Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Hawkeye
climber
State of Mine
|
|
LAUGHING. SO. HARD. CAN'T. KEEP. TEARS. FROM. FLOWING.
suap,
that is good news. since your head is so far up your a*# it will be a cleansing enama for you!
edited
|
|
nutjob
Gym climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
conjuncture != conjecture
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
F*#k yeah!
|
|
Brandon-
climber
Done With Tobacco
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 4, 2011 - 03:08pm PT
|
Nutjob,
conjuncture != conjecture
Yeah. My bad.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
Once bin Laden was 'found', he couldn't be unfound. At which point he became an active headache for the Pakistani government. They're probably just fine with his death, or if he'd been arrested and taken elsewhere. Saves their having to deal with it, allows some face saving, mostly puts it in the SEP Field (Somebody Else's Problem - not to be confused with suap). They're going to have enough problems as it is, in terms of public opinion and of elements of their armed forces and intelligence services. Not to mention that at least two other senior al Qaeda leaders survive, and are somewhere else in Pakistan.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
They say they aren't going to release Bin Laden's death Photo.
LIkely they will allow it to be leaked so they can have the benefit of proving it without the burden of being accused of inappropriately displaying inflammatory images.
Peace
Karl
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
Careful Karl. That's a brilliant analysis of the situation but never let them know how smart you are.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
Dingus...you link still isn't clear in my mind if the killing of Osama was illegal. I could be wrong.
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
LIBERALS = GITMO AND WATERBOARDING MUST BE OUTLAWED!
Today's headlines:
GOP: Harsh interrogation led to bin Laden...
OFFICIALS: Find aided by info from Gitmo detainees...
CIA chief: Waterboarding helped...
LIBERALS = EGG ALL OVER FACE.
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
INSTAPUNDIT:
SO, OBAMA WON’T RELEASE OSAMA PHOTOS? This seems like a mistake to me, and the double-shuffle of contradictory messages that has led up to this decision hasn’t looked ready for prime time. As Stephen Green notes below, the contrast between the well-run military side of this operation, and the shaky White House PR side, has been quite striking.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
Dingus..."Some pundits and journalists condemn U.S. policy as a flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions. Writing in the Guardian, a left-wing British broadsheet, professor of human rights law Conor Gearty proclaimed U.S. policy to be "cruel, unnecessary and as dangerous now as it was when first introduced."[22] But Gearty's criticism is more emotional than substantive. Nothing in the conventions requires that all captives receive prisoner of war status. In fact, article four of the Third Geneva Convention stipulates a number of requirements that must be met before a captive irregular combatant can qualify as a prisoner of war.
The drafters of the 1949 Geneva Conventions sought to base the treaty on past precedent. While the 1907 Hague regulations stipulated that "the laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps," those same regulations also presented a four-part test to determine eligibility of those irregular forces for lawful combatant status.[23] In order to be recognized as legitimate combatants, the Hague regulations required irregular units to "be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; to have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance; to carry arms openly; and to conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."[24]
The drafters of the Third Geneva Convention adopted this four-part test as part of the criteria to determine eligibility for POW status. The delegates drafting the convention made quite clear in their debates that they did not want to confer automatic POW status on irregular forces. After much negotiation, a special committee of the conference resolved this question by crafting article 4(A) so as to differentiate between regular armed forces, constituent volunteer corps, and militias on one hand, from irregular resistance movements, on the other. The drafters agreed to apply the Hague four-part test to the latter.[25]
Terrorists groups ranging from separatists like the PKK in Turkey, Chechen rebels in Russia, or the Pakistani-backed Harakat ul-Mujahideen in India; to Palestinian groups like Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, to the numerous cells that comprise the Al-Qaeda network all fail the four-part test. Hijacking civilian airliners and flying them into office buildings is not "in accordance with the laws and customs of war," nor is using human bombs to blow up buses, nor is lining up and executing school teachers. On these grounds, as well, the Taliban also forfeited claim to POW status. While they did carry arms openly, they neither observed the international humanitarian law, nor wore any recognizable sign to distinguish themselves from civilians.
http://www.meforum.org/651/does-human-rights-law-apply-to-terrorists
You said the killing was illegal...I'm not so sure.
SUAP...you are an idiot!
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
break over SUAP, back to work at Taco Bell now for you
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
The Hill: Pelosi Thanks Bush For His Role In Bin Laden’s Destruction. “House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said she called former President George W. Bush on Tuesday to congratulate him on the capture and killing of Osama bin Laden. Following a classified briefing on the operation to take down bin Laden, Pelosi told reporters that she called the former president earlier in the day to ‘congratulate him and thank him for the leadership role he had played in this quest over the years.’”
