Osama bin Laden is dead

[thegreekdog]

I guess some people in our country have become too soft to remember what wars actually are.

Is being "soft" a negative attribute?

Myself, I think the world would be a much better place if everyone in the world would become "too soft".

Me too. I'd appreciate it if you could relay that message to the people that keep attacking us.

[Gypsys Kiss]

I guess some people in our country have become too soft to remember what wars actually are.

Is being "soft" a negative attribute?

Myself, I think the world would be a much better place if everyone in the world would become "too soft".

Me too. I'd appreciate it if you could relay that message to the people that keep attacking us.

And this forum is not 'America'

[Night Strike]

Thus, Obama's orders were extrajudicial because the United States Congress under Bush or Obama, never officially, Constitutionally, declared War.

A declaration of war is a political proclamation that we are warring with another nation or nations. The President is the Commander-In-Chief and therefore has complete control of ALL military actions our nation takes. A declaration of war is completely unnecessary for sending troops into military engagements, especially if they are acting in retaliation for an attack on us. You must remember, when the Constitution was written and first operated under, being a member of Congress was not a full time job. So if we were attacked while Congress was not in session, the President had to have the power to mobilize the military and proceed with operations. If Congress ultimately did not agree with the military action the President took, they later had the power to stop funding those operations, which effectively provides the check to the President's military powers. The original text of the Constitution stated that the Congress had the sole power to make war, but the writers realized that because of the scenario I just described, that language could cause great problems for our nation. So they changed it to be a declaration of war which is simply a political statement.

All of that is said to say that a declaration of war is completely unnecessary when engaging in military operations to find those who were responsible for attacks on our country. Therefore, there is nothing extra-Constitutional about killing Osama.

[Phatscotty]

I guess some people in our country have become too soft to remember what wars actually are.

Is being "soft" a negative attribute?

Myself, I think the world would be a much better place if everyone in the world would become "too soft".

Allow me the opportunity to exploit...oops I mean show you how being soft is actually really good for me and not so good for you.

There is always going to be an asshole out there who just wants to steal your shit and get away with it. Rather than ignore this reality, we should learn how to deal with assholes, as well as how to be an asshole at the rights times.

Even when a person who is not an asshole meets someone who is "too soft", they then start learning how to be an asshole because it's just too damn easy to take advantage of you.

[natty dread]

Allow me the opportunity to exploit...oops I mean show you how being soft is actually really good for me and not so good for you.

There is always going to be an asshole out there who just wants to steal your shit and get away with it.

Oh, so you're saying being soft is bad because someone will take advantage of it? Kinda a paranoid attitude. Nothing I wouldn't expect from you, though.

we should learn how to deal with assholes, as well as how to be an asshole at the rights times.

I'm sure you have no problems with that kind of learning... but if you become an asshole just because someone else is an asshole, what good will it do? Then there will just be two assholes.

Who says that being "soft" must equate to being a "doormat"? You are so afraid that someone will cheat you, you're afraid of losing "face" and being that "sucker" who gets the shortest straw, that you become the asshole just so other assholes can't be an asshole to you.

ENTER THE ASSHOLE!

Me too. I'd appreciate it if you could relay that message to the people that keep attacking us.

So, you're never at fault, it's always the other guy who started it? Sounds kinda like stuff you hear at kindergarten fights...

[thegreekdog]

I guess some people in our country have become too soft to remember what wars actually are.

Is being "soft" a negative attribute?

Myself, I think the world would be a much better place if everyone in the world would become "too soft".

Me too. I'd appreciate it if you could relay that message to the people that keep attacking us.

And this forum is not 'America'

You're right, it's not. I was using the term "us" to refer to the United States. I was not using the term "us" to refer to this forum; that would be silly. It's all about context GK.

[BigBallinStalin]

No matter how people would like to twist things, the fact is that killing Osama bin Laden is still an extrajudicial killing (or murder if one wants to go there). There were no war crimes for which he was tried, so there was no semblance of justice, which was similar to the justice meted against Nazi war criminals and Serbian war criminals.

How was it extrajudicial? Osama's organization attacked the United States, so we were well within our rights as a sovereign nation as well as a member of international organizations such as the UN to seek out and kill those responsible for the attacks. Here's a law review of the situation: http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2011_spr/cnsl.htm

My response might have been "who cares if it was an extrajudicial killing?" But that's just me.

