Osama bin Laden is dead

[Falkomagno]

[Phatscotty]

Please don't change.

[saxitoxin]

[Phatscotty]

[Army of GOD]

Get your own joke: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=84170&p=1965692#p1965692

[saxitoxin]

Get your own joke: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=84170&p=1965692#p1965692

...if you don't like it, you ken giiit out!

IMAGE

LOL your joke expired li'l feller. NOW IT'S SAXI'S JOKE.

I JUST DRANK AOG'S MILKSHAKE.

[john9blue]

cool, so next time my favorite politician unfairly capitalizes on something for political gain, i can just say that "every politician does it" as an excuse. i probably won't have to though, since ron paul rarely does such things.

[saxitoxin]

cool, so next time my favorite politician unfairly capitalizes on something for political gain, i can just say that "every politician does it" as an excuse. i probably won't have to though, since ron paul rarely does such things.

When Ron Paul called for withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea he was clearly setting himself up for a possible future in North Korean politics.

[BigBallinStalin]

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.

That's news to me. Which UN law sanctions the killing of OBL?

[Night Strike]

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.

That's news to me. Which UN law sanctions the killing of OBL?

http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2011_spr/cnsl.htm

[BigBallinStalin]

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.

That's news to me. Which UN law sanctions the killing of OBL?

http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2011_spr/cnsl.htm

Haha, never mind then.

"Soldiers routinely use lethal force against their enemies without the involvement of judges or juries," Moore said. "Press accounts report bin Laden was shot during an extensive firefight between his forces and U.S. Navy SEALs. Based upon the available evidence, the targeting was perfectly lawful under both U.S. and international law."

<wrings hands>

The day following the Sept. 11 attacks, the U.N. Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1368, which among other things recognized "the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence" in the context of those attacks.

Sixteen days later, the Security Council unanimously approved Resolution 1373, which reaffirmed the right of victims of terrorist attacks to use force in self-defense and declared the attacks "a threat to international peace and security." The resolution reaffirmed "the need to combat by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts."

"It's true that Executive Order 12,333 prohibits anyone employed by the U.S. government from engaging in 'assassination,' but that provision clearly does not constrain otherwise lawful killings during armed conflict," said Turner, the associate director of the center.

....

By definition, assassination is a form of murder, Turner said.

"The targeting of Osama bin Laden is no more an assassination than was the intentional downing in 1943 of a transport aircraft carrying Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, the mastermind of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Killing the enemy during armed conflict is not murder."

Moore said that calling the killing of bin Laden an "extrajudicial execution," as some critics have labeled it, ignores the reality of armed conflict.

But suppose a country declares a "war on drugs" or a "war on crime." Couldn't that be labeled as an "armed conflict," and since it is an armed conflict directed at drug dealers or criminals on behalf of a country's citizens, then couldn't the government "lawfully" kill drug dealers and other criminals in the name of "self-defense" and "international peace and security"?

[Qwert]

Obama want to get sympaty from muslim population, and that way he dont want to say, that they killed OSama bin laden who ,its look whas captured, and then executed with shot in head. What other reason could be for no showing video and pictures of these operation. These system can be use,in case where you arrest drug dillers,or mass murder, its cheap, and its cost less,no trial, and no chance that some mass murder or criminal,or drug dealer, get small jail sentence, or be free because lack of evidence.
I can see these clear:
"These is police,if you surrender,we will kill you, if you dont surrender,again we will kill you"

[Pope Joan]

What other reason could be for no showing video and pictures of these operation.

Not having any pictures is a likely reason...

But overall, I don't see how I can trust the guy on the big one if I cannot trust him to wash my socks. How many times did the account of what had happenned change already??

[thegreekdog]

Obama want to get sympaty from muslim population, and that way he dont want to say, that they killed OSama bin laden who ,its look whas captured, and then executed with shot in head. What other reason could be for no showing video and pictures of these operation. These system can be use,in case where you arrest drug dillers,or mass murder, its cheap, and its cost less,no trial, and no chance that some mass murder or criminal,or drug dealer, get small jail sentence, or be free because lack of evidence.
I can see these clear:
"These is police,if you surrender,we will kill you, if you dont surrender,again we will kill you"

I was listening to a US conservative political pundit on the radio yesterday. He said much the same thing. "Obama is not releasing the video/pictures because he doesn't want to offend Muslims." The talk show host's point was "Who gives a crap if we offend them?"

