Originally posted by SimonMac
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Sas guy on sky news
Collapse
X
-
Science isn't about why, it's about why not. You ask: why is so much of our science dangerous? I say: why not marry safe science if you love it so much. In fact, why not invent a special safety door that won't hit you in the butt on the way out, because you are fired. - Cave Johnson -
Originally posted by Doggy Styles View PostNazi war criminals didn't have thousands of zealots promising revenge if they weren't released.
No, it would have cost a lot more lives and trouble had Bin Laden been merely arrested. As a figurehead he would have been just as powerful in prison as out of it.Comment
-
Originally posted by Old Greg View PostMurder is murder, no matter what utilitarian gloss is applied to it.
Bin Laden wouldn't have expected anything else, so I wouldn't worry too much about him.Comment
-
Murder is Murder.
However war is war and it suspends the niceties. Binn Laden declared war. If it had been Hitler would anyone have turned a hair at his demise?
This way its finished, he was the leader and ordered atrocities, there was no doubt about his guilt.Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.Comment
-
Originally posted by Old Greg View PostMurder is murder, no matter what utilitarian gloss is applied to it.While you're waiting, read the free novel we sent you. It's a Spanish story about a guy named 'Manual.'Comment
-
Originally posted by doodab View PostMurder is illegal homicide. Killing the enemy in a war isn't murder, because it's legal.Comment
-
Originally posted by Old Greg View Postbut it is still murder.
Besides, meat is murder, yet I'd offer more compassion to the sacrificial cow while I'm tucking into my next burger.Feist - 1234. One camera, one take, no editing. Superb. How they did it
Feist - I Feel It All
Feist - The Bad In Each Other (Later With Jools Holland)Comment
-
Originally posted by PAH View PostLive by the sword, die by the bullet.
Besides, meat is murder, yet I'd offer more compassion to the sacrificial cow while I'm tucking into my next burger.Comment
-
Originally posted by Old Greg View PostIt is difficult to see how this falls under any recognised definition of war. Al Qaeda is a criminal organisation, even if it has political and religious objectives. All that we have seen is a gangland hit by one gang boss on another. I don't mourn him, but it is still murder.
That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons
Article three only offers protection to those persons:
taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause"I hope Celtic realise that, if their team is good enough, they will win. If they're not good enough, they'll not win - and they can't look at anybody else, whether it is referees or any other influence." - Walter Smith
On them! On them! They fail!Comment
-
Originally posted by Incognito View PostNot at all, if you google 'Authorization for Use of Military Force' you'll see that the US Congress ratified, and I quote:
So you may call it immoral, unjust and/or unnecessary, but it certainly isn't murder. The Geneva Conventions do not recognise any lawful status for combatants in conflicts not involving two or more nation states. Any state that is caught up in such a conflict legally only has to observe Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
Article three only offers protection to those persons:
So, if you ain't laying down your arms then you're fair game by international law.
It's a bit murkier than you suggest. You seem to want it both ways. Either the Laws of War apply, or they don't, in which case it is a criminal matter subject to due process. Which is it?
Quote from link:
'There has been little international condemnation of reports that Al-Qaeda's leader Osama Bin Laden has been killed by US forces in Pakistan. But there are questions as to whether such an extrajudicial killing is allowed under international law.
The US State Department had offered a reward of up to $25 million for "information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction" of Bin Laden - but is that a license to kill?
The US legal framework on the war on terror is unclear. While the US government does not condone extrajudicial killings, the US maintains that senior members of Al-Qaeda are "enemy combatants". As the laws of war only cover killings of combatants by combatants - does the term "enemy combatants" in modern warfare mean a blanket privilege to commit violence in the name of counter-terrorism?
International law
Dutch Professor of International Law, Geert-Jan Knoops said that legally the news of the killing of Bin Laden is particularly interesting, as international law does not permit the killing of an opponent. "Under international law, he must be arrested and handed over to the US to stand trial.
The US regards itself as being in a state of war against terror and therefore as having the right to eliminate its enemies on the battlefield," said Knoops. "But the laws of war do not permit this sort of action. Naturally, no court in the world will tick off the Americans for this. What's remarkable is that Obama justifies this killing - while he said earlier that he aims to restore law in the US," he added.
Congressional report
A report by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress outlines the lack of legal clarity surrounding the US government’s rules on assassination.
President Ronald Reagan issued an executive order in 1981 prohibiting assassination, directly or indirectly – and specifically singled out the "Intelligence Community." Some have interpreted the order to refer to only heads of state, and it’s not clear whether that was the intention.
Regardless, three days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, House and Senate passed joint resolutions authorizing the President to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
The report states that this means an assassination may be permissible - if Reagan’s assassination ban can be considered as more expansive in covering US responses to terrorist attacks on US soil.
"The breadth of authority might be viewed as sufficient, insofar as US responses to September 11, 2001 are concerned - to encompass actions that might otherwise be prohibited under the assassination ban," the report says.
Of course, Bin Laden's killer could still be charged with murder in Pakistan. The US has an extradition treaty with Pakistan - but observers say it is unlikely that Washington would hand Bin Laden's killer over to Islamabad.'Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment