News Was Killing Osama Legal? European Debate

[Hurkyl]

But this is a totally hypocritical point of view for an American to take. Your country formed because you were pissed off with a bigger, stronger nation forcing its laws upon you. Now you are doing the same, claiming that US law holds outside of US territory.

Erm, how is it hypocritical? It looks to me like you are arguing a strawman -- I never saw Russ claim, for example, that Britain's laws obligated it to obey colonial laws and degrees.

 

[cristo]

Erm, how is it hypocritical? It looks to me like you are arguing a strawman -- I never saw Russ claim, for example, that Britain's laws obligated it to obey colonial laws and degrees.

But you didn't agree with British laws. Now you're doing the same thing to the rest of the world as Britain did to you. That's not hypocritical?

 

[drankin]

But you didn't agree with British laws. Now you're doing the same thing to the rest of the world as Britain did to you. That's not hypocritical?

Exactly, how are we doing this? I don't see the analogy.

 

[JaredJames]

I think the general point from Cristo is:

The British imposed their rule over various countries.

Colonialists didn't like it. They revolted and formed America.

America is now imposing it's rule on other countries how it sees fit.

Statements such as the following support that and show people in America think it's right (the 'we do what we like' attitude):

Yes, that's exactly right, and our law is the only law that matters. The U.S. President is necessarily never bound by any foreign law, as far as his official duties are concerned. His loyalty must lie with the U.S. exclusively.

Its not arrogant, it's a practical necessity and a reality. The US does not belong to a body such as the EU and any treaty has to be ratified: like it or not, we are subject only to the international laws we say we're subject to. It would kinda defeat the purpose of a government by and for the people of the US if we were subject to foreign laws...and by the way, that has nothing whatsoever to do with that movie!

(And then continue to bang on about how they beat the British out of America because they didn't want to be subject to their rule... )

 

[Evo]

Trying to bring this back on track. Why don't we focus on the actual circumstances. Pakistan is supposed to be our ally in getting rid of terrorists. We do have special ops troops there, we recently took out a top level Al-Qaida operative in Pakistan with a drone. What is our agreement with Pakistan?

 

[JaredJames]

Would we have done the same if we found out Bin Laden was in a villa in France?

Well it's not like they'd put up a fight...

 

[drankin]

I think the general point from Cristo is:

The British imposed their rule over various countries.

Colonialists didn't like it. They revolted and formed America.

America is now imposing it's rule on other countries how it sees fit.

Statements such as the following support that and show people in America think it's right (the 'we do what we like' attitude):



(And then continue to bang on about how they beat the British out of America because they didn't want to be subject to their rule... )

I see the point but it doesn't apply in our attack on OBL. I think most Americans would agree that we spend too much in the affairs in other countries. But, we aren't making them part of the US and imposing taxes or "ruling" them. If anything, we're giving them too much money and expecting them to actually do something productive with it. The parallel isn't there.

 

[turbo]

Trying to bring this back on track. Why don't we focus on the actual circumstances. Pakistan is supposed to be our ally in getting rid of terrorists. We do have special ops troops there, we recently took out a top level Al-Qaida operative in Pakistan with a drone. What is our agreement with Pakistan?

It is probably a lot more complex than our diplomats can let on. If our intelligence and diplomatic communities were confident of the discretion and honesty of their Pakistani counterparts, wouldn't they have let our "ally" in on the intelligence and the actual operation?

In addition, the Pakistani leadership may agree to look the other way, to provide a cover of credible deniability, because the US is so unpopular in their country. We will probably never know the details.

 

[Hurkyl]

But you didn't agree with British laws. Now you're doing the same thing to the rest of the world as Britain did to you. That's not hypocritical?

Nope. It would only be hypocritical if Russ condemned Britain for doing so. (This post makes no comment on the accuracy of your summary of Russ's statement)

(Well, there's another technicality -- it's not hypocritical if both Britain and America are being held to some particular standard, and when Britian did the thing it violated that standard but when America did the thing it did not violate the standard)

 

[Evo]

It is probably a lot more complex than our diplomats can let on. If our intelligence and diplomatic communities were confident of the discretion and honesty of their Pakistani counterparts, wouldn't they have let our "ally" in on the intelligence and the actual operation?

In addition, the Pakistani leadership may agree to look the other way, to provide a cover of credible deniability, because the US is so unpopular in their country. We will probably never know the details.

Yes, to think it's cut and dried with Pakistan involved and the situation there, it will be a long time before we truly know the details.

 

[AlephZero]

It would kinda defeat the purpose of a government by and for the people of the US if we were subject to foreign laws...and by the way, that has nothing whatsoever to do with that movie!

Does the US recognize the concept of "international law"? It would seem hypocritical for the US to remain a member of the the UN Security Council or to continue taking part in the World Trade Organization if it doesn't.

