Bin Laden is dead

[LogGrad98]

I was under the impression that the GC had nothing to do with matters such as these? This wasn't a country fighting another country while at war.

I think you will end up being right about this Marcus. It depends on how the "international armed conflict" part of it is interpreted and, more importantly, the final determination on the circumstances of OBL's death.

 

[Scat]

I think you will end up being right about this Marcus. It depends on how the "international armed conflict" part of it is interpreted and, more importantly, the final determination on the circumstances of OBL's death.

Of course the UN and the International Court of Justice may come into play...

 

[SaltyDawg]

Ok to summarize so you don't have to be expected to read what was already said:

The primary discussion here has NOT been whether the raid itself was legal per the GC. The GC only has a few provisions as to the carrying out of war, most of the GC is for the treatment of prisoners of war and civilian non-participants and even participants who surrender. You brought into it whether the raid itself was legal and that is covered more under the treaties of the Hague Convention.

You are the one who keeps bringing up the GC (before I even posted). Dutch was also clear that the USA may have violated some laws (which is what sparked the whole discussion anyway).

Somehow you took all that and turned it into some bizarre interpretation that we wanted them instead to bomb the bejeezus out of the compound killing everyone there rather than raiding it and killing just OBL. No idea where you got that from. I asked you to provide the quotes, you did not. I answered your question about whether bombing the compound would have been legal and said by the GC it would be investagatable due to the impact to civilians. One Brow correctly applied the standards from the Hague Conventions laws of war that technically the bombing would be legal, but he again brought up the implication that legal does not always mean right, which is what we were getting at with the killing of OBL in the raid.

I explained it in pretty good detail. Dutch's issue was that this may not have been legal. You later agreed and even posted some of the GC. I pointed out that bombing the compound would have been totally legal and therefore erased any of those legality questions. So if your only disagreement with this is based on the legality (which is still the only reason I have seen given for any possible disagreement) then you would have obviously preferred the legal method- bombing the compound and killing everyone in it.

There are multiple issues at play in this thread, but what One Brow, Dutch, and I were mostly discussing with others was whether the way we killed OBL was legal per the GC. Not the distinction between bombing the compound or raiding it, but even in more detail, the conjecture that maybe he was captured then forced to "kneel down" (or whatever) while he was shot in the head (a clear breach of the GC) or if he were killed in the chaos of the initial raid or while actively defending himself or kneeling.

Man you're all over the place. So you WERE discussing the legality of it after all. So then how are you not seeing my point? Your whole issue is that raiding the compound and then killing Bin Laden may have been illegal. My point is that blowing that whole thing to smithereens and killing everyone inside would have been totally legal. Again, if your issue was the legality of the way he was killed, which you just said that was the issue you were discussing, then the method he was killed (executed, bombed, whatever) is very much relevant to the discussion.

We have been skirting around the periphery of the GC (and now that you turned the direction, the Hague Convention and treaties), but we have not had a full treatise on those laws. Really the discussion, up until you got here, was whether there was a tipping point where it is ok to chuck the laws out the window in the interest of revenge, and if people felt it would be ok if we found out that OBL was executed when he could have been captured.

Wait a minute, you just said "what One Brow, Dutch, and I were mostly discussing with others was whether the way we killed OBL was legal per the GC." Like I said, you're all over the place.

See that is where you spoke out of your ***. You did not read enough to understand the discussion. You mixed issues and built up a pretty crappy straw man to rail against, and tried to push it off on everyone else.

No man, I understood the discussion just fine. Your first post where you brought up the GC was 10 minutes before my post disagreeing with dutch. It's not like you had a hundred posts before I got in. I am following along just fine. It's just you are all over the place.

Even those who disagree with me, Brow, and Dutch could tell you that the focus was on the "what-if" factors surrounding OBL's actual capture/death and whether it would be right to go against the laws we all agreed to (in the GC) and simply shoot him in the head or if that would have been wrong. Some didn't want to discuss it in a what-if format, and that's cool. I still think it is valid until we get the official details from the debrief as we really at this point do not know exactly what went down. What we have now is various reports, some conflicting. Personally, I believe the reports from the Seals that killing him was a result of the raid and possible return-fire. But I still think it is valid that we open up the dialog regarding the implications if we find out in the end that they had him in custody and just shot him in the head. And the still more complex implications if it was actually ordered by Obama.

Well as long as we're playing the what if's, lol. What if they had bombed the compound and killed everyone inside and a few civilians outside? It would have been totally legal, killed lots of unarmed people, nobody inside would have been posing a direct threat to the person firing the missile, and Obama would have been the one to order it. Would you prefer that to the surgical strike that was carried out, even if they made him kneel down and shot him in the head?

