Laugh a minute...

Posted by: keymaker

Laugh a minute... - 05/04/11 05:43 AM

This bin Laden saga is geeting more hilarious by the minute... first of all he's armed, then he's not armed... then his wife his killed, then all of a sudden she comes back to life again... whoops, better correct the human shield wheeze if neither of 'em were armed - what a farce. I would point out that anyone shooting dead defenceless persons in such circumstances commits murder and in that respect I'm calling for Obama and the immediate field operatives to be arrested and put on trial at the ICC.

km
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/04/11 03:03 PM

No, say it ain't so. You'll piss off all those folks who are claiming the sun shines out of Obama's butt - you can only say these things when George Bush is president.
Posted by: carp

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/04/11 03:13 PM

Don't know what news you listen too ? ? laugh

1 - They never said his wife was killed, she was shot in the leg (calf)
2 - Osama does have 2 arms a right and a left laugh so yes he was armed.
3 - Yes she was a human shield - question still remains, did Osama grab her to use as a shield or did she try to protect him ? ?

I am calling for Osama #2 man to held for war crimes, for the murder of the innocent.
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/04/11 04:50 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
I'm calling for Obama and the immediate field operatives to be arrested and put on trial at the ICC.
Speaking of a laugh a minute, let us know how those demands work out. laugh
Posted by: carp

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/04/11 05:55 PM

Reboot
At lease KM did not mention that stupid VISA thing again laugh
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/04/11 06:33 PM

it must feel so good
all these bold demands of yours~
as if you were king
Posted by: lanovami

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/05/11 05:33 AM

"I'm calling for Obama and the immediate field operatives to be arrested and put on trial at the ICC."

Good luck with that. The list of people I, and probably even you, would like to see in the ICC before Obama is as long your, ahem, arm - and I am not holding my breath for any of them to appear in the ICC any time soon.
Posted by: katlpablo

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/05/11 06:29 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
- what a farce.
- what a fart ! says i…


Robert Fisk interviewed Bin Laden face to face on threee different occasions.
The death of Bin Laden
[by] Robert Fisk: Was he betrayed? Of course.
Pakistan knew Bin Laden's hiding place all along


Tuesday, 3 May 2011

A middle-aged nonentity, a political failure outstripped by history – by the millions of Arabs demanding freedom and democracy in the Middle East – died in Pakistan yesterday.[…]

[…]

[T]he mass revolutions in the Arab world over the past four months mean that al-Qa'ida was already politically dead. Bin Laden told the world – indeed, he told me personally – that he wanted to destroy the pro-Western regimes in the Arab world, the dictatorships of the Mubaraks and the Ben Alis. He wanted to create a new Islamic Caliphate. But these past few months, millions of Arab Muslims rose up and were prepared for their own martyrdom – not for Islam but for freedom and liberty and democracy. Bin Laden didn't get rid of the tyrants. The people did. And they didn't want a caliph.

[…]

[…] there is one […] obvious question unanswered: couldn't they have captured Bin Laden? Didn't the CIA or the Navy Seals or the US Special Forces or whatever American outfit killed him have the means to throw a net over the tiger? "Justice," Barack Obama called his death. In the old days, of course, "justice" meant due process, a court, a hearing, a defence, a trial. Like the sons of Saddam, Bin Laden was gunned down. Sure, he never wanted to be taken alive – and there were buckets of blood in the room in which he died.

But a court would have worried more people than Bin Laden. After all, he might have talked about his contacts with the CIA during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, or about his cosy meetings in Islamabad with Prince Turki, Saudi Arabia's head of intelligence. Just as Saddam – who was tried for the murder of a mere 153 people rather than thousands of gassed Kurds – was hanged before he had the chance to tell us about the gas components that came from America, his friendship with Donald Rumsfeld, the US military assistance he received when he invaded Iran in 1980.

[…]
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/05/11 08:01 AM

Sure, no probs... they'll probably get away with it again and no doubt the aggrieved take the law into their own hands in consequence, but yeah, either way I'll let you know.

km
Posted by: DLC

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/05/11 08:46 AM

oh that's cool - let's defend a terrorist... in fact the #1 one in the world.

Pineta said they had orders to kill but IF he threw his hands up to surrender they'd capture him.
Seals said that appeared to be reaching for a weapon or something.... none of us were there, it was their call.. so you can speculate all you want... . they had no way to predict what his intentions were... so they just reacted !! Get over it !
Posted by: Ben Dover

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/05/11 10:32 AM

Well, clearing from the ground up forces that inevitable outcome with cornered rats, and the protocols seems to have stretched stuff out to an uncomfortable forty minutes, with a mere two floors (versus ten - well, fifteen, cursory identification), as they met virtually no opposition. (Recall they trained for this with an architecturally accurate reconstruction).

Quickly securing the ground (and exit, because you may not be the superior force), then quickly seizing the top, clearing from top down drives them to your ground and a more manageable outcome in the process. Whomever would be the inferior force ( by whatever metric, numbers, weaponry, skills, etc ) at the top ( which does have its advantages, however fleeting ) can prolong the duration to the inevitable.

As it was, there was only one built-in inevitable outcome that passes a lot of the litmus tests.

Ed
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/05/11 02:17 PM

Quote:
As it was, there was only one built-in inevitable outcome that passes a lot of the litmus tests.


"Added a senior congressional aide briefed on the rules of engagement: "He would have had to have been naked for them to allow him to surrender."" - LA Times
Posted by: Ben Dover

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/05/11 04:55 PM

Not to mention, with a 100+ Ranger/Marine gunships escort, what about thermal imaging, a precise picture of what they were dealing with. What about controlled cook-off non-lethal concussion rounds, smoke, etc - The Seals would have been at less risk/exposure using that stuff, and the worst with bin Laden would be ruptured eardrums and maybe some blown out eyes ( and anybody else in the radiuses ). There were a lot of options.

Not to be critical of this competent brave act that accomplished its objectives, but I can't help but wonder about the options.

Sh!t rolls downhill, so the Seals were stuck, so those guys went above and beyond. I would have to believe directly from the administrative/counselors/whomever team/whatever, as you would have to assume this special sort of unit requires a clean chain of command, Commander in Chief to group commander, circumventing all the other crap, for the obvious, as well as stuff like on-demand procurement of A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G, supreme air traffic control, logistic stuff, in order to function as they need to function, unless you want missions like this to fail through gross incompetence.

Ed
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/05/11 05:24 PM

Quote:
Not to mention, with a 100+ Ranger/Marine gunships escort


That's the second time you've mentioned an escort -- I haven't seen or heard anything regarding something like that. Most I've heard is 2 primary helicopters and 2 backups. Is there a link or something that mentions escorts?

As for flash-bangs and other non-lethal options, I'm guessing that although "capture" was an option it was probably a distant second behind "don't [censored]-foot around with these guys" ...

That's assuming Osama's in fact dead, which Occam says is probably true but the Le Carré in me says he's the sixth hard drive undergoing "analysis" in a black site somewhere ...
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/05/11 06:10 PM

Quote:
but the Le Carré in me says he's the sixth hard drive undergoing "analysis" in a black site somewhere ...


Yeah.. they're probably asking him.."Why is all the porn on these drives only of blonde-blue eyed American women.. you frikkin hypocrite..."

slap! slap!..punch!!!
Posted by: katlpablo

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/05/11 07:50 PM

Originally Posted By: NucleusG4
Quote:
but the Le Carré in me says he's the sixth hard drive undergoing "analysis" in a black site somewhere ...


Yeah.. they're probably asking him.."Why is all the porn on these drives only of blonde-blue eyed American women.. you frikkin hypocrite..."

slap! slap!..punch!!!

The bloodied prisoner then stares into the blond American interrogator's blue eyes and hisses…

"Because I hate you so !"
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/06/11 03:39 AM

Yeah.. that makes a lot of sense.
I'm basing this off of the assertions that the terrorists that we trained right here in South Florida were at local strip bars the nights leading up to the attack... and also liked to visit Las Vegas.
Nothing like enjoying bit of the decadence before attempting to destroy it..eh?
So much for the Western values that they were dead set against.
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/06/11 04:20 AM

KM you are a real LOSER! What if one of your family members died in the 9-11 tragedy or the other horrific events that happened that day would you than still have a pity about this vermin OBL who you called defenseless? Think before you say things that are plain dumb.
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/06/11 04:44 AM

He is thinking.. about how to word things to incite people to argue and be upset. Nearly of his posts have this M.O.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/07/11 01:04 AM

Quote:
What if your family members died in the 9-11 tragedy...

Same thing... I'd want to know that he was responsible by those best able to judge. As a matter of fact depriving the victims' families of justice at a trial by such an act of summary execution as wicked as his alleged crimes is the worst thing about his murder.

km
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/07/11 03:57 AM

KM How can you have empathy for a murderer who killed his own kind and others in this world? This is insane thinking on your part KM!Obama did the world a great justice and so did the Navy Seals when they killed OBL.They destroyed a cancer that was spreading rapidly thankfully.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/11/11 11:37 AM

No I think you've misinterpreted my post... I'm saying that anyone suspected of murder should be prosecuted. Suspects who think they have a defence can try it out on the court but it doesn't seem there is one on what we've heard so far.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/11/11 03:30 PM

KM

I think you missed that Osama admitted and took full credit for murdering innocent people all over the world <-- by his own words.

The UN and International law, has placed a wanted dead or alive on his head. Justice has been served in a preordained court hearing, since the criminal was not present to debate his right to murder.
Posted by: DLC

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/11/11 06:39 PM

There you go again Steve . . . confusing him with Facts !

