Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
LOL i have heard that Elvis contributed to his capture:
The king of rock-n-roll, IS ALIVE and working as an undercover agent for the DEA. For years, the man known only as Elvis to the public, has caused world wide confusion concerning his supposed death on August 16, 1977 after entertaining and dazzling the world for over 20 years. Elvis Aaron Presley, did not die on that fateful day. He was only removed from the public eye to continue in his fight against terrorists and narcotraficantes .
I do not think that it was legal. In carrying out targeted killings, four principles of international law should be respected:
(1) proportionality
(2) military necessity
(3) minimizing collateral damage to innocent civilians
(4) and no alternatives to killing
The points (1), (2) and (3) were certainly respected. The difficulty comes with point (4). According to the information, which is available now Osama bin Laden could have been captured as well without posing an additional threat to the task force that was chasing him.
For further undestanding of the subject, this is the most comprehensive paper that I found is this one:
You will find an analysis, which law is to be applied, and under what circumstances a hostile al Quaeda operative may be killed. May I cite from the article, page 417
This limits “senseless slaughter of combatants where there manifestly is no military necessity to do so, for example where a group of defenseless soldiers has not had the occasion to surrender, but could clearly be captured without additional risk to the operating forces .
I am aware that the subject is a highly emotional one, and I do understand that Americans are happy that the criminal who was responsible for the murder of thousands of innocent civilians finally got his due penalty. I admit that I am happy as well.
Possibly still the best solution
Now, even if it was illegal according to International Law, it was probably the best solution to have him shot for other reasons. Imagine the spectacle of a public trial (where, in Pakistan or the US) of Osama bin Laden. In the process of that trial certainly more lives would have been lost. Killing him was therefore probably the best available solution.
For further discussion of the subject, there is an excellent book (according to various comments I have read). This is the link:
If the attempt had failed, and it became public, then it would have been a worst legal/political issue with the Pakistani. We have a long history of covert operations of this nature. There were plans to kill Fidel Castro in the same manner. We tried a similar operation before under Carter, attempting to liberate the American hostages from Iran, and failed miserably. The circumstances where different, but glad to see our special forces have come a long way since then.
Indeed we have. Now, the training missions tend to be as difficult or more difficult than the actual missions, which was not the case when Delta was heading through Iran. DevGroup (TEAM 6) could easily handle a mission like this in their sleep. They do this all day and all night but in much more difficult circumstances during training, so to take down a compound like this with this much time is quite easy.
Which, takes me to the next subject of killing Bin Laden is illegal per international law. But, we rarely follow international law so why start now. Plus, putting Bin Laden on trial would have just made his movement stronger. Chop off the head and the body will hopefully follow...
I do not feel joy in that Bin Laden is dead. I can't bring myself to find joy in anyone's death, as it brings me to think of all the lost lives and wasted energy spent in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. where I have lost several friends. How many innocent Iraqi's paid the price for this guy, people at the World Trade Center, USS COLE, Embassy bombings and other dozens of people's lives that he has taken and destroyed the families around them? I guess nothing compared to Hitler, Chairman Mao, or Stalin, but never-the-less, it sure does hurt.
I truly just hope and wish that murderous people hiding behind religion will soon be extinct. Somehow we can breed them out.
International law plays second fiddle to American law in my book.
Times of war drive future changes in international law and current law becomes secondary to the immediate combat objectives.
The war on terror has the basis to never end. That's why I feel strongly that terrorist attacks on us should be dealt with as a Law Enforcement issue at home with the Military support of our bravest over seas. Few would argue with using Military force on the homeland to repel a physical invasion, but this instance is too broad to qualify, when the physical invasion includes our own people (or at very least non-Muslims). It's not out of the respect for life of foreigners who want our citizens dead, or for honoring international law, but to preserve the Constitution for Americans.
My ex became that way. In many way she has a highly intelligent and informative point of view - but just doesn't believe anything we are told anymore. It might her defense mechanism for no longer taking the considerable time of researching the hell out of the very complex issues.
It's a mistake to lump everyone that could be loosely considered a "conspiracy theorists" into a category that is opposed to solid evidence. The whole term "conspiracy theorist" has confused, negative and unrealistic implications attached to it. A "conspiracy" has different meanings, for the two or more people involved, when pertaining to political, civil and criminal matters. Anyone who draws a conclusion on the matters of what two or more people conspired to do, however fringe or mainstream, is by definition a "theorist" of "conspiracy".
Not aimed at you Monpere - but using it might be a defense mechanism of some who want a grounded sense of current events and are unwilling to take the considerable time of researching the hell out of the very complex issues.
if you ask is it justified? yes, without reservation.
is it legal? lets read some more news first
"Two senior Pakistani security officials, citing their investigation, said there was no firefight because the inhabitants never fired back.
"The people inside the house were unarmed. There was no resistance," one of the officials said.
"It was cold-blooded," said the second official when asked if there was any exchange of fire during the operation which, U.S. officials said lasted nearly 40 minutes."
legal implies there is is some sort of law that everybody agree on and follow it. if the law is 'an eye for an eye' then yes, its legal.
On a point of international law, it is questionable based on the latest version of events. However, in terms of the international political realities it was probably the most pragmatic course of action because 1) a show-case trial would inflame the Muslim world yet again 2) terrorist groups would take hostages in the forlorn hope of leveraging a release 3) he would have the opportunity to 'soap-box' his views and doctrine to a massive audience within his legal right to mount a defence etc.
Still I personally can't find joy in killing, especially in front of children and am pleased that I do not have to take such profound decisions...........
