Our Depravity

[Karmadillo]

http://www.ianwelsh.net/our-depravity/

Our Depravity
2011 May 9
by Ian Welsh

Apparently 86% of Americans think that shooting an unarmed bin Laden was ok.

Yeah. Once up on a time, a different country in a different time, put on trial men who had been complicit, not just in killing a few thousand people, but millions. They gave those people, known as Nazis, a trial. But that was a different country, and a different time, when America still at least tried to do the right thing, and when Americans thought doing the right thing was, well, the right thing.

Back then over 50% of Americans didn’t approve of torture, either. They understood that people who torture are evil. Period.

Osama bin Laden and the prisoners at Guantanmo are either:

*Prisoners of war, in which chase they should receive full Geneva convention rights, or;

*Common Criminals, in which case they have the right to a speedy trial, to face their accusers and to see the evidence against them.

<edit>

We live in a depraved time. Yes, our elites are evil. Virtually to a man or woman they are monsters. But we are complicit in this. Whether in pluralities or outright majorities or in our own depraved indifference we enable them.

[pipoman]

1. Whether or not bin laden was armed

is irrelevant as many guarding him were. This isn't about making an arrest of a US citizen in a US city. There is no threshold or responsibility to wait for the target to show his weapon or start shooting. This was a military action. Application of civilian laws to military actions is simply ignorance of history and military objectives during times of aggression.

Oh, and as for 'ye good ol'days, I guess the author has forgotten about detention camps, rounding up of Japanese citizens, ect. The simplistic association to trying Nazis is almost laughable if it weren't so erroneous.

[poli_ticks]

7. That's a BushCo position

that terrorists ought to be treated as a military problem, not a criminal problem.

If we agree with BushCo on this this has implications for a whole slew of other issues - Gitmo, military tribunals for terror suspects, etc.

Also, that in some ways societal norms were worse back then than today does not invalidate the author's point. That on the issue of granting captured enemies due process, we are now worse than we were during WWII.

[Green_Lantern]

12. did Al Qaeda wage war on the US on 9/11?

Yes or no?

Bushco was wrong because it took Congress out of the loop on tribunals.

[Spider Jerusalem]

19. Only states can wage war.

Well-established principle of international law. So the answer to that is "no". They engaged in a criminal terrorist attack; this is not the same thing. Al Qaeda's attack on the US was no more "war" than were IRA bombings in London. Or Hamas bombings in Jerusalem.

[Green_Lantern]

92. I really disagree...there is no international law consensus defining

Terrorism but mentioning that only states can make war..that just means military force can be used by legitimate states.

By your standard the Rwandan war wasn't a war because one side was a private militia.

[JuniperLea]

96. And all NATO actions are illegal...

Let's not even get into Interpol.

I really disagree too... very odd idea, IMHO.

[poli_ticks]

66. Al-Qaeda certainly attacked us

and the executive branch is authorized to defend the US against attack, which it failed to do on 9/11.

On the question of what to do about them afterwards, you hunt them down with the cooperation of proper law enforcement authorities in the countries where they are hiding. If the countries where they are hiding refuse to cooperate or side with them, then you go to the Congress and get a proper declaration of war. Which Bush did not get.

And no, Bush was wrong because it went to military tribunals, period. If the Congress had approved of military tribunals then the Congress would have been wrong as well.

[Green_Lantern]

93. Forget Bush...should Obama have had to get a declaration of war

On Pakistan in order to send SEALS to kill Osama?

I'm not defending Bush or an ideologically wed to military tribunals for terrorist suspects but I can see a need for them at times. For example, look to the civil war.

[poli_ticks]

103. What I really think

is that this question just does not have a "right" answer. We basically either let OBL go, or we accept the undermining of the Constitution.

So what I think needs to happen is that we need to end the Empire and quit trying to be global hegemon. So that we don't continue to be faced with impossible questions like this.

The Roman Republic was destroyed by... the Roman Empire. If we tolerate Imperialism there simply is no "right answer" to questions like this. The Republic will be destroyed. Unless we're willing to let folks like OBL go. And there is no way that public sentiment would permit that.

[Green_Lantern]

104. killing Osama didn't undermine the Constitution...

The President is Commander in Chief of the military and has the power to use the military to defend the nation. Your idea that the President needs Congressional approval for all uses of military is really unheard of. Congressional is only required to declare war or if troops will be used over 60 days.

