Here
and
Now

opinions

Bin Laden's death prompts questions about legality

91 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

91 Comments
Login to comment

We can worry about this issue after we definitively know whether OBL was actually killed. Of course, if he wasn't, he would probably have sent out a video to that effect.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Please! Much ado about nothing. Just move on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Amazing how many self-important (so-called) experts around the world all want to get a word in.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Amazing how many self-important (so-called) experts around the world all want to get a word in.'

And they'll get their say. But this issue will fade by when? A few days?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fussing over the legality of an execution.

Ignoring the illegal wars that have killed thousands.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have to side with the SEALs on this. Terrorist tactics have changed the meaning of war since organisations like the Red Cross were founded. War no longer means that armies line up in front of each other and exchange courtesies before going at it. Given bin Laden's modus operandi, anyone in that compound could reasonably have been considered dangerous, hiding a grenade under their clothes or a cell phone to set off explosives. The SEALs showed amazing courage and restraint in that more people were not killed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I beleive the rules of a military campaign would only count if war had been declared. Has war been declared against Pakistan? Was bin Laden a military commander of Pakistan?

This isn't really complicated. Its a smokescreen.

What is complicated is trying to fabricate some excuse to try and make the whole thing look legitimate, which of course, you can't.

Why do these questions need answered? Because if one day the Iraqis launch an operation to execute G.W.B on American soil, failing to answer the question legitimizes it and whole bunch of other things. Clearly, some people just want it both ways.

The only legal answer is that the U.S. had no business doing this operation at all. But rationally, the U.S. had plenty of business getting bin Laden, alive anyway. The law needs fixing and the law needs additions, because I would hate to see war declared against all of Pakistan just to get one scumbag.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pakistan is not US territory.

What right does Obama have to order his troops to invade another country, kill and dump the body at sea?

It doesn't matter what we think about Bin Laden. There was no recourse to justice. There was no trial.

I do not understand this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

johninnaha at 11:51 AM JST - 5th May Pakistan is not US territory. What right does Obama have to order his troops to invade another country, kill and dump the body at sea? It doesn't matter what we think about Bin Laden. There was no recourse to justice. There was no trial. I do not understand this.

imo some guys simply don't deserve trials as in the case of obl. He got just punishment for his crimes. In fact I think it was too good for him, I'd say an almost instant death without much suffering.

Obama and team made the right decision to send in the SEALS without Pakistani clearance.

Worlds #1 terrorist living near the heart of the Pakistani capital and right by the military barracks. You're kidding me if you think the Americans should have informed Pakistan and requested clearance or had the Pakistanis go after obl which could have bungled the entire op. This guy was living right under the nose of the Pakistani military for so long.

SEALS win.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Job well done USA. Once again some people chastise americans rather than thanking them. As an Australian i for one am very happy with Americas stance on facits, terrorists and tyranists these people are not entitled to any rights as they themselves afford none to their victims. This is the only way to deal with these animals = shoot first questions later. Bye bye laden see you in the bin.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think the question about legality are more about that the rules of how war is conducted, the sanctity of sovereignty and so on are seemingly being rewritten right now.

Not the 1st time it has happened in our history, but this rewriting has started after 9/11.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Terrorists have re-written the rules (bus,train,embassy...... bombings) killing of innocent people (children, women), so why shouldn't the USA act equally as harshly. The only way to erradicate this problem is exactly what the US have done = a bullet in the head to any of these offenders. Well done America.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

toddyz1.

You are aware that terrorists existed for millennia and they been ignoring the rules for just as long.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hmm how many unarmed people did Bin Laden kill??

0 ( +0 / -0 )

UsagitoSaru.

What does that have to do with if the military action and invasion of sovereignty was legal and according to international law?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

johninnaha:

" What right does Obama have to order his troops to invade another country, kill and dump the body at sea? "

No right, of course. But this is Obama, so the Bush-fixated liberals won´t say a peep, demonstrating their mind-boggling hypocrisy.

The quick burial at sea was a ham-fisted attempt to appease the muslim world. Which of course did not work.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“The United Nations has consistently emphasized that all counterterrorism acts must respect international law.”

Do I smell a wee bit of hypocrisy here?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What right does Obama have to order his troops to invade another country, kill and dump the body at sea?