We're supposed to let the SOB go, so he can go kill another 10,000 innocents !! sick

wink
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/11/11 08:50 PM

Quote:
The UN and International law, has placed a wanted dead or alive on his head

No I think you're getting a bit confused there between fact and fiction... so is DLC.

km
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/12/11 04:02 AM

KM what defense are you referring to? A horrific murderer who killed innocent victims for no apparent reason.Just because they did not believe in his crazy ideology.His own people KM! He got what he deserved which I am glad he did.One less menace to be confronted with.
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/12/11 04:05 AM

KM has convoluted thinking!
Posted by: DLC

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/12/11 06:51 AM

Please Marv, give him some slack, he's having a difficult time dealing with his lobotomy. wink
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/12/11 08:33 AM

While you're at it I demand you also call for the former heads of State of Egypt and Syria be arrested for the attempted murder of OBL.
Posted by: VarmintBlubber

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/12/11 09:19 AM

I demand that KM make more demands of himself and less demands of others.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/12/11 10:44 AM

FYI, from the Beeb:

US defends shooting of bin Laden
Posted by: katlpablo

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/12/11 12:34 PM

Summary/teaser
US broke deal with Osama hit — The messy case of a United States spy operating in Pakistan strained relations to such an extent that the countries sought international mediation to hammer out a new strategic agreement. A key part of this was that the US would be allowed to go after high-profile targets, with Pakistani assistance, provided Islamabad was given all the credit. This never happened with the killing of Osama bin Laden, leaving the Pakistanis angered and embarrassed. Such operations will continue, though. - Syed Saleem Shahzad

May 11, 2011
US broke deal with Osama hit
By Syed Saleem Shahzad
Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief and author of upcoming book Inside al-Qaeda and the Taliban: Beyond Bin Laden and 9/11

ISLAMABAD - Pakistan's military and intelligence community was fully aware of and lent assistance to the United States mission to get a high-value target in Abbottabad on May 2. What it did not know was that it was Osama bin Laden who was in the crosshairs of US Special Forces, and what angered the top brass even more was that Washington - in clear breach of an understanding - claimed sole ownership of the operation.

[…]

[…]

[…]

[…]

In an address to parliament on Monday, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said that unilateral actions such as the US's killing of Bin Laden ran the risk of serious consequences, but he reiterated his earlier stance that the US Special Forces had reached the compound of Bin Laden in Abbottabad with the help of the ISI.

But White House Press Secretary Jay Carney made it clear that even if Pakistan asked for one, it would not receive an apology from the United States. "We obviously take the statements and concerns of the Pakistani government seriously, but we also do not apologize for the action that we took," Carney said.

Despite this setback, Asia Times Online contacts say the spat does not mean the end of operations - they will go on as agreed, with all credit taken by Pakistan.

"This relationship is too important to walk away from," Carney said this week.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/12/11 01:15 PM

Quote:
what defense are you referring to?

The one that Obama and those US soldiers appear to lack in shooting dead someone who was unarmed.
Posted by: katlpablo

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/12/11 05:14 PM

Originally Posted By: six_of_one
I read the article, but frankly, i see no merit, when judging about the legality of OBL's killing, that Holder would rely solely on his own opinion, he being part of the accused party. Here the BHO administration will for obvious reasons maintain its actions were always legal.

"US Attorney General Eric Holder has said that the raid on Osama Bin Laden's hideout, in which the al-Qaeda leader was killed, was 'not an assassination'.".

US Attorney General "Gonzo" showed us during the past administration, that the incumbents can, —at least in some cases— consider the opinions emitted from this post of US Attorney General as unequivocal truths,… something that may not be so, as we learned on that occasion.

I'll put my 2 cents on the side of a different opinion:
Quote:
We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. - Noam Chomsky
May 6, 2011
My Reaction to Osama bin Laden’s Death
By Noam Chomsky
Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor emeritus in the MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. He is the author of numerous best-selling political works. His latest books are a new edition of Power and Terror, The Essential Chomsky (edited by Anthony Arnove), a collection of his writings on politics and on language from the 1950s to the present, Gaza in Crisis, with Ilan Pappé, and Hopes and Prospects, also available as an audiobook.

It’s increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition […]. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress “suspects.”[…]

[…]

[…]the name, Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so profound, throughout western society, that no one can perceive that they are glorifying bin Laden by identifying him with courageous resistance against genocidal invaders. It’s like naming our murder weapons after victims of our crimes: Apache, Tomahawk… It’s as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter planes “Jew” and “Gypsy.”

[…]
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/12/11 05:14 PM

LOL....

If you came over here and killed 3,00 people in the name of religion and gloated about it... and then I saw you on the street.. I'd pop a cap in your ass too. laugh
Posted by: carp

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/12/11 06:12 PM

The one that Obama and those US soldiers appear to lack in shooting dead someone who was unarmed.

Well for one thing - you DON'T need a gun to be armed.
Posted by: carp

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/12/11 06:27 PM

Pablo.

I disagree with Chomsky, arm chair quarterbacking.

My understanding from other news talking heads.

1 - US invoke its right for self determination/protection, simply self defense - under International Law. Sorta consider Osama a enemy General. Very similar to all the world wars where countries flew into other countries and dropped bombs or other missions. We have to keep in mind that Osama declared a Holy War and the war powers act is now involved.

Assassinations ? ?
Well, yes and no - consider that the intent was dead or alive - assassination only intent is to kill. So with the intent of the seal team six, the word assassination is incorrect.

IMO
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/12/11 08:45 PM

Quote:
Well for one thing - you DON'T need a gun to be armed.

So what?

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/12/11 08:47 PM

Quote:
So with the intent of the seal team six, the word assassination is incorrect.

The offence is murder and whether it happened is a question for the court.

km
Posted by: katlpablo

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/12/11 09:27 PM

IMO the intent, the mission of the seal team was to kill. Which according to your book = assassination.

A group of 24 fully trained, armed, experienced assault military team with the highest, newest military technology, could not capture a sick unarmed man enclosed in a box with his wives and children?

They had time to shoot in the leg one of the women when she tried to protect him with her body, but no time to tase him, stun him, or immobilize him with some time proven technique.

Then, after the killing, they throw the body —from a helicopter i imagine— into the sea. (They don't even leave us the dead body! Could they have tortured him?)

They then make up stupid fake versions of what happened during the raid and afterwards. Nothing makes sense. One can even joke about Obama's birth certificate and Osama's death certificate. Was it him? Is he really dead?

What do we want to believe? Whatever they say?

What do they want us to believe?
Something unbelievable; that they tried to save him but were unable!
Ha, ha, laugh , grin, LOL, ha, ha.


Frankly i don't understand how the world in general accepts this that, to me, is an illegal killing of a valuable prisoner that's been on the run for 20 years and, on capture, is wasted without interrogation nor questioning.

Like keymaker said it's a farce, it's ludicrous, "es una cogida de pendejo" = they take us for ar$eholes.

IMO
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/12/11 10:30 PM

Holder has misunderstood the law - the test for self defence as a defence to murder is not whether surrender by the victim was "offered" but whether shooting him in the head was in excess of reasonable force. That's a question for the Pakinstani Criminal Courts or, if there's a failure to prosecute, the ICC.

km
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 03:52 AM

KM needs to team up with Momaar Ghadaffi they would make the perfect couple named the ODD Couple.Either he is really spiteful or plain ignorant what happened with OBL.
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 04:37 AM

Quote:
IMO the intent, the mission of the seal team was to kill.


Based on what?

===
I don't think it really matters if there were 24 Seals or 100. They were dealing with someone who likes to blow people up....
All he had to do was act like he had something in his hand or nearby.... and that would have been enough.
Posted by: katlpablo

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 05:08 AM

Originally Posted By: NucleusG4
Quote:
IMO the intent, the mission of the seal team was to kill.


Based on what?

Based on that he's dead .

If they had wanted him alive, alive he would be.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 05:27 AM

Quote:
he is really spiteful or plain ignorant what happened with OBL.

No, i know what happened from White House statements... he was shot dead because he was armed but not armed. laugh

km
Posted by: DLC

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 06:15 AM

Well he's just a "righteous _____________" - always has to be right (in his own mind). There's a noun that goes with this phrase but I don't want to get personal. I don't think he's a bad person, just greatly misguided, . . or has nothing to live for but arguments ! wink

Drama King !! laugh
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 06:53 AM

I don't agree with that... if the soldiers shot bin Laden dead when they could have arrested him they''d be guilty of an offence. That's obviously for a court of law.

km
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 07:23 AM

Quote:
Based on that he's dead .

If they had wanted him alive, alive he would be.


That's a ridiculous assumption. You are positing that every mission ends up exactly as planned.
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 07:28 AM

Another LOL moment...

No wonder you are worked up... with writing like this...


Quote:
The hero, fully equipped, pumped up, is face to face with the real Osama bin Laden, unarmed, just out of bed, trapped in a drab room. There's no possible escape; the whole compound is "secured". This is it - the moment America has been dreaming about since September 11, 2001.


trapped in a drab room..

WTF has the room being drab have anything to do with anything? except try to make us feel sorry for OBL.. that he had to "hide" from us in squalor....
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 07:43 AM

Quote:
Quote:
If they had wanted him alive, alive he would be
That's a ridiculous assumption

I agree with kat that it looks that way but agree with you that it's not for us to make assumptions.... so can we all agree that this whole business should be decided in a court of law?

km
Posted by: DLC

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 07:44 AM

KM, one of the SEAL teams included interrogators... so there was an option for capture. BUT the SEALs thought he was tring to reach a weapon or something. NO ONE in the world can say it's justified or not, except the 2 SEALs in the room ! One would have to witness the incident to make ANY call. This is like trying to call a play in baseball or football or soccer match without even watching the game...

Any other activity is just "mental mastrubation"!
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 07:55 AM

Quote:
Based on that he's dead .

Given that you apparently don't believe anything the government says about this, how do you know he's even dead? ;-)


Quote:
If they had wanted him alive, alive he would be.

Perhaps. I think it's pretty obvious, though, that they weren't willing to accept casualties to the SEALs in the name of getting bin Laden alive. Since there's no complete, detailed narrative currently available to the public, it's mere speculation at this point wether Osama was deer-in-the-headlights when they finally got to him or, say, reaching for a bomb.

One thing he didn't do, apparently, is throw up his hands and surrender, which I'm guessing is pretty much the only scenario that held a chance of bin Laden coming out alive.

But again, pretty much all speculation since none of us knows the details of what actually happened ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 07:56 AM

Quote:
the SEALs thought he was tring to reach a weapon or something.

That's what's been said but we don't know whether it's true. There'd never be a single criminal prosecution if we started with the assumption that what the suspect says is true.

Quote:
NO ONE in the world can say it's justified or not, except the 2 SEALs

No that's wrong - the question whether someone is guilty of an offence is never entrusted to the suspect but to a duly constituted court.

km

Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 08:04 AM

A reply to Mr. Chomsky's reaction ...
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 08:15 AM

Quote:
Holder has misunderstood the law - the test for self defence as a defence to murder is not whether surrender by the victim was "offered" but whether shooting him in the head was in excess of reasonable force.

Rather than misunderstanding the law I think that Mr.Holder merely holds the opinion that given the threat bin Laden had proven himself to be to the United States, shooting him wasn't an excessive use of force.

I gather you disagree, but that doesn't mean Mr. Holder misunderstands the law =)

That, and his legal justification isn't based on the offering or not of surrender but that "international law allows the targeting of enemy commanders."
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 08:42 AM

Quote:
Rather than misunderstanding the law I think that Mr.Holder merely holds the opinion that given the threat bin Laden had proven himself to be to the United States, shooting him wasn't an excessive use of force.