[poli_ticks]

106. Our on-going presence in Pakistan

not to mention Yemen, Libya, etc. - in fact, I would say in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia as a whole are undermining the Constitution and our Republican form of government.

So I was not talking in the narrow sense of just the Bin Laden raid. I meant in the broader context in which this raid occurred.

The president is allowed to send troops abroad without Congressional authorization for 60 days only if it's an emergency where he has to act immediately and cannot wait for authorization from the Congress. The intent of the act was clearly to restrict the president's ability to commit US forces abroad. Where he has the time to get proper Congressional authorization, the act ought to be understood as requiring him to getting it first.

[Green_Lantern]

107. I think you're oversimplifying what brought down the Roman empire..

And how it still reflects into Western culture.

[poli_ticks]

108. Well, sure.

There is a limit to what one can say with a few hundred words.

But you've caught my drift, I hope. Of all the enemies to public liberty war is perhaps to be most dreaded, and all that.

And it's become much too easy for the Executive to railroad us into war... and in fact, having bases overseas, and vying with other countries for control over regions (like the Middle East) - that's a surefire recipe for wars, blowback, then more wars in response to blowbacks, and so forth.

Academics were already making reference to "the Imperial Presidency", etc.

[pipoman]

14. Uh, no, it is a US history issue

military actions on foreign soil have NEVER been handled as if it were a civilian criminal matter. We didn't offer US Japanese citizens due process during WW2. We didn't offer enemy captured due process either. No, the author is wrong. And, apparently it is also an Obama position since not one thing has changed, huh? Now we have Senator Schummer proposing a 3 fold expansion of the 'terrorist watch list'. Go ahead, wish it was Bush/Repug policy...it is getting less believable by the day.

[poli_ticks]

69. Sure, if you want to put it that way.

But what you're really saying is that the US government, or our Ruling Class, has generally acted in a completely lawless way and has ignored even the Constitution throughout our history.

And I completely agree you're right.

I'm just pointing out that in this case, the Obama administration is following that old and venerable tradition. And I'm suggesting that perhaps we peasants should not be so approving or supportive of it.

[Cid_B]

21. What LE tactics would you have used to "arrest" OBL?

... or is this one of those things that "someone else" can figure out?

[dionysus]

26. "mr bin laden, this is the SEALS, come out with your hands up. FREEZE!"

:rofl:

[Cid_B]

30. Okay... I just need a minute....

... hold that thought...

... any second now...


BOOM!

Also, the LE method would be a joint LE operation with the *snort* Pakistani authorities with them in the lead. BWA HAHAHA

[cherokeeprogressive]

64. "Calling all cars! Calling all cars! Be on the lookout for a 6'4" Arab! Goes by the name Osama..."

We could have just put out an All Points Bulletin on him.

[poli_ticks]

73. I'm not objecting about the tactics, actually

taking people into custody in situations where both sides are armed (if we are to take at face value government claims that Bin Laden had armed guards) has always been a tricky business. Many soldiers have gotten killed or wounded trying to accept surrenders from enemy soldiers (because there are often guys with itchy, nervous trigger fingers, or the lone dissenter who feels their unit should not be surrendering, etc.). So for all we know this could have been the result of an "accident". And in any case, when doign a forced entry tactics aren't going to be that different whether it's being performed by a SWAT team or a Navy Seals team.

What I find absurd is that:
1. People are no longer concerned that we're carrying out military actions inside the territory of a sovereign state that is nominally an ally of the US (Pakistan).

2. People no longer care that there seems to be no legal authorization for this. Understandably people don't really care in the case of AQ and Pakistan but think about the precedent and principle this establishes. On what grounds will you object if some day the president orders Navy seals to carry out a raid inside, say, Canada?

3. People seem to have completely accepted the idea that we ought to regard AQ members as enemy soldiers who should be eliminated via warfare, rather than as civilian criminals who ought to be aprehended and prosecuted.

All these are points on which BushCo was criticized when they were in power by Liberals.

[Green_Lantern]

99. invading another country is totally legitimate to defend our security..

I doubt Canada would harbor a terrorist like Osama the way Pakistan did.

AQ considers its own members as enemy soldiers.

[mmonk]

20. Then they all should have killed. No survivors.

Not even those unarmed.

