Pakistan Arrests CIA Informants In Bin Laden Raid

[Thanas]

About 2 and 3, it is not as if the US has no past history of sending out assassination teams in Afghanistan, like having sent special forces on capture/kill misssions which apparently end regularly with enemy dead. This has been stepped up even more in the past and the bin Laden mission seems not to differ from any of the other missions.

[Simon_Jester]

About 2 and 3, it is not as if the US has no past history of sending out assassination teams in Afghanistan, like having sent special forces on capture/kill misssions which apparently end regularly with enemy dead. This has been stepped up even more in the past and the bin Laden mission seems not to differ from any of the other missions.

That would be no surprise.

Then again, it is not easy to take a man with an automatic weapon alive if he doesn't want you to, and it's not likely that he'll want you to if he's a dedicated member of an organization with a martyrdom complex that big.

I'd need a lot more evidence than I have before I could say whether US special forces are refusing to take the surrender of high-ranking Al Qaeda or Taliban leaders when those surrenders are offered.

[Thanas]

That is your prerogative, of course.

Also, before anybody gets the wrong idea: Al-Qaida commanders on the ground engaged in planning/conducting/leading attacks are of course legitimate targets.

[Master of Ossus]

None of that however immediately invalidates any of the other points made in the thread. It was still a breach of sovereignty

But a legal one: Pakistan was unwilling or unable to address bin Laden itself.

it was still an assassination mission, there is no evidence from an unbiased source that he resisted arrest etc.

It was a military operation against a legitimate military target. I explained this in absolutely excruciating detail in the other thread. There was no need for bin Laden to "resist arrest" in order for it to be legal for the SEALs to introduce him to his virgins. In fact, it's irrelevant if he was trying to surrender, or even if he was taking actions that were intended to, and consistent with, communicating his surrender (waiving a white flag, raising his hands, etc.). The question is only whether he was able to complete his surrender, and there's no evidence--no claim from any source that he did this (in fact, there's no evidence that he was doing anything consistent with surrendering). The SEALs weren't there to arrest him: they were there to neutralize a legitimate military target, and they weren't under any obligation (legal, moral, or otherwise) to pause and ask him to surrender, or to give him a chance to surrender. Only after he completed his surrender would the result change.

Also, before anybody gets the wrong idea: Al-Qaida commanders on the ground engaged in planning/conducting/leading attacks are of course legitimate targets.

And you view these as different from bin Laden... how? Was bin Laden a legitimate military target or not, in your view?

[Simon_Jester]

It was a military operation against a legitimate military target. I explained this in absolutely excruciating detail in the other thread. There was no need for bin Laden to "resist arrest" in order for it to be legal for the SEALs to introduce him to his virgins.

Now here, I must diverge sharply from Ossus. For example, had the attackers found bin Laden curled up in a ball on the floor, unarmed, they should have taken him into custody and hauled him off.

So I will have no part in Ossus's huffing and puffing about the idea that any member of a hostile organization may be killed without being given a chance to surrender regardless of the circumstances that prevail.

Depending on the details of the situation, it may have been impractical to give bin Laden a chance to surrender. But this depends on circumstances; it is not a general blanket release as Ossus would like it to be.

[Master of Ossus]

It was a military operation against a legitimate military target. I explained this in absolutely excruciating detail in the other thread. There was no need for bin Laden to "resist arrest" in order for it to be legal for the SEALs to introduce him to his virgins.

Now here, I must diverge sharply from Ossus. For example, had the attackers found bin Laden curled up in a ball on the floor, unarmed, they should have taken him into custody and hauled him off.

So I will have no part in Ossus's huffing and puffing about the idea that any member of a hostile organization may be killed without being given a chance to surrender regardless of the circumstances that prevail.

Depending on the details of the situation, it may have been impractical to give bin Laden a chance to surrender. But this depends on circumstances; it is not a general blanket release as Ossus would like it to be.

The view that you have presented is all well and good. It is not the controlling legal standard, which turns exclusively on whether the target has completed the act of surrendering or not (which, in certain circumstances, may actually be impossible, as when a drone or a bomber is engaging a target on the ground who is unaware of its existence).

[Thanas]

None of that however immediately invalidates any of the other points made in the thread. It was still a breach of sovereignty

But a legal one: Pakistan was unwilling or unable to address bin Laden itself.

None that gives you a casus belli, however.

It was a military operation against a legitimate military target. I explained this in absolutely excruciating detail in the other thread. There was no need for bin Laden to "resist arrest" in order for it to be legal for the SEALs to introduce him to his virgins. In fact, it's irrelevant if he was trying to surrender, or even if he was taking actions that were intended to, and consistent with, communicating his surrender (waiving a white flag, raising his hands, etc.). The question is only whether he was able to complete his surrender, and there's no evidence--no claim from any source that he did this (in fact, there's no evidence that he was doing anything consistent with surrendering). The SEALs weren't there to arrest him: they were there to neutralize a legitimate military target, and they weren't under any obligation (legal, moral, or otherwise) to pause and ask him to surrender, or to give him a chance to surrender. Only after he completed his surrender would the result change.

BS. And yeah, cite some conservative scholars again to support this - the entire judicial establishment of Germany is pretty much against this and I'd rather take their work over people who have stayed silent, worked with Bush and/or legitimized torture.

And you view these as different from bin Laden... how? Was bin Laden a legitimate military target or not, in your view?

Did the US have a right to invade Pakistan? No.
Seperate from this issue: Was Bin Laden at the moment of his death a legitimate target? Also no.
Do I think he was a mass murderer who, if he was tried and convicted, the US had every right to execute? Yes.


But really, we have gone over this several times and none of our opinions will change. So why not save this charade and just simply agree to disagree?

[Master of Ossus]

None that gives you a casus belli, however.

To fight a war with Pakistan? Maybe not--it's irrelevant.