If I am way off-base with this summary I am sure someone will correct me.

There, now you don't have to actually read anything else that was said, which it was very obvious you did not do before you jumped in with both feet in your mouth.

I didn't read the whole thread, but I read enough to know what was being discussed. I disagreed with Dutch, responded in kind, which you happened to post your agreement with dutch while I was making my post. So for all intents and purposes, I have been here from the start of the discussion. You got involved at virtually the same time I did. And just like you keep saying you don;t think I understand what is being said, I am pretty sure you keep missing my point as well (as I said in a few posts now, when I tried to make it simple to follow).

 

[Gameface]

Wouldn't have been legal if he surrendered and then they executed him. No one is really arguing if the raid itself was legal, other than you.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Wouldn't have been legal if he surrendered and then they executed him. No one is really arguing if the raid itself was legal, other than you.

Man, it's frustrating posting here. I'm not sure if you guys are really not getting this (after I clearly explained this, many times now), or if you are all just messing with me...

I know the raid was legal. I know nobody is discussing that. I know the killing of Bin Laden himself is what is being discussed.

Now that we have that out of the way...

If they had bombed the compound and killed everyone inside and possibly a few civilians out side the compound, that would have also been totally legal.

Which would you have preferred- the supposedly possibly illegal raid (excuse me, legal raid but illegal killing of Bin Laden) that surgically took out Bin Laden and left all the innocents unharmed (even it it means they made him kneel down and shot him in the head) or the totally legal bombing of the compound which killed everyone inside and a few civilians outside of the compound?

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

I myself brought up the GC a few days ago but is it even relevant here? The little I just read about it makes me think not. Also, is this a "war" anyway? Did we ever officially declare war on some country? Just sayin'.

 

[LogGrad98]

The primary discussion here has NOT been whether the raid itself was legal per the GC. The primary discussion here has been whether killing OBL DURING THE RAID was legal per the GC.

Your whole issue is that raiding the compound and then killing Bin Laden may have been illegal.

There you go. Drop the first part of your sentence and you are right. They are not part and parcel. It was possible to raid the compound and NOT kill OBL at all. It was also possible to raid the compound, and kill OBL in a manner that would be considered legal by international law. It was also possible to raid the compound and THEN kill OBL in a manner that would be ILLLEGAL by international law. See the legality of HOW he was killed during the raid is not dependent upon the legality of the raid itself, since those 2 issues are governed by different laws.

But every time I tried to point that out, you just went right back to equating it to raiding the compound AND killing OBL as if there were only the 2 options: raid and kill, or bomb and kill. I made it pretty clear in the quote above, but you still put them right back together again.

The reason you think it has been "all over the place" is that you will not, or cannot, make that distinction. It is entirely possible for the raid itself to be legal, but the result of the raid (killing of OBL) to be illegal. Not sure why you cannot see that, even after I clearly made that distinction. That shows you have not been following along very well. Even One Brow made the same distinction, but you do not seem to be able to separate the 2 things.

That is enough to explain why you cannot understand the rest of the post(s). It all hinges on understanding that concept. Since you can't, or won't accept that, then you can't understand the rest of it either.

The issue was not when you joined the conversation, but rather whether you understood what was being said. Obviously you did not.

Also, to confuse levels of complexity with being "all over the place" just shows your inability to follow the thought process. The raid itself could possibly have been illegal by international law (see the Hague Treaties). The way OBL was killed during that raid could possibly have been illegal by international law (see the GC). Then you combine the 2 possibilities and the issue grows in complexity. I suppose by pointing out some of the points of those laws it made it even more complex to you. That does not make it less accurate, just shows you are having a harder time understanding as it grows more complex.

But no matter how well you personally are capable of understanding the complexity of the issue, no one up to this point was arguing the legality of the raid itself, possibly with the exception of Dutch, although I didn't understand it that way from him either. So I have no idea where you got that from. The discussion I have been part of from the beginning was around whether the way he was killed was legal, not the raid itself.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Man, it's frustrating posting here. I'm not sure if you guys are really not getting this (after I clearly explained this, many times now), or if you are all just messing with me...

I know the raid was legal. I know nobody is discussing that. I know the killing of Bin Laden himself is what is being discussed.

Now that we have that out of the way...

If they had bombed the compound and killed everyone inside and possibly a few civilians out side the compound, that would have also been totally legal.