[coalition_unwilling]

Glad to see you're back. DU had a mini panic attack on Saturday (I think), but

whew!, it proved relatively short-lived.

I have started advocating now that we simply execute anyone accused of a capital crime without bothering any more with such niceties as trials, rules of evidence, opposing counsel and what-not. Presumption of Innocence is so 20th Century.

[mmonk]

101. Yep. Inconsistency is shifting sand.

It's amazing what we have let one person do to us.

[Green_Lantern]

98. it isn't all or nothing...you can use different tactics to get terrorists..

Depending on circumstances. If Osama was in NYC arresting him would've been feasible. But we have no such jurisdiction in Pakistan and if we asked Pakistan to apprehend him they would've tipped him off and he'd be gone.

[quaker bill]

2. 85 percent thought invading Iraq was a good idea

my guess is that it went over the 90 threshold with Afghanistan. There is no surprise here. OBL is just another one of the many many thousands who have been killed over there without "due process". The difference is that I am less concerned in his case. It was far easier for me to be concerned about the 4 million citizens of Baghdad during "shock and awe", something that received rave reviews and high ratings here.

[poli_ticks]

3. 85? I don't recall there being quite that much support for it.

And "collateral damage" isn't the right comparison, I'd say.

Except for the most racist, ignorant troglodytes who thought we were in a war against arabs and muslims in general, and therefore thought the more dead muslims the better, I think most people understood that more dead Iraqi civilians=bad for winning hearts and minds, and therefore for "winning" the war.

So maybe people thought X number of dead Iraqi civilians was "worth it" to establish a secular democracy in Iraq, or protect us from Al-Qaeda or whatever the heck they thought we were trying to accomplish over there, but they certainly didn't think of dead Iraqi civilians as a good in and of itself. At least not 86% of the country.

And indeed lots of other people have been killed without due process. I just can't recall another case where 85% of the country openly celebrated it or thought it was the right thing to do, with nary a thought about what the implications are that this is now acceptable behavior from our government where the vast majority of the country is concerned.

[quaker bill]

16. I do recall the polls that estimated it

This country strongly supports the death penalty when you put it in context of a specific individual, say Ted Bundy, where his acts and guilt were well understood. Whether true or not, folks have much the same impression of OBL's criminality. I personally lean toward the notion that what we understand of OBL is largely correct. In this context, the polling is not at all surprising.

[leftynyc]

34. 85% supported Iraq?

Link please.

[JoePhilly]

4. Is this attempt #24 or #25?

[Solomon]

23. More like 52.

Obama should have remembered that he's black and is not entitled to exercise the prerogatives of a white man, even if he is half-white. Had a white president done this there would be ticker tapes parades on Times Square.

[JoePhilly]

27. And as if on cue ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1081002&mesg_id=1081125

[Romulox]

5. Something like 90+% of us were against the bankster bailouts, and they did them anyway

They didn't ask us before they shot Bin Laden, and they won't ask us before they shoot the next bogeyman.

This substituting of opinion poll for political analysis is therefore of little use.

[poli_ticks]

76. They tell us we are a Democracy.

This appears to be the same sort of lie that they told peasants back when we were ruled by Kings and Queens. "We rule you because this magic being in the sky wants us to rule you."

[Green_Lantern]

100. how can anyone see Osama as a "bogeyman"..

Next you'll say the Holocaust was fake.

[Octafish]

6. I agree with this post. Every word.

Our elites are evil.

[kenny blankenship]

8. Please. I feel more guilt over eating dessert two nights in a row.

Lots of unarmed soldiers get killed in war. They were the radio operators, the stretcher bearers hit by a mortar shell, the filing clerks, and sometimes infantrymen who just didn't have time to grab their rifle when the attack came in the middle of the night. And sometimes the unarmed dead are Generals. C'est la guerre.

[Swede]

9. Yes,Obama is an evil,bad,evil man.

Bad and evil. Evil

[gratuitous]

10. Gotta agree with Mr. Welsh

When you hold a principle, as many here claim they do, you look for applications, not exceptions. For example, if executing bin Laden was all right because it was bin Laden, then you're not really against the death penalty.

[Green_Lantern]

11. if a woman shoots and kills a guy who wants to rape her

Wouldn't be told "He deserved a trial before you shot him."

Osama was in the process of waging a war on us.

