Reply to: Sas guy on sky news

[manclarky]

It gets to a point where even debating what is right or wrong becomes ultimately futile.

But that would debase the CUK Forums where futile arguments thrive!

[Board Game Geek]

I'm not concerned (particularly) about what the lawlessness does to him, but to us.

Greg does have a point in this regard, if you dig a little deeper and take a reflective look at things.

Do the West have a right to amend the law, post 9-11, to give themselves carte blanche to pursue and kill their enemies, wherever they may be on the world's stage ?

Does AQ have the right to target innocent Westerner's in the name of Jihad ?

Rightly or Wrongly, AQ would argue that their religion allows them to do so.

Rightly or Wrongly, the West would argue that they have the right to defend themselves and pursue their enemies.

Both sides could probably argue Rightly or Wrongly until they were blue in the face.

It gets to a point where even debating what is right or wrong becomes ultimately futile.

As an extreme example, an alien race might land tomorrow and start herding us all in to their ships for "food". (V anyone ?)

Now, I suspect that most of the human race would view this as "not ok" and call it murder.

The alien race however, see us in the same way as we might see cows, for example. Hell, perhaps we contain an enzyme that will save their dying race. Except we need to die to manufacture it.

So I perceive things with AQ and their ilk.

Different values, mores, laws, opinions, the whole shebang.

Either we learn to get along and tolerate each other, which most of the time, moderate people of moderate civilisations tend to do, as human nature is mostly moderate in temprament anyway.

Or we let extremists incite us and the violence renews.

Since we've been on this planet, the cycle of war and peace has ever been thus, and will always be so. To change that, you need to change human nature, and the only effective way to do that is to make everyone identical in thought, action, belief and creed.

I'm not sure, without massive amounts of indoctrination, imprisonment, and the loss of free will, that that is a possible thing to achieve.

Thus, you accept that intolerance and war will always prevail somewhere around the world.

Walk softly ; but seriously, always carry a big stick ; and don't be a wuss if and when there comes a time when you need to use it.

Obama used the big stick.

Osama ?

Meh.

[Old Greg]

Not really, there's plenty more people out there will step up to the plate to take on that mantle. I do believe though you live by the sword you die by the sword. He'd rejected the concept of western civilisation so shouldn't be able to rely on it to avoid his maker.

I'm not concerned (particularly) about what the lawlessness does to him, but to us.

[Incognito]

Of course not. You're just glad the bad man is dead.

Not really, there's plenty more people out there will step up to the plate to take on that mantle. I do believe though you live by the sword you die by the sword. He'd rejected the concept of western civilisation so shouldn't be able to rely on it to avoid his maker.

[Old Greg]

As I said before, 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.

I don't agree with your Dutch professor.

Of course not. You're just glad the bad man is dead.

[Incognito]

It's not 'the Dutch'. It's a Professor of International Law who is Dutch. I am sure nobody gives a monkeys what he thinks, because nobody gives a monkeys about legalities as long as the bad man is dead. interesting that they feel it important that they do care. Hey, but that's gangsters for you.

As I said before, 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.

I don't agree with your Dutch professor.

[Old Greg]

It's war. There is no grey area. Bin Laden declared war, the US considered him an "enemy combatant" in a war, and he was killed by soldiers doing their job.

I doubt anyone involved gives a monkeys what the Dutch think.

It's not 'the Dutch'. It's a Professor of International Law who is Dutch. I am sure nobody gives a monkeys what he thinks, because nobody gives a monkeys about legalities as long as the bad man is dead. interesting that they feel it important that they do care. Hey, but that's gangsters for you.

[Incognito]

Have a look here for some analysis

I don't agree with the cloggy's assertions in that article. Each to their own though.

[doodab]

Have a look here for some analysis: US: Bin Laden - a license to kill? | Radio Netherlands Worldwide
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?

It's war. There is no grey area. Bin Laden declared war, the US considered him an "enemy combatant" in a war, and he was killed by soldiers doing their job.

I doubt anyone involved gives a monkeys what the Dutch think.

[Old Greg]

Not 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.

Have a look here for some analysis: US: Bin Laden - a license to kill? | Radio Netherlands Worldwide
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.'

[Incognito]

It 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.

Not at all, if you google 'Authorization for Use of Military Force' you'll see that the US Congress ratified, and I quote:

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

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:

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

So, if you ain't laying down your arms then you're fair game by international law.

[Old Greg]

Live 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.

Sure thing! A gangland hit, as I said.

[PAH]

but it is still murder.

Live 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.

[Old Greg]

Murder is illegal homicide. Killing the enemy in a war isn't murder, because it's legal.

It 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.

[doodab]

Murder is murder, no matter what utilitarian gloss is applied to it.

Murder is illegal homicide. Killing the enemy in a war isn't murder, because it's legal.