Osama Bin Laden Confirmed Dead!!!!

[Trymantha]

Ive been thinking about posting my thoughts on this matter, however after reading some of the "disscussion" I think ill pass.

[King Kool]

Good move, Try.

What do I call you for short, anyway?

[Trymantha]

Try is fine.

[Sieg Reyu]

I keep wanting to say something profound in the thread, but some many awesome people beat me to it. King Kool, Wraith, Nevrmore, AlexanderDitto, Rocket Siobhan, Tak, Vanguard, EnlgishMQ, Epocalypse. You all are awesome. And that's just the last two pages.

[GreigKM]

You and I both, Sieg. Or whatever I can call you for short.

[AlexanderDitto]

I'm going to ignore your hyperbole, Dreamer. I can't tell if you're being humorous or serious; if the latter, honestly, it's tiresome to respond to, and as I've just dealt with a rather tricky batch of meringues, I'm in no mood to address your straw men dressed as nannies sliding down slippery slopes. I promise you, when that day comes, I will take time out of my daily dodging of straw-filled muddy nannies to raise my concern level from "chunky and mild" to "extra spicy."

I'm denying that the US congress, and by extension POTUS, had the legal _right_ to issue those orders.

Presumably, you read the page I linked to before? Now, I suggest you read this document (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/sc7158.doc.htm)

And then, if you like, this, which seems to indicate Canada works closely with the UN to build capacity for counter-terrorism.

[Wraith]

...Out of curiosity Wraith, what, exactly, gives The President of the United States of America, and Commander in Chief of the American Armed Forces, the legal right to issue a death warrant for a foreigner on foreign soil.

…the law?

Because I don't think war rules allow that.

I could be mistaken…

Yup.

...And how, exactly, is a war on terror supposed to end? Will terror surrender? Who is terror's designated official, elected or otherwise?

It doesn't. Which is why I said we won the war and are now in an occupation. We went to war with Afghanistan. And we won. "War on terror" is a catch phrase, AFAIC.

...Oh, also, I didn't have family die or anything like that. I was, however, kicked out of my home and my family went bankrupt because of Bin Laden's actions, so I was, in fact, personally effected.

I'll qualify my question, since the internet doesn't offer tone of voice; but I aks the following without malicace or agenda, and purely out of curiosity: how did that come about?

I did mean specifically this war, and the murders associated with it.

But, no, I'm asking, who gave POTUS the legal right to issue a death warrant.

It was a death warrant, shoot on sight, shoot to kill.

I use POTUS, since it's irrelevant which one.

POTUS doesn't have the right to say "hunt down and shoot <this american>" and he GOVERNS THE AMERICANS.

What right does he have to say "hunt down and shoot <this foreigner>" regardless of what that man has done?

Americans are protected by the constitution of the United States of America. Osama Bin Laden is not.

I’ll turn the question back on you: what law did he BREAK by issuing a dead or alive order?

Not that I disagree with many of your points (context IS important, and I think people eschewing it are arguing from a theoretical standpoint that is profoundly foolish), I'd just like to point out that you don't speak for all Americans, and the American system of justice is not founded on any particular religious belief, nor should it be. People don't get (or shouldn't get) the death penalty because we think we're sending them to hell. That's ludicrous.

1. I’m as qualified to speak for America as he is to speak for his country, which he was doing in the post I responded to.
2. I said some of us believe in hell.

Ok.

So you're telling me a congress I didn't vote for, nor could vote for, have made it legal for a man I didn't vote for to decide I committed a crime heinous enough to be hunted down and killed without mercy, without thought for surrender, and without any regard for another nations laws or treaties?

Lovely.

No, because you’re protected by international law, which prevents us from entering most countries and killing citizens. Osama Bin laden, an international fugitive, and a citizen of NO country, was protected by nothing but a concrete bunker.

SEALS>concrete

Just a thought: As long as there is no single international law making body, "legal" applies only within one's own borders.

This is very much want I was getting at.

Alright, so under which law, in whose borders, did we commit murder? Pakistan we had the co-operation of the Pakistani government…

So now, thanks to my theoretical involvement, no matter how major or minor (thank you wording) with those terrorist organizations, my rights as a human being have been revoked, according to a foreign government, and my right to live is theirs to take, as they see fit. Legally.

No. You’re a Canadian citizen. That would be a violation of international law. Osama was a citizen of nowhere, and protected by nothing.

Duly noted.

Murder is murder...