Those Nazis were put on trial after Germany surrendered. When did Al Qaeda do a ceasefire?

We killed a lot of Nazis without trials to get them to surrender.

Tell Al Qaeda to surrender.

You think Obama is a monster?

[coalition_unwilling]

62. Quoting from a post elsewhere by DUer SoDesuka:

"Calling a fatwa a declaration of war is a silly argument. An organization of civilians is not a state; the most they can be is a gang . . . .

Only a state can declare war. Osama bin Laden is the lead criminal in a gang of criminals, not a head of state. If you want to proceed lawfully against bin Laden, you can't change his status to that of a soldier; you have to respect the fact that regardless of his own statements he remains a civilian."

**************************************

There's really nothing further I desire to discuss with you, so get thee to my Ignore list post haste.

[Green_Lantern]

94. so by that definition Rwanda war wasn't a war...

US Civil war wasn't a war. Civil wars aren't war etc.

I don't mind not discussing anything with you until you learn basic US History.

[ProSense]

13. Ian Welsh

bitter Edwards supporter who will never got over his loss.

Edwards' Foreign Policy Speech Shows He Gets It

The Edwards Imperative: Because Compromising To Change Hasn't Worked


Edwards Is More Electable. Period.

Accounts of Edwards Electoral Death Are Perhaps Premature

<...>

It remains unclear to me that Edwards' supporters would go to Obama if Edwards dropped out, but the bottom line is simpler--there is no reason for Edwards to drop out. He's still in the running, and if he wants to choose which of the other candidates wins if he doesn't, walking into the convention with a block of delegates large enough to do it is the best way.

And Obama isn't Edwards--he is significantly to the right of Edwards and on the fight/compromise spectrum he is actually the most conciliatory of the three candidates. Edwards supporters want a fighter; that isn't Obama.

Edwards is alive and kicking, and a force to be reckoned with. There's no good reason for him to ever drop out of the nomination contest. Time for Obama supporters to tend to their own campaign, not to Edwards.

<...>

Tunnels of the Underclass

<...>

And so I listen to John Edwards and I know why he lost twice. People don’t like you when you make them look at the other side, at the dark fate that may await them one day if they’re a little unlucky; if their company downsizes, if they’re 45 and the company wants a youngster, or if some guy in China is willing to do their job for one-tenth the wage.

<...>

It's simply hilarious that anyone could possibly have been so vested in the campaign of any of the top three Democratic Presidential candidates only to now pretend that they're so far left, almost militant left. Welsh evidently believed Edwards was different. Would he be writing all this crap now had Edwards won? Likely not.

Whatever the issue, from the stimulus to health care to killing bin Laden, people like Welsh just wax self-righteously in the strongest possible terms, leaving no room for complexities, realities or the other side of the story. America is now evil and incapable of living up to its promise because Edwards lost.

What a joke!

[mmonk]

18. Well that certainly makes it about Obama and not adherence

to any principle.

[dionysus]

25. hell hath no fury like a smoove johnny supporter scorned.

[yawnmaster]

15. Oh, the old days always seem so greener. eom

[kentuck]

17. It's only an evolution...

that began a decade ago. Where will it end?

[SidDithers]

22. pfffftt....nt

Sid

[dionysus]

24. unrec for crying about a dead terrorist.

:cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry:

[Fire1]

28. LOL!!! n/t

[alsame]

29. An uncomfortable look in the mirror for us. It seems like most who

responded to this post either didn't read the entire article or completely missed the point - it's not about Obama or OBL, it's about us.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

31. This is it, right here:

*Prisoners of war, in which chase they should receive full Geneva convention rights, or;

*Common Criminals, in which case they have the right to a speedy trial, to face their accusers and to see the evidence against them.


If we, the "leader of the free world" are unwilling to abide by laws and rules, then we have NO BUSINESS telling other countries that they should. :mad:

[ProSense]

32. When was

bin Laden a POW?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

35. If the Seals had captured him at the compound -

he could have then been classified as a POW assuming the "war" framework. I prefer that they had all been treated as common criminals, the way Clinton did.

[Robb]

36. Clinton lobbed cruise missiles at bin Laden.

There is approximately a 0% chance of capturing a man with a cruise missile. :shrug:

[EFerrari]

39. And he missed so the issue never arose.

[ProSense]

41. And the bombs were

before 9/11. Poor bin Laden.

