Originally posted by Board Game Geek
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!
Reply to: Sas guy on sky news
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Sas guy on sky news"
Collapse
-
Originally posted by Old Greg View PostI'm not concerned (particularly) about what the lawlessness does to him, but to us.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Incognito View PostNot 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Old Greg View PostOf course not. You're just glad the bad man is dead.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Incognito View PostAs 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Old Greg View PostIt'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.
I don't agree with your Dutch professor.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by doodab View PostIt'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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Old Greg View PostHave 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?
I doubt anyone involved gives a monkeys what the Dutch think.
Leave a 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.'
Leave a 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
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by doodab View PostMurder is illegal homicide. Killing the enemy in a war isn't murder, because it's legal.
Leave a 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
Leave a comment: