News Was Killing Osama Legal? European Debate

[Ryumast3r]

It is not "reasonable" to think that a terrorist would grab for weapons when he is surrounded by commandos. There is much speculation here going on.

How isn't that reasonable? If I were a terrorist and there were a bunch of guys with guns, and I knew for sure I'd be shot (cmon... if you honestly didn't think we'd shoot the guy you must have been living in a dream), I'd reach for a gun, a knife, a wooden stick, anything.

As for the guy who claimed that killing Osama, if unarmed, wouldn't be murder: First of all there is a difference between lucking out and managing to shoot down an important enemy transport air-plane, as in the case of Yamatoto,

We knew he was in that plane. We targeted it for that reason. We'd been hunting him ever since the war started and actively tried to find/kill him.

... and unlawfully murdering unarmed combatants (like what possibly happened to Osama) who do not resist. The UN human rights charter applies even to terrorists.

A conventional terrorist yes, but a conventional terrorist Osama was not. He actively DECLARED WAR. The UN Human Rights Charter applies to everyone, yes, but so does the Army Field Manual, and the laws of combat. If he had OPENLY SURRENDERED then it would go to the UN H.R.C., but he didn't openly surrender, so the team shot him.

Oh, and no the Pakistani sovereignty would not be violated by drone strikes if the Pakistani government allowed the drone strikes in the first place..

They've argued that it violates their sovereignty.

With the secret police of the US I meant the CIA. Obviously every country have shady secret service agencies, but they aren't quite at the level of the CIA which kidnaps other nations' citizens and brings them to Guantanamo bay where the prisoners are tortured

They WERE tortured. Torture has since been ended. It wasn't really started until recently either. The CIA might be the biggest, but face it, the US also has the largest military, the single largest economy, etc. It wasn't just the CIA that worked on finding him though. It was the collaboration of many intelligence agencies and many other groups of people that finally found Osama.

Also, many other intelligence agencies do the same things the CIA does, and at the same level where they take citizens and torture them. Not saying it makes the CIA better, just saying that the CIA isn't the only one.

 

[Nikitin]

Guys you are misunderstanding the point. It is one thing ambushing a soldier and killing him, it is another thing killing a man who is safely cornered and unarmed (allegedly) like Osama was. That's called murder.

What law? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#International_law And US laws or regulations are completely irrelevant, there is no point in citing them.

Besides, as I said, attacking Osama's compound was illegal in the first place because it violated Pakistani sovereignty.

 

[DR13]

Guys you are misunderstanding the point. It is one thing ambushing a soldier and killing him, it is another thing killing a man who is safely cornered and unarmed (allegedly) like Osama was. That's called murder.

What law? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#International_law And US laws or regulations are completely irrelevant, there is no point in citing them.

Besides, as I said, attacking Osama's compound was illegal in the first place because it violated Pakistani sovereignty.

First off, I do not think we violated UN Human Rights Law. We killed a leader who declared war on us. Leaders are rarely armed (look at generals in modern armies) yet they are still targets. And again, please show me where it is illegal to violate sovereignty. Plus, OBL was a common enemy between US and Pakistan.

 

[WhoWee]

Guys you are misunderstanding the point. It is one thing ambushing a soldier and killing him, it is another thing killing a man who is safely cornered and unarmed (allegedly) like Osama was. That's called murder.

What law? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#International_law And US laws or regulations are completely irrelevant, there is no point in citing them.

Besides, as I said, attacking Osama's compound was illegal in the first place because it violated Pakistani sovereignty.

I'm going to re-post my earlier comment.

"Again, Bin Laden declared war on the US - probably not a good idea to ignore such a declaration or to act accordingly?
http://articles.cnn.com/2002-08-19/u...osama?_s=PM:US

"By God's grace," bin Laden says on the tape, "we have formed with many other Islamic groups and organizations in the Islamic world a front called the International Islamic Front to do jihad against the crusaders and Jews."]

""And by God's grace," he says at another point in the tape, "the men ... are going to have a successful result in killing Americans and getting rid of them."

CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen, who interviewed bin Laden a year earlier, believes the tape depicts a key moment for al Qaeda.

"They're going public," Bergen said. "They're saying, 'We're having this war against the United States.'"

Accompanying bin Laden on the video are Ayman Al-Zawahiri, bin Laden's right-hand man and inspirational ally, and military adviser Mohammad Atef, who died last November in coalition bombing.

Although a select group of Pakistani journalists and one Chinese writer were invited to witness as al Qaeda launched its jihad on the West, the event never got wide exposure because no independent videotaping was allowed.""

Bin Laden not only declared war on the West - he called for another Crusade!

 

[BobG]

Are you ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN nobody in the Pakistani Government was informed of the mission?

The case they did:

Pakistan does have an air defense system, even if its main purpose is to defend against attack from India. How likely is it that drones provided surveillance of the bin Laden compound for some time during the planning for attack and that five helicopters sneak into Pakistan airspace with no one shooting anything down?

The case they didn't:

In truth, there's been a very soft arms embargo against both India and Pakistan since they conducted nuclear tests (with the emphasis on very soft) until Pakistan committed itself to joining the fight against terror; at which point it became easier for both Pakistan and India to purchase weapon systems. While both were able to obtain some weapons and Pakistan was able to even upgrade its existing air defense system, Pakistan's air defense system isn't among the strongest systems in the world (Iraq, Serbs, and Libya all had better air defense systems than Pakistan).