Well, I believe that too, but if a person is throwing out fallacies, they might as well be corrected.

What does "extrajudicial punishment" mean? (the wikipedia definition serves us well enough)

"Extrajudicial punishment is punishment by the state or some other official authority without the permission of a court or legal authority. The existence of extrajudicial punishment is considered proof that some governments will break their own legal code if deemed necessary."

What does "extrajudicial killing" mean? (again, wikipedia)

"An extrajudicial killing is the killing of a person by governmental authorities without the sanction of any judicial proceeding or legal process. Extrajudicial punishments are by their nature unlawful, since they bypass the due process of the legal jurisdiction in which they occur. Extrajudicial killings often target leading political, trade union, dissident, religious, and social figures and may be carried out by the state government or other state authorities like the armed forces and police."

Was Osama bin Laden tried by the International Criminal Court? No. There was no "sanction of any judicial proceeding or legal process" for the punishment upon OBL.

Therefore, the US extrajudicially killed Osama bin Laden.

Before commenting, read the following:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=144353&p=3150512#p3150517

[BigBallinStalin]

No matter how people would like to twist things, the fact is that killing Osama bin Laden is still an extrajudicial killing (or murder if one wants to go there). There were no war crimes for which he was tried, so there was no semblance of justice, which was similar to the justice meted against Nazi war criminals and Serbian war criminals.

How was it extrajudicial? Osama's organization attacked the United States, so we were well within our rights as a sovereign nation as well as a member of international organizations such as the UN to seek out and kill those responsible for the attacks. Here's a law review of the situation: http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2011_spr/cnsl.htm

My response might have been "who cares if it was an extrajudicial killing?" But that's just me.

Well, I believe that too, but if a person is throwing out fallacies, they might as well be corrected.

It's convenient for the US to make its own laws where it sees fit, which is why there are such things as the International Criminal Court in order to try criminals on the international scene, namely OBL.

[Juan_Bottom]

" I don't care about the long term costs of revenge or consequences of American Justice."



It is foolish to not care about long-term costs and to ignore the consequences of certain actions. That kind of thinking produces short-sighted people, who are prone to continuously making costly mistakes and who aren't capable of learning from their mistakes since they ignore the consequences.


I'm sincerely surprised you said that. Perhaps, your emotions got the better of you.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

My response might have been "who cares if it was an extrajudicial killing?" But that's just me.

Personally, I'm similar in that regard, except I care about pointing out the contradiction.

Maybe I should have said:
"I don't care about the long term costs of revenge or consequences of American Justice meted out against Bin Laden." But obviously it sounds like you agree with me, just without saying so.

[Phatscotty]

Allow me the opportunity to exploit...oops I mean show you how being soft is actually really good for me and not so good for you.

There is always going to be an asshole out there who just wants to steal your shit and get away with it.

Oh, so you're saying being soft is bad because someone will take advantage of it? Kinda a paranoid attitude. Nothing I wouldn't expect from you, though.

we should learn how to deal with assholes, as well as how to be an asshole at the rights times.

I'm sure you have no problems with that kind of learning... but if you become an asshole just because someone else is an asshole, what good will it do? Then there will just be two assholes.

Who says that being "soft" must equate to being a "doormat"? You are so afraid that someone will cheat you, you're afraid of losing "face" and being that "sucker" who gets the shortest straw, that you become the asshole just so other assholes can't be an asshole to you.

ENTER THE ASSHOLE!

Me too. I'd appreciate it if you could relay that message to the people that keep attacking us.

So, you're never at fault, it's always the other guy who started it? Sounds kinda like stuff you hear at kindergarten fights...

Soft People = Prey. You gotta give me a softy is the last one to stand up for themselves. And if you can't stand for yourself, you fall for everything.

[natty dread]

Soft People = Prey. You gotta give me a softy is the last one to stand up for themselves. And if you can't stand for yourself, you fall for everything.

Do you think it makes you somehow vulnerable if you don't act like an asshole all the time?

You can be soft and still stand up for yourself. Being soft does not equate to being a doormat.

[BigBallinStalin]

"I don't care about the long term costs of revenge or consequences of American Justice meted out against Bin Laden." But obviously it sounds like you agree with me, just without saying so.

I gotcha, but I do have one small qualm with that:

For international publicity reasons, human rights concerns, yada yada, wouldn't it have been better to bring OBL to the International Criminal Court to vindicate the punishments against Osama bin Laden?