After illegal occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, did you honestly believe America would care about something like this that results in "geronimo" being killed?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The quick burial at sea was a ham-fisted attempt to appease the muslim world

You think? I would say it is more likely that no islamic country wanted the body!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, maybe tokyochris is right. After all, the vast majority of his victims are his fellow Mulsims.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

After all, the vast majority of his victims are his fellow Mulsims.

I was thinking more along political lines, but this is also true...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think the question about legality are more about that the rules of how war is conducted, the sanctity of sovereignty and so on are seemingly being rewritten right now.

Not the 1st time it has happened in our history, but this rewriting has started after 9/11.

Zenny11 -- actually, you could argue that it goes back to at least Nam, with the manner in which the North fought that war -- mixing guerrilla troops in with the civilians, often in civilan garb. But, even so, what's your point? If the rules have been re-written, as you say, why should the U.S. play by an old rule book, when no one else is? Would a dedicated jihadist hesitate to kill Obama if given the chance? Heck no, so why should Obama? The SEALS put one center mass, and one in his head. Text book. And certainly quicker and less painful than the deaths of the roughly 3,000 he killed on 9/11.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I feel for the Americans. It's tough being the world cop and having everyone hate you for - at the root of it - trying to help. Being the only country that typically stands up to these bullies is not easy. One day they'll take their ball and go home and I wouldn't blame them if they did. Bin Laden was a murderer and enemy of the state - good riddens. I guess Khadaffi just moved up the list.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do I smell a wee bit of hypocrisy here?

No you don't. The U.N. does not support terrorism anymore than a government supports crime when it requires its police to abide by the law.

There enough crooked cops as it is without saying the law does not apply to them. And America is certainly not up for a national sainthood. The big problem here is that no one can hold America accountable for anything, which explains America's loss of integrity since WWII. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. All we can do now is appeal to America's reason and I thank all those that do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"an unarmed Osama bin Laden"

Well, he should have armed himself if he was going to kill 3,000 people in NY, Wash D.C. and Pennsylvania.

"questions about legality"

What, for a military force from one country to enter another country secretly and without knowledge or approval of the government of the other country and murder people? Completely legal, according to the White House. Completely illegal, according to the Pakistanis.

Legal or not, it was the right thing to do. Justice was done.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

what part of "Wanted DEAD or ALIVE" is confusing? this has been the doctrine for centuries on murderers like O B L. It has been the bounty on his head for the last 10 years...where is the confusion?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The question about legality is not nitpicking. The laws exist in order to protect innocent people. If we don't care about legality, sooner or later the victims will be ourselves, for whatever reason those who have the power feel suitable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Agree with gonemad.

If a country can send troop into another country that is an ally and they are not at war with to do whatever, what are the next steps that country will take? No wonder the Pakistanis send helicopters, etc to intercept them as they went into a civilian area close to a military installation unannounced.

Sending troops into another country without permission/agreement by international law is a 'Declaration of War".

Those are the worries that the USA is starting to ignore international accepted norms and laws to further their own ends. Granted might not happen but the worry exists.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Gonad- are YOU in the same category as Osama Bin Laden? You are actually comparing "ourselves" with the worlds most wanted terrorist? and quibbling over legality? a long, long way between Osama and "innocent" people like the ones he had murdered. hahahahahahah thank you. You made my day with your post.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Zenny- Any country harboring a terrorist loses their international rights. Surely you can GOOGLE that policy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Kaptankichigai.

You got a proof of that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No question(s) about it. UBL was a terrorist and has (had) no rights whatsoever. The lengths we went to bury him 'properly' represent an utter fiasco. Leave it to Obama to screw something this simple up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, would it also be justifiable that a bunch of radical afghans entered into G. Bush house, killed him and thrown his body into the sea?. Rules should be the same for both sides, right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

War is not limited to nation state verses nation state anymore. War doesn't mean that combatants necessarily "declare war." Those are outdated concepts. Bin Laden's group did declare war on the United States and carried out several acts of that war. As long as international groups have the means to kill 3,000 civilians and use those means, the state in which those means were used should have the right to retaliate. Many terrorist groups have resources and scope far beyond what law enforcement agencies can counter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So everyone should follow the lowest levels of rules and be able to do as they wish. Welcome back to the old barbarian ages when "Eye for an Eye" etc was the norm?

Glad that intelligent, modern nations, leaders are willing to lower themselves to the lowest denominator.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Zenny-"You got a proof of that?" LOL- what do you think we are talking about? Obviously... The proof is.. he is dead. America DID it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its called "the WAR on terror". Do your "research"..LOL!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I feel for the Americans. It's tough being the world cop and having everyone hate you for - at the root of it - trying to help. Being the only country that typically stands up to these bullies is not easy. One day they'll take their ball and go home and I wouldn't blame them if they did. Bin Laden was a murderer and enemy of the state - good riddens. I guess Khadaffi just moved up the list.

@jforce Couldn't have said it better! Spot on!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@bass4funk

I feel for the Americans. It's tough being the world cop and having everyone hate you for - at the root of it - trying to help

America tries to protect its own interests, full stop. (or "period"). It works constantly to destabilise any government it perceives as "Socialist". Look at what happened in Indo-China in the 70s and Latin America in the 80s. If America truly were a "world cop" as you put it, then I doubt anyone would hate them. That hate is a natural reaction to what actually happens. Read any unbiased history of the 20th century.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Zenny11

So everyone should follow the lowest levels of rules and be able to do as they wish. Welcome back to the old barbarian ages when "Eye for an Eye" etc was the norm?

Glad that intelligent, modern nations, leaders are willing to lower themselves to the lowest denominator.

And what do you suggest? Do you have any better way to fight terrorism and the terrorists? Mollycoddle them to death?

Get real! Marshallah !

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@koiwaicoffee- you argument is not valid! Bush is not a terrorist first off. So please if your going to compare a terrorist to a president at least learn to compare correctly instead of apples to oranges. Why should we even question the legality. He organized two planes to fly into the twin towers killing over 3000 ppl, sent his terrorists to suicide bomb tons of countries all over the world and we question if its legal to kill him unarmed? what is this garbage! I knew it when I heard about the operation on tv... "Had to have been the S.E.A.L.S." =)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush is not a terrorist first off.

I'm pretty sure a large part of the world population would not share your view. But might is right as long as you are on the strong end?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No moral equivalence please koiwaicoffee. Sorry Zenny but people have not really changed that much in the last two thousand years. It is still a brutal world out there. Still some cultures are better than others and this is the case here. The US as an enlightened nation must still deal with the savagery which is the norm for much of the world. Again no moral equivalency here please, tho'. Destroying terrorists is not the same as killing innocents. They kill innocents and we killed USB and more to come I hope.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gonemad, neither Obama or Bush are terrorists. Just because a 'large part of the world' says it is so does not make it so. There is clear right and wrong. UBL and those who support him wrong. Those who took out UBL right. Good guys vs. Bad guys. That simple.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zenny11 -- IMO, Obama did not do anything that Israel has not done for years, namely target known bad guys. No difference than the Mossad taking out all those Nazi brass that escaped from Germany at the end of the war. Justice delayed, but justice nonetheless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I know you americans are patriotic with this kind of stuff, and get very defensive about it ..

But Bush first, and Obama later, have been responsible of thousands of deaths both in Iraq and Afghanistan including a lot of innocent people. How many now, more than 100.000?? They could easily put you the "terrorist" sticker.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zenny11,

"Glad that intelligent, modern nations, leaders are willing to lower themselves to the lowest denominator." So what are you suggesting? Arrest him and put him on trial so he can get sentenced to jail or death. He got the easy option he ended up being killed in a much more humane way than the majority of his victims died. Just remember this thing was a terrorist, a mass murderer and would kill people for their religious beliefs and nationality a bullet is too good for it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

AdamB.

You and others don't get it the topic is not about Bin Laden perse, but that a Country can violate another sovereignty(friendly nation at that) at will and there is nothing wrong with it.

Happy that Bin Laden is gone but the USA stepped on quiet a few eggs and hurts it reputation by the way the Military action was executed in ANOTHER country without that countries permission.

But I will end here by saying, for some the "End justifies the means, good or bad.".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For once I am glad that Obama did the right thing and WTSherman is correct. Whether a large part of the thinks that Bush or Obama are either terrorists, warmongers doesn't make it so. Many Muslims were shouting that UBL was assassinated, but what was he (Bin Ladin) calling for? Tell me, how many Arab countries notified the White House or at least congratulated or Thanked or showed some signs of relief that UBL was killed. Again, this is what I am talking about pure hypocrisy. The man got what he deserved, justice was down and I do hope other terrorists will follow in his footsteps.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Happy that Bin Laden is gone but the USA stepped on quiet a few eggs and hurts it reputation by the way the Military action was executed in ANOTHER country without that countries permission.

Zenny11 -- disagree, as usual. As Panetta said before Congress this week, Pakistan's intelligence people was either incompetent or outright supporting Bin Laden. There are only those two options to explain how he lived under their noses for at least five years in that mansion. In that case, you simply cannot take the risk of advising them of your intention. To do so would be to put politics above the justice the victims and families of the 3,000 he killed deserve. Besides, to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

herefornow.

We can disagree. But many nations are wondering now if the USA won't commit the same invasion and ignoring of sovereignty in the future again to further their own goals.

Again this is NOT about Bin Laden but that the USA has taken things to a new level.

And if they took it to a new level than they can't complain if other nations perform military actions on US soil for their own goals.

Maybe Mexico should send in teams to take out drug-lords living in the USA(harbouring), etc or vice-versa. "War on Drugs" is just a legit as the "War on Terrorism"(neither of which is a nation nor a specific military or easily identifiable target).

This is the worry now, that nations will start to ignore sovereignty, international law, etc with feeble excuses.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

KoiwaiCoffee, some proof of your numbers, please. Sources or just talking points? And yes I am proud to be American but not in the least defensive. I merely state the truth. I used to be liberal like many but years of study led me to Classical Liberal way. To see things realistically and come to logical conclusions. I recommend you check out FOX news or hotair.com or NRO even as I watch CNN, Politico, and listen to NPR. I try to find the truth, not someone else's propaganda .....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As far as Pakistan goes, Zenny, I say the US pulls the support and leaves Pakistan to India. Pakistan's worst nightmare. Just ask Pakistan. The US pull out of Afghanistan as well. Again, India can handle things. The US can throw down punitive strikes from carriers when necessary. Perhaps then we agree on a reduced US presence around the world. ...Until the world comes begging for help again as usual. But this time, we say no thank you! Mexico by the way is just a mishandled issue by Bush and Obama. We could put the clamps on that place, especially the border, with no problemo with the right leadership. I doubt Mexico will be mounting punitive missions into the US. Of course Mexican unofficial drug missions to the US are all too frequent from that chaotic 'nation'. More clamps, please, Obama...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WTSherman1864.

USA pulls out of pakistan and there goes the supply route for USA troops in Afghanistan. Sure pull out but be prepared for the fallout that happens afterwards and I can assure it won't be pretty nor pleasant.

The USA committed themselves over many decades and they can't just pull-out without a major backlash in all aspects of military, economic, reputation, etc. You reap what you sow.

In short they USA has learned nothing from how older nations/empires that rose and fell. You can't just try to dictate to the rest of the world and not take your lumps when trying to pull out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WTSherman1864, google it. 100.000 is the most conservative figure you will find.

Wikileaks revealed document, coming from the USA army states that in Iraq only there were 104,924 recorded iraqi deaths, including 92,003[5] (or 66,081[6]) civilian deaths, between 2004 to 2009.

Were you not aware of this or what?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Zenny, what you dont get is that America's intentions for Oasam bin Laden and towards countries harboring terrorists were/are a well known fact. The USA is in a state of war that the world has never known before. They did EXACTLY what they said they would do and the billions of dollars America has given Pakistan for its help with the afghan war says shut up and count your blessings. Spineless twerps will always sit back and question action when it reflects their own inability to make a difference. The USA did what they said thwy would, and Pakistan should consider itself lucky there were no repercussions for harboring Bin Laden . -oh but what if next time...whaah...people are questioning...boo hoo.... The job was done and done well. It is why America is the only real world power even broke, they still got the guts. You should take a lesson.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In short they USA has learned nothing from how older nations/empires that rose and fell. You can't just try to dictate to the rest of the world and not take your lumps when trying to pull out.

