|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 1:17:56 GMT -5
So your saying that people in the WTC were soldiers or criminals??? That there was a legal international jusification under the Geneva codes to validate a terrorist cell group to carry out attacks against innocent civilians??? The Geneva codes do not support that, try harder Charlie.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 1:16:26 GMT -5
Osama bin Laden was not in our custody. He was an active soldier in the war that he himself declared against the United States. In war one does not have to give enemy soldiers the opportunity to surrender. For example, bin Laden did not give the occupants of the World Trade Center that opportunity (in contravention to the law of war bin Laden drew no distinction between military and civilian targets). Under the law of war enemy soldiers may surrender if they choose. But they had better be quick, clear, and explicit that they are surrendering. Bin Laden could have surrendered to us at any time over the past decade, but he chose not to. When he heard the U.S. helicopters overhead he could have rushed out of the compound with his hands in the air and thereby protected his wife and children, but he chose not to. Nor did he raise his hands when our soldiers encountered him. It was his choice, and there is no doubt that it was lawful for us to kill him.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 1:15:01 GMT -5
Navy Seals attacking the compound were "law enforcement" officials rather than soldiers, and that Osama bin Laden was simply a criminal and not an enemy soldier. In short, that the criminal law, and not the law of war, governs this situation.
While this was unclear ten years ago when we were first confronted with a large-scale terrorist attack on the United States, it is now clear that massive acts of international terrorism may be considered both crime and war – that governments may treat large terrorist organizations either as enemy armies or as criminal organizations or both.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 1:08:28 GMT -5
All in all as long as the official story is true this is a legal kill. Not murder but a legal kill.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 1:06:48 GMT -5
US practice is that quarter must not be refused to someone that communicates an offer to surrender under circumstances that allows the offer to be understood and acted upon. At that point, they fall under the protection of the Geneva Conventions. But a combatant is not required to give his enemy an opportunity to surrender before attacking, and someone who currently appears incapable of attacking merely because he lost his weapon or is retreating and has not offered to surrender is still subject to attack. Someone who is incapable of resistance because of wounds, sickness or shipwreck is not subject to attack and if taken into custody is covered by the Geneva Conventions.
So in this case, if Bin Laden made no apparent effort to surrender, then he would be legally subject to attack. Things get further complicated by al Qaeda's taste for suicide bombers and explosive vests.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 1:02:23 GMT -5
You have to go by the Geneva codes in and act of war. So lets study up on those some.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 0:51:20 GMT -5
"However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war."
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 0:48:58 GMT -5
Your whole argument was based on this is murder. That killing him was being the same as him. But based on your logic this is just your opinion and not a true belief because everyone may have a differing opinion and in essence good/evil right/wrong is just someones personal opinion........ It's also about following rules you have commited to follow. And what rules would that be?? The Geneva ones yet I haven't seen any yet that were broken given the situation with common sense ruling your judgement as you say.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 0:47:58 GMT -5
Could you take a chance of letting all the SEALs in there with you die because you failed to take that second shot and he hit a button that blows you all up?? See now your inserting your opinion on what you think was right and wrong which by your logic doesn't make it right or wrong. Common sense tell me that a man who is sending people to kill themselves to take out innocent people is crazy enough to hit a button and kill me and my SEAL team so I have to make sure he is dead. That is common sense
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 0:40:06 GMT -5
So with that logic being in mind, a pedophile can in theory be ok with molesting kids because he doesn't think there is anything wrong with it, if someone kills him for the way he believes this makes them just as bad as him because they are killing him for his personal beliefs. I think that logic is flawed
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 0:34:45 GMT -5
Your whole argument was based on this is murder. That killing him was being the same as him. But based on your logic this is just your opinion and not a true belief because everyone may have a differing opinion and in essence good/evil right/wrong is just someones personal opinion........
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 0:33:06 GMT -5
I think you've painted him into a corner Charlie. Well played. I saw that one coming from this far away. Johnny, don't be offended, I'm not taking sides. I really enjoy a good argument/discussion. What corner did he paint me into?? The one where it goes right back to how he stated whats right and wrong is an opinion??? Now we have these guidelines you posted so which ones say that killing Osama was the wrong thing to do?
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 0:32:09 GMT -5
You state this is murder. He was killed in a raid. You can't always just take the enemy at will. He wasn't armed but they couldn't be sure of that. Your opinion doesn't dictate what you would do in the same exact situation without you being in that situation. Also supposedly he was said to have been buried according to his beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 9, 2011 0:30:11 GMT -5
True, but everyone has broken some of the Geneva codes. Let's say that this is correct. Does that make it right for another country to also break the "codes" only because other countries haven't been living up to their commitments? Is there really exceptions to when we should pay regard to human rights, Johnny? Human. Rights. Do you see any differences to the camps in North Korea and Guantanamo? I don't. At least not any big ones, except that people aren't getting slaughtered at Guantanamo. But that would be the difference... Human rights are human rights, and if you have commited to follow them you should follow them, and if you don't do it I think the international community should react, just like "we", the "good side", are reacting to different injustices in the world. Ah but here is the question, what Geneva code did the USA break by killing Osama??? They took the required action that they thought was neccesary. Sorry for the late reply
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on May 8, 2011 23:52:23 GMT -5
We don't know everything that goes on behind closed doors, just what we are allowed to know.
|
|