery their barely-controlled intelligence agency got up to, especially after the fact as a revenge thing.

[Broomstick]

Agreed - it's no secret the Pakistani government is deeply divided with rival factions.

And the world really needs to get away from the concept of collective guilt, that's what leads to this bullshit. Not all Pakistanis were in on hiding bin Laden and as events this week show they are currently suffering far more from terrorists than the US is, it's not like he's universally loved there either. Indiscriminate bombing would kill the innocent along with the guilty and just perpetuate the cycle of violence. Really, it's getting to the point I want to bitchslap the young tough guys on the internet who want to kill other people for any reason, though of course I suppress that urge, as I am trying to be nonviolent....*

Sure, the US has a beef with those who hid bin Laden, but let's not drag every Pakistani into the fight.

I have no doubt there are all sorts of communications going on out of the public eye right now, I'd rather put off any bombing or killing and give the diplomats a chance to work things out.



* Seriously. Few things would make me happier than to live the rest of a very long life without ever needing to harm another human being ever again.

[Justforfun000]

"Broomstick Wrote:"

* Seriously. Few things would make me happier than to live the rest of a very long life without ever needing to harm another human being ever again.

Saw a funny saying that came to mind when reading that..

The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list ...