Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to wonder with what authority USA killed Osama Bin Laden.

342 replies

Mamaz0n · 02/05/2011 09:43

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.

OP posts:
bemybebe · 03/05/2011 13:47

Mamaz0n and slhilly Why are you guys arguing from the point of view that OBL was not in operational command. I did not see any assertion from the reliable public sources that it was not the case.

Also, it is open to debate what "operational command" function actually is in the context of a military franchise organization.

slhilly · 03/05/2011 15:32

bemybebe, I wasn't aware that this was a particularly contentious point. Lots of news outlets have reported as fact that he wasn't in operational control, and I was happy to take their word for it. I agree that the boundaries between operational and strategic command are blurred, especially for a networked organisation like AQ.

Incidentally, Jason Burke did an interesting Q&A here:
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/03/osama-bin-laden-al-qaida

bemybebe · 03/05/2011 15:43

I am not saying you are wrong, I just did not see anything that says that he is not in control being a senior operations officer... Thanks for the link, will check it out.

RunAwayWife · 03/05/2011 15:45

expatinscotland Tue 03-May-11 01:24:42
Martin Luther King, Jr. was first and foremost a man of God. He was a Christian, a Baptist preacher who felt he was put on Earth to spread The Word and to save souls. He lived his faith. One was not without the other. He was one with his faith, he lived it out, he fought as he did because he felt everyone was equal under Christ.

So I find it really rich, all the atheists who use his words to proclaim they would be too good to be glad Bin Laden is dead, safe and warm in their homes, far away from the bullets and rockets and bombs that have killed tens of thousands who've been murdered under the group Bin Laden founded, Al-Queda

Agree with you 100% Expat

Ormirian · 03/05/2011 15:49

I don't care much for the man personally but all the celebration when he died is a bit unpleasant. He's dead, let's just leave it at that without cracking open the bloody champagne Hmm

As if it's going to make the blindest bit of difference to the level of terrorist activity...... one man does not make a terrorist organisation.

RunAwayWife · 03/05/2011 15:50

I don't care if they call it justice or vengeance, he knew what was coming for him and he deserved to die.
I don't care if it was a bullet in the head, a noose or the electric chair he had to be stopped.
Sadly it will not be over, not by a long way as more nutters will feel the need to avenge him.

I do hope the families who lost people in 9/11 and 7/7 can find some closure now, those are the people who deserve out thoughts not the vermin that got dumped in the sea

CheerfulYank · 03/05/2011 16:08

So if Claus Von Stauffenberg (spelling?) had managed to assasinate Hitler we'd all be tsk tsking because he didn't haul him in for a trial?

RunAwayWife · 03/05/2011 16:22

Saddam Hussain was taken for trial, and hung.
Waste of money really.

Some times a swift bullet is the best way.
Some people Hitler included are just too evil to live.
If you had a rabid dog you would put it down, same applies to some "people"

slhilly · 03/05/2011 16:31

An additional interesting link:
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/03/osama-bin-laden-killing-legality

Nancy66 · 03/05/2011 16:31

Martin luther King never actually said that BTW - just some quote that got flung around on Twitter and Facebook yesterday.

bemybebe · 03/05/2011 16:43

slhilly Thank you for this link.

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/03/osama-bin-laden-killing-legality

This is the point ("the action was a military action in the ongoing US armed conflict with al-Qaida and it is not prohibited to kill specific leaders of an opposing force") that trying was making up-thread.

bemybebe · 03/05/2011 16:44

(converted link)
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/03/osama-bin-laden-killing-legality

Original poster
Mamaz0n · 03/05/2011 17:00

Bemy - as Slihilly said, It had said on the news a few times that he was no longer in opporational command. It is not an area that i am particularly knowledgable so assumed it to be correct.

I am happy to be informed that there is are legal frameworks in place for these actions. It all smacked of a 50's spy movie with Russian assasins and stuff.

Im still finding a fishie whiff in the air about the whole thing, but maybe thats just me

OP posts:
Nancy66 · 03/05/2011 17:03

i have a really ghoulish desire to see the body.....

PeachyAndTheArghoNauts · 03/05/2011 17:12

Hmm.

I don;t feel comfortable with it but accept it was probably necessary. I feel huely uncomfortable that he was apaprenlty ( I know tehre are many contrasting reports) killed in front of his child daughter, and AFAICS that racks up one more innocent victim of the whole horrible saga- I'd hope that they'd have got her out if there was any way possible; I doubt somehow that my hope is well placed.

I think the world is probably better for his death, that a burial would have been unthinkable given the potential for shurines / attempted recapture of remains etc. But i'd have far rather seen him go through a trial (for any of his crimes- doesn't have to be Sept 11th)- if at all possible.

And that quote may be bunkum but even if it is it's still right, at least within my belief system. Two wrongs don't make a right- simple. Two wrongs may be necessary but that doesn't always equate to right. And if I were murdered nsomehow in a state where there is a death penalty Dh is well aware I would wish him to protest against that; not just becuase of the criminal but also the innocents related to them.

But whilst i don't like the celebrating I guess I can understand why many Americans esp. are doing it.

PeachyAndTheArghoNauts · 03/05/2011 17:15

CheerfulYank possibly yes, although for my part I am about to be engaged in research on empathy and I have often wondered what on earth were the processes in that man's mind that allowed him to behave in such an amoral way.

CheerfulYank · 03/05/2011 18:17

The entire MLK quote is not bollocks, just the first sentence. Apparently he actually did say the rest of it.

PeachyAndTheArghoNauts · 03/05/2011 18:51

Ah I see.

Regardless even of that i rather like the fact something so considered is doing the rounds on FB, as opposed to videos of fat lads dancing on youtube or whatever it is this week.

CoteDAzur · 03/05/2011 20:26

" OBL and others have specifically named as enemy combatants. The US has done this so that it can effectively declare war against non-state actors"

No, actually, Bush named them "enemy combatants" in order to avoid according them Prisoner of War status as per Geneva Conventions, although there is no such classification as "enemy combatants" and the Convention goes into significant detail to say that everyone fighting for one side, even villagers who take up arms to defend their home is to be considered PoW.

slhilly · 03/05/2011 23:22

Erm, actually it's not at all clear that the Geneva Conventions apply in these circumstances, or if what protections if any they would provide to people who commit acts of war but are not state actors. International law is murky in many places, and this is certainly one of them.

slhilly · 03/05/2011 23:25

A quick read of Wikipedia reveals that "The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions."

A) AQ is not a nation
B) AQ certainly does not accept and apply the provisions of the Conventions

Jux · 04/05/2011 09:04

This will be discussed on Radio 4 this evening after the 8pm news.

meditrina · 04/05/2011 09:18

I think the USA has had an eye to the Geneva Conventions, as the language used to describe his sea burial is close to the provisions within the convention for the treatment of war dead. Parading prisoners or their bodies could also be a breach, as would killing a prisoner when there was no need (hence, I assume the stress on how UBL was resisting detention even though unarmed).

amberleaf · 04/05/2011 09:22

The story has changed somewhar as to how it all happened hasnt it 'he was armed, there was a firefight'...to 'he wasnt armed'

CoteDAzur · 04/05/2011 14:23

hlsilly - USA waged war against the Taleban who were the de facto government of Afghanistan, the country they invaded. Afghanistan signed and ratified the Geneva Conventions back in 1950s.

If you read the GCs instead of Wikipedia, you will see that when a country is invaded, its people who take up arms (regardless of whether or not they are part of an organized army) are considered PoWs.

It is worded specifically and in a detailed fashion for precisely this reason: to prevent the winner of a war to claim some or all of the captured fighters are not PoWs.