Merely holds the opinion? He either misunderstands the law or is misstating it. The question whether the soldiers used excessive force is determined by reference to the situation they were in when they shot him dead - not whether the victim had posed a threat to someone else before they got there. Sending planes over to New York with specially trained crew is not the same as standing bearded and unarmed in a concrete compound surrounded by soldiers. Holder misunderstands the law if he believes that a victim's willingness to surrender in that situation determines the response permitted by those soldiers - and unfortunately for him that's what he implied.

km
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 08:52 AM

Which point? That he was, possibly, unjustly murdered.. or a court to decide if he was guilty of terrorism?
Posted by: katlpablo

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 09:00 AM

Originally Posted By: six_of_one
Perhaps. I think it's pretty obvious, though, that they weren't willing to accept casualties to the SEALs in the name of getting bin Laden alive. Since there's no complete, detailed narrative currently available to the public, it's mere speculation at this point wether Osama was deer-in-the-headlights when they finally got to him or, say, reaching for a bomb.
True. I agree. However, a bomb within reach or in any other way has not been mentioned.

Originally Posted By: six_of_one
One thing he didn't do, apparently, is throw up his hands and surrender, which I'm guessing is pretty much the only scenario that held a chance of bin Laden coming out alive.
You could be right. He could even have had his hands behind his back when the commandos appeared.

Originally Posted By: six_of_one
But again, pretty much all speculation since none of us knows the details of what actually happened ...
That is true. As you say, this is all speculation.


I'm just pointing out that he should have been taken alive. I can't accept any of the justifications given up to now for not taking him alive, and i suspect foul play.

What i see here, as i wrote before, is (IMO) the wrongful death of a valuable prisoner that should have faced trial in front of the World.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 09:07 AM

Quote:
Which point? That he was, possibly, unjustly murdered.. or a court to decide if he was guilty of terrorism?

Well, a dead person cannot be put on trial so I'm arguing for the prosecution of persons still alive who are suspected of murder.

km
Posted by: katlpablo

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 09:10 AM

I'm simply positing that this mission was successful as planned.
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 09:14 AM

Quote:

Well, a dead person cannot be put on trial so



Ho ho ho... too funny.
I was speaking of before.. I didn't know if you were arguing for a trial of OBL as opposed to his murder.

Which people should be on trial for (potentially) murder?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 09:20 AM

Oh, before, he should have been arrested and put in trial because he was suspected of murder... as a matter of fact that is my point. cry

km
Posted by: katlpablo

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 09:23 AM

A reply to Hitchens' reply to Chomsky:

George Scialabba: Hitchens Distorts Noam Chomsky
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 09:28 AM

Quote:
Holder misunderstands the law if he believes that a victim's willingness to surrender in that situation determines the response permitted by those soldiers - and unfortunately for him that's what he implied.

No, that's what you inferred. Again, the legal justification he cites in the interview has nothing to do with surrender or not, so I'm not sure why you keep putting those words into his mouth:

"The attorney general reiterated that the operation was legal, saying that international law allows the targeting of enemy commanders."

"It was an act of national self-defense." (from the video)


Quote:
Sending planes over to New York with specially trained crew is not the same as standing bearded and unarmed in a concrete compound surrounded by soldiers.

I gather Holder's assessment is based more on the ongoing threat bin Laden posed to the US as the enemy commander not just on the immediate situational threat bin Laden and his beard(??!) may have posed during the actual raid.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 09:45 AM

Quote:
that's what you inferred.

That's right - because that's what he implied.

Quote:
the legal justification he cites in the interview has nothing to do with surrender

No that's wrong - the only legal justification for killing someone in these circumstance is self defence meaning that the soldiers believed they had to kill him to stay alive themselves. Holder's reference to bin Laden's willingness to "surrender" suggests a misunderstanding of the law in that regard. wink

km
Posted by: katlpablo

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 10:18 AM

Not directed at anyone in particular… but to us all…

Joshua Holland:
Was the Killing of Osama bin Laden Legal?

May 13, 2011

"What’s clear is that people on both sides of the debate have had an emotional reaction to bin Laden’s death. They’re embracing as fact whatever claims support their reactions, and selecting only those sources of law that lend credence to their previously held assumptions."
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 10:33 AM

Quote:
I'm simply positing that this mission was successful as planned.

That makes no sense.
So of all the missions ever executed.. you can definitively say this one went according to plan because he is dead.

Come on.. you can do better than that....
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 11:03 AM

Well, it looks like we could go 'round and 'round with the "surrender as justification" theme that you seem to get from what Holder said and I clearly disagree. But this seems to be the crux of your point:


Quote:
- the only legal justification for killing someone in these circumstance is self defence meaning that the soldiers believed they had to kill him to stay alive themselves.

You're trying to apply tests regarding an individual's right to self defense against personal attack to a State engaged in hostilities against an enemy, and those tests just don't scale appropriately ...

A State has a right to self defense and the right to kill an enemy engaged in hostilities against it. Were that not true warfare itself would be illegal, which, for better or worse, is clearly not the case ...

During such hostilities, a General, for example, doesn't have to be physically brandishing a weapon before he can become a legitimate target for his enemies -- that he plans and directs others who do the actual fighting legally makes him as much a combatant as they are. Likewise, bin Laden in his capacity as leader of al Qaeda -- an organization actively engaged in hostilities against the United States and actively planning further action against it -- didn't need to be actually holding a gun or threatening to detonate a bomb before becoming a legal, legitimate target for US forces ...

Holder's point I think is that short of bin Laden actually offering to surrender, killing him was a legal act of State self defense in the context of ongoing hostilities between al Qaeda and the United States ...
Posted by: katlpablo

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 11:57 AM

My interpretation is that the mission's real objective was to kill Bin Laden and that they succeeded.

Do you think this mission failed? Do you think this mission was to capture and bring him in alive?
Posted by: DLC

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 12:01 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
the SEALs thought he was tring to reach a weapon or something.

That's what's been said but we don't know whether it's true. There'd never be a single criminal prosecution if we started with the assumption that what the suspect says is true.

Quote:
NO ONE in the world can say it's justified or not, except the 2 SEALs

No that's wrong - the question whether someone is guilty of an offence is never entrusted to the suspect but to a duly constituted court.

km


SEALs suspect of what ? Defending themselves ?

No it's NOT wrong if they thought he was going to try to escape, grab a weapon, or hit some kind of doomsday button and become a instant martyr.

YOU're making too many assumptions, including that they're guilty instead of being innocent. You can pull that cr@p in the UK, but it doesn't fly over here, Union Jack ! wink
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 12:13 PM

Quote:
killing him was a legal act of State self defense in the context of ongoing hostilities

Not really - persons entering Pakistan require a visa or a UNSC resolution and the suspects in this case had neither.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 12:15 PM

Quote:
SEALs suspect of what ?

Murder.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 12:53 PM

Quote:
Not really - persons entering Pakistan require a visa or a UNSC resolution and the suspects in this case had neither.

Ah. So now it's a borders and immigration issue. Nokay =P

And who are these "suspects" you speak of?
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 01:13 PM

Quote:
My interpretation is that the mission's real objective was to kill Bin Laden and that they succeeded.

Do you think this mission failed? Do you think this mission was to capture and bring him in alive?

Why couldn't the objective be exactly what the US claims it was: kill bin Laden or capture him if he surrendered? That he's dead isn't really proof of anything other than one of those two possibilities actually happened. It certainly doesn't prove they never intended to capture him if he tried to surrender.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 01:46 PM

Quote:
now it's a borders and immigration

What? I thought it always was borders and immigration. Let's be honest, it doesn't much help a murder suspect's credibility when he himself is a trespasser.

Quote:
who are these "suspects" you speak of?

President Obama as Commander-in-Chief and obviously those soldiers he decorated for the killing.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 02:35 PM

Quote:
What? I thought it always was borders and immigration.

So our last seven or eight posts in this thread discussing Eric Holder's grasp (or not) of law as it applies to self defense -- all that time you were really talking about a lack of proper travel documentation? That's ... interesting =P


Quote:
murder suspect's

What murder suspect?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 03:11 PM

Quote:
So our last seven or eight posts in this thread discussing Eric Holder's grasp (or not) of law as it applies to self defense -- all that time you were really talking about a lack of proper travel documentation?

No I've been clear from the start that there's more than one issue... for example in the 'Obama bin Laden' thread I observed that:

"... the whole episode was illegal from start to finish... for one thing Americans need a visa to enter Pakistan - one can't just go into a foreign country and embark upon a great big killing spree".

Lawful occupiers enjoy a presumption that they act in self defence against trespassory assailants so the two issues are related in that sense.

Quote:
What murder suspect?

President Obama as Commander-in-Chief and obviously those soldiers he decorated for the killing. cry

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 03:29 PM

Quote:
No I've been clear from the start that there's more than one issue...

Ah. Might be kind of nice not to jump from one issue to another willy-nilly, though, just to cut back on the whiplash ;-)


Quote:
President Obama as Commander-in-Chief and obviously those soldiers he decorated for the killing.

Given it hasn't been established there was a crime committed to begin with, I'm not sure I'd spin them a "suspects" that way. But I can see why you'd want to.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 03:51 PM

I'd say that the contradictory accounts we've heard about how an unarmed person came to be shot dead by illegal immigrants followed by concealment of the evidence automatically raises a prima facie case to go to court - if there's not one here we might as well shut down the courts altogether and let everyone off.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 04:05 PM

Quote:
automatically raises a prima facie case to go to court

I think I'd want an investigation to determine if an actual crime had been committed before arresting people and hauling them before a court. But that's just me.

As for not having visas (are we sure they didn't?), I'm pretty sure the SEALs if found guilty of that would have no trouble with being deported back to the US ... Oh ... wait ...
Posted by: DLC

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 05:57 PM

YOU're making too many assumptions !!

Any proof.. or just guessing ?? (I suspect the latter !)

Its' ALL guesswork !!
Posted by: katlpablo

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 06:24 PM

I have no proof of anything.

Why disappear the body? Is Bin Laden really dead? There were at least two versions of the "firefight[s]" and a version of no firefight at all.

The President makes the announcement of the raid and the death of Bin Laden but the reports on the action are contradictory. Did the President go public without fully knowing the facts on the ground?

Seems that the Seal's commanders or whoever are responsible are not being straight forward with the press or the public. They had to correct their account on several occasions, doesn't that undermine the credibility of the reports on the whole mission?

Apparently there were/are doubts about whether the Pakistanis were informed of the raid.

Bin Laden's daughter claims he was captured alive.

Information is scarce and unofficial, which creates fertile ground for all kind of speculation.

The situation is one of general unaccountability.

All this makes me wonder about the veracity of the claimed objective summed up in your words as "kill bin Laden or capture him if he surrender[s]".
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 06:33 PM

Do you think this mission was to capture and bring him in alive?

Absolutely. Even if he was to never again see the light of day.. they would want him alive so they could torture him for secrets.
Also, regarding the different accounts of firefights and such...I believe that shiiit happens and stuff gets confused and misquoted. IF.. there was a cover up.. the stories would all be previously rehearsed and in sync.
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 06:49 PM

Originally Posted By: katlpablo
Why disappear the body?
No country was willing to bury him. Islamic law states 24 hours.

The US loses any way they go.

yawn
Posted by: katlpablo

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 07:07 PM

Something is going on…


May 8, 2011
Pakistan reaches out to Persian Gulf region
By M K Bhadrakumar

Three Pakistani high-level delegations are touring the Persian Gulf region.[…]

[…]The Abbottabad operation has damaged the operational level working relationship between the US and Pakistani intelligence agencies and militaries, which needs some immediate therapy as time is of the essence of the matter in Afghanistan.

[…]No doubt, Malik briefed the Saudi leadership on what has been gleaned from bin Laden's family members who are in Pakistani custody.

[…]It seems highly unlikely, though, that the Saudis approve the unilateralist US operation in Abbottabad

[… more…]

[…]
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 09:36 PM

Quote:
Why disappear the body? Is Bin Laden really dead?

Well, the White House has offered an explanation regarding the "burial at sea" which I think we all know by now. Although I wouldn't be shocked if his death was faked and he's in a black site somewhere. No way of really knowing for sure, though -- even if the White House released the photos and stuff there would always be those who would think those are fake as well ...


Quote:
The President makes the announcement of the raid and the death of Bin Laden but the reports on the action are contradictory. Did the President go public without fully knowing the facts on the ground?

I think that's obviously the case. The White House admitted as much when issuing their corrections.


Quote:
They had to correct their account on several occasions, doesn't that undermine the credibility of the reports on the whole mission?

Quite the contrary. If they were fictionalizing what happened wouldn't it be in their best interests to keep with the original story that bin Laden was cowardly hiding behind a woman while he brandished a weapon, leaving the SEALs no choice but to kill him? If its a massive cover-up, how does the White House benefit from issuing successive corrections? What do they gain by saying later that he was in fact unarmed?

In my mind successive corrections actually argue more for the information being more or less reliable than an orchestrated facade ...


Quote:
Apparently there were/are doubts about whether the Pakistanis were informed of the raid.

Really? The official releases I've read from both the US and Pakistan say Pakistan was not informed. Pakistan has been quite public about their displeasure regarding this.


Quote:
Bin Laden's daughter claims he was captured alive.

Captured alive, then killed as I understand that report. If true, a troubling development. Though the report comes from only a single source as far as I know (al Arabiya, iirc), so how reliable it is remains to be seen.


Quote:
Information is scarce and unofficial, which creates fertile ground for all kind of speculation.

Welcome to the internet ;-)


Quote:
The situation is one of general unaccountability.

Mrrr? I think the White House pretty much owned the entire operation. In what way are they not accountable for what happened?
Posted by: Ben Dover

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 10:26 PM

Well, this could have been handled better.

Osama would die, no matter what, but a trial and justice would have been better closure, for all involved. Try him and then draw and quarter the sand sh!t, big fukiin deal. And it would have been an effective medium for all sorts of rubbish, getting the full weight/verdict of the world, putting Al-Qaeda and supporters on notice, etc, etc. Big terror win on the war on terror and anybody that wants to cove r that back. But no, we just dump this desert pVssy a$$ in the friggin deep, and don't get no play off of that sh!t!

We were deprived of getting across the full weight and verdict of the world of the futility of sand niggers, towelheads, desert gooks, whatever.

Pakistani-Washington suberterfuge - What a bunch of stupid smack. Now Pakistanis are freaked, no confidence in once-hero military, instant rapmed up national-sclale hyper-nuevo India paranoia, a freindly border probably soon to go away, etc, hperized nutcasecityville, Al Quaeda in the nuclear system? rogue money-for-ntohtin bureaucrats confushed and dazed, braindead impossible ambition, paranoia, paranoia, paranoia - Sounds like a ripe tinderkeg to me.

Burial at sea - More smakck. An Osama meormemorial would normally be a bureaucratic wetdream, a black hole for invading privacy, surveillance, "data" acquisition, and they could flip that for surveilling half the freakin globe. If you knew someone who knew someone who glanced at Osama's tomb, there'd be a five million dollar file on you. Do that Qoran bullsh!t, facing the right sh!t, etc, whtever, and rock and roll the intelligence bullsh!t.

They did this sh!t all worng, they may bot be pVssies, but they're stupid non-pVssies (wwell, aside from the valiant Seals, all we know is they're armchair warriors). smile

Ed

Jeezus, we're civilfukkinized, afterall, aren't we?
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/13/11 10:52 PM

Quote:
I think I'd want an investigation to determine if an actual crime had been committed

You mean an inquest? That would require cooperation of the suspects which might not be forthcoming in handing over the video. As to whether a crime has been committed that's what the courts are for - prosecutions proceed from a prima facie case and it seems self evident that we have one here - an unarmed man was shot dead and mutilated. If the suspects are found not guilty obviously they'll be discharged.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/14/11 12:07 AM

Quote:
the White House has offered an explanation regarding the "burial at sea"

Yeah well it wasn't a very good one - family members have a right to choose their own undertaker and attend the funeral.

km
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/14/11 04:21 AM

Personally I go back to the George W Bush measure - what would folks have be saying if this had happened during his administration, what with the story changes et al.

However, from information I've found out, it was speculated that the compound may have been rigged with explosives and the seals were not going to take any chances with Osama pushing the button to detonate the area. Basically the only chance he had was to turn the lights on lie face down in the room with his hands on his head.
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/14/11 05:43 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
the White House has offered an explanation regarding the "burial at sea"

Yeah well it wasn't a very good one - family members have a right to choose their own undertaker and attend the funeral.

km


Tell that to all the families over with dead ones buried in flaming rubble.. and the ones who jumped 40+ stories to their death.. holding hands... screaming all the way down...
I piss on his rights and his families rights....
I wish they had buried him over here.. so we could take turns pissing on his grave and defiling his burial place.


Done.. and done.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/14/11 06:06 AM

Well one can't kill someone on grounds of speculation... the more I hear about this case the more obvious it seems that it has to go to trial so that desperate arguments of that kind can be tested by cross examination.

km
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/14/11 06:21 AM

KM I wonder if you would say this nuttiness in person to a Navy Seal that OBL was an innocent victim or even to your own military troops from England? I highly doubt it KM
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/14/11 06:27 AM

Well I don't think I'd tell them something of your creation, no. I'd tell 'em what I think myself that we in the West should uphold our own standards of law and morality so as to negate the causes of terrorism.

km
Posted by: katlpablo

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/14/11 07:56 PM

Originally Posted By: six_of_one
Originally Posted By: katlpablo
Why disappear the body? Is Bin Laden really dead?

Well, the White House has offered an explanation regarding the "burial at sea" […]
Apart from the killing itself, this "disappearance" of the body is —in my opinion, based on what has reached public media so far, up till now—, the most prosecutable [actionable?] offense in a hypothetical killing of bin Laden trial.

It's not only that the "rights" —mentioned elsewhere in this thread— of a person's family (even when the person is a criminal) have been violated, but that the most rightly offensive violation is the destruction of evidence of a possible malfeasance. The SEALs, as a professional force with a duty entrusted to them by the US Government would, i believe, be acting illegally when disposing of the body —for effectively delivering it out of the reach of any future legitimate investigation that could, for example, require an autopsy—. I believe this to be so unless the SEALs acted on a Superior's order or if the body was, at the time of its dumping into the sea, out of the SEALs team's responsibility.

Who carries the weight of resposibility for sinking that body into the Persian Gulf?

We have seen in another thread the photos of the Secretary of State watching from the "situation room" [in the Do-State(?); in the WH(?)] "the takedown of Bin Laden" —and laughed or raged when the women were photoshopped out of the picture—. The White House was also allegedly in contact with the Commanders of the operation in real time, while it was going on. The people ultimately responsible were, consequently, in the WH.

We, too, have seen real and fictional court trials on TV. Some of us may have been present in real trials in a court of law. From these experiences we may have acquired a fairly accurate sense of how professional procedures on homicide cases work. One thing that i, at least, have learned is that destroying or disposing of a cadaver by criminal[s] or by anybody else is a grave offense that makes the offender[s] liable to harsh punishment.

Originally Posted By: six_of_one
Originally Posted By: katlpablo
The situation is one of general unaccountability.

Mrrr? I think the White House pretty much owned the entire operation. In what way are they not accountable for what happened?
Can we assume that Bin Laden is dead? Probably, and officially, he is. In this situation, in general and at the moment, i see three cases in which, in my opinion, unaccountability, arrives hand in hand with the killing of Bin Laden.

For the first case I'll accept your point above by clarifying that in part what i really wanted to say was that i see an attempt at unaccountability, at evading accountability, as in destroying evidence, exemplified in the case of the disposal of Bin Laden's body.

The second case of unaccountability is about the relationship between Bin Laden and powerful forces in the United States of America, that trained and in a way created him. What actions did they take together that later made them such big enemies? Who were their friends and accomplices in the freedom fighter/terrorist miasmas or in the arms/drugs dealings? What are their dealings as enemies? How did 9/11/2001 come to pass? For me, these are the reasons behind the killing rather than the capturing of Osama Bin Laden alive; Unaccountability.

The third case is the unaccountability of Bin Laden himself vis a vis the victims of NY-9/11 or of other bombings throughout the world in that, with this killing, he evades facing the living victims of his acts. Why will the people that lost sons, daughters, parents, family, friends, loved ones never have now the opportunity to write to him in his cell and tell him "I piss on you.", or insult him when he appears at the trial, or someone who, at court, hits him in the face with a shoe in the Arabic way, so he can understand their anger.
Posted by: Ben Dover

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/14/11 09:19 PM

Well, there is a Navy Seal posthumous Medal of Honor? Silver Star? recipient who rejected an illegal action that eventually resulted in his death in the course of a massive firefight against hugely overwhelming force. Unfortunately forget the name. IIRC, he had a jurisprudence, or left law school or something like that.

It goes something like: Extremely forward patrol/recon, covert op, or something. Then came upon by a few civilians. Team wanted to kill them. As team leader he mounted a discourse, knowing full well the civilians may be sympathizers who would betray them to Afghans, made his points which the team accepted, concensus, then let the civilians go.

They were betrayed and came under massive fire. IIRC, his extreme valor was a stick and move to a spot with zero cover, exposed to fire, in order to get his commo off unobstructed by 'canyon shadow', to save his team. IIRC, after taking body hits, the recipient/operator noted that he politely ended with 'thank you', as was his mannerly nature.

So, some of these guys do do the right thing, regardless of the price of honor and integrity. Apparently, honor, integrity, doing the right thing are meaningless for many Americans. Well, America, by consequence from several recent events, wretched bill come due, is in a jungle rule epoch, anyway. That's why you need a lot of money to insulate yourself and yours from the consequences of the wretched mass.

Ed
Posted by: Ben Dover

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/14/11 09:59 PM

Jerry, I may be down your way this winter. A Filipino friend of mine is foregoing his annual summer sexual rape and pillage ( well, enthusiastically catered, so rape and pillage is not entirely accurate ), so I've offered to treat him this winter, as I'm interested in property and a house there.

Of course I have zero interest in his interests, cheap nubile young girls, bar girls, etc, but I understand (from my friend) that I can get a house built on property a few blocks from the beautiful beaches for about $50K. Sounds like it would be nice to have that.

Stuff sounds cheap to get done. My friend apparently had a party hooch, an open thatched-roof version, platform, built-in lounge seating, etc built on his front lawn for a few hundred dollars ( which normally I would do in the back, but my friend's objective was a 'party central' invitation/advertisement/whatever, and from accounts of his past exploits, it sounds like he accomplished that ).

I have to ask: Now, this kind of living, is that why you are there, Jerry?

Anyway, I'll probably be there winter. Maybe hook up ( not in the sexual connotation, of course smile )

Ed

Hey, what's the surf like? My friend doesn't know surfing from his arse, so he wouldn't know. Do you get 'winter' swells, whenever your winter is?
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/15/11 05:36 AM

Agree 100% with you.
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/15/11 05:42 AM

I Live in Cebu which is the sister city of the South from manila.By plane is 1 hour to travel. Cebu is a great city full of foreigners and the prices of real estate here is not that much.Lots of shopping malls to go to also. Where is this property in the Philippines?You can buy a nice house here for about $30,000 USD.Three bedroom 2 bath with a large backyard also.Please let me know where it is and I will be glad to further help you.Jerry
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/15/11 05:44 AM

KM in plain words stop wasting your breath with this crap already he is done and good ridden to him.Hopefully Ghadaffi is next.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/15/11 06:00 AM

No it doesn't work that like that - the point is that if we condone illegal border incursions and the summary execution of Arabs we can't complain when we ourselves are victims of acts like 9/11.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/15/11 09:24 AM

Quote:
You mean an inquest?

No, I mean an investigation. What usually happens over here is that law enforcement usually investigates an alleged crime first before handing something to a prosecutor -- gathering evidence that a crime has in fact been committed and who the perpetrator(s) may be. They then have to convince a prosecutor and then a judge, either of which may demand further investigation if they feel the evidence won't support a prosecution or simply dismiss the matter if such evidence isn't compelling. This before even thinking about going to trial.


Quote:
an unarmed man was shot dead and mutilated.

Not really sure where you're getting that bin Laden's body was mutilated, but the mere fact that an unarmed man was fatally shot won't get you past a prosecutor's office much less a pre-trial hearing or a full-blown court. All of those will demand credible evidence that the shooting was a criminal act in the first place. And just that an unarmed man was shot dead isn't by itself such evidence. Hence an investigation.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/15/11 10:06 AM

Quote:
No, I mean an investigation. What usually happens over here...

So what do your coroners do over there then? In Pakistan they usually hold inquests. As a matter of fact an inquest into his death is required by Pakistan law and international law.

Quote:
Not really sure where you're getting that bin Laden's body was mutilated

From what Senator Inhofe said after seeing the pictures.

Quote:
All of those will demand credible evidence that the shooting was a criminal act in the first place.

That already exists - as plainly as the nose on your face. grin

km
Posted by: Ben Dover

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/15/11 10:44 AM

I forget where he lives, maybe by Manila.

I'm just going to go by the backgrounds in his Karaoke ( pretty cool, technology-wise, everything is on one chip in the mic, control code, head amp, etc, you pluck and chuck another chip for the playlists of thousands of songs - his default is a Philippines setting playlist - you just jack in to your home theater and karaoke - he's pretty good - Filipinos love karaoke ).

So, I'll just go by the backgrounds of stunningly beautiful beaches, resorts, etc - I'll go "what's that John?" and he'll tell me, and we'll go there and check it out.

Actually, I was born in the P.I., in the Masonic temple near Clark Field, as my father was the temple master ( mother Eastern Star ) and we lived in the temple. He worked for the U.S. and also for the P.I.'s richest man, as a civil engineer. Very early on, after moving permanently to the P.I., after some adventures, brief teaching stint at Penn, etc, after serving in the P.I. during the Spanish-American War ( very old dad, born 1880, fathered me at 69 ), apparently a colonizer, since he surveyed, built roads and bridges, etc, surveyed provinces, introduced taxation to mayors, etc. Before a generation of old Filipinos died, he was considered some sort of god. Personal friend of Magsaysay and McArthur, etc. Interred at Santo Tomas University for the war, where he lost 100 pounds of bodyweight, etc. He forbade speaking Tagalog in the family, and wanted us kids to have an American education, so we left when I was four or five. Funny that my heretic father was accorded a Catholic funeral - However, I vaguely remember Sunday dinners where Father Steffes and altarboys were regulars at the table, along with a retinue of what I assume were local Catholics, and of course Masons. All myth, however, has an affinity for myth, obviously.

However, I'm a lone wolf. Never belonged to an organization or club, and never will; although the Philippines sounds like there's a huge element of paracitism to it.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/15/11 11:38 AM

Quote:
So what do your coroners do over there then?

Determine cause, time and manner of death, mainly. Also often issue and maintain death certificates and various other functions depending on the local jurisdiction. They can hold an inquest in order to determine these facts, which obviously involves a certain amount of investigation in and of itself, and facts gathered from an inquest can be forwarded to law enforcement officials for further investigation and eventual prosecution if warranted ...


Quote:
From what Senator Inhofe said after seeing the pictures.

Ah, I read your comment as saying bin Laden was shot then further mutilated afterward, which is different from and a bit more sinister than being mutilated by the gunshots themselves ...


Quote:
That already exists - as plainly as the nose on your face.

Obviously, that's a matter of opinion at this point ;-)
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/15/11 12:09 PM

Quote:
They can hold an inquest...

Everything you say about the US coroner would apply to bin Laden were it not for the fact that he died in Pakistan. Where you have a victim who's both armed and unarmed, putting up resistance but cowering behind his wife and then shot dead by illegal immigrants you have a classic case for an inquest.

Quote:
I read your comment as saying bin Laden was shot then further mutilated

Well, it only takes one shot to the head to kill someone so subsequent shots would be acts of mutilation.

Quote:
that's a matter of opinion

Not really - that there's a prima facie case for prosecution is an objective truth, although I agree it could be preceeded by a coroner's inquest and interrogation of the suspects to assemble the evidence.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/15/11 02:31 PM

Quote:
have a classic case for an inquest.

I actually would have no problem with an inquest as part of an impartial inquiry as to what actually happened and if crimes had been committed -- it's more along the lines of investigation I've been suggesting than simply arresting people and putting them on trial.


Quote:
Not really - that there's a prima facie case for prosecution is an objective truth

Well, you said your prima facie case at this point is based on the fact that an apparently unarmed man was shot dead. While I guess a prosecutor *could* go with just that, without any investigation or development of evidence that that shooting actually constitutes a criminal act I can't imagine such a case making it terribly far ...


FWIW, on one point I think the US has a pretty good case that bin Laden was a legitimate, legal target for it to go after ... so I think a case for unlawful homicide on that score is less than compelling at this point ...

Where I agree the US is on more shaky legal grounds is wether it had the right to do so while violating another ostensibly-non-combatant country's borders. But I also think a hearing on this particular matter will never see the light of day since neither the US nor Pakistan will want to make public any under-the-table deals they may have regarding this kind of thing ... that, and there's enough countries that would rather that particular subject not be settled one way or another.
Posted by: carp

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/15/11 03:13 PM

Originally Posted By: katlpablo
Originally Posted By: NucleusG4
Quote:
IMO the intent, the mission of the seal team was to kill.


Based on what?

Based on that he's dead .

If they had wanted him alive, alive he would be.


Well thats the thing about arm chair quarter backing - IT IS TO EASY.

Believeme, if you were there you had about a (nono second) to decide if Osama was going for a weapon or his fave Porn Video.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/15/11 07:33 PM

Quote:
you said your prima facie case at this point is based on the fact that an apparently unarmed man was shot dead.

That, the illegality of the raid, the use of excessive force, official misrepresentations of the facts and concealment of evidence in that bizarre illegal 'funeral' all contribute to a prima facie case. The ICC can proceed from its own warrants of arrest but of course the defendants would enjoy a presumption of innocence and will be discharged if found not guilty.

km
Posted by: katlpablo

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/15/11 08:05 PM

Originally Posted By: carp
Well thats the thing about arm chair quarter backing - IT IS TO EASY.

Believeme, if you were there you had about a (nono second) to decide if Osama was going for a weapon or his fave Porn Video.
I could do that in a nano.
I could do that in a pico.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/15/11 09:03 PM

Quote:
the illegality of the raid

I don't think there's enough evidence for that at this point.

Quote:
the use of excessive force

I really don't think there's enough evidence for that at this point.

Quote:
official misrepresentations of the facts

None of us here know the facts, so ... Don't think there's enough evidence for that at this point.

Quote:
concealment of evidence in that bizarre illegal 'funeral'

See above. Don't think there's enough evidence for that at this point. Ditto it being Illegal.

Like I said, a prosecutor could certainly bring a case based on the above, but at this point I doubt it would get terribly far ...

Quote:
all contribute to a prima facie case.

And the trouble with a prima facie case is that it can only stand if without rebuttal it can serve to prove a point. At this point the evidence you present above are mere supposition ("I read in the newspaper and extrapolated accordingly" is not an actual fact). In lieu of an independent investigation establishing what actually happened, the case you present can be effectively rebutted with a simple "prove it." -- which, since you don't know what actually happened and since no investigation has yet occurred to establish what actually happened, you cannot credibly do, imo.