[EFerrari]

43. But after Khobar Towers.

[ProSense]

37. Hmmmm?

"If the Seals had captured him at the compound...he could have then been classified as a POW assuming the "war" framework. I prefer that they had all been treated as common criminals, the way Clinton did."

So you'd have preferred a bomb dropped on the compound?

Bill Clinton: I got closer to killing bin Laden

NEW YORK (CNN) -- In a contentious taped interview that aired on "Fox News Sunday," former President Bill Clinton vigorously defended his efforts as president to capture and kill al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

"I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him," Clinton said, referring to Afghanistan.

<...>

[Hell Hath No Fury]

57. I should have clarified -

criminal trials of Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman, El Sayyid Nosair, and their co-conpirators.

[EFerrari]

38. Obama may have a problem with the dumping at sea

because I'm pretty sure it's illegal to obscure the resting place of your enemy dead.

Depravity is the word for it. And it barely registers.

[ProSense]

40. "because I'm pretty sure it's illegal to obscure the resting place of your enemy dead."

Waiting for the next meme: It's illegal to kill terrorists.

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

42. Exhibit A.

Yes, ProSense, if the president's rationale for going into Pakistan is the GWOT, then the rules of war apply to bin Laden's carcass.

[ProSense]

45. Well,

EFerrari, bin Laden's carcASS has been confined to the depths of the ocean.

[Romulox]

49. Cite? nt

[EFerrari]

53. Cite what? 1.2.17 Geneva specificly provides for the marking of graves

so that the bodies can be found after the conflict is over. There is a separate section for burials at sea but there is no permission to take a body that wasn't a sea death and dump it into the ocean.

I don't know if there is something that updates this. But the marking of enemy graves is an issue that goes back to the Greeks and likely farther back than that.

And please don't bother telling me bin Laden didn't deserve to have a marked grave. Because he isn't the point here, we are. How we do things, how well our values hold up as we move through this situation.

[Romulox]

59. The basic issue is that Al Qaeda is not a signatory of the Geneva conventions, nor are they regular

combatants.

When you interpret a law, the very first threshold issue is jurisdiction. It's never been clear to me that the Geneva conventions apply with the force of law in our dealings with Al Qaeda, even though they remain an important moral guidepost. For example, under the Geneva Conventions, P.O.W.s are not "criminals", can't be tried for regular wartime fighting, and must be released after the cessation of hostilities. I don't believe any of these concepts hold true for our current posture toward the Guantanamo detainees--instead, the basis of their detention is quasi-criminal.

The fact is, asymmetrical warfare (or "terrorism") is not really contemplated in the Geneva Conventions as drafted post WWII. The basic stumbling block is that Al Qaeda does not fight under a national flag, nor are they a local militia, nor are they signatories to the Conventions in the first place. On the other hand, Al Qaeda fighters are surely not "civilians".

None of which is to defend the sea burial; I think it was a mistake, politically, if nothing else. However, when one says someone has "broken the law", then just which law has been broken becomes the first question. And, as I said, when assessing the applicability of a law, jurisdiction is the threshold question. After these 10 years, I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to these cases.

Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375

[EFerrari]

65. That's Cheney's lawyers' reading of Geneva.

It remains to be be seen how a neutral less corrupt authority would read it. WE are signors and Geneva does make provisions for all kinds of different kinds of participants in an armed conflict.

Either we are at war with Al Qaida or we are not. If we are not at war with them, killing bin Laden has legal implications for our government. If we are at war with AQ, dumping the body into the ocean is likely illegal. The administration seems to recognize that there are legal hazards in the way they have handled the aftermath, i.e., in releasing as little information as possible and in disappearing the body. That may well be their best course in that respect.

[Romulox]

71. You're not making a legal argument by pointing that out. Rebut the point, or concede it...

"Either we are at war with Al Qaida"

Baseline issue: Al Qaeda is not one of the "High Contracting Parties" to the Geneva Conventions.

[EFerrari]

72. But we are. And Geneva does provide for the treatment of combants

who are not signors.

[Romulox]

78. Non-signatory "powers" can claim protection only if they ALSO honor the Conventions

Al Qaeda cannot be construed as "civilians" under the Conventions--they are irregular combatants. In order to claim protection under the Conventions, they must also implement the Conventions, even if they are not signatories.

"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375

[EFerrari]

82. That's a misreading. It is not the case that an individual ceases to have human rights

because they or their group or their nation is not a signor. That's preposterous. The Geneva Conventions were written to apply to all cases and that is the default.

[Romulox]

84. The Geneva Convention speak to the relations between combatants in war, not generic "human rights"

One could convincingly argue that one has a "human right" not to be invaded and attacked by a hostile foreign army, regardless of whether or not "etiquette" is followed.

"The Geneva Conventions were written to apply to all cases and that is the default."

The language of Art. 2 demonstrates that your assertion is 180 degrees incorrect. The plain language of Art. 2 limits the protections to the following groups of combatants (civilians have protections granted in other articles):

Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375

At any rate, if you're not interested in the text of the Conventions, I'm not sure what the basis of our discussion can be. If we are discussing what we think, or wish international law had to say on the matter, this would be a different conversation. But you must understand that after these 10 years of fighting Al Qaeda that simply insisting that the Geneva Conventions should apply, even if they do not by their letter, has not been effective. More effective would be to advocate for a new Convention which could accommodate modern asymmetrical warfare.

[EFerrari]

88. Nope, that's your misreading.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1074071&mesg_id=1083403

[Romulox]

48. Al Qaeda isn't a signatory to the Geneva Conventions

and therefore can claim no protection under them.

[EFerrari]

54. Cheney's lawyers position, iirc.

But the point is that we are.

[Romulox]

61. Guilt by association is a basic logical fallacy.

I have given you a more thoughtful answer, upthread. I'd hope you'd reserve the name-calling for someone who is game to reciprocate.

[EFerrari]

67. The fact is that it is Cheney's lawyers' position

and one that this administration seems to have embraced. I pointed this out to another DUer last week and he was equally upset. But surely this isn't a revelation to us? We sat here and criticized Cheney and his bunch of corrupt yes men for years on this same issue.

[Romulox]

70. That fact doesn't argue to the merit of the issue, however.

I'm not "upset" btw, nor is your post new information for me. Unfortunately, sometimes your ideological opponent makes a point for which you may not have a rebuttal. To point out that the point has been made by your opponent is not, at that point, a powerful argument--it's closer to an ad hominem attack.

If you care to speak to the jurisdiction issue I mentioned, upthread, then we can move forward. However, guilt-by-association is simply not a legally cogent argument. :shrug:

[EFerrari]

75. There is no jurisdiction issue. The idea that Geneva doesn't apply

is a fiction floated by Dick Cheney. I've yet to hear any lawyer but his argue that Geneva does not apply. This is what the immediate past president of the National Lawyers' Guild says about the targetting of bin Laden, someone just happened to put it up:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1081002

[Romulox]

80. The OP in your link cites "United Nations Special Rapporteur" as the source of the ban

on extra-judicial killing. I don't believe reports issued by U.N. bodies have the force of international law. You will note that the Geneva Conventions require voluntary consent of the signatory nations in order to be binding.

In this and every case, one must be able to cite the source of the authority when claiming that the "law" has been broken. In this case, the language in a U.N. report is not "law".

Extrajudicial executions are unlawful, even in armed conflict. In a 1998 report, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions noted that “extrajudicial executions can never be justified under any circumstances, not even in time of war.” The U.N. General Assembly and Human Rights Commission, as well as Amnesty International, have all condemned extrajudicial executions.

http://www.truth-out.org/targeted-assassination-osama-bin-laden/1305051197

P.S. It must remain clear that my analysis isn't a defense (or support) of extra-judicial killing. It becomes tiresome to be attacked for applying an honest analysis of an issue. When one hires a lawyer, you don't attack him for telling you that x,y,z strategy is not sound legally; you pay him handsomely for the information! So too here (though I am not holding myself out as a lawyer deserve pay for my analysis--I merely make an analogy.) You can say, "Cheney, Cheney. CHENEY!" like you expect Betelgeuse to appear, if you like. I'm trying to argue this issue based on basic legal interpretation, not based on various appeals to authority and ad hom attacks.

[EFerrari]

83. No, that is wrong. Common Article 3 applies to ALL persons

in enemy hands. ALL. Not all persons who are signors or citizens of high contracting powers or any other stipulation. ALL.

And I'm sorry if you feel that pointing out where your misreading comes from is some kind of attack. In fact, it's a good thing to know the lineage of the argument you are making.

[Romulox]

85. No point in responding to the same argument twice. See my response, upthread.

Art. 2 of the Third Geneva Convention specifically limits the applicability of the Conventions to signatories, and non-signatories "powers" who themselves agree to adopt the Conventions. By definition, this is not "everyone." Nor did you speak to the source of this ban, as the article you cite itself cites a U.N. report.

"And I'm sorry if you feel that pointing out where your misreading comes from is some kind of attack."

Try to put forward your own arguments, rather than characterizing your opponents; you aren't going to change my mind by labeling my arguments as "misreadings", when you yourself won't engage with the text of the Conventions. :hi:

"In fact, it's a good thing to know the lineage of the argument you are making."

Third time for your ad hom is the charm, eh? It looks like a surrender flag from this side of the monitor. :hi:

[EFerrari]

87. No, that is wrong. In simple language from the ICRC site:

Common Article 3

Article 3, common to the four Geneva Conventions, marked a breakthrough, as it covered, for the first time, situations of non-international armed conflicts. These types of conflicts vary greatly. They include traditional civil wars, internal armed conflicts that spill over into other States or internal conflicts in which third States or a multinational force intervenes alongside the government. Common Article 3 establishes fundamental rules from which no derogation is permitted. It is like a mini-Convention within the Conventions as it contains the essential rules of the Geneva Conventions in a condensed format and makes them applicable to conflicts not of an international character:

* It requires humane treatment for all persons in enemy hands, without any adverse distinction. It specifically prohibits murder, mutilation, torture, cruel, humiliating and degrading treatment, the taking of hostages and unfair trial.

http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/geneva-conventions/overview-geneva-conventions.htm

[coalition_unwilling]

68. Serious question: Are you 100% sure that a person or gang of

people like al Qua'ida ever could be a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, assuming he or they wanted to?

Likewise, are you 100% sure that, just because a person or gang of people has\have not signed the Geneva Conventions, its provisions therefore do not apply?

I ask because I always thought and think I remember reading here back during the Bush Junta that the Geneva Conventions explicitly remove this wiggle room from monsters like Bush, Rumsfeld and Yoo trying to hold combatants without status reviews and without charges (a different section of Geneva dealing with detainees, POWs, etc.).

[Romulox]

77. I simply don't think the drafters of the Conventions contemplated a group like Al Qaeda

"Likewise, are you 100% sure that, just because a person or gang of people has\have not signed the Geneva Conventions, its provisions therefore do not apply?"

The law never allows one to be "100% sure" of anything until a matter has been adjudicated. However, the Third Geneva Convention (as amended in 1949) is clear in its language:

Art 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375

The Conventions don't speak to the "fairness" of whether Al Qaeda may become a signatory to the Conventions, as the Conventions were not written grant protection to stateless militant groups. They simply don't apply here. Moreover, even if we allow that Al Qaeda may be considered a "power" for the purposes of Art. 2, the language makes it clear that Al Qaeda must itself accept and apply the provisions of the Convention in order to claim protection from them. They simply don't do so.

What you've got to be careful about is this: a legal analysis is not the same thing as political advocacy. So to state that the Geneva Conventions simply don't provide Al Qaeda with any specific protections is not the same thing as advocating for indefinite detention at Guantanamo, for example. One can believe that the latter is a morally reprehensible practice, for example, without believing that the Geneva Conventions apply.

[coalition_unwilling]

79. Thanks. I can see I have some further self-education to do. - n/t

[Romulox]

86. Just remember, my interpretation carries the weight of only my own opinion.

The plain language of the Geneva Conventions speaks to this issue in a language that I believe anyone can understand.

[leftynyc]

33. More hand wringing

If you don't think Churchill or Roosevelt would have dropped a bomb on Hitler or put a bullet in his brain if they could have, you're hopelessly naive.

[backscatter712]

91. There is the theory that they deliberately kept Hitler alive near the end of the war...

because by 1945, Hitler was so batshit insane, and kept overriding his generals with insane orders that kept the Wehrmacht running in circles instead of fighting effectively...

But yeah, it's not out of any altruistic concern over Hitler's life. If whacking Hitler would have ended the war faster, they certainly would have tried.