One again; this. Is. Not. Murder. Murder is a legal term. It has a clear definition. This does not meet that definition. This is not a matter of opinion, your words are factually inaccurate.

[Rikadyn]

"War Rules" say that one country is not allowed to take direct action against a sitting head of state of another country. Bin Laden wasn't. We can take action against a target of interest if we have okay from the country they were in.

War on Terror is much like the War on Drugs. An ambiguous phrase used to keep a constant stream of funding to specific organizations.

[Lyinginbedmon]

I wonder, if you woke up one day, and you watched a plane, filled with your country men, smash into the Tower of London, with Mim and your family inside of it, and watched as it tumbled to the ground, burying them; if you’d have such an easy time “calming the ever loving fuck down.”

If it happened ten years ago?

[Jillers]

I wonder, if you woke up one day, and you watched a plane, filled with your country men, smash into the Tower of London, with Mim and your family inside of it, and watched as it tumbled to the ground, burying them; if you’d have such an easy time “calming the ever loving fuck down.”

If it happened ten years ago?

Lying, you have to understand what 10 years is like to someone this did happen to. I don't think you understand the emotional scars this has left on people. Yes, we've managed to "move on", but I still cry when I talk about my experience on 9/11, and I've known grown men that get chocked up when talking about it, and we only came close to losing someone.

And Wraith as well, IIRC, came close to losing somebody they love but (thankfully) didn't.
And we both (I'd imagine) encounter people every day who did.
Our respective communities were changed by the sheer amount of death that happened.
On Staten Island, we lost nearly an entire fire house, and so many first responders. A good friend of mine at the time did lose her aunt.

But now to add to Wraith's hypothetic situation:
Imagine it's been 10 years, and the person responsible got away with it, while you never even got a chance to bury a body. Never had any remains to say goodbye to. Because some people never had a chance to bury a body.

[tak197]

I'm going to ignore your hyperbole, Dreamer. I can't tell if you're being humorous or serious; if the latter, honestly, it's tiresome to respond to, and as I've just dealt with a rather tricky batch of meringues, I'm in no mood to address your straw men dressed as nannies sliding down slippery slopes.

Oh Ditto, you sure do know the way to ameliorate the situation: with baked goods.

[Sieg Reyu]

My attempt at profoundness, go-go.

It just boggles my mind hoe vehemetly some people are fighting Osama's death. It just aboslutely confuses the ever loving bejeebus out out of me. I try to look at it from all angles And here is what I can come up with.

The way you are talking makes it sound so much more humane if he got a trial and got to live. Like he would make lots of prison buddies and spend lots of time crocheting and pen an autobiography and at the end of his life see the error of his ways and seek forgiveness. That is the moral highground. That ground is naught but a fantasy.

Best case scenario he broods in his cell cursing america constantly. He's abused by the guards with not a single person, all the way up to, I don't know, Calvin, supreme dictator for life, cause even he hates that guy. several extractions attempts, more people die, and finally, guess what, HE DIES!

That's all it boils down to. This man no longer had any sort of chance for happiness. His life was in the hands of America. It would be taken at some point, it was all a matter of when.

So what I don't get is why people think its a bad thing that he died then and there. I don't know. My only guess is a lot of people are attaching bloodlust to it. That's not what it is. Its knowing that he is gone for good. I would of been just as happy if he walked out in the street and got hit by a bus, died from natural causes, or hck, built a spaceship and shot himself to the moon. It doesn't matter to me, so long as he does not exist in a way that can bring further harm to innocent people.


And as to the whole celebrating his death and a bit about what Matt said earlier. Sure its nice that he's gone, but you know what, every person that died on 9/11 are still dead. They are not back. Everything is not even stevens. So you can't really celebrate that. That wound will always be there. So I don't really see the point of celebrating the death of a man trhat cause irrepairable damage to this country.

But you know what, we can sure as hell celebrate knowing that there is one less dickweed in the world, and one less person to mess things up. And you better believe I can celebrate knowing the future that this brings if a much "more gooder," as my AWESOME history professor puts it, one.

[Wraith]

I wonder, if you woke up one day, and you watched a plane, filled with your country men, smash into the Tower of London, with Mim and your family inside of it, and watched as it tumbled to the ground, burying them; if you’d have such an easy time “calming the ever loving fuck down.”

If it happened ten years ago?

[King Kool]

Wraith, I think it would be most productive to concede that there is a chance someone could be "over it" after ten years and not react so strongly, even if they were directly affected. We're not all wired the same way.