Which would you have preferred- the supposedly possibly illegal raid (excuse me, legal raid but illegal killing of Bin Laden) that surgically took out Bin Laden and left all the innocents unharmed (even it it means they made him kneel down and shot him in the head) or the totally legal bombing of the compound which killed everyone inside and a few civilians outside of the compound?

So basically you're saying, ignore the laws or rules in place here. We did what we did and chose the lesser of two evils which makes it A-okay. Sound about right?

 

[LogGrad98]

I myself brought up the GC a few days ago but is it even relevant here? The little I just read about it makes me think not. Also, is this a "war" anyway? Did we ever officially declare war on some country? Just sayin'.

I agree that whatever the outcome of this from an international law standpoint will hinge on how the military action is viewed. Whether it is judged to be a "war" as defined by the GC. I think that will be a point of debate we will see in the media stemming from this at some point.

 

[SaltyDawg]

There you go. Drop the first part of your sentence and you are right. They are not part and parcel. It was possible to raid the compound and NOT kill OBL at all. It was also possible to raid the compound, and kill OBL in a manner that would be considered legal by international law. It was also possible to raid the compound and THEN kill OBL in a manner that would be ILLLEGAL by international law. See the legality of HOW he was killed during the raid is not dependent upon the legality of the raid itself, since those 2 issues are governed by different laws.

But every time I tried to point that out, you just went right back to equating it to raiding the compound AND killing OBL as if there were only the 2 options: raid and kill, or bomb and kill. I made it pretty clear in the quote above, but you still put them right back together again.

The reason you think it has been "all over the place" is that you will not, or cannot, make that distinction. It is entirely possible for the raid itself to be legal, but the result of the raid (killing of OBL) to be illegal. Not sure why you cannot see that, even after I clearly made that distinction. That shows you have not been following along very well. Even One Brow made the same distinction, but you do not seem to be able to separate the 2 things.

That is enough to explain why you cannot understand the rest of the post(s). It all hinges on understanding that concept. Since you can't, or won't accept that, then you can't understand the rest of it either.

The issue was not when you joined the conversation, but rather whether you understood what was being said. Obviously you did not.

Also, to confuse levels of complexity with being "all over the place" just shows your inability to follow the thought process. The raid itself could possibly have been illegal by international law (see the Hague Treaties). The way OBL was killed during that raid could possibly have been illegal by international law (see the GC). Then you combine the 2 possibilities and the issue grows in complexity. I suppose by pointing out some of the points of those laws it made it even more complex to you. That does not make it less accurate, just shows you are having a harder time understanding as it grows more complex.

But no matter how well you personally are capable of understanding the complexity of the issue, no one up to this point was arguing the legality of the raid itself, possibly with the exception of Dutch, although I didn't understand it that way from him either. So I have no idea where you got that from. The discussion I have been part of from the beginning was around whether the way he was killed was legal, not the raid itself.

Okay, I admit I did not read 90% of this one.

Are you seriously posting all of these long *** posts arguing semantics?

Whether the raid itself was illegal, or the killing of Bin Laden during the raid was illegal, it doesn't change a damn thing about my point.

Again, bombing that compound, and killing everyone inside of it would have been totally legal. Is that what you would have preferred?

 

[SaltyDawg]

So basically you're saying, ignore the laws or rules in place here. We did what we did and chose the lesser of two evils which makes it A-okay. Sound about right?

No, I am saying what they did was totally legal. Log said he also believes it was totally legal, but he is arguing what ifs. So what if they had bombed the **** out of it and killed everyone? It would have been totally legal. Would that have been preferred?

 

[LogGrad98]

Which would you have preferred- the supposedly possibly illegal raid (excuse me, legal raid but illegal killing of Bin Laden) that surgically took out Bin Laden and left all the innocents unharmed (even it it means they made him kneel down and shot him in the head) or the totally legal bombing of the compound which killed everyone inside and a few civilians outside of the compound?

That's easy. The raid was by far the better choice. I think most people have been in agreement with that in this thread. I also believe the official reports so far that the Seals acted within the legal realm of the GC in the killing of OBL. I certainly hope (and am confident) that the investigation will bear that out.

I just hope that IF it turns out that we did go against the GC in how all this was handled that we don't just sweep it under the rug. If we just start tossing our agreements and laws out the window because we are really mad, I think that is wrong and dangerous for our society.

For me, if we find out they executed him after he surrendered and we had him securely in custoder, whether on their own accord or acting under orders, I think that would be wrong and would need to be dealt with as a war crime, regardless of what OBL did in the first place.