 

[drankin]

Does the US recognize the concept of "international law"? It would seem hypocritical for the US to remain a member of the the UN Security Council or to continue taking part in the World Trade Organization if it doesn't.

What particular international law are you referring to?

 

[Vanadium 50]

We have some "pundits" in the US saying that the killing was illegal, too. Not surprisingly, such claims have been made on FOX. If this "illegal" raid had been carried out under "W", they would have been over the Moon with joy. IMO, if Obama had rescued a cute puppy from a burning building, the FOX loons would find a way to slam him for that. Please consider the sources.

You mean arch-conservatives like Michael Moore reported on by radical right websites like the Huffington Post? Those sources?

I think this is futile to discuss. One needs the facts to make a judgment, and at the moment, all we know is that at least N-1 of the N reported stories of what happened are false. Second, what is legal and what is not is ultimately determined by a court of law, and I cannot see anyone with standing initiating a legal action. If Anwat Al-Awlaki's (a US citizen selected for "targeted killing") father doesn't have standing, who does?

 

[Proton Soup]

Does the US recognize the concept of "international law"? It would seem hypocritical for the US to remain a member of the the UN Security Council or to continue taking part in the World Trade Organization if it doesn't.

being on the security council means that you have a veto and aren't accountable.

 

[turbo]

You mean arch-conservatives like Michael Moore reported on by radical right websites like the Huffington Post? Those sources?

It is quite disingenuous to suggest that people on opposite ends of the political spectrum cannot come to a common conclusion regarding a political situation. FOX tries to create the impression that all other media sources are liberal, and only they are the only purveyors of the truth. That's a false dichotomy that no rational person should buy.

The perception (blind belief, if you wish) that the major TV networks (all owned by large corporations, BTW) all conspire to present progressive/liberal views on their news programs is illogical on the face of it. I think we all know better.

 

[Drakkith]

Lets get this straight. The US military taking down a terrorist target inside another country is NOTHING like a sovereign country imposing its own laws against its own citizens. So stop with the comparisons. We aren't imposing our laws on Pakistan, at worst we simply violated the sovereignty of their nation by performing this raid. Not the same.

The legality of Osama Bin Laden being killed is still questionable under US and other laws. Unfortunently we will have to wait and hope the real story is released before we can make any sense of this. Was he armed at the time? Put up any resistance? Was the team supposed to kill him, or try to take him into custody? ETC.

Either way, I for one will NOT be shedding any tears over the death of this man.

 

[Al68]

Historically, I think every news source has had some small amount of bias, but in recent times it has exploded. And now liberals have MSNBC and conservatives have FOX and the biases are a lot more clear.

That's a very important distinction, and you're exactly right: the biases are a lot more clear. Hannity, etc do not hide their biases. This is a huge contrast to the insidious hidden bias of the past with the big three networks. Many people who watched Dan Rather in his heyday had no idea whatsoever that they were hearing only one side of the story being accurately represented, while the other side was grotesquely misrepresented, either purposely or due to an honest lack of comprehension by journalists.

But, as I've mentioned before, whenever I heard Dan Rather 20 years ago, I fantasized about how he would look with a grid of little circles on his forehead from the brick I wanted to throw through my TV set.

 

[WhoWee]

Lets get this straight. The US military taking down a terrorist target inside another country is NOTHING like a sovereign country imposing its own laws against its own citizens. So stop with the comparisons. We aren't imposing our laws on Pakistan, at worst we simply violated the sovereignty of their nation by performing this raid. Not the same.

The legality of Osama Bin Laden being killed is still questionable under US and other laws. Unfortunently we will have to wait and hope the real story is released before we can make any sense of this. Was he armed at the time? Put up any resistance? Was the team supposed to kill him, or try to take him into custody? ETC.

Either way, I for one will NOT be shedding any tears over the death of this man.

Has President Obama invited this type of scrutiny and second guessing onto himself by releasing? Why does he continue to release information about the operation?

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_operation

I've seen people drive 66 mph in a 65 mph zone. That is against the law, but the chances of getting caught are slim. Maybe, or maybe not, Obama chose to take the risk of not getting caught (now where again is that court house which prosecutes US war presidents?)

 

[Amp1]

Whowee,

Everyone from journalist to voyeurists wants to know the story. Obama was on 60 minutes Mother's Day giving as detailed and complete a summery as possible an yet there will still be those claiming he didn't tell enough.

 

[amwest]

We have some "pundits" in the US saying that the killing was illegal, too. Not surprisingly, such claims have been made on FOX. If this "illegal" raid had been carried out under "W", they would have been over the Moon with joy. IMO, if Obama had rescued a cute puppy from a burning building, the FOX loons would find a way to slam him for that. Please consider the sources.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/04/shep-smith-bin-laden-illegal_n_857356.html

I don't know what was more painful, reading the comments or the article! I do think it is a relivent question even though just about every media outlet smears anyone that asks it. watch anyone else on Fox and you will get hellfire sermons about how we can do anything we want to militarily. Plus all the other fake media sources seem to get irritated when this question is asked.

 

[amwest]

But this is a totally hypocritical point of view for an American to take. Your country formed because you were pissed off with a bigger, stronger nation forcing its laws upon you. Now you are doing the same, claiming that US law holds outside of US territory.

SHUT UP! Some one order a an assin...Stratigic strike against Cristo!

you can't let my fellow Americans know about their history! it will ruin the whole debate!

 

[amwest]

I think the real question is did we break a treaty with Pakistan? in that sense we probably did violate US law.

Another question to ask, did we make the right choice? if we could have captured UBL should we have. Showing that our justice system is above petty murder. this is the argument being put forth by a very few shunned journalists.

 

[Al68]

Another question to ask, did we make the right choice? if we could have captured UBL should we have. Showing that our justice system is above petty murder. this is the argument being put forth by a very few shunned journalists.

They should be shunned, if they think our justice system had any involvement, or if they think killing UBL was petty.

 

[amwest]

So we should be shunned for openly questioning what the boundries of our values are and if we may have steped over them in our anger and outrage? I'm not questioning if our outrage was justified, just the notion that we cannot question our own actions. The idea that we can't take a look at ourselves in the mirror during hard times and ask if we could have done something different is horrindious to me. We should always strive to be more noble not just stronger.

 

[Al68]

So we should be shunned for openly questioning what the boundries of our values are and if we may have steped over them in our anger and outrage?

Nope. That's very different from what I said those journalists should be shunned for.

 

[amwest]

Nope. That's very different from what I said those journalists should be shunned for.

I guess i didn't understand what you are saying the journalists should be shunned for then. I know I'm not alsways clear about what or how i state things as well, which is why i normally don't post in blogs. Here, the people so far seem to be much more constructive in their critizisms.

 

[Ryumast3r]

I think the real question is did we break a treaty with Pakistan? in that sense we probably did violate US law.

Another question to ask, did we make the right choice? if we could have captured UBL should we have. Showing that our justice system is above petty murder. this is the argument being put forth by a very few shunned journalists.

If we broke the treaty with Pakistan, they also broke it by housing the terrorist a couple blocks from a major military training facility.

Maybe they had direct orders to kill, but maybe those orders assumed he'd be armed?

Also, do we try OBL here in America where he never set foot in before, wasn't here where he committed the crime, or do we try him in Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia (his home country), or do we try him in Afghanistan? Or, even still, do we try him in the world court for crimes against humanity/etc/etc.

Do we try him in all the countries? What if he gets the death sentence in one or two or three and only life in prison in the others?

Given the choice I would make the same decision the SEALs did and just kill him.

 

[vertices]

Lets get this straight. The US military taking down a terrorist target inside another country is NOTHING like a sovereign country imposing its own laws against its own citizens. So stop with the comparisons. We aren't imposing our laws on Pakistan, at worst we simply violated the sovereignty of their nation by performing this raid. Not the same.

We only went and "violated the sovereignty of their nation by performing this raid". No biggie. Can you see nothing wrong with this?

The legality of Osama Bin Laden being killed is still questionable under US and other laws. Unfortunently we will have to wait and hope the real story is released before we can make any sense of this. Was he armed at the time? Put up any resistance? Was the team supposed to kill him, or try to take him into custody? ETC.

Either way, I for one will NOT be shedding any tears over the death of this man.

Well it turns out the SEALS faced minimal resistance from OBL - they could have taken him alive. In civilised countries we afford everyone (even sick monsters like child rapists) due process - this is such an elementary principle.

A country that takes part in Extra-judicial Assassination, which let's face it, is on par with absolutely heinous things like "enhanced interrogation" (aka state sanctioned torture) and extraordinary rendition (state sanctioned abduction), should have the decency never to talk about things like human rights, democracy, freedom and other such highfalutin ideals.

Unfortunately Obama has stooped to the level of Al Qaeda by killing OBL, and this to me is a far more pertinent issue...

 

[WhoWee]

We only went and "violated the sovereignty of their nation by performing this raid". No biggie. Can you see nothing wrong with this?



Well it turns out the SEALS faced minimal resistance from OBL - they could have taken him alive. In civilised countries we afford everyone (even sick monsters like child rapists) due process - this is such an elementary principle.

A country that takes part in Extra-judicial Assassination, which let's face it, is on par with absolutely heinous things like "enhanced interrogation" (aka state sanctioned torture) and extraordinary rendition (state sanctioned abduction), should have the decency never to talk about things like human rights, democracy, freedom and other such highfalutin ideals.

Unfortunately Obama has stooped to the level of Al Qaeda by killing OBL, and this to me is a far more pertinent issue...

Didn't THIS animal declare war on the US?