Barack Obama accused of crimes against humanity for Osama bin Laden killing

[hack89]

Source: The Telegraph (UK)

Daniel Fiol lodged a written complaint at the International Criminal Court accusing the US president of breaching the Geneva Convention.

Navy Seals acting on Mr Obama's orders shot the al-Qaeda leader dead on May 2 after storming his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

In his written complaint, the Majorca-based lawyer said bin Laden should have been "pursued, arrested, tried and convicted" on behalf of "the victims of some terrible and appalling atrocities". The killing of bin Laden was even worse as it took place in foreign territory, Pakistan, without the permission of that government, he said.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8643525/Barack-Obama-accused-of-crimes-against-humanity-for-Osama-bin-Laden-killing.html

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Let me get this straight.

Bin Laden had his agents come on foreign soil of this country and perpetrate a crime, leaving almost 3,000 dead.

* started two illegitimate wars, leaving hundreds of thousands dead in their own country and thousands of our military dead as well.

And Daniel F. wants to have Obama tried for breaching the Geneva Conventions.

OK, got it now . . .

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[no_hypocrisy]

14. A Morocan doesn't have the rapid racism of our homegrown neocons.

[No Elephants]

97. Racists are in any nation and any political party.

When Hillary made an appeal for votes to "hard working white people," she was a Democrat looking for votes of Democrats. True, she was a Goldwater Girl before she fell for bill, so maybe, as to her, my comment is not entirely fair.

[lobodons]

37. OBL is only responsible for starting 1 war not 2

GWB is responsible for the other one.

[Tunkamerica]

47. * means bush.

[24601]

70. so you must mean Libya and Yemen - after all any war without

congressional authorization must, in your world, be legitimate.

It obviously was just a secret that they were started long ago.

[Tunkamerica]

73. my world?

[No Elephants]

98. Which war did OBL start again?

[Jumping John]

50. Have you ever seen any evidence for those things that you say bin Laden did. I am just playing the

role of 'Devil's Advocate' here.

But the last time I checked the FBI's most wanted there was bin Laden but there was no accusation that he was involved with 9-11.

Just saying.

[No Elephants]

99. We saw a video in which Bin Laden was among friends, saying

they thought they would inflict damage on only the upper floors of the twin towers. They never expected them to collapse entirely.

And yes, it was actually Bin Laden, unlike a film during the early days of "Shock and Awe that showed a Hussein look-alike in a room, appearing terrified.

[Bragi]

147. I recall that video and have questions

Based on my memory of seeing that video only once or twice, my recollection is that OBL DID NOT claim in that video to be responsible for the attack, or even indicate that he was even involved, or aware of it in detail, prior to its occurrence.

What he did in the video that I recall was that he welcomed the attack, and praised the attackers. He quite clearly (I thought) did NOT claim responsibility for it.

So fill me in of I'm wrong.

And does anyone know where is there a clip of that video online with a trustworthy translation? I'd like to check it again.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

56. The commision of one crime does not just the comssion of another one

Not sure I agree in this case but...

[No Elephants]

101. Either we have a rule of law or we don't.

Bushco caused many more deaths, American and others, and ruined many more lives, American and others, than Bin Laden ever dreamed of, and we decided to look only forward.

Once we start picking and choosing who deserves the benefit (and burdens) of our laws and treaties, we are arbitrary, not a nation of laws. Once upon a time, we were such a nation of laws that we gave infamous Nazis trials.

[razorman]

57. Yeah. Ask the families of OBL's victims if they think the Prez should be tried

for war crimes over setting Bin Laden to room temperature.

[No Elephants]

102. And that would prove what?

[KarmakazeNZ]

62. It doesn't matter.

Bin Laden died in 2000, so Obama had nothing to do with his death.

[saras]

64. Well, no, none of that is proven, and most of it, as story, comes from Bush

And what's more, it doesn't really make a rat's ass of difference who or what Bin Laden was.

If international law says you have to go through a trial before executing him, and the United States is part of that international law, then if Obama broke the law, he broke the law. It's really reserved for the radical right to believe that one is above the law, because in one's own evaluation of one's own conduct, that one is serving higher purposes than the law.

The rest of us call those people insane or psychopaths.

[caseymoz]

71. Be fair. Bin Laden would have been up for crimes against humanity easily.

However, what does that have to do with anything? Now Obama is because quite likely he broke international law by ordering an assassination on foreign soil.

It's rather why it would have been better to capture instead of shoot bin Laden and put him on trial. However, I can see the problem with that. Where the hell were you going to find an impartial jury? And I didn't know how any Navy Seal or US soldier could get the drop on bin Laden and not get a finger-twitch.

But now what happened looks like assassination by international law. Of course they have to litigate it.

What bin Laden did damaged civilization. It leaves us to deal with absurdities before we get back to being civilized again.

[No Elephants]

103. I demur. What Bin Laden did was order a number of heinous act. It was our response

to Bin Laden that damaged anything else.

[caseymoz]

154. Um, look at intent.

Don't you think bin Laden committed his act hoping to provoke the US into doing what it did?

You can't say before 911 occurred that it was popular in the US that we have a Patriot Act, that we do away with Habeas Corpus, that we set up special overseas prisons to torture people there outside of judicial review, that we start two wars . . . NO. Who, outside some small factions, wanted that?

You know who wanted to turn the US that direction so he could rally Moslems into a Jihad? Who had that defined as their interests? Osama bin Laden.

