Osama Bin Laden is Dead!!!

[Erich]

as per Buff's suggestion I see the Pakistani's are using the tail section or main delivery rotor of the besieged Heli for frost protection in the Garden in the so-called compound. man all I can say after seeing reuters fotos is what a messy housekeeper. I note at least 3 dead folk all shot in the head as per "their" pics. so much for Pakistani threats, we did a fly over with drones and popped another 8 plus of the bin laden types with special weapons.

 

[vikingBerserker]

Nice.

 

[Ferdinand Foch]

Well personally, I'm glad he's dead. I don't about a trial, he would have said the exact same thing he has been saying the past ten years. "America is the evil of the world, and here's why....." Who hasn't heard that one before. I think we just saved a lot of money and time on a trial. I'm just glad we finally got the guy. As for the "Stealth" helicopter, I have not been paying much attention to it from the news, so I won't try to comment on it for now.

 

[glennasher]

From what I can gather, the "firefight" itself only lasted a couple of minutes, from however long it took to fastrope down, and then move up to the third story apartment where UBL lived. The rest of the time was spent gathering up computer hard drives, thumb drives, etc. and exfiltrating. That seems quite logical to me.

 

[renrich]

The fact is that there was no firefight. The fact is that the people in the White House really had little clue about what really went down the next day in spite of all their claims.. The fact is that it was a pure and simple take down. They went in and killed him. Shot him down like a rabid dog. The fact is that the plan all along had to be kill him and I applaud that decision. They could have captured him and brought him back for a "trial." To "bring him to justice" here in the US. They were smart enough not to do that as under the US system of justice it would have been a circus not to mention all the security risks and expense. I don't give any credit to the administration for making the decision to go after him. Once they determined he was there they had to go after him becuse as leaky as Washington DC is, the word would have gotten out and the name of the administration would have been mud.

 

[parsifal]

Ren

I hope for our sakes that it was not a summary execution as you are suggesting. The one big difference between us and the terrorists is that we do not succumb to summary justice, except when it is absolutely necessary. Every man, even Obi Wan Bin Laden is entitled to a fair trial if they choose to surrender, or not resist. That is one of the basic freedoms that we are fighting for here. If we are forced to give that up then we are no better than the terrorists we are fighting. What you are suggesting is that murder was the first option, rather than the last, which is exactly what Bin Ladens followers advocate. Kill first, without resorting to debate or a fair trial.

As for your comments about how it is not possible to put Bin Laden on trial in the US, well thats a function of the US refusal to ratify the Hague International Court of Justice. And it is a failure of the Hague to properly deal with prisoners in its jurisdiction......

If the US was a signatory to the Hague Court, it would have been a very simple matter to refer Bin Laden, and all the other terrorists to the Hague for a fair trial, using international law as the basis for conviction. Last time i looked, acts of terrorism qualified as a crime against humanity, and liable to incarceration for a long time. Not quite the death penalty that you Texans are so enamoured to, but international justice nevertheless, for an international crime. There were Australians killed in attack on the twin Towers, and where is our justice if Bin Laden is executed without trial by Americans unwilling to follow the rule of law.

I am the first to admit that the system of international justice is far from perfect, and frustrating in its administration. Its slow and not under our direct control, a certain diconnect that many nationalists find disconcerting. And yet its the only lawful way that we have to deal with criminals like Bin Laden. Otherise we have this legal gordion knot that has so enveloped the US since the beginning....how do you try someone who has committed a crime outside your national jurisdiction....simple answer is you cannot, unless you set up an international system of justice for certain crimes.

 

[javlin]

If the US was a signatory to the Hague Court, it would have been a very simple matter to refer Bin Laden, and all the other terrorists to the Hague for a fair trial, using international law as the basis for conviction.

Getting on a touchy subject when you star talking about about a world court.Many myself includes do not want an outside justice system meddling within our own system of justice.As far as many in this country once the man confessed on video why do you need a court.Justice served.

 

[parsifal]

If the man resisted the use of force to apprehend him that just happened to result in his death whilst that arrest was occurring is just collateral damage. Tough luck in my opinion.

If however he offered no real resistance, and they killed him anyway, then we have lost something our fathers and grandfathers fought for. Our fathers were faced with the same situation at the end of WWII, but by the dint of perserverance, all the difficulties and frustrations of the international system of justice were overcome, and the chief nazi perpetrators and culprits were brought to justice. That was probably the most important outcome of WWII, the realization that we could no longer exist as separate sovereign states, to a degree we had to learn to mete justice out at an international level, at least for certain crimes. some crimes transcend national borders, both legally and morally. That was precisely the argument that George Bush put when he appealed for help in Iraq and other places. And he was right. We are all confronted with terrorism as a problem. There were many countries who suffered losses from the Septmber 11 attacks not just the US. There should have been a universal effort to eradicate the problem, sad truth is, only some countries responded to the call. However, to try and claim sole US jurisdiction to an international criminal, and to apply US justice at the exclusion of all the other contributory nations, when those nations were asked to provide assistance to the US to capture this ferret, and then deny our justifiable calls for justice for our fallen countrymen, is to treat us with extreme disregard. What justice is there for Australians who have fallen, if the US is going to exclude us from the processes of international law to deal with this character. If the ICC had been reconfigured to deal with this clown retrospectively, and he had been handed over to the ICC, ther would have been symbolic justice for all, and Bin Laden could not continue to be used as the pin up martyr boy for the jihadist nutters out there.

 

[GrauGeist]

Well said, parsifal.

Bin Ladin's attack on 9/11 was aimed at the United States, but was intended to "teach the west a lesson" and claimed the lives from many different nationalities in the process. That in itself should make any person involved in the attack an international fugitive from justice.

 

[javlin]

Alright it's WWII and some Allies are coming upon a concentration camp that the Axis are still moving people into the ovens as the Allies approach(fiction).Now the said Axis fight some and some surrender but there are thousands upon thousand dead.Deal justice to those who surrendered are turn them over to MP's and a court maybe a year or two later.Really save me the breath.Give the guns to encampments and let them deal justice as they see fit.I am sure the oven for there old captors is looking quite appealing.Though different not so different.

 

[renrich]

It seems clear to me, from the reports, that Bin Laden offered no resistance and could have been captured and brought back to the US. He was executed on the spot. The decision to execute him was, no doubt, largely a political decision. Make no mistake that obama and his henchmen are focused only on one goal and that is his reelection. Every move they make now is governed by what is politically helpful. A long drawn out trial with all the furor associated, lasting long after the election in 2012 and probably ending with Bin Laden spending his life in jail, was not politically acceptable, regardless of legal and moral niceties. There would have been many ramifications of a trial, too many to contemplate here. It is over now and obama can, rightly or wrongly, bask in the glow that his administration "hunted down and disposed of the most wanted man on earth."

One part of the UBL raid that was really screwed up and perhaps was not the fault of obama and company directly was to equate UBL with Geronimo. Geronimo was an Apache chief who led the US Army a merry chase in the late 19th century. He and his band were responsible for the deaths of a number of people who lived on the frontier but the Apaches along with many other Amerindian tribes were badly treated by various US administrations and there is plenty of blame to go around for all involved in the Apache-United States disagreement. To compare UBL to Geronimo is to prove how ignorant most Americans are concerning the history of our country whether it was the US Military who chose the name or the obama administration who allowed the choice of the name.

 

[parsifal]

Alright it's WWII and some Allies are coming upon a concentration camp that the Axis are still moving people into the ovens as the Allies approach(fiction).Now the said Axis fight some and some surrender but there are thousands upon thousand dead.Deal justice to those who surrendered are turn them over to MP's and a court maybe a year or two later.Really save me the breath.Give the guns to encampments and let them deal justice as they see fit.I am sure the oven for there old captors is looking quite appealing.Though different not so different.

