U.S. says bin Laden was lawful military target

C

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
U.S. says bin Laden was lawful military target

ABBOTTABAD/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States said on Wednesday that killing al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was an act of national self-defense, countering allegations the raid by U.S. commandos on his Pakistani hide-out was illegal.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said bin Laden was a legitimate military target and he had made no attempt to surrender to the American forces that stormed his fortified compound near Islamabad on Monday, and shot him in the head.

"It was justified as an act of national self-defense," Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee, citing bin Laden's admission of being involved in the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.

It was lawful to target bin Laden because he was the enemy commander in the field and the operation was conducted in a way that was consistent with U.S. laws and values, he said, adding that it was a "kill or capture mission."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110504/wl_nm/us_obama_statement

i fully support the take down of osama....but i'm curious what US laws are consistent with our going into a sovereign country and killing osama and others? didn't italy try and convict some CIA members for kidnapping an AQ member? what US laws allow us to go into pakistan as we did?
 
I'm prob the most anti-war poster here, and I'm lovin the Seal double shot to go as much as anyone.

Why would any country, much less any band of too poor for a camel fools fuck with the USA.
 
Yurt said:
ok....but what US law allows us to enter a sovereign country and conduct such an operation?
Click to expand...

The USC gives us warmaking authority by establishing the armed forces and the CINC. Other than Congress declaring war and controlling spending, it doesn't really specify what we can do with them. I imagine that since the USC guarantees the states a republican form of government, and established a republic, that we should avoid empire building and conquest as much as possible.
 
King of Kings said:
The USC gives us warmaking authority by establishing the armed forces and the CINC. Other than Congress declaring war and controlling spending, it doesn't really specify what we can do with them. I imagine that since the USC guarantees the states a republican form of government, and established a republic, that we should avoid empire building and conquest as much as possible.
Click to expand...

so we declared war on pakistan?
 
NigelTufnel said:
I believe the Authorization to Use Military Force passed in 2001 covers this.
Click to expand...

does appear you are right

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
Click to expand...

with a broad reading i can see how this could give us authority as the force is "all necessary and appropriate", given it could be easily argued a part or a whole of pakistan's government harbored him....
 
Bin Laden death prompts questions about legality

GENEVA (AP) — The legality of U.S. forces shooting an unarmed Osama bin Laden hinges on a highly contentious and long-debated question: Is anti-terrorism part of a military campaign or a law-enforcement effort?

In war, enemy combatants who don't explicitly surrender are considered legitimate targets, international experts said. Bin Laden's killing in a military context would be legal under the scenario officially put out by the White House Wednesday — that bin Laden was unarmed but tried to resist being taken in.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-05-04-bin-laden-international-law_n.htm

this is an interesting issue. i am of the opinion that international terrorism (a la bin laden) is not a police action, rather a military action under the geneva convention. however, what about richard reid? he was handled as a police action. timothy mcveigh was handled the same way. probably because they was on american soil. if bin hiden was on american soil....would that make action against him police action?

the article discusses how experts are in widespread disagreement and perhaps rightly so. reid and mcveigh were not part of a military "army" (group). they were just wackos that acted alone (maybe reid) or acted with a few other nutters (mcveigh). whereas bin hiden is in charge of a military group that has no country or uniform if you will. he is without a doubt a soldier and he has never let anyone forget this. he declared war on our entire country, not just some radical "war" against the government...but - declared war - and he was the de facto king, leader whatever, thereby, making him a proper military target and not a police action.
 
Wow, my first thought was, this is a no duh moment....

Osama declared war on the US, directing groups of soldiers in attacks against our nation. He is a valid military target. That being said, it appears more and more as if the Osama mission was basically an assassination. That guy wasn't going to be captured, they went there to do one thing and they did it.

A cool part: That helicopter they burned... It was one of the new Stealth Blackhawks. Very cool. They released that info a bit ago. I heard about these things, you can't hear them until they are right on you, and radar has a hard time with them. Very, very cool stuff.
 
Yurt said:
ok....but what US law allows us to enter a sovereign country and conduct such an operation?
Click to expand...

the unwritten and illegitmiate, yet still sanctioned, law from the USSC that says they have no jurisdiction over what the federal government does outside the united states.
 
I don't recall Yurt being so concerned with law when Bush Jr invaded Iraq? Could it be he changed, or another filter now covers his eyes, or maybe reality takes on difference shades of reality dependent on politics? Weird how things become different things.
 
Michael Moore say's it was a flat out execution.

I as far left as this board has, and I propose a cage match between me and Michael Moore.
Proceeds going to the 9/11 victims kids.
That would make for a nice sequal to sicko, "An inside look at healthcare from a beaten down douche nozzle".
 
Topspin said:
Michael Moore say's it was a flat out execution.

I as far left as this board has, and I propose a cage match between me and Michael Moore.
Proceeds going to the 9/11 victims kids.
That would make for a nice sequal to sicko, "An inside look at healthcare from a beaten down douche nozzle".
Click to expand...

Topper's fantasy world images are making my brain imaging system sick. I don't ever want to "see" an image of Michael Moore in a wrestling outfit ever again. Quit it. Where's the brain soap?
 
midcan5 said:
I don't recall Yurt being so concerned with law when Bush Jr invaded Iraq? Could it be he changed, or another filter now covers his eyes, or maybe reality takes on difference shades of reality dependent on politics? Weird how things become different things.
Click to expand...

apples/oranges...congress gave authority and bush using his constitutional powers invaded iraq. completely different situation, but no surprising you don't know the difference.

and i'm sure onceler will not come along and bash you for making that kind of comment because you're a lefty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top