Huh, never knew the U.S. was an Empire. By the way, who said anything about "dictate?" But when the rest of world calls on the U.S. when they get into a bind (and they always do) to help them get out of it then its ok. Taking lumps is part of the game, that's a fact. Personally, I wish the rest of the world could take care of itself, it would be nice if the world would call on Canada, China or Russia to help them out. These countries have money and they have a military.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why is there even any debate on the matter? Who ever thought you’d risk being hit by a plane while at work in New York on a September morning and those people were “unarmed”? Bin Laden was a monster and he struck many unarmed people without remorse. Why should anybody care if he wasn’t armed on the day they finally got him? Not that I believe it will make the world a safer place, it’s a token gesture but god knows who’ll take his place.

Bringing this low life to trial would last years and if the trial of Milosevic is anything to go by, it wouldn’t bring any comfort or justice to the victims of Bin Laden’s attacks. It would be a farce, an opportunity for him to stick his two fingers up to all of us and spread his hateful message and embolden his followers. What if he got off the hook with a technicality? It’s better he died a violent death as that will at least give comfort to some people rather than having to watch him smugly defend his actions in an International Criminal Court.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@sfjp330

I wish more people on this thread had the rational smarts to understand the total and complete logic you just put together in a nutshell. I would add to that would cost tax payers millions, not to mention the protests, the danger that the country is already in and for what? An enemy combatant? While Reagan signed an Executive order# 1233 which forbids targeted assassination (which is what a lot of people are referring to) if one reads it in its entirety, where it clearly states, Yes, you can provided you know that the person(s) are a known combatant in a war situation. 2001, Bush signed off and added to that, that you can use ANY necessary force of ANY leaders in combat against the U.S. This law doesn't pertain and is only limited domestically to the U.S. but also internationally. UBL was a legitimate target and enemy combatant, the U.S. had every legal right to get this scum and this operation against the radical Islamists is still ongoing, so we can and should anticipate more raids or attacks like the one last week which ended UBL life.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Again, a bunch of extremists could go to G Bush house, kill him and throw his body to the sea, and not only it would be perfectly legal, but also "reasonable". Because rules are the same for everyone right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bringing this low life to trial would last years ..... It would be a farce, an opportunity for him to stick his two fingers up to all of us and spread his hateful message and embolden his followers. What if he got off the hook with a technicality?

Sounds like you have a really high opinion of the US justice system. I hope you never get caught up in it yourself, some patriot might take the view it would just be simpler to shoot you. Hey, maybe they should just shoot everyone now awaiting trial. It would save the taxpayer so much money and clear the world of so much scum. What's the point of trying to do things right when it's so much easier to fire a gun.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Unless UBL made an immediate, overt and sincere effort to surrender himself peacefully there is no question of the legality of shooting him. These were not police serving a warrant where concepts of proportional force and non-lethal means are paramount in effecting an arrest of a suspect. When a warplane bombs enemy troops they aren't necessarily shooting at the aircraft, their mere presence is enough to take action. These were terrorist combatants hiding from all authority and planning further terrorist acts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@koiwaicoffee

WTSherman1864, google it. 100.000 is the most conservative figure you will find.

Wikileaks revealed document, coming from the USA army states that in Iraq only there were 104,924 recorded iraqi deaths, including 92,003[5] (or 66,081[6]) civilian deaths, between 2004 to 2009. Were you not aware of this or what?

Actually you're right. It’s closer to 110,000 but what's your point? Do you think the US military killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians? This last April had about 283 Iraqi deaths. 99% were due to insurgents targeting civilians. The other 1% by the Iraqi Police. GOOGLE IT. Were you not aware of this or what?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sounds like you have a really high opinion of the US justice system

Legality? What is legality? Justice? What is justice? Hate reading "crap" like this as it reminds me of The USA's "distant??" cousin's justice system (should we now say, "sadly the USA follows the "cousin's system too closely" as remembered from this July 2005 incident?): a Brazillian was gunned down (shot in the shoulder once and in the head SEVEN times--talk about overkill -- at a tube station in London because the system "feared" he was a suicide bomber! (The PM offered an apology for the wrongful death--sure brought that man back to life, didn't it?!). Memory tells me he was UNARMED, but (BRITISH) security forces believed he had an 'out-of-date' visa.

