to wonder with what authority USA killed Osama Bin Laden.

[Mamaz0n]

Since when has murder been justice?

Don't get me wrong, i think it is a good thing that he has died. I think that to imprison him would have caused massive uprising in violence and kidnaps etc.

But it bothers me that America has just decided that this man is guilty and therefore acted to murder him.

It is my (probably naive) understanding that you can't be extradited to a state that has the death penalty, so how exactly can Obama's order to kill Bin Laden be at all legal?

I have even just heard that the Pakistani government were not even aware that the USA were taking this action.

I am sorry but it sits very uncomfortably with me.

Absolutely OP. Uncivilised behaviour. How can anyone who celebrates the death of another claim moral superiority ( as the US do )

The US came into another country. It was not at war. It shot someone and then dumped the body at sea. Maybe there is some kind of legal justification. If so, it is not being reported. Just the celebrations.

I do not, absolutely not at all support what OBL did. But I do not want his supporters, or even moderate Muslims to think that we in the West behave hypocritically. It gives our enemies ammunition. It is exactly this which maintains conflicts.

I'm not naive. I know this is what powerful countries do. It's just that Americans really do believe that their country is fighting a moral war. That the US is better because it is civilised, obeys the rule of the law, is a Christian country etc.

FFS, Mamazon, why is it so difficult to understand the difference between a domestic criminal system and war? You do not have trials for people during a battle. If they surrender then you have to take them prisoner - you have no duty to do so if they don't.

You say they killed a woman who was being used as a shield? Well the responsibility for that falls with Bin Laden and is an example of how Al Quaeda shuns the laws of war. It IS a war crime to use a civilian as a human shield. It is not a war crime to kill an unfortunate civilian who is in the way of a gun fight.

You say Bin Laden was not military or a diplomat. No, he was a man who waged war without the authority of a state. That makes him a guerilla or an 'irregular belligerant'. He is legally not only a legitimate target but a criminal.

FWIW, I'm quite happy that the US is running the world. I dread the day that China or some Islamist state is the superpower. It will be a much worse world for everyone - especially us in the West - which is why maybe some jingoism is called for.

"I dislike the idea that a government can just decide you are unwanted and have you killed."

I don't suppose that the US want me very much. I'm not a lot of use to them, they have plenty of their own average middle aged women.

Equally I don't suppose that they'll have me killed either. I've done nothing to merit it. I haven't been responsible for anyone's death, much less the deaths of thousands.

Bin Laden is another matter altogether. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

And just as my Grandparent's generation celebrated VE Day in the streets following the death of Hitler so it's understandable that Americans wish to celebrate the death of a murderous tyrant of our times.

What's more, I wouldn't have felt this way until reading some of the bleeding heart liberal rubbish on here, but having done so a part of me now bloody well wishes that I was the United States and dancing in the streets alongside them.

VE day was to celebrate the end of the war, not the death of an individual.

'Live by the sword die by the sword' great sentiments.

The question still hasn't been answered though about what is the legal basis for going and assassinating Bin Laden. The suggestion that it was sanctioned and/or legal in international law because the US president said so, doesn't really carry much weight. He has zero jurisdiction in pakistan.

It is legal in international law because he was a military target in an armed conflict. Easy.

Finally, I'm perfectly well aware of what VE Day was all about. I'm also aware that many of my Grandparent's generation were celebrating the death of the dictator which occurred seven days earlier as much as the end of the war - the two were somewhat connected.

And my sentiments? You don't like them, your perogative.

Article 48 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention (considered to be declaratory of customary international law):

Article 48 -- Basic rule
In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.

Finallyspring you are quite wrong. VE day and death of Hitler were generally equally happy occasions celebrated by allies on both sides of Europe. They coincided in time, but were they to occur separately, it would be more evident. Read memoirs of veterans, especially from the occupied lands on the eastern front.

Article 51 -- Protection of the civilian population

1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.

1. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.

1. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.

1. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;

(b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

(c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

1. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

1. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.

1. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.

1. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.

tryingtoleave Tue 03-May-11 09:17:29

FFS, Mamazon, why is it so difficult to understand the difference between a domestic criminal system and war? You do not have trials for people during a battle. If they surrender then you have to take them prisoner - you have no duty to do so if they don't.

but he didn't die on a battle field. He died in a mansion in Pakistan. I'm not glued to sky news but surely i didn't miss the bulletin that said we/the US are at war with them?

They found out he was there and orchestrated an assasination without even letting the Pakistani government know they were there.

It is not what happend, but the way it happend that makes me uneasy.

As for dancing in the streets...what exactly do they think they are celebrating? OBL was not even in "operational command" anymore. He was a figurehead and a preacher, he was a hateful deluded man but by all accounts he was not actually organising the violence or acts of war. Those who ARE in command are still there. and they are now mightily pissed off to have had their "leader" killed in what they will consider a wrongful manner. They will be angered by the way his body was disposed of and that the entire west is now celebrating and partying over his death.
I see no reason to celebrate the fact that the west is now in a much greater danger than they were last week with OBL alive!

Im not a bleeding heart liberal. I am not an Al qaeda apologist. I am not a conspiracy theorist.

I do absolutly agree that it is highly hypocritical for the west to barge into middle eastern countries and tell them they have to adopt democracy and western values, and yet they abandon those values as and when they chose. What exactly does that say to those we are currently occupying in an effort to hold the moral high ground.

An eye for an eye just leaves us all blind.

And as for the photos of them watching his death on a live feed. That made me sick.

Trying do you refer to Geneva convention in your arguments against the Western allies only or all sides of international conflicts?

I think it would be very appropriate under the circ to remember exactly how many innocent civilians were DELIBERATELY killed on orders or by inspiration from Osama Bin Laden.

I'm with you OP. Unilateral actions scare me a little, where do they stop?

Mamaz0n It was OBL as senior operations officer of Al-qaida who "barged" into the US and UK and all around the world killing innocent people. It is not the "barging" that US is doing in the ME. Or please give examples, I am clearly missing something.

Ninky "Unilateral"? Ok, you may forget other countries, ie 9/11, Madrid bombings, etc. Do you remember 7/7 and four deadly attacks on civilians in London also?

He was an evil fucker. No doubt about that.

I was a bit at Obama stating that they had set out to kill him. Not capture, not bring to justice, KILL him. While I understand why, it seemed more than a little odd to publicly state that was their aim and I also wondered why this was considered to be acceptable. I'm not surprised they wanted him dead - just that they were so open about their intentions.

No loss to humanity obviously. Crass to dance in the streets though. No war has been won as far as I can see.

Mamazon, I think you missed several bulletins if you didn't realize that we have been at war against al quaeda since 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan. You clearly also missed the bulletin that Pakistan has been involved in a civil war against al quaeda and had enlisted us support in that war.

Bemybabe, you have misunderstood me. I posted those articles to show that the us action was legal.

Actually I think that the US is fairly scrupulous in abiding by the laws of war. It is al quaeda that rejects them.

Oops, trying, I was confused by your references to Geneva without your views to those passages. Having now read your views posted earlier I actually agree with you.

x-posted, trying grand apologies again...

That's ok. It is easy to miss things on a long thread.

Yes, but the Geneva Convention is based on sovereign countries, and the US is not at war with Pakistan.