To send in a special forces team to kill bin Laden and a few, resisting, members of the household while leaving dozens of others unharmed? Yes.

BS. And yeah, cite some conservative scholars again to support this - the entire judicial establishment of Germany is pretty much against this and I'd rather take their work over people who have stayed silent, worked with Bush and/or legitimized torture.

I did so extensively in the last thread.

I also explained to you what was wrong with the approach of the German scholars that you cited--one of them did not argue with the legality of the killing given that there was an ongoing armed conflict (and I cited the ICRC discussion defining what an ongoing armed conflict is, and explained why the war with Al Qaeda is unambiguously an ongoing armed conflict), and I cited numerous other scholarly articles laying out the legality of the operation.

But just to recap, ICRC defines surrender to mean:

Art. 23. In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden
(a) To employ poison or poisoned weapons;
(b) To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army;
(c) To kill or wound an enemy who, having laid down his arms, or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
(d) To declare that no quarter will be given;
(e) To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
(f) To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag or of the military insignia and uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention;
(g) To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
(h) To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party to take part in the operations of war directed against their own country, even if they were in the belligerent's service before the commencement of the war.

Note that surrender requires more than a laying down of weapons AND more than "no longer [having] means of defence." It requires an additional, affirmative act of surrender.

Surrender itself is defined under Article 41.

Art 41. Safeguard of an enemy hors de combat

1. A person who is recognized or who, in the circumstances, should be recognized to be hors de combat shall not be made the object of attack.

2. A person is hors de combat if:
(a) he is in the power of an adverse Party;
(b) he clearly expresses an intention to surrender; or
(c) he has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and therefore is incapable of defending himself;

provided that in any of these cases he abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.

So in other words, bin Laden would have to have clearly expressed an intention to surrender AND been "recognized" or in such a position where it "should [have] be[en] recognized" that he had surrendered and therefore become an hors de combat.

The other two are obviously of no consequence, here--bin Laden was not unconscious or otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and was obviously not in the power of an adverse Party (unless he had already surrendered, per 2.(b)).

And you view these as different from bin Laden... how? Was bin Laden a legitimate military target or not, in your view?

Did the US have a right to invade Pakistan? No.
Seperate from this issue: Was Bin Laden at the moment of his death a legitimate target? Also no.
Do I think he was a mass murderer who, if he was tried and convicted, the US had every right to execute? Yes.

But really, we have gone over this several times and none of our opinions will change. So why not save this charade and just simply agree to disagree?

You are simply, indisputably, wrong about this. Your posts have cited no relevant law on the matter--only the "opinions" of charlatans whose arguments are so manifestly inaccurate that they are of no consequence in any intellectual discussion. Moreover, you have consistently refused to acknowledge the existence of counter-arguments, even though I have extensively documented and cited to the controlling law in this regards.

[Thanas]

To fight a war with Pakistan? Maybe not--it's irrelevant.

To send in a special forces team to kill bin Laden and a few, resisting, members of the household while leaving dozens of others unharmed? Yes.

Bull. The invasion of a nation's border is an act of war, something which you need to have a casus belli to justify. Refusing a non-existent request for extradition does not even come close to that.

You are simply, indisputably, wrong about this. Your posts have cited no relevant law on the matter--only the "opinions" of charlatans whose arguments are so manifestly inaccurate that they are of no consequence in any intellectual discussion. Moreover, you have consistently refused to acknowledge the existence of counter-arguments, even though I have extensively documented and cited to the controlling law in this regards.

Yes, of course some of the highest authorities in Germany on international law, professors with a long history of publications on the subject, are charlatans.

[Master of Ossus]

Bull. The invasion of a nation's border is an act of war, something which you need to have a casus belli to justify. Refusing a non-existent request for extradition does not even come close to that.

Cite evidence for this claim. What is the underlying source of international law which requires a "casus belli" to justify sending in special forces to eliminate a legitimate military target whom the relevant state is unwilling or unable to address itself?

Note that this completely disagrees with numerous sources of international law. See, e.g., Ian Brownlie, International Law and the Activities of Armed Bands, 7 Int’l & Comp. L. Q. 712, 732 (1958) (“Military action across a frontier to suppress armed bands, which the territorial sovereign is unable or unwilling to suppress, has been explained in terms of legitimate self-defense on a limited number of occasions in the present century.”); Noam Lubell, Extraterritorial Use of Force Against Non-State Actors (2010) (reciting the “unwilling or unable” test as the correct test for determining when a victim state may take measures against non-state actors in the territorial state). See also Harold H. Koh, U.S. Legal Adviser, The Obama Administration and International Law, Keynote Address at the Am. Soc’y Int’l L. 104th Annual Mtg.: International Law in a Time of Change (Mar. 25, 2010), available at http://www.state.gov/s/l/releases/remarks/139119.htm; John Bellinger, Legal Issues in the War on Terrorism, London Sch. Econ., Oct. 31, 2006, available at www2.lse.ac.uk/PublicEvents/pdf/20061031_JohnBellinger.pdf (repeatedly reciting “unwilling or unable” standard). States such as Israel, Russia, and Turkey have also recited the “unwilling or unable” test as the correct standard in this context.

Note also that it's hardly only the Evil Americans. The British House of Commons reached the same conclusion.

As does the most extensive scholarly article written on the subject.

Yes, of course some of the highest authorities in Germany on international law, professors with a long history of publications on the subject, are charlatans.

What authorities are those? Der Spiegel, aka one single person citing no controlling or relevant law in an opinion piece? I debunked that bullshit in other thread.

And I agree with you. It is pretty sad that the highest authorities in your country on international law are charlatans who can't cite a single source in asserting their claims against the US.

Are you actually going to bother to respond to the law that I've been citing extensively, Thanas, (including specific references to the relevant treaties and scholarly treatises detailing the subject) or are you just going to plug your ears and state that Der Spiegel said it, therefore it can't be wrong? (Even when Der Spiegel in fact said no such thing, as with the issue of surrender, which it didn't even discuss).