In other words, who had the exact intent to commit that kind of worldwide damage and uncivilized conditions? Osama bin Laden did. If anything, he persuaded US politicians and its citizens to see things his barbaric and use it to help their plans-- which were also altered due to his barbarism.

So, no. I don't agree with you here. We only proved we weren't above the response he wanted, but after Pearl Harbor and "the just war" of "the greatest generation" it was the response we were culturally trained to make. After the Cold War, where we had reconciled ourselves to the barbarism and necessity of nuclear war, what else could anyone expect?

I'm not excusing what we did, but let's be clear who had criminal intent. Bin Laden recreated the world with what he did.

And I know that the Neocons wanted largely the same thing. However, they were a faction smaller than al Qaeda. The difference is, they had to win politically first. They needed to persuade a hundred million Americans to support their policies. Bin Laden swayed a hundred million people their way.

The preponderance of the blame here has to go to the person who committed the original, flagrant outrage with the greatest criminal intent to create the exact response he anticipated: bin Laden.

[joeweed]

78. Actually, There's no evidence!

Bin Laden was ever killed by US seals, or thrown into the sea... so this will never hold up in ANY court..
There's also no evidence that the official version of 9/11 is even close to the truth...i.e. NO pics of a plane hitting the Pentagon (not even one!), etc. etc...
The crimes of Bush and Obama are these wars - Iraq, Afghanistan, now Libya.. and yes they should be tried in court to the fullest extent, especially Bush and Co.
Then a REAL investigation into the three magically collapsing buildings in New York on 9/11 should be done, and the REAL perpetrators should have US seals storm into their mansions and drag them out in a public square for all to see and spit on, before handing back over to the seals to shoot in the head... period...
.

[Cool Logic]

100. Did you vape it, or smoke it the old fashioned way?

Can I have some?

[Bragi]

155. Do you always prefer insults to arguments?

Just wondering.

[Cool Logic]

169. I am but a mere mortal man; thus, I lack the mystical powers that are required

to traverse beyond the boundaries of reason and into the realm of the supernatural.

That is why I asked joeweed to share what appears to be some pretty good stuff.

[ItNerd4life]

164. lol, I was thinking the same thing. Someone sure sounds high. nt

[The Doctor.]

193. Sure does...

But he's also right about the failure to actually, forensically, investigate the collapses.

That might have explained some of the weird stuff that was found.

[No Elephants]

96. Not defending Osama, but he was not a nation that signed the Geneva Conventions, right?

The U.S. is.

And the U.S. really has no room to complain about people not prosecuting Bush, does it? We above all had that responsiblity and we chose not to and to lean on other nations not to.

Don't worry, though. No one will try Obama. The U.S. is too big to fail.

[Drale]

2. Apparently Daniel Flol likes terrorists

Why hasn't he filed a complaint about all the pirates who have been killed on site? Or all the people Bush killed? Bin Laden is dead, theres nothing that can be done to bring him back and does it really matter? If he had been captured alive, it would have been like Saddam, he would have had a "trial" and then he would have been executed so either way he's dead and in a few years no one will even talk about him anymore.

O yeah PS. would the navy seals who actually killed Bin Laden not be charged with crimes against humanity as well? And everyone who knew about the raid and didn't protest? And all the people in Pakistan who knew where Bin Laden was the entire time?

[No Elephants]

104. Failing to rat out Bin Laden is a crime against humanity? Killing pirates as they are committing a

crime is a crime against humanity?

As far as Bush, guess who is protecting him a lot more actively than Pakistanis protected Bin Laden?

Iraqis did try Saddam, not give him a "trial."

[Maccagirl]

3. I'm sure the ICC will get on this right away.

Just like they did with the Balkan atrocities.

[Chan790]

67. The US is not a signatory into the ICC.

It has no authority over any US citizen nor are we bound by its' decisions. We don't even recognize its' existence or legitimacy.

[monmouth]

4. Of course if George W. Bush had done his job and did this all would be fine..n/t

[No Elephants]

105. Possibly. Bush has been well protected by the USA.

[Fearless]

5. Whether or not it was the right thing to do, it did in fact breach the Geneva Convention Accord.

I wouldn't call it this or the last Administration's most egregious breaches, yet it's curious they didn't speak up about those.

[hack89]

13. What section do you think we violated? nt

[EFerrari]

24. Disposal of the Dead for one thing.

http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule115

[hack89]

32. Hard to imagine a more trivial violation

He was washed accordance with Islam practices, buried within the proper time period and verses from the Koran were read. Hard to argue it was not respectful - it is not like they wrapped him Bacon first.

[Veracious]

61. IN Bacon!! LOLOLOL

Hi5 Ohhh too funny

[EFerrari]

72. You trivialize the Geneva Conventions. Well done. nt

[hack89]

76. There was no violation. His internment was respectful

and in accordance with Muslim practice. I know that some argue that burial at sea was a violation of Muslim practice but that is not an unanimous conclusion - the US decision to bury him at sea was not malicious but guided by practical political concerns.

[jeff47]

40. That part wasn't violated

His remains were handled according to the tenants of his religion.

[EFerrari]

42. Nope. The grave is supposed to be marked so the family can find it

after the hostilities end.

That whole "Muslim burial" cr@p was ridiculous on its face.

Seriously, If tiny Israel could find, arrest and try Nazi war criminals, why can't we? That was disgraceful.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

58. Considereing the long usage of burial at sea, I find that the IRC has not addressed it curious

[EFerrari]

59. There is a provision for Burial at Sea but none for gratuitously

taking someone killed on land and dumping them into the ocean.

[hack89]

82. But it was not done gratuitously

there were valid geo-political reasons not to have him buried on land. There is no requirement that having killed him, we had to participate in his glorification as a martyr. Since there has been no outcry about it, I am certain that every Muslim country in the world is more than happy that there is no shrine for OBL. Remember that OBL killed many more Muslims then Americans - I don't think he is missed in the Muslim world. Hence no outcry.

[No Elephants]

107. We didn;t want people in other countries to revere his burial site is a valid geo political reason

to violate the Geneva accords, not a gratuituous one?

k.

[hack89]

126. First off, we did not violate the Geneva accords

assuming of course that they apply to him. They allow for burial at sea.

But for the sake of argument, lets say we did. So what? Can you imagine a more trivial violation? He was buried in accordance with his religious beliefs in a respectful manner.

Have you considered that no Arab country would have wanted him buried on their soil? Can you blame them?

[No Elephants]

139. If they apply, we violated them in ways the accords refer to as "grave breaches."

Whether or not the accords apply, we violated other laws.

And I am not talking only about the burial.

Anyway, my reply to you had challenged your "geo-political reasons" statement. I see you didn't bother to defend it.

[hack89]

159. I didn't see the point

if you don't understand present ME geo-politics and why a shrine to OBL may contribute to unrest and violence then I am not sure there is anything I could say.

Can you specify the exact articles you say we violated?

[hack89]

80. Article 20 specially allows burial at sea

Art 20. Parties to the conflict shall ensure that burial at sea of the dead, carried out individually as far as circumstances permit, is preceded by a careful examination, if possible by a medical examination, of the bodies, with a view to confirming death, establishing identity and enabling a report to be made. Where a double identity disc is used, one half of the disc should remain on the body.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/370?OpenDocument

So you support us kidnapping OBL but not killing him. Like Eichmann?

[jeff47]

132. How do you get that wrong after linking to it?

There's nothing in the convention requiring a single, marked grave. The convention considers this the ideal situation, but it is not required.

[Lucky Luciano]

84. Why bother arguing? His body should have been fed to wild and/or feral dogs. nt

[No Elephants]

108. Because we're civilized?

[No Elephants]

106. Since when is Islam international law and how do you know for sure how his body was handled?

[jeff47]

133. The law says to handle the body in accordance with the dead's religion. (nt)

[No Elephants]

140. What law? And, again, how do you know how the body was handled?

Because your government told you?

[jeff47]

176. Geneva Convention, and because nobody's produced evidence that the gov't lied about it. (nt)

[No Elephants]

137. Here you go.

Assuming the Geneva Conventions apply, you can probably find a few "grave breaches of them listed in this wiki article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

Me, I think this is governed by our own laws, one or more other treaties and international common law, over which the Conventions exert great influence.

[hack89]

163. So you really don't know - you just hope we did.

how about a specific cite? Can you at least demonstrate some actual interest in real facts?

[No Elephants]

138. Dupe

[naaman fletcher]

15. How so?

Do you really deny that he was a combatant?

[No Elephants]

109. Please tell us where some legal document says an enemy combatant, sitting in his own bedroom,

may by assassinated a band of military men who outnumber him, as opposed to being captured?

Bushco used the term "enemy combant" to justify anything and everything, including murder by CIA in Gitmo. Now, the same Democrats who excoriated him employ the same tactic to justify Obama.

[naaman fletcher]

131. We do it all the time

How many German or Japanese politicians or officers did we target in world war 2? Were those murders because we didn't parachute guys in to arrest them?

[No Elephants]

143. Non responsive. So what if we have committed other crimes? All the more reason to stop.

Serial killing is not an excuse for the most recent murder the serial killer commits. (BTW, I don't know for myself that we did what you say. I am just taking your word.)

The issue on this thread seems to be whether we committed a crime this time, not whether we have a history of committing similar crimes.

And, and not that it really matters as to whether or not we committed a crime, but at least WWII was an actual war. Please see Reply 111.

[naaman fletcher]

151. Ok...

How is it possibly a crime to kill an enemy commander who is an active threat to your nation?

[jeff47]

134. Please tell us where it says we can't. (nt)

[No Elephants]

144. You want me to cite you a law saying it isn't lawful to shoot an unarmed person in cold

blood, if you can take him into custody instead?


You want to rethink that request?

P.S. In my prior post, I should not have used the term "enemy combatant because I don't know enough about its legal meaning. I should simply have said "a man indicted for a terrorist act that occurred in 1993." That is what he was on our most wanted list for, and I understand that completely.

[jeff47]

177. The thing is he wasn't in the US and not a US Citizen

Which means Under US law, he wasn't under US law. (To be technical, they aren't acting via title 7, the statue covering law enforcement. They're acting under title 10, the statue covering the military). So the relevant law is the 'laws of war'.

So the "enemy combatant" thing actually becomes relevant again. In that bin Laden wasn't a soldier, because he was not in uniform nor part of a recognized military. He also wasn't a civilian, in that he was attacking the US. That actually means bin Laden had less legal protection than either being a civilian or soldier. As long as we didn't violate the convention against torture, we could pretty much do whatever we want to him. If he had been taken into custody, then he'd be subject to US law and he'd have to have a lawyer, trial, etc.

The only thing violated by this assassination is the executive order forbidding assassinations. But EO's are issued by the President and can be countermanded by the President at any time.

