Revenge is a dish best served cold Osama!!!

[lucky number 7]

Would want to have been shooting hollow points for that sort of an exit wound ...either that or its shopped ..guessing the latter

 

[Teh Mite]

http://twitter.com/#!/frasereC4/status/65862236853379072

http://twitter.com/#!/frasereC4/status/65863013424574464

Surprised this wasn't started sooner.

 

[TRF_Cymro]

Try this one, carries the same warnings.

http://twitter.com/#!/OldHoborn/statuses/65857902086332416

Ah ... still don't think its authentic mind.

No release of Bin Laden photos

 

[lucky number 7]

so what do we all believe ?

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

He's dead killed by American special forces

 

[smartcooky]

so what do we all believe ?

Occams Razor: "Plurality must never be posited without necessity; it is futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer" or "the simplest solution is usually the correct one"

1. US intelligence found out where Bin Laden was, and sent in a top of the line Seal Team to take him out.

2. US intelligence found out that Bin Laden was dead from kidney failure. They reported this to Obama, who decided to make political capital out of the death, so he organised for US Marine engineers to secretly build a compound in a suburb of a small town in Pakistan, then planned a bogus raid on the compound using actors as Bin Laden and his family to create a Hollywood scenario that they all watched in real time.

Really, which one do you believe?

 

[Charles]

I' m not the only one having reservtions about this whole thing...

I commend the bravery and courage of the SEAL team members for completing their mission. However, while Bin Laden was a disreputable terrorist responsible for the bombings of the USS Cole and our embassies, let us not forget that Osama Bin Laden has never been charged or indicted by the justice department for the attacks on 9/11. Everyone deserves their day in court and you are innocent until proven guilty under our rule of law. What troubles me is that we executed him without even bothering to indict him first. If we are a country that stands by the rule of law then we must follow it, even when it is inconvenient.
Because a country that does not stand for it’s own rules stands for nothing.
Jesse Ventura

Bin Laden's death prompts questions about legality

Print
GENEVA â€"
The legality of U.S. forces shooting an unarmed Osama bin Laden hinges on a highly contentious and long-debated question: Is anti-terrorism part of a military campaign or a law-enforcement effort?

In war, enemy combatants who don’t explicitly surrender are considered legitimate targets, international experts said. Bin Laden’s killing in a military context would be legal under the scenario officially put out by the White House Wednesdayâ€"that bin Laden was unarmed but tried to resist being taken in.

In contrast, international human rights law dictates that police must use the greatest possible effort to capture suspects alive, barring direct threats to the lives of officers or civilians.

“There is a higher obligation not to use lethal force,†said Andrea Prasow, senior counsel in Human Rights Watch’s Terrorism and Counterterrorism Program.

The Obama administration strongly emphasized Wednesday that bin Laden’s slaying by a Navy SEAL team was part of a legitimate military operation, with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder telling the Senate Judiciary Committee that the shooting was justified as an action of “national self-defense†against a lawful military target. The U.S. position appeared to strengthen during the day as U.S. officials told The Associated Press that the SEALs killed bin Laden after they saw him appear to lunge for a weapon.

The officials, who were briefed on the operation, say several weapons were found in the room where the terror chief died, including AK-47s and personal side arms.

International experts said there was widespread disagreement about whether al-Qaida members such as bin Laden are legitimate military targets.

The U.N.‘s independent investigator on extrajudicial killings, Christof Heyns, said this week that there was “considerable dispute in legal circles as to whether we are dealing with an armed conflict in respect of al-Qaida in Pakistan.â€

The International Committee of the Red Cross was holding a meeting on the issue Thursday and declined to comment beforehand.

Louise Doswald-Beck, a former legal chief for the Red Cross said, however, that bin Laden was clearly not an enemy combatant.

“He was basically head of a terrorist criminal network, which means that you’re not really looking at the law of armed conflict but at lethal action against a dangerous criminal,†she said.

There has been virtually no discussion in international legal circles of launching an investigation into bin Laden’s death that could result in the prosecution of anyone involved. In many countries, however, the debate about the legitimacy of the killing could influence perceptions about U.S. foreign policy.

Doswald-Beck, who teaches law at Geneva’s Graduate Institute, said only an independent investigation of bin Laden’s body would be able to prove exactly how he died, and that had been rendered virtually impossible by the destruction of forensic evidence when he was buried at sea.

A U.S. official said the burial decision was made after concluding that it would have been difficult to find a country willing to accept bin Laden’s remains. There was also concern that a grave site could have become a rallying point for militants.

“I think questions should be asked as to why they dumped him at sea, because that makes it impossible to conduct an independent investigation,†Doswald-Beck said.

The call for more information on the raid gained added weight with a statement from the U.N.‘s top human rights official.

“This was a complex operation, and it would be helpful if we knew the precise facts surrounding his killing,†said U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay. “The United Nations has consistently emphasized tat all counterterrorism acts must respect international law.â€

 

[Teh Mite]

That's it. The ******* world has now gone completely mental...

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

In my opinion the freedoms many western people enjoy and our lifestyle are not what some very dangerous people with a very different outlook want us to have or espouse. Some of them have a direct military/terrorism approach, whilst western society is gradually evolving into a "let's make sure we've asked everyone politely first, not offended them and tiptoed around their feelings before we act" approach.

