Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Article 4 of the Geneva Convention concerning POWs.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Right, becasue if this mission had failed and say all the soldiers got killed people like you and the tea baggers, and Rush Limabahs of the world wouldnt be saying:

"He got those soldiers killed"

"He is a muslim so he doesnt want Osama captured"

etc. ,etc.

Wow. First, I would never say either of those things even though I don't really like this president. I especially wouldn't have blamed him for any loss of lives on our side in any atempt, sucessful or otherwise, to get Osama. (And before anyone jumps on me for not caring-I served in the military so I'm not indifferent to my brothers lives)And even though I lean towards the Tea party movement, I don't refer to any group with inflamatory remarks or name calling (like tea Baggers) because I find it rather counter porductive. All I was saying was that I found it funny that he made it seem like he was the only one who cared enough to try to find this guy and that there has not been a ongoing search for him for years.

And yes, even if the parties were reversed, I would still say the same thing.

OrangePine wrote:@ArbeitsSchu

Any mission launched against individuals in Afghanistan or Iraq, or even Somalia for those who remember, are designated Kill or Capture.

As for the bloody bedroom, there are other things to do in your room than sleep.

He could very well have been asleep when they heard helicopters, grabbed weapons, and been shot as they fired upon the entering SEALs.

The blood on the bed could have splattered or even dripped as they tied down his body for transport.

I'll reiterate. It has been clearly stated that the mission was KILL. Not capture. Not by me, but by official US government releases. So either the US government is making things up retrospectively..or the mission was KILL.

As for the bedroom pics (the only pics), its a lot of blood. It doesn't really resemble splatter or drippage from moving a body. But its not really important. The important part is the mission parameter. They went there to kill him, regardless of what he was doing or what state he was in. Some rumour him to have been on dialysis. Unlikely to have been a lot of "resisting" from a man on dialysis either way, but that doesn't matter. Lets say he was on it.. they were sent to kill him even so. Not capture. Which makes it a summary execution without any manner of trial.

dogma wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:... agree with arbitrary execution?

Even if this was an execution, it would hardly qualify as arbitrary.

Anyway, as Shuma said, there was far more to begained in taking him alive, so its highly unlikely that exceution is what actually occurred.

I think its clear that Arbeits is a troll, or a sympathizer, but most likely a troll.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
The US position is when a non-state actor declares war on us, kills thousands through terrorist attacks that also violate the rules of war, we can hunt him down anywhere. And if he gets killed resisting capture... oh well.

Even if you have no legitimate right to be in that country?

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Now if Osama has joined a legitimate military, worn a uniform, commanded an army and basically been part of a state then yeah, rules of war apply. However unlawful combatants don't get those benefits. In war enemy soldiers who don't have uniforms and a structure are somewhere between bandits and spies and can, legally, be killed.

If you actually believe that then you are probably highly patriotic or niave. If the US doesn't recognise the Taliban as 'legitimate' then by their own ruling can do what they want. It goes both ways. If you break laws and murder people because they do the same, how does that make the US better or more legitimate?

I am glad we finally put a stop to a monster of our own creation and all but the timing is odd and does nothing to instill faith in the system for me.

For the record, to my knowledge there is no evidence he was responsible for 9/11. There are questionable tapes that seem to have him taking credit which would not be uncommon for any figurehead put in the posistion to advance their own political agenda in a largly anti american region.

To my knowledge, America never produced evidence linking him to the attacks. Instead we seemed to have used the attacks to justify other foreign invasions which we continued to advance even after it was clear the occupied countries had nothing to do with 9/11.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden

You will notice there is no mention of Sept 11 on the FBI charges.

Just because it is common knowledge does not mean it is accurate.

Further, it should be noted that if I recall correctly in 01 the Taliban agreed to turn him over to a third party country for trial if we would stop our bombings and we refused under the premise ' we know he is guilty'.

Furthermore, it bugs me to no end that all this comes as we near the ramp up to campaign season, 10 years after the alleged incident that instilled such public comradery and after his influence had dissapated tremendously....a day late and a dollar short.

If we had spent majority of our war resources alotted finding Bin laden shortly after 9/11 and kept our focus and he turned up dead after a fire fight alledegly refusing to surrender, i may feel a little better about our government. As it stands now I for one am not at all comfortable with the way we seem to stumble like the town drunk between arrogant hegemony and pure brute force.