I still maintain a high regard for the UK legal system--sure beats HERE and God please grant me an automatic entry if Al Quada somehow manages to get the upper hand, latches hold of me and gets a glance at my passport--I offered no SPIN back in 2005 when this story made JT, then again I am not anti-British: I simply prayed for his soul. I dislike/detest the anti-USA sentiment from our dog-loving Cleo without, at least, the offer of evidence to back up the SPIN that the USA went in to gun Bin La down without any other options on the table. I cannot disprove the USA went in to kill him. Can you prove the USA went in to assassinate Bin?

One thing on record: Bin challenged the USA, armed to the teeth--I don't believe the 27-year-old Brazillian challenged the UK and he had no weapon. Oh, but there was a British apology. I do detest a legal system that merely BOWS with an aplogy and believes that ends it. At least the USA took out a known "bad guy": I don't believe an apology is necessary here. Was justice served? I cannot answer that for the thousands who lost loved ones that day, including the several who jumped from that burning building. I would have prefered that the USA capture him, put him on a plane and then called up Saudi Arabia and said we are dropping your boy off above Mecca and then dropped him off without a parachute and offered CNN, BBC, NHK, CBS, et al the rights to the highest bidder to follow him for a real "down-to-earth" interview," (of course they could've either rented or bought parachutes, but that just proves how sick I am. Seriously, however, I sure pray someone's daughter isn't killed in the "line of duty" because someone close by refused to pull the trigger to prevent a "wrongful" killing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I sure pray someone's daughter isn't killed in the "line of duty" because someone close by refused to pull the trigger to prevent a "wrongful" killing.

Buddy, you went way too far on that one. May I ask that you refrain from commenting when you are hitting the sauce?

Horrible comment...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

brotokyo, I don't know what you're getting all het up about. I disagree with another poster's comment that the US justice system is not fit to deal with the likes of OBL (that a trial would be a never-ending farce) - in other words I indicate that the US system is capable of dealing with the Bad Guys without turning it into a messed-up dog-and-pony show - and you see that as 'anti-USA sentiment'. Or did you simply not understand what I wrote? Is sarcasm beyond you?

Your rant about the Menendez killing is way out of line and totally off topic. There is no connection with the killing of OBL. There was a huge uproar among the British public over that unlawful killing and the comedy of errors that led to the horrible display of bloodletting on the London Tube, and a full police inquiry. A far cry from the 'Rah rah, We got the Bad Guy' celebrations we saw in front of the White House and on JT.

I have made no comment about anyone 'going in to assassinate' OBL.

that just proves how sick I am.

Your words.

I sure pray someone's daughter isn't killed in the "line of duty"

Hopefully you'll want to apologise for those words when you sober up.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Some people are shortsighted when it comes to Bin Laden's death. They don't understand the ramification of Bin Laden's death. Justice and peace will not happened anytime soon. The West is messing with the wrong people,al-Qaida, who sees an eye-for-an-eye til the death. Al-Qaida is the boogieman. Citizens will forfeit their rights to be safe. There are no winners.

Obama have opened a can of worms. The only thing the USA have going for her is her military bases around the world. Europe, Russia, and China don't see the USA as a superpower country. This is the 21st century, a new era.

The legality all of this is accountability and responsibility.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't get it. The US had been looking for this trash for over 10 years. Every country and everybody knew that he also had a bounty on his head, dead or alive. Those complainers had 10 years to voice thier opinions or legal crap they are talking before OBL got a bullet through his head. Now that it happened, they start coming out of the woodwork and crying legal this and legal that? Let it go already.

Bottom line:

Terroists-0

SEAL Team Six-1

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This conversation has become passe simply by the fact that the deed is done, but I take offence by some people's attempt to take the moral high-ground, inferring that there is a wrong done to another's nation. You haven't heard formal complaints from the Pakistani government, per se, only egg-on-face comments from a few individuals within their government. The legal question is whether anyone has the right to pursue terrorists when they run away and hide? Sorry, that's not a question. Show us the "legal" agreements between Pakistan and the United States and then we may be able to judge a little better. Facts before opinion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

see many people right now just blindly support the killing of bin laden no matter what. that make me think of when the very same people blindly support the invasion of Iraq by GWB.

no agurement on how bad Saddam and Bin Laden was, but two wrongs don't make one right to me. sad that people always has million of reasons to ignore doing the right thing when they want to set something right!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sad that people always has million of reasons to ignore doing the right thing when they want to set something right!

Because OBL is gone, it probably saved one inncent life somewhere. Is that wrong?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Because OBL is gone, it probably saved one inncent life somewhere

Total non sequitur.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gurukun.

Counter argument could be that his death might cause an increase in revenge attacks by AQ and affiliated groups. The attack can also cause greater instability within Pakistan(signs are there of it happening right now).

Only History will tell if the right thing has been done and who benefited and suffered from it. Need to wait 5-10yrs to see how it all plays out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Because OBL is gone, it probably saved one inncent life somewhere. Is that wrong?

i am talking about and disagree with people "blindly supporting" things without a care of right or wrong.

i am not saying that what has been done to bin laden was right or wrong. it is still too early to say. let wait for somebody interview the wife and daughter first. we will see their version of story.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The US action was entirely legal under UN Article 51.

It is also a necessary World lesson to those dumbo terrorist leaders that urge others to go and do their vicious dirty work, while they hide and ponder in presumed safety, that there is no where to hide, the US military will get you whatever it takes.

I suppose the US military can thank Osama bin Laden, the Taliban and Saddam Hussein for the opportunity of conveniently getting rid of their old ordinance and real war conditions to test out the new stuff. It all gives the US and British militarizes current war experience to keep their military machines war ready.

There is always going to be some charismatic lunatic somewhere that attracts followers and then causes serious trouble just as man has unlimited economic wants and will commit fraud/theft/murder to fulfill those wants. It is part of some of us, especially the gullible and insane, as any sort of crime is insanity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can't think of his killing without putting it in it's broader historical context, and I can't view the Homer Simpson-esque celebrations of his death in the US without being fairly certain that very few of those people have any inkling of that broader historical context behind the attacks on the US at all. If they did, I think their response would have been a far more somber "we need to ensure that the likes of 9/11 has no historical pretext ever again". But alas, I see a blinkered population who are swept up in this nationalistic payback with no insight or understanding as to why any of this really happened in the first place. Don't misunderstand me, what happened in New York was atrocious, and I think Bin Laden got what was coming to him as a result, but those blind celebrations after his death lead me to suspect that the US will not stop meddling and interfering in the affairs of far flung places, and so the anti-US sentiment which is so prevalent in that part of the world will persist, and that the acts of terrorism that result from it, will not cease with Bin Laden's death.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

lucabrasi -

Read any unbiased history of the 20th century.

You mean like Howard Zinn? LOL!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gurukun at 08:27 AM JST - 9th May

I don't get it. The US had been looking for this trash for over 10 years. Every country and everybody knew that he also had a bounty on his head, dead or alive. Those complainers had 10 years to voice thier opinions or legal crap they are talking before OBL got a bullet through his head. Now that it happened, they start coming out of the woodwork and crying legal this and legal that? Let it go already.

Bottom line:

Terroists-0

SEAL Team Six-1

Just trying to recover from the appalling score line at Tora Bora Approximate score line from Tora Bora Terrorists over 100 escaped (Alqaeda stronger than ever). Pentagon 0

SAS and one US military plane about 16

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In war, enemy combatants who don’t explicitly surrender are considered legitimate targets, international experts said.

Hmmm, with that kind of reasoning attacking US targets should be considered legitimate. I'm glad "experts" have cleared that up.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I think questions should be asked as to why they dumped him at sea, because that makes it impossible to conduct an independent investigation,” Doswald-Beck said.

Indeed. But the absence of an independent investigation has never stopped the US before.

I suspect they dumped him at sea because that makes it impossible to conduct an independent investigation.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

sabiwabi,

"Hmmm, with that kind of reasoning attacking US targets should be considered legitimate" they are talking enemy combatants (you know people with guns) not civilians going about their daily lives when scumbag muslim terrorists fly planes into their buildings killing them. You can see the difference l hope!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

they are talking enemy combatants (you know people with guns)

The poor guy they claim was Osama was not armed.

not civilians going about their daily lives when scumbag muslim terrorists fly planes into their buildings killing them.