The problem here is that none of us has access to an accurate, truthful narrative of what actually happened beyond that a person was killed in an operation crossing international boundaries. To me the only prima facie case indicated here is perhaps one of a violation of national boundaries. Beyond that, since none of us know what actually happened, any other prima facie case regarding the other issues you mentioned without further investigation fails on its inherent lack of merit.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/15/11 10:59 PM

There doesn't need to be 'enough evidence' - you're getting confused between proof of guilt which is what's necessary for a conviction in court and a prima facie case which is what's necessary for a prosecution.

The evidence of illegality is in White House statements that soldiers entered Pakistan without consulting the authorities of that country. Evidence of excessive force is in the fact that only one shot was necessary to kill him but more than one shot was used - followed by destruction of the body and concealment of the videos. A misrepresentation occurs when someone makes a misstatement of fact. Since contradictory statements can't both be true we know that there were several misrepresentations. Again - evidence of an illegal funeral is in White House statements that he was buried from a US vessel at sea - illegal immigrants are not allowed to conduct funerals of persons who die in Pakistan nor indeed to interfere with a dead body in any way.

How far the case would get would depends on answers to cross examination... I must say you seem to be adopting a rather uninformed stance in believing that guilt or innocence would be determined entirely on what we know, or don't know, so far.

km
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/16/11 03:32 AM

KM who gives a s---t he is dead and it is boring to rehash the same topic over and over.Go on to something new!
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/16/11 03:39 AM

Interesting back round you have.Try to find out where this is located if you can.There are beautiful beaches here and white sand also. One place is called Boracay where foreigners and the movie stars hang out all the time. Jerry
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/16/11 07:09 AM

Quote:
you're getting confused between proof of guilt which is what's necessary for a conviction in court and a prima facie case which is what's necessary for a prosecution.


No I think my point here is that the purpose of investigation, prosecutorial vetting and preliminary hearings is to prevent weak or frivolous prosecutions from wasting everyone's time by getting to an actual trial. Just because a prosecutor *can* bring a case to trial doesn't mean they objectively *should* if the case is built on evidence not likely to result in a conviction. So, yes, the standard is exactly "is the evidence credible enough to result in a conviction?" Otherwise, why is it even being brought to trial?

In my view, the evidence you've outlined is certainly enough to begin investigations into the various alleged offenses. But since you're calling for arrests and trials to determine guilt or innocence *right now,* it's my view that evidence is insufficient to warrant such trials at this time.

I actually think our basic difference here is that you seem to see a trial as the primary investigative tool while I think that function should be handled by the detective divisions and investigative bodies designed specifically for that task. Of course, a trial is an entirely appropriate venue when facts are in dispute, but at this point we don't even have those. And I'd think that a judge would take a very dim view indeed of a prosecutor who was using an actual trial to build his case on the spot without doing any investigative legwork beforehand ...
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/16/11 07:14 AM

If it's boring you, you're free not to read it =)

And although I'm sensing we're coming to an end, I'm finding this particular discussion rather enjoyable and -- refreshingly -- comparatively snark-free ;-)
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/16/11 10:27 AM

Quote:
who gives a s---t

six does and kat for example... so do you, apparently, because you just can't stop reading the dialogue. laugh

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/16/11 10:43 AM

ICC trials are of the investigative nature you describe because it's often not practicable to conduct formal pre-trial inquiries or interrogations of suspected international criminals. The warrant currently being sought from the chief prosecutor of the ICC from the judges of that court for the arrest of Col Gaddafi is an example of such a procedure as were the Nazi war trials in Nuremberg but the case against the killers of bin Laden is just as cogent, if not more so.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/16/11 12:19 PM

Quote:
ICC trials are of the investigative nature you describe because it's often not practicable to conduct formal pre-trial inquiries or interrogations of suspected international criminals.

And yet you cite the current investigation of possible war crimes in Lybia, which has been following precisely the procedure I favor: The prosecutor was tasked with the investigation back in March and has been using the facilities of his office to conduct inquiries as to wether war crimes may have been committed and if so who might be those responsible. I don't believe it has been necessary to put anyone on trial in order to gather this evidence -- just (I assume) regular detective/investigative work. Only now, it seems, does the prosecutor have enough evidence to pursue actual arrest warrants from the court -- warrants that are obviously an end result of the past months of the investigation, not the first step of it.
Posted by: carp

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/16/11 03:32 PM

The evidence of illegality is in White House statements that soldiers entered Pakistan without consulting the authorities of that country.

I don't remember any country asking for permission to arrest, war criminals.

We can start with Hitler and move on from there.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/16/11 08:53 PM

No Hitler was before the UN Charter... now, someone going into a foreign country needs to get permission.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/16/11 09:03 PM

Well, I was citing Nuremberg as an example of international trials without a formal investigation and the Gaddafi arrest warrant as instigation of process without interrogation of the suspect. Gaddafi is still alive but in bin Laden's case the proper forum for inquiry is an inquest although the ICC can, and should, proceed without it because of Pakistan's inability or failure to act and the suspicious circumstances of the case.

km
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/17/11 03:57 AM

Dave KM is one sick dude!
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/17/11 04:00 AM

Read what your nonsense to defend a tyrant who murdered his own people.KM let the victims of his killings or their families hear you talk like that and brother your life would diminish in seconds.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/17/11 08:14 AM

Quote:
Well, I was citing Nuremberg as an example of international trials without a formal investigation

There were formal prosecutors and investigations for those trials.


Quote:
Gaddafi arrest warrant as instigation of process without interrogation of the suspect.

But the warrant was a step along a process that had started moths earlier, not the instigation of it. And while it would be much, much preferable to have one, an interrogation of the suspect (in this case, Gaddafi) is not a necessary component of an investigation, prosecution or even a trial. So I guess I'm missing your point here =)
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/17/11 11:02 AM

Quote:
There were formal... investigations for those trials

Only after arrest and detention of the suspects, not as a precursor thereto - I'm all in favour of that... I thought you were arguing for an inquiry before arrest in the bin Laden case?

Quote:
I guess I'm missing your point here

That a warrant of arrest can be issued for Obama and the soldiers he decorated without prior interrogation.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/17/11 11:44 AM

Quote:
let the victims of his killings or their families hear you talk like that and brother your life would diminish in seconds

Diminish in seconds? In what way?

km
Posted by: carp

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/17/11 02:49 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
No Hitler was before the UN Charter... now, someone going into a foreign country needs to get permission.

km


LOL

Not according to the UN and ICC - Laden had not only had a warrant against him but also a bounty (wanted dead or alive) across all nations, including Pakistan.

Keep in mind that;
Laden is not a country nor is represented by a country nor is a country leader nor is a public persona <-- Simply Laden is nothing but a wanted dead or alive Mass Murderer who brought shame to the muslim reputations.
Posted by: carp

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/17/11 02:59 PM

Gaddafi arrest warrant as instigation of process without interrogation of the suspect.

HuH ? ?

You place a warrant and then arrest and then question, your suspect.

Nor sure where or what country, you interrogate a person (First) and then get a warrant? ? That would be detaining a person against their will.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/17/11 05:35 PM

Quote:
Only after arrest and detention of the suspects, not as a precursor thereto

Given they along with thousands of others had already been detained after the war -- before the court was even established or the decision even made of who specifically to put on trial -- I wouldn't put that down as the result of investigative procedure nearly as much as the unique environment soon after winning a world war: anyone you might want to prosecute was pretty much guaranteed to already be in custody ;-)


Quote:
That a warrant of arrest can be issued for Obama and the soldiers he decorated without prior interrogation.

Okay, but I don't disagree with that -- I think I pretty much said the same thing in a previous post. What I do disagree with in this case is:

Quote:
That a warrant of arrest can be issued for Obama and the soldiers he decorated without prior interrogation investigation.

Throughout this discussion, you seem to be equating "investigation" with "interrogating the suspect" -- the former does not require the latter, and even the latter doesn't require an arrest.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/17/11 05:43 PM

Quote:
Nor sure where or what country, you interrogate a person (First) and then get a warrant? ?


Well, the U.S., for one =)

Police question suspects all the time before later getting an arrest warrant for them if evidence dictates.

Interrogation does not necessarily = slapping cuffs on someone and hauling them off to jail for questioning =)
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/17/11 05:45 PM

You have a decent knowledge of the judicial system and the way the law works here.. even better you can speak to it with fair eloquence.
Good on you sir!
Posted by: katlpablo

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/17/11 07:19 PM

Originally Posted By: six_of_one
Originally Posted By: keymaker
you're getting confused between proof of guilt which is what's necessary for a conviction in court and a prima facie case which is what's necessary for a prosecution.

[…] Just because a prosecutor *can* bring a case to trial doesn't mean they objectively *should* if the case is built on evidence not likely to result in a conviction. So, yes, the standard is exactly "is the evidence credible enough to result in a conviction?" Otherwise, why is it even being brought to trial?

Not directed to any of you in particular. Just wondering if the concept of "probable cause" of the US criminal law, has an equivalent here or in international law that could be relevant for the procedures of a case like this.

probable cause, [Wikipedia]. Says that the best-known definition of probable cause is:
— "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime".

Also, another common definition is:
— "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".

"Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. [/Wikipedia]

——————————
Neat debate! smile
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/17/11 09:25 PM

Quote:
you seem to be equating "investigation" with "interrogating the suspect"

No I'm drawing a distinction between three things - inquest, investigation and interrogation. An inquest is required by law whenever someone dies in suspicious circumstances as bin Laden did. A formal investigation, potentially useful in non fatal cases or where there hasn't been an inquest, is a process of inquiry to assemble evidence of a suspected illegality. An interrogation occurs when a person is taken into custody and questioned by law enforcement officers such as the police. The ICC as a court of last resort is concerned with situations where states or suspects can't or don't co-operate so it may issue a warrant of arrest where one or more of the three procedures did not take place.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/17/11 10:06 PM

Quote:
UN and ICC - Laden... (wanted dead or alive)

No there's no such resolution - President Dubya came out with that one so he should be arrested as well for incitement to murder. eek
km
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/18/11 03:53 AM

If the victims of OBL heard you talk about his being killed without any fair trial being involved your life would vanish fast KM.Get it through your thick skull KM the US did a great favor by getting rid of a tyrant and a murderer.GOD BLESS OBAMA AND THE NAVY SEALS.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/18/11 06:32 AM

Quote:
No I'm drawing a distinction between three things - inquest, investigation and interrogation

Well, I have zero problem with a coroner's inquest ...

Over here, at least, an investigation is also useful (if not required) in cases that do involve fatalities; and it is not contingent on wether an inquest has been conducted or not ...

Thankfully, an interrogation over here does not require taking a person into custody =)


Regardless, even with your representation of these procedures, after all of these posts, here's what I'm left with:

1) We can have a coroner's inquest, which doesn't require arresting anybody and putting them on trial ...

2) We can have an investigation, which doesn't require arresting anybody and putting them on trial ...

3) We can have an interrogation, which doesn't require arresting anybody and putting them on trial ...

or,

4) We can skip all the above, arrest someone and put them on trial ...


I believe you started-out calling for 4); have since said that you'd like to have 1) and 3) happen, with which I agree; and I still don't really understand your objection to 2) ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/18/11 07:25 AM

Quote:
don't really understand your objection to 2

Well, a person can choose whether to co-operate with an inquiry but he can be compelled by subpeona to give evidence to an inquest so it's more effective. Moreover the coroner is uniquely qualified to ascertain the cause of death and can reach a verdict of 'unlawful killing' which would be more than enough reason to commence a prosecution. Any evidence that could put to an inquiry can be put before the coroner so a separate process would seem otiose.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/18/11 10:13 AM

Quote:
If the victims of OBL heard you talk about his being killed without any fair trial being involved your life would vanish fast KM.

I've got no idea what you're talking about - what do mean "my life would vanish fast"?

Quote:
Get it through your thick skull KM the US did a great favor by getting rid of a tyrant and a murderer.GOD BLESS OBAMA AND THE NAVY SEALS.

No I'm saying that there's reason to suspect he was murdered... since he was entitled to a fair trial there now needs to be due process of the suspects.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/18/11 11:50 AM

Quote:
Any evidence that could put to an inquiry can be put before the coroner so a separate process would seem otiose.

It sounds like coroners' inquests have a far broader scope over there than here. An inquest here is held to determine cause, time and manner of death -- when a medical examination alone is insufficient to establish such facts -- and limits the scope to those subjects. Establishing such things as motive, opportunity, events leading up to a killing, events afterward or even potential suspects is not the Coroner's core purpose, although obviously evidence relevant to those may also be gathered. That's why an inquest here is usually conducted in concert with a law enforcement investigation, which has a broader range of inquiry ...

In any case, when you're calling for the arrest and trial of arguably the most powerful person on the planet for fairly heinous crimes, I'd think you'd want the most thorough gathering of evidence possible even if that involved redundant processes ...
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/18/11 12:22 PM

I suppose the inquest would fall upon Pakistan rather than over here or over there. Of course the case is comparatively simple as international criminal trials go because it turns upon a single incident. Guilt or innocence will depend to a large extent on the video and testimony of the suspects and other witnesses... so the sooner we get it going the better in my opinion whilst events are still fresh in everybody's memory.

km
Posted by: carp

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/18/11 01:46 PM

Pablo


Something like this

probable cause -> questioning -> warrant -> arrest -> interrogation.

I disagree that interrogation is the same as questioning, based on the matter that interrogation is formal after an arrest. Questioning can happen at any time due to probable cause and can lead to a warrant.

example.

probable cause; car seen weaving in and out of lanes.

questioning; driver is asked if he has been drinking? driver then fails a sobriety test.

arrest; driver is then formally interrogated to gather details and more test, such as blood or breath.

As for the mass murderer, Laden

Probable cause; was not only by evidence - the really big one was, also by his own admission. So really to question a admitted mass murderer at this point is sorta stupid. So the world can skip part 1 and 2.

As for the arrest; well we know that he resisted and was shot. So skip part 3 and 4

As for the legality of the attempted arrest.

1 - There was a international bounty place on his head.
2 - There must have been an previous agreement between Pakistan and the US, since there both were in the war together for 10 years.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/18/11 02:13 PM

No you've made quite a few errors there - first of all we can't call bin Laden a mass murderer because he was never convicted; there are conflicting accounts about whether he resisted arrest; there was no international bounty on his head and no previous agreement with Pakistan.

km
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/19/11 04:56 AM

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/binladen_10-29-04.html
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/19/11 09:37 AM

Wow, good job. You must have had to search for at least 10 seconds to find proof. smirk
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/19/11 10:21 AM

Not everything has to go through a court for the Truth® to be determined.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/19/11 10:52 AM

Quote:
first of all we can't call bin Laden a mass murderer because he was never convicted

Actually, we can call him anything we want -- it's a free country, after all ;-)

And since bin Laden himself confessed to the world to be a mass murderer, it isn't even libelous =D
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/19/11 11:10 AM

No I mean a confession is evidence of guilt not incontrovertible proof... as a matter of fact there have been many cases where persons have admitted guilt only to be found not guilty. In the States last time I checked persons who admit guilt aren't shot on site but required to attend court to formally plead to the offences charged and if convicted to face sentence... well the same standards apply to Arabs.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/19/11 11:14 AM

Quote:
Not everything has to go through a court for the Truth® to be determined.

Phhhh... you'll never know the truth because you shot the chief suspect.

km
Posted by: Jim_

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/19/11 11:28 AM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
Not everything has to go through a court for the Truth® to be determined.

Phhhh... you'll never know the truth because you shot the chief suspect.


I guess you missed NG4's link. The chief suspect admitted it.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/binladen_10-29-04.html
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/19/11 11:33 AM

I dealt with that in my reply to six.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/19/11 12:33 PM

Just to comment on one point:

Quote:
and no previous agreement with Pakistan.

There's at least one credible report that says there was. Musharraf says he never agreed to anything, but according to the alleged agreement that's exactly what he would say ;-)

I seriously doubt we'll ever really know for sure -- and I doubt a trial could clear that up absent an actual uncontested document ...

Originally Posted By: Nameless Recorded Voice
"Should any of your IM Force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions ..."

;-)



Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/19/11 01:09 PM

We know there was no formal agreement between Pakistan and the US from White House statements and ex post facto Parliamentary debates in Pakistan... therefore the soldiers' entry was illegal. It's the same over here and in the States... if intelligence fruitcakes or any other wingnut suddenly start trying to give 'permission' for aliens to enter the country they still happen to be illegal immigrants and going around shooting people only makes their situation worse.

km
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/19/11 01:51 PM

Quote:
Phhhh... you'll never know the truth because you shot the chief suspect.


As if having him alive would prove anything.
You would argue that he was lying to seem like a badass to his minions.
Argue till you're blue in the face.
He's dead.
We killed him.
And nothing will come of it.
Nothing.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/19/11 02:24 PM

Quote:
As if having him alive would prove anything.

Well, it would prove belief in your own principles.

Quote:
He's dead. We killed him. And nothing will come of it. Nothing.

What's so great about that? Unconvicted murderers all over the world could echo that sentiment.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/19/11 02:46 PM

Quote:
We know there was no formal agreement between Pakistan and the US from White House statements and ex post facto Parliamentary debates in Pakistan...

Well, I've heard no reports denying such an agreement from the White House -- just that they did not inform the Pakistani government of the raid until afterwards, which it is allowed to do under the alleged agreement ...

Similarly, public debate in Pakistan denying the existence of such an agreement is exactly what the alleged agreement calls for ...

It's quite a brilliant report if false, since short of a direct US denial there's no way to disprove it ...

It's also a quite brilliant agreement if it actually exists, since it gives everyone involved appropriate cover and there's no way to prove its existence short of producing an actual, signed document -- which the US would almost certainly have and which Pakistan would fight tooth-and-nail from being made public ...

It will be interesting to see if Pakistan actually presses charges on this ...


Quote:
if intelligence fruitcakes or any other wingnut suddenly start trying to give 'permission' for aliens to enter the country they still happen to be illegal immigrants

Not if such fruitcakes and wingnuts are government officials authorized to give such permission. In the case of this report, that official is the President of Pakistan, whom I assume has the appropriate legal authority.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/19/11 03:22 PM

Quote:
just that they did not inform the Pakistani government of the raid until afterwards, which it is allowed to do under the alleged agreement ...

Entry at the border is either lawful or not at the time of entry - anything else would be a miracle.

Quote:
Similarly, public debate in Pakistan denying the existence of such an agreement is exactly what the alleged agreement calls for ...

The judiciary in Pakistan is independent of the executive... since a person's immigration status in Pakistan is a question of law an undisclosed clandestine alleged 'agreement' made with some fruitcake employed by the government can't validate an illegal entry... it's the same in the States.

Quote:
Not if such fruitcakes and wingnuts are government officials authorized to give such permission

They weren't - that's clear from their Parliamentary debates.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/19/11 03:40 PM

Quote:
Entry at the border is either lawful or not at the time of entry

Quite. If one has a signed document from the government of that country allowing passage, I would imagine that to qualify as "lawful."


Quote:
since a person's immigration status in Pakistan is a question of law

Well, if the situation in Pakistan is the same as in the US, customs, border control, issuance of visas, etc. fall under the Executive, to which the law gives discretion as to who is and is not allowed into the country. And that "friutcake" to whom you keep referring is allegedly the Chief Executive of the country -- in two different governments no less ...


Quote:
They weren't - that's clear from their Parliamentary debates.

Is it? I admit to not following them closely. Although I would imagine such debates would be centered around the Executive's use of his power rather than the lack of it. I'll have to go see if I can find something =)
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/19/11 03:48 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
As if having him alive would prove anything.

Well, it would prove belief in your own principles.

Quote:
He's dead. We killed him. And nothing will come of it. Nothing.

What's so great about that? Unconvicted murderers all over the world could echo that sentiment.

km


I never said there was anything great about that.. did you think I was bragging or something? LOL... you read too much into things. I am merely saying that nothing will come of this...


Quote:
Unconvicted murderers all over the world could echo that sentiment.


??? not sure what that is supposed to mean....
Oh.. Obama.. well.. he'll deal with it in his own way. I'm not concerned about that.. I'm sure he'll GET AWAY WITH IT...


LOL
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/19/11 03:57 PM

Quote:
If one has a signed document from the government of that country allowing passage, I would imagine that to qualify as "lawful."

No - it's clear from the debates that the government signed no document allowing passage. A secret agreement allowing passage would require a change in the law to be valid - which can't be effected by the government.

Quote:
in the US, customs, border control, issuance of visas, etc. fall under the Executive, to which the law gives discretion as to who is and is not allowed into the country

In the States if an executive fruitcake officially refuses entry to a bunch of Mexican bandits, say, but secretly makes an agreement allowing them in - the bandits are illegal immigrants - the official refusal trumps the clandestine agreement - and it's the same in Pakistan.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/19/11 04:09 PM

Quote:
I am merely saying that nothing will come of this...