Yeah, we totally arbitrarily killed Public Enemy No. 1 after he had committed and confessed to many crimes. No sense in it whatsoever.*


*Please serve with at least a 1/2 cup of sarcasm. While some people may prefer a larger dose, please keep in mind that large doses of sarcasm have been found to be harmful to your health.

The news feed I heard stated that they attempted to get him to surrender and that he would not...

CT GAMER wrote:i don't believe I mentioned Afghanistan.

I stated that if this mission to get Osama had gone tragically wrong that plenty of anti-Obama folks would have been using the "he" statements ...

I understand what you are blathering on about, it just isn't what I said nor do I care...

Given that the war in Afghanistan was directed towards capturing Osama, and that the expansion into Pakistan is a consequence of the war in Afghanistan, there's no way that Afghanistan deaths are not relevant.

Your belief that "plenty of anti-Obama folks would have been using the 'he' statements" is founded on an incorrect assumption.

halonachos wrote:

dogma wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:... agree with arbitrary execution?

Even if this was an execution, it would hardly qualify as arbitrary.

Anyway, as Shuma said, there was far more to begained in taking him alive, so its highly unlikely that exceution is what actually occurred.

I think its clear that Arbeits is a troll, or a sympathizer, but most likely a troll.

A sympathizer with what? Trial and due process and the demonstration of justice being served legally and not arbitrarily handed out by soldiers in the field? Yes, absolutely I sympathise with that.

So because I don't feel that an enemy of the state should be shot without standing trial for his crimes, I'm a troll? Or because I don't agree with blood-thirsty reveling in the blood of my enemies, I'm a troll? Or because I find the concept of torture for entertainments sake distasteful, I'm a troll? I'f I'm not waving a US flag and celebrating the deaths of my foes with righteous vengeance I'm a troll? Or just because I'm not blindly agreeing with you, I'm a troll?

thedude wrote:For the record, to my knowledge there is no evidence he was responsible for 9/11. There are questionable tapes that seem to have him taking credit which would not be uncommon for any figurehead put in the posistion to advance their own political agenda in a largly anti american region.

To my knowledge, America never produced evidence linking him to the attacks. Instead we seemed to have used the attacks to justify other foreign invasions which we continued to advance even after it was clear the occupied countries had nothing to do with 9/11.

I'm pretty sure that having him gloat over the destruction caused, and taking responsibility in the name of his organization counts as evidence. The reason that it's not listed on the FBI's webpage is that he was only a financier, and it was his organization that perpetrated that attack on NYC. He had many other crimes in which we knew he was the leader, for which we could charge him without a doubt and no one else to blame.

halonachos wrote:Article 4 of the Geneva Convention concerning POWs.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Yes, that says that organized militias and volunteer corps shall be regarded as protected combatants (required for POW status) if they fulfill those requirements. It does not say that they shall only be regarded as organized militias or volunteer corps if they fulfill those requirements. It also says that you were wrong in regard to the presence of an explicit chain of command, and the need for massing of firearms, or prepared attacks.

If you actually believe that then you are probably highly patriotic or niave. If the US doesn't recognise the Taliban as 'legitimate' then by their own ruling can do what they want. It goes both ways. If you break laws and murder people because they do the same, how does that make the US better or more legitimate?

He wasn't killed out of a desire to prove the US is better. he was killed because he was a fanatical mass murderer who espoused a desire to do so again and who was a figurehead to others of similar intent.


He was a rabid dog that got put down.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:I was going to say that the most disturbing aspect of this is that the US feels that it can, with impunity, fall upon a person anywhere in the world and summarily execute them without trial or any other due process in what is either a war crime or an assassination.

This is a very late hour, and a very strange occasion, on which to be sounding this alarm.

The policy regarding the authority to kill or capture this kind of terrorist personnel has been established and consistent for several years. Many of us do have objections of principle to it. Many of us (Americans and other) have raised objections and communicated to our representatives in government that we would prefer these people to be captured and tried whenever feasible.

That being said, it seems very odd for you to raise this objection regarding Bin Laden, of all people, who has repeatedly and publicly taken responsiblity for multiple heinous acts of murder against civilians. If there were ever a person whose extrajudicial killing was justified, it's probably a mass-murderer who repeatedly proclaims his guilt to the world and vows to keep doing it.