I don't care to see the picture and thus I don't care whether it's released or not. I suppose others do care.

[Night Strike]

But suppose a country declares a "war on drugs" or a "war on crime." Couldn't that be labeled as an "armed conflict," and since it is an armed conflict directed at drug dealers or criminals on behalf of a country's citizens, then couldn't the government "lawfully" kill drug dealers and other criminals in the name of "self-defense" and "international peace and security"?

Both of those scenarios are handled almost exclusively by police agents, not by the military. Furthermore, their actions are primarily taken on civilians/US citizens and not foreign nationalists or agents. The military does get involved some when they are stationed at the border, but they are acting as agents of the police and not as a military unit. So no, I don't think those could be considered armed conflicts.

[Falkomagno]

Maybe is a political strategy.

Obama will wait until the election times get closer, and meanwhile all this year, in the same way that with the birth certificate issue, the conservatives in general and the people who hates Obama and everything he does specifically will start to get vocal with the pictures, claiming that it was a hoax and that is really really important those pictures. Suddenly, he releases the pics and all those will look like an ass.

Just rambling here

[thegreekdog]

Maybe is a political strategy.

Obama will wait until the election times get closer, and meanwhile all this year, in the same way that with the birth certificate issue, the conservatives in general and the people who hates Obama and everything he does specifically will start to get vocal with the pictures, claiming that it was a hoax and that is really really important those pictures. Suddenly, he releases the pics and all those will look like an ass.

Just rambling here

It sounds so familiar though...

I suppose Obama is just looking for his TRUMP card.

[BigBallinStalin]

But suppose a country declares a "war on drugs" or a "war on crime." Couldn't that be labeled as an "armed conflict," and since it is an armed conflict directed at drug dealers or criminals on behalf of a country's citizens, then couldn't the government "lawfully" kill drug dealers and other criminals in the name of "self-defense" and "international peace and security"?

Both of those scenarios are handled almost exclusively by police agents, not by the military. Furthermore, their actions are primarily taken on civilians/US citizens and not foreign nationalists or agents. The military does get involved some when they are stationed at the border, but they are acting as agents of the police and not as a military unit. So no, I don't think those could be considered armed conflicts.

So if police enforce domestic laws, then it's not "armed conflict."

And if the military "enforces" partly domestic laws, then it's not "armed conflict" because they're acting as police.

If the military enforces international laws (as dictated by the US and/or the UN), then it becomes "armed conflict" to enforce those laws.

Correct?


So, when the US declared martial law in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, essentially, the military was allowed to enforce laws (not as police) but as the military, which enforced order accordingly to their "militaristic laws" through "armed conflict." This is done for "self-defense" and "national/New Orleanian security" reasons.

On the international realm, the US has essentially declared "martial law" over the entire world; therefore, this enables them to enforce US laws (and whichever laws they find convenient from the UN--for example, the US ignoring the UN resolutions that run counter to US interests in Israel).

If the above is true, then isn't the US arbitrarily enforcing its own laws over the world?


If so, then the US can kill whoever it likes merely by fiat, or decree (e.g. declaring war on terrorism, thus allowing it to "legally" invade other countries in the name of fighting against terrorism)--which was seen when the US invaded Afghanistan, and which is used to support infringing upon Pakistan's sovereignty.

[saxitoxin]

Maybe is a political strategy.

Obama will wait until the election times get closer, and meanwhile all this year, in the same way that with the birth certificate issue, the conservatives in general and the people who hates Obama and everything he does specifically will start to get vocal with the pictures, claiming that it was a hoax and that is really really important those pictures. Suddenly, he releases the pics and all those will look like an ass.

Just rambling here

IOW = Obama commits war crimes for the sake of his political career.

There's a place where naughty boys and girls like that end up ...



... no wonder Obama has refused to sign the ICC treaty.

[saxitoxin]

Click image to enlarge.

[Woodruff]

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/

What is actually pathetic is that you believe ANYONE believes that Obama doesn't do things for political reasons. Even more pathetic than that is your apparent lack of recognition that Obama is a politician, which explicitly means he does things for political reasons.

[Army of GOD]

OSAMA BIN LADEN IS DEAD