[thegreekdog]

So, you're never at fault, it's always the other guy who started it? Sounds kinda like stuff you hear at kindergarten fights...

Well no, that's not true and I'm certainly not suggesting the United States is not at fault. What I am suggesting is that terrorist attacks were not provoked by warfare, killings or whatever. Were they provoked by other stuff? Yeah, probably, depending on your point of view.

[Army of GOD]

Yes, that's a great strategy guys. "They're not gonna be soft, so let's be hard as f*ck."

[saxitoxin]

Yes, that's a great strategy guys. "They're not gonna be soft, so let's be hard as f*ck."

This thread is starting to turn me on.

[Army of GOD]

Yes, that's a great strategy guys. "They're not gonna be soft, so let's be hard as f*ck."

This thread is starting to turn me on.

Thankfully, someone else is getting horny. The moment I hear someone dies, I get a boner.

[BigBallinStalin]

So, you're never at fault, it's always the other guy who started it? Sounds kinda like stuff you hear at kindergarten fights...

Well no, that's not true and I'm certainly not suggesting the United States is not at fault. What I am suggesting is that terrorist attacks were not provoked by warfare, killings or whatever. Were they provoked by other stuff? Yeah, probably, depending on your point of view.

Some are, some aren't.

The terrorist attack on that US Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon during the Lebanese Civil War was conducted against US soldiers, who for all practical purposes were involved in that war.

If such actions (e.g. warfare, killings, whatever = installing US-backed regimes, US occupation in their own homelands, US direct support economically and/or militarily to central governments which local organizations have reasonable problems with, etc.) did not provoke terrorist attacks, then what really motivates them?

To me, the primary reason these types of guerrilla organizations target civilians (thus becoming "terrorists") is because they are incapable of combating an enemy through conventional means since they lack the resources to do so. Therefore, they have to economically rely on other means in order to meet their goals.

[Qwert]

CIA inactionIn June 2006, old CIA documents about Nazis and stay-behind networks dedicated to anti-communism were released. Among the 27,000 documents was a March 1958 memo from the German BND agency to the CIA, which stated that Eichmann was reported to have lived in Argentina since 1952 using the alias "Clemens". However, the CIA took no action on this information, because Eichmann's arrest could embarrass the US and Germany by turning public attention to the former Nazis they had recruited after World War II.[21] For example, the West German government, headed by Konrad Adenauer, was worried about what Eichmann might say, especially about the past of Hans Globke, Adenauer's national security adviser, who had worked with Eichmann in the Jewish Affairs department and helped draft the 1935 Nuremberg Laws.[21][22][23]

At the request of the West German government the CIA persuaded Life magazine to delete any reference to Globke from Eichmann's memoirs, which it had bought from his family.[24] By the time the CIA and the BND had this information, Israel had temporarily given up looking for Eichmann in Argentina because they could not discover his alias.[24] Neither the CIA nor the US government as a whole at that time had a policy of pursuing Nazi war criminals.[21] In addition to protecting Eichmann's and Globke's past, the CIA also protected Reinhard Gehlen,[25] who recruited hundreds of former German spies for the CIA.

These all situation,start remind on these, that why US very quick and fast dump hes bodies , and try to hide video and photos of these operation. Its look that Osama whas US man, who service are over. These is what i have feel, what else could be? OSama surender, but Obama give order for kill not capture, because any former employe of CIA from Afganistan or other US services, could be potential danger,if they expose all secrets, that why only elimination ,could prevent to secret be exposed.
Many Nazy kill more people,then OSama, but turn to be Agent of CIA, so i realy dont belive that they all these years US secret service dont know where OSama are hiding, with all these tehnology, and with network of Agent, they need 10 years to find osama.
Who know what shocking informacion will osama tell,if he alive, and who will be in danger,of all these secrets, we never know. That why these is big defeat, of all ordinary people in USA, but unfortunatly people dont realised that.
I want to understand, why its so hard to tell honestly, how they kill OSama, and to show video,or pictures, these is USA, they not afraid of nobody.
From what i read

[Night Strike]

For international publicity reasons, human rights concerns, yada yada, wouldn't it have been better to bring OBL to the International Criminal Court to vindicate the punishments against Osama bin Laden?

Considering countries like Iran get to sit on Women's Rights panels and Syria gets to sit on Human Rights panels, then no, the ICC would NOT be a place to try Osama. In fact, he never deserved a trial in the first place. He chose to wage an unsanctioned war against the United States and got killed during his own war. It's not our job to give him a trial and let him have a free microphone to proclaim his radical views to the world.

No matter how people would like to twist things, the fact is that killing Osama bin Laden is still an extrajudicial killing (or murder if one wants to go there). There were no war crimes for which he was tried, so there was no semblance of justice, which was similar to the justice meted against Nazi war criminals and Serbian war criminals.

How was it extrajudicial? Osama's organization attacked the United States, so we were well within our rights as a sovereign nation as well as a member of international organizations such as the UN to seek out and kill those responsible for the attacks. Here's a law review of the situation: http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2011_spr/cnsl.htm

My response might have been "who cares if it was an extrajudicial killing?" But that's just me.

Well, I believe that too, but if a person is throwing out fallacies, they might as well be corrected.

What does "extrajudicial punishment" mean? (the wikipedia definition serves us well enough)

"Extrajudicial punishment is punishment by the state or some other official authority without the permission of a court or legal authority. The existence of extrajudicial punishment is considered proof that some governments will break their own legal code if deemed necessary."

What does "extrajudicial killing" mean? (again, wikipedia)

"An extrajudicial killing is the killing of a person by governmental authorities without the sanction of any judicial proceeding or legal process. Extrajudicial punishments are by their nature unlawful, since they bypass the due process of the legal jurisdiction in which they occur. Extrajudicial killings often target leading political, trade union, dissident, religious, and social figures and may be carried out by the state government or other state authorities like the armed forces and police."

Was Osama bin Laden tried by the International Criminal Court? No. There was no "sanction of any judicial proceeding or legal process" for the punishment upon OBL.

Therefore, the US extrajudicially killed Osama bin Laden.

Before commenting, read the following:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=144353&p=3150512#p3150517

The killing of Osama was sanctioned by both US law and UN law, so it was not extrajudicial. By your definition, every person killed in military combat would killed illegally. In fact, so would any criminal shot while trying to resist arrest. It's ludicrous. The US was protecting itself from more attacks led by this terrorist, and we were well within both our legal and moral rights to kill him before he tried to kill more of us.

[Phatscotty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpbZU9xMqpA&t=0m33s

[Night Strike]

Don't worry, nothing Obama does ever has political motivations. This is just plain pathetic.

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2011/05/04/guess-whos-politicizing-obls-death/

[radiojake]

Don't worry, nothing Obama does ever has political motivations. This is just plain pathetic.

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2011/05/04/guess-whos-politicizing-obls-death/

Wow - A politician with political motivations trying to capitalise on an event - You know, I don't think any other leader in the history of politics has ever done that.

Considering the sensationalist 24 hour media cycle (which this link contributes to), I don't understand how you could expect anything less than this.

[Royal Panda]

Don't worry, nothing Obama does ever has political motivations. This is just plain pathetic.

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2011/05/04/guess-whos-politicizing-obls-death/

Wow - A politician with political motivations trying to capitalise on an event - You know, I don't think any other leader in the history of politics has ever done that.

Considering the sensationalist 24 hour media cycle (which this link contributes to), I don't understand how you could expect anything less than this.

It's the people who are taken in by it you need to be concerned about; not the politicians themselves. I can imagine plenty of idiots voting based on this incident rather than actual policies - which is concerning...

[Juan_Bottom]

"I don't care about the long term costs of revenge or consequences of American Justice meted out against Bin Laden." But obviously it sounds like you agree with me, just without saying so.

I gotcha, but I do have one small qualm with that:

For international publicity reasons, human rights concerns, yada yada, wouldn't it have been better to bring OBL to the International Criminal Court to vindicate the punishments against Osama bin Laden?

I think it would be worse. The less we give people to bitch about, the better. American's are satisfied with the result, and so are most of the world's people. But always remember all the fever, butthurt, and confusion surrounding Hussein's trial... We don't need to publicize or glorify a terrorist in any way. Especially inadvertently. So long as the world is complacent, just the quick message of two bullets and a sea burial is enough.

[spurgistan]

Don't worry, nothing Obama does ever has political motivations. This is just plain pathetic.

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2011/05/04/guess-whos-politicizing-obls-death/

Point me out who thinks Barack Obama doesn't have political motivations for any thing he does. Those people are morons. As well as mostly non-existent.

Also, when one of the chief political attacks on you is that you're soft on terror... and then this happens... You have to respond.