However it does seem likely that we would have tried to grab him if we could. The moral authority we would have displayed/gained by granting this monster due process would have been a breathtaking display of the power of our convictions and our believe in the Rule of Law. All that said, however, if it came down to a choice between shooting him or risking his escape, shooting him is certainly the better and more moral option.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:Now I think I'm more disturbed by how readily people (especially in the US) will disregard even the most basic laws of their own civilization in their thirst for revenge, whilst in the same breath damning other civlizations for their barbarism??? That's just scary.

As noted, you are making a rather insulting leap of logic in concluding that Americans or anyone else would necessarily, in general, abandon our convictions or commit heinous acts in real life just because a bunch of people post tough-guy crap on the internet.

Phototoxin wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
The US position is when a non-state actor declares war on us, kills thousands through terrorist attacks that also violate the rules of war, we can hunt him down anywhere. And if he gets killed resisting capture... oh well.

Even if you have no legitimate right to be in that country?

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Now if Osama has joined a legitimate military, worn a uniform, commanded an army and basically been part of a state then yeah, rules of war apply. However unlawful combatants don't get those benefits. In war enemy soldiers who don't have uniforms and a structure are somewhere between bandits and spies and can, legally, be killed.

If you actually believe that then you are probably highly patriotic or niave. If the US doesn't recognise the Taliban as 'legitimate' then by their own ruling can do what they want. It goes both ways. If you break laws and murder people because they do the same, how does that make the US better or more legitimate?

From a nation founded on such ideals as guerilla warfare and rebellion against a recognised state, its particularly ironic. Once upon a time the US wasn't "legitimate" either, until it became so through military action which earned it political recognition.

Phototoxin wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
The US position is when a non-state actor declares war on us, kills thousands through terrorist attacks that also violate the rules of war, we can hunt him down anywhere. And if he gets killed resisting capture... oh well.

Even if you have no legitimate right to be in that country?

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Now if Osama has joined a legitimate military, worn a uniform, commanded an army and basically been part of a state then yeah, rules of war apply. However unlawful combatants don't get those benefits. In war enemy soldiers who don't have uniforms and a structure are somewhere between bandits and spies and can, legally, be killed.

If you actually believe that then you are probably highly patriotic or niave. If the US doesn't recognise the Taliban as 'legitimate' then by their own ruling can do what they want. It goes both ways. If you break laws and murder people because they do the same, how does that make the US better or more legitimate?

I never knew that 'Taliban' was a legitimate citizenship. You know, like a country called 'Taliba' and its citizens are called 'Talibans', yeah that exists, I'm sure of it.

Yes, we wanted him dead. Kind of because he could be used for a figurehead if we put him on trial. But spies, anyone who isn't marked as a uniformed soldier and takes up arms is something we can legitimately kill. If you took up a weapon and fired at a british soldier, they would shoot you. If Ireland was at war with Britain and you took up a weapon against them they would shoot you. If they occupied England and you took up a weapon they would still shoot you.

If you were a spy you would be killed.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
The US position is when a non-state actor declares war on us, kills thousands through terrorist attacks that also violate the rules of war, we can hunt him down anywhere. And if he gets killed resisting capture... oh well.

Even if you have no legitimate right to be in that country?

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Now if Osama has joined a legitimate military, worn a uniform, commanded an army and basically been part of a state then yeah, rules of war apply. However unlawful combatants don't get those benefits. In war enemy soldiers who don't have uniforms and a structure are somewhere between bandits and spies and can, legally, be killed.

If you actually believe that then you are probably highly patriotic or niave. If the US doesn't recognise the Taliban as 'legitimate' then by their own ruling can do what they want. It goes both ways. If you break laws and murder people because they do the same, how does that make the US better or more legitimate?

From a nation founded on such ideals as guerilla warfare and rebellion against a recognised state, its particularly ironic. Once upon a time the US wasn't "legitimate" either, until it became so through military action which earned it political recognition.

Our reason for this was to gain freedom from a government that was not accurately representing us. Bin Laden's motives were to eradicate the USA and all its inhabitants.

Also, if we're "barbaric and bloodthirsty", how come we gave OBL a proper burial, as dictated by his religion?

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:I was going to say that the most disturbing aspect of this is that the US feels that it can, with impunity, fall upon a person anywhere in the world and summarily execute them without trial or any other due process in what is either a war crime or an assassination. Now I think I'm more disturbed by how readily people (especially in the US) will disregard even the most basic laws of their own civilization in their thirst for revenge, whilst in the same breath damning other civlizations for their barbarism??? That's just scary.

No.

The US position is when a non-state actor declares war on us, kills thousands through terrorist attacks that also violate the rules of war, we can hunt him down anywhere. And if he gets killed resisting capture... oh well.

Now if Osama has joined a legitimate military, worn a uniform, commanded an army and basically been part of a state then yeah, rules of war apply. However unlawful combatants don't get those benefits. In war enemy soldiers who don't have uniforms and a structure are somewhere between bandits and spies and can, legally, be killed.

On jingoism, did anyone actually see Obama's speech where he quietly praised that hard work of Americans and our allies, mourned the dead, and presented the facts? The whooping and chants of USA! USA! are coming from people, not the government.

So you aren't concerned about the evident US barbarism or disregard for human rights or the law in general, agree with arbitrary execution? Murderers, rapists and paedophiles all get a trial. Nazis and Japanese get trials. Saddam got a trial. In all these cases at least an appearance of civilized justice is preserved, however biased the justice might be.

Bin Laden got killed trying to evade capture. If he had been taken alive, then shot out of hand, you would have a good claim that it was illegal, and he should be have been on trial.

Personally I think it would have been useful to capture him for interrogation. He must have known a lot about the higher levels of Al Quaeda. But there you go.

As regards the rejoicing, I can understand it. I wonder how many people have read the Vatican statement on the topic and what your thoughts are?

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

halonachos wrote:

dogma wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:... agree with arbitrary execution?

Even if this was an execution, it would hardly qualify as arbitrary.

Anyway, as Shuma said, there was far more to begained in taking him alive, so its highly unlikely that exceution is what actually occurred.

I think its clear that Arbeits is a troll, or a sympathizer, but most likely a troll.

A sympathizer with what? Trial and due process and the demonstration of justice being served legally and not arbitrarily handed out by soldiers in the field? Yes, absolutely I sympathise with that.

So because I don't feel that an enemy of the state should be shot without standing trial for his crimes, I'm a troll? Or because I don't agree with blood-thirsty reveling in the blood of my enemies, I'm a troll? Or because I find the concept of torture for entertainments sake distasteful, I'm a troll? I'f I'm not waving a US flag and celebrating the deaths of my foes with righteous vengeance I'm a troll? Or just because I'm not blindly agreeing with you, I'm a troll?

You're a troll because of hyperbolic bs like this. Not because of your opinion that he should of been taken alive to stand trial. You're a troll because you express that ideal by labeling an entire nation as bloodthirsty barbarians.

As a former soldier who served during 9/11, and later in Afghanistan, Im glad the SOB is dead.

I will remember all those that have given their lives to make this day happen!!

AMERICA FETH YEAH!!

ArbeitsSchu wrote:
From a nation founded on such ideals as guerilla warfare and rebellion against a recognised state, its particularly ironic. Once upon a time the US wasn't "legitimate" either, until it became so through military action which earned it political recognition.

Sorry, when did the American Revolution send ships packed with explosives into the Thames? I must have dozed off during that part of my history courses.

You're equating what was, at best, armed rebellion against an occupying army with an international group who really only targeted civilians.

If the Revolution had, perhaps, snuck groups of people into Britain and ran around butchering the families of the British soldiers in the country you might have a point.

But they didn't and you don't.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

OrangePine wrote:@ArbeitsSchu

Any mission launched against individuals in Afghanistan or Iraq, or even Somalia for those who remember, are designated Kill or Capture.

As for the bloody bedroom, there are other things to do in your room than sleep.

He could very well have been asleep when they heard helicopters, grabbed weapons, and been shot as they fired upon the entering SEALs.

The blood on the bed could have splattered or even dripped as they tied down his body for transport.

I'll reiterate. It has been clearly stated that the mission was KILL. Not capture. Not by me, but by official US government releases. So either the US government is making things up retrospectively..or the mission was KILL.

Proof? I mean, I know you haven't been speaking in specifics this entire time. It's why people are calling you a troll. But you're citing an event that you weren't personally there for so you must have a source for this information.

killkrazy I must say, I respect the Vatican's statement. It was a wise and judicious move. For those who don't want to search for it, here ya go:

The Vatican wrote:“This morning, following the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the Director of the Holy See Press Office, P. Federico Lombardi, issued the following statement to reporters:

Osama Bin Laden - as everyone knows - has had the gravest responsibility for spreading hatred and division among people, causing the deaths of countless people, and exploiting religion for this purpose.