Too complacent in my opinion... al Qaeda responds to Western hypocrisy and double standards directed against Muslims - a lot of people died over that at 9/11, for example, when it could have been avoided.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/19/11 05:28 PM

Apologies in advance -- this turned into a much longer post than I anticipated =D

Quote:
No - it's clear from the debates that the government signed no document allowing passage.

I disagree. From what I've been able to tell from reports of the Parliamentary session and the resolution it released, if anything they actually lend a small bit more credence to the secret agreement story.

For one, I can't find any quotation from either members of the Parliament or the statements/resolutions they released calling the raid illegal -- the wording is very explicitly "unacceptable" and "unilateral," but "illegal" is noticeably absent from these quotes and citations. They seem really, REALLY pissed that the US didn't inform them, just a tad less angered their military didn't know about it regardless, and only bit less upset about their borders being crossed ... but the issue of legality doesn't appear to have found much voice.

The closest they've come is talking about a violation of sovereignty, which can go a few ways, legally, especially if the sovereign allegedly invites the violation. Even the Pakistani foreign minister hedged a bit:

“I’m not saying legal or illegal, but this is a global issue and we need to sort of work it out somehow, in the best interests of international peace and security”

Also, one of the resolutions calls to “revisit and review its terms of engagement with the United States, with a view to ensuring that Pakistan’s national interests are fully respected and accommodated.” Obviously there's an agreement of some sort in place that relates to US entering Pakistani territory they feel gives the US too much license ...

It really does sound like they're understandably upset that the "terms of engagement" allowed the US to do this and they need to express that displeasure and enact legislation preventing such terms in the future. It really *doesn't* sound like "the US broke the law and we're totally taking their asses to court!" ...

Not saying it won't happen, but is sure doesn't seem that way right now =)

BTW, here are the articles I've found. If you have something more definitive (like an actual text of the resolution -- I wasn't able to find a transcript) I'd love to see what you're working from =)

AFP report
DAWN report
Deccan Chronicle report
France 24 report
The Beeb
Al Jazeera
The Globe & Mail


Quote:
A secret agreement allowing passage would require a change in the law to be valid

If the law gives discretion to the Executive as to who can enter or not, how would the Executive actually exercising that discretion, albeit in secret, require a change in the law?


Quote:
In the States ... the official refusal trumps the clandestine agreement

Not if the "official refusal" is merely a public statement after the fact (I'm assuming you're alluding to Musharrif's public denial) and the alleged clandestine agreement is a signed and duly-executed document before-hand.

I'll even go further and speculate that even if the "official refusal" was also a signed document, it could easily be rescinded by a later, secret one ;-)

Cloak and dagger is fun!
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/19/11 06:06 PM

Originally Posted By: keymaker
Quote:
I am merely saying that nothing will come of this...

Too complacent in my opinion... al Qaeda responds to Western hypocrisy and double standards directed against Muslims - a lot of people died over that at 9/11, for example, when it could have been avoided.

km



And yet another skillful sidestep and dodge. I am not saying Muslims aren't pissed...
I am saying nothing legally, in the court system or from the ICC or any other legal course..

There... did I spell it out enough?.....
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/19/11 10:35 PM

Quote:
They seem really, REALLY pissed that the US didn't inform them

Why would they be pissed if they'd already agreed: "Oh by the way, send your troops over anytime you like - you don't have to inform us in advance, just tell us afterwards". I'm not getting how a situation can be both acceptable and unacceptable to them at the same time - seems like another miracle.

Quote:
The closest they've come is talking about a violation of sovereignty

Yeah well that means a violation of their territorial integrity .. which is illegal.

Quote:
Even the Pakistani foreign minister hedged a bit: “I’m not saying legal or illegal...

Possibly because he himself is the fruitcake trying to smooth over his mistake?

Quote:
Obviously there's an agreement of some sort in place...

Not one that would be upheld in the courts, that's the fruitcake agreement - one with no legal effect.

Quote:
I'd love to see what you're working from

White House statements that Pakistan was not informed in case it compromised the mission - in relation to that: Art 2(4) UN Charter that members "refrain in their international relations from the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state...". Then from a radio broadcast about Pakistan's reaction to the raid in Parliament which referred to a violation of sovereignty deserving of sanctions such as withdrawal of co-operation. Had there been any lawful agreement allowing the raid there would have been no violation of sovereignty.

km
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/19/11 10:53 PM

Quote:
And yet another skillful sidestep and dodge.

Sidestep and dodge? I don't agree with that.

Quote:
I am not saying Muslims aren't pissed... I am saying nothing legally, in the court system or from the ICC or any other legal course..

Well my point is not that legal action will follow, but that it should follow. It's always been my position that compliance with our own values and international obligations is not only inherently right but in our own interests vis-a-vis the acts of freedom fighters.

km
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/20/11 03:56 AM

Yes.. and then there is the "spirit of the law". Not everything is black and white.
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/20/11 06:01 AM

Quote:
then there is the "spirit of the law"

Ah, the 'Volksgeist'... well, equality before the law was central to Savigny's theory on that and I agree it would be a good idea if we all insisted on it being translated into practice... rather than just plonking it into the 14th Amendment and forgetting about it. wink

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/20/11 11:24 AM

TinFoilHat


Quote:
Why would they be pissed if they'd already agreed:

The same reason that, say, the US Congress in a similar situation would be upset with the President if he had made such an agreement. Congress couldn't claim it's actually illegal, since the Executive was exercising authority it legally has. The best they could do is a) be outraged, b) call for investigations and c) look into preventing such a thing from happening again legislatively. All of which the Parliament of Pakistan has done. What they haven't done yet, as far as I can tell, is actually call the action illegal and demand US accountability. Might happen as time goes on, but that it hasn't yet lends some credence at this point to there having been a back-room agreement.


Quote:
Yeah well that means a violation of their territorial integrity .. which is illegal.

Well, that's not so cut-and-dried. If a husband gives a set of house keys to his buddy, gives him permission to come and go without first informing anyone, but the husband doesn't tell his wife; when the wife finds the buddy lounging on the couch, she can be understandably upset with the husband but really can't claim his buddy did anything illegal -- even though in her mind her husband's buddy violated the integrity of their home. (Which, after she goes absolutely ballistic, is exactly what she tells anyone who will listen before, during and after the divorce proceedings ;-)



What I think is entirely plausible is that the Pakistani Executive secretly granted permission for the US to go after bin Laden unannounced inside Pakistan. When the US does just that, the Parliament goes nuts (as they rightly should), hauls the executive staff into a closed-door session and grills them about WTF is going on. It's then they are told about the agreement, which effectively hamstrings them from taking legal action but also provides for plausible deniability on the part of Pakistan -- which everyone wants because there's virtually no upside for anybody in the room to making the agreement public.

So Parliament comes out of the session condemning the US raid, not for being illegal, but for its unilateral nature; calling it a violation of their sovereignty (which, conveniently, only Pakistan has standing to bring to court -- which they won't); threatening to cut off supply lines to Afghanistan, not now but if it happens again; and vowing with absolute sincerity to make sure legislatively it won't happen again (i.e. make it impossible for the Executive to get them into this mess again) ...

From what I've seen, everything Pakistan has done and said publicly supports this scenario =)



Quote:
Possibly because he himself is the fruitcake trying to smooth over his mistake?

Nope. Those persons are reported to be two successive Presidents of Pakistan.


Quote:
Had there been any lawful agreement allowing the raid there would have been no violation of sovereignty.

Hey, how about that!


/TinFoilHat =D
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/20/11 12:24 PM

Quote:
The same reason that, say, the US Congress in a similar situation would be upset with the President if he had made such an agreement.

No in Pakistan the executive is subject to the law like everyone else - government ministers or ex ministers can't just let illegal immigrants into the country when the legislature has laid down contrary rules of entry.

Quote:
If a husband gives a set of house keys to his buddy, gives him permission to come and go without first informing anyone, but the husband doesn't tell his wife; when the wife finds the buddy lounging on the couch, she can be understandably upset with the husband but really can't claim his buddy did anything illegal

In that case the invitation does not involve an illegality so it's not really comparable. A closer analogy would be the husband authorising his buddy to kill the lodger, dump his body in the lake and help himself to any property he wants to take away. In Pakistan possession of firearms for example and entry to private premises involve criminal and tortious acts which the executive has no power to authorise any more than it can authorise a summary execution and illegal burial. An invitee who commits a crime or tort is a trespasser for exceeding lawful permission and the killing of bin Laden is all the more suspicious in that situation because it negates the defence of self-defence.

As to your other points I agree that there may be a lack of political will to bring the perpetrators to justice or apply sanctions in default of cooperation by the US but that's exactly why the ICC procedures should be invoked.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/20/11 03:02 PM

Quote:
when the legislature has laid down contrary rules of entry.

That would depend of the laws specific to Pakistan and wether they in fact restrict the Executive from making such agreements, which you're assuming, or wether he has authority to make such arrangements in his capacity of administering immigration, which I'm theorizing. I doubt either of us is conversant enough with Pakistani law to say definitively one way or another without research -- and at this point my search-fu is knackered ;-)


Quote:
A closer analogy would be the husband authorising his buddy to kill the lodger

Well, that analogy was meant in reference to sovereignty and not much else -- and is going to get all Dorian Gray on us if it gets too complex -- BUT ...

Your revision itself breaks down since as far as we know bin Laden was not an invited guest and supposedly wanted by the Pakistanis themselves. So another revision might be that the husband gives his buddy permission to come and go unannounced in order to kill that [dangerous animal] everyone's been looking for if it's gotten inside.

But if it's going to get that specific and tortured, we might as well not use analogies anymore and just get back to the real thing =)


Quote:
In Pakistan possession of firearms for example

If you claim to be knowledgeable about what specifically constitutes a crime under Pakistani law, more power to you ... but I find it hard to believe, for example, that possession of a firearm is illegal in Pakistan of all places ;-)
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/20/11 10:40 PM

Quote:
that analogy was meant in reference to sovereignty

Yes but there's a relationship between a licence to enter, if you want to infer that, and an ulterior crime in that the crime invalidates the licence either because 1. no lawful licence can include a crime or 2. the licensee exceeded his permission - in either case he's a trespasser and therefore infringing sovereignty.

km
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/21/11 04:06 AM

KM this is really boring to read already
Posted by: keymaker

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/21/11 04:29 AM

No I find his points quite interesting... which is why I replied.

km
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Laugh a minute... - 05/21/11 04:50 AM

Quote:
KM this is really boring to read already

Seriously, dude: If you're bored, stop reading. It really is that simple =)