[coalition_unwilling]

44. And those few of us who do question the new ethos are told either

that "we need to have our heads examined" (Obama on CBS' "60 Minutes," May 8, 2011) or to "shut up" (John Kerry on CBS' "Face the Nation," May 8, 2011) . . . by leaders of our own party no less.

[ProSense]

46. Well,

some of those same people tell the RW to STFU when they make illogical arguments, ones that leave out key facts to arrive at a talking point. Demanding that Condi Rice STFU is popular.

[EFerrari]

51. The Democrats should be all over the place with that ridiculous graphic

of Bin Laden's mythical hi tech bunker that Rumsfeld shopped everywhere to show people how far removed from reality the Republicans are. They should remind everyone how Condi was blathering about the Russians on 9/10. And how Junior went into Iraq to make Cheney rich instead of dealing with terrorism.

[EFerrari]

47. Or that we sympathize with bin Laden.

Unbelievable. It's a lot easier than I thought for a nation to be turned into a mob.

[ProSense]

52. "It's a lot easier than I thought for a nation to be turned into a mob."

Not as easy as it is to ride the self-righteous bandwagon.

I mean, John Yoo has invoked the unarmed bin Laden claim.

[EFerrari]

55. Right and of course, I always agree with John Yoo.

lol

It really does't matter how you attack me, Pro Sense. Honest. :)

[ProSense]

60. Hmmmm?

"It really does't matter how you attack me, Pro Sense. Honest."

Let's review the exchange:

You: "It's a lot easier than I thought for a nation to be turned into a mob."

Me: "Not as easy as it is to ride the self-righteous bandwagon."

Yet somehow my response was an "attack" on you?

[dionysus]

102. a viscious, horrible personal attack!111! how can you sleep?!

;)

[Hell Hath No Fury]

58. "Unbelievable. It's a lot easier than I thought for a nation to be turned into a mob."

I think back to Stephen Colbert's first shows, when he talked about thinking from his "gut" and agreeing with what "feels" right. That is exactly what we are seeing right here. The language and emotion of revenge and bloodlust - old West "justice". :(

[Romulox]

50. Serious question: what law (specific cite, plz!) was broken by killing Bin Laden?

:shrug:

[defendandprotect]

110. If he was unarmed -- and that seems to be true -- should have been taken prisoner ...

[Hangingon]

56. DEVGRU did it right

[Trajan]

63. Common criminals get shot when they attempt to flee ...

You are a very sorry person ..... while the goal is admirable, your attempt to force fit THIS instance into that GENERAL assertion is fraught with fallacy ...

There are times when criminals dont get a second chance ...

So .... Do you now hate 86% of the population ? .. or more ? (bifurcation fallacy intentional)

You are now bordering on misanthropy ....

[sibelian]

105. yeah... see, that's WRONG.

I think the acusation of misanthropy in your post is more than a little ironic.

[AuntPatsy]

74. I was shocked in how. Some behaved , guess I should not be by now, good post

[NYC Liberal]

81. Were Germans living in Nazi Germany wrong to try to take out Hitler?

I don't think so.

[JuniperLea]

95. The hypocrisy is staggering...

Hitler was a very bad man... and so was OBL... yet we are asked to show him more respect than he showed 3000+ people killed, and thousands more who are living victims. I guess we are just supposed to forget about 9/11 and all the victims and their families... wow.

[backscatter712]

89. More backseat quarterbacking of the SEAL Team.

Remember that the mission had two post-mission teams in place: one for if bin Laden was killed, and another one with interrogators, lawyers and translators for if he was captured.

So really, what it comes down to is the shoot/don't shoot moment between bin Laden and the member of the SEAL team that shot him.

My guess, and I admit it's a guess, because the only people who really know are the SEAL team members themselves, and they're not likely to talk to reporters is that bin Laden didn't put his hands in the air and surrender quickly enough, and the SEAL team member was under orders to shoot if there was even the remotest shadow of threat, so he shot him.

Anyone who's still harping about the SEAL team not taking prisoners is back-seat quarterbacking and speculating. THEY WEREN'T THERE.

[EFerrari]

90. The SEAL team did not write its own orders. They have little to do with this. n/t

[Safetykitten]

97. Kicking and screaming they try to pull us back into the "wimpy Democrat" category.

[defendandprotect]

109. Agree -- and remember that our Military also outlawed torture -- and that ...

torture is really a threat to populations --

that's how dictators stay in power --

Look at Mubarak and Gadafi!!