[Nevrmore]

Let's clarify things a bit here with this talk of being personally affected by the tragedy of 9/11. Someone from the outside may argue (and many have) that people who feel vindicated by news of bin Laden's death are doing so out of nothing more than a petty revenge fantasy. I think this is worth going into a bit.

I recently realized that I'm against the death penalty, in any form. I do not want to get into a debate about it here, but the reason is simple: If you've got the perpetrator in custody, calling for his blood is a rather savage response. No matter what he may have done to you, or to your family, the point at which you cry out that a man (or woman) who has been removed as a threat to society needs to be permanently silenced is when you allow your emotions to drive you to revenge fantasies. Hell, calling for harsher sentences in general comes off as rather petty to me.

Osama bin Laden was not such a man. He may have had kidney problems, but just because he was physically frail did not mean that he had no influence over the world. He committed terrible atrocities, and I think everyone here will agree that he needed to answer for them. And it's pretty damn silly to think that he ever would have answered for them by being successfully taken into custody. Would it have been preferable for him to be taken to trial? You could definitely argue so. Would it have been realistic for him to be taken to trial? I don't think so at all.

We aren't celebrating the death of a man. We're celebrating the removal of a threat, and the closure of many years of anguish for many people. The death of a man was just a necessary evil in that pursuit.

[Wraith]

Wraith, I think it would be most productive to concede that there is a chance someone could be "over it" after ten years and not react so strongly, even if they were directly affected. We're not all wired the same way.

COULD be? Of course. When did I imply otherwise? I'm sure a lot of people are over it. Different people cope differently; different people heal differently. I don't care if some people aren't dancing in the street. But it pisses me off when someone who, by their own admission, was not really affected by casts moral dispersions on how people who were are handling the news that its mastermind is dead.

[Drinnik]

Hoo-boy, I'm away 24 hours and miss one of the most interesting discussions since I joined. Anyway, my tuppence worth;

Am I glad Bin Laden is dead? Of course I am. The man was a monster, orchestrated the deaths of thousands of people and dragged the world into a war that did not need to be faught.

Will I celebrate the fact that he's dead? Probably not. I've got no problems with people celebrating the death of a monster, but it's not my style to do such a thing. That said, when Thatcher dies, there will be celebrations, oh, yes. There will be...

I digress. I think one of the reasons some people are having trouble with seeing the celebrations is in some countries (and by some, I mostly mean Great Britain) behaving in such a way is simply not done. It's a cultural thing. Americans are more passionate and open with thier emotions. Let them celebrate. They deserve it. We did the same when Hitler fell.

Was Justice done? That's something I'm not sure about. Justice and Vengeance are two sides of the same coin. Osama bin Laden's death is the small edge around the coin. It's both. It's justice for all those that died, and revenge for all those who didn't. Despite that, it's something that needed to happen and it doesn't matter how people interpert it.

It's not going to end the war in Afghanistan, though. Cut the head off and another one will grow. Played wrong, this could turn bin Laden into a martyr, played right, it could crush the al-Qeeda movement. But regardless, any victory by the US and Allied Forces in the Middle East will be a pyrrhic victory at the most.

Wow. You really don’t get it. Not surprising. How could you. You were how old when this happened? All you can see is that some guy who did something really bad a decade ago is dead. That is all you see, and that is all that the limits of your empathy will allow you to see. What you’re not getting is that to those of us celebrating, it’s a hell of a lot more than that. A hundred more yards and that plane would have landed ON my father. ON the only man I ever considered a hero. And I had friends who turned on TV that day and sat in their chair and WATCHED as one of our country’s landmarks collapsed AROUND their loved ones. This is DAMN personal for us. And that is just the OPPOSITE of something I’m likely to “calm the ever loving fuck down” about. I feel bad for anyone who CAN remember their loved ones meeting such HORRIBLE deaths and then “calm the ever loving fuck down.” And you’re sitting there, unaffected by the situation, and tossing your fucking moral dispersions on us for celebrating the death of the man responsible for all this shit. “Sanctimonious prick” is kind.

I wonder, if you woke up one day, and you watched a plane, filled with your country men, smash into the Tower of London, with Mim and your family inside of it, and watched as it tumbled to the ground, burying them; if you’d have such an easy time “calming the ever loving fuck down.”

Wraith, you and I tend to agree a lot, but here I just want to remind you of the 7/7 Bombings. We did watch our friends die, we did see on of our countries most recognisable landmarks brought down. The force of the 4 bombs was intense. I mean stupidly, horribly intense. And, if their plans had succeeded completely, the further two bombing sprees would have cause carnage on a similar scale to 9/11.