Additionally, Pakistan's main threat is from India and the strength of their air defense system has been deployed to protect against them; not against Afghanistan (although there have been rumors that Pakistan has or has at least intended to install an air defense system to protect the Afghanistan border against drones - having US military aid go towards protecting the border from US drone attacks would be ironic, if it actually happened).

Pakistan purchased a modern air defense system from Italy and tested it in 2010, but it hasn't come online operationally, yet.

Additionally, http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2015080215_osama18.html and jamming to evade air defense systems. Perhaps even the stealth helicopter part is true.

The case they did know:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j4aFfZLzYXbu_7f0iiGIK2j__w8w?docId=ff7559705a6248f2a1211a3395df148e of the downed helicopter to the US rather than keep it to analyze the US's stealth helicopter technology or to allow other nations to analyze it.

Drones have been violating Pakistan's airspace for years - a condition that's seen as preferable to having Pakistan's borders violated by actual people on the ground.

There's just no way to really know.

Having Pakistan's leaders deny knowledge of the attack instead of share credit for the attack does seem like the more damaging path. It humiliates Pakistan's military - one of the few Pakistani institutions that has credibility with Pakistan residents. On the other hand, money from the US for weapons is quickly rectifying any weaknesses in Pakistan's air defenses, so any humliation of the military will be short lived.

I think sharing responsibility for the raid also carries a serious backlash for the Pakistani government and perhaps that really would be the more serious (or at least more violent) reaction.

To me, there's just too much "magic dust" used in this raid for Pakistan's denials of knowledge to be enitirely credible, but, like I said, there's just no way to really know.

 

[Al68]

Too me, there's just too much "magic dust" used in this raid for Pakistan's denials of knowledge to be enitirely credible, but, like I said, there's just no way to really know.

Whether or not Pakistan knew about this specific operation in advance, I think it's safe to say that the general issue of killing OBL in Pakistan, if we found him there, was discussed with them years ago, and probably again after President Obama took office.

Whether they consented or not is unclear, but I'm sure Pakistan's leaders were never under the delusional impression that we would not take the opportunity if we got it. I think Obama's (very good) decision to use such a small operation instead of a massive bombing was the only real surprise to Pakistan's leaders.

 

[BobG]

I also kind of wondered what the chances were of the helicopter basically crashing and no one being injured. It seems to me that if anything happens to the tail rotor, then really bad things would start to happen really quick. Those main rotors generate an awful lot of torque!

In reality, I guess helicopter crashes aren't quite as dangerous as I would have thought. Looking at the http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/Hearing-HEMS/NTSB-2009-8a-Blumen-revised-final-version.pdf (several slides down since they don't number their slides), only about 37% of helicopter crashes result in fatalities. Since 1972, 42% of occupants in a helicopter crash escape with no injuries and about 56% escape with no injuries or only minor injuries. Between '98 and '08, those percentages were about 48% and 58%.

 

[Ryumast3r]

I also kind of wondered what the chances were of the helicopter basically crashing and no one being injured. It seems to me that if anything happens to the tail rotor, then really bad things would start to happen really quick. Those main rotors generate an awful lot of torque!

In reality, I guess helicopter crashes aren't quite as dangerous as I would have thought. Looking at the http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/Hearing-HEMS/NTSB-2009-8a-Blumen-revised-final-version.pdf (several slides down since they don't number their slides), only about 37% of helicopter crashes result in fatalities. Since 1972, 42% of occupants in a helicopter crash escape with no injuries and about 56% escape with no injuries or only minor injuries. Between '98 and '08, those percentages were about 48% and 58%.

And those aren't even people trained to jump out of planes, or go through water, or roll off buildings, or be a one-man-army like the SEALs.

 

[Nikitin]

I don't understand why you keep saying that Osama was an enemy of the US? Ofcourse he was an enemy of the US, but this doesn't change the fact that killing unarmed and cornered men is murder.

It is VERY illegal to disrespect another nation's sovereignty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_VII_of_the_United_Nations_Charter

bobg: why'd the US tell Pakistan everything it does? Why'd they need drones anyway to survey the compound? the US military has always had a presence in Pakistan.

I believe parts of the Pakistani government at first claimed that they cooperated with the US and assassinated Osama together. Still, the Pakistani gov officially says that their sovereignty was violated.

 

[drankin]

It is VERY illegal to disrespect another nation's sovereignty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_VII_of_the_United_Nations_Charter

This doesn't apply. Please cite how it does. Pakistan was not attacked by the US. In fact, it could be said that the Charter supports the action:

Article 42

"Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations."

 

[Al68]

I don't understand why you keep saying that Osama was an enemy of the US? Ofcourse he was an enemy of the US, but this doesn't change the fact that killing unarmed and cornered men is murder.

It's an issue of semantics, not facts, whether to choose to use the word murder to mean the killing of an enemy in war. I never have, and I think historically, the definition of the word murder doesn't include such acts, regardless of circumstances. It has nothing to do with whether or not the killing is right or wrong, and like I said it's an issue of semantics, but it just seems very odd to me to refer to such an act as "murder", even under an assumption that the act is wrong.

 

[Nikitin]

Sovereignty in itself is in part defined as the permission of the governing body to do what it pleases to its territory, as long as it isn't illegal.

The US is not the governing body of Pakistan and thus it CANNOT do what it pleases. The UN itself is based on respect for state sovereignty.

 

[Evo]

This thread is repeating the same arguments over and over, people are stating opinion as fact and not supporting themselves with valid references. Closed.