The NY Magazine has an article based on interviews with the US navy Seals who were actually involved. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...urrentPage=all
The Bin Laden mission
The NY Magazine has an article based on interviews with the US navy Seals who were actually involved. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...urrentPage=all
Having watched Panorama's "Death on the Med" including interviews with those officers who actually took part................ I wouldn't believe a word of it !
Shouldn't the tilte be ' Terorring Bin Laden' ? I thought according to NY standards, attacking someone's home and kill everyone nearby is act of terrorism!No wait sorry it is terrorism only if others do it!
It is called assassination Iraniboy and it is what Israel and America seem to call justice although there is no judge no jury no trial and in the case of Bin Laden's connection to 9/11 = no evidence. Other family members killed in cold blood were also not guilty of anything.Originally Posted by iraniboy
Shouldn't the tilte be ' Terorring Bin Laden' ? I thought according to NY standards, attacking someone's home and kill everyone nearby is act of terrorism!
It is also a military invasion of a sovereign state.
The story which surely one day will be a hollywood blockbuster even has a dog in it
Europe being Israeli probably supports assassination as the zionist entity is surely the world leader in this.
Not unusually for you - you're quite wrong again. Wild imagination is not a reliable tool for sensible judgements .......Europe being Israeli probably supports assassination as the zionist entity is surely the world leader in this.
shortly after the killing of bin laden - I read the book by Mark Yoshimoto Nemcoff - The Killing of Osama Bin Laden: How the Mission to Hunt Down a Terrorist Mastermind was Accomplished.
it is not much different from the above article.... it gives a very good insight into the operation... The things it misses out are what has been stated above, that this mission violated a sovereign country airspace, assassinated several ppl and probably violated international law..
Apparently not - and some people in the compound were actually unharmed. The bulk of legal opinion is based on the fact that Bin Laden had declared war on the US . Under the Military Force Act of Sept. 18, 2001, the president is allowed to useprobably violated international lawIt justifies the actions in the name of self-defense,"all necessary and appropriate force" against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines aided in the 2001 attacks.Consequently , shooting bin Laden is legal because it was"to prevent any future acts of international terrorism" against the U.S. In fact, the presidential executive orders under this law are far-reaching BUT do not include the assassination of foreign political leaders.AlJazeera are currently showing re-runs of their documentary I knew Bin Laden, in which he admits on video that he sent nineteen people to attack NY. It also explains the sequence of how he orchestrated the assassination of Shah Masoud at the behest of the Taliban. It is well documented and validated by the central characters. Personally, I would have preferred to see him in The Hague, despite all the problems that would produce.not an "assassination" of a political leader but the killing of a military commander at best as part of an operation i.e. in a military combat. And, in a military combat, an enemy can be lawfully killed even if he is unarmed.
Off course it's all lies, it's all they ever do.
this is hubris and fallacy of the worse kind.... if you said bin laden was a threat to the international community - I could have agree.... but stating in so many words as long as the USA is allowed get away with it then it is fine whoever they kill and whose international airspace they violate... is highly illogical to me...
Really ? It may be illogical to you but there is stated and unchallenged legal justification however much one wants to berate the US..... but stating in so many words as long as the USA is allowed get away with it then it is fine whoever they kill and whose international airspace they violate... is highly illogical to me...
I stated very clearly exactly what I meant and provided my personal view that I would have preferred to see him on trial , despite the many problems , so not much need to set up a fallacious argument. It was quite clear and did not seem to be saying anything other than exactly what was said. In response to your statement that the action was most likely in contravention of international law, I provided the legal basis which showed that presumption to be invalid and the legal justification that allowed the President to authorize action.
Since you mention Pakistan, prestigious legal scholars have also allowed that it too, was justifiable and I don’t see any pending cases disputing that – do you ? The simplest exposition, reflecting many other experts is that " there is a reasonable argument that this was not a violation of Pakistani sovereignty because there is a legitimate argument for self-defense for US action against bin Laden; Pakistan has also made it clear after the event that it does not object to US action in this case and that Pakistan has previously given at least tacit consent for US action against senior al-Qaeda members on its territory," (Dworkin)
Bellinger et al states that “ under the United Nations Charter, the United States would normally be prohibited from using force inside Pakistan without obtaining Pakistan's consent. But there is one caveat: that the host country is both capable and willing to deal with problems itself and since this was demonstrably not the situation with Pakistan – then this was a special circumstance that gave the U.S. government a legal justification for not doing so “ (ie obtaining prior consent). ( Bellinger)
Prof Matthew Waxman – Columbia Law School agrees : "The U.S. was justified in concluding that Pakistan was unwilling or unable to stop the threat posed by Osama bin Laden, and that Pakistan's consent was not necessary because of past concerns about the close ties between Pakistan intelligence services and the Taliban," Bellinger said, "and the fact that bin Laden was in a house, on a street right down the road from a Pakistani military base."
Prof Waxman “:Under international law, it would normally be a violation of a state's sovereignty to launch this sort of raid, unless the state consents or perhaps because of an overriding necessity of self defense,"
If the U.S. government takes the stance that bin Laden is an enemy combatant and Pakistan was not willing or able to deal effectively with this situation (of apprehending bin Laden or prosecuting him), the former is well within its rights to attack bin Laden on foreign soil even without Pakistan's consent” .
So if one does not like the legal basis - there is also no excuse for being ignorant of them, since the opinions of Joe/Jane Bloggs are just that ' opinions' that carry no legal weight.
(There is one possible argument which might make a difference. Whether in fact the authorization was instituted under Title 10 ( Military) or Title 50 ( CIA) or both but that is for lawyers within the US ).
so before the Iraq invasion, could Saddam have legally sent in undercover agents to kill GW Bush?
Jamie,
I'm not a legal scholar but my sense is NO. Saddam Hussein was already under many international and UN legal sanctions and had been - well before the advent of George Bush, in fact since his invasion of Kuwait and included the destruction of the Marsh Arabs etc etc.
it is not about berating USA - but questioning whether such assassinations fall within international law..
what legal basis did you show, all you cam out with was an opinion, based on USA interests and its national security - your view is not shared by everyone....
what US did was no different to what russia did in poisoning Alexander Litvinenko or mossad israel did in killing Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in dubai..... the list are endless.... all are cowardly assassinations carried out under the name of national security and interests.... All for me are against international law IMO....
I find jamie question very interesting...
indeed, if saddam had the means to kill GW Bush he would have done so - as bush and blair were to iraq regime at the time considered a threat to iraqs national security and interests... it works both ways..so before the Iraq invasion, could Saddam have legally sent in undercover agents to kill GW Bush?
good point james!
if the boot was on the other foot and a assasination attempt was vice versa, would the argument of ' well, they are at war' still be accepted amongst the west? somehow, i dont think so.
europa, are you justifying assasination hits,especially within other sovereign nations?
the legal standpoints are iffy as differing lawyers will differ on interpretation.
europa,im just trying to understand where you stand.
how does reported legal authorities become "YOUR" (ie my) view ? It was written in English - with quotes and attributions to indicate who had made the statementsyour view is not shared by everyone....
Which aspect of international law ? Jus gentium or Jus inter gentes ? With the greatest respect -international law is a matter of interpretation and codification by intergovernmental resolutions or academic and expert legal opinions such as those quoted. For individuals deciding what constitutes international law and what doesn't is not a basis for validity. Currently no one has legally challenged the US and there is no sign of anyone doing so.what US did was no different to what russia did in poisoning Alexander Litvinenko or mossad israel did in killing Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in dubai..... the list are endless.... all are cowardly assassinations carried out under the name of national security and interests.... All for me are against international law IMO....
Enigma-
I've stated TWICE where I stand personally . I'm merely providing the legal basis used by the US to justify the Bin Laden exercise - with explanations articulated by prestigious legal experts - no more- no less. Surely, it's important to know that . An uncle is a justice at the ICC and I believe a general opinion there is that it would be hard to win a case against the US on its interpretation in this instance. We shall see if that is borne out , should anyone launch a challenge.europa, are you justifying assasination hits,especially within other sovereign nations?
Last edited by europa; 03-08-2011 at 05:14 PM.
Your point about sanctions and marsh Arabs is true but you are arguing about facts. The debate to be had is probably more one of public perception.
And yes, bin laden wasn't a nice man, no need to convince me of that.
However there is to me a sense of victors justice about international
legal proceedings. Trials are seldom brought against leaders of the victorious side. No trial was really suggested in relation to Iraq. Nuremberg wasn't the wests finest hour with the principles that you shouldn't follow orders you disagree with having been ignored on many many occasions since. And so on.
And because of that general sense and the lack of clear and present danger this specific case will probably always be considered an assassination by the general public.
Obviously some will still see it as a good thing.
Trurel
Much as I hate to disagree with youI must make an effort on this occasion.
Public perceptions surely need to be informed by the facts otherwise every wild figment of imagination can gain currency .Your point about sanctions and marsh Arabs is true but you are arguing about facts. The debate to be had is probably more one of public perception.But the principle still stands even if the actuality falls short on some occasions. It is entrenched in US military policy as an example and can be used in defence.with the principles that you shouldn't follow orders you disagree with having been ignored on many many occasions since.Didn't saddam Hussein and his cohorts have a public trial by Iraqis ? In fact western jurists were both monitoring and advising the Iraqis and a few were dissatisfied with Iraqi notions of due process but it was their courts and system. A personal friend Mary McGowan-Davis ( later part of the Goldstone review) actually went to Iraq to advise Iraqi prosecutors/ legal professionals how to interview women sensitively, when taking evidence and I heard quite a bit about it , at the time.No trial was really suggested in relation to Iraq.
He was considered a clear and present danger by the American population on whom he declared war and waged acts of terrorism. That most affected population who were still under threat see it as the elimination of an enemy of the nation and presidential promises fulfilled. The Military Force Act of Sept. 18, 2001 allowed it and the material reclaimed from his hidout in Pakistan indicate he was still actively planning. In an ideal world, some would have preferred that he brought to trial in the US since he could not have a trial in Europe. I would myself preferred to utilise that route. So are we still on speaking terms ? We could always agree to disagreeAnd because of that general sense and the lack of clear and present danger this specific case will probably always be considered an assassination by the general public.
After 9/11 NATO invaded Afghanistan supposedly to find Bin Laden.
USA has no proof that Bin Laden was behind 9/11 and this was the only question that Mullah Omar asked in order to be able to hand him over, evidence was never supplied.
Bin Laden now dead.
Troops STILL in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.
Does any of this make sense ?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks