Discussion in 'Politics' started by SciWriter, May 2, 2011.
What's your point.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
As I noted in post 461 post are being made more frequently than every three minutes in just this thread. Probably more at other larger cites. If this activity crashes the internet, OBL gets the last laugh.
Indeed, there was an explicit decision made to pursue the conflict as a matter of war, and not as a police action. Did you not get that memo? It was fairly unequivocable.
So why do you keep complaining that such doesn't work like a legal proceeding? It's not supposed to. It's a war.
No. As you say, there was no trial, and so no "conviction" or "sentence." There were parties to an armed political conflict, who used violence against one another.
Again missing the point that this is an international armed political conflict. Vigilante justice only occurs within the framework of an established legal system, backed by a state exercising a monopoly on the use of violence. There is no such system or state encompassing the parties to this war.
Same for extra-judicial killing. All war deaths are "extra-judicial killings." Nobody bothers to describe them that way, because it's obtuse: the whole thing about war is that it's not a legal proceeding subject to some judge.
Lol, Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You have double standards for evidence.
We did have a reasonable suspicion that Osama was public enemy #1. The mission was to kill or capture, he just didn't want to be captured.
Repeat, like I said, these are competing narratives from two sets of vigilantes [at last count there were at least three separate Osama bin Ladens on video and he has been pronounced dead nine times so OBL makes a vigilante group all by himself]
I'm merely pointing out that accusations are not trials or convictions and extrajudicial killings are illegal
Meanwhile, the US fighting a war against one man for ten years [during which he was pronounced dead nine times] is just priceless. Hence the reference to sane societies.
25 pages in less than 24 hours, this thread is like a bee hive.
Wack the hornet's nest with large stick.
I have a reasonable suspicion that you may be a suspicious person.
People would do well to keep this in mind. The circus around this is ridiculous. Everytime I hear someone say "He's finally dead." or "We got him!" I'm just rolling my eyes. People are so damn gullible.
What makes you believe it was all for one man? He's just one of many they are seeking out even if he is the main one.
What is it with you and Bee's (Watch out bee farmers, you mind come home one day and find Giambattista, American pie'ing one of your hives)
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, I like to rearrange the spices on supermarket shelves to spell bad words.
I just found my new hobby!
Under that usage, every nation-state in the world is a "vigilante." The term only has meaning in reference to a state-backed justice system. Since no such thing exists at the international level, it's meaningless to speak of "vigilantes" in that context.
And since nobody has claimed to have tried and convicted Bin Laden, this has exactly zero relevance to anything. The only person speaking to any expectation of such here, is you.
This was only an "extrajudicial killing" in that the United States is not, nominally, at war with Pakistan.
Killing enemies in a warzone is not "extrajudicial killing." It's warfare.
And how come you never display any compulsion to point out lack of legal process in other contexts?
So, again: since nobody except you is speaking from the expectation that this is a legal proceeding, who are you "pointing out" such things to, and to what point?
Would that we were, though. It would mean we could bring all the troops home today.
And yet, Bin Laden constantly judged those he told to be killed to be judged guilty.
People do have a right to legal representation in all sane societies. I am sure that if Bin Laden had not fought back and refused to be taken alive, he'd have gotten said legal representation. I saw you comment earlier that they, the Americans, had no qualms about shooting women and children in the death of Osama's wife. To counter that, it has become known that his other wives and children and other women and children living in that compound were safely evacuated.
One has to question the reasoning of a man who knows he is wanted, dead or alive, who took to having his wives and children surrounding him at all times. I am sure that is something that will be investigated and torn apart at some point in the future.
Judging by the looks on the faces of those watching it, there was no fist pumping or "America fuck yeah" going on.
Personally, I think he got more than he deserved. He was accorded more respect in his burial than he deserved. He was also accorded a better death than he deserved. He chose to die violently. He chose to have his wives and children living there and shielding him at all times. He could have surrended and faced trial to present the evidence you seem to say he has that he did not do any of it. I am sure there would have been plenty.... or not..
Who said its one man? I said there are at least three OBLs on video, so which one was killed? And if he has been pronounced dead nine times so far, will he be competing with Elvis for sightings? Or will he/they stay dead?
This has a very The Boys From Brazil feel to it. I have a feeling a video will turn up soon
More, or less, guilty?