[WatsonT]

153. Why didn't the SEALs just grab him and yell "Tag!"

that way he'd have to stand there frozen till someone from his team came and unfroze him or the game ended.

And he'd do it because that's the rules and if he doesn't he won't be picked next time to play and maybe we'll tell his mom on him.

[Proletariatprincess]

16. 1+

Yours is the only comment I agree with on this thread so far.

[jeff47]

20. Oh really? Please cite the section of the accord that he breached. (nt)

[No Elephants]

141. Please see Reply 137.,

[jeff47]

178. 137 isn't an answer. It's just you passing the buck.

If you really don't know what was violated, you shouldn't pretend there was one.

[wtmusic]

22. That's not clear either way.

"He was an evil mass-murderer. Does it matter how it went down? Absolutely.

It matters to one of the fundamental humanitarian principles of the laws of armed conflict: if they are “hors de combat,” or “outside the fight,” then targeting even military objectives is a war crime.

So first, was bin Laden a military objective? Assuming one accepts the idea that the United States is at war with al Qaeda, yes. In war, persons who directly participate in hostilities or who perform a continuous combat function in an armed group are targetable, and bin Laden certainly was the latter, if not the former."


http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2011/05/05/was-killing-osama-bin-laden-legal/

[No Elephants]

111. We are not at war with Al Qaeda. That was a fiction Bushco created via

the term "war on terror."

We've declared War on Drugs, War on Poverty and now War on Terror (stupid name). All our bogus. None of them are wars as that word has been understood since the dawn of our species.

We are not at war with terror, period. We are not at war with Al Qaeeda or any other terrorist organization, any more than we are, or ever were, at war with the Mafia or Cosa Nostra.

I thought Obama indicated his understanding of that when he stopped use of the term War on Terror.

[hack89]

127. OK - so we are engaged in "hunt them down and kill them all" activities

if they don't surrender to US law enforcement. Call it what you want - I don't care.

If you are arguing that military force could not have been legally used against OBL even though the was being sheltered by a foreign power and was actively planning to kill Americans, well good luck with that. The law is not a suicide pact - your notion that he was untouchable in nonsense.

[No Elephants]

145. Another unwarranted ad hominem attack. This time, you had to mischaracterize

my position in order to make it.

I never once said sending the military was inappropriate, not that OBL was untouchable, nor that the law is a suicide pact. But, kudos on packing so many straw men into a relatively brief post.

Two ad hominem attacks, cum dishonesty. You and I are done on this thread. Maybe your arguments will be better next time.

Peace.

[hack89]

157. So we both agree that the raid was legal and necessary? I'm ok with that. nt

[EFerrari]

26. Yep. n /t

[Fearless]

75. Adding clarification: The killing of women "hostages" held as "human shields" is against Geneva

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42864507/ns/world_news-death_of_bin_laden/t/official-woman-killed-bin-laden-raid-not-wife/

Fourth Geneva Accord, Section 1, Article 3:

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, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
taking of hostages;
outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.



--------------------

As I stated, it is not an egregious violation as many others under the Bush Administration (particularly with the bombing of Iraqi and Afghan civilian sites) and that it is worth noting that the source did not mention those more egregious breaches but does mention this one. As I said, it is curious.

[No Elephants]

112. Osama Bin Laden is not a nation that is party to the Geneva Accords or any treaty.

We are.

[Fearless]

173. Yes, and as such we need to abide by the accord.

[hack89]

165. If she was there voluntarily

then there is no violation - "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities" is the operative phrase. I think she knew the danger she was in, don't you? If she was actually an involuntarily human shield then OBL was the violating party - deliberate use of civilians to shield fighters is against the law.

[Fearless]

172. Human shields are "taking active part?" Please.

[hack89]

174. If it was voluntary then yes - you can't volunteer to sacrifice your life for another

and then be surprised if you are taken up on your offer. That is why is it illegal to use human shields.

Think for a second - if she voluntarily put her self between the SEALS and OBL, how can it be anything but an active part. If she was forced to act as a human shield, the violation was by OBL - unfortunately for her, she can be shot if it is the only way to shot him. The law does not say you cannot return fire on someone who is hiding behind a human shield.

[Fearless]

187. I'm sorry but it was clear she was being forcibly used as a human shield.

[hack89]

188. Then OBL broke international law.

but not the US.

[Fearless]

189. No. By shooting her we did. I could cite the text if you'd like, but

I'd rather not spend the time if you're not interested.

[hack89]

191. I'm interested but I doubt you can

if she was in the line of fire and the SEALs felt they had no choice, it was perfectly legal to shoot her. The intent of the law regarding human shields is to discourage their use. If, as you say, we could not endanger her in any way then it would have exactly the opposite effect.

Under US domestic law, if OBL had lived he could have been prosecuted for the murder of the woman - it was his actions that endangered her life.

[No Elephants]

135. The Geneva Conventions may have a moral force in this matter, but I don't

think they apply.

They apply to wars between sovereign nations. OBL is not a nation and the WOT is not a war, simply because we labeled it one. Please see Reply 111.

[aquart]

6. Poor Osama.

Yet I remain pleased he's dead. Fish food.

on edit: Mind you, I would have preferred to defenestrate him from 103 stories off the ground so he could feel the terror all the way down, but I'm willing to be content with simple execution.

[EFerrari]

28. But of course, it isn't about him but about how we'd like our people treated

should they be captured.

[hack89]

43. I think we have known for a very long time how our soldiers are treated

After they have been captured by Islamic terrorists.

[EFerrari]

45. Apparently we don't because a number of them and of journalists

have been released once they were ransomed.

