Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden:Dead (Page 5)

Malobear: Chrono and David,do me a favor and take this debate to this thread.
http://www.wireclub.com/Forums/ViewTopic.aspx?ForumId=772986&ParentId=1268070

This thread is about the holocaust and would be a good place to carry this on. I am trying to keep the focus here on the events of Al-Qaeda/Bin Laden.

Malobear: Al-Qaeda has confirmed Osama bin Laden's death in an Internet statement, The Associated Press reports.
The terror network says today in a statement that bin Laden's blood "will not be wasted" and that it will continue attacking Americans and their allies.
Update at 8:55 a.m. ET: The statement, dated May 3, was the first by the terror network since bin Laden was killed by U.S. commandos in a raid on his hideout in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The Associated Press says the statement's authenticity could not be independently confirmed, but it was posted on websites where the group traditionally puts out its messages.
It also saiys that an audio message bin Laden recorded a week before his death would be issued soon.
"We stress that the blood of the holy warrior sheik, Osama bin Laden, God bless him, is precious to us and to all Muslims and will no go in vain," the statement says. "We will remain, God willing, a curse chasing the Americans and their agents, following them outside and inside their countries."
"Soon, God willing, their happiness will turn to sadness," it says, "their blood will be mingled with their tears."
In the statement, al-Qaeda also calls on the people of Pakistan — "where Sheik Osama was killed" — to rise up in revolt against its leaders. It also saiys that an audio message bin Laden recorded a week before his death would be issued soon.
Original posting: Al-Qaeda has confirmed Osama bin Laden's death in an Internet statement, The Associated Press reports.
The terror network says today in a statement that bin Laden's blood "will not be wasted" and that it will continue attacking Americans and their allies.

Malobear: In today's TechBytes, beware Osama bin Laden. The FBI is warning computer users against e-mails that claim to show photos or videos of the death of the al Qaeda leader. The photos are fakes and the messages contain a virus that can steal personal information or infect your computer. (The government said today that no death photo of Bin laden will be released.)

FogofWar: Wow.....okay; let's try and contribute here:

The holocaust was real; chrono; you're an idiot.

Obama didn't put the Navy SEALS into Pakistan; nor did he plan the attack; he simply; like all presidents do; listened to what the intel was; then made the decision to allow the SEALS to do what they do in capturing him. Yes; the intent was to bring him in alive; no they did not get that option because he resisted. SEALS teams are not nearly as large as an infantry battalion or even company. They do not have the strength in forces to deal with large numbers face to face. Their job is to move in in silence; get to the objective; accomplish it, then move out undetected. Taking Osama was not an option; because Osama would not let them. It would end in a fight; and they would have no choice but to just finish him off.


As far as the international laws on shooting to kill a man such as bin Laden; it is not illegal to do what they did.

The Geneva conventions are subjected to Prisoners or War and Non-Combatants; Osama was neither; therefore the Geneva conventions do not apply. It would not have been illegal for them to have tortured him mercilessly under the Geneva conventions.

Combatants are subjected to the Law of Armed Conflict; until at any point; they surrender and stop fighting. Then they, being Lawful Combatants, become POWs and are subjects of the Geneva Conventions. Bin Laden was not a Lawful Combatant; therefore; even if he surrendered, he would not qualify for the Geneva Conventions.
The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC)does not make it illegal to target and kill enemy combatants; even if they are not engaging you; as they are still the enemy in a combat which's ultimate goal is destroying your enemy with lethal force. So the LOAC was not violated by the SEALS engaging him.

The Code of Conduct is a code set out by a force under the LOAC. It does not change the laws pertaining to it; but simply strengthens their legal actions.

The Rules of Engagement (ROE) are predetermined rules laid out by our force command prior to entering combat. The ROEs are not international law; but set by the force in action. In Afghanistan; the task force falls under ISAF; and so ISAF sets the REOs for action there, and the Coalition Force of Operation Enduring Freedom; which set's their own ROEs accordingly. Each nation adopts their own ROEs in accordance with the ISAF mission. For Afghanistan; the Canadian force is tasked under the Canadian Expeditionary Force Command (CEFCOM), so CEFCOM sets our ROEs. Whether the Rules of Engagement permit shooting enemies without the need for them to initiate contact is dependant only on whether it falls legally into the Geneva Conventions; the Code of Conduct; and the LOAC.

So the only laws in question would be those of the ROEs. However; since Special Operations command falls under a separate command force than conventional military; those laws are not the same.

For example: Let's say that 3 PPCLI is the Canadian battalion deployed into Afghanistan. They fall under Operation Athena (Canadian contingent in ISAF); or Operation Archer (Canada's participation in the Afghanistan phase of Operation Enduring Freedom). These operations are deployed under the command of the Canadian Expeditionary Force Command (CEFCOM), and so their ROEs come from such.

Canadian Special Operations unit Joint Task Force 2 (JTF2) is among the coalition force in Pakistan that was tasked with hunting bin Laden and others. Their deployment, as a Special Operations team does not fall under CEFCOM, but under Canadian Special Operations Force Command (CANSOFCOM), and so; they do not have the same ROEs. CANSOFCOM ROEs; while not available to anyone outside of CANSOFCOM; do permit the engagement of high profile targets; with the intent to capture or kill. This much we do know.

Absolutely NO laws were, or would have been broken in targeting bin Laden to kill.

FogofWar: ...and just as a side note; because there is often much confusion about the legality in war; and all to often people criticize our intent over there; when cases of 'crimes against humanity' surface; there is often a tendency to lump said actions into the entire of the military. Let me state for the record:

Our intent in Afghanistan is NOT the colonization of their nation; and to force our way of life upon them. Our command does NOT permit the use of violence against anyone there; unless it is justified in combat. For those who question what we do, and whether it is legal:

The Taliban, al Qaeda; as well as the insurgents in Iraq; are not members of a national armed force. They do not belong to a legal fighting force; and as such; are NOT, under UN law, Lawful Combatants.

We are well within the law of the Geneva Conventions, the LOAC, Code of Conduct, and every other United Nations and international law; to beat; abuse; torture; and degrade EVERY insurgent that we capture. What happened at Abu Grhiab is legal to do to insurgents under the UN (however not all prisoners at Abu Griab were confirmed insurgents so this is another story).

In almost all cases of soldiers being tried for crimes against humanity; it is NOT illegal against the UN.

We do NOT have to give insurgents the treatment of the Geneva Conventions....but we do. Our ROEs, under ISAF and Operation Enduring Freedom; grant that ALL insurgents will be given POW status; and treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

When we engage insurgents in a firefight; we even provide first aid and medivac their wounded; even when they have shot and killed our own troops.

We do not have to treat them this way; the crimes you have seen laid against individuals were not illegal according to the UN. They are crimes against their own command; and are being charged for violating our mission. We do not have to treat them as humans; we choose to.

StuckInTheSixties:

Poilwag: http://www.lemonparty.org/lemonparty.jpg