But we carried on, we were British and, thankfully, the Met and the City of London Police did their jobs right and caught the remaining plotters. The sad, terrible irony is that if it wasn't for 9/11, then the security on the tube and in London wouldn't have been as high and the second and third bombs would probably have been successful.

But I remember watching the Twin Towers being hit. I was 18, old enough to realise what it meant for the world, and though I knew no one there, I was shit scared.

Wraith, I think it would be most productive to concede that there is a chance someone could be "over it" after ten years and not react so strongly, even if they were directly affected. We're not all wired the same way.

COULD be? Of course. When did I imply otherwise? I'm sure a lot of people are over it. Different people cope differently; different people heal differently. I don't care if some people aren't dancing in the street. But it pisses me off when someone who, by their own admission, was not really affected by casts moral dispersions on how people who were are handling the news that its mastermind is dead.

I agree with Wraith. You can't understand the gravitas a situation and a response to its closure unless you were part of it.

Osama bin Laden had been killed,
CAN WE REBUILD THE FUCKING TOWERS NOW GODAMMIT!?!?!?!

And, in all seriousness, make them more structurally sound? Because, seriously, what happened aside, those buildings were not the best built buildings in the world.

[2stepz]

On the buildings themselves: From a safety and evacuation stand point, I am averse to building sky scrapers. While I understand the need for them in the urban metro space crunch... I am by nature a rural flatlander who wants to run across empty pastures when a building is in crisis. Evacuate quickly and then get the hell out of Dodge.

To me the 9/11 incident highlighted my issues. Those towers were not built to be adequately evacuated in times of crisis. Even if the planes had hit the at the top instead of further down (blocking evac routes) there would be no way for the occupants of higher floors to safely survive evacuation. This is why I'm in favor of multiple smaller (shorter) structures being built than the recreation of the original towers.

[theDreamer]

Wraith: You have put literally NO EFFORT into trying to point out which law gives POTUS the right and power to, with impunity, issue a _death warrant_ for a foreigner on foreign soil. Furthermore, I don't give a rat's ass if Pakistan was involved in this, specific strike, the orders to shoot on sight were issued HOW long ago? Also, you argue in circles. You argue that it's not murder because some nebulous American law says so, AND you argue it's not murder because he wasn't a citizen of any country. Did you see "The Airport" with Tom Hanks? That movie where his country ceases to exist while he's flying over the ocean? He isn't a citizen of any country in that movie, does that mean I can just kill him? Would the fact that I worked for the American Government and represented them make it any better? Is it not still murder?

Ditto: Neither of the things you posted really, if I understand them correctly, which I may not, grant POTUS the right to say "when you see Bin Laden, shoot." They say, assuming "States" really means "countries in the UN" it means ANYONE who sees him must capture him, and he is to be sentenced accordingly. We all know this is an idiotic dream for Bin Laden, but regardless, that's what I gathered those rules said.

Also, the hyperbole, being called (ad absurdum), was meant to be humourous, but meant to show as well that it's a little scary and ridiculous that a foreign country can pass a law within its borders that involves breaking into your home somewhere else.

And now the story of how my life changed (for better or worse, I don't know) because of the 9/11 bombings: Myself, and my immediate family, are Canadian citizens, and have been our whole lives. My dad got an offer to work in America, where he would make more money than both of my parents were making at the time. He wanted my mom,having just given birth to my little sister, to take care of both of us, so he took the offer, and commuted from Toronto to Chicago every week for 9 months before we could find a house down there. The three of us, my sister, mother, and myself, lived off his work visa, which had to be renewed every year.

We then moved to Buffalo, New York, where I lived when 9/11 happened. I was in grade 4. Thanks to America's fear and border stuff and I don't know exactly, my dad's company suddenly found it too difficult to renew his Work Visa again, so suddenly my home, friends, school, and world were no longer mine, because I had a little over a year to leave the country before becoming an illegal immigrant. We were forced to go bankrupt, so we literally lost most of our stuff, and moved to a very shitty neighbourhood in the suburbs of Toronto because it was all we could afford.

[Wraith]

Wraith: You have put literally NO EFFORT into trying to point out which law gives POTUS the right and power to, with impunity, issue a _death warrant_ for a foreigner on foreign soil.

What exactly are you looking for, “article A, subsection 14, paragraph 12?” Hell if I know; I couldn’t quote exactly which law gives a cop the right to arrest someone breaking into a store in the middle of the night. But I know it exists. Why the hell should I have to put forth effort to prove the obvious?

You’re asking me what law gives POTUS the right to issue a dead or alive warrant on a wanted terrorist, who holds no citizenship anywhere in the world, with the full co-operation of the government of the country he’s found in. He’s the commander in chief of the military. It’s kind of in the job description.

Furthermore, I don't give a rat's ass if Pakistan was involved in this, specific strike, the orders to shoot on sight were issued HOW long ago?

About as long ago as we began our occupation of the country he was expected to be found in. It was given when Afghanistan, which was where we were looking, and where the order was given, basically had no real government. We were in charge.

Also, you argue in circles. You argue that it's not murder because some nebulous American law says so, AND you argue it's not murder because he wasn't a citizen of any country.

That’s not really arguing in circles. I didn’t say it’s not murder because American law says so, I said it’s not murder because that term is only applicable when the killing violates a law. This doesn’t. Simple as that.

Did you see "The Airport" with Tom Hanks? That movie where his country ceases to exist while he's flying over the ocean? He isn't a citizen of any country in that movie, does that mean I can just kill him? Would the fact that I worked for the American Government and represented them make it any better? Is it not still murder?

That depends. If he was a wanted terrorist who had killed people, AND you were military AND you were given the order, then yes, you could walk into that airport and put a round in his head. I’m not sure if you understand why the military have guns, but in general, they’re used to kill people. Tom Hanks’ character not being a citizen of a country doesn’t automatically mean he could be killed; there are still rules of engagement, laws on the application of military force etc. Osama bin Laden, on the other hand, had no citizenship, which meant that he was not protected by any citizenry laws, he was not entitled to any kind of constitutional protection; the ONLY thing that would have made it illegal for us to kill him was if we did not get permission from Pakistan, then it would have been a military op inside of a foreign country without authorization; which is a violation of federal law. But since we HAD permission, there was nothing stopping us.

Also, the hyperbole, being called (ad absurdum), was meant to be humourous, but meant to show as well that it's a little scary and ridiculous that a foreign country can pass a law within its borders that involves breaking into your home somewhere else.

Holy crap, you are REALLY not getting this, are you? We can’t just break into random foreigner’s homes. We need authority within the borders of the country that home is located in to run a military op; and even then, we can’t violate the legal rights given to its citizens. When the order was initially given, it was given to the soldiers in Afghanistan. We had military authority in that country at the time, and since he was not a citizen of any country, we didn’t have to worry about his legal rights as a citizen. When we found out he was in Pakistan, we had to get permission from the Pakistani government. The Pakistani government, of course, was not stupid enough to tell the world community that they were knowingly harboring the most wanted man on the planet and would not grant us access to him. I doubt any country in the world would have turned us down. THAT gave us the authority. And, again, him having no citizenship meant there was no additional legal tape to cut through.

Honestly, this is NOT complicated.

[Matt]

Dreamer:

International law does not prohibit a head of state from ordering the targeted assassination of of an enemy militant. It does prohibit a number of acts by a state against a civilian, but Bin Laden clearly was not acting as a civilian in this matter.

From an article on assassination from the NYT:

As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford.

-m

[theDreamer]

...Ok, so, the government isn't allowed to kill people, except when the government decides to kill people.

Got it.

But fine, I see.

[Matt]

Uh, no. The government is not allowed to kill people that pose no threat to their national security.

In most circumstances, the governnment is only allowed to kill people as part of a military action, and the people targeted must be enemy combatants.

This was a military action against an enemy combatant that posed a security risk to the US.

This shouldn't be hard to get. The killing was wholly within the power of the POTUS to authorise, and was conducted in accordance with international law.

-m

Edit: he doesn't have the unilateral authority to authorize the killing of anyone he wants. certain conditions must be met for the killing to be lawful. In this case, those conditions were totally met.

[Ollie, don'tcha know!]

Got up yesterday, heard he died. Thought 'Huh, weird', then moved on.

I try not to think about stuff like this, where there's about 20 different counter-arguments to every argument

[Wraith]

...Ok, so, the government isn't allowed to kill people, except when the government decides to kill people.

Got it.

But fine, I see.

No, the government is not allowed to kill its own people unless their laws permit them to. They are not allowed to kill OTHER country's people on foreign soil unless either INTERNATIONAL law, or the law of that person's country, allows them to do so.



The most simplistic version of this is: no one is above applicable law, but the law does not always ban killing; and if it does not do so, then said killing is not murder.