But nice fear mongering.

[hack89]

46. So which of our soldiers were ransomed ? Have a name or two? nt

[EFerrari]

51. If you search "US Soldier ransomed" it takes you to a sewer

of right wing cr@P. lol

There is a list here of hostages killed, released, unknown. No soldiers but a couple of security types. Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought there were at least two incidences of releases in Iraq. These people want money usually, not anything else.

And of course, it probably doesn't help that our side has been torturing and keeping body parts as trophies.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_hostages_in_Iraq#United_States

[hack89]

83. So none were ransomed - ever wonder why? nt

[No Elephants]

114. Dupe

[No Elephants]

115. Abu Ghraib? And most or all of those inmates had been arrested under Saddam

[cstanleytech]

65. If our people resist as he did they would be shot though so its a moot point..

[No Elephants]

120. Um, he didn't resist. They claim they thought he was going to head toward a gun

their imagination created. Besides, what do you expect them to say, "Six U.S. military shot an unarmed man in his bedroom in front of his wife after we had killed a couple of others downstairs?

[cstanleytech]

171. He was living in a compound with armed guards so its reasonable to assume he

probably might have had access to said weapons unless of course you have some evidence regarding the raid yourself to contradict what they are saying as well as the claims of some of the evidence they seized that they claim shows he was making plans to carry out further attacks.

[No Elephants]

113. And how we would like our nation to behave.

[aquart]

130. Any American kills 3000 people...

The survivors can have at it. Fair is fair.

[christx30]

7. Next time there is a raid

on a high ranking Al Queda member, how about this guy go and serve the arrest warrant. If he thinks we could have done it without bloodshed, then he's more than welcome to help.

[soryang]

8. No corpus delicti

Conveniently enough there is no forensic evidence of OBL's death. With only claims of his killing with no corpus delicti of the alleged crime, they'd have to settle for the other less infamous killings there, of which there is evidence.

[rtassi]

23. +

[zappaman]

33. oh, brother

:crazy:

[TheDebbieDee]

9. Just to be safe, maybe our President should stop traveling

outside the US to prevent these tools from serving an arrest warrant......

[onpatrol98]

36. +1

[hack89]

77. No country in the world is that stupid. nt

[cstanleytech]

90. I doubt its a big worry as imo its

unlikely that any country he is likely to visit would be foolish enough to even attempt to serve such a warrant for a number of reasons the #1 being they know we do happen to have one of the largest, best equipped military in the world.

[TheDebbieDee]

92. The warrant wouldn't necessarily have to be served by a

representative of that government, would it?

The warrant could be served by a representative of the ICC, right?

[cstanleytech]

110. Either way he has protection from our government not to mention

pretty good evidence to backup that bin laden was thret from bin laden himself unless you think all those videos binny released over the years before and after 9/11 where he made threats were all faked by the US.

[ejbr]

10. Well, if they dropped the case against the Bush gang for Iraq

then this is much ado about nothing.

[grahamhgreen]

12. That may be true, but if i was on the jury, I might let Obama slide on this one. Renditions, however

are another story all together.

[DinahMoeHum]

17. This is nothing but Kabuki theater, folks.

No fucking way will the ICC issue a ruling on this.

Just some asshole lawyer with delusions of glory.

Nothing but a bunch of piss and wind. Let's move right along.

[smirkymonkey]

160. +1000

Thank You!

[Politicalboi]

18. There's no proof that Osama bin Laden did 9/11

We should have had an investigation. To me Casey Anthony is guilty, but Osama not so much. I still find it hard to believe that with all the money we spend on defense, that "19 Terrorist" took over the US for 2 hours. That only happens in movies.

[hack89]

19. The Kenyan embassy bombing and the USS Cole was justification enough

besides - do you really think he was not planning further attacks? He was killed just as much for what he was planning as what he has done.

[Politicalboi]

31. Well then we should have taken it to court

All we have is time. And besides we have been known to pay "terrorist" to be the bad guy of the year. Saddam was one of them. IMO we create our own enemies, and we have been doing so for decades. And as far a further attacks, I have my doubts. After November 22nd 1963 I don't trust our government anymore.

[hack89]

35. How do you know how much time we had?

He was leading an organization that was actively waging war against America. That's all the reason we needed.

[No Elephants]

116. Nations wage war against each other. Terrorists are criminals and terrorest attacks are crimes.

[No Elephants]

118. Organizations don't wage war. Nations do. Please see Reply 111.

And, if he were head of a nation that was waging war, the Geneva accords and other treaties and international common law would apply.

We can't have it both ways.

[jeff47]

21. Well, let's assume it's in a courtroom then.

Exhibit A would be bin Laden claiming credit for the attacks. Which he did on multiple occasions.

And that would pretty much be all that is necessary to secure a conviction.

[soryang]

27. Not really

The authenticity of those tapes is very much in question. Even if they were genuine, a confession is not enough to secure a conviction unless other evidence establishes an independent nexus between the operative acts and the putative confessor.

[jeff47]

34. Only if bin Laden were to challenge the autheticity

Which he would be unlikely to do. Much like the unibomber, distancing himself from the attacks would be throwing away his reason for being.

As for what's necessary to convict, that's more up to the jury than the law. Relatively flimsy evidence along with multiple confessions on multiple occasions would probably do it.

[soryang]

54. Ya don say!

"As for what's necessary to convict, that's more up to the jury than the law"

Scientific surveys show that 85 percent of jurors don't understand anything about the principles of jury trial. You are one of the 85 percent.

[zappaman]

69. oh, brother

:crazy:

[No Elephants]

124. Apparently we had enough evidence to indict him for the 1993 attack on the Twin Towers.

[No Elephants]

121. And your point is? The victims here are our rule of law and our nation not acting like a terrorist.

We tried Nazis after WW II, even those who were upper echelon and clearly guilty. It's our own morality and ethics and law-abiding nature some of us want to preserve, not Osama or his pathetic carcass.

[hack89]

128. OBL had plenty of time and opportunities to surrender

don't you think. How much longer and how many more dead Americans were you willing to take waiting to get him arrested and in a US court?

[No Elephants]

142. How much time he had to surrender is irrelevant.

"How much longer and how many more dead Americans were you willing to take waiting to get him arrested and in a US court?"

What a cheap, useless and wholly unwarranted ad hominen shot, hack89. However...

I was not the one who decided how many people to send to dispatch him or how or when to do so. That was all our government. Same government that didn't do a hell of a lot to catch him since 9ii.

However, we must have known it would not take many. The same number that shot him and the men downstairs could have taken him into custody without 1 more dead American.

[hack89]

158. In the day of suicide bombers

have you ever considered that the definition of "unarmed" may have changed? A simple fact of international law is that we did not have to provide him the opportunity to surrender. Once he had surrendered is a different issue but there is no evidence that he tried to surrender.

[jeff47]

179. We tried Nazis only after they surrendered

Before they surrendered, we shot them. bin Laden didn't surrender.

[KoKo]

66. I know...that's the problem. Either he "sleeps with the fishes"

or...he was taken care of for the good work he did for CIA during the Russian's invasion of Afghanistan.

We will never know in our time on earth. Maybe our grandchildren...what the truth of it all was.

But, yes...it was good PR for Obama and if he got us out of Afghanistan, ASAP, then it might seem to be worthwhile if it was real... But, we aren't leaving Afghanistan and Obama's "bump" isn't really as long lived as one might have thought for him finally capturing and killing (if that's the truth of it) that would make him a better sleuth than George Bush and Dick Cheney.

[zappaman]

68. hahaha

"We will never know in our time on earth. Maybe our grandchildren...what the truth of it all was."
Good one!
For a second I thought you were serious!

[iandhr]

25. Terrorists are not soliders

and not protected.

[EFerrari]

29. That's wrong. Geneva covers everyone. n/t

[jeff47]

39. Not really

Civilians are covered.
Soldiers are covered.

People who aren't civilians and who are not soldiers are not covered. In a more "classic" war scenario (such as WWII), they were considered spies and generally executed.

It's one of the reasons the US won't let most contractors carry weapons in war zones. Being armed means they aren't civilians anymore. (Entities like Blackwater are the exception to this rule. The vast majority of contractors in war zones are doing non-combat support functions like feeding the troops)

bin Laden was not a soldier, in that he was not a member of any nation's armed forces and not wearing a uniform. He was also not a civilian, in that he was using violent acts against his enemies, who happened to be nations.

[EFerrari]

44. Yes, really. The argument that it doesn't was BushCo's and wrong.

Go read it yourself.

[Bacchus39]

63. so you support the charges against Obama then? n/t

s

[CakeGrrl]

74. Good question.

Looks like the argument about disposition of remains above was arguing in support of his being charged.

Unless I'm missing some "nuance" that makes it totally different than what it appears to be.

;-)

[No Elephants]

122. Cheap shot, tired fallacy, false dichotomy. You can do better.

[Bacchus39]

156. if you believe a crime was committed by killing OBL, then you support the charges against Obama?

or don't you?

[hack89]

85. Oh? Which of these apply to OBL?

Article 13. The present Convention shall apply to the wounded and sick belonging to the following categories:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a Government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civil members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions in international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

[jeff47]

136. I suggest you do.

Because it specifically spells out who is a civilian and who is a soldier. Bin Laden doesn't fall into either group.

That doesn't mean we can torture or otherwise abuse terrorists. That's forbidden under other treaties, in addition to being wrong and dumb.

[No Elephants]

117. Geneva accords apply to a war between nations, the common understanding of the term "war"

that has been in effect since at least Old Testament days. It has nothing to do with the faux "war on terror" that Bush invented for a variety of Constitutional power grab reasons and post 911 nationalism reasons.

Please see Reply 111.

Our own laws apply, as may other treaties. But I don't think the Geneva accords do, unless one buys Bushco's sales job.

[No Elephants]

149. Too late to edit, but I should have added that the Geneva accords

have informed subsequent treaties, like the 1976 one against torture (and other cruel, etc.), which does cover everyone, and also international common law.

So many of the principles apply, even if the Conventions themselves do not technically apply.

And then, there are our own laws.

[Springer9]

30. Fortunately for President Obama

The United States doesn't recognize the ICC...

United States President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (‘Rome Statute’) on December 31 December 2000, the last day that the Rome Statute was open for signature. Shortly after the Bush Administration entered office and just before the 1 July 2002 entry into force of the Rome Statute, US President George W. Bush “nullified” the Clinton signature on 6 May 2002.

[onpatrol98]

38. Maybe they still feel snubbed

:shrug:

[tabasco]

41. Fuck you very much, Mr. Daniel Fiol.

'nuff said.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

48. Daniel Fiol needs to shut the fuck up.

The only crimes against humanity committed here were on Bin Laden's part.