[Simon_Jester]

To fight a war with Pakistan? Maybe not--it's irrelevant.

To send in a special forces team to kill bin Laden and a few, resisting, members of the household while leaving dozens of others unharmed? Yes.

Bull. The invasion of a nation's border is an act of war, something which you need to have a casus belli to justify. Refusing a non-existent request for extradition does not even come close to that.

Was the invasion of Afghanistan justified, or unjustified?

[Thanas]

To fight a war with Pakistan? Maybe not--it's irrelevant.

To send in a special forces team to kill bin Laden and a few, resisting, members of the household while leaving dozens of others unharmed? Yes.

Bull. The invasion of a nation's border is an act of war, something which you need to have a casus belli to justify. Refusing a non-existent request for extradition does not even come close to that.

Was the invasion of Afghanistan justified, or unjustified?

Justified via UN approval.

Note that this completely disagrees with numerous sources of international law. See, e.g., Ian Brownlie, International Law and the Activities of Armed Bands, 7 Int’l & Comp. L. Q. 712, 732 (1958) (“Military action across a frontier to suppress armed bands, which the territorial sovereign is unable or unwilling to suppress, has been explained in terms of legitimate self-defense on a limited number of occasions in the present century.”); Noam Lubell, Extraterritorial Use of Force Against Non-State Actors (2010) (reciting the “unwilling or unable” test as the correct test for determining when a victim state may take measures against non-state actors in the territorial state). See also Harold H. Koh, U.S. Legal Adviser, The Obama Administration and International Law, Keynote Address at the Am. Soc’y Int’l L. 104th Annual Mtg.: International Law in a Time of Change (Mar. 25, 2010), available at http://www.state.gov/s/l/releases/remarks/139119.htm; John Bellinger, Legal Issues in the War on Terrorism, London Sch. Econ., Oct. 31, 2006, available at www2.lse.ac.uk/PublicEvents/pdf/20061031_JohnBellinger.pdf (repeatedly reciting “unwilling or unable” standard). States such as Israel, Russia, and Turkey have also recited the “unwilling or unable” test as the correct standard in this context.

Yes. That is one side of the issue. It also is the conservative side, presented by those who have an interest in the war.

Of course, others reject that interpretation because a) Al-Quida might or might not qualify as an armed band (it for once lacks cohesiveness to be any kind of a band), b) just because other states have used the same arguments in the past does not make them valid c) you have yet to provide evidence in this thread that bin Laden was the real commander of "a band", d) International law does nowhere allow the killing of a citizen of another country except in self-defence or in execution of a legal verdict e)how can a nation be unwilling if it has not even been asked to extradite somebody? The precedents do not apply. At the time of bin Laden's death, Pakistan was neither unwilling nor unable. Unless of course you can point to the evidence for them refusing to honor an extradition request?

And I agree with you. It is pretty sad that the highest authorities in your country on international law are charlatans who can't cite a single source in asserting their claims against the US.

And with that arrogant presumption you have justified the majority opinion people have of you on this board once more. What are your legal credentials?

[K. A. Pital]

I think assassinations are not acts of war against a nation. At least Ossus has been consistent and he said that he'd support a surgical strike against Posada Carilles, and so possibly against Zakayev (an assassination of Yendarbiev, for example, was accomplished in that fashion).

Otherwise we must conclude that every time someone gets assassinated by foreign intelligence, nations must go to war. That is clearly not the case. Many assassinations have been carried out in the past without starting a war. It's not Archduke Ferdinand all the time.

[Master of Ossus]

Justified via UN approval.

What approval was that, again?

Oh, wait, it's just another outright lie because Thanas fails at international law. The UN never authorized an invasion of Afghanistan.

Yes. That is one side of the issue. It also is the conservative side, presented by those who have an interest in the war.

Yeah. In 1958, there was so much interest in promoting the US war with Al Qaeda that the relevant legal standard was clearly articulated in the leading legal treatise on the matter.

Before I go on, let me point out that Thanas' "others" who reject this interpretation are unnamed, and cite no law whatsoever to justify their position (assuming that anyone outside of Thanas actually shares this ridiculous view).

Of course, others reject that interpretation because a) Al-Quida might or might not qualify as an armed band (it for once lacks cohesiveness to be any kind of a band),

The ICRC definition proves that this is false, according to the prevailing legal view.

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.

The conflict with Al Qaeda unquestionably meets both criteria. Al Qaeda is minimally organized, as demonstrated by their operations with unified leaders, and individuals who have specific duties and areas of expertise. It is also an armed conflict, and meets the scale requirement, due to the scale of Al Qaeda's atrocities.

b) just because other states have used the same arguments in the past does not make them valid

Yeah. I relied exclusively on the fact that other states have used this argument in the past to demonstrate that it was an accurate statement of law.

c) you have yet to provide evidence in this thread that bin Laden was the real commander of "a band",

Irrelevant. He only needs to have been a member of Al Qaeda. All members of Al Qaeda are legitimate military targets. Cite the source of law which states otherwise.

d) International law does nowhere allow the killing of a citizen of another country except in self-defence or in execution of a legal verdict

And this is self-defense, moron. That's the whole reason why the classification as an ongoing armed conflict is important.

e)how can a nation be unwilling if it has not even been asked to extradite somebody?

Pakistan had been actively attempting (according to its government) to find bin Laden for years so they could hand him over to the US. I have no idea what extradition has to do with anything: bin Laden was a legitimate military target as well as a wanted criminal. And Pakistan was "unwilling or unable" to deal with the threat of Al Qaeda and specifically unable or unwilling to deal with bin Laden, who had hidden out in downtown Pakistan for years.