But, setting aside the chance at some American machismo like, "I'd like to see them try", there are some functional concerns about the scrutiny you're applying.
First, you're appealing to an idyll. It's not that I would knock that aspiration, but if we wait for the "good guys"—in any context—to behave according to idyll, evil will triumph.
It just doesn't happen. It will never happen.
Second, you can't rightly argue that the U.S. cannot provide evidence of terrorism. Even Americans are uncertain what evidence their government has.
Third, Osama bin Laden has had over nine years to pipe up and say, "Uh, guys? Hey, I didn't do this. Ain't got nothin' to do with me." Instead, he either continued to make threats and tried to rally "al Qaeda", or else simply shut up and retired to a villa a short drive north of Islamabad.
Now, maybe I just don't understand something about his psyche, or perhaps it's a cultural issue, but at some point, if governments all around the world wanted to kill me for something I didn't do, I might actually make the effort to advise people that I didn't do it.
No, that's not conclusive by any stretch of the imagination. I'm just sayin' ....
Fourth, the question of Pakistan's permission is pretty much settled either by corruption or ineptitude. The Pakistani government has insisted that Osama bin Laden was not in their country. Yet not only is he in their country, he's an hour or so outside the capital city, living in a compound apparently built just for him, so fucking close to the military that they should be able to smell it when he shits.
(Chris Matthews was just exploring this question on his show, and one point that emerges is the idea that in a state known for its intrusive government, the idea that a notorious criminal suspect could move into a newly-built, unusual compound in a garrison town, a hundred yards from a military facility, and nobody in that government noticed, is kind of silly on its face. The only real question is how high up the chain of command that knowledge, nod, and wink went.)
As an operational security question, with a government leaking confidence like a sinking ship, can we afford to trust the Pakistani government in this specific moment? What are the chances that you make all the calls, wait for your clearance, do the job, and find that you got there an hour after Osama bin Laden happened to clear out?
Someone with as much sympathy among the government, armed forces, and intelligence services as bin Laden apparently has?
Fifth, while there is a strong possibility of summary execution of an ailing suspect, the troops involved get at least the presumption of innocence you're granting Osama bin Laden.
This whole game of dueling bullshit that the various sides of these disputes play with each other is all well and fine if all we're seeking is momentary emotional satisfaction. But in any practical application, it brings the whole idea of right and wrong to a grinding, bone-jarring halt. For instance, where we stand right now, then, is that American forces are innocent of summarily executing a man who is innocent of any involvement in the murder of over 2,700 people.
You and I, for instance, could just set this whole thing aside, bust out a hookah, and listen to tunes, and everybody would still be innocent or guilty, according to the laws of man or God.
Just remember: In the United States, wealth, notoriety, or a combination of both earn you something most people don't get. Most people, when indicated in an arrest warrant, find out when the cops come crashing through the door. But rich or notorious people can negotiate their surrender to authorities. That is, they can tell their lawyer to call in, and the attorney will say, "My client is willing to surrender himself at this time, at this location."
And one thing you get out of that is a spectacle. If word got out that Osama bin Laden was asking to meet with prosecutors? And yes, that word would get out.
He had over nine years, and while he was perfectly happy to record and release threats and rally calls—or, for those more conspiratorially inclined, sit by while others besmirched his innocence with fake threats and rally calls—he never once bothered to come in, speak out, or otherwise express his innocence.
That's the thing that gets me. If he's so bloody innocent, he didn't act like it. And if he wants to lend his star power to the war against the U.S., or Western colonialism, or the infidels, or whatever, I just don't think you can reasonably start your consideration of Osama bin Laden with such a wide-eyed blank slate.
If all the guilty folks just argue about who's more guilty, it doesn't mean any one of them is actually innocent.
I dunno I'm watching this story pretty closely. Seems like the usual smokescreen B.S that's surrounded this guy from day 1. Very convenient to have to lose the body so fast.
Why, were you going to take samples?
You said exactly that, explicitly.
You also said that. Doesn't seem that you have any clear stance on the issue.
So the situation is: there may or may not be one or more people who are Osama Bin Laden, and who may or may not have been involved in terrorism, and who may or may not have died a long time ago, or yesterday, or still be alive. Also: extrajudicial killing is illegal.
Is that about the gist of it?
Separate names with a comma.