[mvd]

49. While I still have major doubts about the 9/11 story and how dangerous..

Al Qaeda really are, it wasn't like there was much of a chance he'd be taken alive. Maybe targeted strikes instead of ground and air war should have been used from the start.

[dkf]

52. Yesterday Fiol joked: “I am not being paid by al-Qaeda.”

Really?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/07/15/spanish-lawyer-says-barack-obama-s-bin-laden-death-plot-was-crime-against-humanity-115875-23271655/

[Veracious]

55. ALL IS FAIR IN LOVE AND WAR!

This guy needs to STFU, and get a life.

[Fearless]

79. Yeah let's go invade Iran!!!111!!!!

:eyes:

[Lost-in-FL]

60. ICC?? Tee hee... nt

[Lucky Luciano]

81. Duly noted Mr Fiol. Next!!!! nt

[ZombieHorde]

86. I understand the desire to avoid hypocrisy, but I would let the Osama Bin Laden thing go. nt

[No Elephants]

123. Avoid hypocrisy, or obey our own laws and ethical and moral standards.

My concern is the latter.

[SoapBox]

87. ...and about BushCo.??? They killed THOUSANDS in Iraq!

What a buffoon.

[alp227]

88. Daniel Fiol is a crank n/t

[deacon]

89. Wow. What an asshole. n/t

[MadMaddie]

91. WTF? Why is there a discussion going on about OBL's

involvement in 9/11? He admitted he planned it, Shek Mohammed said he planned it..

3000+ lives on 9/11, countless others who have died because they participated in the rescue and cleanup efforts.

Many Nazi criminals claim they never pulled a trigger or murdered a Jewish victim it does not make them less guilty of planning, participating and inacting "The Final Solution".

What the hell is wrong with people OBL was not only on the U.S most wanted list but he was wanted around the world.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden


Osama Bin Laden lived the life he chosed by the bullet/bomb and he died by the bullet.

[Ash_F]

95. In ten years of dicsussion, Americans never seemed notice the FBI did not seek him for 9/11

I imagine he had a role as "spiritual leader" in encouraging them with his broadcasts, but in reality he probably had no direct communication with them all the way from Saudi Arabia and the US to his place in Afghanistan. He probably did not even know who they were or that the attack happened until after most Americans did. You could say he was complicit as being part of the Al Quaeda Anti-American "movement" but not as someone materially or strategically involved.

The FBI probably understood this and they(supposedly) operate on strict professional protocols so they never bought into the Osama hysteria to indict him for it. But I guess the public has to put a face to the deed so for ten years they been overlooking this fact in discussion. It got the point that backpedaling on it would make them seem stupid so they dug their heels in about it and plugged their ears. It was not like it was a secret(I did not know myself until years after). People are funny. :)

So they shot a hateful old man in his bedroom in front of his wife and kid because he was a "combatant". Not the worst thing Obama's done with the presidency. Preechers like Osama are half the cause of what is wrong with the Middle East today. Whatever, Arabs can overcome that themselves. What Arabs can't overcome is the other(bigger) half and that is the US/EU/RUS/CHINA powerblocs constantly fighting for territorial control of resources.

Another thing that is ridiculous is that a bunch of people from the Arabian Peninsula attack America as a direct result of the US/EU crushing and consolidating the region in the first half of the 20th century. Americans in general have failed to learn that part of their history. So the US response is to attack a bunch Afghans and Iraqis? People will probably fail to learn this history and in 50 years when some Iraqis bomb us they will react by invading Canada. :eyes:

[No Elephants]

150. For most of those ten years, we weren;t seeking him very much at all.

[Proletariatprincess]

175. 1+

Truth well spoken: Priceless.

[No Elephants]

125. Please see Reply 121.

[Devil_Fish]

93. Didn't Bush say "wanted dead or alive"???NT

[No Elephants]

119. Yes, but his wife and advisors told him how stupid he had been to say that and he never said it

again.

Besides, is Dummya's grandstanding our nation's gold standard now?

[Tx4obama]

94. The USA had permission from Pakistan to go into Pakistan to get Bin Laden...

That deal was made when Bush was still president.
Agreements between countries are still valid when the next president takes office.

[No Elephants]

148. To murder him, even if we could take him into custody instead?

I don't think a single post on this thread objected to our sending members of our military into Pakistan after Osame.

That said, do you know for certain that the agreement did not require notice to Pakistan first? I'd be very surprised if it didn't. If nothing else, Pakistan would have wanted to prepare for any aftermath taking place within its own borders.

However, I'm more concerned about taking a life without trial than I am not giving a corrupt government notice, even if our agreement did require it.

[MadMaddie]

168. Pakistan didn't know and for a good reason

every time the U.S worked with them during the planning someone in the Pakastani government leaked that an event was about to happen.

If a suspect pulls a gun on a policeman that officer has the right to fire just as our soldiars do. Osama Bin Laden could have turned himself in if he weren't guilty of any crimes right? He had billions of $$ at his disposal he could have fought off any charges. He chose not too...

[No Elephants]

129. The OP says nothing about the Geneva accords. If Mr. Fiol's complaint did, he missed something.

They apply to wars between nations, which has been the common understanding of the term "war" since time immemorial.

Our domestic laws apply. Perhaps some other treaties and international common law apply, but neither Osama nor AQ nor any other organization is a sovereign nation and we are not at with with terror (or even with terrorism), no matter how much we enjoy using the term "war" for something that is not a war.

We chase bands of mobile criminals that have attacked our people and our property.

What is at issue here is not the turd whose charisma we helped create under Reagan and Poppy, or his pathetic carcass, but who we are as a nation. Are we a nation under the rule of law or not? We were when we tried Nazis after WWII. Or are we, too, marauders, thugs, terrorists and assassins?

And not to far from here is that damned slippery slope, because we have also heard of U.S. citizens abroad being assassinated too. And U.S. citizens sent to GITMO without trial.

I don't know about you, but if I need to go to Yemen or Pakistan and get suspected of something, I'd prefer a trial to being shot in cold blood.,

[AngryAmish]

146. Racist

[WatsonT]

152. Hahah! Ok danny, you got your name in the papers

now shut up.

[L. Coyote]

161. Too bad Bush stole the Presidency in 2000, or we would not have his quagmire.

That said, there is no excuse for American Exceptionalism and the President of the United States must act within the laws as they exist. Noone on earth is above the law, and those who violate laws should be charged with crimes. Crime is not an excuse to start illegal wars or to assassinate persons. Such actions just promote what is currently called "terrorism" and seemingly is global insurrection against American Exceptionalism and the concomitant global military presence. This positive feedback loop will destroy everyone if unchecked.

[gratuitous]

162. No matter how good it made folks feel

Fiol has a cause of action, and while the United States does not concern itself with the requirements of international criminal law, we appear to have violated any number of not only our own Constitutional requirements by the assassination of Osama bin Laden, but our international treaty obligations as well.

I remember a time when the United States held itself out as a bulwark for international human rights, rather than a craven violator of them.

[hack89]

166. OBL had no Constitutional rights - you know that don't you? nt

[gratuitous]

167. According to the Constitution . . .

Legal scholars differ on whether Osama bin Laden had rights under the Constitution, and I'm inclined to the position that everyone gets those rights if the United States government is involved. In addition, Article VI establishes the Constitution and all treaties the U.S. enters into as the supreme law of the land. Under the Constitution, the United States is bound by the Geneva Conventions, and the government is not allowed to pick and choose which parts of the treaty it decides to follow on any given day or for any particular person, even if everyone agrees that the person we're assassinating is really, really bad.

If due process doesn't apply to Osama bin Laden in April 2011, it might not apply to me in July 2011. And I decline to trim my principles to fit this year's fashion.

[hack89]

170. You keep saying that we violated the Geneva convention

Can you actually cite the Articles we violated?

[gratuitous]

181. In relation to the original conventions

Article 3 section 1(a) in that a non-combatant (viz., an unarmed Osama bin Laden) was murdered.

Articles 45 and 46 in that the commander-in-chief, responsible for all conduct of the forces under his command to observe not just the letter but the principles of the Conventions, is not to conduct reprisals against personnel.

Article 49 in that the commander-in-chief has not searched for or arrested the persons responsible for the violations above, for trial in their own courts.

Article 50, willful killing.

Article 51, in which the United States is not allowed to absolve itself of its own breaches of the Conventions.

Will that do for a start? I suppose I could go to the more recently-adopted Conventions for a few more.

[hack89]

185. OBL was not a non-combatant by any definition

being unarmed does not make him a non-combatant. By that logic, we couldn't shoot enemy soldiers if they weren't carrying weapons.

Here is the definition of non-combatant.

Non-combatant is a term in the law of war describing civilians not taking a direct part in hostilities,<1> as well as (under Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, adopted in June 1977) persons such as medical personnel and military chaplains who are regular soldiers but are protected because of their function as well as soldiers who are hors de combat ("outside the fight"); that is, sick, wounded, detained, or otherwise disabled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-combatant

Don't you think his active leadership of a group involving the killing of Americans gives him "a direct part in hostilities"?


Your articles 45, 46, 50 and 51 don't match up with what is found in the Fourth Geneva convention. Can you show me where you got them from?

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/380?OpenDocument

[jeff47]

180. The Constitution does not apply to non-Citizens that are outside US territory

So no, bin Laden did not have any Constitutional rights while he was in Pakistan.

If we had taken bin Laden into custody, then he would have entered a gray area. It hasn't been decided by the SCOTUS if being in US custody means you are in "US Territory", or if you have to be on a US Military Base in a foreign country, or if you have to be in territory actually owned by the US.

Secondly, please cite exactly what international law was violated. We didn't torture bin Laden. And bin Laden was not a soldier nor a civilian under the Geneva Convention so it doesn't apply.

As far as I can tell, the only 'law' broken by the assassination is the Executive Order that bars assassination. But EO's are issued by the President, and can be modified/countermanded by the President whenever he wants.

[electropop]

182. The one thing Obama has done right (IMHO), and now somebody is complaining?

I think the fallacy in this complaint is the implication that Bin Laden was "humanity."

[Blue_Tires]

183. The real ironic tragedy is

There are thousands of more shocking, LEGIT ICC cases from our "War on Terra" from torture, extraordinary rendition, indiscriminate killing of civilians, profiteering, mercenaries, etc. that this attorney could go after. But no; that would require actual work -- At least mentioning OBL's name will get him some cheap press...

[Ter]

184. Why is it now listed as May 2?

Even wiki puts it at that date, but it was May 1, remember? When he died, everyone compared it to something that happened on that same day. Problem is, I forgot what it was. :(

[hack89]

186. Pakistan is 9 hours ahead of Washington DC

He was killed 1 AM local time on May 2 which was 4 pm May 1 in DC.

[Name removed]

190. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[and-justice-for-all]

192. .....

:eyes: what the fuck ever.