The precedents do not apply. At the time of bin Laden's death, Pakistan was neither unwilling nor unable. Unless of course you can point to the evidence for them refusing to honor an extradition request?

It's not a criminal matter, you idiot. Extradition has nothing to do with it.

It's an issue of an armed group operating for years out of Pakistan. Pakistan had been asked to find bin Laden and turn him over to the proper authorities, and they had YEARS to locate him and comply with that request. They failed.

In addition, in these circumstances, it was reasonable for the US to conclude that Pakistan was colluding with bin Laden to protect him from the United States.

And with that arrogant presumption you have justified the majority opinion people have of you on this board once more. What are your legal credentials?

What are yours?

You don't need to be a member of the Bar to conclude that Thanas is a moron, and that the (very) few people he relies exclusively upon are wrong. They cite no relevant law, whereas I have consistently gone back to the treaties and leading scholarly interpretations to lay out the reasoning which must be undertaken to conclude that the US acted lawfully when it instructed special forces to enter Pakistan to surgically attack a legitimate military target.

Moreover, Thanas is saying that (among others) Orin Kerr, Justice Stevens of the US Supreme Court, and the British House of Commons are wrong in their view of the operation.

[Bakustra]

So what exactly would you call the UN establishing the International Security Assistance Force (via the unanimous approval of Security Council Resolution 1386) to aid the US-installed Karzai government if not a de facto approval of the invasion? So will you admit you were wrong and that you were hasty to call Thanas an idiot, or will you attempt to make yourself a stereotype of a lawyer and weasel out of what you said?

For that matter, I'm not sure someone with less than a year on the bar and no apparent specialization in international law is really somebody with sufficient legal credentials to call the totality of German legal professors specializing in international law charlatans as you did. I suspect that there are no legal credentials sufficient to do so, but the arrogance you have is still incredibly thick. But with the authority of Ra, who created himself and is the Sun, which is as real as the authority you are using, I hereby declare that any legal opinions defending the conduct of the US in the killing of Osama bin Laden are null, void, and inapplicable. Go right ahead and explain why this is inadmissible, while your claim is not.

[Simon_Jester]

Was the invasion of Afghanistan justified, or unjustified?

Justified via UN approval.

Can the UN make a war justified, when it would not be justified in the absence of UN approval? If so, why? This strikes me as a poor definition of what constitutes an unjust war.

Is a war approved by the UN just (or justified) by definition, regardless of other information about it? Why, or why not?

Is a war which would be just (or justified) with UN approval unjust when fought without it? Why, or why not?

It seems to me that if a war is unjust when the UN disapproves, it will not suddenly become more just if the UN changes its mind- aggressive war is aggressive war, no matter who you can convince to sign off on it. The reverse should also be true.

[Master of Ossus]

So what exactly would you call the UN establishing the International Security Assistance Force (via the unanimous approval of Security Council Resolution 1386) to aid the US-installed Karzai government if not a de facto approval of the invasion? So will you admit you were wrong and that you were hasty to call Thanas an idiot, or will you attempt to make yourself a stereotype of a lawyer and weasel out of what you said?

I would call it what it was: an after-the-invasion permission to allow the temporary implementation of an International Security Assistance Force to assist the Afghan Interim Authority. In no sense did this permit an invasion of Afghanistan, which had happened long before this was issued.

The reason is simple: the US authority to invade Afghanistan did not stem from any particular resolution of the UNSC. Rather, it was Article 51, which permits countries to engage in self-defense.

BUT WAIT! If the US is entitled to defend itself against Al Qaeda, then Thanas' point about the war with Al Qaeda not being an "ongoing armed conflict" is already conceded, because national self-defense can only be exercised against armed groups.

So the question of whether the US-led invasion of Afghanistan was lawful or not really determines whether Al Qaeda is an armed group, or not. Outside of a VERY few nations, the International Community had absolutely no problem with Al Qaeda being an armed group back then--in fact they overwhelmingly supported the invasion and dozens of nations contributed to the effort. So what changed between then and now?

For that matter, I'm not sure someone with less than a year on the bar and no apparent specialization in international law is really somebody with sufficient legal credentials to call the totality of German legal professors specializing in international law charlatans as you did. I suspect that there are no legal credentials sufficient to do so, but the arrogance you have is still incredibly thick. But with the authority of Ra, who created himself and is the Sun, which is as real as the authority you are using, I hereby declare that any legal opinions defending the conduct of the US in the killing of Osama bin Laden are null, void, and inapplicable. Go right ahead and explain why this is inadmissible, while your claim is not.

Ra is vastly more authoritative than the ABA in permitting people to state that they have legal credentials.

[Bakustra]

So what exactly would you call the UN establishing the International Security Assistance Force (via the unanimous approval of Security Council Resolution 1386) to aid the US-installed Karzai government if not a de facto approval of the invasion? So will you admit you were wrong and that you were hasty to call Thanas an idiot, or will you attempt to make yourself a stereotype of a lawyer and weasel out of what you said?

I would call it what it was: an after-the-invasion permission to allow the temporary implementation of an International Security Assistance Force to assist the Afghan Interim Authority. In no sense did this permit an invasion of Afghanistan, which had happened long before this was issued.

The reason is simple: the US authority to invade Afghanistan did not stem from any particular resolution of the UNSC. Rather, it was Article 51, which permits countries to engage in self-defense.

BUT WAIT! If the US is entitled to defend itself against Al Qaeda, then Thanas' point about the war with Al Qaeda not being an "ongoing armed conflict" is already conceded, because self-defense can only be exercised against armed groups.

Afghanistan is not Al-Qaeda, so whether or not the US had authority to invade Afghanistan under Article 51 does not give Al-Qaeda the status of an armed group. That's a nitwit argument and it appears that the California Bar is low if it admitted you. Unless, that is, you're too nationalistic to think, but there's a fine line between that and a nitwit, in my book at least.