The Far Left generally tend to try and nag and lawyer the rest of the western world into being a good little boy and respecting everyone's rights, telling us off for our history of colonialism and very swiftly turning a blind eye to the human rights abuses in the middle eastern countries, China, Zimbabwe, you name it. None of them are particularly good at telling off the middle east for not being particularly receptive to people of any other culture, or telling off China for trying to rob personal freedoms from their people and trying to turn them into automatons.

I'm probably just going to leave it at this one post, because basically I'm not going to waste my life arguing with the "tut tut, western guilt" brigade who'll either call me a nazi, a communist, a racist or a redneck westerner or maybe a combination of the same. As far as I'm concerned a terrorist is dead, plain and simple, whether it was this week or whenever. He helped make thousands of people motherless and fatherless, I'm sure that doesn't matter to some in here though, "he should've been brought to trial" or whatever else.

There's always going to be looney left theories no matter what the truth is.

 

[lucky number 7]

As long as he was clothed the Seals could assume he had some form of bomb strapped vest on him ..when going to capture or kill a leading terrorist I would make the assumption that they will want to go down with a struggle or in some form of "blood sacrifice" so it was completely rational to assume that when it took 40 mins to reach bin laden that he may have strapped himself up and considering shots were exchanged with his guards anybody deemed a threat in the building could be justifiably killed in my opinion

 

[Charles]

There's always going to be looney left theories no matter what the truth is.

Like the Rule of Law, for example. Like the right for everyone to have a fair trial. Like the need to indict someone before going after him and killing him. All those rights that make Western democracies better places than medieval dictatorships. I guess this doesn't appeal to brown people though...

Nice "Democracy" and "Freedumz" we're bringing these people of Afghanistan and Iraq...How you (not esp you CA) cannot see the logical fallacy in this whole affair is a mystery to me...

 

[lucky number 7]

War is not meant to be civilized its barbaric and horrific and not everything /anything that happens would be justified outside of war...However too many people fail to see the ******* difference between the killing of a Fanatical , biggoted, mass murderer and the killing of an innocent civilian...

Bin Laden does not play by the rules of engagement so why should those that are fighting him.

 

[King_D'Arcy]

Ugh! Describing liberals as "the loony left" is so moronic. There's nothing loony about human rights. The vast majority of liberals would be entirely against the human rights violations in the middle east and Asia

 

[Teh Mite]

Human rights protect criminals and punish victims. Human rights are **** poor excuses made by wishy washy socialists.

Human rights can **** off.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Human rights protect criminals and punish victims. Human rights are **** poor excuses made by wishy washy socialists.

Human rights can **** off.

Only if you keep the term human rights at the most abstract level. See what it consists of. The right to life for example. In 2010 23 countries carried out the death penalty and the 10 countries who executed the most, executed 1500. Do you really think that all justice systems are infallible? Especially in the most corrupt places in the world, where governments can use the apparatus of government to oppress the weak and marginalized? Mistakes happen and innocent people will die.
Civil liberties? Look at the way the US has abused Assange’s civil rights by demanding various of his personal details from certain companies, for example his twitter account details, his criedt card details from visa, etc, so that they know as much about him as possible. Government whistleblowers like assnage have to be protected. Theres so many things that wikileaks revealed that concen us. In 2009, the former labour prime minister of australia urder America to deploy force against china. I find this shocking and for the valuable work done by assange he needs to at least be guaranteed civil protection. Instead, America has been putting pressure on Sweden so they can extradite him over there where he could possible face the death penalty.
Two illustrations of the need to guarantee our human rights. They exist as external checks to prevent present and future absuses. That’s why regardless who was killed, bin laden or the ordinary citizen, we need to examine our treatment of people. It guarantees our own safety, therefore how people can invoke the example of how Churchill and rosovelt etc didn’t stand idly by in ww2 but took action, but not realise that that was just an active defense of freedom and long taken for-granted rights, is a mystery to me.

I really hope your joking bullitt. And please, if you don’t understand what socialism is , don’t bother bringing it in.

 

[Teh Mite]

You want an argument about everything wring socialism and leftardism, bring it on.

Criminals forgo their "human rights" when they intentionally take another. No exceptions.

 

[King_D'Arcy]

I really just wanna know how human rights "punish victims"...

 

[Teh Mite]

Because Human Rights are used to defend the indefensible the same way that Socialism is used to employ the unemployable.

Saying the like of OBL deserve any protection is like saying Hitler or Genghis Kahn did also.

 

[Shaggy]

I' m not the only one having reservtions about this whole thing...

If a guy declares war on you (a holy war), I can't see why the laws of armed conflict do not apply ... he was a combatant as far as i'm concerned, and a casualty of war, nothing more and nothing less. There is no question in my mind that given the options suggested in the article of "Military Campaign" or "Law Enforcement", that it is Military Campaign , because he declared war.

It's ironic that someone who has shown no respect for human rights, and western law, is now being defended by it, albeit after his death.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Just because you can cite the examples of three extremely evil men, do you really think that invalidates the need for human rights altogether, for the other 6 billion people in the world? Has Hitler gone and f****d us all from beyond the grave by taking away everyone elses human rights!?!?! There's some big irony in the hitler/OBL arguments as far as I can see.
Sorry for using another example but a few years ago there was a british mother who was held for years suspected of having killed her children. A few years later new evidence was uncovered showing her innocence. If she was American or Chinese, on top of having lost her children, she probably would have been dead. The death penalty is irreversible.
THE LAW DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE HITLERS AND THE JANE SMITHS( I don't know what her name was) OF THIS WORLD! That is precisely why the word justice needs to be taken out of these arguments because it has no place here.