Faced with the death of a man, a Christian never rejoices, but reflects on the serious responsibility of everyone before God and man, and hopes and pledges that every event is not an opportunity for a further growth of hatred, but of peace.”

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
The US position is when a non-state actor declares war on us, kills thousands through terrorist attacks that also violate the rules of war, we can hunt him down anywhere. And if he gets killed resisting capture... oh well.

Even if you have no legitimate right to be in that country?

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Now if Osama has joined a legitimate military, worn a uniform, commanded an army and basically been part of a state then yeah, rules of war apply. However unlawful combatants don't get those benefits. In war enemy soldiers who don't have uniforms and a structure are somewhere between bandits and spies and can, legally, be killed.

If you actually believe that then you are probably highly patriotic or niave. If the US doesn't recognise the Taliban as 'legitimate' then by their own ruling can do what they want. It goes both ways. If you break laws and murder people because they do the same, how does that make the US better or more legitimate?

From a nation founded on such ideals as guerilla warfare and rebellion against a recognised state, its particularly ironic. Once upon a time the US wasn't "legitimate" either, until it became so through military action which earned it political recognition.

Actually we had guerrillas AND an armed forces. The armed forces wore the nice blue coats and your guys wore nice red coats. If our guys in blue coats were captured they were treated as POWs and used to trade with the blue coats to get captured red coats. Now if a guerrilla was captured they were killed. And then the red coats hired some people called Hessians, who were mercenaries, and we captured them. Then we had a guy named "Benedict Arnold" who worked for the british, but wasn't wearing a red coat. The blue coats shot him on the spot.

During WW2 we took some pilots and told them that they were going to be Guerrilla fighters. They accepted despite the fact that we acknowledged that they would be killed if captured because they had no rights and were unlawful combatants. We were willing to give up the rights of those pilots and acknowledged them as guerrillas and resigned to the fact that they would be killed if captured. I guess that we should give rights to other guerrillas because they aren't american?

biccat wrote:

Your belief that "plenty of anti-Obama folks would have been using the 'he' statements" is founded on an incorrect assumption.

Glad for clarifying you disagree. Thanks for playing.

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
The US position is when a non-state actor declares war on us, kills thousands through terrorist attacks that also violate the rules of war, we can hunt him down anywhere. And if he gets killed resisting capture... oh well.

Even if you have no legitimate right to be in that country?

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Now if Osama has joined a legitimate military, worn a uniform, commanded an army and basically been part of a state then yeah, rules of war apply. However unlawful combatants don't get those benefits. In war enemy soldiers who don't have uniforms and a structure are somewhere between bandits and spies and can, legally, be killed.

If you actually believe that then you are probably highly patriotic or niave. If the US doesn't recognise the Taliban as 'legitimate' then by their own ruling can do what they want. It goes both ways. If you break laws and murder people because they do the same, how does that make the US better or more legitimate?

From a nation founded on such ideals as guerilla warfare and rebellion against a recognised state, its particularly ironic. Once upon a time the US wasn't "legitimate" either, until it became so through military action which earned it political recognition.

Your statement here shows a vast amount of ignorance in regards to why the colonies rebelled against the British Empire, as well as the manner in which the revolution was fought.

@halonachos

Benedict Arnold wasn't executed...

OrangePine wrote:@halonachos

Benedict Arnold wasn't executed...

Neither was Osama Bin Laden.

@ShumaGorath

I never said Osama Bin Laden was.

In fact it was my position that Osama was killed while resisting capture.

Mannahnin wrote:This is a very late hour, and a very strange occasion, on which to be sounding this alarm.

Assuming the poster you're quoting is sincere, then it's not necessarily a bad time or circumstance to raise the issue. This is a very visible and widely discussed issue, and the outliers (those condemning the killing rather than praising it) are more likely to be heard than they would be in the regular day-to-day news cycle.

Using this as a moment to get out the message is not improper.

That said, I agree with Mannahnin (and others) that this isn't a good case to hang your hat on. He wasn't killed in a targetted strike, but during capture. His body was treated with due reverance and it seems like everyone tried their hardest to behave appropriately (contra the Saddam Hussein execution).

Most of the war on terror does raise interesting questions about the authority of a government to sentence someone outside of the country to death without due process. But this case isn't really a very good case, factually speaking.