Furthermore, approval is not the same as permission, though a nitwit such as yourself might not grasp the subtleties involved. You see, rather than wash their hands of the matter, as happened with Iraq, the UN decided to intervene on behalf of the Karzai government, which had been set up by the US, and thus gave de facto approval and legitimacy to the invasion and its results. Now, you deny this because you're gradually coalescing into a living, breathing stereotype, but for somebody who isn't dishonest and an ignoramus simultaneously, the point was clear.

For that matter, I'm not sure someone with less than a year on the bar and no apparent specialization in international law is really somebody with sufficient legal credentials to call the totality of German legal professors specializing in international law charlatans as you did. I suspect that there are no legal credentials sufficient to do so, but the arrogance you have is still incredibly thick. But with the authority of Ra, who created himself and is the Sun, which is as real as the authority you are using[to declare Germany's legal authorities on international law charlatans], I hereby declare that any legal opinions defending the conduct of the US in the killing of Osama bin Laden are null, void, and inapplicable. Go right ahead and explain why this is inadmissible, while your claim is not.

Ra is vastly more authoritative than the ABA in permitting people to state that they have legal credentials.

Thanks for both not responding to my point and demonstrating your ignorance of the gods of Upper and Lower Egypt. A hint; I am not talking about your authority to practice law in the state of California. I bolded critical parts and provided more hints in the vain hope that you might understand this, and the clearer hope that people not grasping the finer points of my mockery might be enlightened.

PS: I also went and got the authority of Thoth after I posted, so now I have the authority to declare that nothing you have posted contains any actual information or purpose, but is rather meaningless babble upon which I am projecting meaning, much like a movie screen.

[Master of Ossus]

Afghanistan is not Al-Qaeda, so whether or not the US had authority to invade Afghanistan under Article 51 does not give Al-Qaeda the status of an armed group.

Nonsense. Al Qaeda is a non-state armed group, as defined by the ICRC--something I have repeatedly posted. Moreover, if not self-defense against Al Qaeda, against whom was the invasion of Afghanistan an exercise in self-defense?

That's a nitwit argument and it appears that the California Bar is low if it admitted you. Unless, that is, you're too nationalistic to think, but there's a fine line between that and a nitwit, in my book at least.

Furthermore, approval is not the same as permission, though a nitwit such as yourself might not grasp the subtleties involved. You see, rather than wash their hands of the matter, as happened with Iraq, the UN decided to intervene on behalf of the Karzai government, which had been set up by the US, and thus gave de facto approval and legitimacy to the invasion and its results.

Something which the US did not need because the invasion was already legitimate as an exercise in self-defense under Article 51. Moreover, even if they did wish to do that, they could have done so without legitimizing the invasion of Afghanistan--indeed, they did. At no point did the resolution discuss the invasion of Afghanistan with approval--at best it approved of the results of the conflict.

Thanks for both not responding to my point and demonstrating your ignorance of the gods of Upper and Lower Egypt. A hint; I am not talking about your authority to practice law in the state of California. I bolded critical parts and provided more hints in the vain hope that you might understand this, and the clearer hope that people not grasping the finer points of my mockery might be enlightened.

PS: I also went and got the authority of Thoth after I posted, so now I have the authority to declare that nothing you have posted contains any actual information or purpose, but is rather meaningless babble upon which I am projecting meaning, much like a movie screen.

Whatever "point" you have is totally irrelevant to the subject matter. I was asked for my credentials and provided them. At no point have I rested my arguments upon such credentials: rather I have expressly laid out the governing international laws such that anyone (lawyer or no) can easily refer to them, read them, and conclude that my statements of the law are accurate and my arguments are persuasive. It is quite telling that, rather than focus on the substance of any of my claims, you and Thanas have both taken up the tactics of either rephrasing and restating your original assertions (replete with references to "other" legal scholars, as if there is any substantive debate within the legal community on this), and by attacking my "arrogance" in dismissing the opinions of such unnamed legal experts. Moreover, you may not realize this, but in the United States (except for a few select areas, such as patent law), and in many other countries, attorneys do not specialize either in their degrees nor in their bar applications. While they may practice law in only a single area or a few select areas, this does not extend to their credentials and outside of those select fields they are generally permitted to form professional opinions (and, indeed, handle all claims) touching on any subject--including international law (providing that they are also credentialed by the particular court in which they are operating--and international claims can often be heard before federal or state courts).

And, yes, I stand by my statement: anyone who claims to argue the law without any citation whatsoever to an underlying legal standard or test is a legal charlatan. I don't actually think that Germany has no legal scholars who are not charlatans: indeed I am personally knowledgeable of several German attorneys who do not engage in such behavior. My statement was mere mockery of Thanas for citing such charlatans (if they even exist) as if they were legal experts since any legal expert would provide citations to the law that they were discussing. Indeed, I have provided citations and even links to the opinions and position papers of several such experts myself, and also cited to the underlying law myself throughout these discussions.

It is clear that you and Thanas have no actual desire to discuss the law, because when asked to cite legal authority for your claims you have consistently either ignored it or else stated it inaccurately and without citations. Therefore, I will only refer to my preexisting posts that detail further the legal doctrine and explanations as to why the US conduct in its raid which killed Osama bin Laden was lawful, and challenge you to explain why the law which I have cited extensively is either inaccurately stated or is not apposite in these circumstances.

[Bakustra]

Afghanistan is not Al-Qaeda, so whether or not the US had authority to invade Afghanistan under Article 51 does not give Al-Qaeda the status of an armed group.

Nonsense. Al Qaeda is a non-state armed group, as defined by the ICRC--something I have repeatedly posted. Moreover, if not self-defense against Al Qaeda, against whom was the invasion of Afghanistan an exercise in self-defense?

Jesus Christ, you're so fucking dishonest that I'm not even going to bother with responding seriously anymore. Sorry, but Thoth invalidated everything you just said, and if you keep posting like this Ra will give you cataracts.

That's a nitwit argument and it appears that the California Bar is low if it admitted you. Unless, that is, you're too nationalistic to think, but there's a fine line between that and a nitwit, in my book at least.

Furthermore, approval is not the same as permission, though a nitwit such as yourself might not grasp the subtleties involved. You see, rather than wash their hands of the matter, as happened with Iraq, the UN decided to intervene on behalf of the Karzai government, which had been set up by the US, and thus gave de facto approval and legitimacy to the invasion and its results.

Something which the US did not need because the invasion was already legitimate as an exercise in self-defense under Article 51. Moreover, even if they did wish to do that, they could have done so without legitimizing the invasion of Afghanistan--indeed, they did. At no point did the resolution discuss the invasion of Afghanistan with approval--at best it approved of the results of the conflict.

Thoth concludes that this has no meaning as well.

Thanks for both not responding to my point and demonstrating your ignorance of the gods of Upper and Lower Egypt. A hint; I am not talking about your authority to practice law in the state of California. I bolded critical parts and provided more hints in the vain hope that you might understand this, and the clearer hope that people not grasping the finer points of my mockery might be enlightened.

PS: I also went and got the authority of Thoth after I posted, so now I have the authority to declare that nothing you have posted contains any actual information or purpose, but is rather meaningless babble upon which I am projecting meaning, much like a movie screen.

Whatever "point" you have is totally irrelevant to the subject matter. I was asked for my credentials and provided them. At no point have I rested my arguments upon such credentials: rather I have expressly laid out the governing international laws such that anyone (lawyer or no) can easily refer to them, read them, and conclude that my arguments are correct. Moreover, you may not realize this, but in the United States (except for a few select areas, such as patent law), and in most countries, attorneys do not specialize either in their degrees nor in their bar applications. While they may practice law in only a single area or a few select areas, this does not extend to their credentials and outside of those select fields they are generally permitted to handle all claims of law touching on any subject--including international law (providing that they are also credentialed by the particular court in which they are operating--and international claims can often be heard before federal or state courts).

And, yes, I stand by my statement: anyone who claims to argue the law without any citation whatsoever to an underlying legal standard or test is a legal charlatan. I don't actually think that Germany has no legal scholars who do this: my statement was mere mockery of Thanas for citing such charlatans as if they were legal experts since any legal expert would provide citations to the law that they were discussing. Indeed, I have referred to several such experts myself, and also cited to the underlying law myself throughout these discussions.

It is clear that you and Thanas have no actual desire to discuss the law, because when asked to cite legal authority for your claims you have consistently either ignored it or else stated it inaccurately and without citations.

Ra's gonna give you some big fuckin' melanomas for this. Thoth also may give you aphasia.

Now, if you truly want a serious discussion, you could stop pretending that legal arguments that have not been resolved are facts, such as in the case of Al-Qaeda. You could maybe recognize that declaring that German legal professors are all charlatans because a newspaper article did not cite the specific laws they used is tremendously arrogant. You could recognize that just because US attorneys are not particularly specialized in their degree does not mean that experience is meaningless, which is what would be concluded by a reasonable observer. You could realize that you look like an ass and that you're deliberately trying to shut discussion down because people aren't talking in the way you want to. But you won't, and so I doubt that I will ever respond seriously to you in this thread.

[Bakustra]

I'm going to break down the reasons why I essentially just dismissed Ossus' post altogether. You see, I pointed out that his argument assumed that Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda were the same, such that an invasion of Afghanistan justified treating al-Qaeda as an armed group. He then, acting as though legal arguments are factual statements as long as he agrees with them (if you act like this in private life, you're a shitty lawyer and a horrible human being, by the way), introduced an irrelevant argument that said that because some legal experts said that Al-Qaeda counts as an armed group, that this was therefore fact, and inarguable. He also said that they were the same, which might be worth addressing if he could be honest.

He also pretends that he's completely ignorant of context. You see, Ossus, my good readers (and bad ones, I suppose), is a nationalist. And nationalists don't care if they look like an idiot as long as they're defending their country. But to get back on topic, when Thanas said "So what are your credentials?", a child would recognize that there was more to this question than the surface, and most people would recognize the deeper challenge: "On what authority do you say these things?" Ossus pretends that there was only the surface meaning and so he can claim that he did not claim his apparently-inexperienced-with-international-law, six-months-on-the-Bar self as an authority who could convincingly claim that the majority of German experts on international law were charlatans and frauds. He also claimed several other things that I dealt with in the slight bit of content in my previous post.

But finally, Ossus reveals that he has no interest in discussion, for rather than ask for clarification from Thanas, he instead tries to shout him down and anybody who dissents from him. Also, discussion is dependent on style rather than substance, apparently.

[Master of Ossus]

Jesus Christ, you're so fucking dishonest that I'm not even going to bother with responding seriously anymore. Sorry, but Thoth invalidated everything you just said, and if you keep posting like this Ra will give you cataracts.

This is just another dodge. Explain why the law that you just completely ignored and which I explained to you is inaccurately stated. Explain what "dishonesty" was involved in my post.

Thoth concludes that this has no meaning as well.

Thoth seems to have a lot in common with Bakustra: both of them ignore very clear and accurate statements of the law in favor of bluster.

Ra's gonna give you some big fuckin' melanomas for this. Thoth also may give you aphasia.

Now, if you truly want a serious discussion, you could stop pretending that legal arguments that have not been resolved are facts, such as in the case of Al-Qaeda.

By all means, explain WHY Al Qaeda does not qualify as an armed group within the definition provided by the ICRC (or, at least, explain why the ICRC's is not the correct definition to apply given that they are the group which creates International Humanitarian Law). If you want to argue that it is not, in fact, an armed group, then explain which part of the definition it does not satisfy. I have cited the relevant definition and given numerous legal authorities who have explained clearly why they have concluded that Al Qaeda is an armed group within the meaning of International Humanitarian Law. Again, if you disagree with this conclusion, explain why.