Perhaps a better analogy would be to ask how things would go down if the SAS had managed to penetrate Hitlers bunker in 1943, and hitler had offered surrender. Could the SAS have observed the geneva convention and taken him prisoner....probably not.

In the case of bin laden, a lot depends on the circumstances. if the SEALs had gotten him quietly, and ther was no significant threat in the immediate area, they should have taken hi alive. but there are a lot of ifs there, and facts are, it is unlikley that such opportunity was ever there. They probably resisted a bit, made a bit of a fraccus, woke up the locals a bit. The SEALs probably needed to make a quick decision, and they made it. On that basis they were entirely justified in executing him.

The only point I want to make is it would have been prefereable to take him alive if possible, But the chances of that occurring would be very low in my opinion

 

[renrich]

It is extremely naive to believe that the Seals did not go in to kill bin laden. I just outlined why it was necessary to kill him. They were on the ground and in the house for a long time, forty minutes, collecting material. It is said that the amount of material, records, computer stuff is huge. There was no reason why he could not have been captured and removed just as his body was removed. Perhaps, it is difficult for somone who does not live in the US to understand the political climate here.

 

[razor1uk]

I'd like to wish health swift recovery along the Misassippi before flaming begins.

Osama is alledgedly dead, he doesn't deserve thinking about, he was/had been CIA, he helped 'market' and encourage the vulnrable, religious idiots, and public opinions tha killing is cool.

As for the rule of intanational law, supposedly you either do follow or you don't, although some play both sides of that line - deje vu?

 

[michaelmaltby]

".... it would have been prefereable to take him alive if possible."

And do WHAT with him? I see the lawyers lining up.

MM

 

[parsifal]

so, mm, you prefer summary justice to a lawful process. You seem to be saying thats a preferable outcome over bringing him to trial. Why is he any different to any of the other dirtbags we have seen over the last 100 years. Guess that means we should have shot all the nazis.....all 70 million of them, at the end of the war. Or the British should have just taken Gandhi out the back and shot him for the terrorist he was.....in their eyes.....

This is a very disturbing and dangerous precedent you are advocating. all I would say is careful what you wish for

 

[Messy1]

He was wanted dead or alive wasn't he?

 

[parsifal]

so were many of the nazis....they still received a fair trial. Being wanted dead or alive is different to taking him alive and then just executing him.

Dead or alive means his captors are authorized to use deadly force if he resists.if he doesnt resist duting capture, then no, they are not authorized to shoot him just because they want to.

There is nothing wrong with what happened, so long as he was not just executed on the spot after surrender. if he surrendered, and they killed him anyway, we have turned a corner and are heading south

 

[michaelmaltby]

Nice rebuttal Parsifal but you side-stepped the question "And do WHAT with him?"

Any actual thoughts or just bromides about "summary justice"? I'm always careful what I wish for.

MM

 

[parsifal]

The problem for the US as I see it is that they have withdrawn from the international system of justice, and Bin Laden did not carry out any crimes within the US jurisdiction. He got proxies to do the dirty work for him.

IMO the only way that Bin Laden could have been put on trial effectively would be in an international forum, for crimes against humanity....but that would require a fundamental recognition by the US as to the authority and legitimacy of the ICC. That was extremely unlikely to happen, so there we are with an intractable problem as to what to do legally with him....We end up with a Guantanamo solution, which Obama has also put the kybosh on.....so really there was nowhere to go with Bin Laden.

Both sides of US politics are to blame for that....which is as far as I dare go with the political issue.

In the end, something had to be done about the legal mess before apprehending this loser. To that extent you are spot on, I should concede that. But does our legal incompetence justify breaking the law. I say no to be honest....the principals of fairness and basic freedoms is more important than the principal of summary justice for those who died September 11 and since