LAUGHING SO HARD. MUST SIT DOWN.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
I just don't understand why you 'yay OBL is Dead!' people just can't admit the president might have exceeded his authority in ordering his execution.
I admit he may have done something wrong.
Will you admit he might have tried to have them capture him, and that in the midst of capturing him they had to kill him? Which is something that can happen anytime you try to capture a person who is known to be dangerous. Would you have the police back out of a house and leave a gunman alone if they couldn't capture him alive? It doesn't really matter that he didn't have a weapon. We don't yet know what threatening move he might have made. Could you admit that a person could make a threatening move without a weapon in hand? Especially if that person was known to be dangerous.
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
WHEN THE MAJORITY PAYS NO TAXES, AND NEEDS THE MINORITY TO SUCK OFF OF -- IT IS OVER.
TAXPROF: 51% of Households Pay No Income Tax; Share of Taxes Paid by Rich Growing Faster Than Income.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Litmus test - so its OK for the British government to target IRA holdout terrorists in the US without permission, conducting their own operation?
No its not okay. We have working agreements with them.
Could you admit that we might have had the Pakistani governments permission, but that they can't admit it without causing problems in their own country?
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
DMT wrote:
Its very simple - if a Pakistani government official with sufficient authority had a quiet discussion with a US government official of sufficient authority, to the effect that 'when the U.S. finds OBL the U.S. is going to get him" and permission was granted and not subsequently withdrawn, then the mission was legal. I don't know the structure of their government well but I'm guessing the Prime Minister or Chief of Defense or someone at that level.
If no such permission was granted the mission was not legal.
Simple as that. That Holder dissemination was embarrassing.
It is not that simple; that would depend on the domestic law of Pakistan and perhaps on principles of "international law" (a slippery concept).
Let's think about it if the tables were turned. Assume King Abdul (or whoever) in Saudi Arabia wants to assassinate a Saudi dissident who is living in beautiful Boulder, Colorado. Not wanting to create an international incident, King Abdul first asks the US President if this is OK, and implies that oil prices may go up quite a bit if the answer is "no." So Obama assures King Abdul that everything will be fine from an operational point of view. Obama calls his buddy Governor Hickenlooper to go over things--maybe he implies that there's a nice ambassadorship in Hick's future if there's no local trouble. Boulder police are conveniently preoccupied on a particular evening, and the hit goes off perfectly. (There were some early reports that the dissident tried to use the last remaining Boulder hippie as shield before he was shot, but thankfully those turned out to be erroneous embellishments of a pumped-up Saudi assassin).
King Abdul and the Saudi hit squad have all committed murder under the laws of the State of Colorado, notwithstanding Obama and Hickenlooper's "OK." In fact, Obama and Hick may also be guilty as accomplices in "aiding and abetting" the crime, but we don't need to get into that. There is nothing under US state or federal law, to my knowledge, that gives the president or governor the right to authorize assassinations. If there is such a law or a legal doctrine, I would question its constitutionality as it would seem to conflict with the "due process" rights of the victim (among other things).
Just because someone in the government of Pakistan may have given tacit approval of the hit does NOT somehow make it legal. If anyone disagrees with me, I'd love to get an explanation of their reasoning.
I agree with DMT that Holder's dissembling was a travesty. Many of you seem to acknowledge that the hit was illegal, but you are still OK with it. I can understand that position--legality and illegality are not synonymous with right and wrong. But those of you who think this hit was legal are clueless--as DMT recognized, the US AG embarrassed himself when he tried to justify it, and none of you are going to do any better.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Litmus test - so its OK for the British government to target IRA holdout terrorists in the US without permission, conducting their own operation?
DMT
First, I agree with you. I have doubts the legality but I'm fine with the outcome.
This is not a legal answer to your hypothetical. But I think the circumstances are different than what occurred. Britain would actually trust us to capture and extradite violent IRA members. We would work together.
The Pakistanis--can they be trusted? Would they cooperate? Would info leak?
|
|
shut up and pull
climber
|
|
LIBERALS FOR 10 YEARS:
1. BUSH CAUSED 9-11!
2. CLOSE GITMO!
3. WATERBOARDING IS BAAAAD!
Today?
1. Obama and Holder say OBL caused 9-11.
2. Gitmo open, intel taken from detainees led to OBL death.
3. Waterboarding KSM led to intel that led to OBL death.
Liberals -- egg all over face.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!