This is exactly the same as any other debate: if you want to argue that your opponent is wrong, saying "Other people agree with me" isn't enough. It's just a blatant appeal to (nonexistent) authority. You have to lay out the argument for WHY your opponent is wrong. I have already done that in absolutely excruciating detail. I held your hand through every legal question in the issue, and explained why the US has the better of the argument in every distinction. I have clearly articulated the reasoning and standards which drive my determination. It's not "foreclosing debate" to dismiss people who say "Other people don't agree" and leave it at that. I'm trying to get these people to explain their reasoning. WHY doesn't Al Qaeda meet the definition of an armed group? Which aspect of the definition provided by the ICRC as the "prevailing" opinion on the matter does Al Qaeda fall short of?

You could maybe recognize that declaring that German legal professors are all charlatans because a newspaper article did not cite the specific laws they used is tremendously arrogant.

Who is this "they?" Thanas cited to ONE person in ONE newspaper article. This scholar, unlike scholars in the US who write newspaper articles (including ones which I have cited), apparently do not cite legal authority for their claims. This is legal charlatanism, even in a post written for the popular press. It's one thing if it's an interview in context of an article, but this was an entire article which consisted entirely of bald-faced assertions as to what the law was without a single citation to that law.

You could recognize that just because US attorneys are not particularly specialized in their degree does not mean that experience is meaningless, which is what would be concluded by a reasonable observer.

Nor have I made any such claim. I have simply pointed out that, in an American court, it's not sufficient to state something in the guise of law without actually referencing that law. Upon any investigation of the underlying law, it is easy to conclude that the German attorney which Thanas apparently thinks is sufficient was blustering--the law he states is NOT ACCURATE. I laid that out in the other thread, replete with explicit references to the actual law and an explanation for why this changed the analysis.

You could realize that you look like an ass and that you're deliberately trying to shut discussion down because people aren't talking in the way you want to. But you won't, and so I doubt that I will ever respond seriously to you in this thread.

Again, how have I been attempting to shut down discussion? I've been very patient with you and Thanas and the other morons who have argued that the US's actions were unlawful, and encouraged you to explain WHY THAT IS. None of you have bothered. I would welcome a genuine discussion of WHY the US's claims about international law are or are not accurate, but that's not what you are interested in. You're merely trying to score dumb political points based on nothing but the bald-faced assertions of Thanas and Bakustra.

[Master of Ossus]

I'm going to break down the reasons why I essentially just dismissed Ossus' post altogether. You see, I pointed out that his argument assumed that Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda were the same,

I did no such thing: I asked you what entity the US was exercising its self-defense against if, in fact, the invasion of Afghanistan was not an exercise in self-defense from Al Qaeda. Anyone can look at it and conclude that there was no such group: the Taliban had not attacked us, nor had any other armed group in the country.

such that an invasion of Afghanistan justified treating al-Qaeda as an armed group.

No. It DEMONSTRATED acquiescence as to the finding that Al Qaeda was an armed group.

And remember: this is all in the context that I had previously posted the definition from the ICRC of an armed group. Al Qaeda clearly fits within it. I explained why. If you disagree that Al Qaeda meets this definition, PROVIDE YOUR REASONING. What aspect of the definition does not apply to Al Qaeda? Indeed, ICRC seems to have contemplated this same sort of situation with Al Qaeda and the US when they were defining the term as they did, in which a powerful and organized non-state actor attacked a country from within the borders of another (either with that country's acquiescence or outright support).

He then, acting as though legal arguments are factual statements as long as he agrees with them (if you act like this in private life, you're a shitty lawyer and a horrible human being, by the way),

Nonsense and nonsense. Lawyers regularly treat their clients' arguments as facts, even when they know that there is a close factual or legal judgment which the court (or other body) will have to make as to those arguments. This is good advocacy.

But in any case, in several places I have expressly recognized counter-arguments, such as on Pakistan's alleged willingness and ability to address Osama bin Laden, and concluded that in my opinion they don't amount to much. Rather than engaging these arguments, presenting counter-arguments (perhaps differently, or ones which I did not anticipate at all), Bakustra has simply ignored them and is now acting as if this is some giant assumption about which I will broach no dissent. Nothing could be further from the truth, but Thanas and Bakustra have made no such arguments. The most that I can tell that they've done is referred to other people and adopted their claims in their entirety, even when doing so meant adopting inaccurate statements of the law.

introduced an irrelevant argument that said that because some legal experts said that Al-Qaeda counts as an armed group, that this was therefore fact, and inarguable.

Again, this is totally absurd. The ICRC is the group which defines what it is to be an armed group. They are the legislators of what constitutes International Humanitarian Law. The fact that I have cited their definition and then provided effective arguments as to why Al Qaeda meets their definition does not make it a fact, but no counterarguments have been raised, and IMO Al Qaeda is an armed group because I can't see any strong arguments as to why it wouldn't be. If Thanas or Bakustra or anyone else could present an argument as to why Al Qaeda failed to meet some aspect of the definition, I'd be happy to engage them in a discussion of that topic, but they haven't. Rather, they're simply willing to dismiss this as an exercise in "arrogance" on my part.

He also said that they were the same, which might be worth addressing if he could be honest.

Bullshit. I said that the invasion of Afghanistan, to the extent that it was legally justified as an exercise in self-defense, makes no sense UNLESS THE US WERE DEFENDING ITSELF AGAINST AL QAEDA. No other group operating in Afghanistan at that time, including the Taliban, had done anything which could justify such actions. IF YOU DISAGREE, EXPLAIN WHICH GROUP YOU'RE REFERRING TO AND WHAT THEY DID TO JUSTIFY AN INVASION AS AN EXERCISE OF SELF-DEFENSE.

He also pretends that he's completely ignorant of context. You see, Ossus, my good readers (and bad ones, I suppose), is a nationalist. And nationalists don't care if they look like an idiot as long as they're defending their country. But to get back on topic, when Thanas said "So what are your credentials?", a child would recognize that there was more to this question than the surface, and most people would recognize the deeper challenge: "On what authority do you say these things?" Ossus pretends that there was only the surface meaning and so he can claim that he did not claim his apparently-inexperienced-with-international-law, six-months-on-the-Bar self as an authority who could convincingly claim that the majority of German experts on international law were charlatans and frauds. He also claimed several other things that I dealt with in the slight bit of content in my previous post.

Ossus, dear readers, has ALSO REPEATEDLY CITED TO INTERNATIONAL LAW THAT GOVERNS THIS TOPIC.

This wasn't an accident. This was meant so that other people--lawyer or no--can look at the relevant legal standard and decide for themselves how it applies to this situation.

My posts included specific references to the ICRC, Law of Armed Conflict, and the legal opinions of numerous scholars who have studied this extensively, complete with THEIR citations and explanations as to how they reached their opinions. I have also explained, in considerable detail, my reasoning for each step in the process of reaching the opinion that I hold. Again, if anyone wishes to challenge this opinion, either explain how you reached your conclusion or explain where you think I went wrong in reaching mine.

But finally, Ossus reveals that he has no interest in discussion, for rather than ask for clarification from Thanas, he instead tries to shout him down and anybody who dissents from him. Also, discussion is dependent on style rather than substance, apparently.

I'm sick of having this discussion because none of my opponents seem to be willing or able (get it?) to actually engage in anything resembling a legal argument. None of them have ever cited to a competing legal theory or interpretation which would justify their contrary opinions, nor made any factual arguments which would suggest that my reasoning is faulty. Rather, my opponents have uniformly engaged in three forms of behavior:
1. Claim that other scholars disagree with me, with no citations and no references (or inaccurately stated ones, at best). This is not conducive to an argument because it fails to illustrate any reasoning by which someone could reach a contrary conclusion. Were I to meet such a scholar who, in fact, disagreed with my assessment of the law, I would make precisely the same challenge to them that I have made to my opponents in this thread and the other one: I would ask them to explain their reasoning, and how it led them to a contrary conclusion. Of course, no such discussion has been forthcoming.
2. Ignore my statements of law. Again, not remotely conducive to a genuine discussion. If they have competing or contrary authority, they should cite it so we can examine which one controls.
3. Argue that my statements of law would lead to some other conclusion which they assume I would find objectionable. In some cases, I have agreed that these conclusions were accurate, but more often than not they have led to absurd results (including claims that, e.g., I myself am a legitimate military target because I have engaged in discussions on this board). Again, hardly conducive of any serious discussion on the issue, and which in many cases has been nothing more than an exercise in trolling.

So, Bakustra, if you disagree so strongly with my conclusions, please EXPLAIN WHY. Cite competing or contrary legal authority (you know, like those pesky IHLs I keep bringing up). Explain why something that my argument takes for granted is, in fact, not accurate--perhaps because a definition which I have assumed applies to these circumstances in fact does not. Do something which indicates that you have any desire to engage in a serious discussion. I have wasted literally dozens of posts on this topic and gotten... nothing.

[Edit: Incidentally, I have removed my Bar reference from this because it's occurred to me that this message board isn't exactly the most professional environment around and I might not want to be associated with this board in my professional work. If you're curious, I'd be more than happy to PM it to you, discuss the Palsgraf case, or whatever else--I'm not trying to hide my identity from other posters, but rather to conceal my involvement in this board from the general public who likely wouldn't understand the atmosphere, here).

[NecronLord]

ATTENTION:

This topic is not for discussion of the Bin Laden Raid, please remain more directly related to the OP or it will be split.

Fuck Pakistan, just fuck 'em.

Because Pakistan violated something here? Because only the US almighty is worthy of serving? Oh noes, mean Pakistan arrests people who gave out intelligence to a foreign power! Uh-nuh! Oh noes, mean Pakistan kept Bin Laden! As if they weren't, as a sovereign nation, fully within the right to keep Bin Laden and - gasp - even protect him, if they so wanted. Mwahahha. This indignation is really funny.

Do you have evidence that General Mung Beans is hypocritical in this instance, and that he does not find the behavior of his own government to be at times reprehensible?

Holding a nation's citizenship does not make you some kind of automaton that automatically supports the policies of its current government to the hilt in all circumstances and situations. Please provide evidence to the effect of Mung Beans being a total government myrmidon, he may well be, I don't know, but I don't see evidence of that here.

No one expects you to support the policies of the Medyedev/Putin government to the hilt in all circumstances and situations, and they don't pounce on you whenever you say something derogatory about nations opposing Russian interests, and immediately jump to presuming you are saying that only Mother Russia is worthy of serving.

We've been through this before; I, and everyone else, including Pakistanis, have the right to say fuck you to Pakistan.

I also have the right to say fuck you to England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, America, Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, India, Tuvalu, The Time Lords of Gallifrey, and anyone else I please. So does everyone else.

Who the fuck was talking about 'sovereign right?' If a nation does something you disapprove of, you are free to criticize it.

[K. A. Pital]

NL, I've already explained why I said so below. Yeah, Mung Beans has a right to say fuck you to Pakistan or whoever he likes. I said his indignation is funny.

And here's why. His government officially harbors a mass murderer of civilians. Unlike Pakistan, where Osama was allegedly protected by a "renegade faction" (i.e. criminals infiltrating the government), the US government chose to legally shield a mass murderer (Posada Carilles) in a completely official fashion.

So pardon me while I laugh at his indignation. He has the right to criticize Pakistan and I reserve the right to mock him because of it.