I hope you realize that according to the FBI, there is insufficient evidence connecting Osama to 911. And I hope you also realize that many more unarmed innocent civilians have been killed by American forces. I wonder what they will say when/if Bush or Obama follow the same fate as the guy they claim was Osama, will they say they were legitimate targets?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

sabiwabi, Let me see, he was a wanted terrorist in a room with several weapons in it? What would you have them do, politely say "excuse me sir can you please surrender?"

Your anti US, anti Israel rants are well known on here no surprise you are now defending a mass murdering terrorist (after all you believe Iran is wonderfull). You compare killing enemy combatants to mass murder of innocent civilians you are one sick puppy... I just hope when they dropped him in the ocean they threw in some nice juicy pork chops for the journey to see his virgin hordes (YUMMY)!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You compare killing enemy combatants to mass murder of innocent civilians you are one sick puppy.

No, I am just stating two facts and one opinion:

Bush and Obama are both responsible for the killing of more innocent unarmed civilians than Osama was.

Osama was not wanted by the FBI for 911.

I don't think the man they murdered in Pakistan was Osama. And because they dumped the body at sea, we can't investigate.

Saddam was captured and tried, why couldn't "Osama".

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

sabiwabi,

WRONG AS USUAL

"Saddam was captured and tried, why couldn't "Osama"." Did he deserve a trial? Honestly.

As for OBL not being wanted by the FBI. You are wrong, do a search and go to FBI top ten most wanted 2011. You will see that he is there thrid from the top so l dont know what Arab media propaganda source you got that little gem from.

But as for your statement he is not wanted for 911 you are correct, you know why? The FBI most wanted list only features people charged with a crime by a prosecutor or under indictment by a grand jury. Hence he was there for the embassy bombings and Cole attack.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But as for your statement he is not wanted for 911 you are correct,

Thank you!

Did he deserve a trial? Honestly.

Yes!

Even more so if the guy they claim to be Osama was in fact someone else.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Bin Laden should have been captured, tried, and justice would have been served. There would have been closure for everyone.

The question is why wasn't Bin Laden captured in the first place? Shouldn't he face a trial for his crimes? If people answered that question, then maybe they would have a better understanding of what is going on in the USA, Europe, Middle East, and Israel.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Bin Laden should have been captured, tried, and justice would have been served. There would have been closure for everyone."

You think AlQueda, militant Muslims, and other anti-US loons wouldn't have complained about the trial?

There wouldn't have been any closure. There is now though. Case closed. Another evil madman dead! Of course there will be more to come - Hitler wasn't the last either. But that's life on this planet unfortunately.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm sure the people who complain about bin Laden's demise are not the people who complain about what he and his followers did.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sabiwabi: "The poor guy they claim was Osama was unarmed"

Well, he should have armed himself if he was going to kill 3,000 people in NY, Wash D.C. and Pennsylvania.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Of course he should have been arrested and tried. If people are finding closure with this brutal, shall we say, 'extra-judicial killing', it's because the legal option, the normal option has now been closed to us. From what I have read, there may have been teams ready to interrogate him, possibly to glean intelligence that may well not be in all the hard drives that (we are told) were carelessly left lying around.

The shifting stories (nonsense about human shields that was rendered unsupportable in a matter of hours, due to the existence of witnesses), won't stop people criticising the legality of the operation, thereby tainting it. This isn't a comic-book here, this is the real world. That said, I think it was better to do something rather than nothing... I am just left feeling that the chosen action was popularise, coming so close to campaign season.

As such a feeling spreads, it could even backfire on Obama, as no-one likes to be manipulated for another's political gain. At heart, Americans are as international anyone else, at heart they want their leaders to respect the international law that is there to keep us ALL safe. As someone who prefers the Democrats to the alternative, such an outcome, even if unlikely, is undesirable.

Basically, you can be glad he is gone, you can be pleased with his demise, without necessarily claiming that it was the right thing to do. What is necessary now is to know more of what happened, to make clear if the situation indeed forced these events, rather than them being preplanned from the beginning. The quick burial of the body will be seen by many as disposal of evidence. Surely people want to know the truth rather than propaganda?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites